The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
John T. Dunlop 1975-1976 W. Willard Wirtz 1962-1969 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Ann McLaughlin, Secretary Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Region I—Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara Kennedy Federal Building, Suite 1603 Boston, MA 02203 Phone: (617) 565-2331 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont 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, DC 20212. Phone: (202) 523-1327. Region II—New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt 1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 337-2400 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Subscription price per year—$16 domestic; $20 foreign. Single copy $4.75 domestic; $5.94 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence Region III—Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulls 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, PA 19101 Phone: (215) 596-1154 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 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. Second-class postage paid at Washington, DC, and at additional mailing addresses. Region IV—Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30367 Phone: (404) 347-4418 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Region V—Chicago: Lois L. Orr 9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI—Dallas: Bryan Richey Federal Building, Room 221 525 Griffin Street, Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 767-6971 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Regions Vli and VIII—Kansas City: Gunnar Engen 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 February cover: Nineteen Secretaries of Labor, 1913-1988. Cover design by Richard L. Mathews https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regions IX and X—San Francisco: Sam M. Hirabayashi 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 995-5605 IX American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington 1 RESEARCH U Federai Rese ve Ä ar of St. LoutaONTHlY LABOR REVIEW MAR 2 5 1988 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor THE LABOR DEPARTMENT AT 75 A department to protect workers’ equity Jack Barbash 3 Jonathan Grossman 11 Walter Licht 19 Eileen Boris, Michael Honey 26 Arthur J. Goldberg Willard Wirtz James D. Hodgson Peter J. Brennan John T. Dunlop W. J. Usery, Jr. Ray Marshall William E. Brock 37 39 41 44 46 49 52 54 Mark G. Ulmer, Wayne J. Howe 57 The Labor Department attests to the ability of institutions to act on the social justice impulse rationally and democratically The careers of 18 Labor Secretaries The role of a Secretary of Labor and his or her record is shaped by a combination of personal qualities and circumstances How the workplace has changed in 75 years Dramatic developments in the economy and labor force have required changes in working conditions and standards Gender, race, and Labor Department policies Promoting equal job opportunity for women and minority men, of little concern originally, gained in the ’60s and ’70s Reflections of eight former Secretaries Men who headed the department in the last quarter-century assess achievements and. disappointments in office Labor-management relations a high priority: 1961-62 Humanitarian initiatives during the 1960’s Enactment of osha: ingenious compromises A benchmark of progress: 1973-75 Some recollections of a brief tenure Government’s role in labor-management cooperation Establishing an agenda for the Department of Labor Workforce 2000 recognizes need to improve skills OTHER ARTICLES AND DEPARTMENTS Job gains strong in 1987; unemployment rate declines As the economic expansion reached the 5-year mark, the unemployment rate dropped below 6 percent Major agreements expiring next month 68 Developments in industrial relations 70 Current labor statistics 73 Digitized for2 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis United Years of States r y lWorking for Departm ent MM/^^^America's of Labor W Future £<J o mark the 75th year of the Department of Labor as a Cabinet agency, the Monthly Labor Review asked several distinguished scholars to assess the impact of the Depart ment on the work force and on the workplace. At the same time, the Review invited former Secretaries of Labor to reflect on their tenures and each to identify the most significant achievement of his departmental administration as well as his biggest disappointment. Reflections of eight former Secretaries who responded to the invitation appear in these pages, together with assessments by the scholars. The Review will publish other historical articles in subsequent issues. In commissioning these articles, the Review asked the authors to interpret events in accordance with their professional judg ments, without conformance to any “official” view of the De partment’s history. The special section was edited by Monthly Labor Review staff members Olivia G. Amiss, Anna H. Hill, Leslie Brown Joyner, Merv Knobloch, and Mary Kay Rieg. The Review also received help from James F. Taylor, the co ordinator of the Department’s Diamond Jubilee Observance, and from historian Henry P. Guzda, designer Richard L. Mathews, and artist Richard L. Townsend, all of the Department. T RESEARCH LIBRARY Federai Mese ve Bank of St. Louis A department to protect workers' equity The Labor Department stands as testament to the ability of institutions to act on the social justice impulse rationally and democratically J a ck B a rbash alf a century ago, John R. Commons spoke of “a new equity that will protect the job just as the older equity protected the business.”1 Commons’ concept of comes closest, for me, to getting at the bundle of rights implied by the U.S. Department of Labor’s statutory mission “to foster, promote and develop the welfare of wage earners of the United States. . . .”2 A generation after Commons, Professor Richard A. Lester of Princeton University cap tured the modem essence of equity in his “welfare concept.” The welfare concept encom passes the “network of employer obligations and employee rights that involve not only the dignity and well-being of the individual worker but also the security and well-being of the mem bers of his family.”3 This article takes as its standpoint the precept that the modem state requires a department of labor or equivalent to guarantee equity as a nec essary condition of social stability. Our focus is on how this equity idea has fared in theory and practice over the 75 years of Department of Labor guarantorship. H Jack Barbash is professor of economics and industrial rela tions (Emeritus), University of Wisconsin, Madison, and visiting professor, University of California, Davis. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The meaning of equity Equity starts with the premise that labor as a commodity differs from inanimate commodities equity in having a live human being attached to it. Indeed, the beginnings of the state interest in the labor question are closely associated with the moral outrage provoked by industrialism’s treat ment of labor as if it were only an inanimate commodity. In common with the rest of the Western World, the United States has come to a broad consensus that labor as a human resource is en titled to protection against the most grievous consequences of gross exploitation, autocratic management, pervasive insecurity, and unhealthful work. Therefore, equity in employ ment has come to mean: (1) fair compensation; (2) security of job expectation; (3) reasonable treatment at work, including voice, participa tion, and representation; (4) due process in the resolution of perceived injustice; and (5) a safe and healthful workplace. Equity for wage earners is deemed so neces sary to social stability that state intervention to this end has been allowed to override freedom of contract and the free market. But equity is achieved not only by law but also through col lective bargaining and management policy, the latter frequently referred to as human resource https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • management. Indeed, a discipline called indus trial relations has emerged in the last halfcentury or so. The essence of industrial relations is equity. Its first principle is that equity is a con dition of efficiency and, conversely, resources to pay for equity have to be generated by efficiency. The art of industrial relations consists of the right mix of efficiency and equity. The Labor Department’s theory and practice of equity appears to have been shaped by: (1) Great Events in the nature of labor policy water sheds; (2) the policy directions which presidents and their Labor Secretaries have drawn from these Great Events; (3) external and internal pressure groups and coparticipants in labor pol icy; and (4) the state of the arts in labor policy— labor standards, labor relations, labor market policy, equal opportunity, wage-price policy, and statistics and information. Great Events The Great Event is a critical development in the nature of war, mass unemployment, or a semi nal idea providing the leverage for policy. The Great Events for the Department of Labor have been its founding, World War I, World War II, the Great Depression and the New Deal, the Great Society, and the Reagan revolution. The Department does not, of course, stop living in between. The Great Event establishes a domi nant theme for the period ahead until the next Great Event comes along. The Department’s founding grew out of the facts of American industrial development. “Big industry, big business and the related social and political problems and benefits” came between the Civil War and World War I.4 Not unlike its British precursor a century earlier, the Ameri can industrial revolution brought in its wake, as Carroll D. Wright (the founding father of the movement for a labor bureau) surveyed the state of opinion in the 1880’s: “(1) the breakup of home life by woman and child labor; (2) un healthy conditions of labor; (3) increasing in temperance and dissipation; (4) increasing crime and prostitution; and (5) intellectual de generacy of the worker.” But Wright was confi dent that “if the Bureau of Labor showed gov ernment the truth the government would act in a humane and logical way for all the people.”5 And even before Wright, in 1868, William H. Sylvis of the Molders Union— perhaps the first trade union leader of national stature— called for a Federal department of labor in words later to be used in the Department’s founding statute, “to foster and promote. . .labor above all inter ests” and to act as labor’s voice in the councils of government.6 The Labor Department at 75 On the eve of his appointment in 1913, William B. Wilson, the first Secretary of Labor, agonized over “slavery. . .in the mines, in lum ber camps and in the steel plants. . .1,700,000 children under 15 working] 10 and 12 hours a day [and] government by injunction always in the interest of capital and never in the interest of labor.”7 The Labor Department’s founding was more important for its portents than for initial accom plishments. “The first labor laws were little more than the declarations of public policy against the exploitation of little children and, later, women.”8 The Department’s founding legitimized the labor question as worthy of public policy and raised the banner of social justice for wage earners as the Department’s marching orders. The purpose of World War I mobilization was to win a war, not to advance labor equity. But the need to cope with labor shortages and strikes which interfered with mobilization gave the new Department and the unions the leverage to press for labor standards equity. World War I also brought the Department to prominence and gave it its first experience with large-scale ad ministration of labor policy. Immediately after the war, obscurity returned to the Department, lasting until the next Great Event, the New Deal. The labor movement suf fered a similar fate but only after a social con vulsion which, for a moment, looked to many as if the Russian Revolution had crossed the Atlantic. Frances Perkins, riding the New Deal mo mentum, presided over the creation of a modem labor policy and a modem department whose outlines she sketched early in her tenure:9 I. Employment: a. Steady work in private enterprise b. Emergency work on public-works projects c. Adequate facilities for securing jobs . . . d. Adequate facilities for training . . . II. Conditions of employment: a. Reasonably short hours of labor b. Adequate annual income from wages c. Safe and healthful physical conditions of work d. Practical industrial relations based on: (i) Collective bargaining (ii) Conciliation, mediation, and arbitra tion through Government agencies e. Elimination of child labor III. Social security: a. Adequate provision as a matter of right when incapacitated to earn [as a result of] accident, industrial disease, unemploy ment, or old age IV. Social and living conditions: a. Practical low-cost housing designed and built with wage-earner cooperation b. Adult education planned and conducted with wage-earner cooperation c. Relief and ordinary rehabilitation of the victim of the unemployment crisis with wage-earner cooperation d. Community life (civic, social, cultural) de signed to include wage-earner participation e. Assimilation of the foreign-bom workers by the administration of the naturalization acts for this purpose. World War II brought in new initiatives and refurbished old ones. Again, equity was not the war’s primary purpose but the ensuing full em ployment served as equity’s main chance. Man power planning and mobilization and compre hensive systems of labor dispute resolution and wage policy amounting to compulsory arbitra tion opened new frontiers of labor policy, but in this war, administered by agencies independent of the Labor Department, the Department was relegated to a supporting role. A resurgent labor movement, even though divided, was now able to speak up vigorously for equity. Policy directions for youth, veterans, hard-core unemployed, public job creation, able-bodied poor on wel fare, welfare reform— in effect, adding “an ac tive manpower policy. . .to fiscal and monetary policies that had been the chief tools for attain ing ‘full employment.’”14 The Reagan Presidency turned away from the New Deal and Great Society as Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford had not. To be sure, their Sec retaries had points of difference with the past. Secretary George P. Shultz thought the empha sis on strike avoidance was misplaced. Strikes served the function of confronting unions with the costs of uneconomic demands. Secretary John T. Dunlop objected strenuously to the undue legalism in labor policy. The Reagan revolution was the culmination of two mutually reinforcing tendencies: (1) America’s fall from preeminence in the world economy and (2) the emergence of a conserva tive tide in rebellion against the welfare state. The Labor Department in particular was criti cized by the Heritage Foundation for its “general bias in favor of organized labor. . .and its general distrust of business.”15 Equity’s dys functions in the unionized sector— low produc tivity, high labor costs, inflexible work rules, and unions with too much power— now moved into center-stage. Secretary Raymond J. Donovan, following up on the Reagan mandate, put the Department through, as he said, a “long and sometimes painful process of réévaluation and restructur ing” to make it “leaner, more efficient and more purposeful.” “Private cooperation” replaced “government confrontation,” especially evident in the Occupational Safety and Health Adminis tration’s “first voluntary compliance program.” Training was put “where it belongs, in partner ship with the private sector.”16 Relations with the unions turned unfriendly and hostile throughout the Donovan term. Sec retary William E. Brock, who replaced Dono van, brought better union relations.17 The big push for the Great Society came during President Lyndon Johnson’s administration but many of its seeds were planted in the years of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. The u .s .s .r ’ s threat to “our preeminence” in the effi cient production of goods prompted Secretary James P. Mitchell, in his 1959 annual report, to call for “a substantial increase in employment, improvement in the quality of our labor force and the more effective utilization of existing skill.”10 President Kennedy and Secretary of Labor Arthur J. Goldberg presided over the pio neering Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. Manpower policy, geared successively to au tomation, depressed areas, and the young, evolved under the Johnson Great Society into a wholesale attack on the causes of poverty. It was not a “matter of adjusting to change,” Sec retary Willard Wirtz wrote in his annual report, or being “on the defensive against change. . .but how to be on the offensive with change and make it an influence for a man’s deliverance, instead of. . .his destruction.”11 “The door of Style differences economic opportunity had opened for the great We need to say something about the diverse majority of Americans. . .but prospects for ad styles of the Secretaries to give substance to the vancement for minorities and women remained President-Secretary relationship as an important bleak.”12 variable. The Great Society sought to break down the Frances Perkins’ long tenure in a time of cri structural barriers of race, gender, age, ethnic sis under a President who gave her free rein ity, depressed areas, obsolete skills, and dis makes her unique both as to her strengths and crimination resistant to aggregate-demand, full- failings.18 Her career provides almost a com employment strategies. Intervention by way of posite of the Labor Secretary’s job specifica social policy was also necessary because aggre tions. It is also helpful that her times are suffi gate demand alone was insufficient. ciently documented and removed from the The Labor Department became “primarily a present to allow something like a detached manpower department” 13 deep into programs judgment. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • As to her strengths: She had the President’s full trust and the New Deal momentum to allow unparalleled freedom of action. Never wanting to be anything else, she stayed at the job long enough to master it completely; and perhaps, she felt, too long— as she kept telling the Presi dent in her unavailing attempts to resign during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s third and fourth terms. She was a thorough professional by training, experience, and commitment even before her accession to the Cabinet. She was moved by a profound passion for social justice rooted in deeply held religious beliefs. But she nonethe less understood the limits of power— particu larly of executive power— in enforcing social .justice in a Federal democratic system. Secretary Perkins fell somewhat short of being the “compleat” Secretary of Labor as we think of it. Neither she nor any other Secretary could successfully enforce the Labor Depart ment’s primacy in the labor field. There was little political side to her when it came to dealing with the Congress. And, perhaps for the same reason, she could not be one of the boys when it came to dealing with union leaders. She was probably more prolabor than prounion. Pressure groups In a democracy, the state intercedes for equity in the employment relationship in an environment of pluralism, pressure groups, and politics. The pressure groups that matter most to the Depart ment, and for whom the Department matters most, are (1) the trade unions; (2) business; (3) the Department civil service: that is, Weber’s classic bureaucracy; and (4) public in terest pressure groups: that is, academic associ ations, learned societies, protective organiza tions on behalf of women, children, health, and so forth, sometimes— but never here— referred to negatively as “do-gooders.” Day in, day out, the unions form probably the most persistent pressure group. They have the electoral, lobbying, and research resources; they employ staff experts to monitor agencies and policies; finally, in some indefinite sense, union leaders think of the Labor Department as “their” department. Most significantly, the unions constitute the single most important po litical base for the Department’s programs. Union influence varies from administration to administration. Democratic administrations are as capable of crossing union interests in any specific case as are Republican administrations. Conversely, most administrations do not delib erately incur the enmity of the unions. At the very least, they will make a bow in the union direction: Many Republican administrations typically do more to conciliate union interests. The Labor Department at 75 Access to the state is necessary to the unions because the state’s policies affect vital union interests. Even though American unions view public policy as auxiliary to collective bargain ing, the state and the Department are, nonethe less, strategic resources for achieving most union ends; more so in times of adversity when collective bargaining power tends to wane. It is therefore rare for the union movement to sever diplomatic relations altogether with the admin istration in power. The vehicles through which the unions, like other groups, seek to press their interests are lobbying, advisory committees, appointment of union officials to Department of Labor posts, and tripartism. Pressure group relationships are not one-way. The Department uses these vehi cles as forums for the airing of tensions before they erupt publicly. Pressure group representa tives on advisory committees, for example, are good sounding boards on how far or how little the Department and its agencies can go. John Dunlop has made the point that there is not enough interaction between the interest groups and the state. “The rulemaking and adjudicatory procedures do not include a mechanism for the development of mutual accommodation among the conflicting interests.”19 The incentive to settle questions in dispute between unions and the Department is greater in Democratic administrations because the parties, as political allies, are reluctant to bring dis agreements out into the open. Business spokesmen are more likely to want to restrain labor policy initiatives; the unions to advance them. Business’ Department, so to speak, is historically Commerce; agribusiness’ Department is, of course, Agriculture. Neither of these is centrally important to unions. But business is far from mm-influential in the Labor Department. The Department cannot afford to have its evenhandedness questioned by business. In Republican administrations, business groups will have much to say about the Depart ment, with many occupants of the top posts recruited from the business community. Even Democratic administrations will include some personnel recruited because of their business background. Just as rare is a Republican admin istration that does not try to recruit some office holders from the ranks of Republican labor lead ers. An administration which wants to make a particularly strong bid for union support will appoint Secretaries from union circles even if they are Democrats. This invariably puts a heavy strain on the relationship. The official from the union ranks has to prove to his labor constituency that he has not sold out. For its part, a Republican administration cannot go so far in acquiescing to union demands as to raise questions in party and business circles as to whose side the administration is really on. There is some sentiment in the unions that they are better off under a Republican administration with a nonunionist Labor Secretary, like a George Shultz, James Mitchell, or William Brock. Many union officials have occupied subcabi net posts in the Department and some have even become Secretaries of Labor. But few officials at the top of a union or very close to it are inclined toward high government positions be cause of the job’s impermanence, their unease with bureaucracy, the constant strain on their loyalties, and a sense of loss of autonomy. Union professionals— economists, lawyers, and so forth— do better in government where, by contrast, they are likely to feel less constrained than in the union. Interagency relations The Department of Labor also needs to find its way around interagency rivalries, intradepartmental interests, and the convolutions of Presi dential politics. The Department is, therefore, as much a standard-bearer for equity as it is equity’s exclusive representative. The Department’s influence over labor policy areas is uneven. Only the Secretary of Labor can range over the entire terrain and then mostly as spokesman and advocate, not as a policymaker, which is actually quite circumscribed. Subject to the allocation of power within the Labor De partment, the Department is most influential in labor standards and labor market policies and preeminent in statistics and information. The Labor Department is influential in main taining equal opportunity employment among Federal contractors. Other agencies enforce equal opportunity in private sector employment. The Department is also influential in unemploy ment insurance administration, which it shares with the States. The rest of Social Security is the jurisdiction of the Social Security Administra tion in the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department plays a supporting role in labor relations policy in the private sector where the brunt of the action is borne by the National Labor Relations Board ( n l r b ). Wage-price pol icy (or, as the Europeans call it, incomes policy) becomes the responsibility of ad hoc agencies outside of the Department, agencies noted for their impermanence. Finally, the Department functions by precept, as it were, in areas where it lacks coercive sanctions. This has been the case in the Children’s and Women’s Bureaus, in State labor standards, and, most recently, in labor-management cooperative programs. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The Department’s influence is, of course, cir cumscribed by the Congress and by the courts. The heyday of the courts and the States in labor policy was the half-century or so prior to the New Deal. The leading role of the Federal exec utive branch in labor policy began with the New Deal. The Reagan Presidency marked a resur gence of State interest and some lessening of the Federal role. But the States are still far from equal partnership in labor policy. Department unity has had to contend with the fragmenting effects of intradepartmental decen tralization. The Department “has traditionally operated as a group of independent ‘administra tions,’ each carrying out its own programmatic mission largely independently with limited central direction and control. . . a key element of Labor’s organizational ‘culture’ for many years,” concluded a General Accounting Office report.20 Equity is a means to extraneous ends as much as it is an end in itself. The equity gains achieved in time of war, for example, are mostly the price which unions demand for coop eration in reducing strikes and wage claims. When the contingency serving as equity’s lever age passes, the situation can revert to the status quo ante, as happened after World War I. Or, when circumstances allow, equity continues to advance after the crisis, as after World War II. At times, the state and the Labor Department are moved to assert species of “pure” equity; that is, equity is primary rather than secondary. The Great Society and New Deal appear to be the paramount examples here. In more recent times, the Department has had to restrain its advocacy of equity in the interests of retarding inflationary pressures and advancing the free and flexible market principle. State of the art By the state of the art, we mean (1) what’s in and what’s out in labor policy; (2) the growing emphasis on methodology in the administration of labor policy; and (3) the emergence of a for mal “public interest” standpoint. Substantive policy has alternated (relatively speaking) between (a) free and regulated mar kets; (b) full employment and varying levels of unemployment; (c) “pro” unionism and “anti” unionism; and (d) selective and comprehensive labor standards. Public policy in the economy at large has moved from “free” markets, as the term was commonly understood, to the interventionist push of the Progressive era checked by the courts, to World War I mobilization, to free market “normalcy” of the 1920’s, to macroeco nomic intervention of the New Deal and World War II, and the Great Society to Reagan dereg- “By the state of the art we mean ‘what's in and what’s ou t . . . . . y y y 7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW “ The essence of industrial relations.. . pay equity grew out of demands by the feminist movement.. . . ” 8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis February 1988 • ulation and, currently, the prospect of counter regulation.21 The New Deal sought to cope with mass un employment, but full employment would be at tained only under conditions of a war economy. The achievement of full employment or near it led to concern over sections of the population excluded from it because of race, color, gender, or skill obsolescence. Phillips-curve theory led to the conclusion that a little unemployment need not be a dangerous thing; it may even be a necessary condition for a price-stable economy. The passage and constitutionality of the Wag ner Act represented the high point in “prounion” labor policy, we now know. World War II con solidated union gains by sustaining full employ ment and by discouraging counterunion offen sives. Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin marked declines in union membership, at first relatively and later absolutely. Union efforts to remove legislative impediments to organizing lately came a cropper even though endorsed by the administration which the unions had worked to elect. But it took the great recession of the early 1980’s to reverse the labor relations field decisively, a process assisted by the “tilt” in n l r b decisions. The antiunion effects of reces sion have now become permanent. As noted, the Labor Department has had to address labor relations pathologies of racketeering and em bezzlement. The point is usually made that U.S. labor relations policy is mostly procedural, not sub stantive. Maybe. Within the Department of Labor’s realm, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Walsh-Healy Act, and the Davis-Bacon Act put wage floors under nonunion competition and, in effect, raised the bargaining threshold, as did the Occupational Safety and Health Act ( o s h a ) and the employers’ legal obligation to bargain health and pensions. In the United States, as everywhere, outrage at the plight of women and children in early industrialization ushered in state intervention on behalf of more-civilized labor standards. The New Deal extended minimum wage regulation to all private sector employment in commerce, and prevailing wages for work under Federal contract. Labor standards protection has been additionally extended to “undocumented aliens,” plant safety, and, in one large stride, to the health effects of modem— particularly chemical— production technologies, so to speak, from the quantity of life’s goods to the quality of life at work. Comparable worth and pay equity grew out of demands by the feminist movement with even tual effects on the entire structure of compensa tion. At the moment, the action for pay equity comes mainly through the States and court liti The Labor Department at 75 gations, not from congressional action which the Reagan administration has opposed. Secretary Ray Marshall, in his farewell an nual report, described succinctly the road we have traveled in labor policy:22 Workers are now assured that they will not be unfairly discriminated against on the basis of their race, religion, national origin, sex or race. Basic wage standards have been provided. In come and other protections have been enacted to assist the unemployed, the poor, our retired citizens, and those who experience workrelated medical problems. We attempt to protect workers against the perils of occupational diseases and injuries. We provide opportunities for job training and public service work for those who are unemployed. We have enacted a variety of laws to assure fair treatment for those with special needs. In 1962, President Kennedy told a Yale audi ence that what the times needed were “sophis ticated solutions to complex and obstinate issues . . . not some grand warfare of rival ideolo gies.”23 This is a concept, it seems to me, of a “positive” or “public interest” policy in which the agenda is shaped by government. As Kennedy’s Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg said, government ought to “assert and define the national interest.”24 Positive public policy contrasts with partisan public policy. In the latter, the balance of pres sure group power shapes public policy. The Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley Act are exam ples of the latter; manpower policy of the 1960’s, wage-price policy, o s h a , and equal op portunity are offered as examples of the former. Positive public policy purports to be above pressure groups. The new discipline or science of “policy analysis” practiced by a new breed of social scientists, including economists and statisticians, and by behavioral, computer, and environmental scientists is very prominent in the making of labor policy. The new policy sciences have undoubtedly narrowed the zones of disagreement. But they have not altogether replaced what Commons once called “due process of thinking,”25 which includes “public hearing, notice of hearing and related procedures . . . the discovery through investigation and negotiation of what is the best practicable thing to do under the actual circum stances of conflicting economic interest.”26 No source has fed the movement of equity from social reform to “due process” of thinking and policy science more than the Labor Depart ment itself. The Department’s technique of pol icy analysis through investigation, research, ad ministration, and evaluation has been fed back into the industrial relations environment to be come part of the general stock of expert knowl edge, skill, and methodology. The willingness of the parties to industrial relations to act on this stock has undoubtedly normalized the labor bar gain from class confrontation into something like an economic transaction. There are still confrontations; nor have dif ferences in interests been eradicated. But the struggles that rocked the industrial relations of the past are much less important in determining today’s outcomes. Some part of this is due to the related process of industrial relations profes sionalism and the substitution of policy for trial by ordeal. The Consumer Price Index is a good example of how a formula regularizes changes in the wage bargain and makes possible the practice of the long-term contract. Bureau of Labor Statis tics data have interacted with other influences to create a field and discipline, if not yet a fulldress science of industrial relations, with jour nals, professional associations, university de grees, and research institutions. Vital differences still exist in industrial rela tions. They have only been moderated and civi lized, not removed, by knowledge and tech nique. There is still room for mediation by human judgment, humane values, and the pre cepts of human experience. The Department of Labor’s implementation of equity began with an impluse to social justice. The Department stands as a testament— although it is much more than that—to the ability of institu tions to act on the social justice impulse rationally and democratically; and yes, equitably. □ ----- FOOTNOTES----1 John R. Commons, Legal Foundations o f Capitalism (New York, Macmillan, 1924), p. 307. Commons was a University of Wisconsin professor who, with his students and colleagues, laid much of the intellectual groundwork for the “new equity.” 2 Public Law 426, 62d Cong. 3 Richard A. Lester, “Revolution in Industrial Employ ment,” in E. Wight Bakke, Clark Kerr, and Charles W. Anrod, Unions, Management and the Public (New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1967), p. 471; and Labor Law Journal, June 1958. 4 Jonathan Hughes, American Economic History, 2d ed. (Glenview, i l , Scott Foresman, 1987), p. 307. 5 Quoted in James Leiby, Carroll Wright and Labor Re form: The Origin o f Labor Statistics, Harvard Historical Monographs 46 (Cambridge, m a , Harvard University Press, 1960), p. 40. 6 W. B. Wilson and others, The Anvil and the Plow: A History o f the United States Department o f Labor, 1913-63 (Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, 1963), p. 259. 7 Roger W. Babson, W. B. Wilson and the Department o f Labor (New York, Brentano’s, 1919), p. 146. 8 U.S. Bureau of Labor Standards, Growth o f Labor Law in the United States (Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, 1967), p. 1. 9 Anvil and the Plow, pp. 12-14. 10 Ib id ., p.'191. 11 Ib id ., pp. 253-54. 12 Sar A. Levitan, Peter E- Carlson, and Isaac Shapiro, Protecting American Workers (Washington, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1986), pp. 5-6. 13 Jonathan Grossman, The Department o f Labor (New York, Praeger, 1973), p. 118. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 14 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Research and Development, A 16-Year Compendium (1963-78) (Washington, 1979), p. vii. 15 Heritage Foundation, Mandate fo r Leadership, Policy Management in a Conservative Administration (Washing ton, 1981), p. 453. 16 U.S. Department of Labor, Annual Report (Washing ton, Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, 1983), p. ii. 17 Marianne Means, “Labor Secretary, Pragmatic Mem ber of Reagan Cabinet,” Seattle Post Intelligencer, Sept. 21, 1987. 18 Based mainly on George Martin, Madam Secretary, Frances Perkins: A Biography o f America’s First Woman Cabinet Member (Boston, m a , Houghton Mifflin Co., 1976). 19 “The Limits of Legal Compulsion,” Labor Law Jour nal, February 1976, p. 70. 20 U.S. General Accounting Office, Strong Leadership to Improve Management at the Department o f Labor (Wash ington, 1985), p. 9. 21 Alan Murray and Ellen Hume, “Reagan’s Fiscal Pol icy. . .,” The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 17, 1987, p. 1. 22 U.S. Department of Labor, Annual Report (Washing ton, Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, 1980), pp. vii-viii. 23 Quoted in The New York Times, June 12, 1962, p. 20. 24 Quoted in H. S. Roberts, “Toward an Understanding of Public Interest in Collective Bargaining,” in Jack Barbash, ed., The Labor Movement: A Re-Examination (Madison, wi, University of Wisconsin, Industrial Relations Research Institute, 1966), p. 142. 25 Commons, Legal Foundations o f Capitalism, p. 35. 26 John R. Commons, The Economics o f Collective Ac tion (New York, Macmillan, 1950), p. 25. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • The Labor Department at 75 Helping workers and employers The Labor Department’s role in helping workers and employers is illustrated by the following brief excerpt from the recollections o f Clara M. Beyer, who began working in the Department in 1917 during the tenure o f William B. Wilson, the Department’s first Secretary, and served in a number o f key executive positions until 1958, when she became a labor adviser for the Agency for International Development. Mrs. Beyer, now 94, lives in Washing ton, DC. Miss Perkins was a strong supporter of workers’ education— training to equip work ers to improve their understanding of the role of unions, the importance of the labor move ment, the skills of negotiation, and matters of that sort. The Labor Department assisted workers in organizing, but so much more was left undone. The preparation of a model shop steward’s manual proved to be an interesting affair, both in its conception and eventual publica tion. One day the Personnel Director from Lockheed whom I knew, came to visit me in frustration. He said, “Clara, I’m wasting such time with these trade unionists. We have a union, but the leaders just don’t know how to operate, or what their functions are. I spend all my time on grievances. I’ve got a group in here who have come all the way to Washington to try to settle a particular issue that should be settled right in the plant with out any trouble. Could you talk to those men if I send them up?” I agreed to see them and shortly five or six men trooped into my office. I put them in a good frame of mind by asking what their troubles were, and what problems they were dealing with downstairs, how negotiations were going. I then gave them a briefing on how I conceived the union should build itself into a strong organization to enable it to han dle matters in dispute without having to come to Washington. I explained why they would need to have a complete understanding with the employer on how grievances were han dled, an agreed procedure for resolving dis putes from beginning to end. I gave them a good trade union speech and when they said they didn’t know where to begin, I said, “Do you want me to send somebody out to help you draw up your contract with the em ployer?” They responded, “That would be great.” I sent out Jean Flexner, a member of my staff, to work with the union in Los Angeles. She arrived on the West Coast on December 7, 1941, the day of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Despite the pandemonium she spent about a month in intensive study and observations, sitting in on meetings, talking to foremen and workers, seeing the problems as they arose, and analyzing the cause of labor troubles in the past. Out of that, she drew up a contract of understanding of whose responsibility was what, at what stage the union representative took a matter back to the management, of what information they had to have, what management similarly had to have, among other matters. She had gotten that cleared by both the union and manage ment, and it was all pulled together in a shop steward’s manual, because it was on the shop floor where trouble usually started. When she brought back the manual, I took it around to the A.F. of L. and showed it to them. They were quite excited about it; they agreed they should have a shop stew ard’s manual for their people. They took whole paragraphs out of the manual Jean Flexner prepared, and copied it for their own use. With the manual serving as a model, we also developed a similar guide for manage ment entitled, “Foreman’s Guide to Settle ment of Grievances.” These were the fore runners of supporting publications, all of which had wide circulation and use. The careers of 18 Labor Secretaries The role of a Secretary of Labor and his or her place in history is determined by a combination of personal qualities—and circumstances beyond the Secretary's control while in office J o n a th a n G ro ssm a n n March 4, 1913, Congress created “an on the immigration and naturalization functions executive department in the Govern of the Department. Now there are about 18,000 ment to be called the Department of employees. In 1913 (aside from immigration Labor, with a Secretary of Labor, who shall be the Department administered no statutes laws), the head thereof, to be appointed by the Presi but today the Department is a regulatory dent, by and with the advice and consent of the agency. Senate . . . The purpose of the Department of Secretary Wilson emigrated from Scotland Labor shall be “to foster, promote, and develop when he was 8 years old and soon worked 10 the welfare of the wage earners of the United hours a day loading carts in a Pennsylvania coal States . . . -”1 In the 75 years since then, there mine. At age 14, he was secretary of a coal have been 19 Secretaries from varied back miners’ local union. He later became secretarygrounds and with different philosophies regard treasurer of the national union. In 1906, Wilson ing the Department. The first three Secretaries ran for Congress and won a narrow victory. He were labor leaders. Six came from the ranks of represented the 15th Pennsylvania District for 6 the trade union movement. Others have been years and was a leading advocate of a bill to lawyers, professors, politicians, businessmen, create a Cabinet-rank Department of Labor. and personnel directors. As Secretary of Labor, Wilson explained that even though the purpose of the Department was Early secretaries to promote the welfare of American workers, The first Secretary of Labor, William B. “in the execution of that purpose the element of Wilson, would not recognize the Department fairness to every interest is of equal import over which he presided from 1913 to 1921. ance . . . fairness between wage earner and When he assumed office under President wage earner, between wage earner and Woodrow Wilson, there were about 2,000 em employer . . . .”2 Despite this declaration of ployees, of whom more than 90 percent worked fairness, however, business generally mis trusted the Department. Secretary Wilson as serted that no other Department of the Federal Jonathan Grossman retired in January 1982 as historian of the U.S. Department of Labor. Government had been organized under such O https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • The Labor Department at 75 Labor Secretaries and the Presidents they served S ecretary o f L abor P eriod o f service P resident William B. Wilson Mar. 4, 1913-Mar. 4, 1921 Woodrow Wilson James J. Davis Mar. 5, 1921-Nov. 30, 1930 Warren G. Harding Calvin Coolidge Herbert Hoover William N. Doak Dec. 9, 1930-Mar. 4, 1933 Herbert Hoover Frances Perkins Mar. 4, 1933-June 30, 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt Harry S Truman Lewis B. Schwellenbach July 1, 1945-June 10, 1948 (died in office) Harry S Truman Maurice J. Tobin Aug. 13, 1948-Jan. 20, 1953 Harry S Truman Martin P. Durkin Jan. 21, 1953-Sept. 10, 1953 Dwight D. Eisenhower James P. Mitchell Oct. 9, 1953-Jan. 20, 1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower Arthur J. Goldberg Jan. 21, 1961-Sept. 20, 1962 John F. Kennedy W. Willard Wirtz Sept. 25, 1962-Jan. 20, 1969 John F. Kennedy Lyndon B. Johnson George P. Shultz Jan. 22, 1969-July 1, 1970 Richard M. Nixon James D. Hodgson July 2, 1970-Feb. 1, 1973 Richard M. Nixon Peter J. Brennan Feb. 2, 1973-Mar. 15, 1975 Richard M. Nixon John T. Dunlop Mar. 18, 1975-Jan. 31, 1976 Gerald R. Ford W. J. Usery, Jr. Feb. 10, 1976-Jan. 20, 1977 Gerald R. Ford Ray Marshall Jan. 27, 1977-Jan. 20, 1981 Jimmy Carter Raymond J. Donovan Feb. 4, 1981-Mar. 15, 1985 Ronald Reagan William E. Brock Apr. 29, 1985-Oct. 31, 1987 Ronald Reagan Ann McLaughlin Dec. 17, 1987- Ronald Reagan trying circumstances. One example is the fact that although Congress had authorized the De partment to conciliate labor disputes, it pro vided no funds for that activity. Wilson drew from the limited resources of other bureaus and created a Conciliation Division, yet neither striking workers nor employers utilized the ser vice to any great extent. World War I changed the situation. If a De partment of Labor had not existed at the out break of the war, Secretary Wilson said, Congress would have had to create one. To mo bilize labor, 15 departmental bureaus, services, and boards were created. The number of em ployees increased to more than 6,000. While it is difficult to describe the achievements of all the labor agencies participating in the war ef fort, a partial listing indicates their scope and significance: the U.S. Employment Service, the War Labor Policies Board, the Women in In dustry Service, the Division of Negro Econom ics, the Farm Service Division, the Child Labor Division, the Working Conditions Service, and the U.S. Housing Corp. In 1917, Secretary Wilson became chairman of the President’s Mediation Commission, a body which mediated thousands of wartime labor disputes. The President also created the War Labor Administration to coordinate labor activities of the government. Secretary Wilson, as head of this body, advised the President to establish a National War Labor Board, the most important wartime labor agency. The cochair men of the Board were former President William Howard Taft for employers, and famous liberal lawyer Frank P. Walsh for labor. The Board published a “Magna Carta” of labor, which included the right to organize and bargain collectively, the 8-hour workday with overtime provisions, and the right to a living wage. Labor, in return for recognition of these rights, gave up practices deemed harmful to productivity. The Department also cooperated with the In ternational Labor Organization ( il o ). Secretary Wilson served as chairman of the first interna tional conference of the il o which was held in Washington in 1918. When the war ended, Congress cut back on “big” government. Wilson argued that although reductions were necessary, some of the laborrelated agencies created during the war were also needed in peacetime. But Congress dis agreed and the Department lost most of the functions it had gained. In 1921, President Warren G. Harding ap pointed James J. Davis as his Secretary of Labor. Davis, bom in Wales, emigrated to the United States as a young child and began work in a Pennsylvania steel mill at the age of 8. Although Davis later became a wealthy man, he carried a union card and liked to be called “Puddler Jim,” a name taken from one of his mill jobs. Davis’s chief interest as Secretary was immi gration. He supervised the registration of immi grants and called for restrictions in the number of aliens allowed into the country. As part of his effort to reduce the number of illegal aliens en tering the country, he established a Border Patrol. Although immigration dwarfed other Depart ment of Labor activities, it was not its only function. Secretary Davis strengthened the role of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Without the Bureau, Davis said, labor policies of the De partment would be adopted in darkness.3 Davis also encouraged labor-management cooperation and, along with Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, persuaded the U.S. Steel Corp. to abol ish the 12-hour workday. In addition, when women won the right to vote, a Women’s Bu reau was created in the Department of Labor. In 1930, Davis was elected to the U.S. Sen ate, and William N. Doak became the third Sec retary of Labor. The first American-born Secre tary, Doak worked as a railroad yardman and rose through the hierarchy of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. He was also managing edi tor of the union journal. Doak was sensitive to unemployment matters and supported studies of public works programs and unemployment insurance as ways to offset the effects of the Great Depression. But eco nomic conditions worsened during his relatively brief tenure, and he was overwhelmed by the worldwide economic disaster. The New Deal and W orld W ar II In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ap pointed Frances Perkins as Secretary of Labor. Perkins, the first woman Cabinet member and Labor Secretary with the longest tenure— 193345— made the Department a seedbed of ideas for social reform. Perkins wavered about accepting the posi tion, but women’s rights groups urged her to do https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis so. Mary Dewson, director of the Women’s Democratic Committee, told Perkins that “generations might pass” before another woman would have such a chance. “You mustn’t say no . . . .T o o much hangs on it.”4 Most labor leaders opposed the appointment. She was the first Secretary who was not a union member. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, said that unions “can never become reconciled to her selection.” Perkins replied at a press conference that Green was a man of vision and integrity, and if labor leaders would not come to her, she would “hasten to see them.”5 Perkins’ first priority was to alleviate unem ployment, and she participated in most national programs in the field, including the Federal Emergency Relief Administration which in the early days of the Depression spent millions of dollars on food, shelter, and other human needs. The Civil Works Administration created 4 mil lion temporary jobs during the winter of 1933— 34. The Works Progress Administration pro vided work for 8 million people. The Public Works Administration undertook large-scale construction such as schools, hospitals, and river-control projects. The Civilian Conserva tion Corps paid young men, between 18 and 25, $30 a month plus board to plant trees and pre serve natural resources. The National Recovery Administration ( n r a ) had a significant influence on the Department of Labor. The n r a stimulated business by ignoring the antitrust laws and creating codes of “fair competition.” Labor sections of n r a codes sought to abolish child labor, called for col lective bargaining, and set maximum hours of work and minimum wages. Establishments supporting n r a principles displayed a blue eagle poster. However, in a case involving a Brook lyn, n y , poultry market, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the n r a unconstitutional, finding that the Federal Government had exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. A “sick chicken” killed the “blue eagle,” it was reported. Frances Perkins searched for constitutional ways to continue some of the labor activities of the n r a . Some of her ideas on the right of work ers to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing were in cluded in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. But continuing n r a ’ s labor standards was dif ficult. Both employers and unions (fearing that minimums might become maximums) opposed minimum standards. But standards were impor tant to Secretary Perkins. When she accepted the position of Secretary of Labor, she said that MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • she wanted laws protecting children at work, a ceiling over hours of work, and a floor under wages. In 1937, Congress met in special ses sion to consider a law drawn up in the Depart ment of Labor to set labor standards. At first, Congress rejected the proposals. When Perkins watered down the bill, Congress adopted the diluted version as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The high point of Perkins’ career came in June 1934, when she served as head of a com mittee that developed Social Security. She worked tirelessly on this project. Congress passed a Social Security law in 1935, which included old age insurance, unemployment in surance, and grants for relief to needy children. Also significant during Perkins’ tenure was the rejuvenation of the U.S. Employment Serv ice. The Service germinated in 1907, when it dealt with immigrant labor. During World War I, it expanded into a large manpower agency, but contracted after the War to a minor agency. The Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 gave it new strength as a Federal-State service which provided free job assistance. From 1933 through 1940, the new U.S. Employment Serv ice screened and selected 26 million workers for relief projects. Of the many laws which Frances Perkins helped create, only a few were administered by the Department of Labor. Perkins was eager to supervise Social Security, but Congress created an independent Social Security Board. Morever, besides her failure to gain new func tions, she lost some traditional activities of the Department. For example, the Immigration Service, which had been a bureau of the Depart ment of Labor when it was created and was by far its largest unit, was transferred to the Depart ment of Justice in 1940. During World War II, the United States turned from programs to fight the Depression to programs to make the Nation an “Arsenal of Democracy.” The tendency to place labor agen cies outside the Department of Labor acceler ated. At the end of the war, there were about 20 Federal labor agencies in which the Department of Labor had little influence. Between 1932 and 1945, when the number of Federal jobholders increased sixfold, the number of employees in the Labor Department dropped from 6,000 to a little more than 5,000. From an historical perspective, Frances Perkins contributed to the advancement of the welfare of workers on a national rather than a departmental scale. The postwar Secretaries Lewis B. Schwellenbach 14 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis In 1945, Harry S Truman became President and asked Lewis B. Schwellenbach, a former Sena The Labor Department at 75 tor and Federal judge, to be the fifth Secretary of Labor. Schwellenbach had a troubled tenure. He took office during a great wave of strikes and was often bypassed by special labor advisers in the mediation of labor disputes. In 1946, Con gress slashed the departmental budget from $113 million to $15 million. When Schwellen bach died in office in June 1948, the number of Department employees had dropped to just above 3,000, the smallest number since 1917. In August 1949, Maurice J. Tobin, former mayor of Boston and Governor of Massachu setts, became Secretary of Labor. Tobin fought the dispersing of departmental functions and saw the Bureau of Employment Security and some early apprenticeship monitoring functions placed under his stewardship. Tobin’s goal was reinforced by recommendations of the Commis sion on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, headed by former President Herbert Hoover. Durkin and M itchell In January 1953, President Dwight D. Eisen hower appointed Martin P. Durkin as Secretary of Labor. Durkin, president of the plumbers and pipefitters union, and the first officer of the American Federation of Labor to become Secre tary of Labor, focused on changing the TaftHartley Act of 1947. The administration had said it was opposed to any law “licensing union busting.” Durkin be lieved that the administration had agreed to re vise sections of the labor law dealing with the closed shop and secondary boycotts. But the administration did not accept Durkin’s pro posals. Durkin felt betrayed and resigned from office after a tenure of less than 8 months. James P. Mitchell, an industrial relations ex ecutive in private industry, replaced Durkin. Mitchell became Secretary of Labor at a diffi cult time. Some labor leaders called his appoint ment “incredible.” Joseph Loftus, of The New York Times, observed that Mitchell “was like a man heading into an Arctic gale in a sunsuit.” But Mitchell succeeded beyond expectations. He said, at the outset, that he was dedicated to fairness to all. Although the administration was viewed as promanagement, Mitchell carefully cultivated labor leaders and convinced them of his fairness. Mitchell achieved a breakthrough when, for the first time in decades, the Secretary of Labor became the chief government spokesman for labor. Mitchell provided labor leaders with ac cess to the President. There were no “backstairs to the White House” for either labor leaders or employers. Mitchell assumed leadership over Federal labor agencies outside the Department of Labor. He met with the heads of these agen cies and he recommended Presidential appoint ments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Mitchell rebuilt the morale of the Depart ment. During the Great Depression, able young people had flocked to the Federal Government as one of the few places where they could find jobs. Most of them started at low grades. This situation had created a pool of talented people eager to serve. Mitchell “discovered” and pro moted capable employees, whose superior per formance enhanced the reputation of the Depart ment of Labor. Mitchell initiated training programs which over time became one of the most important functions of the Department of Labor. He rec ognized the need to upgrade the skills of the work force. He observed that the United States was losing its advantage of producing goods more efficiently than any other nation in his tory. Mitchell appointed experts to plan for a manpower future with a larger and more skillful work force. Later administrations greatly ex panded training programs. But the 7 years and 3 months that Mitchell served as Secretary of Labor showed more than average achievement by the Department. G oldberg and W irtz In 1961, when President John F. Kennedy ap pointed Arthur J. Goldberg as Secretary of Labor, Goldberg already had a distinguished labor career. He had helped break the power of both racketeers and Communists in several large unions. He was one of the key figures in the merger of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which subsequently spoke for 15 million Amer ican workers. And shortly before becoming Secretary, Goldberg'-helped settle a major steel strike. No other Secretary of Labor has had as much influence on national labor policy as Goldberg. Because of his powerful role and closeness to the President, he was eager to demonstrate that he was impartial. Although he remained friends with labor, he broke his previous associ ations with the labor movement, even forfeiting a pension he had earned from a union. One of Goldberg’s goals was to create a better climate between workers and their employers. A President’s Advisory Committee on LaborManagement Policies, which he sponsored, furthered this goal. Goldberg advocated human relations committees in large corporations, committees which would bring both sides to gether before a crisis. He promoted profit sharing because it gave workers part of the “fruits” of their toil. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Goldberg was a successful mediator. He knew from experience that if there were pre dictable procedures of government intervention, both sides would try to use these procedures to their advantage. To prevent this tactic, Gold berg called for an array of weapons to convince bargainers that labor contracts should be in the public interest. When Goldberg was appointed to the Supreme Court after 20 months of service as Secretary of Labor, President Kennedy said that Goldberg had raised the Department of Labor to a “stature and significance which have never been surpassed.” Willard Wirtz, Goldberg’s Under Secretary, succeeded him in 1962 and served 7 years. Wirtz, a former law professor, had served on several Federal labor boards during and after World War II. Wirtz believed that the Secretary of Labor should rarely intervene in labor disputes. Wirtz noted that during his tenure, the Department scene shifted from “haggard men spending the night glaring at each other across the bargaining table,” with reporters and television cameras keeping a “death watch,” to one where the De partment was no longer a news beat. Wirtz was particularly interested in man power programs. Secretary Mitchell planted the seed, Secretary Goldberg cultivated it and spon sored training as part of the Area Redevelop ment Act of 1961, and Wirtz supported skill training to adapt to technological changes. He especially emphasized aid to the poor. Quoting from the French writer Anatole France, Wirtz said “the state, with its majestic justice and equality, forbids the rich man as well as the poor man to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Wirtz be lieved that there had to be equality of opportu nity, as well as equality under the law. During Wirtz’s tenure, the Department of Labor managed a variety of employment and training programs. Among these were the Neighborhood Youth Corps, New Careers, Work Incentive Programs, Job Opportunities in the Business Sector, and a program to curb job discrimination on Federal contracts. In his final report, Wirtz declared that the Department of Labor had worked toward the goal of ensuring “that every American has a full and equal oppor tunity to earn a decent living.” Five secretaries in eight years There were five Secretaries of Labor between 1969 and 1977 compared with only four Secre taries during the first 32 years of the Depart ment’s history. George P. Shultz, who assumed the Secretaryship in January 1969, had been dean of the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago and had worked in Wash- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • ington with various groups studying important economic problems, including construction jobs for blacks and reform of the welfare system. Schultz led an effort to promote minority em ployment in the construction industry, support ing a plan to set goals on Federally funded construction projects. Under the plan, contrac tors had to take “affirmative action” in employ ing minority workers. Starting with the Philadelphia plan, targeting job increases for blacks from 4 to 26 percent of the work force over a 4-year period, the administration hoped to expand other city plans on this model. The Philadelphia Plan pressured whitedominated unions to admit blacks. Shultz distin guished between “quotas” that he perceived wrong because of rigid parameters and goals perceived right because of inherent flexibility. The distinction has been challenged. But the Philadelphia Plan expressed Shultz’s philoso phy that job opportunities were better than welfare. Along the same line of favoring jobs over welfare, Shultz promoted the Family Assistance Plan. He argued that some poor people would not accept low-paying jobs if they were better off on welfare. The plan would remove the penalty for working by making 13 million lowpaid workers eligible for relief, with the hope that they would work themselves off welfare into better jobs. Schultz believed that the plan was a worthwhile gamble. After a long legisla tive battle, however, the Family Assistance Plan died in the Senate Finance Committee. Shultz won friends even among those who opposed his programs. He was a good listener, and his courteous, low-key manner won re spect. Although Shultz and George Meany, president of the a f l - c io , were on different sides on many issues, they worked well together. For example, when Meany opposed the Philadel phia Plan in a speech, he dropped his usually abrupt manner when asked about Shultz’s views, and said mildly: “George is mistaken.” In mid-1970, when Shultz left the Depart ment to head the newly created Office of Man agement and Budget, Under Secretary James D. Hodgson was appointed as the 12th Secretary of Labor. Hodgson had worked at Lockheed Air craft Corp. for a quarter of a century and had become vice president for industrial relations. He had a lifelong interest in what he called “people business.” Hodgson was a champion of safety in the workplace. He was especially proud of his ef forts in promoting passage of the WilliamsSteiger Act of 1970, which created the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration. The act set safety standards in 4 million workplaces. The Labor Department at 75 During Hodgson’s term, the government ef fort to control skyrocketing construction wages came to a head. In 1971, President Nixon sus pended the Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” for Federal construction. This was a hard blow to unions in the building trades, but Hodgson sup ported it as part of the administration’s anti inflation policy. George Meany led the union battle against government efforts to hold down wages, and targeted his attack against the Secretary of Labor. He boycotted Hodgson, and went over his head to deal directly with the President. At a press conference, Meany talked about Hodg son, saying, “I don’t pay too much attention to the Secretary . . . if you have a problem with the landlord, you don’t discuss it with the janitor.” Hodgson resigned in early 1973. Peter J. Brennan, a construction trade union leader from New York, who led a “hardhat” demonstration supporting President Nixon’s Vietnam policies in 1969, became the next Sec retary of Labor. He believed that the top people of the administration were out of touch with the world of workers. President Nixon said that “Pete understands real people.” When the Cabi net discussed accepting a 5-percent unemploy ment rate, Brennan pointedly depicted the human tragedy behind unemployment statistics. He supported long-term unemployment in surance for workers who had lost their jobs. Brennan also took pride in programs that gave job opportunities to women and minorities. In addition, he reactivated the Federal Committee on Apprenticeship, and appointed the first woman in 34 years to the body and the first black in history. In 1975, John T. Dunlop, a distinguished scholar and experienced mediator, admired by both labor and mangement, became Secretary of Labor. Dunlop’s position was enhanced because he also served as a member of the President’s economic policy group. Secretary Dunlop began his term with a thor ough study of the programs of the Department of Labor. He was interested in promoting eco nomic stability, worker safety, and pension plans. And he took a daring gamble in the leg islative field to create a better labormanagement climate. The issue of situs picketing had been a thorn in the side of organized labor since 1951, when the Supreme Court declared that a strike against only one of several contractors on a job site was an illegal secondary boycott. Labor had fought the issue for nearly a quarter of a century. Dunlop performed a near miracle when he fashioned a bill approved by leaders of labor and management. Congress passed the bill, lifting the TaftHartley Act’s ban on construction site second ary picketing. The White House received 700.000 messages, most of them negative, in a campaign by the General Contractors of Amer ica for the bill’s defeat. President Ford vetoed the bill, and Dunlop resigned. In 1976, with 11 months remaining before a Presidential election, W. J. Usery, Jr. was ap pointed to this “hot spot” in the Cabinet. A former official of the Machinists Union, a for mer Assistant Secretary of Labor, and head of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Usery had earned the reputation of being among the Nation’s best labor mediators. Tireless, good-natured, and with a keen sense of timing, Usery, when necessary, could keep opposing sides at round-the-clock bargaining until they hammered out a settlement. As Secretary, Usery averted a national trucking strike and also helped end a major strike in the rubber industry. An important achievement was Usery’s use of his mediation skills and his friendship with George Meany to reestablish good relations be tween the administration and the American labor movement. Ray Marshall, director of the Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas, was selected as Secretary of Labor in 1977, when Jimmy Carter became President. Marshall promoted a strong economic stimulus for the Nation’s wage earners, with a primary emphasis on the problems of women and minor ities. He practiced what he preached by appoint ing women and blacks to important positions in the Department. Public Service employment jumped from 310,000 in 1976 to a peak of 725.000 in 1978 and Marshall personally sup ported the Humphrey-Hawkins full employment bill of 1978. During Marshall’s tenure, the Department also devoted attention to occupational safety and health programs, publishing standards deal ing with hazards caused by benzene, pesticides, cotton dust, and lead. Mine safety and health also became a Labor Department function, when Congress trans ferred that function to Labor from the Bureau of Mines in the Department of the Interior, where it had been since 1910. At this time, the pace of Departmental activi ties quickened in many fields. With rapidly growing programs, critics denounced what they viewed as wasteful practices and government interference. But Marshall and his supporters, especially trade unions and minorities, praised this activist role in promoting the welfare of American workers. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed Raymond J. Donovan, a construction company executive, as Secretary of Labor. As 1 of 12 children in a working class family, Donovan https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis was sensitive to workers’ needs. He had been active in charities and had spoken out strongly for social justice. He stressed economic growth as the best way to combat joblessness. Secretary Donovan carried out the adminis tration’s policies of regulatory relief and re duced spending on social programs. He less ened the burden of regulation through policies aimed at conciliation and cooperation, with punishment reserved for serious offenders. This policy was particularly important in the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration (osha), the most active regulatory agency in the Depart ment. In another area, the field of social pro grams, billions of dollars were cut from major employment and training projects, particularly public service jobs. Because of the direction of the administra tion’s economic and social policies, Secretary Donovan had difficulties. But the most serious problem he faced had nothing to do with the Department of Labor. He had to divert his time from Departmental programs to defend him self against charges of wrongdoing in private ventures. Rumors of unethical business actions involving Donovan had surfaced at the time of the Senate hearings on his nomination. Despite more than 4 years of accusations, Donovan insisted he was innocent, and refused to resign, until he was indicted in March 1985. After legal proceedings lasting 2 years, he was acquitted. In 1985, William Brock became Secretary of Labor. Prior to his appointment as Labor Secre tary, he held a Cabinet-level post as U.S. Trade Representative. He also had been a business man, a four-term congressman, a U.S. Senator, and the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Under Brock, the Labor Depart ment embarked on a program to view the rapidly changing work force, a reaction to the sociotechnical advances and economic changes in the world, and the technical and educational skills that will predominate then. On November 3, 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Ann McLaughlin as the 19th Secretary of Labor. She was sworn into office on December 17, 1987. McLaughlin is the sec ond woman to serve as the Labor Secretary. She brings to her Cabinet position wide experience as an executive, manager, and poli cymaker in public and private organizations. She has served as the Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, and as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where she received the Depart ment’s highest honor, the Alexander Hamilton Award for distinguished leadership. McLaugh lin also has headed her own consulting firm in Washington. George P. Shultz 17 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • The Labor Department at 75 tary has sometimes performed well during one part of his or her tenure and poorly in another. It is difficult to isolate specific accomplishments This was true of two of the Secretaries. William of individual Secretaries. Some landmark Wilson was successful until the administration changes can be attributed to a particular admin tried to hold down prices and wages to curb istration. But most progress evolves over long inflation during World War I. Frances Perkins periods of time in small increments. Dealing was effective during the New Deal and ineffec with unemployment, safety in the workplace, tive during World War II. minimum wages, helping older workers, open Two Secretaries, Arthur Goldberg and ing jobs to blacks and minorities, mitigating the George Shultz, took office under activist Presi conditions of farm labor, improving the quality dents with whom they had extraordinarily good and usefulness of labor statistics, promoting relations. They were successful both in their good labor-management relations— are evolu administration of Department of Labor pro tionary in nature. They are achievements of the grams and in helping shape national policy. Labor Department. Although the Secretary of Other Secretaries were victims of events. Doak Labor is often a key figure, attribution to any faced the Great Depression. Post-World War II one Secretary is misleading. strikes and an anti-labor Congress thwarted Most important of the many-sided functions Schwellenbach. Durkin, Dunlop, and Hodgson of the Secretary is the fact that he or she repre were trapped in the crossfire of a battle between sents the President. It is true that some Secre the labor movement and the administration over taries have influenced and advised Presidents, national labor policy. Brennan had the Vietnam but other Secretaries have merely carried out the conflict and Watergate. Usery was a lame duck. administration’s policies. Donovan was beset by events before he became Also significant are the Secretary’s relations Secretary. Under other circumstances, these with many parts of the Government. Secretaries Secretaries may or may not have had outstand deal with Congress and several were helped or ing careers. The role of a Secretary of Labor and hurt because Congress increased or cut appro his or her place in history is determined by a priations of the Department or added or sub combination of personal qualities and circum tracted functions. The Secretary also works with stances somewhat beyond his or her control dur fellow Cabinet members, other branches of the ing the term of office. American life has changed greatly since the Federal Government, and States and localities. Indeed, the Secretary’s responsibilities ex Department of Labor was established in 1913. tend beyond government to many segments of Agriculture, once providing work for the largest American society. The news media have a po number of workers, now employs less than 3 tent influence. The Secretary works with con percent of the work force. There has been a sumer and business interests. But the key con major shift from heavy industry and mining to stituency is the American worker. Although he service and high technology occupations. There or she promotes the interests of all American are now more women, more minorities, and workers, the Secretary deals mostly with labor older employees in the work force. Although unions and their leaders by virtue of the fact that the level of worker education is much higher in unions are organized and have representatives. the Nation than in 1913, requirements will be The careers of some Secretaries have been en greater in the year 2000. In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson and hanced by labor support, while the lives of other Secretaries have been made miserable because Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson approved the seal of the new Department of Labor, which of poor communication with organized labor. Personal ability is a factor. While some Sec features a blacksmith’s anvil and a plow. retaries have been more able than others, all of Today, more Americans are familiar with com the Secretaries were above average ability. But puters than anvils. The Department of Labor □ there are so many outside factors that a Secre strives to meet the challenge of change. Differing roles R aym ond J. D onovan -FOOTNOTES1 Public Law 426, 62d Cong. 2 Annual Report, 1913, quoted in O. L. Harvey, ed., The Anvil and the Plow: U.S. Department o f Labor, 1913-1963 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing office, 1963), pp. 11, 13. 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 Ibid., p. 49. 4 George Martin, Madame Secretary: Frances Perkins (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1976), p. 237. 5 Ibid., p. 3. United Years o f States r j ! ' W orking for D epartm entÆ 0 ^ ^ ^ A m e r i c a s of Labor Æ Future How the workplace has changed in 75 years Dramatic developments in the economy, in technology, and in the labor force have required changes in working conditions and standards W alter L ic h t he Department of Labor owes its incep cycle fluctuations; the effects of immigration tion in 1913 to a crisis in the American and urbanization; and the developing economic workplace.1 For four decades, starting and political power of concentrated capital. with the great railroad strikes of July 1877, the Gathering and reporting information about Nation became witness to a contagion of work workers emerged as one remedy. Economic dis stoppages and protests. About 1,500 strikes a tress in the Nation’s first industrial State, Mas year involved more than 300,000 workers; mo sachusetts, compelled State legislators there to mentous confrontations were accompanied by establish a Bureau of Statistics of Labor in substantial loss of life, limb, property, and com 1869. The collection of data on the working and merce.2 This was the unnerving record of the living conditions of the State’s laboring men period, and sufficient reason to search for an and women provided the basis for private and swers and solutions. legislative reform. The success of Massachu Contemporary analysts can offer explana setts’ labor statistics bureau under its first effec tions for the industrial unrest of the late 19th and tive commissioner, Carroll Wright, and other early 20th centuries: Low wages, long hours, State-level experiments in social investigation unsafe working conditions, irregular employ served as the precedent and incentive for cre ment, capricious supervision, and the antiunion ation of an equivalent Federal agency by the tactics of some managers provided the visible Congress in 1884. The U.S. Bureau of Labor, sparks. The underlying powderkeg was the first headed by Wright as well, was an initial spread and fastening of the wage labor system; step toward the establishment of a Department dampened prospects for independent producer- of Labor; information collection and dissemina ship; increased specialization, weakening of tion became the Department’s prime justifica skills, and mechanization of jobs; business tion for existence, and remains the assigned role for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Structured mediation loomed as a second so Walter Licht is associate professor of history at the Univer sity of Pennsylvania. lution to industrial conflict. Management and T https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW . .a remedy for industrial unrest.. February 1988 • labor had to learn to deal across bargaining tables, not barricades; government could serve as a go-between. By the late 19th century, the Congress had enacted legislation creating government-assisted mediation procedures for railroad labor disputes— the most volatile area of industrial unrest in that period. In successive congressional debates over the creation of a De partment of Labor (between 1874 and 1913, more than 100 bills and resolutions had been considered) the agency’s potential function in conciliation drew constant support. For workers, unionization emerged as the key to their plight. Changes in the workplace spurred the growth of trade unionism in this country, and as early as 1868, unions affiliated with the National Labor Union raised the issue of the need for a Federal bureau to sponsor leg islation and presidential initiatives on behalf of workers. Because of organized labor’s ambiva lence toward state power, this demand was low key, but once the American Federation of Labor ( a f l ), under the leadership of Samuel Gompers, consolidated its power at the turn of the 20th century, the a f l became the main lobbying force behind the creation of the Department of Labor, despite Gompers’ advocacy of volun tarism and nonpartisanship. Mainstream union ists viewed the Department as a vital way to influence legislation and executive action. The Department of Labor, then, appeared as a remedy for industrial unrest. Reformers placed great stock in the power of investigation, exposure and publicity, and governmentsponsored mediation. For trade unionists, a Cabinet-level agency meant direct access to state policymaking and a powerful, yet neutral, third party to promote “fairness” in labor dis putes. If the Department of Labor emanated from a crisis in the workplace and a subsequent search for solutions, on its 75th anniversary, an assessment of its effect on the workplace is in order. How has the workplace changed since 1913? What role has the Department of Labor played in this change? A m erican w orkplace— then and now Location of work. A survey of the workplace in the 20th century should begin with a discus sion of its diversity. Americans work in a vari ety of settings from the home to mills and stores.3 Large-scale worksites, such as the mul tistoried office building, the hospital complex, and the sprawling plant, dominate the land scape, but small to medium size enterprises per sist and proliferate, finding niches in our protean and layered market, receiving smallbatch orders on contract from larger core sector firms. An array of services and products are produced in these various environments. 20 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The Labor Department at 75 Some overall shifts in the setting of work in the 20th century are apparent. When the Depart ment of Labor was dedicated in March 1913, slightly less than one-third of the work force was engaged in agricultural pursuits. Today, farmworkers are less than 5 percent of all work ers. The share of manufacturing employment has remained relatively stable, with one-fourth at the turn of the century and less than one-fifth today. The proportion of workers in the service sector, largely in shops and stores, has stayed equally static, growing from 10 percent of the labor force to 15 percent. The greatest employ ment increase has occurred among white-collar office workers. These workers accounted for 20 percent of all workers when William B. Wilson became the first Secretary of Labor; they now account for about 60 percent of the total. In terms of the location of work, the shift from farm to office is the most notable story to be told in the history of the workplace in recent times. Demographic profile. The demographic char acteristics of the workplace have also changed. Compulsory school attendance laws and factory inspection acts, passed at the local and State levels, had begun to make a dent in the problem of child labor before 1913, but 15 to 18 percent of youngsters between age 10 and 15 still were gainfully employed, representing 6 percent of the total work force. (In certain areas, particu larly textile mill and coal mining districts, these numbers were much higher.) Full-time child labor, a scandal in its day, has now passed, by and large, from the American scene. On the opposite end of the age spectrum, there has been a precipitious decline in the em ployment of older workers. Seventy-five years ago, two-thirds of all men over age 65 were still drawing wages; today, less than 20 percent of our male senior citizens are in paid employ ment. The age profile of the labor force has thus changed, with a contraction of labor force par ticipation at both ends of the age scale. The changing role of women in the workplace is an even more dramatic story. In 1913, less than one-fourth of all adult women worked out side the home; in 1987, a clear majority do so. Seventy-five years ago, women made up less than 20 percent of the work force; today they represent nearly 50 percent. Women have not only entered the labor market in greater num bers, but they have remained there for longer periods. Only 10 percent of all 40-year-old women worked in 1913, compared with close to 50 percent of such middle-aged women today. Most notable has been the vast increase in the participation rates of married women. At the time of the inception of the Department of Labor, a small minority of married women, be tween 2 and 3 percent, were in the job market, compared with 40 percent today. The addition of women to the workplace certainly represents a major transformation. The ethnic composition of the work force has also changed. Large-scale immigration at the turn of the century— more than 1 million immigrants reached these shores in 1910 alone— swelled the foreign-bom component of the laboring pop ulation. While the foreign-bom constituted no more than 20 percent of total workers at that time, in major manufacturing centers, particu larly in the Midwest and Northeast, they were a visible majority. The enactment of quota restric tions in 1921 and 1924 slowed immigration to a trickle, and the proportion of foreign-bom came to represent a declining proportion of workers, although second- and third-generation immi grants continued to dominate certain industries. However, two recent decades of increased im migration from Latin America and Southeast Asia have raised the proportion of foreign-bom in the American workplace again. The role of blacks in the workplace has changed, too. In 1913, nearly 90 percent of the black population lived in the South and worked in private homes as servants and on the land as sharecroppers and tenant farmers.4 Around World War I, blacks began migrating in great numbers to the North and West; today less than one-third of the black population reside in the South. Black migrants found few employment opportunities in the new areas: about 90 percent of the women found jobs as domestics, and the men occupied service and common day-labor positions. Only during and after World War II did blacks swell the industrial work force; un fortunately, progress came at a time when the Nation began a long-term process of industrial decline. The greater presence of blacks in the workplace in general is another part of the story of the changing demography of work. Conditions and standards. Improvements during the last 75 years in the conditions and standards under which workers have labored represents a third way in which the American workplace has been transformed. The days worked each week and the hours worked each day have declined; safety on the job has im proved; employment is more regular; various extra awards, such as paid vacations and sick leave, have been institutionalized; and a range of protections is offered— from grievance pro cedures, promotion systems, and seniority rights to unemployment, workplace injury, medical, life, and pension insurance. The com parison between 1913 and 1988 is clear.5 However, progress in fringe benefits and job security has not been uniform or universal. A https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis significant feature of work in 20th-century America is the emergence and development of two sets of occupational opportunities and expe riences. Some workers now hold positions that are relatively well paid, safe, stable, rewarding, and open-ended in terms of advancement and responsibility. Other workers are confined to a sphere of dead-end, casual jobs that have none of these advantages. A bifurcated labor market based on standards and not just on skill is a feature of modern-day work. Work experience. What about the content, na ture, and organization of work in the United States during the 20th century? The vast diver sity of work settings and pursuits makes gener alizations on this subject open to qualification. Still, voluminous research literature attests to the reality that few American workers derive inherent pleasure or satisfaction from their work; that for most, work is not an end in itself, but a means toward greater income and con sumption; and that social interaction at the workplace is valued more than the work itself.6 Whether alienation on the job is significantly greater now than it was 100 or 150 years ago is impossible to determine; the conditions breed ing disaffection, however, certainly predate the establishment of the Department of Labor, with patterns established in the 19th century continu ing into our own times. In the last 75 years, there has been precious little change in the na ture of the work experience. The long-range cause of modem workplace alienation can be traced to transformations in the organization of work that date to the early 19th century. Production of goods according to divisions of tasks on the basis of wage labor and with the use of machinery began then and evolved, albeit in an uneven fashion, through out the 1800’s. At the turn of the 20th century, the division of labor became a studied and con certed matter with time-and-motion studies, piece-rate incentive systems, and publicity ef forts of people like Frederick Winslow Taylor. “Taylorism” also had an uneven history— there was notable resistance from workers and usurped supervisors alike, adding to the unrest of the day that led to the creation of the Depart ment of Labor, and the whole process of task definition and ratemaking could be quite cum bersome in all but the most standardized pro duction endeavors. Yet, detailed task work has become fixed practice in this century, and has been extended from manufacturing to office and service work. Moreover, innovation in “con veyor belt” technology, brought to the fore by Henry Ford and others, wed the machine to the principle of division of labor, leading to more https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • fully developed assembly-line production than ever contemplated or implemented in the 19th century.7 The overburdening of the workplace with new layers of hierarchy and bureaucracy added to the sense of powerlessness for work ers. Thus, for some employees, work has grad ually become more monotonous, meaningless, and dispiriting. However, there are exceptions to this general portrait of work. Small work settings, smallbatch work, and the production of goods ac cording to craft practices persist; some workers, particularly those in new technical occupations, enjoy great autonomy and responsibility; the professional job market has expanded (although specialization increasingly marks the work of lawyers, doctors, and the like); and workers, too, either formally or informally, continue to counter the more dehumanizing aspects of work. Still, recent losses in productivity and the well-documented fact of worker dissatisfaction have rendered the reorganization of work an important issue. At stake is a possible reversal of patterns set in motion at the dawn of the industrial capitalist age. Role o f Labor Departm ent The setting and social demography of the work place, as well as the conditions under which the great majority of workers toil, have changed remarkably since the Congress established the Department of Labor in 1913. What role has the Department played in these changes? The activ ities of the Department of Labor have affected the workplace, although it is in the area of standards that the agency’s impact has been the greatest. The Department of Labor has figured in only a limited and indirect way in shifts in the loca tion of work in this country since 1913. Depart ment enforcement of regulations on conditions of work has raised the costs of labor and con tributed to sectoral shifts, but this aspect is rela tively insignificant and misses more important parts of the total story. Increased agricultural productivity induced by mechanical, chemical, and organizational innovation, the rising capital costs of farming, and the lure of nonagrarian pursuits have brought about a precipitious abso lute and relative fall in the number of people working the land. Increased productivity, foreign competition, and capital mobility and flight similarly have led to very recent declines in manufacturing em ployment, although compared with farming, the industrial component of the work force has re mained fairly stable over the last 75 years. The further formation of national and international markets as well as growth in the scale of enter prise have likewise contributed to an increase in The Labor Department at 75 white-collar employment— more and more workers are needed for the coordination, moni toring, accounting, and facilitation of the flow of goods and services through our more compli cated, global economy. Large-scale occupa tional shifts, then, have had little to do with the existence and operations of the Department of Labor, although there is one worksite— the home— where the agency has played a role in employment shifts. Home work. The home has always been a crit ical location of both paid and unpaid work.8 Despite modem laborsaving devices and reduc tions in the drudgeries of home work, the hours spent in the uncompensated toil of home and family maintenance have not decreased notably over this century. Before 1800, moreover, prac tically all goods produced in this country were made in the home for direct family consumption or local barter. The spread of market activity and mechanized manufacture placed industry outside the home for the first time, but rather than disappearing, home work continued in the 19th century on the basis of the putting-out sys tem and with goods produced expressly for sale in the marketplace. Such contracted home labor had the potential to be classically exploited and “sweated,” and by the 20th century, the practice was under increasing attack from reformers and trade unionists. In the 1940’s, officials of the Department of Labor, relying on powers af forded under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, banned or began policing home work in the most corrupt of instances, garment and ap parel making. The Department, in monitoring paid work in the home in this way, played a direct role in changes in work settings. The question of home labor, however, is far from resolved. Pressure is mounting for the Depart ment to lift its restrictions against work in the home, and as the microcomputer revolution is allowing for the dispersal of certain kinds of office work, the issue of standards by which family members work in the home on a contract basis becomes germane again. Workplace demographics. The Department of Labor, on the surface, has had as minimal an impact on changes in the social composition of the work force as on the location of work. State compulsory school attendance laws, Federal and State acts banning child labor, the greater value families place on education of children, and general gains in real income have been re sponsible for the decline in labor force partici pation of young people. Similarly, Social Secu rity legislation and improvements in real income accumulation have contributed to a reduction in the number of senior citizens at work. Changing attitudes and family economics, as well as equal opportunity legislation and rulings, have dra matically increased the numbers of women in the workplace. Transformations in southern agriculture and civil rights agitation and en forcement have also made blacks a greater part of most workplaces. While the Department of Labor regulated immigration and naturalization until 1940 when the Department of Justice as sumed charge, the reduction in the numbers of foreign-bom at work in America has had more to do with popular feelings, politics, and con gressional decisionmaking than direct Labor Department activity. In at least three ways, however, the Depart ment of Labor has played an important role in the changing demography of the workplace. The steady stream of investigative reporting flowing from the original Bureau of Labor, and then from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Children’s and W omen’s Bureaus of the Department of Labor have placed the easily hidden labor market problems of children, women, blacks, and immigrants clearly in view and provided ammunition for reformers and reason for legislative action. Various Sec retaries of Labor have also been prime movers behind legislation and executive orders open ing the doors of the American workplace to disadvantaged groups. Job placement. The Department of Labor also significantly figures in the flow and funneling of workers into and through the labor market, par ticularly people in search of work. The Depart ment, through the U.S. Employment Service, operates the largest labor exchange in the world, collecting information on job openings from employers and providing referrals to prospec tive employees.9 This function dates back to 1907 when the Bureau of Immigration and Nat uralization opened an employment office for immigrants. The Labor Department inherited this operation in 1913 and, in 1915, the U.S. Employment Service was created to assist the general population of unemployed and jobseek ers. The Employment Service flourished during World War I, helping to allocate labor to wartime industries; then its role was curtailed in the 1920’s. The Wagner-Peyser Act, passed in 1933, created a new U.S. Employment Service which now is in its sixth decade of service. Starting in the 1940’s, various attempts were made to upgrade the Employment Service’s image and function by asking it to handle more than low-level entry positions. In recent years, the Employment Service has made between 4 million and 5 million placements a year, up wards of 15 percent of the yearly total of new hires in the economy. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Worker training. A third way in which the Department of Labor affects the demography of the work force lies in worker training, espe cially in efforts to enhance the skills and poten tial for employment of young people and older displaced workers. This role has developed in a fuller manner only recently.10 The Department oversaw special training programs during World Wars I and II and in 1937, under the National Apprenticeship Act, received responsibility for promoting and monitoring the apprenticeship programs of businesses. Until the 1960’s, the Federal Government’s role in labor force partic ipation, however, remained centered on schools and the encouragement and financing of voca tional education. At that time, widespread youth unemployment and the severe employment problems of various disadvantaged groups called for a different approach and program. In 1961, the Congress enacted the Area Develop ment Act and, in 1962, the Manpower Develop ment and Training Act, which placed the Labor Department in charge of a number of training efforts. Jurisdiction for these projects was di vided among a number of Federal agencies, and general support has wavered since the early 1970’s; yet, the Department of Labor’s record on manpower training gives it definite first claim on future initiatives.11 . .prime movers. .. opening the doors of the workplace. . . Enforcing standards. As to the question of the standards and conditions under which men and women work, a number of developments can be cited to account for the change. The labor unrest of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a sure sign that new strategies had to be forged to remotivate labor— the corporate form itself, bu reaucratic structures of management, and assembly-line production techniques had de stroyed incentives. If the work held no inherent interest or value now, if independent masterhood no longer served as a goal, diligence and loyalty had to be instilled and engendered in unprecedented ways. The stick approach— in creased supervision, Taylorism, unionbusting— worked only to a point; corporate managers were now forced to look for and ex periment with more positive methods. Allow for careers within firms, create status hierarchies and promotion systems, offer new benefits, so cial programs, and insurance protections— these were paternalistic efforts first attempted at the turn of the century and greatly extended during the 1920’s. Improved conditions thus came partially from top management in re sponse both to the symptom, industrial conflict, and the cause of the problem, changes in the organization of production at the workplace. Workers also forced new standards from below. Unions demanded higher wages, shorter 23 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW . .the official policing agency of the workplace. February 1988 • hours, guaranteed work, grievance and seniority rights, and pensions. Part of the great campaign to organize workers in the mass production in dustries in the 1930’s, in fact, represented an effort by workers to reinstall under union con trol many of the paternalistic programs jetti soned by managers during the stringent times of the Great Depression; transforming jobs with few advantages to more secure and desirable employment was another aspect of the organiz ing campaign. In this way, the unions contributed to the creation of a two-tiered labor market and institutionalization of a new system of work incentives. Government also played a critical role in im proving conditions of employment, and here the Department of Labor figured as the key agent of change. The Department’s role in setting and enforcing standards dates to World War I, when firms receiving government orders for goods and services had to abide by various stipulations on working conditions formulated and overseen by the Department. In 1934, a Division of Labor Standards was created in the Department with the responsibility to encourage and advise State officials in the formation of local ameliorative measures. Legislation passed during the New Deal years also placed the Department in charge of setting and upholding guidelines for work on Federal construction projects and, once again, firms under contract to the Government. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which among other items banned child labor and established maximum hours and minimum wage rates for enterprises engaged in interstate commerce, represented a crowning touch. The act rendered the Department of Labor the official policing agency of the workplace, a crucial function it fulfills to this day. Safety and health. Finally, in the last two decades, the Department has assumed a new role specifically relating to safety and health standards at work, certainly a vital matter. In 1970, the Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which gave the Depart ment of Labor authority to set guidelines to pro tect workers from work-related accidents and diseases and the power to inspect workplaces and fine employers who violated Departmentestablished regulations. In 1971, a separate ex ecutive agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, was created to enforce the requirements set and revised by Labor De partment officials. While the actual impact of the Occupational Safety and Health Adminis tration remains an issue of debate, the Depart ment continues its historical role in improving conditions of work by attending, since the early 24 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The Labor Department at 75 1970’s, to the specific but crucial matter of workplace safety.12 Future challenges If there is one area of working conditions that remains impervious to change, it is in the nature of the work experience. The Department of Labor in its traditional charge of documentation and publication has helped make workplace alienation a public concern, but the agency has not played a transformative role. This raises the question of the future course of action. What place will the Department of Labor occupy in decades to come? Any discussion of the future role of the Labor Department must acknowledge that the agency operates under severe limitations. The Congress delegates responsibilities and provides funding; respective Presidents and Secretaries of Labor shape the Department’s practices and sway. Over the last 75 years, the Department of Labor, through successive bureaucratic over hauls, has also seen its jurisdictions circum scribed, eliminated, and partitioned. The De partment’s authority over immigration was transferred to the Department of Justice in 1940; its authority over conciliation was passed to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in 1947. The Congress created a separate National Labor Relations Board and Social Security Ad ministration which are involved in activities that could have been lodged in the Labor Depart ment. During the 1960’s, the agency further shared responsibility for worker training with numerous other Federal offices (creating a scat tered and diffused initiative). Since 1913, ques tions about the Department’s relationship with the trade union movement have made congres sional legislators hesitant to render it full pow ers. The Department’s future course and role, then, is not certain. The Labor Department, however, could play an important part in the pressing current and continuing problem of workplace alienation. Worker-owned businesses, team production, quality-of-worklife groups, and greater worker participation in managerial decisionmaking are reforms presently being discussed and tried. A national commitment to transforming the orga nization and experience of work might see the Department of Labor, in the years ahead, be coming initiator, designer, monitor, and regula tor of such efforts. In the absence of this new kind of mandate, the Department no doubt will continue to fulfill its original mission: to enforce standards already agreed to by legislators and gather the information necessary for the Ameri can people to make better decisions about the way we work. □ -FOOTNOTES1 Standard histories of the Department of Labor include Twenty-Five Years o f Service, 1913-1938 (Department of Labor, 1938); The Anvil and the Plow: A History o f the United States Department o f Labor (U.S. Department of Labor, 1963); Ewan Clague, The Bureau o f Labor Statistics (New York, Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1968); and Jonathan Grossman, The Department o f Labor (New York, Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1973). 2 Melvyn Dubofsky, Industrialism and the American Worker, 1865-1920 (Arlington Heights, il , Harlan David son, 1985). Scholars remain in debt to the Department of Labor for its voluminous publications. Statistics reported in this essay are drawn from a remarkable historical com pendium of information on the American workplace, Two Hundred Years o f Work in America (U.S. Department of Labor, 1976). 3 Philip Scranton and Walter Licht, Work Sights: Indus trial Philadelphia, 1890-1950 (Philadelphia, Temple Uni versity Press, 1986). 4 William H. Harris, The Harder We Run: Black Workers Since the Civil War (New York, Oxford University Press, 1982). 5 Historical treatments of the American workplace in the 20th century include Richard Edwards, Contested Terrain: The Transformation o f the Workplace in the Twentieth Cen tury (New York, Basic Books, 1979); Andrew Zimbalist, ed., Case Studies in the Labor Process (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1979); Michael Burawoy, Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1979); https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis David Gordon, Richard Edwards, and Michael Reich, Seg mented Work, Divided Workers: The Historical Transfor mation o f Labor in the United States (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1982); and Sanford Jacoby, Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation o f Work in American Industry, 1900-1945 (New York, Co lumbia University Press, 1985). 6 Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Educa tion, and Welfare, Work in America (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1973). 7 David Hounshell, From American System to Mass Pro duction, 1800-1932: The Development o f Manufacturing Technology in the United States (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984). 8 Susan Strasser, Never Done: A History o f American Housework (New York, Pantheon, 1982). 9 Henry Guzda, “The U.S. Employment Service at 50: it too had to wait its turn,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1983, pp. 12-19. 10 Ewan Clague and Leo Kramer, Manpower Policies and Programs: A Review, 1935-75 (Kalamazoo, mi, W. E. Up john Institute For Employment Research, 1976). 11 Joseph Hamilton Ball, “The Implementation of Federal Manpower Policy, 1961-1971: A Study in Bureaucratic Competition and Intergovernmental Relations” (Ph. D dis sertation, Columbia University, 1972). 12 Charles Noble, Liberation at Work: The Rise and Fall o f OSHA (Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1986). The day the Departm ent was born The law creating a U.S. Department of Labor, signed by President William H. Taft on March 4, 1913, was virtually overlooked among the historic events of that day. The city of Washington was bursting with goings on of all kinds. It was Inauguration Day for Woodrow Wilson and there was the usual social whirl that accompanies such an event. In addition, the 62d Congress was still in session on Inauguration morning. The retiring President had a pile of bills upon which to act, one of them being the Sulzer Bill to create a Department of Labor headed by a Cabinet officer. Taft had mixed feelings about the bill and faced a difficult choice: he could sign it into law, even though he was not pleased with it; he could veto it outright, even though his objections to the bill might be misinter preted; or, by taking no action, he could let the bill die when his term of office ran out— the so-called “pocket veto.” That morning the New York Times reported that the outgoing President might veto the bill, send his reasons to Congress, and give the advocates of the measure a chance to override his veto, if they could. After an early breakfast, with only a few hours before Woodrow Wilson took office, President Taft went to the executive office in the Senate. The Department of Labor bill was still unsigned. Following tradition, the President-elect arrived at the office before being received in the Senate. He could see the rotund figure of Taft at work in the next room signing bills. During these closing hours of his administration, President Taft signed into law the act giving birth to the Department of Labor. — J onathan G ro ssm a n , “The origin of the U.S. Department of Labor,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1973, p. 3. Gender, race, and the policies of the Labor Department Promoting equal jo b opportunity for women and minority men, of little concern in the Department's early years, made headway in the 1960's and 1970's E il e e n B o r is and hen Congress established the Depart ment of Labor in 1913, both women and minority men faced limited em ployment opportunities. Throughout tion, white women in the labor force found themselves in low-paying industrial, clerical, and retail positions. Most Afro-Americans re mained in the South where they worked as sharecroppers and agricultural laborers or, if fe male, domestic servants. But, lured to the North by better-paying industrial work and the labor shortages of the World War I years, blacks would soon begin that mass exodus called the “Great Migration.”1 While race and gender stood as key determi nants of occupation, neither the employment status of women nor that of minority men was among early d o l priorities. The first years of the Department were taken up with other matters, W Eileen Boris is an assistant professor of history at Howard University, Washington. Michael Honey is a visiting assis tant professor of history at Wesleyan University. 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M ic h a e l H o n e y particularly the conciliation of labor disputes. Moreover, the Department took its modem form at the very time that President Woodrow the Na under congressional pressure, segre Wilson, gated Federal eating and restroom facilities by race and phased most blacks out of the civil service.2 Early departmental programs reflected cul tural attitudes towards both white women and Afro-Americans, and thus reinforced the exist ing division of labor by race and sex. They also suggest how the Department, and the Govern ment as a whole, addressed the needs of women separately from those of minorities, with the problems of minority women often getting lost between the two. The United States Employ ment Service, an agency of the Labor Depart ment, established a women’s and girl’s division at the end of 1916 “to guide [women] in desir able industry and avoidance of occupations and places where evil conditions exist.” With its emphasis on “suitable” employments and its concern with labor standards such as minimum wages and maximum hours (known as protec tive labor legislation), this division embodied an attitude that would persist until the late 1960’s: [White] women workers required protection on the job because their biology supposedly made them different from men, and thus only certain employments were appropriate for the mothers of the Nation.3 The social place of Afro-Americans similarily shaped d o l treatment of them. During the early years of the Great Migration, the U.S. Employment Service assisted blacks who sought employment in the North by advising them on available jobs; later, com plaints from southern employers, who feared losing their abundant labor supply, led the agency to “withdraw its facilities from group migration.”4 With the onset of World War I, the Nation hurried to mobilize its labor power while simul taneously increasing productivity. Thus, the Federal Government sought to make the best use of women and minority male laborers for the duration of the emergency. The state would “insure the effective employment of women while conserving their health and welfare” even as their labor was allocated temporarily to men’s work; programs for blacks attempted “to increase the efficiency of Negro wage earners by improving their condition” and by “pro moting cooperation between the races for the harmonizing of their relations.”5 William B. Wilson, the first Secretary of Labor, and Assistant Secretary Louis Post, an early supporter of civil rights, both fought to improve the economic position of black work ers. In consultation with W.E.B. DuBois, leader of the National Association for the Ad vancement of Colored People, they established the Division of Negro Economics within the U.S. Employment Service in 1917. The Divi sion was responsible for recruiting and placing workers in war production, and was directed by George E. Haynes, a black professor from Fisk University. Under Haynes’ leadership, the Labor Department established interracial labor advisory committees in the South, investigated the working conditions of black women, and attempted to enforce wage rates for blacks that were equal to those of whites. The Division of Negro Economics encouraged the Employment Service not only to mobilize black workers for the war effort but also to help them find housing and generally adjust to urbanization and indus trial employment. As historian Henry Guzda has noted, “long before equal employment op portunity became a priority, this division pro moted the concepts of that philosophy.”6 Women’s groups also demanded equality, in cluding equal pay for equal work. The Labor https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Department initially relied upon the efforts of voluntary women’s organizations to furnish the Employment Service with data on needs for women’s labor and on women’s availability for the war effort. The Women in Industry Service, under Mary Van Kleeck of the Russell Sage Foundation and Mary Anderson of the Women’s Trade Union League, formed in July 1918 as a policymaking and advisory agency. Not only did it coordinate other wartime agen cies through the Council on Women in Industry, but its director, unlike the head of the Division of Negro Economics, sat on the War Labor Poli cies Board. Though so badly underfunded that it had to rely on women’s organizations for re sources and personnel— as would its successor, the Women’s Bureau— the Women in Industry Service studied the conditions of women work ers in industry. It recommended new labor standards and safeguarded existing ones, called for wage rates based on productivity rather than the sex of the worker, and especially fought for health and safety regulations. To protect women’s reproductive capabilities, it sought to exclude women from jobs subject to lead poi soning. Otherwise, the Women in Industry Service promoted changing the conditions of labor, not the sex of the laborers.7 Responding to the perceived power of the women’s movement and the enfranchisement of women voters, Congress created the Women’s Bureau as a permanent agency of the Labor De partment on June 5, 1920, “to formulate stand ards and policies which shall promote the wel fare of wage-earning women, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment.” Essentially a factfinding agency, the Women’s Bureau researched conditions in the Federal Government (including those of black charwomen), the general industrial out look in various States, State labor laws and reg ulations, and the home life of wage-earning women, especially their problems in combining wage labor with child care and housework. The Bureau continued to push protective labor legis lation for women, rejecting the Equal Rights Amendment as a threat to women workers be cause it would negate minimum wage and max imum hours laws. Without such protections, the Bureau argued, working women would be un able to fulfill their roles as childbearers and rear ers. In 1921, 1922, and 1929, the Bureau re ported on the substandard working conditions of black women, who earned less than white women and worked longer hours at the least desirable occupations. It pleaded “for the well being of the community that there shall be no reduction in these standards but rather that for both races there shall be a steady improvement ‘ ‘Early programs reflected cultural attitudes. 27 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • in the relationship between earning and neces sary expenses for healthful living.”8 In contrast to the Women in Industry Service, the Division of Negro Economics left no institu tional legacy after the war. Once mobilization ended, so did the Government’s commitment towards lessening discrimination against black workers, even though their foothold in industry was precarious. In 1919, race riots, a product of growing competition for jobs and housing, ex ploded in major American cities, including the Nation’s capital. In response to such tensions, Wilson and Post wanted to maintain Haynes and his Division as a permanent branch of the Labor • Department, but white southern Congressmen killed proposals to extend the life of the Divi sion. Without retaining even a factfinding agency devoted to black workers, the Labor De partment focused its attention elsewhere during the 1920’s.9 The New Deal and W orld W ar II The New Deal improved the lives of women and minority male workers, but its programs ulti mately reinforced the division of the labor mar ket by gender and race.10 By the time the Roose velt administration came to power in 1933, the unemployment and underemployment rates of Afro-Americans were double and triple those of whites in many areas of the Nation. Dispro portionately employed in agriculture, AfroAmericans were among the first to lose jobs and the last to obtain relief. The New Deal recovery and reform programs, in combination with the rise of industrial unionism through the Congress of Industrial Organizations, offered hope to the Afro-American community. Many blacks also looked to the Labor Department for econo mic relief, particularly to Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins— a longtime supporter of racial equality.11 Perkins attempted to fulfill these hopes, but the former social worker and her agency lacked the necessary political clout to overcome en trenched opposition to racial equality. Although she influenced the direction of the “alphabet” agencies of the New Deal, Congress removed the Department from direct control over nearly all significant labor programs. Within the De partment, however, Secretary Perkins was able to abolish segregated eating facilities and to hire new black employees and promote others. She insisted that the Employment Service find jobs for blacks and whites on an impartial basis, added blacks to the Service’s staff, and stopped efforts within the Department to dismiss black elevator operators. The Women’s Bureau, the Children’s Bureau, and other agencies of the Department studied black employment and working conditions, helped to publicize dis The Labor Department at 75 crimination against blacks, and recommended ways to end discrimination. In 1934, Perkins renewed the Department’s commitment to black workers by appointing Conciliation Commis sioner Lawrence Oxley as director of a Division of Negro Labor to coordinate the Department’s activities and offer special advice to the Secre tary.12 The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act ( f l s a ) proved to be the one exception to the Labor Department’s overall lack of authority over labor programs, but the gaps in its original cov erage made it a weak tool for improving the status of women and minority workers.13 Perkins protested f l s a exclusion from coverage of domestic servants and agricultural laborers, the occupations dominated by minority men and women. Because the act applied only to em ployers involved in interstate commerce, it also left most service employees, who tended to be women and minority men, unprotected. Under such limitations, the Labor Department had lit tle power to stop discriminatory practices by private employers. Perkins, however, continued to testify against the employment and wage dis crimination that Oxley and his staff docu mented. Even where the Department had authority over hiring practices, as in the case of the U.S. Employment Service, it could not halt discrimi nation at the local level. Especially in the South, the Service’s administrators cooperated with white building trades unionists, contractors, and local politicians to keep blacks out of Federally financed construction projects and make-work programs. Although the Department ultimately succeeded in securing permits for some black construction workers, local administrators of Federal relief and recovery programs hired whites before blacks, assigned blacks to the least-skilled jobs, supported interracial wage differentials, and often excluded blacks from work altogether. President Roosevelt was reluc tant to intervene against racial exclusion and discrimination within the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration, and other programs because he was dependent upon southern congressional votes; Secretary Perkins acquiesced in the President’s wishes.14 While Afro-Americans and Chicanos in the Southwest faced persistent discrimination and were often excluded from New Deal programs, relief agencies assigned women (depending on their race) to traditional female pursuits, like sewing, housekeeping, or typing.15 Under Sec tion 213 of the 1932 Economy Act, which called for the dismissal of married persons if their spouse also worked for the Government, Fed eral agencies tended to discriminate against women, causing the Women’s Bureau to protest that, contrary to public opinion, “marital status as a basis for employment or dismissal is not sound.” 16 Meanwhile, the industrial codes of the National Recovery Administration incorpo rated wage differentials by sex and region, which led to lower wages for southern black workers.17 The Department of Labor protested against these wage inequalities. The Women’s Bureau, for example, lodged 465 protests against 182 approved codes, gaining 224 changes in 119 codes, of which nearly threefourths addressed women’s wages. In the end, sex distinctions in wages remained in only slightly more than one-fourth of the approved codes, while over 70 percent of the codes for industries in which industrial home work was prevalent called for its abolition.18 While n r a prohibition of home work ended with the demise of the codes, the Wage and Hour Divi sion of the Labor Department, which adminis tered f l s a , was able to prohibit home work in seven garment-related industries in the early 1940’s .19 Because of the continuing activities of the Women’s Bureau, the Labor Department ad dressed the conditions of female labor more consistently than it did the conditions of minor ity men. Throughout the 1930’s, the Women’s Bureau studied the impact of the depression on women industrial workers and their families. With the National Council of Negro Women, the Young Women’s Christian Association, and other women’s organizations, it sought to raise the wage, hours, and other standards of house hold employment, and thus improve the work ing conditions of domestics. Most significantly, the Bureau functioned as a clearinghouse for labor standards legislation for the States, espe cially for local efforts to pass minimum wage bills. Along with the Labor Department’s new Division of Labor Standards, the Bureau was able to facilitate the passage of intrastate orders affecting women workers in service establish ments such as laundries and beauty parlors. It thus extended minimum wage and maximum hour protections to numbers of minority women for the first time. Throughout the 1930’s, policymakers for the Women’s Bureau continued to advocate that mothers remain at home. However, in part be cause there were mothers in the labor market, the Bureau sought to strengthen protective labor legislation for women. Despite clinging to tradi tional ideas of a “woman’s place,” the Women’s Bureau remained a staunch defender of working women, recognizing that “the substitution of women for men at lower pay . . . brings all wages down to a lower level and seriously re duces the consumers’ purchasing power.” Bu reau representatives argued that economic re https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis covery depended on improving women’s status in the labor market.20 With the shift to war production in 1940 and the entry of women into jobs previously held only by men, the Women’s Bureau began to monitor labor standards for war workers, in cluding those relating to lunch and rest periods, nightwork, rotation of shifts, sanitation, and safety. The Bureau specified the labor processes where womanpower could be most efficiently mobilized, providing war plants with detailed analyses of appropriate jobs and working with Employment Service regional labor supply committees. Not content with merely deploying womanpower, the Bureau continued its mission to protect women workers, studying the burden some double day of homemaker and wage earner and supporting the development of day care and other community services.21 Equal pay, or “the rate for the job regardless of the sex of the worker,” became a prime goal of the Bureau. Because many women performed processes previously done by men, it appeared particularly important to maintain the rate for the job in order to sustain men’s wages after the war. Despite the success of the Women’s Bu reau in incorporating equal pay into wage scales at Government arsenals and in public contracts, and despite the approval given by the National War Labor Board for the principle that all wage increases should conform to State equal pay laws, employers resisted and few wartime wage orders actually mandated equal pay for equal work.22 Although the Women’s Bureau probed the conditions of black women workers during the war, it concentrated on discrimination based on sex, not race.23 The Women’s Bureau served as an advocate for women, but no equivalent agency existed in the Department when it came to racial minorities. The Division of Negro Labor did not have the status of a Bureau and its tenure depended on the support of the Secretary of Labor; nor did it provide the sort of clearing house for information on civil rights that the Women’s Bureau offered the Department for women’s issues. Within the Federal Govern ment, racial discrimination came under the purview of the Fair Employment Practices Committee— a product of black demands for full civil rights— and not the Department of Labor.24 Thus, the contribution of the Labor Depart ment toward improving the situation of black workers proved singularly disappointing, for reasons similar to those which limited the De partment’s role during the New Deal. Instead of expanding the Department, as was done during World War I, the President mobilized the labor force for World War II through the War Man- . .few wartime wage orders actually mandated equal pay for equal work. ’ ’ 29 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • power Commission and other agencies outside its jurisdiction. The most important Departmen tal division influencing wartime employment was the U.S. Employment Service, which be came the “operating arm” of the War Manpower Commission. But, as in the 1930’s, local ad ministrators abetted segregation in the South and discrimination in the North. For example, local branches of the Employment Service, along with employers, excluded AfroAmericans from Gulf Coast shipyards, an act which led to intervention by the Fair Employ ment Practices Committee. The percentage of blacks placed in war industries by the Employ ment Service declined during the early mobi lization effort, from 5.4 percent of those placed in 1940 to 2.5 percent in early 1941.25 The Labor Department was aware of racial discrimination in employment at the local level and in defense plants. The Monthly Labor Re view began some of its most extensive reporting of discrimination during the war years, and per sisted in discussing sensitive issues, like promo tion and seniority systems, racial wage differen tials, and other forms of discrimination sanctioned by employers, unions, and govern ment officials. Like the War Manpower Com mission, the Monthly Labor Review issued nu merous reports on the status of black laborers, and Lt. Oxley and his Division of Negro Labor continued to compile statistics and report on labor conditions. However, no effective ma chinery for fighting discrimination existed within the Department.26 Thus, Employment Service job and training programs continued to discriminate against black men and women. While the Monthly Labor Review enthusiastically reported in November 1943 on the training of blacks for industrial work in Memphis, Division of Negro Labor reports indicated that these vocational programs systematically shunted black men into lesser skilled jobs than those offered white men, and ignored the training of black women altogether. Even where blacks were trained for skilled positions, the local branches of the Employment Service refused to release them for such work. Such discrim ination produced predictable results: Although the number of blacks (mostly men) working as craftspersons and semiskilled operatives doubled from 1940 to 1944, at the end of the war 4 out of 5 black men remained unskilled laborers.27 Perhaps the Labor Department was reluctant to intercede because the Employ ment Service was a Federal-State partnership. In any case, while the Employment Practices Committee conducted hearings and the War Labor Board issued directives abolishing racial wage differentials, the Labor Department had The Labor Department at 75 little to show in the way of antidiscrimination efforts.28 Postw ar, Cold War: 1945-60 From demobilization in 1945, through the 1950’s, advocates of racial and gender equality struggled with limited success for better jobs, wages, and employment levels for women and minority men. In the aftermath of the war, re turning veterans regained higher-paying jobs as they replaced female and minority male workers who had been new to the industrial labor force. As disproportionate numbers of minorities and women were laid off, the Labor Department supported legislation to establish a national commission against employment discrimination and to make racial discrimination in hiring un lawful. It also lobbied for legislation that would prohibit discrimination between the sexes in the payment of wages, and called for a commission to study the status of women with the purpose of eliminating discriminatory State and Federal laws. Throughout the postwar period, and espe cially during the “manpower” crisis of the Ko rean war, the Department continued to advocate Federal action to end employment discrimina tion against minorities and to gain equal pay for women. But it persisted in view-ing fair em ployment and equal pay as separate issues, rather than seeing the ways that sexual and racial divisions reflected similar discriminatory labor market mechanisms.29 As during the period following World War I, an increasingly conservative political climate stymied the fight for fair employment and equal pay. The new Congress eliminated the Fair Em ployment Practices Committee, and passed the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 which curbed the power of organized labor. In polarizing public opinion in this country, the onset of the Cold War not only undermined antidiscrimination programs and placed the labor movement on the defensive, but also encouraged congressional efforts to dismantle the Department of Labor, which by 1949 had its smallest staff since the administration of President Coolidge. Subse quent years saw Labor Department leaders spending much of their time fighting merely to keep the Department alive.30 Under these circumstances, the Division of Negro Labor was allowed to die, and during the 1950’s, discussion of antidiscrimination pro grams nearly disappeared from the annual re ports of the Secretary of Labor. In contrast to the 1940’s, during which studies of black labor by the Department had flourished, such investi gations declined in scope, significance, and number.31 While the National Manpower Mobi lization Policy of 1951 specified promoting the employment of women and minority men as part of the Korean War effort, U.S. Employ ment Service labor recruitment policies increas ingly served to screen out disadvantaged, and hence “least qualified,” workers on the behalf of employers.32 In a similar vein, critics charged that the Employment Service served the inter ests of growers of farm produce in the West by working with State employment officials to sup ply cheap Hispanic labor through the Bracero program, which allowed workers to come from Mexico as seasonal farm laborers. (Having sup plied 445,000 temporary workers at its peak in 1956, the Bracero program was phased out be tween 1965 and 1968 as part of a general effort to improve the wages and working conditions of all agricultural laborers.33) With the Department and its anti-discrimination policies in eclipse, the Eisenhower administration relied upon eco nomic growth to provide opportunity for women and minority men to advance themselves in the labor market. Despite the setbacks of the postwar years, the Women’s Bureau continued its efforts on behalf of women workers. It sought to expand employ ment opportunities for women by analyzing labor demand for specific occupations in the growing health, food, and social services sec tors, but also in scientific and technical fields. The Bureau worked with the Employment Serv ice to study public and private training and placement services and began to emphasize training and counseling, especially for the young, for older workers, and for “dis advantaged” minorities. During the next 15 years, the Bureau issued numerous bulletins devoted to career choices and preparation, in cluding “The Outlook for Women in Police Work” (1949) and “Employment Opportunities for Women in Professional Accounting” (1955). Some of these broke through existing occupa tional segregation by sex, but most reflected the establishment of new arenas of “women’s work.”34 And because women continued to hold different jobs than men, the Bureau found it easy to argue that women did not take jobs away from men. Despite the attempt to keep up with the changing shape of the economy, the Bureau still tended to try to channel women back into tradi tional industries, like power-laundry and house hold employment, belying its stated aim to “salvag[e] wartime gains . . . and raise employ ment standards.” While such channeling af fected minority women disproportionately, the strengthening and extending of the minimum wage at the State level did much to improve their wages. In 1950, the Women’s Bureau lob bied for a successful bill to extend Social Secu rity protection to household workers, most of whom were Afro-American women. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis During the early postwar years, the Women’s Bureau also began to investigate the needs of Puerto Rican and migrant farm women, many of whom were Hispanic. Assisted by local women’s organizations, it held earning opportu nities forums for older women and other targeted groups. Traditional areas of women’s work— teaching, clerical jobs, and nursing— suffered shortages, especially during the Ko rean war when women again could obtain higher-paying jobs. The Bureau encouraged women’s entry into these fields through the ex pansion of part-time work. Thus, the Bureau appeared determined to improve the world of women’s work rather than to break down the barriers between “male” and “female” jobs. At a time when the popular press was advis ing women to leave the work force but the num ber of working mothers was rising, the Women’s Bureau focused on the problems of married women workers. Under its aegis, the 1948 conference, “The American Woman, Her Changing Role— Worker, Homemaker, Citi zen,” set the agenda for the next two decades. The Bureau called for increased opportunities for part-time work for women (but not as a sub stitute for full-time jobs), maternity leave, im proved status and standards for household workers, increased female participation in trade unions, establishment of adequate child care facilities, and “development of security and sufficiency of income.” By 1958, after Russian success with Sputnik encouraged scientific training for the U.S. population, the Women’s Bureau emphasized the Nation’s need for “womanpower” but without disregarding the realities of women’s responsibilities in the home, their intermittent work histories, and the inadequate training of many women. The Bureau also continued to advocate equal pay, rather than fair employment, legislation.35 Only with the last-minute insertion of the word “sex” into Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were the parallel but separate fights against racial and sexual discrimination brought to gether in the law.36 Civil rights, w om en’s rights: 1960-80 The struggles for civil rights and women’s rights in the 1960’s pushed the Federal Govern ment to take a more active role in ending em ployment discrimination and improving the economic position of women and minority men. The years of the Kennedy administration set the stage for later affirmative action and manpower programs, with passage of the Manpower De velopment and Training Act of 1962 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The Women’s Bureau provided research assistance to the President’s Commission on the Status of Women which, in . .during the 1960’s and 1970's, programs represented a national commitment to equity... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • its 1963 report, recommended equal opportuni ties in hiring, training, promotion, and pay; im proved education and counseling for girls; better labor legislation for women; and “new and ex panded services to enable women to meet more effectively their responsibilities as homemakers and workers,” especially day care. In later years, the Bureau also supported equal employ ment opportunities for women, reflecting the changed legal climate generated by Title V II,. which overturned protective labor laws for women.37 The Presidency of Lyndon Johnson inaugu rated a period of unprecedented willingness on the part of the Federal Government to intervene in uprooting structural unemployment, poverty, and employer and union discrimination. Em ployment opportunity and decent wages and working conditions for women and for black and other minority men were, according to then Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz, “finally iden tified and significantly recognized as a matter of right” by the Nation. In large measure, the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations contin ued this committment to reducing economic dis parities between whites and blacks and between men and women.38 Wirtz most clearly enunciated the philosophy of affirmative action, the use of government influence to better the status of blacks and other disadvantaged groups within the society. “There are two Americas— one characterized by gen eral affluence and comfort, the other by grim deprivation and daily misery,” he reported in 1967, concluding that “further economic growth would not alone rescue prosperity’s disadvan taged.” The position of minorities resulted from a history of societal prejudice, augmented by social policy and government action or inaction. Thus, only social policy and government action, in tandem with efforts to root out racial preju dice, could reverse this situation.39 Hence, as part of the Great Society Program of the Johnson years, the Labor Department helped to initiate and administer programs such as the Neighborhood Youth Corps (aimed at providing jobs for young people), the Concen trated Employment Program (aimed at pulling the hardcore unemployed into the economic mainstream), and others which expended mil lions of dollars in an effort to break the cycle of poverty dominating minority communities. The Department cooperated with the Office of Eco nomic Opportunity in its even more massive antipoverty and jobs programs. Reflecting a longstanding concern with standards for house hold work and the status of household workers, the Women’s Bureau brought together numer ous government and private organizations to The Labor Department at 75 form the National Committee on Household Employment in 1965. The U.S. Employment Service became an agency which enforced equal rights; instead of buttressing pre-existing racial and sexual employment patterns, it began to focus its efforts on workers who had been pushed to the margins of the labor force. Equally significantly, under Executive Order 11246, the Department of Labor began to force companies with Federal Government contracts to take “affirmative action” and employ more women and minority men. By 1968, the Gov ernment had consolidated many labor-related programs under the control of the Labor Depart ment, reversing earlier congressional and presidental whittling away of the Department’s man date. By then, Wirtz could boast that the percentage of blacks in higher grades of em ployment was twice as large in the Labor De partment as in any other major Federal agency. 40 The Nixon and Ford administrations began to shift responsibility for economic and other ini tiatives from the Federal Government to the States, cut back social programs, and rely more upon private employers to reduce discrimination in the labor market. Under Nixon, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance of the Labor De partment strengthened affirmative action by re quiring Federal contractors to implement hiring goals and timetables for the employment of women and minority men. The Philadelphia Plan, a project supported by Labor Secretary George P. Shultz, extended these procedures to the construction trades, causing bitter fights be tween the Department and the a f l -c io unions. While the Women’s Bureau became part of the Wage and Labor Standards Administration within the Department of Labor in the early 1960’s, it continued to promote the interests of working women, focusing on training and em ployment opportunities for racial and ethnic mi norities, offenders and ex-offenders, youths, older women, and women in low-skilled, lowpaying occupations. The years of the Nixon and Ford administra tions witnessed significant enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Equal Pay Act— the latter extended to executive, adminis trative, professional, and outside sales work ers— and also saw a new inclusiveness in labor standards legislation. In 1973 alone, the Depart ment’s Employment Standards Division secured backpayments of over $18 million to 29,618 workers, most of them women, while the De partment, along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, negotiated a settle ment of $15 million with American Telephone and Telegraph Co. for violation of the Equal Pay Act, thus providing a model for civil rights agreements for the rest of the decade. In 1974, coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act was expanded to domestic service workers, fi nally protecting a large number of minority women. Two years later, unemployment in surance coverage was extended to agricultural and private household workers; also, pregnancy no longer could be used to deny benefits to unemployed women. During the early 1970’s, the Department sought to bring those thought to be “unemploy able” into the labor force. “By overcoming traditional barriers,” w in (the Work Incentive Program) attempted to increase employment op portunities among women, who composed more than 75 percent of its participants. Critics be lieved that the true goal of w in was to reduce welfare expenditures, but it proved a failure on both accounts, c e t a (the Comprehensive Em ployment and Training Act), which decentral ized manpower activities beginning in 1975, was more successful. Under c e t a , special pro grams were developed to serve Indians and the overwhelmingly Hispanic migrant and seasonal farmworkers. The Women’s Bureau also worked with c e t a to create model programs for women in apprenticeship and in nontraditional jobs and the Women’s Bureau too began to di rect programs to reservation Indians and Hispanics, as well as the rural poor.41 These efforts continued during the Carter years. The Carter administration faced economic “stagflation” during the second half of the 1970’s as it sought to redress the economic con sequences of racial discrimination. Probably no Secretary of Labor before Ray Marshall had as deep an understanding of the historical nature of the economic disadvantage of black workers.42 During Marshall’s tenure, the Department par ticipated in suits against the steel industry and other large employers for failing to live up to affirmative action agreements in Federal con tracts, and helped to win backpay for workers who had been discriminated against. New regu lations allowed for accurate documentation of employer discrimination. The Department placed all equal opportunity compliance pro grams within its Office of Federal Contract Compliance, producing what Marshall called “one-stop administration and enforcement” of equal opportunity laws. This step made it in creasingly difficult for employers to evade affir mative action. In a number of cases, those who did so were debarred from Federal contracts. In this climate, the percentage of minorities involved in apprenticeship programs dramati cally expanded, providing a new avenue for ac cess to skilled jobs. (At the same time, the Women’s Bureau joined the Department’s Bu https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reau of Apprenticeship and Training to increase the numbers of women in apprenticeships.) Under Federal pressure, public works contrac tors, universities, and other public institutions increased recruitment of minorities, who en tered skilled and professional positions in grow ing numbers.43 Meanwhile, the Carter adminis tration launched the largest public service employment buildup since the 1930’s, although this time, special efforts were directed to minor ities and poor women. Displaced homemakers and mothers on welfare received special atten tion and the Women’s Bureau also began to consider the employment needs of Asian-Pacific women. During the 1970’s, the Bureau directed more resources than previously towards minor ity women, in keeping with the overall thrust of administration policy.44 The Labor Depart ment’s role in antidiscrimination efforts de creased only slightly with President Carter’s 1979 governmental reorganization plan, under which responsibility for enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was taken from the Depart ment and delegated to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.45 The 1980’s From the first tentative efforts to improve em ployment opportunities for women and minority males during World War I through the tough antidiscrimination programs of the late 1970’s, the Department of Labor had operated from the assumption that the Federal Government had the right to intervene in the economy in order to redress national social and economic problems. During the 1980’s, the Government under Pres ident Ronald Reagan has worked from other premises. It has emphasized private-sector ini tiatives for manpower development, as evinced by the Job Training Partnership Act, and pro posed legislation for a Youth Employment Op portunity Wage. The Office of Civil Rights within the Labor Department now deals with enforcement in the context of reducing Govern ment spending and regulatory paperwork. The Department has proposed deregulation of in dustrial homework. Women’s Bureau programs for displaced homemakers, “disadvantaged” women, and new immigrants have relied upon demonstration projects financed by the private sector. The Bureau has sought to expand employer-sponsored child care and to encourage entrepreneurship among women, especially dis placed homemakers and minorities. Yet, it has continued to investigate the impact of economic transformation by funding studies on the effects of new technologies on women workers.46 Large cutbacks in Federal spending threat ened to gut the Department’s efforts to use job “ The labor market remains divided by sex and race . . . 33 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • training and public employment to help pull dis advantaged communities out of economic de pression. Federal job creation programs were particularly hard hit, beginning with the reduc tion of some 300,000 workers from c e t a in 1981. Cutbacks also reduced the Labor Depart ment staff available for implementation of affir mative action and wage and hour regulations. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance adopted a “nonconfrontational” approach, em phasizing technical services for employers. It took steps to eliminate the need for small con tractors to adhere to affirmative action guide lines, it urged voluntary compliance, and it rewrote guidelines so as to eliminate the weakest claims for redress at lower administra tive levels. By 1984, critics charged that o f c c failed to prosecute antidiscrimination cases. By 1987, it appeared to civil rights and equal rights proponents that vigorous Federal affirmative ac tion programs and public employment programs belonged to the past.47 Men’s and women’s earnings T h e d a ta m o st o fte n u s e d to c o m p a re th e e a rn in g s o f w o m en w ith th e e a rn in g s o f m en in c lu d e tw o serie s p ro d u ced b y th e B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s. T h e firs t is a n n u a l e a rn in g s o f y e a r-ro u n d fu ll-tim e w o rk e rs ; th is s e rie s, p ro d u c e d o n c e e a c h y e a r, w as b e g u n se v e ra l d e c a d e s a g o . T h e se c o n d serie s— u su al w eekly e a rn in g s o f fu ll-tim e w o rk e rs — has been p ro d u c e d o n a q u a rte rly b a s is sin c e 1979. B o th se rie s a re a v e ra g e s u n a d ju ste d fo r d iffe re n c e s in e x p e rie n c e , o c c u p a tio n , o r in d u s try m ix . T re n d s in th e ra tio o f w o m e n ’s to m e n ’s e a rn in g s , se le c te d y e a rs , 1 9 6 0 -8 7 R a t io o f m e d i a n e a r n in g s ( p e r c e n t) Year 1 9 6 0 ............. 1970 ............. 1979 ............. 1980 ............. 1986 ............. 1987 ............. A n n u a l e a r n in g s U s u a l w e e k ly o f y e a r-ro u n d e a r n in g s o f fu ll-tim e fu ll-tim e w orkers w orkers 6 0 .8 5 9 .4 5 9 .7 6 0 .2 6 4 .3 N .A . N .A . N .A . 6 2 .5 6 4 .4 6 9 .2 7 0 .0 N.A. = data not available. NOTE: Data refer to earnings of wage and salary workers. SOURCE: Annual earnings: Current Population Survey, March 1961, 1971, 1980, 1981, and 1987. Weekly earnings: Current Population Survey, 1979, 1980, 1986, and 1987 annual average data. The Labor Department at 75 Conclusion Within its limits as an investigative and often underfunded agency, the Department of Labor has sought to improve the working conditions of women and minority men over the last threequarters of a century. What was considered ap propriate policy changed as concepts of female difference (biological and social) and ideas of racial inferiority gave way to commitments to social and political equality. Before the protest movements of the 1960’s, the Department em phasized the needs of these groups only when public policy concentrated on mobilizing and utilizing the Nation’s labor power. But during the 1960’s and 1970’s, employment and train ing programs, along with enforcement of affir mative action, equal pay, and labor standards legislation represented a national commitment to racial and sexual equity. How does the situation of women and minor ity men appear as we look forward to the centen nial celebration of the Department? Massive job losses in the industrial sector of the economy have undermined the income of AfroAmericans, a disproportionate share of whom are blue-collar workers. And while the wages of black and white women are close to parity, both fall badly behind those of white men. True, among full-time, year-round workers, women now make 64 cents to every dollar earned by men.48 This represents a shrinking of the wage gap between the sexes, reflecting the real gains of the last two decades, during which affirma tive action in education and employment led some women to better paying professional and blue-collar jobs. However, the feminization of poverty remains a countertrend. Disparity also characterizes the situation of minority men, some of whom have benefited from affirmative action, while others have sunk into the “underclass.” The labor market remains divided by sex and race, while the movement for com parable worth, or equal pay for work of com parable value, remains stalled in controversy.49 The next quarter-century will require imagi native policies to fulfill the vision of racial and gender justice. If the past is any guide to the future, only persistent Federal action can help win the battle for equal opportunity; the Depart ment of Labor can play a crucial role in this battle. □ -FOOTNOTESSee John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss, Jr., From 1 For a discussion of labor market segmentation by race 2 Slavery to Freedom: A History o f Negro Americans, 5th ed. and sex, see William Harris, The Harder We Run: Black (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1988), pp. 227-318. On the Workers Since the Civil War (New York, Oxford University early history of the Department of Labor, see Jonathan Press, 1982); and Alice Kessler-Harris, Out to Work: A Grossman, The Department o f Labor (New York, Praeger History o f Wage-Earning Women in the United States (New Publishers, 1973), pp. 3-30. York, Oxford University Press, 1982). 3 For the history of protective legislation, see Judith Baer, The Chains o f Protection: The Judicial Response to Women's Labor Legislation (Westport, c t , Greenwood Press, 1978). See also U.S. Department of Labor, Fourth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1916), pp. 62-64. 4 Reports o f the Department o f Labor, 1917 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1918), pp. 79-80. 5 For information on women workers during World War I, see Maurine Weiner Greenwald, Women, War, and Work: The Impact o f World War I on Women Workers in the United States (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1980); and Reports o f the Department o f Labor, 1918 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1919), pp. 114-15, 118— 24. 6 Henry Guzda, “The Labor Department’s First Program to Assist Black Workers,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1982, pp. 39-44, and his “Social Experiment of the Labor Department: The Division of Negro Economics,” The Pub lic Historian, Fall 1982, pp. 7-37. See also Monthly Labor Review, September 1918, pp. 513-14, on the establishment of the Division. 7 Reports o f the Department o f Labor, 1917, pp. 71-74; Mary Van Kleeck, “First Annual Report of the Director of the Women in Industry Service,” Reports o f the Department o f Labor, 1919 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1920), pp. 1133-59. wis was particularly concerned with the impact of night work on the family and the func tioning of State protective legislation in this and other areas during the war. As early as June 1917, the Children’s Bu reau, part of the Labor Department at the time, investigated the impact of mothers’ work outside the home on their children. See 1917 Report, pp. 140-41. 8 Judith Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority: Fed eral Reaction to the Phenomenon o f Women in the Work Force, 1920-1963 (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1983), pp. 13-55; Mary Anderson, “Second Annual Report of the Director of the Women’s Bureau, for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1920,” in U.S. Department of Labor, Reports of the Department o f Labor, 1920 (Washington, U.S. Govern ment Printing Office, 1921), pp. 883-92; and “Report of the Director of the Women’s Bureau,” 1925 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1926), p. 2. See also the an nual reports from 1921 through 1932. On race and stand ards, see “Report of the Director of the Women’s Bureau,” 1922 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1923), p. 12. 13 Grossman, The Department o f Labor, p. 45. 14 Guzda, “Frances Perkins,” p. 34; and George Martin, Madame Secretary: Frances Perkins (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1976), p. 297. 15 See Jacqueline Jones, Labor o f Love, Labor o f Sorrow: Black Women, Work and the Family (New York, Basic Books, 1985), pp. 174-77; and Julia Kirk Blackwelder, Women o f the Depression: Caste and Culture in San Anto nio, 1929-1939 (College Station, t x , Texas a & m University Press, 1984), pp. 110-26, 171-72. 16 For the attempt to dismiss married women workers from employment, including jobs in the Federal Govern ment, see Lois Scharf, To Work and Wed: Female Employ ment, Feminism, and the Great Depression (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1980), pp. 43-65. For the Women’s Bureau response, see Sealander, As Minority Becomes Ma jority, pp. 58-61. See also Mary Anderson, “Women’s Bureau,” Twenty-First Annual Report o f the Secretary of Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1933), p. 93. 17 Mary Elizabeth Pidgeon, “Employed Women Under N.R.A. Codes,” Bulletin o f the Women's Bureau, no. 130 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1935). 18 For information on the Women’s Bureau and the Na tional Recovery Administration, see the annual reports of the Labor Department for 1933, 1934, and 1935, especially Twenty-Second Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), p. 100; and Pidgeon, “Employed Women.” 19 For the history of home work regulation, see Eileen Boris, “Homework in the Past, Its Meaning for the Future,” in Kathleen Christensen, ed., New Era in Homework: Di rections and Policy (Boulder, co, Westview Press, forth coming 1988). 20 Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority, pp. 57-94; and annual reports of the Department of Labor, 1933-1939, especially Twenty-Fourth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1936), p. 148. For the ways that Bureau programs for do mestics reflected how white women regarded their black women servants, see Phyllis Palmer, “Housewife and Household Worker: Employer-Employee Relationships in the Home, 1928-1941,” in Carol Groneman and Mary Beth Norton, eds., “To Toil the Livelong Day”: America’s Women at Work, 1790-1980 (Ithaca, n y , Cornell Univer sity Press, 1987), pp. 179-95. 9 Guzda, “Social Experiment of the Labor Department,” pp. 29-37. 21 For a summary of activities during the war, see “Women’s Bureau,” Thirty-Fourth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), pp. 196-208. 10 For an extended analysis of this point, see Eileen Boris and Peter Bardaglio, “Gender, Race, and Class: The Impact of the State on the Family and the Economy, 1790-1945,” in Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Engel Gross, eds., Families and Work (Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1987), pp. 141-46. 22 See Thirty-Fourth Annual Report o f the Secretary of Labor, pp. 204-05. For a perceptive analysis of the struggle for equal pay during the war years, see Ruth Milkman, Gender At Work: The Dynamics o f Job Segregation by Sex during World War II (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1987), pp. 63-83. 11 Harris, The Harder We Run, p. 95; and Philip S. Foner, Organized Labor and the Black Worker, 1619-1973 (New York, International Publishers, 1974). For blacks and the New Deal, see Nancy Weiss, Farewell to the Party of Lincoln (Princeton, nj , Princeton University Press, 1983); and Harvard Sitkoff, A New Deal fo r Blacks (New York, Oxford University Press, 1978). 23 “Negro Women War Workers,” Bulletin o f the Women’s Bureau, no. 205 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945). 12 Henry Guzda, “Frances Perkins’ Interest in a New Deal for Blacks,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1980, pp. 3135. On U.S. Employment Service policy of nondiscrimina tion, see “The Negro Applicant,” Twenty-Seventh Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Gov ernment Printing Office, 1939), p. 28. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 24 Under Fair Employment Practices Committee scrutiny, the percentage of blacks as war workers increased from about 2.5 percent in 1942 to 8 percent by the end of 1944. See Harris, The Harder We Run, pp. 122, 117-18; and Foner, Organized Labor and the Black Worker, p. 243. 25 See Foner, Organized Labor and the Black Worker, pp. 238-39, 243. 26 For examples of such reports, see Philip Foner and Ronald Lewis, The Black Worker, A Documentary History https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • from Colonial Times to the Present, vol. 7 (Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1983), pp. 232, 239-49. 27 See Monthly Labor Review, November 1943, pp. 95253; U.S. Employment Service, “Survey of the Employment Situation in Memphis,” June 1942; and “Negro Composi tion of Placements,” December 1941 to February 1942, in files of the Division of Negro Labor, National Archives, rg 183. See also John Beecher files on Memphis in fepc files, National Archives, rg 228; and Merl E. Reed, “ fepc and the Federal Agencies in the South,” Journal o f Negro History, Winter 1980, pp. 43-56. 28 In surveying the annual reports of the Secretary of Labor from 1940 to 1945, we could find no significant discussion of racial discrimination or the problems of black workers. But, see Harris, The Harder We R un, 114-19; and Foner, Organized Labor and the Black Worker, chapter 17. 29 Milkman, Gender at Work, pp. 99-127; Harris, The Harder We R un , pp. 125-30; Thirty-Fifth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947), pp. 18-19; Thirty-Sixth Annual Re port o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Govern ment Printing Office, 1948), pp. 6-7; and U.S. Department of Labor, “Mobilizing Labor for Defense: A Summary of Significant Labor Developments in Time of Emergency,” Thirty-Ninth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), es pecially pp. 141-43. 30 Grossman, The Department o f Labor, pp. 65-74; and Vivian Vale, Labour in American Politics (New York, Barnes and Noble, 1971), pp. 100-28. 31 See Index to the Monthly Labor Review from 19411950 and 1951-1960 in the library of the Department of Labor, Washington. 32 Thirty-Eighth Annual Report, p. 68; and Grossman, The Department o f Labor, p. 104. 33 Richard B. Craig, The Bracero Program, Interest Groups and Foreign Policy (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1971); and Grossman, The Department o f Labor, p. 80. 34 Thirty-Fourth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor, pp. 211—13: and Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority, Appendix B, “The Bulletins and Special Bulletins of the Women’s Bureau, United States Department of Labor, 1920-1963,” pp. 175-79. 35 See Annual Reports of the Secretary of Labor from 1945 through 1962, especially Thirty-Fourth Annual Re port, pp. 212-13; Thirty-Fifth Annual Report o f the Secre tary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, 1947), pp. 109-10; Thirty-Sixth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Print ing Office, 1948), pp. 93-102; Thirty-Eighth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950), pp. 185—88; Forty-Fourth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Gov ernment Printing Office, 1956), pp. 258-60; Forty-Sixth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958), pp. 255-56; and FortySeventh Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washing ton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959), pp. 265, 275. 36 On the 1964 Civil Rights Act, see Patricia Zelman, Women, Work, and National Policy: The Kennedy-Johnson Years (Ann Arbor, m i , u m i Research Press, 1982), pp. 5571. 37 “Women’s Bureau,” Fifty-Second Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor fo r the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1964 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), pp. 217-21; and Fifty-Fifth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor fo r the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1967 (Washing The Labor Department at 75 ton, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 11. See also Cynthia Harrison, “A ‘New Frontier’ for Women: The Public Policy of the Kennedy Administration,” Journal o f American History, December 1980, pp. 635-45; and Sealander, As Minority Becomes Majority, pp. 133-51. 38 On the impact of social movements in these years, see William Chafe, The Unfinished Journey: America Since World War II (New York, Oxford University Press, 1986). On equal pay, see Nancy E. McGlen and Karen O ’Connor, Women’s Rights: The Struggle fo r Equality in the 19th & 20th Centuries (New York, Praeger, 1983), pp. 170-75. On manpower, see Grossman, The Department o f Labor, p. 77. 39 Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz as quoted in An nual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor, 1967, pp. 1-2. See also Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor, 1966, p. 4. 40 See Annual Reports, 1965-68, especially 1968, pp. 4, 8; and Fifty-Third Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor fo r the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1965 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965), p. 220; and Grossman, The Department o f Labor, pp. 79-82, 118-51. For a critical assessment of the National Committee on Household Employment, see Phyllis Palmer, “Housework and Domestic Labor: Racial and Technological Change,” in Karen Brodkin Sacks and Dorothy Remy, eds., My Trou bles Are Going To Have Trouble With Me: Everyday Trials and Triumphs o f Women Workers (New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1984), pp. 86-88. 41 Sixty-First Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 29-30. See also Sixty-Second Annual Report o f the Secre tary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, 1974), p. 21; Sixty-Third Annual Report o f the Secre tary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), pp. 11 -1 6 , 30-33; and Sixty-Fourth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Gov ernment Printing Office, 1976), pp. 12-13, 31-32. 42 See, for example, Ray Marshall, The Negro and Ap prenticeship (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967); The Negro and Organized Labor (New York, Wiley, 1965); The Negro Worker (New York, Random House, 1967); and, with Virgil L. Christian, Jr., Employment o f Blacks in the South: A Perspective on the 1960s (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1978). 43 See the Annual Reports of the Secretary of Labor from 1976-78, especially Sixty-Sixth Annual Report o f the Secre tary o f Labor (Washington, U.S Government Printing Of fice, 1978), p. vi. 44 For information on public works under the Carter ad ministration, see Annual Reports, 1976-1980, especially Sixty-Fifth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Wash ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977), p. 24. For information on the Women’s Bureau, for example, see Sixty-Eighth Annual Report o f the Secretary o f Labor (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), pp. 149-55. 45 Sixty-Sixth Annual Report, p. 62. 46 For information on the Women’s Bureau, see Annual Reports of the Secretary of Labor, 1981-1986. For the philosophy of the Reagan administration, see the recent Annual Reports of the Secretary of Labor, 1982-1987. 47 Annual Reports of the Secretary of Labor, 1981-1985. 48 See Money, Income, and Poverty Status o f Families and Persons in the United States— Current Population Re ports, series P-60, no. 157 (Bureau of the Census, 1986). 49 Barbara Bergmann, The Economic Emergence o f Women (New York, Basic Books, 1986); and Alphonso Pinkney, The Myth o f Black Progress (New York, Cam bridge University Press, 1984). United Years o f States ’ W orking for DepartmentJ J t ^ ^ ^ A m e r i c a ' s of L a b o re r Future i< J Reflections of eight former Secretaries Men who headed the Department of Labor during the last quarter-century assess achievements and disappointments in office Labor-m anagem ent relations a high priority: 1 9 6 1 —62 A r t h u r J. G o l d b e r g he conventional wisdom about the Kennedy Administration is that it was high on charisma but bereft of legislative achievements. I cannot speak of the experience of other ex ecutive departments of the Government, but the reality, rather than the myth, is that more labor and related legislation was enacted during 1961-62 than during the tenure of any prior Secretary of Labor, with the exception of the great legislation of the New Deal. There follows a summary list of initiatives and accomplishments involving the Department of Labor during this period. This list is illustra tive rather than all-encompassing: T • The Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1961, which temporarily extended unemployment benefits on a national basis, rather than State by State, without trigger points; • A bill increasing the minimum wage (effec tive September 3, 1961); • The Area Redevelopment Act, providing Arthur J. Goldberg served as Secretary of Labor in 1961— 62. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis retraining for persons in high-unemployment areas (Public Law 87-27, signed May 1, 1961); • A bill to provide for an additional Assistant Secretary of Labor, a woman, with enlarged responsibilities beyond heading the Women’s Bureau (signed August 1961); • Amendment of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (Public Law 87-420, signed March 20, 1962) to authorize the Secre tary of Labor to examine reports from health and welfare plan administrators, and to investigate suspected cases of wrongdoing; • Amendment of the Juvenile Delinquency Act to safeguard the rights of youthful offenders; • An amendment to the Railroad Retirement Act which permitted early retirement on re duced benefits for certain workers (Public Law 87-285, signed September 22, 1961); • Executive veto of a bill relating to longevity step increases for postal employees; • A bill providing health and housing protec tion for migrant workers (Public Law 87-345, signed October 3, 1961); and • The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, which authorized the appropriation of $435 million for a 3-year program of occupa37 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • tional training for the unemployed and under employed (Public Law 87-45, signed March 15, 1962). In addition, there was a host of Executive Orders and important statements relating to labor matters. I shall cite only several: A rth u r J. Goldberg 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis • Establishment of the President’s Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Policy; • An order creating the President’s Commit tee on Equal Employment Opportunity; • The statement on Youth Employment Op portunities and Training; • An order regarding minimum wage rates for government employees; • An order requiring, for the first time, that Government agencies engage in collective bar gaining with their employees (Executive Order 10988, signed January 17, 1962); • Creation of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women (Executive Order 10980, signed December 14, 1961); • The establishment of the Pennsylvania Av enue Development Plan; • An order improving the provision for aid for the handicapped. Further, in recognition of the role of labor in our economic life, the Secretary of Labor was a member of a small “kitchen cabinet” advising the President on the state of the economy. All of the above was surprising to some, in light of the fact that the Department of Labor was, at the time, the smallest department of the Government, but on the whole, this volume of activity was not controversial. What was controversial during my tenure as Secretary Labor was the intervention of the Sec retary and the Department in the settlement of major industrial disputes. This should not have been surprising, as both admirers and critics of the policy professed. President Kennedy be lieved in an activist government to protect the public interest. I shared this belief. But what about the Conciliation Service? The U.S. Conciliation Service had been severed from the Department and reestablished as an independent Federal agency in 1947, at the insistence of Senator Robert Taft, in a move viewed by some as a rather spiteful attack on then Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins. This separation was, and is, untenable. To success fully mediate settlements in major labor dis putes, the prestige and “muscle” of the Presi dent and of the Secretary are often required and, on the whole, invited by the parties concerned. Thus, as Secretary, I— with the support of the President, and often with his personal participa tion— successfully mediated many important labor disputes. The Labor Department at 75 Here, too, I shall mention only several of the areas in which we sought to mediate disputes: tugboats, steel, airlines, missile sites, maritime, aerospace, nuclear submarines, longshoring, automobile manufacture, construction, and, to the astonishment of many, the Metropolitan Opera. In light of the peculiar nature of the last of the above-mentioned settlements, why should a secretary intervene in the case of the Metropoli tan Opera? The reason is that the Metropolitan Opera is our only national opera company and, if a prolonged strike shuts down the opera, the principals, who are very much in demand, may be offered contracts of relatively long duration by European opera companies. Without the ar bitration settlement reached in December 1961, the net result might well have been the end of the Metropolitan Opera, a national cultural asset. Besides, Jackie Kennedy asked the Presi dent to have me intervene and what President or Secretary of Labor could turn down a request from Mrs. Kennedy? Inasmuch as I possessed no statutory power to enforce settlements and only mediated them, why the controversy over this approach? It is gospel for both management and labor at con ventions, meetings, and the like to say that there should be no government interference with col lective bargaining. This is empty rhetoric. I am not for compulsory arbitration, mandated by law, except in the most exigent circumstances, but mediation is a different matter. All a good mediator can do is try to persuade the parties to agree upon a responsible compro mise. Surely any administration, faced with economic problems of great magnitude, cannot afford prolonged strikes. At the very least, it should exercise its powers of persuasion to pre vent them. It needs emphasis that mediation in no way interferes with but, on the contrary, facilitates collective bargaining settlements. In mediating these strikes, was I violating the law which separated the Conciliation Service from the Department of Labor? My answer to that is simple. The President can certainly offer his good services to mediate any industrial dis pute which may have profound economic conse quences. And, because the President can do this, his designated Cabinet officer, the Secre tary of Labor, can do likewise. In all of these highly publicized strike settle ments, in virtually every case solicited by influ ential members of both parties, I had the com plete support of Mr. William E. Simkin, the Director of the Federal Mediation and Concilia tion Service, which was the successor agency to the U.S. Conciliation Service. This wise media tor knew the value of having the power and prestige of the Presidency, as exercised through his Secretary of Labor, employed in the settle ment of strikes affecting the national interest. Mr. Simkin and the Mediation Service were not lacking for other disputes in which to employ their undisputed talents of mediation. As a by-product of the high-profile strike set tlements and the public support which they en gendered, Congress voted the Department of Labor the most effective Department in our Government in a Gallup poll. And because this was Congress’ view, the legislation we spon sored was by and large supported on a bipartisan basis by Congress. This, I think, is something to reflect upon at the present time and perhaps for the future. A final word. My agreement with President Kennedy, before accepting appointment, was that there would be no John Steelman in the White House. In previous administrations, the President’s staff often exercised the final word in labor matters. This was notably true during the tenure of John Steelman, a Presidential aide in the White House during the Truman adminis tration. There is a Parkinson’s law applicable to both labor and management. The White House is the ultimate seat of executive power, and both labor and management sought to override the Secre tary of Labor in their own interest by resorting to the White House when they did not get the results they wanted from the Labor Department. This did not happen during my tenure. I had direct access to the President when necessary. I express the hope, rather than the conviction, that all Secretaries will have similar access, without having to clear proposals with a staff member at the White House who usually does not possess the Secretary’s expertise. □ . .all a good mediator can do is try to persuade.. . . Humanitarian initiatives during th e 1960's W il l a r d W ir t z hen he was asked, shortly after the a course for the Nation that would be hard to 1956 presidential campaign, to com hold. When totally senseless and inconceivable ment on the American political proc tragedy tore those hands from the tiller, casting ess, Adlai Stevenson demurred— on a pallthe that never lifted, history’s perhaps most grounds that an egg (or an egghead, the erudite skillful political navigator, Lyndon B. Johnson, candidate added) is a poor judge of an egg- kept that course and carried it forward. In 2 beater. He was not pressed further. years, 1964 and 1965, more was done to re Although Cabinet service is a less harrowing assert the country’s authentic human values, as experience, former Secretaries subpoenaed to many of us see them today, than during any testify regarding their tenures properly recog previous decade, with the possible exception of nize related restraints. The view from the front the 1930’s. office is inevitably skewed. Its occupants play Whatever is properly identified as the Labor only a small part in the operations that 10,000 or Department’s significance and character during 15,000 people in the Department carry on. And the 1962-68 period is drawn from broader de especially after 20 years, the realization sets in velopments. They centered on the outlawing of that memory serves more as a filter than a look two centuries of discrimination, bordering on ing glass. This testimony will benefit from bigotry, that had been based on race and gender. brevity. One critical expression of these biases had been The early and middle 1960’s were unques in employment. The Department’s performance tionably a gratifying, often exhilarating, time to would be properly measured by what was done be in the Department of Labor. A new Presi or was not done to establish equal job opportu dent, John F. Kennedy, looking with youth’s nity. I remember our feeling at the time was idealism at the stars of human purpose, charted more of frustration than satisfaction. Yet per haps we went as far— in adding the “affirmative Willard Wirtz served as Secretary of Labor during 1962-69. action” requirement, for example—as we could. W https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . more was done to reassert the country's human values. .. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Establishing equal job opportunity became more than just a matter of enforcing new laws. It seemed fair to say in my 1968 Annual Report (perhaps one of the few in this series written by the person who signed it): There emerged in the Department during this pe riod. . . a sense of a dimension of the “welfare of the wage earner” not contemplated when that phrase was adopted in 1913 as the Department’s charge and charter. This is his or her welfare. . . not just as a wage earner but as a human being. . . (There was) new questioning of the extent to which the worker is correctly conceived of as being created to meet the needs of the enterprise and the system, and of the extent to which it is the other way around. . . .It was the unifying and dignifying theme in the history of the Department of Labor, 1963 to 1968, that wage earners—and those seeking that status—are people. Not statis tics. Not drones. Human beings—for whom work. . .constitutes one of the potential ultimate satisfactions. If, in time’s perspective, the reach of our rhetoric appears to have exceeded the grasp of our achievements, this is what we are looking for. The 1963-68 period is commonly marked in the Department’s history by the emergence of what was called, until the phrase became obso lete, a manpower program. Subsequent ques tioning of the effectiveness of that startup phase of this program confirms its significance. Our satisfaction was not in providing employment or training for 3 million people— which was too few— but in getting it recognized that the work ing of the economy includes no dynamic that will assure a match between available jobs and people’s competence to perform them. Two decades later, the country is still only edging toward the realization that achieving the na tional potential depends on a vastly enlarged and invigorated educational program, in which job and career training is a carefully articulated piece— and in my own view, on the develop ment of a national service program, directed particularly at the needs of young people. In a broader sense, whatever were the impor tant elements of the Department’s character then, as in any period, emerges from looking at what seeds were planted rather than from meas uring the harvest of legislative accomplishment. It was a period when, despite the gains in 1964 and 1965, the country was trying beyond its achievements. The Department provided a regiment for the “war on poverty.” If this, too, stands out in time’s perspective more for its aspirations than for its results, the instruction of the effort was that, here again, the neutralizing of poverty re quires giving all children, regardless of their roots and circumstances, the tools to make the The Labor Department at 75 highest and best use of what they have in them. We tried in 1965 and 1966 to press the Con gress to make substantial changes in the unem ployment insurance system, which was then— as it is today— essentially the same as it had been for 30 years. The potential for tying this system into a retraining program for displaced workers is immense. Our efforts to stop the slow murder that was going on in the uranium mines were at least partly successful, and the President’s “Mission Safety” program to reduce injuries to Federal employees made significant gains. However, efforts to get a national occupational health and safety program enacted fell short. Our succes sors did what we were not able to. I suspect that one of the Department’s major contributions during the 1960’s was in the area of Federal employment relationships. At the President’s instruction in 1967, an interagency committee— chaired by the Secretary of Labor, directed in large measure by the Assistant Sec retary for Labor-Management Relations, and as sisted immeasurably by a distinguished panel of experts from outside the Government— pre pared a report recommending the establishment of a new system for handling collective bargain ing and grievance adjustments within the Gov ernment. The report— published, but not for mally transmitted— would constitute much of the basis for Title VII of the Civil Service Re form Act of 1978. It has been interesting to watch from the side lines the evolving appraisal of the “humanitar ian” initiatives the Government— and the coun try— took in the 1960’s. They are sometimes judged by standards that question the advisabil ity of large governmental expenditures and of reducing unemployment at the risk of increasing the threat of inflation. As of 1968, unemploy ment stood at 3.3 percent, exactly half of what it had been in 1960; annual inflation had aver aged, over those 8 years, 2.2 percent; the na tional debt stood in 1986 at $369.8 billion, a fraction of its current level. No one in the Department of Labor would claim the slightest credit for this record. It suggests broadly the context in which these programs developed. Even briefest appraisal of what happened dur ing the 1960’s would be critically incomplete without recognition of the key role that orga nized labor was playing then in the country’s affairs. This is sometimes recalled in terms of the frequent recurrence during that period of industry-wide collective bargaining controver sies that seemed to threaten the entire economy. That problem has been outgrown. It was more important that the a f l -c io supported every human welfare initiative taken by the adminis tration— involving civil rights, civil liberties, education, housing, the fight against poverty— and represented the political swing force on many of them. The national momentum from which the De partment had drawn much of its strength was lost late in the decade. I suppose the bitterness of divided feelings about Vietnam was primarily responsible. We learned that any government agency’s effectiveness in shaping policy is largely a function of forces that it can control only in very slight measure. It is harder, perhaps impossible, to appraise the Department’s performance during that pe riod on the operational fronts which cover 95 percent or so of its job. These are in large meas ure the responsibility, as a practical matter, of career personnel. The Department has always been the beneficiary of a tradition of proud and competent civil servants. We did try to improve the effectiveness of what is essentially a two-government system: one professional (and relatively permanent), the other political (and temporary). New political officers get little real feel the first year or two of the workings of a career staff. We had the ad vantages of having only three Secretaries of Labor during the 16-year period between 1952 and 1968 and of having an unusual continuity among subcabinet officers during most of the 1960’s. The 1968 annual report details the efforts that were made to increase the effectiveness of the two-government system. They were concen trated on improving the channels of communi cations, especially those that ought to carry ideas up the line as well as down. We didn’t get very far. Our conclusion that “the Department’s effectiveness would be doubled if its prose were cut in half’ stopped just short of indicating how this would be accomplished. We tried to develop, under the leadership of an extraordinary Assistant Secretary for Admin istration, a “modem management system” that would permit objective measurements of work performance. Considering this particularly im portant in the two-govemment system, we en countered the related difficulty that “such a sys tem is resisted by political executives as another restraint on their instinct for management and by those down the line as a checkup on their performance.” The 1968 report concluded eva sively that “quite a lot of progress in this direc tion leaves a good deal more required.” A special effort to make service in the Depart ment attractive to competent young people re flected the expressed view that “the single most ominous long-range problem in Government ad ministration is (how) to attract top-flight college graduates in substantial numbers.” I guess, in retrospect, that this is less a matter of depart mental administration than of how overall Gov ernment policies consist with youth’s impossi ble dreams. I haven’t mentioned one highlight of being in the Department in the 1960’s. It meant our host ing its Fiftieth Anniversary. That was a proud occasion. So, half again more, of the SeventyFifth. □ . .carry ideas up the line as well as down. ’ ’ Enactm ent o f o s h a required Ingenious com prom ises and stra teg ies J am es D. t my confirmation hearings, the commit tee chairman was all business. From be hind his walnut barrier, Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas fixed me with an apprais ing eye, bade me welcome, and shot a direct question: “Mr. Hodgson, if you are confirmed as this Nation’s 12th Secretary of Labor, is there anything in particular you will seek to accomplish?” A James D. Hodgson served as Secretary of Labor during 1970-73. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis H o dgson I was ready for the question. “I hope to do something to improve the environment of the American workplace,” I responded. In retrospect, I shudder at my phrasing. After only 16 months in Washington I had obviously acquired an advanced case of “bureauspeak” dis ease. A straightforward answer would have found me saying, “I will work for a new job safety law.” For that is exactly what I had in mind. These reflections retrace the events that hooked me into pressing for Federal action in the job health and safety sphere and recall the 41 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Jam es D. H odgson 42 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis February 1988 • strategies I used to bring about enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ( o s h a ). Although o s h a has been roundly con demned in many quarters, I regard its passage as the most satisfying step forward—both for American industry and its more than 100 mil lion workers— that occurred during my tenure at the U.S. Department of Labor. I certainly put a lot of myself into it. When I arrived at the Labor Department as Under Secretary •, I could not claim to have had a personal passion for health and safety legislation. I had come from the aircraft in dustry, which had outstanding job safety records. Because lives depended directly on the safety of our product, everyone in the air trans portation industry was intensely safety con scious—management, unions, engineers—every one. A remarkably safe workplace was the result. With this background shaping my views, I had little reason to believe safety legislation ranked as a priority for Federal regulation. It took less than 3 months in Washington to open my eyes and reverse my view. This is what happened: In early 1969, when Secretary George Shultz and I suddenly found ourselves front and center in the Department of Labor, two pesky safety issues awaited our im mediate attention. A new set of safety standards to the Public Contract (Walsh-Healey) Act of 1936 had been issued in a storm of protest, with “overkill” and “arbitrary” among the milder ep ithets applied. This act, among other matters, prescribes health and safety standards for Fed eral construction projects. At the same time, from deep in Utah’s new uranium mines came critical rumblings. Some mysterious radioactive compounds were being loosed in mineshafts— compounds suspected of having a deleterious effect on human lungs. Ac tion was required. Eventually, we solved both of these issues. But in the process, I underwent a crash course in American workplace health and safety. After poring over a myriad of tracts and texts, review ing reams of recorded data, soliciting the views of scores of professionals, and sending an assis tant to Europe to study safety measures there, two points struck me. First, many— far too many— American in dustries had deplorable, even inexcusable, job health and safety performance. Second, those industries with good performance had uniformly installed sound standards and instilled positive attitudes on the subject. The conclusion was almost inescapable. Here was an area where Federal attention could make a difference— a difference that often involved lives. Sadly, more American lives were then being lost in the The Labor Department at 75 workplace than in the Vietnam conflict. And the trend was worsening. So, what to do? Should we offer legislation? One Department of Labor expert of long ex perience suggested legislation would be a waste of time. “Forget it,” he counseled, “the last Ad ministration tried it and got shot down. . . industry is dead set against it.” Coming from industry, I was skeptical. So I carried my inquiries into corporate mahogany row. “I’m told American management opposes job safety legislation,” I began. Then I demanded, “I want to know why.” The answer came back loud and clear. “We are not antisafety. We simply did not like several features found in the previous bill.” So I compiled a list of industry objections. Among other things, industry considered the earlier bill faulty because: • It would “junk” a number of fully proven health and safety laws then existing at the State level. • It would give the Labor Department power to play all roles in a safety case— from investi gator and prosecutor to judge and jury. • It would install enforcement procedures be lieved to be punitive rather than remedial. There were other reasons but, importantly, from no source did I hear that the Federal Gov ernment should stay out of the job health and safety arena, nor did anyone question the need for better health and safety standards in the American workplace. So outright resistance by industry was not a problem. The solution seemed to lie in fashion ing a bill that would produce results without giving industry the feeling that the “Feds were bent on a power grab.” To do this, we sought ideas on health and safety issues from professionals, unions, indus tries, and legislators. We created a broad-based advisory council. One of our basic tenets for drafting a workable act was to be as broadly consultative as possible. After several weeks, we had a rough draft. With a bit of innocent pride, I sent it to Patrick Moynihan, then head of the White House Do mestic Council. Back it came with a message: “Where are the megathoughts? Reach a little!” I had to admit Moynihan was right. Our first version had been strictly a standard “meat and potatoes” presentation, a serving of only the basics. It needed some forward-thinking ideas to whet congressional appetites. So we expanded our exploratory consulta tions. Senator Jacob Javits of New York pro vided us astute counsel on how to expand the health component of the bill. Howard Pyle, head of the National Safety Council, favored us with practical suggestions. A recognized health and safety expert, William Haddon, injected creative perspective. About this time, President Richard M. Nixon was preparing his 1970 state of the Nation speech. A memo arrived from the White House asking, “Anything you want included in the speech?” You bet! I wrote a strong paragraph on the need for health and safety legislation. Well, we didn’t get a paragraph, but we did get a sen tence. That was enough, for then we knew we had the blessing of the President. After a few more weeks of diligent revisions, our proud health and safety bill was eagerly tossed into the congressional hopper. Its reception, I’m afraid, resembled a massive yawn. Organized labor favored a competing bill, which we believed repeated faulty features of the former proposal. Industry management still seemed wary. In retrospect, I realize I had two responsibili ties: first, to persuade management that our bill was fair and, second, to persuade the unions that the bill they favored was a loser. To win management over, my first move was to get invited to a convention of top industrial executives at the Chamber of Commerce head quarters in Washington, DC. There I “tubthumped” at length on the need for a bill and explained how our bill dealt fairly with indus try’s previous objections. The ensuing applause could not be called deafening, but it was ade quate. If we could hold to our basic principles, industry would, at least, not oppose our bill. To fortify our stance with professionals in the working world, we bombarded safety engineers throughout the country with pleas for support. Gradually, they took our side. To ensure that State governments would not block our efforts, I explained our bill at a Governors’ conference in San Francisco and got a good reception. However, organized labor’s preference for a competing bill was a tough barrier to surmount. Labor did not actually oppose our bill. The unions merely preferred another one which we believed was flawed. With competing health and safety bills dead locked and stalled in congressional committees, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis we needed to get things moving. So I did some thing I have never liked to do. At the Steelwork ers convention in Atlantic City, I announced at a news conference that I would recommend presidential veto of the opposing bill should it clear the Congress. This tactic is hardly a route to personal popularity, but I believed it was needed to stimulate action. Happily, it did. Faced with a possible prospect of no health and safety bill at all, interested congressmen now rallied support for legislation that would at least resemble our bill. Efforts by Labor Com mittee members William Hathaway of Maine and the late William Steiger of Wisconsin got things moving. At the Labor Department, Under Secretary Larry Silberman picked up the ball. Day after day, he prowled congressional offices, cajoling the uncommitted and devising ingenious compromises. With incomparable tenacity, Silberman kept the ball rolling forward. The health and safety bill slowly wound its tortuous way through committees, constantly being reshaped and refined, and onto the floor. Then one day it was passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate!! A compre hensive health and safety bill was on its way to the White House for the President’s signature. Should I recommend the President sign it? At best, the final bill was only a first cousin of the one the administration had originally proposed. Nonetheless, it contained the needed essentials. I endorsed it. The President signed the Occupa tional Safety and Health Act into law on Decem ber 29, 1970. Later, in a celebration ceremony at the Labor Department with many notables looking on, I got carried away. “This o s h a bill,” I trumpeted, “is as important a milestone for the American worker as the Fair Labor Standards Act or the Labor-Management Relations Act.” On second thought, maybe my elation was not that far off the mark. Today, o s h a ’s influ ence is felt in the American workplace. Clearly the act has provided a sharp escalation of atten tion and priority for industrial health and safety. However, it has not been without its glitches and detractors. This troubles me not. Despite its critics, o s h a is a worthwhile measure with a worthy purpose. I am glad to have had a part in its birth. □ worthwhile measure with a worthy purpose. . . 43 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • The Labor Department at 75 A benchm ark o f progress: 1 9 7 3 —75 P e t e r J. B r e n n a n ach administration develops a record of Comprehensive Employment and Training Act achievements, as well as a sense of dis ( c e t a ) o f1973. Consistent with a general gov appointment with respect to projects and ernment effort to decentralize authority and re programs not completed. For the most part,sponsibility, our the Department on its own initia sense of disappointment resulted not from lack tive revamped its field organization and of experience and dedication, nor from lack of operations in this area. This placed Federal drive and initiative to solve the many and com funds and decisionmaking authority in the hands plex issues. The simple truth is that there is of State and local government officials. This, in always much to be done and so little time in any turn, improved effectiveness, clearly reduced Secretary’s term in which to complete every administrative delay, and brought the system important part of his or her, and the Depart closer to the people who needed assistance. ment’s, general program. It must also be re Enactment of c e t a was a significant signal membered that the period of my service as from the Congress and the administration that Secretary of Labor was unusually turbulent be decentralization was indeed an important step in cause of the energy crisis, and the resulting high bringing the full range of Federal, State, and unemployment, and the traumatic political cli local government efforts to the grass roots level. mate of the Watergate years. It could only help needy citizens to train and The unique task of improving the rights of qualify for useful and productive employment. and protections for the American labor force Job security assistance. The Department involves the difficult and lengthy process of made strong representations to the Congress in changing ingrained traditions and practices, as support of the concept of extending unemploy well as overcoming political inertia. Under ment insurance in areas with especially high these circumstances, change may only take unemployment. We were concerned that unem place through new or revised regulations (which ployment generated by the energy crisis, natural need endless government review); amendments disasters, or similar emergencies would dislo of existing statutes; and, of major importance, cate a trained work force and produce further the recommendation and active pursuit of new economic problems for the geographic area and enlightened legislation. A comprehensive involved. labor legislative agenda often requires action Ultimately, the Congress passed a package, not only by the U.S. Congress, but also by which included a bill to set up an emergency State, city, and county elected officials. public jobs program and extend unemployment In addition to seeking legislation, America’s compensation coverage to approximately 12 salaried workers and the various levels of gov million persons not previously eligible (H.R. ernment must be prepared administratively and 16596); a bill to give unemployed workers an philosophically to seek adjudication in the additional 13 weeks of unemployment compen courts. During and since my tenure, the courts sation (H.R. 17597); and a bill appropriating $4 have demonstrated a greater recognition of the billion in 1975 to fund the emergency programs existing inequities which have retarded reason (H.J. Res. 1180). able progress in the important areas of basic rights and safety for working men and women. Employee Retirement Income Security Act In spite of general concern and disappoint ( e r i s a ) o f 1974. One of the tragic ironies fac ment in not having completed my total agenda, ing our retiring workers was the loss of retire I do believe that American workers did achieve ment income because of inadequate protection many new and important rights and protections against a number of possible fund deficiencies. during my tenure. With a clear conscience and We worked tirelessly in supporting congres conviction, I can say that the Department’s sional action to protect the benefit rights of mil achievements far outweighed its incomplete lions of workers in the private sector. The Department began extensive prepara general program. By way of example, the fol tions to ensure that this landmark legislation lowing were among the most significant and prominent changes in public policy during the was implemented as an important part of the new and emerging public policy as passed by the years 1973-75: Congress and signed into law by the President. E Peter J. Brennan served as Secretary of Labor during 1973— 75. Federal Committee on Apprenticeship. With our constant focus on the disadvantaged, we organized a joint labor-management Task Force on Apprenticeship, which met in Wash ington on July 25 and 26, 1973. The August 3 report of the Task Force led to the reactivation and expansion of the Federal Committee on Ap prenticeship, which subsequently convened on July 23, 1974. Significantly, the recognition of the continued labor market difficulties of minor ities was beginning to be reflected in the compo sition of the committee and its agenda. For the first time, the committee had minority repre sentation, along with its first women members in 34 years. Our goal was to broaden the appren ticeship program generally to create more opportunity for all races and both sexes by ex tending its reach to many more occupations and industries. Fair Labor Standards Act ( f l s a ) . In April 1974, President Nixon signed into law amend ments to f l s a (P.L. 93-256), which contained a broad spectrum of provisions affecting the na tional minimum wage structure. Among the nu merous changes and new provisions, the amended Fair Labor Standards Act: • Increased the hourly minimum wage for all nonfarm employees covered by f l s a prior to 1966 amendments as well as for those em ployees covered by the 1966 amendments. • Increased the hourly minimum wage for Federal employees covered by the 1966 amend ments. • Extended minimum wage and overtime coverage to approximately 5 million Federal, State, and local government employees. • Extended the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 to a vast new group of workers in Federal, State, and local governments. As soon as all of the amendments became law, we took immediate action to implement these dramatic changes. For example, we pur sued an unrelenting campaign against age dis crimination in the private sector. Through our decisive action, we negotiated a $2 million set tlement of an age discrimination suit against a Standard Oil Co. of California division. We in tended to be fair but firm in eliminating discrim ination in the workplace. The Rehabilitation Act o f 1973. The Depart ment continued its outreach efforts to the physi cally and mentally handicapped. Through the Rehabilitation Act, the Department moved to end discriminatory practices by issuing regula tions forcing firms holding Federal contracts to hire the handicapped. We took our new author https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ity one step further, by requiring firms with large contracts to have an approved, written hir ing plan. We came down hard in this area and were soon seeing positive results. We had bro ken through the barrier. There are other significant requirements I might mention which every Secretary of Labor takes most seriously and which are essential to effective political and working relationships. First, there must be serious efforts by the Secre tary and designated staff members to maintain open and forthright communications with the Congress. Secondly, the Secretary must en deavor to act prudently as a neutral catalyst in encouraging vital and continued communication between labor and management groups, with the objectives of preventing misunderstandings and encouraging the maintenance of mutual re spect and responsiveness. Finally, I think I speak for all former Secretaries of Labor when I say that none of our achievements should be taken for granted, none of our objectives should be accepted as completed. Safety and health problems and discrimination in the workplace will continue if we are not vigilant, decisive, and prepared. In the field of labor relations, there will always be new goals to set, additional programs to com plete, the satisfaction of achievement, and dis appointment because of the normal constraints of time. During the closing days of my tenure as Sec retary, I had one last pleasant task to perform. In early 1975, I moved the Department into the newly constructed Department of Labor office building, which was subsequently named after the distinguished Secretary under President Roosevelt, Frances Perkins. This was both an honor and a gratifying experience because it created an atmosphere of accomplishment, it immediately sparked enthusiasm among the staff, and, most certainly, it gave a boost to morale. It was a time which I enjoyed— it is a time which I remember. At the completion of my term, my staff and I were satisfied that the achievements which we can claim, as well as my team’s unfinished busi ness, provided a benchmark of progress. We felt we were leaving the Department well pre pared to assist future administrations and future Secretaries in the pursuit of the valid expecta tions of America’s hardworking and efficient men and women of all races and backgrounds. In closing, I want to make note that I had an outstanding, dedicated, and loyal team of men and women, without whom none of the above could have been accomplished. □ . . .our goal was to create more opportunities for a l l . . . ” 45 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • The Labor Department at 75 Som e reco llectio n s o f a brief tenure John T. Dunlop was the first tenant-Secretary of the new and the related long-term need for attention to Labor Department building (except for 1 structural problems. A few paragraphs express week) that previous Secretaries had the spirit and philosophy: dreamed of and planned. But the larger environ The group here this afternoon, Mr. President, is ment was not strange. I had worked for the symbolic of the diversity of our country—labor Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1938.1 had known and management, academics and practitioners, each Secretary beginning with Frances Perkins, old hands and young specialists, both sides of the legislative aisle, and active minority groups— and I had often worked directly with them be and no one can neglect the historical tensions of fore they held office on problems of labor-mangeography. agement-govemment relations. Under President Mr. President, we are a ‘can-do’ people. Again, Nixon, I had been chairman of the tripartite as you said. . . ,Mr. President, ‘Our people cannot Construction Industry Stabilization Committee, live on islands of self-interest. We must build and director of the Cost of Living Council, at bridges and communicate our agreements as well tending Cabinet meetings and serving as a mem as our disagreements. Only then can we honestly solve the Nation’s problems.’ ber of the Economic Policy group which met A corollary of that theme is that a great deal of daily at the White House and on a weekly basis government needs to be devoted to improving with the President. I had also been chastened by understanding, persuasion, accommodation, mu congressional committees and the press. Shortly tual problem solving, and informal media after President Ford took office, he asked me to tion. . . .1 have a sense that in many areas the recommend a labor-management advisory com growth of regulations and law has outstripped our mittee which he announced on September 28, capacity to develop consensus and mutual accom 1974, at the end of the Conference on Inflation; modation to our common detriment. . . . It is my hope that business, labor and govern I served as coordinator of the committee1 ment, working together, can address the immedi through my tenure as Secretary of Labor.2 ate problems of the Nation while having a deep When President Ford invited me to be Secre appreciation of our longer run necessities and op tary, I asked him what the job was as he saw it, portunities, not only for the economy as a whole and what he wanted done in the post. He re but in individual sectors and industry and regions sponded that he had two particular concerns: (1) as well. he wanted to improve communications between I believe it is appropriate to comment briefly the labor movement and himself and his admin istration, and (2) he recognized that the econ on what appear to me to have been some of the omy was entering a serious recession, and he major activities of the period.5 1. In recent decades, the regulatory responsi wanted the best advice and judgment of labor bilities of the Labor Department had increased and management as to how to deal with the situation. At its December 1974 meeting, the rapidly, exposing quite a different posture to Labor-Management Advisory Committee had management, labor, and the public, and creat unanimously recommended a precise form and ing a different internal spirit from its traditional distribution of a tax cut that was later accepted role as compiler of data, preparer of reports, by the President and the Congress.3 In the stimulator of training, and convener of labor swearing-in ceremony of March 18, 1975, Pres and management representatives. In 1940, the ident Ford said, “The labor-management com Department administered 18 regulatory pro mittee he chairs told us that what we most need grams; by 1960, the number had expanded to is a tax cut even before I asked for a tax cut in 40; in 1975, the number stood at 134, including recent complex programs such as the Employee my State of the Union Message in January.”4 My response to the President at the swearing- Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the in ceremony formulated major elements of a Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. philosophy of the assignment publicly under Even manpower programs, which accounted for taken. The major themes were the need for a the large bulk of the appropriations, were signif strong collective bargaining system with labor icantly and excessively regulatory in their ap and management working together with govern proach. I prepared a paper, “The Limits of ment, the limitations of regulation, and the Legal Compulsion,”6 presented at the visit to short-term concern to get the economy moving each of the Department’s regional offices ex pressing concern with the “limitations on bring ing about social change through legal compul sion.” The paper closed with the following: John T. Dunlop served as Secretary of Labor in 1975-76. I T he developm ent o f new attitudes on the part o f public em ployees and new relationships and p roce dures w ith those w ho are required to live under regulations is a central challenge o f dem ocratic society. T rust cannot grow in an atm osphere dom inated by bureaucratic fiat and litigious contro versy; it em erges through persuasion, m utual ac com m odation, and problem solving. To effectuate this approach, I took the lead in developing labor standards under Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act and con vened labor and management representatives to seek agreement on standards to be written into the Federal Register for comments and for sub sequent formal issuance. I also became directly involved in seeking to mediate the complex Coke Oven standard under o s h a . I generally advocated “negotiated rulemaking” where ap propriate and feasible.7 It is a source of considerable satisfaction that negotiated rulemaking has come to be recog nized as an appropriate means of establishing regulations supported by the Administrative Conference of the United States, and its use is growing within the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other Federal agencies. It needs to be made clear that negotiated rulemak ing, when properly applied, does not constitute a diminution of government responsibility, nor does it represent the privatization of public functions. But such means may operate faster, reduce subsequent litigation, engender better compliance, and better serve both private parties and the public weal. Would that the Labor Depart ment made greater use of these means. The current Regulatory Management devel oped by the White House and centered in the Office of Management and Budget ( o m b ) by Executive Orders 12291 and 12498 raises seri ous questions for me as to the centralization of such authority.8 No White House or o m b staff is ever going to know as much about a subject or have as direct an understanding of the affected parties as the Secretary. In 1984 and 1985, o m b made changes in 48.6 and 26.3 percent of all Labor Department proposed rules.9 Concerns of the White House and o m b are appropriate, and consultation and raising serious issues to higher levels have always been appropriate, of course, but for me such centralization is obnoxious to constructive industrial relations, efficient labor markets, and participatory labor-managementgovemment relations. 2. From the outset, I was interested in greater degree of procedural cooperation and professional reinforcement among the labor re lations agencies with private parties; the objec tive did not focus on substantive decisions. Ac cordingly, I met periodically with the heads of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the National Mediation Board, and the National Labor Relations Board. There are a number of things that a Secretary can do informally for these agencies with respect to budgets, staffing, access, and with respect to appointments. More over, officials of these agencies have a perspec tive on labor and management and their interac tions that is of considerable interest to a Secretary. These agencies help to shape the labor-management climate of an era and the consequent quality of economic performance that has to be a priority of any President. The labor-management arena as a whole must be the concern of the Secretary of Labor. 3. The President’s Labor-Management Ad visory Committee was given a broad charter to advise and make recommendations to the Presi dent. The Committee met regularly, with the President usually in attendance; the Secretary of the Treasury and other economic officials also attended. The Committee also concerned itself with national energy policy, housing, financing public utilities, unemployment, and labor-man agement committees in private sectors. At each session with the President, the Committee also provided its individual and group views of the economic outlook, often more immediate than permitted by government data. The Committee provided a significant oppor tunity for direct communications between the President and his administration and the labormanagement community. Both groups inter acted with each other. Other business groups were consulted separately. 4. A significant illustration of the interac tions among industrial relations developments, economic policy, and foreign affairs is afforded by the U.S.-U.S.S.R. grain agreement of 1975.10 The possibility of a longshore strike communicated in advance to the Secretary alerted the administration to serious problems, including the consequences of further signifi cant Soviet purchases for domestic grain and meat prices, shipping usage, and to the poten tials of significant agricultural and foreign pol icy opportunities. A Cabinet-level group was enabled to follow developments, advise the President, and secure his approval to negotiate a 5-year agreement, assist farmers, and resolve the longshore stoppage. The centrality of industrial relations and their complex interweaving with other vital issues of a the Nation are well-illustrated by these events in which the Labor Department had a major role. 5. The international labor-management arena has long been a concern of the Labor Department, including representation in the In ternational Labor Organization ( il o ), the only “No White House staff is ever going to know as much as the Secretary.. . 47 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW “The labormanagement arena must be the concern of the Secretary of Labor . . . . ” 48 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis February 1988 • The Labor Department at 75 United Nations agency in which both labor and President and obtained his promise to support management are directly represented. Prior to the legislation if enacted.12 Good staff work at 1975, the United States had a growing series of the White House, it has been said, would have difficulties with the International Labor Organi prevented the subsequent problem for the Presi zation that were related to the selection of top dent. associates of the Director General and the repre The reality is that at the earliest meetings with sentation of the Soviets among the labor and the President on the topic, he stated he wished management members of the Governing Body. to support the legislation; he said he had become Other difficulties included budgetary levels and familiar with the issue after 25 years in the allocations among countries, the uneven treat House. I insisted that any political arrangement ment of reports on violations of human rights for support in the 1976 elections be directly and conventions made by committees of ex arranged with labor representatives, particularly perts, and the use of the annual conference as a those in the building trades. At meetings on the political forum for attacks on Israel and U.S. topic on May 21 and June 4, 1975, with the policy. In close consultation with labor and President, o m b Director James Lynn and senior management, and with the full collaboration of White House aids, including Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a letter of William Seidman, or Richard Cheney, were notice of intent to withdraw 2 years hence was present. The President met with President approved by the President and sent on Novem Robert Georgine of the a f l -c io Building Trades ber 5, 1975. Department on April 22 and July 8, 1975 ; on the In order to improve governmental policymak latter date, the President announced his inten ing on il o matters and to enhance participation tion to run in 1976. My approved testimony on of management organizations and labor, a Cab June 5, 1975, followed, but with more restraint, inet-level committee was established involving the testimony of Secretary Shultz on the same the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Labor, and later the National Security Advisory Com subject in 1969. The draft legislation was signif mittee, with labor and management members to icantly modified from June through November be regular attendants. This committee remains and was made more responsive to the concerns of contractors; new machinery for all labor man in operation. Subsequent events and negotiations helped to agement disputes in the industry was added in create desirable changes in il o structure and Title II with the agreement of virtually all policies, and I was particularly pleased that, in parties to collective bargaining in the industry. The reality, then as now, seems quite clear. 1977, President Carter assured the continued President Ford was anxious in his quest for elec membership of the United States. I have had close ties to the il o over the years, having spent tion to secure the endorsement of a number of the year 1957-58 at the il o — but not on its unions, particularly the building trades, as Pres payroll— at the invitation of David Morse, then ident Nixon had done in 1972. He sought the the Director General, writing my Industrial Re invitation and spoke before the Building Trades convention in San Francisco in September. But lations Systems. 6. Brief reference should be made to a few the politics of the Republican Party changed othervefforts in the 1975-76 period. I experi from May and June to December when the situs mented to develop new approaches to the con picketing bill sat on the President’s desk. Presi gressional oversight function, both by regular dent Ford was concerned that if he signed the visits with key committee members and a com bill into law, Ronald Reagan would use it to prehensive presentation on manpower and train defeat him in the Republican primaries and cau ing, rather than awaiting specialized hearings on cuses. On December 11, 1975, he told me (with politically sensitive issues or administrative Richard Cheney present) that it was a good bill, problems. Seldom do congressional committees and that I had done what he had asked, but he get a comprehensive view of a topic developed would have to veto it because otherwise he by a Cabinet officer.11 I organized a weekly would be defeated in his quest for his party’s seminar on future or underlying questions for nomination as he explained the politics of vari the press and media before a regular press con ous States.13 ference and passed out diplomas at the end of I responded that I respected his decision, but my tenure. A special staff unit assisted in my it would not be the first time in U.S. politics that participation in the general economic policy positions taken to secure nomination precluded making of the administration. subsequent election success. As I stated follow It would probably be inappropriate not to in ing my letter of resignation of January 13, 1976, clude some comment on the situs picketing leg his veto destroyed my capacity to perform the islation, the more so because a view in some duties the President had invited me to do. I circles has developed that I privately lobbied the retain a high regard for President Ford. □ FOOTNOTES----1 The Conference on Inflation, held at the request of President Gerald R. Ford and the Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, Sept. 27-28, 1974, pp. 291-92. 2 Subsequently, labor and management members decided to continue their joint meetings as a private group and asked me to continue to serve as coordinator. The labormanagement group continues to the present. See John T. Dunlop, Dispute Resolution, Negotiation and Consensus Building (Dover, m a , Auburn House Publishing Co., 1984), pp.. 252-66. 3 On Jan. 10, 1975, the White House released the recom mendations of the Committee. This was the first time orga nized labor had supported an investment tax credit. 4 Weekly Compilation o f Presidential Documents, Mar. 24, 1975, pp. 281-82. 5 Also see Abraham J. Siegel and David B. Lipsky, eds., Unfinished Business: An Agenda fo r Labor, Management and the Public (Cambridge, m a , The m it Press, 1978), pp. 29-36. Conference of the United States,” Nov. 15, 1985; “Negotiated Rulemaking Before Federal Agencies: Evalua tion of Recommendations by the Administrative Conference of the United States,” The Georgetown Law Journal, Au gust 1986, pp. 1627-1717; and Administrative Conference of the United States, Sourcebook: Federal Agency Use o f Alternative Means o f Dispute Resolution (Washington, 1987). 8 See Presidential Management o f Rulemaking in Regula tory Agencies (Washington, National Academy of Public Administration, 1987). 9 Ibid., table 3, p. 14. 10 For a detailed internal account, see, Roger B. Porter, The U.S.-U.S.S.R. Grain Agreement (New York, Cam bridge University Press, 1984). 11 “Comprehensive Employment and Training Act— Re view and Oversight,” Dec. 5, 1975. 6 John T. Dunlop, “The Limits of Legal Compulsion,” Labor Law Journal, February 1976, pp. 67-74. 12 See Frederic V. Malek, Washington’s Hidden Tragedy: The Failure to Make Government Work (New York, The Free Press, 1978), p. 26. Richard Cheney on tv , January 1986, referred to the decision of the President to support situs picketing as “Oh By-the-Way Decisions.” 7 For a discussion of the historical background to negoti ated rulemaking, see Henry H. Perritt, Jr., “Analysis of Four Negotiated Rulemaking Efforts for the Administrative 13 See Jonathan A. Kantar, “The Ford Administration and the 1975 Common Situs Picketing Issue” (Ph.D. diss., Uni versity of Michigan, 1985). G overnm ent's role in prom oting labor-m anagem ent cooperation W. J. USERY, JR. he founding in 1913 of the U.S. Depart tainly supported the many hard-working, dedi ment of Labor represented a landmark in cated career employees who believed in the prescribed governmental influence on departmental mission, I also endeavored to in labor-management relations. The foundersstill of in each of them the acute awareness that our the Labor Department gave the Department the constituents were all working people of this Na mandate to “foster, promote, and develop the tion, regardless of race, age, gender, class, or welfare of the wage earners of the United States, creed— that their concerns were our concerns. I to improve their working conditions and to ad believe that ensuring those two fundamental vance their opportunities for profitable trusts offers any Secretary of Labor his or her employment.”1 greatest professional and bureaucratic challenge. In 1976, when I became the 15th Secretary of I have been asked to share with readers the Labor, that mandate stood foremost in my most difficult problem I encountered as Labor mind. Since its inception, the Department had Secretary, as well as the achievement in which grown from less than 200 employees adminis I took greatest pride. The choices are not easy to tering one child labor law to more than 14,000 make. employees administering hundreds of laws. My most difficult and trying experience de The challenge, as I saw it, was to ensure two mands an anecdotal telling. It began one day in basic trusts. First, that I actively address the late summer of 1976. And it began, of all substantive concerns of the American working places, on the 18th green at the Burning Tree people. And second, that I manage the Depart Country Club near Washington, DC. ment efficiently and effectively. While I cer President Ford was playing the course, and I W. J. Usery, Jr. served as Secretary of Labor in 1976-77. had been waiting for his foursome to play out. T https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW W. J. Usery, Jr. 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis February 1988 • A foursome ahead of the President included late Teamsters President Frank E. Fitzsimmons. As we gathered about the 18th green to watch the President finish his round, Fitzsimmons told me he planned to ask the President to address the upcoming Teamsters convention in Las Vegas. I felt concerned. The President was running for reelection. The Teamsters were under investiga tion, and the whole country knew it. I could visualize the possible news stories if the Presi dent appeared before the Teamsters convention. Nevertheless, Fitzsimmons approached the President, who agreed to speak. Advisers at the White House urged the Presi dent not to make the appearance, and it was agreed that I would speak at the convention in stead. We prepared the speech— the only speech I recall ever submitting to the White House for approval. To minimize the potential risk, it was decided that I would fly to the con vention and return the same day. At the convention, Fitzsimmons set the stage by attacking the media for recent news coverage of the Teamsters. Of course, the media were present, although they were located in the far top comer of the hall, where Fitzsimmons had arranged to put them. After the tirade, Fitzsim mons introduced me to the convention as his good friend. One leams to tell a joke or two under such circumstances. So I told a joke about a golfer. The punch line of the story ended with “I don’t even believe he belongs in this club.” After fin ishing the joke, and after the laughter died down, I announced to the Teamsters, “Well, when it comes to collective bargaining, I’m a member of this club.” Then I made my carefully prepared speech. The speech went well, and all was fine until the story was reported by the media. The wire services ignored the speech but highlighted my “member of this club” remark, characterizing me as a member of the Teamsters club. As a result, several U.S. Senators and mem bers of the House called for my resignation as Labor Secretary. I even received the dubious honor of appearing in several Herblock and Oli phant cartoons. When I next visited the White House, the President smiled and shook my hand. “Well, Bill, welcome to the club.” Then he laughed and added, “I sure am glad you were able to get in and out of that speech in Las Vegas without any trouble.” My present humor about the incident, of course, comes with considerable distance and perspective. During the actual occurrence, I suf fered greatly. To become the center of contro versy while in a Cabinet post is exceedingly uncomfortable. One is embarrassed both per The Labor Department at 75 sonally and professionally. For me, it was the low point of my tenure. But I managed through it because the business of the Labor Department was infinitely more important. Fortunately, one’s failures are brought into healthier focus by one’s successes. And as I look back, 1976-77 also stands out as an impor tant and successful time for the Labor Depart ment. Serving as Labor Secretary while our Nation celebrated its 200th birthday proved one of the high points of my tenure. I grew up in the rural South during the Great Depression. I came up through the ranks of the labor movement, and graduated from the school of hard knocks. To have the President introduce me at the White House, to be seated next to the Vice President, to have the Chief Justice swear me in, and fi nally, to have such distinguished men listen as I expressed my views in an acceptance speech surpassed all I could have imagined as a young boy in Georgia. I felt a great sense of honor in representing the interests of the American working people during the Bicentennial year of a Nation founded on democratic freedoms. Industrial democracy, it seemed, had emerged as a natural extension of those freedoms. By the 1970’s, though, problems global in scope were chipping away at the progress we had made; inflation, unemployment, and recession hindered economic stability. Jobs became a primary concern. As Labor Secretary, I took the same prag matic, hands-on approach that I always take to problemsolving. My successes in solving the practical problems of working people constitute the achievement in which I take greatest pride. President Ford, by his strong support of both me and the Department, deserves inestimable credit for those successes. No aspect of labor-management relations at tracts more publicity or demands more thought ful, pragmatic action than a strike. As Labor Secretary, I encouraged the resolution of labormanagement disputes with strong, effective me diation. Negotiated settlements prevented po tentially harmful and lengthy strikes in several cases. When the direct intervention of the Labor Department became necessary, we guided our actions with prudence and fairness. Round-theclock negotiations helped end the longest strike in the history of the rubber industry, and a po tentially crippling nationwide trucking strike was halted after only 3 days. Less prone to draw publicity— but equally important — were major departmental pro grams aimed at helping American workers adapt to a changing workplace and economic uncer tainty. Working with trade associations, na tional unions, professional organizations, and schools, we launched a program which ex panded apprenticeship opportunities in highly skilled occupations. By expanding the Compre hensive Employment and Training Act ( c e t a ), and by developing special emphasis programs, we helped address the employment concerns of several million people, including veterans, mi grant and seasonal farmworkers, women, and minority group members. Still more workers were aided by major changes in the unemployment insurance pro gram; more money was made available and cov erage was expanded. Concerned about the fu ture of the unemployment insurance program, we instituted long-range planning and estab lished a national commission to recommend changes and improvements. The Labor Department also acted decisively in carrying out its mandate to improve the work ing conditions of American wage earners. De spite great resistance, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( o s h a ) made a com prehensive effort to correct the health and safety problems in injury- and illness-prone industries. We made monies available to educational insti tutions and professional associations to educate the public about job safety and health. Such programmatic efforts represent one as pect of the positive, pivotal role the U.S. Gov ernment historically has played in the lives of American workers. That role is much easier to play, of course, when social values and eco nomic values are aligned. When basic tenets of industrial democracy like collective bargaining and workers’ rights clearly make economic sense to both labor and management, then the role of the Federal Government is reduced. When the long-term economic benefits of labormanagement cooperation become less obvious and conflict emerges, then the need for an ex panded role is apt to increase. In either case, the U.S. Government’s role in maintaining a healthy environment for coopera tive labor-management relations has been— and remains— essential. Collective bargaining, the foundation of American industrial democracy, remains fundamental to the well-being of the free enterprise system. Unfortunately, during recent years, contem porary issues confronting labor-management relations have languished in a kind of purga tory— an isolated landscape inhabited almost exclusively by labor union leaders and corporate labor relations executives. Critical issues over which these labor and business leaders preside affect all of us, especially in a highly competi tive world where events in one comer of the globe affect those in another. But because the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis issues are often highly controversial and com plex, they have been ignored, for the most part, by the remainder of the republic. That clearly must change if the United States is to remain strong and maintain a leadership role in an emerging, restructured world econ omy. It is imperative that we openly explore, debate, and resolve the labor-management is sues challenging the tradition of industrial democracy in America. To do otherwise is to seek solace and hope in ignorance; to do other wise is to invite economic decline. Historically, the joint efforts of business and labor built the great productive capacity of our Nation, even though the apparent interests of those two parties have at times been in conflict. The future, too, will be determined by the insti tutions of business and labor and their respec tive abilities to adapt to a changing world, to find mutuality of interest, and to join forces. If we are to understand how that cooperative proc ess has occurred in the past, we simply cannot ignore the role of government. Until recently, the Federal Government ac tively sought a positive, pivotal role in labormanagement relations. Collective bargaining is but an extension of political democracy, and the U.S. Government since the early years of this century has upheld the rights of American work ers— and at times even encouraged them— to organize and negotiate with employers. The U.S. Government has played an essential, inte gral role in the establishment of collective bar gaining and American industrial democracy. Now that we are commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Department of Labor, I sin cerely hope the celebrated occasion will force the issues confronting the American working people back to center stage, where they will receive not a curtain call but the spotlight of public and political attention. I believe the U.S. Government, through the policies and activities of the Labor Department, can and must help in that process, just as it has done in the past. We cannot afford to regress down the path of protracted labor-management conflict. Nor can we afford indecision regarding critical issues which demand attention. We must choose, in stead, to travel the road of enlightened coopera tion between business and labor, each depend ing on the other. I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that the productive vitality of our great Nation and the American working people hangs in the balance. □ “ We must travel the road of enlightened cooperation between business and labor. -------- FOOTNOTE-------1 Public Law 426, 62d Cong. 51 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • The Labor Department at 75 E stablishing an agenda for th e D epartm ent o f Labor R ay M a rsh a ll he achievement in which I take the great est pride as Secretary of Labor is in hav ing helped establish an agenda for the Department of Labor and having assembled the people and promoted the relationships to carry it out. I was aided in this by several factors. The first was that President Jimmy Carter gave me almost complete freedom in appointments and establishing the administration’s labor agenda. It was also very fortunate that I worked this agenda out with the President before we ever took office. In our system of government, a Cabinet officer’s main constituent is the Presi dent. There will inevitably be policy conflicts within an administration. An early commitment from the President, therefore, helps minimize and resolve these conflicts. President Carter’s general instructions to all Cabinet officers were (1) to make every effort to recruit qualified women and minorities for top positions; (2) to do everything possible to im prove the efficiency of our departments; and (3) to concentrate on important things and simplify our operations to achieve our objectives as effi ciently as possible. With respect to specific Department of Labor programs, President Carter was particularly concerned about widespread criticism of the Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration ( o s h a ) for having too many expensive, onerous, and nit-picking regulations which detracted from very important objectives of working with labor and management to improve safety and health in the workplace. We therefore simpli fied and concentrated— we eliminated many regulations, simplified the rest, and concentrated on the most serious problems. Our basic approach was to strengthen knowledge and ability of labor and management to deal with health and safety problems. We thought it particularly important to strengthen workers’ knowledge of safety and health problems, as well as their power to deal with them and to use Federal resources to ad dress the most serious problems. While we still had a lot of work to do in this area, I am proud of our o s h a accomplishments. President Carter’s second special interest was in employment and training programs. We agreed that active labor market policies should be important components of economic policy. These policies met the test of efficiency, stabil- T ‘ ‘Selective programs could target the groups with the greatest need. ’’ Ray Marshall served as Secretary of Labor during 1977-81. 52 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ity, and equity. They were efficient because they could reduce unemployment at lower cost than any alternative. Because they could target particular employment and labor market prob lems, these programs could reduce unemploy ment and avoid inflationary pressures that were likely to result from macroeconomic policies. Selective programs were equitable because they could target the groups with the greatest need. Because of our concern about unemploy ment, our general approach was to enlarge the employment and training systems as fast as we could, consistent with efficiency in the delivery system. In areas where programs had demon strated their effectiveness (for example, the Job Corps), our objective was to expand as fast as possible. Where we were uncertain as to effec tiveness, we initiated research and demonstra tion projects (such as youth programs, welfare reform, and worker adjustment). Because I had studied these programs in some depth before becoming Secretary of Labor, I knew the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act ( c e t a ) was seriously flawed. When c e t a decentralized Federal programs, the relative participation by young people, the pri vate sector, and the most seriously disadvan taged declined. We therefore attempted to cor rect these defects through the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977, and through special efforts to minimize substitution (that is, local units of government using Federal funds to pay regular employees), to get the pri vate sector more heavily involved (which we did by strengthening the National Alliance of Business and providing for the Private Industry Councils in the 1978 c e t a reauthorization), and targeting programs to special groups (veterans, youth, and seriously disadvantaged, for exam ple), who were likely to receive inadequate at tention from local prime sponsors. The most difficult problems with the c e t a system related to the delivery system and the funding cycle, c e t a ’ s fundamental flaw was the assumption that State and local governments could implement a Federal program without an unacceptably large support and oversight mech anism. Perhaps these problems could have been corrected with enough time, but the nature of the defects and events (especially inflation and growing resistance to government programs) made it impossible to do this in c e t a ’s short life. The system was caught up in a Catch-22 problem: attempting to correct the problems by, for example, introducing a special investiga tions unit (which we did— it later became the Office of the Inspector General) helped correct problems, but it also caused the media and the political system to exaggerate the system’s weaknesses and therefore weakened support for it. We mounted a media campaign to attempt to keep the problems in perspective while we cor rected them. The campaign did some good, but was not enough to save public service employ ment. The other features of c e t a were included in the Job Training Partnership Act, which im proved the delivery system by focusing on the States, but it was a mistake not to have public service employment at all and to greatly reduce overall funding at a time when unemployment was soaring to 10.8 percent. I still believe very strongly that selective labor market policies should be integral compo nents of economic policy. However, we should do more to improve the delivery systems (espe cially making the Private Industry Councils more effective local labor market committees). We should also improve the linkages among employment and training programs, educational institutions (especially community colleges), companies, and labor organizations. The funding problem could be corrected by forward funding or the creation of trust funds. It is very difficult to undertake a complex program to deal with serious structural employment and training programs with an annual funding cycle. On balance, despite c e t a ’ s inherent flaws, independent investigations have concluded that the programs were successful by any reasonable criteria; they were cost effective and helped their participants. I take great pride in having made good ap pointments and establishing good working rela tionships with the career staff. An early decision any Cabinet officer has to make is what ap proach to take with respect to career employees. It is a huge mistake to alienate permanent em ployees through negative attitudes and com ments. I had been around the Labor Department as an adviser, contractor, or grantee long enough before becoming its Secretary to know and respect the Department’s career people; they are overwhelmingly dedicated, conscien tious people willing to work hard to carry out the Department’s mandate to protect and pro mote the interests of America’s wage earners— a mandate I enthusiastically support. I knew, moreover, that whatever we accomplished dur ing my tenure would be done mainly by the career people. My basic policy, therefore, was to try to work with the civil servants to develop consensus on programs. I also included career people in the pool from which we made political appointments. In each case, I selected what https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis seemed to me to be the very best people for the job. My Under Secretary and four of the Depart ment Assistant Secretary-level appointees were career Department of Labor people and one other Assistant Secretary was selected from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a closely related agency. Without exception, these appointments vindicated my judgment. My basic management approach was to select the best people we could find, develop consen sus on goals and objectives, help find other jobs for those who could not agree with those goals and objectives, and then give the agency heads considerable freedom and as much support as possible in carrying out those objectives. I also take considerable pride in our accom plishments in the program areas. In addition to those mentioned above, the most noteworthy are: We developed a policy of strengthening col lective bargaining by good appointments to such agencies as the Federal Mediation and Concilia tion Services, National Labor Relations Board, Federal Labor Relations Authority, and the Na tional Mediation Board. I held frequent joint meetings with the heads of these agencies. Our basic policy was to strengthen workers’ right to choose whether or not to be represented by unions. In order to encourage the parties to bar gain and give major responsibility to Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services, our policy was to intervene in collective bargaining only in rare cases where there was a strong national interest reason to do so. I do not believe we should have intervened in the 1977-78 coal strike, but we did so on the basis of exaggerated information about its impact. From then on, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and my staff had careful strike assessments available to defend our non-intervention strategy. My biggest dis appointment in this area was our inability to break the filibuster to pass labor law reform to strengthen the workers’ freedom of choice under the National Labor Relations Act. Be cause of the weak penalties for violation of the Act and legalistic delays with the National Labor Relations Board procedures, that right currently is not adequately protected. I also be lieve, however, that our collective bargaining structures and policies need to be modernized. The law’s basic assumptions relate more to the 1930’s, 1940’s, and 1950’s than to the condi tions of the 1980’s and 1990’s. We need to develop labor-management and bipartisan con sensus for reforming these important laws. De spite our efforts to do so (and contrary to some of our critics), we were not able to get any significant employer support for labor law re form, despite their recognition that free labor movements are essential components of free enterprise systems. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW . .free labor movements are essential components o f free enterprise systems. ’’ February 1988 • We also developed a strategy to demonstrate that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( e r is a ) could be used to protect pension funds. I am proud of our policies in this area, especially over handling of the important Cen tral States case, in which we caused the fund’s management to be shifted to outside financial institutions. We also brought civil suit for resti tution against the trustees accused of violating their fiduciary responsibilities. We did this through a unified government position under the Department’s leadership. We still have a lot of work to do to make pensions more secure and to give beneficiaries greater control, but we demonstrated that e r is a could be used to protect the funds from the worst forms of fraud and abuse. Finally, I take considerable pride in the rela tionships we established with outside organiza tions and agencies. We worked very hard at establishing good relations with the Congress; unions; civil rights, employer, and community organizations; the White House; the media; and State and local governments. Our relationships with the Congress were particularly good— we were blessed with strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House, but particularly in the Senate, where Senator Jacob Javits, rank ing minority member of the Labor Committee, was a staunch supporter of the Department’s programs. The Labor Department at 75 We strengthened the Women’s Bureau and elevated its status within the Department, and the Women’s Bureau maintained close and ef fective relationships with women’s groups. Similarly, we strengthened the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ( o f c c p ), con solidated it in the Department, and got close cooperation from civil rights and community groups. Some of our strongest support came from those State and local government officials who gave high priority to workers’ problems in their jurisdictions. Our relationships with foreign ministries of labor— particularly the Copenhagen Group— were very valuable. We learned a lot from each other about common problems, and these rela tionships helped us with international political problems. In an international information world, the Department of Labor cannot ade quately carry out its mandate without being heavily involved in foreign policy and interna tional economic decisions and activities. In conclusion, I take the greatest pride in the agenda we formulated to carry out the Depart ment’s mandate and the people, systems, and relationships we put together to carry out that agenda. We had our share of problems and made our share of mistakes, but we also had our share of successes. From my perspective, being Secretary of Labor was a good and satisfying job. □ W orkforce 2 0 0 0 agenda recogn izes lifelo n g n eed to improve sk ills W il l ia m hen I came to the Labor Department as its Secretary in May 1985, I told the employees that I hoped we could open ourselves to new ideas and initiatives, not just from within our own ranks, but from all of the people and organizations which have a stake in the Department’s wide-ranging activities. I was not disappointed. There is a growing awareness that the world is changing rapidly and that methods and concepts which served us well in the past must be rigorously reexamined. W William E. Brock served as Secretary of Labor during 1985-87. 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis E. B rock We are beginning to have a national dialogue on the relevant issues and questions that will determine our economic future, and I am grati fied that the Labor Department contributed to that through a project called “Workforce 2000.” The programs, policies, and issues that are part of Workforce 2000 are rooted in Labor De partment studies and projections of what kinds of jobs our economy will produce in the future, and who will be available to do them. For exam ple, 3 of every 4 workers in the year 2000 will be people who are already in our Nation’s labor force. Eighty percent of the new entrants will come from three groups— women, minorities, and immigrants. Of the new jobs expected to be created over the next 13 years, every category requiring higher skills will grow faster than those requir ing less skills. Almost half of the 20 occupations projected to lead the growth over the next decade are related to the computer and health fields. The occupational mix of jobs also will change, with employment in managerial and professional positions growing almost five times as fast as operative and laborer jobs. Unless every portent of where the domestic and world economies are headed is wrong, the workers of the future will have to be better edu cated and better trained than our current labor force, or we will be unable to maintain a leader ship position in the high technology industries and services that offer the greatest promise for America’s continued prosperity. Each of the groups that will account for the bulk of new workers— women, immigrants, and minorities— presents particular challenges. The growing number of women in the labor force has highlighted the problem of parents who must balance the demands of the jobs with child care responsibilities. Immigrants often must overcome language barriers that make it difficult for them to find and keep jobs and to learn skills. Minority and disadvantaged youths are more likely to be functionally illiterate, to drop out of school, to become pregnant as teenagers, or to abuse drugs and alcohol. The specter of millions of youngsters contin uing to reach adulthood without acquiring the basic skills needed to become productive, selfsupporting, self-respecting members of society is especially disquieting. We run the risk— and it is a risk with grave consequences— of creat ing a permanent underclass, a group of people who are not just unemployed, but unemploy able. Because of the importance of this prob lem, the Labor Department— as part of Work force 2000— increased the emphasis on basic education in its youth programs, especially pro grams serving young people in welfare families. Society must concentrate more employment and training resources, private as well as public, on young parents and children in welfare families because they can benefit most from such help. Our economy is expected to produce more than 10 million new jobs by 1995. At the same time, our population and work force will be expanding at an unusually slow pace, and the number of young people seeking jobs actually will decline. The convergence of these trends could result in a shortage of workers, particu larly at the entry level, but for some higher pay ing skilled jobs as well. All of this adds up to a potential “window of opportunity” to bring mi nority youth, the handicapped, and others with longstanding employment problems into the mainstream of the U.S. economy. It is an oppor tunity we dare not squander by failing to give https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis these people the tools to take advantage of it. There is no tool more important to workers today than education and training that will en able them to function in a job market requiring more flexibility and adaptability than ever be fore. Yet many of our educational institutions and job training programs persist in preparing people for a first occupation as though it will also be the last. The average American wage earner today can expect to work in three or more careers in a lifetime. Education and occupational training too often are viewed as institutional processes that end when a young person begins earning a living. We need to look beyond the classroom and real ize that education— especially work-related ed ucation and training— is a lifelong endeavor. We must make the rhetoric of “continuing edu cation” a reality. Every industry and every union should be involved in programs to train, retrain, and upgrade the skills of workers. If it has taught us nothing else, the human suffering and economic waste caused by cutbacks in steel and other basic industries should have demon strated the folly of waiting until workers are faced with redundancy before preparing them for new jobs. Although the private sector must take the lead in worker training, the government has a role to play. To improve the effectiveness of the gov ernment’s efforts, the Labor Department’s Workforce 2000 agenda includes a proposed new worker adjustment program. Helping dislocated workers must be a cooper ative effort that brings together labor and man agement in a common cause. The same can be said of every aspect of our Nation’s drive to produce quality goods and services that are fully competitive in what is fast becoming an inte grated world economy. Confrontation no longer is a viable approach to labor-management rela tions. American business and industry must not just accept but invite involvement in every phase of their operations from design to produc tion to marketing. Organizations that stress em ployee participation will be the most successful and the best prepared to lead America into the competitive cauldron of the next century. Acceptance of the need for change, however, is not necessarily followed quickly by substan tive change in the way government operates. That should not be surprising— the laws of human nature are not easily revoked— nor is it all bad. Government services and protections that affect millions of people should not imitate the commercial consumer market where peri odic remodeling of products all too often re flects advertising considerations rather than im proved quality. Still, in looking back on 2\ rewarding and stimulating years. I must admit the measured pace of institutional change proba bly ranks as my chief frustration. tool more important than education . 55 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW W illiam E. Brock 56 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis February 1988 • The Employment Service, for example, has been bringing together workers and employers for more than half a century. Techniques for matching jobs and jobseekers have changed, but the relationship between this essentially local activity and the Federal Government is little dif ferent than it was during the depression years of the 1930’s. That does not make much sense. Labor and job market conditions vary widely in a Nation as geographically vast and economi cally dynamic as ours. Workers and employers would benefit if States exercised greater control over the financing and programs of the Employ ment Service. We made a start in that direction, but a good deal more remains to be done. Few, if any, Labor Department responsibili ties are more important than protecting the health and safety of American workers. It is a daunting mission in size and complexity as well as in the controversies and passions it engen ders. Rulemaking is at the heart of administer ing the job safety law, and it can be, and at times has been, a cumbersome if not chaotic process. In its first 16 years of existence, the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration ap proved fewer than 20 standards for handling toxic substances. Admittedly, developing such standards is difficult, involving as it often does passionate partisans for and against every pro posal, substantial economic considerations, and complicated and even conflicting scientific data. But part of the problem was the agency’s decision to set out on a course of establishing a separate standard for each of the hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of substances that might be hazardous to workers. That way lies madness. Generic regulations and mediated rulemaking are better approaches. In generic rulemaking, a general standard is established for a whole range of hazardous substances. The standard requires employers to inform workers about hazardous substances they may encounter on the job and to train them in the proper handling of such substances. Mediated rulemaking involves the establish ment of committees composed of all interested parties to draft regulations on specific job safety and health issues. Participants normally include representatives of labor, management, govern ment, and, where appropriate, the scientific community. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration reviews the work of the committee, makes any changes it deems neces sary, and then issues the rule as a proposal for public comment. The idea is that disagreements will be diminished and the process accelerated if those who have the biggest stake in job safety regulations are given a role in formulating them. Although mediated rulemaking is no panacea, its potential for resolving difficult issues is evi dent in the progress that has been made on es tablishing a standard for methylenedianiline. The Labor Department at 75 Generic standards and mediated rulemaking are steps in the right direction. That they are not yet standard operating procedures, and that they have been so long in coming attest to the diffi culty of achieving institutional change. Rules governing working at home, a new pro gram to help dislocated workers return to pro ductive employment, and stronger protections for private pension plan participants are some other areas in which we sought to alter the status quo in ways that would make Labor Department programs and policies compatible with our changing economy. None of these efforts was complete at the time of my departure, but home work rules based on common sense and fair play were near the finish line, an expanded program to help displaced workers had broad support, and pension issues were nearing a very positive resolution on Capitol Hill. My disappointment in the inertia that seems built into most large institutions was tempered by the acceptance of the need for change in what some might consider an unlikely quarter— labor-management relations. Cooperation may not yet be the dominant theme in labor-manage ment relations, but it is gaining adherents on both sides of the bargaining table at a rate that only the most optimistic would have thought possible just a few years ago. The Labor Depart ment has played a limited but important role in this development by encouraging labor and management to work together and by serv ing as a clearinghouse for a broad range of infor mation on innovative approaches to employee participation. The growing interest in an acceptance of labor-management cooperation could not have come at a better time. Labor-management coop eration, or employee participation, which is an other name for the same concept, is an essential element in building the skilled, flexible work force the Nation will need as we move into the 21st century. America faces a future of great challenge and great opportunity. We have an unmatched his tory of accomplishment and keen competitive instincts. Time and again, we have demon strated our ability to adapt to change. But the term “adapt to change” implies taking action after the fact. That is no longer good enough. We must anticipate change and be ready to make the most of it. Change has been one of the constants of the American experience. As a Nation, we have embraced it, not feared it, because we are opti mists. We must maintain that philosophy, but adopt a new timetable in applying it. If we do, and if business, labor, and the academic com munity work together— in the national interest as well as in mutual self-interest— then when the 21st century dawns, Americans will be ready. □ Job gains strong in 1987; unemployment rate declines As the economy completed the fifth year of expansion, employment increased by 3 million; the jobless rate fell below 6 percent M ark G. U lm er and W ayne J. H owe Labor market performance in 1987, by most measures, was the best in several years, as the economic expansion reached the 5-year mark. Job growth was stronger than it had been since 1984, and the jobless rate fell almost a full percentage point after changing little in 1985 and 1986. Following are highlights of employment and unemploy ment developments in 1987: • Nonagricultural payroll employment, as measured by the survey of business establishments, and total employment, as measured by the household survey, both showed a healthy increase of roughly 3 million in 1987. The proportion of the population with jobs reached a record high of 61.9 percent. • After 2 years of declines, the goods-producing sector posted a moderate over-the-year rise in employment. Em ployment in the service-producing sector continued to ex pand at a rapid pace, with the largest increase in the service industries. • All three major racial and ethnic groups contributed to the job growth in 1987. The rate of employment growth among black and Hispanic workers was roughly twice that for white workers. • The civilian unemployment rate dropped by nearly a full percentage point to 5.9 percent at the end of 1987. Most of Mark G. Ulmer and Wayne J. Howe are economists in the Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the decline occurred in the first 6 months. Virtually all worker groups shared in this improvement. Nonfarm payroll em ploym ent Nonagricultural payroll employment, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ business survey, grew at a healthy pace in 1987. Employment reached 103.3 million in the fourth quarter of 1987, an increase of nearly 3 million from the fourth quarter of 1986. This marked the fifth straight year in which job growth exceeded 2 million. These gains have resulted in an increase of roughly 15 million jobs during the current expansion. (See table 1.) While job gains were recorded in every major industry division, the composition of growth revealed marked differ ences among industries and contrasted sharply to earlier years of the recovery. Following back-to-back years of de clines, the goods-producing sector posted significant job gains in 1987, with renewed employment growth in both manufacturing and mining. This marked a dramatic turnaround from the persistent job losses incurred in those industries throughout the prior 2 years. Construction, a strong force during the earlier phases of the recovery, peaked in the fourth quarter after experiencing job reduc tions through much of the year. The service-producing sec tor continued to dominate the employment increases, ac counting for 4 out of every 5 new jobs in 1987. The service 57 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Employment Trends in 1987 industries alone added more than 1 million jobs over the year. (See chart 1.) Industry developm ents The goods-producing sector showed renewed strength in 1987, gaining 545,000 jobs during the year. (All over-theyear comparisons refer to the fourth quarter of 1986 to the Table 1. fourth quarter of 1987, unless otherwise noted.) After expe riencing substantial employment declines in 1985 and 1986, manufacturing added 370,000 jobs in 1987, virtually all of them in the second half of the year. The demand for factory products was apparently beginning to benefit from the dol lar’s weak exchange rate, which was spurring foreign de mand for American goods. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, selected seasonally adjusted quarterly averages, 1982-87 [In thousands] 1982 1984 1985 1986 1987 Industry IV I II III IVP Total ................................................................................................... 88,717 95,882 98,444 100,397 101,133 101,708 102,278 103,267 Total private ................................................................................................ 72,893 79,721 81,905 83,498 84,183 84,675 85,240 86,042 22,980 24,943 24,788 24,624 24,733 24,757 24,884 25,169 Mining ................................................................................................ Oil and gas extraction ............................................................................ 1,029 651 957 610 898 559 730 411 720 406 734 420 751 434 762 441 Construction...................................................................................... General building contractors ..................................................................... 3,837 959 4,501 1,188 4,757 1,289 4,941 1,285 5,035 1,304 5,009 1,268 4,999 1,261 5,087 1,285 Goods-producing.............................................................................. Manufacturing........................................................................................... 18,115 19,485 19,133 18,953 18,979 19,015 19,134 19,320 Durable goods.............................................................................................. Lumber and wood products .......................................................................... Furniture and fixtures................................................................................... Stone, clay, and glass products ..................................................................... Primary metal industries............................................................................. Blast furnaces and basic steel products......................................................... Fabricated metal products ............................................................................ Machinery, except electrical.......................................................................... Electrical and electronic equipment ................................................................ Transportation equipment............................................................................ Motor vehicles and equipment ................................................................... Instruments and related products ................................................................... Miscellaneous manufacturing........................................................................ 10,484 596 425 558 824 344 1,349 2,051 1,953 1,662 659 699 367 11,634 703 493 593 844 318 1,483 2,235 2,248 1,931 877 721 382 11,392 700 494 587 789 294 1,454 2,124 2,154 2,010 887 717 363 11,173 723 499 582 733 260 1,421 2,016 2,119 2,018 854 700 362 11,171 733 501 587 733 260 1,420 2,013 2,105 2,019 855 695 364 11,175 736 508 584 744 273 1,422 2,025 2,086 2,011 844 693 366 11,237 739 519 582 756 279 1,426 2,043 2,093 2,014 833 695 371 11,358 748 526 587 769 286 1,445 2,071 2,119 2,018 836 699 376 Nondurable goods......................................................................................... Food and kindred products............................................................................ Tobacco manufactures............................................................................... Textile mill products.................................................................................... Apparel and other textile products .................................................................. Paper and allied products.............................................................................. Printing and publishing.......................................................................... Chemical and allied products......................................................................... Petroleum and coal products ....................................................................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products...................................................... Leather and leather products ........................................................................ 7,631 1,628 68 729 1,139 654 1,271 1,055 200 679 209 7,851 1,607 64 726 1,156 682 1,404 1,056 188 792 176 7,741 1,599 63 698 1,115 674 1,437 1,034 174 785 162 7,780 1,626 58 713 1,105 678 1,472 1,019 165 797 147 7,808 1,631 58 722 1,103 678 1,482 1,018 164 805 147 7,839 1,636 57 727 1,106 677 1,496 1,018 164 809 149 7,897 1,636 56 734 1,119 679 1,507 1,029 165 819 153 7,962 1,640 56 738 1,126 681 1,521 1,041 167 840 153 Service-producing ................................................................................... 65,737 70,939 73,656 75,773 76,399 76,951 77,394 78,098 Transportation and public utilities ........................................................................ Transportation........................................................................................ Communication and public utilities.................................................................. 5,023 2,735 2,288 5,201 2,964 2,237 5,261 3,028 2,233 5,272 3,067 2,204 5,317 3,099 2,218 5,347 3,124 2,223 5,385 3,154 2,231 5,451 3,209 2,242 Wholesale trade ..................................................................... Durable goods............................................................................. Nondurable goods.......................................................................... 5,213 3,034 2,179 5,643 3,336 2,307 5,747 3,401 2,346 5,728 3,381 2,347 5,755 3,391 2,363 5,776 3,401 2,375 5,806 3,424 2,383 5,851 3,459 2,392 Retail trade................................................................... General merchandise stores .......................................................................... Food stores................................................................................. Automotive dealers and service stations ........................................................... Eating and drinking places............................................................................... 15,189 2,141 2,510 1,634 4,872 16,923 2,316 2,685 1,834 5,527 17,562 2,331 2,819 1,913 5,772 17,999 2,376 2,908 1,964 5,928 18,119 2,370 2,938 1,979 5,955 18,209 2,387 2,956 1,980 5,973 18,281 2,411 2,960 1,986 5,998 18,417 2,440 2,980 2,005 6,047 Finance, insurance, and real estate....................................................................... Finance........................................................................................ Insurance ................................................................................................... Real estate......................................................................................... 5,356 2,664 1,715 977 5,779 2,890 1,785 1,105 6,077 3,034 1,868 1,175 6,421 3,214 1,990 1,217 6,502 3,245 2,017 1,241 6,573 3,276 2,035 1,262 6,620 3,292 2,049 1,279 6,656 3,299 2,072 1,285 Services........................................................................................ Business services................................................................................... Health services..................................................................... 19,131 3,289 5,892 21,231 4,195 6,177 22,469 4,610 6,377 23,455 4,883 6,665 23,757 4,985 6,747 24,011 5,071 6,825 24,263 5,130 6,918 24,498 5,204 7,026 Government......................................................................................... Federal....................................................................................................... State.......................................................................................................... Local.......................................................................................................... 15,824 2,745 3,641 9,438 16,161 2,830 3,771 9,560 16,539 2,904 3,863 9,772 16,899 2,900 3,916 10,082 16,949 2,917 3,929 10,104 17,033 2,934 3,941 10,158 17,038 2,946 3,958 10,134 17,225 2,973 3,987 10,265 p = preliminary. 58 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Chart 1. Employment increases by major industry division, fourth quarter 1986-87, seasonally adjusted Thousands Job growth in the durable goods industries was little changed through the first half of 1987, but accounted for 185,000 of manufacturing’s strong second-half gains. The primary metals industry rebounded from 3 consecu tive years of steady declines to regain 35,000 jobs between 1986 and 1987; 25,000 of these jobs were in the steel in dustry. Nonelectrical machinery recaptured 55,000 jobs in 1987, following 2 consecutive years of losses in excess of 100,000. The steel and machinery industries, which had suffered from strong import competition, began to benefit from the declining dollar. Transportation equipment was virtually unchanged over the year, as employment decreases in motor vehicles and equipment were offset by increases in defense-related industries (aircraft and guided missiles). The nondurable goods industries posted job increases for the second straight year, adding 180,000 jobs in 1987. Print ing and publishing continued its strong growth, gaining 50,000 jobs over the year (and 250,000 since the recovery began). The rubber and plastics industry continued its up ward trend, adding 45,000 jobs. The plastics segment ac counted for the entire increase. New uses for plastics, mainly in the form of revamped packaging, fueled job ex pansion. The textiles and apparel industries also posted sig nificant job gains in 1987 after experiencing declines through much of the 1980’s. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Backed by the resurgence of the oil and gas industry, mining employment increased 45,000 between its trough in early 1987 and year’s end. Oil and gas extraction accounted for almost all of this increase, much of which can be at tributed to a rise in oil prices. This industry had suffered from a worldwide oil surplus, causing a sharp decline in oil prices and leading to employment declines totaling half a million between the first quarters of 1982 and 1987. Thus, the small recent job gains are a promising sign for the mining industry. The construction industry ended 1987 with about 145,000 more jobs than a year earlier, the smallest increase of the 5-year expansion. Job gains were quite uneven during the year— in fact, on a seasonally adjusted basis, they occurred mostly in January and October through December. Because these are all months of seasonal employment cutbacks, the strength in these months indicates that fewer workers than normal had been laid off during the slower months. Residen tial and commercial construction were both affected by ris ing interest rates through much of 1987, and changes in the tax laws made commercial investment in building less attractive. The service-producing sector continued to expand at a rapid pace, adding 2.3 million jobs in 1987. Since the November 1982 recession trough, this sector has accounted for 85 percent of the jobs gained. The largest increases 59 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Employment Trends in 1987 continued to be in services and retail trade. The service industries alone accounted for nearly 45 percent of the em ployment growth in this sector since the recession trough and represented 36 percent of all nonagricultural jobs added in 1987. Employment in transportation and public utilities in creased steadily, gaining 180,000 jobs from the fourth quar ter of 1986 and more than 300,000 from mid-1986. The bulk of this increase occurred in the transportation industry. Most of that industry’s strong performance can be linked to the rise in manufacturing orders and shipments, and to in creased industrial production. Air transportation also showed consistent growth, particularly in the second half of 1987, when airline passenger traffic reached record levels. Railroads continued their long-term decline, while commu nication and public utilities posted modest gains over the year. Wholesale trade experienced steady growth in 1987, with both the durables and nondurables portions posting small but consistent job increases. Retail trade showed much more substantial gains, as re tail sales remained strong throughout much of the year. The industry added nearly 420,000 jobs in 1987, with eating and drinking places, food stores, and automotive dealers and service stations continuing their long upward trends. Radio, television, and music stores remained prosperous as demand for video cassette recorders, video rental clubs, and home computers continued to spur employment gains in this in dustry. Department stores, backed by record high consumer confidence (at least up to the October stock market col lapse), posted substantial employment increases in 1987; after peaking in October, employment in department stores declined on a seasonally adjusted basis. Employment in finance, insurance, and real estate in creased 235,000 in 1987, with two-thirds of the increase having occurred in the first half of the year. The three major components all showed significant job gains in 1987. In finance, the largest increase was in security brokers and dealers. This industry grew as more investors entered the securities market. At yearend, however, many financial firms announced plans to substantially reduce their work forces. Real estate agents and managers also exhibited sub stantial employment growth in 1987. The services industries continued to pace employment growth, accounting for nearly 4 out of every 10 non agricultural jobs created in 1987. Since the start of the current expansion, these industries has gained 5.4 million jobs. This year’s 1 million increase was led by business services and health services. These two industries, which account for approximately half of all service industries em ployment, have also dominated the sectors’ long-term growth. The temporary help industry, which contracts out em ployees for temporary assignments in other establishments, Chart 2. Goods- and service-producing sector shares of payroll employment, 1967 and 1987 annual averages □ G o o d s p ro d u c in g H S e rv ic e p ro d u c in g 1 9 67 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1987 Chart 3. Percentage change in employment by major industry division, 1967-87 annual averages Mining C onstruction M anufacturing Transportation and public utilities W holesale trade Retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate Services G overnm ent P ercent change has been one of the fastest-growing industries during the 1982-87 economic expansion. Temporary work arrange ments are attractive to workers who require flexible sched ules, such as mothers with young children, who might oth erwise not be in the labor force. They are also beneficial to employers when they prefer not to make long-term hiring commitments. The health services industry was paced by significant employment gains in hospitals and offices of physicians. The long-term increase in this industry has, to some extent, been linked to the aging of the population. This factor, coupled with the increased demand for routine and preven tive health care, increased use of diagnostic procedures, and advances in medical technology, has led to rapid job expan sion in health services. Government employment rose 325,000 in 1987, a growth pace consistent with that over the last few years. Federal, State, and local governments all posted employment in creases over the year. Most of this increase occurred in local government. In particular, employment in education bene fited from increased school enrollments. Growth in local government was also spurred by increased revenues gener ated by lotteries, revised tax laws, and general business expansion. Hours of work The workweek of production or nonsupervisory workers https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on private nonagricultural payrolls, which had declined to a low of 34.7 hours in the fourth quarter of 1986, fluctuated during 1987, standing at 34.8 by year’s end. Over the longer term, the average workweek has been in a decline, which is largely attributable to the increasing proportion of employ ment in the retail trade and service industries, which employ many part-time workers. The slight rise in average weekly hours is explained by manufacturing’s recent strength in both employment and hours. Average weekly hours in manufacturing continued to climb in 1987, reaching 41.2 hours by the final quarter, extremely high by historical standards. Between the first quarter of 1985 and the final quarter of 1987, the factory workweek increased about an hour. Factory overtime showed consistent increases in 1987, reaching a peak of 3.9 hours in the fourth quarter. The index of aggregate weekly hours, a comprehensive measure which takes into account both the number of pro duction workers and their average hours, increased by 4.1 percent in 1987, reaching a record level of 122.0 by year’s end (1977=100). This was the largest over-the-year in crease since 1984 and marked the fifth consecutive yearly gain in this index. The index of aggregate hours for manu facturing also rose, increasing 3.2 percent from the fourth quarter of 1986. 61 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Employment Trends in 1987 Long-term employment trends. The service-sector domi nation of job growth in 1987 represents the continuation of a long-term trend. Chart 2 illustrates the relative employ ment in the service-producing versus the goods-producing sector in 1987 compared with 20 years earlier. The goodsproducing sector has shown little employment growth (7 percent), while becoming a significantly smaller component of total employment. The service-producing sector has grown dramatically, increasing 82 percent from its 1967 employment level and now accounting for 3 out of every 4 nonagricultural jobs. In the goods-producing sector, mining has gained jobs over this 20-year period, but, after peaking at a level of 1.2 million in early 1982, has suffered substantial employment declines in subsequent years. Construction accounted for most of the modest employment gains in the goodsproducing sector over this period. The manufacturing share of total employment has dwindled, falling from 30 percent in 1967 to less than 19 percent in 1987. Such declines have not been experienced by other measures of manufacturing’s health; for example, manufacturing has largely maintained its share of gross national product. Chart 3 illustrates long-term industry employment growth. While all service-sector industries continue to ex pand, many make up roughly the same proportion of total jobs as they did 20 years earlier. Thus, wholesale trade’s portion of employment has remained constant, while gov ernment and transportation and public utilities have shown slight losses of job share. The finance, insurance, and real estate industry, while increasing at a brisk pace, has gained less than 2 percent of the total job distribution. This is still impressive, because the industry consists of such a small portion of total employment. Retail trade has increased its share of jobs by nearly 3 percent, while services have shown the largest gain in job share, increasing by more than 8 Table 2. Employment gains and losses by major occupa tion, 1983-1V to 1987-IV [In percent] Occupation Total....................... Managerial and professional specialty...................... Executive, administrative, and managerial.......... Professional specialty .... Technical, sales, administrafive support ................. Technicians and related support.................... Sales occupations ........ Administrative support, including clerical ........ Service occupations.......... Precision production, craft, and repair.......... Operators, fabricators, and laborers ............. Farming, fishing, and forestry.................... 62 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1983-84 3.3 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 percent. Services currently compose roughly 25 percent of total nonagricultural employment. Civilian em ploym ent Total civilian employment, which includes a large num ber of self-employed workers, rose by 3.1 million in 1987 to 113.5 million. Overall, employment increased by 14.6 million between late 1982 and 1987. Up until 1987, the current economic expansion had followed the cyclical pat tern for an economic recovery— robust employment growth in the first few years, succeeded by much smaller gains in subsequent years. The employment spurt in 1987, however, resulted in the strongest over-the-year job growth since 1984. Age and sex. The demographic pattern of employment growth has followed a “normal” cyclical pattern during the expansion. Having borne the brunt of recessionary layoffs, adult men made up a large percentage of the early job gains, accounting for more than half of the increase between the fourth quarters of 1982 and 1984. As the expansion contin ued, adult women made up a larger share, reflecting their long-term trend of growing labor market participation. In 1985 and 1986, women accounted for 70 and 56 percent, respectively, of the over-the-year increases in employment. In 1987, however, women made up only about half of the employment growth. Also, for the second straight year, teenagers experienced a job gain. The increase followed large losses in the 1980-82 recession years and little move ment between 1983 and 1985, a reflection of teenagers’ declining population during this period. These strong employment advances are also reflected in the gains in the employment-population ratio (the proportion of the civilian working age population with jobs) for each of the three groups. The proportions of women and teenagers with jobs increased by 1.2 and 1.4 percentage points over the year, to 53.6 and 46.0 percent. The proportion of men rose only 0.6 percentage point to 74.0 percent. The overall ratio was 61.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 1987, the highest in history. 1983-87 2.0 2.3 2.8 5.1 4.3 2.9 4.5 17.8 7.4 3.2 4.7 3.9 4.4 1.6 5.5 3.6 23.8 12.8 10.7 3.2 2.7 3.6 2.1 12.1 3.4 5.3 2.7 0.7 3.4 5.5 0.5 0.6 10.3 12.5 1.5 0.9 4.2 2.6 2.3 1.2 3.6 2.3 7.1 7.0 3.5 1.4 0.6 0.7 6.3 3.1 -1.0 0.8 3.8 6.8 0.8 -7.9 2.8 1.6 -3.1 Whites, blacks, and Hispanics. All three major racialethnic groups benefited from the job growth in 1987. The fastest rate of growth was registered by Hispanic workers. Although they make up only 7 percent of the U.S. work force, Hispanic workers accounted for 19 percent of the overall job gain in 1987. During that period, their employment-population ratio climbed to a new high of 61.3 percent. Hispanic workers also accounted for a relatively large share of the overall employment increase, as their employment-population ratio climbed to 61.1 percent, also a record. Although whites also experienced employment growth, their share of the 1987 job gain was small relative to their share of the labor force. Table 3. Selected labor force indicators by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, selected seasonally adjusted quarterly aver ages, 1982-87 [Numbers in thousands] 1982 1984 1985 1986 1987 Characteristic IV 1 II III IV Total Civilian labor force.............................................................................................. Percent of population.................................................................................. Employed ................................................................................................... Agriculture................................................................................................ Nonagriculture........................................................................................... Employment-population ratio ........................................................................ Unemployed ................................................................................................ Unemployment rate .................................................................................... 110,959 64.1 99,120 3,471 95,649 57.3 11,839 10.7 114,257 64.5 105,944 3,327 102,616 58.8 8,313 7.3 116,187 64.9 107,984 3,093 104,891 60.3 8,203 7.1 118,557 65.4 110,436 3,176 107,260 60.9 8,121 6.8 119,151 65.5 111,271 3,212 108,059 61.1 7,880 6.6 119,626 65.5 112,147 3,237 108,910 61.4 7,479 6.3 120,053 65.6 112,854 3,180 109,674 61.7 7,199 6.0 120,568 65.7 113,486 3,212 110,274 61.9 7,082 5.9 58,375 78.8 52,553 70.9 5,822 10.0 60,015 78.3 56,252 73.4 3,763 6.3 60,586 78.1 56,936 73.4 3,650 6.0 61,657 78.2 57,873 73.4 3,784 6.1 61,925 78.2 58,308 73.6 3,617 5.8 62,051 78.1 58,607 73.8 3,444 5.6 62,091 77.9 58,858 73.9 3,233 5.2 62,253 77.9 59,129 74.0 3,124 5.0 44,112 52.9 40,127 48.1 3,985 9.0 46,354 54.0 43,254 50.4 3,200 6.7 47,736 54.9 44,686 51.4 3,050 6.4 49,005 55.7 46,070 52.4 2,935 6.0 49,308 55.9 46,452 52.6 2,856 5.8 49,648 56.1 46,959 53.1 2,689 5.4 49,926 56.3 47,255 53.3 2,671 5.3 50,237 56.5 47,621 53.6 2,615 5.2 8,472 54.3 6,440 41.3 2,032 24.0 7,887 54.1 6,438 44.2 1,449 18.4 7,865 54.4 6,362 44.0 1,503 19.1 7,895 54.3 6,492 44.6 1,402 17.8 7,919 54.4 6,511 44.8 1,408 17.8 7,927 54.3 6,581 45.1 1,346 17.0 8,036 54.9 6,740 46.0 1,296 16.1 8,078 55.2 6,736 46.0 1,342 16.6 96,623 64.4 87,452 58.3 9,171 9.5 98,814 64.7 92,618 60.7 6,176 6.3 100,538 65.2 94,491 61.3 6,047 6.0 102,425 65.7 96,350 61.8 6,075 5.9 102,777 65.7 96,941 62.0 5,835 5.7 103,179 65.8 97,622 63.3 5,558 5.4 103,374 65.8 98,056 62.4 5,318 5.1 103,769 65.9 98,529 62.6 5,240 5.0 11,503 61.5 9,155 48.9 2,348 20.4 12,254 62.9 10,400 53.4 1,854 15.1 12,477 63.0 10,588 53.5 1,889 15.1 12,719 63.2 10,918 54.3 1,800 14.2 12,851 63.6 11,051 54.7 1,800 14.0 12,853 63.3 11,160 54.9 1,693 13.2 13,072 64.1 11,438 56.1 1,634 12.5 13,187 64.4 11,583 56.6 1,603 12.2 6,826 63.5 5,783 53.8 1,043 15.3 7,618 65.4 6,823 58.6 795 10.4 7,809 64.7 6,973 57.7 836 10.7 8,256 66.0 7,425 59.4 831 10.1 8,402 66.2 7,593 59.8 809 9.6 8,495 66.3 7,740 60.4 755 8.9 8,526 66.0 7,832 60.6 694 8.1 8,730 66.9 7,990 61.3 739 8.5 Men, 20 years and over Civilian labor force.............................................................................................. Percent of population.................................................................................. Employed ................................................................................................... Employment-population ratio ........................................................................ Unemployed ................................................................................................ Unemployment rate .................................................................................... Women, 20 years and over Civilian labor force.............................................................................................. Percent of population.................................................................................. Employed.................. ................................................................................ Employment-population ratio ........................................................................ Unemployed ................................................................................................ Unemployment rate .................................................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Civilian labor force.............................................................................................. Percent of population................................................................................... Employed ................................................................................................... Employment-population ratio ........................................................................ Unemployed ................................................................................................ Unemployment rate .................................................................................... White Civilian labor force.............................................................................................. Percent of population.................................................................................. Employed ................................................................................................... Employment-population ratio ........................................................................ Unemployed ................................................................................................ Unemployment rate .................................................................................... Black Civilian labor force.............................................................................................. Percent of population................................................................................... Employed ................................................................................................... Employment-population ratio ........................................................................ Unemployed ................................................................................................ Unemployment rate .................................................................................... Hispanic origin Civilian labor force.............................................................................................. Percent of population.................................................................................. Employed ................................................................................................... Employment-population ratio ........................................................................ Unemployed ................................................................................................ Unemployment rate .................................................................................... Note: Detail for race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sumto totals because data for the “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black Occupations. Consistent with the overall employment in crease in 1987, most occupations gained workers during the past year. However, the rate of employment growth was markedly different among occupations.1 Table 2 shows the percent change in employment for major occupations by year, beginning with the fourth quarter of 1983 and ending with the fourth quarter of 1987. It also shows the percent change in employment for this entire period. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis population groups, As had been the case in the 1983-86 period, the greatest job expansion in 1987 occurred among executive, adminis trative, and managerial workers. In the past 4 years, the number of these relatively highly educated, highly paid workers grew more than twice as fast as did total employ ment. In contrast, the number of operator, fabricator, and laborer jobs— the typical factory tasks— increased at a very slow pace. Despite benefiting from the rebound in manufac63 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Employment Trends in 1987 turing during 1987, total growth in these occupations over the 1983-87 period was much less than the gain in total employment. Farming, forestry, and fishing jobs showed an outright decline between 1983 and 1987. Part-time workers. As has been the case throughout the entire expansionary period, the vast majority of the employ ment growth in 1987 occurred among full-time workers (those working 35 hours or more per week). At the end of the year, there were 20 million part-time workers, 14.6 million of whom worked part time voluntarily. This repre sented an increase of about 515,000 voluntary part-time workers over the previous year.2 In addition to voluntary part-time workers, about 5.4 million persons worked part time for economic reasons— that is, they would have preferred full-time work. Their number was down slightly from the fourth quarter of 1986. After declining by 1.3 million in the first 3 years of the current economic expansion, the number of such workers has remained relatively high. Unem ploym ent The civilian worker unemployment rate dropped by 0.9 percentage point to 5.9 percent during the course of 1987, with the bulk of the decline occurring in the first 6 months. Over the year, the number of unemployed persons fell by a million to 7.1 million. Both the number unemployed and the rate of unemployment had shown very limited improvement in 1985 and 1986. (See table 3.) Age and sex. The 1987 drop in joblessness was shared by virtually all major labor force groups. The rate for adult men fell by 1.1 percentage points to 5.0 percent. However, that level was still above those recorded just before the two recessions in the early 1980’s. The rate for adult women declined by 0.8 percentage point to 5.2 percent at year’s end— its lowest level since the first half of 1974. An in crease in the teenage rate of unemployment in the fourth quarter tempered second- and third-quarter declines. As a result, teenagers were the only major labor force group to have shown little improvement over the year. Whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Each of the three major racial-ethnic groups experienced a decrease in unemploy ment in 1987. Jobless rates for whites and blacks reached the lowest levels since the beginning of the current expan sion. As the tabulation below shows, at year’s end these rates had returned to their 1979 levels, after substantial increases in the 1980-82 recession years. The rate for blacks, at 12.2 percent, remained almost 2\ times the 5.0 percent rate for whites, while the rate for Hispanics, at 8.5 percent, stayed in an intermediate position. 64 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Unemployment rate, fourth quarter 1979 1982 1987 White Total, 16 years and over............. Men, 20 years and over ......... Women, 20 years and over . . . . Both sexes, 16 to 19 years . . . . 5.2 3.8 5.0 14.1 9.5 8.9 8.0 21.3 5.0 4.4 4.4 14.0 Black Total, 16 years and over............. .. Men, 20 years and over ......... Women, 20 years and over . . . . .. Both sexes, 16 to 19 years . . . . .. 12.1 9.4 10.5 36.7 20.4 19.9 16.5 48.4 12.2 10.0 10.9 33.7 9.0 15.3 8.5 Hispanic origin Total........................................... Industry and occupation. Unemployment declined for all major industrial groups during 1987.3 The tabulation below shows that the greatest improvements occurred in mining, construction, and manufacturing. Improvements in mining and manufacturing reflected a turnaround in the employ ment situations of these two industrial groups. However, with regard to the construction industry, using the fourth quarter of 1986 (14.0 percent) as a period of comparison may exaggerate the actual improvement; in every other quarter of 1986 and 1987, the construction jobless rate was between 11 and 13 percent. The general trend has been one of slow improvement. Mining .............................. . Construction.............................. . Manufacturing .......................... Durable goods ....................... Nondurable goods ................. Transportation and public utilities.............................. Wholesale and retail trade ....... Finance and service industries .. Unemployment rate, fourth quarter 1984 1985 1986 1987 11.1 8.7 14.7 7.8 13.6 13.0 14.0 10.8 7.3 7.5 7.1 5.4 7.1 7.5 6.8 4.9 7.5 7.5 7.5 6.0 5.3 7.7 5.9 5.2 7.7 5.4 4.7 7.3 5.3 4.5 6.5 4.8 Related to the unemployment rate declines in the manu facturing and construction industries during the past year, occupations which are concentrated in these industries— op erators, fabricators, and laborers, and precision production, craft, and repair workers— experienced the largest unem ployment rate declines in 1987. Nevertheless, at 8.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 1987, operators, fabricators, and laborers still had the highest unemployment rate among the major occupational groups. The jobless rate for managerial and professional workers, 2.1 percent in late 1987, was the lowest rate among all major occupational groups. Table 4. Unemployment by duration, seasonally adjusted fourth-quarter averages, 1982-87 [Number in thousands] 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 IV IV IV IV IV IV Less than 5 weeks...................... 5 to 14 weeks ........................... 15 weeks and over...................... 15 to 26 weeks....................... 27 weeks and over................... 3,929 3,471 4,444 2,061 2,383 3,431 2,634 3,521 1,352 2,168 3,399 2,429 2,462 1,049 1,413 3,437 2,489 2,250 1,016 1,234 3,376 2,513 2,211 1,031 1,180 3,223 2,030 1,809 878 930 Average (mean) duration, in weeks .. Median duration, in weeks ............ 17.5 10.0 19.7 9.1 16.8 7.2 15.4 6.9 15.1 7.0 14.1 6.1 100.0 33.2 29.3 37.5 17.4 20.1 100.0 35.8 27.5 36.7 14.1 22.6 100.0 41.0 29.3 29.7 12.7 17.0 100.0 42.0 30.4 27.5 12.4 15.1 100.0 41.7 31.0 27.3 12.7 14.6 100.0 45.6 28.7 25.6 12.4 13.2 Weeks of unemploment Duration Percent distribution Total unemployed ...................... Less than 5 weeks .................. 5 to 14 weeks......................... 15 weeks and over.................. 15 to 26 weeks.................... 27 weeks and over ............... Duration and reasons. The average spell of unemploy ment was also shorter in 1987 than in recent years. The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis mean duration of unemployment fell from 15.1 weeks in the fourth quarter of 1986 to 14.1 weeks at the end of 1987. Similarly, the median duration fell 0.9 weeks to end the year at 6.1 weeks. Both measures were down sharply from 1983 highs of 20.5 and 11.5 weeks. Although there are now fewer unemployed persons in all duration categories, this is partic ularly true with regard to the number of persons with unem ployment spells of 15 weeks and over. On a percentage basis, those jobless more than 15 weeks have declined con siderably as a proportion of total unemployment. Con versely, as one would expect, those unemployed less than 5 weeks made up a gradually increasing percentage of the unemployed. At the extreme end, 13.2 percent of all unem ployed persons had been out of work for 6 months or more in the fourth quarter of 1987, a very high proportion after 5 years of economic expansion. (See table 4.) Among the unemployed, the numbers of job losers, job leavers, labor force reentrants, and new entrants all declined in 1987, and there was only a slight redistribution among those categories. Since late 1982, however, there has been a large decrease in the proportion of the unemployed that had lost their last job— from 61 to less than 47 percent. Chart 4. Labor force participation rates for adult men and women, and teenagers, seasonally adjusted quarterly averages, 1948-87 P ercent 1948 P ercent 1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 NOTE: Shaded areas indicate recessionary periods as designated by the National Bureau of E conom ic Research. 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Employment Trends in 1987 Unemployment in families. Most labor force participants live in family units. The proportion of families having at least one member unemployed declined by 1.4 percentage points in 1987, to 5 percent at yearend. It is worthy to note, that, in almost two-thirds of those 5.0 million families, the effects of unemployment were partly mollified by the full time employment of some other family member. The unemployment rates for married men and women (spouse present), at 3.5 and 4.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 1987, were well below the national average of 5.9 per cent. However, the 8.6-percent rate of unemployment among women who maintain families was well above aver age. The proportions of families with unemployment differed appreciably by race and ethnic origin in 1987. The propor tion among black families was more than 17 percent in the fourth quarter of 1987, compared with 12 percent for His panic and less than 7 percent for white families. D iscouraged workers Another useful indicator of the state of labor markets is the number of persons who want a job but are not looking Em ploym ent then and now: one parallel, m any changes “Employment has advanced strongly and unemployment has fallen sharply in the past 5 years.” This statement, applicable today, could also have been used to describe the developments over the 5 years leading up to 1913, when the Department of Labor was born. By coincidence, labor mar ket changes during both the 1908-13 period and the past 5 years were marked by strong recoveries from deep reces sions. For example, in the 1908-13 period the number of persons employed rose by about 15 percent and the unem ployment rate fell fom 8.0 to 4.3 percent (according to estimates by Stanley Lebergott that are designed to be com parable with those from the Current Population Survey). Similarly, in the 5 years after the end of the 1981-82 reces sion, employment rose by 14 percent and the jobless rate dropped from 10.7 to 5.9 percent. Despite these similarities in cyclical behavior, vast changes have taken place in both the size and composition of the U.S. work force in the 75 years of the Department’s existence. The number of Americans working or seeking work has more than tripled, and women have become a much larger proportion of the labor force. Many long-run changes in social and economic structure contributed to these labor force shifts. Among the most important factors were the urbanization of the population, the secular decline in the birth rate, a rise in the number of years of schooling, and increased life expectancy combined with greater pen sion coverage. The shift of population from rural to urban areas has had tremendous impact on the nature of employment. In 1913, 3 out of 10 American workers were in agriculture; at the end of 1987, the proportion was down to only 3 out of 100. Also, just about half of all employed persons in 1913 worked in what might be described as the “informal” sector, that is, on farms, in other family-owned businesses, or as domestics in private households. As shown below, in late 1987 nearly 9 out of 10 employed persons were nonfarm wage and salary workers. Another major difference is that in 1913 nearly half of all nonfarm employees worked in mining, construction, or manufacturing. Today less than 1 in 4 workers are in these goods-producing industries. 66 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Employed (in thousands) ................. Percent distribution ....................... Farm .......................................... Nonfarm: Wage and salary workers . . . . Self-employed workers ......... Unpaid family workers ......... Domestics ............................ . . . 1913 1987 37,004 100.0 29.7 113,486 100.0 2.8 50.6 13.4 0.6 5.6 88.6 7.3 0.2 1.1 Since 1913, urbanization has also opened up a much wider range of job opportunities for women. This shift, combined with the long-term decline in the birth rate (which was interrupted temporarily after World War II) and chang ing views about gender roles, contributed to the huge in crease in the proportion of women working outside the home. It is estimated that in 1913 only 25 percent of women of working age were in the labor force; today, the proportion is 57 percent. Participation rates jumped even more for women in the prime childbearing and raising years of 25 to 44— from 20 percent in 1913 to 74 percent currently. Over the same period, there was a decline in labor market participation of teenage boys and men in their early twen ties. This was attributable primarily to the extension of high school and college education to larger and larger proportions of the population. At the other end of the age spectrum, people today are living much longer and retiring much sooner than they did 75 years ago. The introduction of Social Security and increased availability of private pen sions has made retirement from work a viable alternative for millions. Reflecting these changes, the labor force participa tion rate of men age 65 and over plummeted from approxi mately 60 percent in 1913 to 15 percent today. The social and economic changes sketched here resulted in a work force today that is both larger and radically different from the labor force in 1913. ------ Susan E. Shank Division of Labor Force Statistics Bureau of Labor Statistics because they believe no work is available— the so-called discouraged workers. Although reporting that they want a job, discouraged workers are excluded from the count of the unemployed because they are not actively looking for work. Changes in their number have generally followed cyclical changes in unemployment. Their number rose from about 800,000 in 1979 to 1.8 million at the recession trough in the fourth quarter of 1982, and then dropped considerably in 1983 and 1984. There was only slight improvement over the next 2 years, but, in 1987, the number of such “workers” edged down in each quarter, declining 235,000 over the year to 910,000 as of the fourth quarter. The bulk of discouraged workers cited job-market factors as their reason for not seeking work, and this was the group in which all of the improvement in 1987 occurred. The number that cited personal reasons— such as age or lack of skill, education, or training— was little changed in 1987. Labor force growth The civilian labor force, at 120.6 million in the fourth quarter of 1987, rose by 2.0 million during the year. Adult women were responsible for almost two-thirds of this in crease. As chart 4 shows, their labor force participation rate 1 Comparisons are based on unadjusted data averaged for the fourth quarter of each year. 2 A more comprehensive measure of part-time workers based on “usual hours” instead of voluntary or involuntary status was recently introduced. The more traditional measure is used in this article to differentiate trends https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (the proportion of their population in the labor force) contin ued its long-term expansion, rising to 56^ percent in the fourth quarter of the year. In contrast, the labor force partic ipation rate for adult men has been declining fairly consis tently— edging down to 78 percent in the fourth quarter of 1987. While teenage participation rose in 1987, it was still below the levels of the late 1970’s. Hispanic workers made up an unusually large share of the 1987 labor force growth— about one-fourth— even though they account for only about one-fourteenth of the civilian labor force. This labor force gain resulted mostly from the rapid expansion in their population. In s u m m a r y , 1987 was a year of strong labor market performance, as employment growth accelerated and sub stantial reductions were made in the number of unemployed workers. At year’s end, there were doubts about the future course of the economy, particularly in view of develop ments in the stock market. Nevertheless, the renewed growth of the goods-producing sector, particularly in fac tory employment, was an encouraging sign. And, finally, the jobless rate dropped to just below 6 percent, the lowest since 1979. in the number of persons working part time for economic or for other reasons. See Thomas J. Nardone, “Part-time workers: who are they?” Monthly Labor Review, February 1986, pp. 13-19. 3 Unemployed persons are classified according to the industry and occu pation of their last full-time job lasting 2 weeks or more. 67 Major Agreements Expiring Next Month This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in March is based on information collected by the Bureau’s Office of Compensation and Working Conditions. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification. E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a tio n I n d u s t r y o r a c tiv ity L a b o r o rg a n iz a tio n 1 N um ber of w o rk ers P r iv a t e C o n s tr u c t io n .............................................. A sso c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs . B ro w a rd . D a d e , P alm B e a c h C o u n tie s (F lo rid a ) A ss o c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs an d o th e rs. S o u th e rn F lo rid a (F lo rid a ) A sso c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs an d C o n s tru c tio n E m p lo y e rs A sso c ia tio n o f T e x a s (H o u sto n , t x ) A sso c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs . H o u sto n an d G a lv e sto n (T e x a s) .......... A sso c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs (N ew M e x i c o ) ................................................. A sso c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs . L a b o r R e la tio n s D iv isio n U p sta te (N ew Y o rk ) A sso c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs . U p state (N ew Y o rk ) .................................. A sso c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs . U p state (N ew Y o rk ) .................................. R etail tra d e .............................................. 1 ,8 0 0 1 .0 0 0 C a rp e n te rs ................................................... C a rp e n te rs ................................................... L a b o r e r s ........................................................ 3 ,5 0 0 2 .(XX) 1 .0 0 0 C a rp e n te rs ................................................... T e a m s t e r s ...................................................... 1 0 ,0 0 0 2 .0 0 0 3 .0 0 0 l.(XX) tio n (H o u sto n , t x ) C o n s tru c tio n E m p lo y e rs A sso c ia tio n (H o u sto n , TX) ....................................... C o n tra c to rs A sso c ia tio n o f S a b in e A re a (B e a u m o n t. T X ) ............................ M ec h a n ic a l C o n tra c to rs A sso c ia tio n (A lb u q u e rq u e , n m ) ............................ N a tio n a l F ire S p rin k le r A sso c ia tio n (In te rs ta te ) .............................................. L a b o r e r s ........................................................ P lu m b e rs ...................................................... P lu m b e rs ...................................................... P lu m b e rs ...................................................... 1 ,0 0 0 3 ,2 0 0 1,2 0 0 7 ,0 0 0 1,0 0 0 2 ,3 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 W h e a to n In d u strie s (M illv ille , NJ) ........................................................................... ...................................................... L a b o r e r s ........................................................ Iro n W o rk e rs .............................................. ............................... ............................... S to n e , c la y , a n d g la ss p ro d u c ts U tilitie s 1 ,8 0 0 O p e ra tin g E n g in e e rs O p e ra tin g E n g in e e rs W e y e rh a e u s e r C o ., D ie rk s D iv isio n (O k la h o m a an d A r k a n s a s ) ................ E x x o n C o .. USA D iv isio n (B a to n R o u g e , LA) .................................................... T ra n sp o rta tio n e q u ip m e n t .................. M isc e lla n e o u s m a n u fa c tu rin g .......... ................................................... A sso c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs . U p state (N ew Y o rk ) .................................. A sso c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs a n d C o n s tru c tio n E m p lo y e rs A sso cia- P e t r o l e u m .................................................... .. . C a rp e n te rs B ato n R o u g e O il a n d C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs (In d .) G la s s , P o tte ry . P la stic s an d A llied W o rk e rs S te e lw o rk e rs .............................................. 1,4 0 0 B u d d C o . (In te rs ta te ) .................................................................................................... J e w e lry M a n u fa c tu re rs A ss o c ia tio n , In c. (N ew Y o rk ) ................................. A u to W o rk e rs ............................................ S e rv ic e E m p lo y e e s ................................. 6 .5 0 0 2 ,2 0 0 6 ,3 0 0 1 ,6 0 0 Q u e e n s T ra n s it, S te in w a y T ra n sit, T rib o ro c o a c h a n d Ja m a ic a B uses (N ew Y o rk , N Y ) T ru c k in g M a n a g e m e n t Inc. an d 1 o th e r, o v e r-th e -ro a d . N a tio n a l M a s te r F re ig h t a g re e m e n t (In te rs ta te ) T ru c k in g M a n a g e m e n t In c. an d 1 o th e r, lo cal c a rta g e N a tio n a l M a ste r F re ig h t a g re e m e n t (In te rsta te ) M a ste r R ail T ru c k a g re e m e n t. S o u th w e s te rn S ta te s ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ............... T ra n sp o rt W o r k e r s .................................... 1 ,2 0 0 T e a m s te rs . ................................................. 5 0 ,0 0 0 T e a m s t e r s ...................................................... 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 T e a m s t e r s ...................................................... J o in t A re a C a rta g e a g re e m e n t (C h ic a g o , 1L) ...................................................... W e ste rn S ta te s T ru c k in g M a in te n a n c e a g r e e m e n t ............................................ M a s te r C a rta g e a g re e m e n t (C h ic a g o , IL) .............................................................. T e a m s t e r s ...................................................... T e a m s t e r s ...................................................... C h ic a g o T ru c k D riv ers ( I n d . ) ............. 3 ,5 0 0 1 0 ,0 0 0 2 ,8 0 0 2 ,5 0 0 V irg in ia E le c tric an d P o w e r C o . (V irg in ia , W e st V irg in ia , an d N o rth E le c tric a l W o rk e rs ( ib e w ) ..................... 4 ,7 0 0 E le c tric a l W o rk e rs ( ib e w ) .................... U tility W o rk e rs; C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs . R e ta il, W h o le s a le a n d D e p a rtm e n t S to re U n io n F o o d an d C o m m e rc ia l W o rk e rs . . . . R e ta il, W h o le s a le an d D e p a rtm e n t S to re U n io n 1,5 0 0 7 ,2 0 0 4 ,0 0 0 T ra n sit U n i o n .............................................. S ta te , C o u n ty a n d M u n icip al E m p lo y e e s .............................................. 3 ,5 0 0 1 ,9 5 0 C a ro lin a ) P u g et S o u n d P o w e r a n d L ig h t C o . (B e lle v u e , w a ) ....................................... S o u th e rn C a lifo rn ia G a s C o . (C a lifo rn ia ) ........................................................... B lo o m in g d a le B ro s. D e p t. S to re (N ew Y o rk , NY) ......................................... E a g le F o o d S to re s (Illin o is a n d Io w a) ................................................................... A sso c ia te d M en s W e a r R e ta ile rs o f N ew Y o rk (N ew Y o rk ) ..................... 1 ,1 50 2 ,0 0 0 P u b lic T ra n sit ......................................................... E d u c a t i o n .................................................... S ee fo o tn o te a t e n d o f ta b le 68 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M a ssa c h u se tts: M a s sa c h u s e tts B ay T ra n sp o rta tio n A u t h o r i t y ..................... W re n th a m S ta te M en ta l an d P h y sic a lly H a n d ic a p p e d S c h o o l, te a c h e rs G e n e ra l g o v e rn m e n t H o sp ita ls Labor organization1 Employer and location Industry or activity ............................ N e w Y o rk : S ta te a d m in is tra tiv e s e rv ic e s u n i t ............................................ ................................................... S ta te in stitu tio n a l se rv ic e s u n i t ................................................. Services ......................................... S ta te o p e ra tio n a l se rv ic e s, b lu e c o lla r ................................. S ta te p ro fe s s io n a l, s c ie n tific , a n d te c h n ic a l u n i t ............. S ta te s e c u rity s e r v i c e s .................................................................. S ta te u n ifie d c o u rt s y s t e m ........................................................... N e w Y o rk C ity s u rfa c e a n d ro a d s u n it T ra n sit ......................................................... E d u c a t i o n ................................................... O h io : N e w Y o rk C ity T ra n sit A u th o rity ......................................... O h io S ta te M e d ic a l C o lle g e ...................................................... O h io S ta te U n iv e rs ity , s e rv ic e u n it •Affiliated with AFL-CIO https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ............................... ....................................... S ta te , C o u n ty a n d M u n ic ip a l E m p lo y e e s S ta te , C o u n ty an d M u n ic ip a l E m p lo y e e s S ta te , C o u n ty an d M u n ic ip a l E m p lo y e e s P u b lic E m p lo y e e s F e d e ra tio n ............. S ta te , C o u n ty an d M u n ic ip a l E m p lo y e e s S ta te , C o u n ty an d M u n ic ip a l E m p lo y e e s T ra n sp o rt W o r k e r s .................................... T ra n sp o rt W o r k e r s .................................... S ta te , C o u n ty a n d M u n ic ip a l E m p lo y e e s O h io S tate U n iv e rsity E m p lo y e e s (In d .) Number of workers 3 7 ,7 0 0 4 1 ,0 0 0 2 5 ,5 0 0 5 1 ,0 0 0 1 5 ,8 0 0 1 ,500 5 ,5 0 0 2 8 ,5 0 0 1 ,600 1 ,800 except where noted as independent (Ind.). Shiskin award nom inations The Washington Statistical Society invites nominations for the ninth annual Julius Shiskin Award in recognition of outstanding achievement in the field of economic statistics. The award, in memory of the former Commissioner of Labor Statistics, is designed to honor an unusually original and important contribution in the development of economic statistics, or in the use of economic statis tics in interpreting the economy. The contribution could be in statistical research, in the development of statistical tools, in the application of computers, in the use of economic statistics to analyze and interpret the economy, in the management of statistical programs, or in developing public understanding of measurement issues, to all of which Mr. Shiskin contributed. Either individuals or groups can be nominated. The award will be presented, with an honorarium of $250, at the Washington Statistical Society’s annual dinner in June 1988. A nomina tion form may be obtained by writing to the Julius Shiskin Award Com mittee, American Statistical Association, 1429 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3402. Completed nomination forms must be received by April 1, 1988. 69 Developments in Industrial Relations Auto industry update The Electronic Workers and General Motors Corp. nego tiated a 3-year contract covering 24,000 employees at nine plants in Ohio, Mississippi, New York, and New Jersey. Terms, which were similar to those negotiated by the Auto Workers (see Monthly Labor Review, November 1987, p. 51), included a Secure Employment Numbers pro gram that protects eligible employees against layoffs; a ban on plant closings except under “extraordinary” circum stances; tighter restrictions on subcontracting work and overtime work; an immediate 3-percent specified wage in crease; continuation of the provision for automatic quarterly cost-of-living adjustments, leading off with a 14-cent-anhour adjustment retroactive to the September 14 expiration date of the prior contract, with all adjustments no longer subject to a 1- or 2-cent reduction; and lump-sum payments in the second and third years equal to 3 percent of the employee’s earnings during the preceding 12 months. Elsewhere in the automobile industry, Chrysler Corp. and the Auto Workers agreed on a 5-year contract for 5,800 workers at the Jeep plant in Toledo, o h . The previous con tract, negotiated in 1985, had been scheduled to expire in February 1988, but the union agreed to bargain early after Chrysler purchased American Motors Corp. and its Jeep operations in August. Chrysler asked for the early negotia tions to bring wages and benefits at Jeep in line with those in its 1985 “national” agreement with the union. To some extent, Jeep employees were induced to bargain early be cause their plant was one of several being considered for shutdown. After the settlement, Chrysler said the plant would be kept open for at least the duration of the contract. The company also agreed to a minimum staffing level of 4,500 employees, based on anticipated production needs in September 1988, when Chrysler negotiates a new national agreement. If the actual employment need is higher at that time, the higher level will prevail. The contract continued existing restrictions on subcontract ing, but specified that any additional restrictions resulting from the 1988 Chrysler-UAW talks would apply to the Jeep plant. The Jeep settlement also provides that if the plant is sold, the new owner must honor the labor contract with the union. “Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of the Division of Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. 70 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis In January 1988, the workers received a lump-sum pay ment equal to 3 percent of their earnings during the preced ing 12 months. This payment was scheduled under the 1985 agreement. A month later, they received a 2.25-percent increase in base rates under the 1987 agreement, bringing the range to $13.80—$15.79 an hour. After the employees ratified the 1987 contract, they re ceived a lump-sum payment averaging $2,950, representing a partial payback of wage increases and paid holidays they had given up in 1982 to improve Jeep’s financial condition. At that time, the parties agreed to finance the payback from the company profits, but there were no profits, so they later agreed to finance it through a $100 “tax” on each vehicle produced in the plant. The payback had been scheduled to occur early in 1989, but in the 1987 settlement, the parties agreed to move up the payment date and to liberalize the formula. The Auto Workers said that the $2,950 average payment was about $1,350 more than the originally sched uled amount but was still only 55 percent of the amount the employees had lost as a result of their 1982 sacrifices. Events were less optimistic elsewhere in the industry, as Volkswagen announced that it will close its New Stanton, p a , plant by the end of 1988. The company said it made the decision after a “thorough analysis of both the financial implications and market outlook” based on the fact that the plant had been operating at 50 percent of capacity and losing money during the past 5 years. The Auto Workers called the proposed shutdown a be trayal of “a loyal and productive U.S. work force in Penn sylvania.” The union also contended that Volkswagen had failed to develop new vehicle models that would appeal to enough American consumers to sustain the plant, which employs 2,500 people. When the plant began operating in 1978, Volkswagen expected to capture 5 percent of the U.S. automobile mar ket. It peaked at 3 percent in 1980 and dropped to 1.9 percent during the first 10 months of 1987. After the clos ing, Volkswagen will service the U.S. market with cars produced in Europe and South America. Food store settlem ents Grocery store accords in the Cleveland and AkronCanton, o h , areas featured a new provision intended to counter increasing inroads by nonunion stores. Under the new “unfair competition” clause, a covered retailer facing competition from a nonunion store in the area can reopen bargaining for the purpose of reducing employee compensa tion to the level of the nonunion operator. If the union cannot demonstrate that it is actively attempting to raise the compensation of the nonunion employees to the prevailing level for union employees by informational picketing and other tactics, the covered retailer can cut its employees’ compensation to the nonunion level. If this occurs, the employees will be permitted to initiate a work stoppage. Another provision of the contracts negotiated by the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Cleveland and Akron Food Industry Councils, comprising 13 grocery store chains, reduces the number of part-time employees of high school age to 25 percent of the work force in the first contract year, 23 percent in the second year, and 20 percent in the final year. The union withdrew its demand that full time employees hold 50 percent of all jobs in the stores, but did win elimination of a “buyout” provision under which employers had offered senior workers inducements to re sign, then replaced them with lower paid workers. The settlement, which covered 13,000 clerks and meat department employees, does not provide for wage increases for top-scale employees, but they receive lump-sum pay ments of up to $850 in each year, calculated at 4 percent of their earnings in the preceding year. Lower rated employees receive 10- to 25-cent-an-hour wage increases in each year. The settlement was preceded by a work stoppage involv ing 9,000 workers in the Cleveland area. The new contract, which was retroactive to September 13, 1987, runs to Sep tember 9, 1990. Meeting the competition of nonunion food stores also was a major factor in negotiations between the Food and Com mercial Workers and Albertson’s, Safeway, and Rosauers chains in the Spokane, w a , area. About 1,450 grocery and meat department employees in 29 stores were covered by the resulting settlement. The chief management negotiator said that the net effect of a number of changes in the health insurance plan would be to hold the stores’ financial obligation at $184.26 a month for each employee who works at least 80 hours a month. If this amount is not enough to cover premium increases, employees will pay any additional costs after fund reserves are exhausted. Changes in benefits include plan payment of 80 percent of hospital-medical-surgical ex penses up to $3,000 a year (was $1,500) and 100 percent of the balance (unchanged); a new $5 employee payment for each visit to a doctor’s office; $2 and $4 deductibles for generic and brand-name prescription drug purchases (was $1 for both); and adoption of a fixed fee schedule of pay ments for prosthetic dental procedures, replacing a provi sion for payment of 60 percent of usual and customary charges. The 3-year agreement, which runs to October 6, 1990, did not provide for wage changes. A meat department coun https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ter clerk job category was established, paying $4 an hour to start and a top of $7.96 after 2 years’ service. Top-scale meatcutters currently earn $13 an hour. About 20,000 employees in Michigan were covered by a 4-year contract between the Food and Commercial Workers and Meijer Inc. Top-scale store and warehouse employees received immediate lump-sum payments ranging from $125 for baggers to $975 for grocery clerks. Top-scale store em ployees will receive another lump-sum payment in Novem ber 1990. Warehouse workers receive wage increases rang ing from 85 cents to $1.20 an hour over the term, bringing top-scale rates to $12.59 an hour, varying by job category. At stores in eastern Michigan, top-scale clerks and cashiers receive wage increases totaling 66 cents to 90 cents over the term, bringing top rates to $14.53 for food ware house workers, to $12.59 for general warehouse workers, and to $15.59 for drivers. A lower pay schedule remains in effect for employees hired after September 1988, but those hired earlier (currently totaling 3,500) will be advanced to the higher schedule. Top rates for clerks and cashiers hired in 1977 or earlier advance to $10.73 in central Michigan and to $10.70 in western Michigan. For those hired later, the new top rates are $9.60 and $9.28, respectively. Baggers and utility clerks at all locations advance to $4.77 an hour by November 1989. Terms for all employees also included a $200 increase, to $1,000, in annual dental insurance coverage; a $295 a month increase, to $1,025, in the maximum pension payable after 35 years’ service; and elimination of all health insurance deductibles for hospital stays. In central Illinois, the Kroger Co. and Food and Commer cial Workers Local 536 adopted a profit-sharing plan in a contract running to February 2, 1991. Under the plan, the 1,200 clerks will receive seven payments with the first, early in 1988, expected to be about $600 based on Kroger’s 1987 profits, according to a union official. The contract, which does not call for any wage changes, does obligate Kroger to pay any additional costs of main taining health and welfare and pension benefits. In the Portland, o r , area, the store chains making up Food Employers, Inc. did not win their demand for a two-tier pay system, but Food and Commercial Workers Local 555 did agree to a wage freeze and other cost moderation changes. The chains, including Safeway Stores, Albertson’s Food Centers, and Fred Meyer Inc., contended that cost modera tion was necessary to help them compete with c u b Stores, a growing warehouse-type chain that generally operates with lower paid nonunion employees. Under the contract, which was retroactive to July 13, top-rated grocery clerks are paid $11.05 an hour for the 3-year term and top-rated meat cutters are paid $12.99. Premium pay for work on Sundays remained at $1 an hour for clerks but was cut to 132 percent of straight-time rates (previously, 150 percent) for meatcutters. 71 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Developments in Industrial Relations In another cost-saving change, the parties agreed to in crease the proportion of courtesy clerks to 25 percent of the work force, from 20 percent. The clerks are paid $4.17 an hour. The employers continue to pay 90 cents an hour for health, dental, and vision care insurance and existing re serves were deemed adequate to cover any premium in creases. If not, the 7,700 employees will pay the additional costs. In other contract areas, the parties agreed to drug testing of employees for “reasonable cause” only, and to establish a committee to consider establishing a child care program. Navistar gets new job security plan In truck manufacturing, Navistar International Trans portation Corp. and the Auto Workers negotiated a job secu rity plan that permits the company to furlough employees only in specific limited circumstances. Workers furloughed in those circumstances receive existing Supplemental Un employment Benefits plus a new $100 a week payment. Those furloughed for other reasons receive their full pay and are eligible for company-financed job training. The 3-year contract also calls for a 16-cent-an-hour wage increase ef fective immediately; a $200 lump-sum payment in the sec ond year; and continuation of the provision for automatic quarterly cost-of-living pay adjustments. A separate 5-year pension agreement provides for a $6 increase in the benefit rate for current employees over the term, bringing the rate to $24.50 a month for each year of credited service. Benefit rates were also increased for current retirees, and they re ceived a $450 lump-sum payment. The basic agreement covered 7,000 active and 10,000 laid-off employees at eight plants. Navistar is the former International Harvester Co. Crowley M aritim e settles with The International Longshoremen’s Association ( il a ) ef fort to prevent shippers from shifting to ports where the union does not represent employees was bolstered by a 5-year accord with Crowley Maritime Corp., which had long refused to employ il a members. Under the accord, Crowley will continue to call at ports that do not use il a members to handle cargo, but it will also be free to extend its operations to East and Gulf coasts ports where stevedor ing concerns employ il a members. Union President John M. Bowers said the 5-year agree ment was a “message to anyone who wants to get out from under the i l a .” He also said that shifts to non-iLA ports that had already occurred had cost the union several thousand jobs in Gulf Coast ports. The shifts that had occurred apparently resulted from higher labor costs in il a ports. Reportedly, il a wage and benefit costs per employee amounted to $35 an hour in some ports, about 40 percent higher than in non-iLA ports. In the 1986 bargaining in the industry, the il a allowed some of its locals to reduce the cost disparity by negotiating cuts in labor costs. The ILA-Crowley accord also called for terminating a 1984 lawsuit in which the union had charged that a Crowley subsidiary had violated a contract with the union when it shifted to using non-iLA labor. The il a was continuing to bargain with various shipping associations on how to counter a ruling by the Federal Mar itime Commission invalidating the longstanding rule that all packing and unpacking of cargo containers within 50 miles of an il a port be performed by the union’s members. A note on com m unications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depart ment of Labor, Washington, DC 20212. 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis il a \ Current Labor Statistics S c h e d u le o f re le a s e d a te s f o r m a jo r s t a t i s t i c a l s e r i e s ................................................................................................ 74 ........................................................................................................................................................ 75 1. Labor market indicators................................................................................................................................................................................... 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity ................................................................................... 3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes ............................................................................................................................ 84 85 85 N o te s o n C u r r e n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s bls C o m p a ra tiv e in d ic a to rs L a b o r fo rc e d a ta 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Employment status of the total population, data seasonally adju sted ........................................................................................................... Employment status of the civilian population, data seasonally adjusted ..................................................................................................... Selected employment indicators, data seasonally adjusted ............................................................................................................................ Selected unemployment indicators, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................................ Unemployment rates by sex and age, data seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................................... Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, data seasonally a d ju ste d ............................................................................................ Duration of unemployment, data seasonally adjusted ..................................................................................................................................... Unemployment rates of civilian workers by S ta te ................................................................................. Employment of workers by State ..................................................................................................................................................................... Employment of workers by industry, data seasonally adjusted.................................................................................................................... Average weekly hours by industry, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................................ Average hourly earnings by industry ................................................................................................................................................................ Average weekly earnings by industry................................................................................................................................................................ Hourly Earnings Index by industry................................ .................................................................................................................................... Indexes of diffusion: proportion of industries in which employment increased, seasonally adjusted ................................................... Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population ..................................................................................................... Annual data: Employment levels by industry ................... Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels by industry........................................................................................................................ 86 87 88 89 90 90 90 91 91 92 93 94 95 95 96 96 96 97 L a b o r c o m p e n s a tio n a n d c o lle c tiv e b a r g a i n in g d a t a 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Employment Cost Index, compensation, by occupation and industry group ............................................................................................. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry g ro u p .................................................................................... Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area s i z e .......................................................... Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, situations covering 1,000 workers or more ...................................................................................................................................................... Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, bargainingsituations covering1,000 workers or m o re .................................... Average effective wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000workers or more .................................................................. Specified compensation and wage adjustments, State and local government bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more ...................................................................................................................................................... Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more ......................................................................................................................................... 98 99 100 100 101 101 102 102 P ric e d a ta 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditurecategory and commodity and service g ro u p s.............................................. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and localdata, all ite m s............................................................................................................... Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major groups ............................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing ............................................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ........................................................................................................................................... Annual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage of p rocessing........................................................................................................................ U.S.export price indexes by Standard International Trade C lassification.................................................................................................... U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification................................................................................................ U.S. export price indexes by end-use category ............................................................................................................................................... U.S. import price indexes by end-use categ o ry ............................................................................................................................................... U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification................................................................................................................. U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification ............................................................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 103 106 107 108 109 109 110 Ill 112 112 112 113 / MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics Contents— Continued Productivity data 42. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted ....................................................................... 43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity .................................................................................................................................................... 44. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and p ric e s.......................................................................................... 113 114 115 International com parisons 45. Unemployment rates in nine countries, data seasonally adjusted .................................................................................................................. 46. Annual data: Employment status of civilian working-age population, 10 c o u n tries............................................................................... 47. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures, 12 countries........................................................................................................... 115 116 117 Injury and illness data 48. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness incidence ra te s ........................................................................................................................ Schedule of release dates for bls 118 statistical series Release date Period covered Productivity and costs: Nonfarm business and manufacturing .. February 4 4th quarter March 3 4th quarter Employment situation ....................... February 5 January March 4 February April 1 March 1; 4-21 Series Release date Period covered Release date Period covered MLR table number 2; 42-44 2; 42-44 Producer Price Index......................... February 12 January March 11 February April 15 March 2; 33-35 Consumer Price Index....................... February 26 January March 23 February April 20 March 2; 30-32 Real earnings.................................. February 26 January March 23 February April 20 March 14-17 April 26 1st quarter 3; 25-28 April 26 1st quarter 1-3; 22-24 April 28 1st quarter 36-41 Major collective bargaining U.S. Import and Export 74 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section of the Review presents the principal statistical series collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: series on labor force; employment; unemployment; collective bargaining settlements; consumer, producer, and international prices; productivity; international comparisons; and injury and illness statistics. In the notes that follow, the data in each group of tables are briefly described, key definitions are given, notes on the data are set forth, and sources of additional information are cited. Adjustments for price changes. Some data— such as the Hourly Earnings Index in table 17— 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 1977 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1977 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other resulting values) are described as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1977” dollars. G eneral notes A dditional inform ation The following notes apply to several tables in this section: Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect on the data of such factors as climatic conditions, industry production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation practices, which might prevent short-term evaluation of the statistical series. Tables containing data that have been adjusted are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are not seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. (Season ally adjusted data appear in tables 1-3, 4-10, 13, 14, 17, and 18.) Begin ning in January 1980, the bls introduced two major modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are seasonally adjusted with a procedure called x - n arima, which was devel oped at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard x -ii method previously used by bls . A detailed description of the procedure appears in The x -ii a r im a Seasonal Adjustment Method by Estela Bee Dagum (Statis tics Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E, February 1980). The second change is that seasonal factors are calculated for use during the First 6 months of the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at midyear for the July-December period. However, revisions of historical data con tinue to be made only at the end of each calendar year. Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1 and 4-10 were revised in the February 1988 issue of the Review, to reflect experience through 1987. Annual revisions of the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables 13, 14, and 18 were made in the July 1987 Review using the X-n arima seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in table 42 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally 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. Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the Bureau in a variety of sources. News releases provide the latest statistical information published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule preceding these general notes. More information about labor force, employment, and unemployment data and the household and establishment surveys underlying the data are available in Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication of the Bureau. More data from the household survey are published in the two-volume data book—Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Sur vey, Bulletin 2096. More data from the establishment survey appear in two data books—Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, and Em ployment, Hours, and Earnings, States and Areas, and the annual supple ments to these data books. More detailed information on employee com pensation and collective bargaining settlements is published in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More detailed data on consumer and producer prices are published in the monthly periodicals, The c p i Detailed Report, and Producer Prices and Price Indexes. Detailed data on all of the series in this section are provided in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, which is published biennally by the Bureau, bls bulletins are issued covering productivity, injury and illness, and other data in this section. Finally, the Monthly Labor Review carries analytical articles on annual and longer term developments in labor force, employment, and unemployment; employee compensation and collective bargaining; prices; productivity; international comparisons; and injury and illness data. Sym bols p = preliminary. To increase the timeliness of some series, prelim inary figures are issued based on representative but incom plete returns. r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability of later data but may also reflect other adjustments, n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified, n.e.s. = not elsewhere specified. COMPARATIVE INDICATORS (T ables 1 -3 ) Comparative indicators tables provide an overview and comparison of major bls statistical series. Consequently, although many of the included series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative tables are presented quarterly and annually. Labor market indicators include employment measures from two ma jor surveys and information on rates of change in compensation provided by the Employment Cost Index (eci) program. The labor force participation rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and unemployment rates for major demographic groups based on the Current Population (“household ”) Survey are presented, while measures of employment and average weekly hours by major industry sector are given using nonagricultural payroll data. The Employment Cost Index (compensation), by major sector and by https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis bargaining status, is chosen from a variety o f bls compensation and wage measures because it provides a comprehensive measure of employer costs for hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and it is not affected by employment shifts among occupations and industries. Data on changes in compensation, prices, and productivity are pre sented in table 2. Measures of rates of change of compensation and wages from the Employment Cost Index program are provided for all civilian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers) and for all private nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in: consumer prices for all urban consumers; producer prices by stage of processing; and the overall export and import price indexes are given. Measures of productivity (output per hour of all persons) are provided for major sectors. 75 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics Alternative measures of wage and compensation rates of change, which reflect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table 3. Differences in concepts and scope, related to the specific purposes of the series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual mea sures. N otes on the data Definitions of each series and notes on the data are contained in later sections of these notes describing each set of data. For detailed descriptions of each data series, see b l s Handbook o f Methods, Volumes I and II, Bulletins 2134-1 and 2134-2 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982 ;.nd 1984, respectively), as well as the additional bulletins, articles, and other publi cations noted in the separate sections of the Review's “Current Labor Statistics Notes.” Historical data for many series are provided in the Hand book o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Users may also wish to consult Major Programs, Bureau o f Labor Statis tics, Report 718 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT DATA (T ables 1; 4 -2 1 ) Household survey data D escription o f the series 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 59,500 households selected to represent the U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three7fourths of the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. the various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of Employment and Earnings. Data in tables 4-10 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal experience through December 1987. employment data D efinitions Employed persons include (1) all civilians 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. Members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the employed total. 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. Unemployed persons 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 overall unem ployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The civilian unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians plus members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons not in the labor force are those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes persons who are retired, those engaged in their own house work, those not working while attending school, those unable to work because of long-term illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of personal or job-market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle. The noninstitutional population 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, and members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion of the noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio is total employment (including the resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population. N otes 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 comparabil ity of historical data. A description of these adjustments and their effect on 76 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A dditional sources o f inform ation For detailed explanations of the data, see b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 1, and for additional data, Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). A detailed description of the Current Population Survey as well as additional data are available in the monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics periodical, Employment and Earnings. Historical data from 1948 to 1981 are available in Labor Force Statistics Derived from the Current Population Survey: A Databook, Vols. I and II, Bulletin 2096 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). 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 surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20. Establishment survey data D escription o f the series E mployment, hours, and earnings data in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by more than 290,000 establishments representing all industries except agriculture. In most indus tries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or ware house.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from estab lishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures between the household and establishment surveys. D efinitions An establishment is an economic unit which produces goods or services (such as a factory or store) at a single location and is engaged in one type of economic activity. Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production workers in manufacturing include working supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-17 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construction; and non supervisory workers in the following industries: transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for aboyt four-fifths of the total employ ment on private nonagricutural payrolls. Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers re ceive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (cpi- w). The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from average 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 low-wage industries. Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsupervi sory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of average weekly hours which was in excess of regular hours and for which overtime premiums were paid. The Diffusion Index, introduced in the May 1983 Review, represents the percent of 185 nonagricultural industries in which employment was rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with unchanged employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while those for the 12-month span are unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for measur ing the dispersion of economic gains or losses and is also an economic indicator. N otes on the data Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are peri odically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called “benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release of May 1987 data, published in the July 1987 issue of the Review. Conse quently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to April 1985; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January 1982. These revisions were published in the Supplement to Employment and Earnings (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1987). Unadjusted data from April 1986 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1983 for ward are subject to revision in future benchmarks. In the establishment survey, estimates for the 2 most recent months are based on incomplete returns and are published as preliminary in the tables (13 to 18 in the Review). When all returns have been received, the esti mates are revised and published as final in the third month of their appear ance. Thus, August data are published as preliminary in October and November and as final in December. For the same reason, quarterly estab lishment data (table 1) are preliminary for the first 2 months of publication and final in the third month. Thus, second-quarter data are published as preliminary in August and September and as final in October. A dditional sou rces o f inform ation Detailed national data from the establishment survey are published monthly in the bls periodical, Employment and Earnings. Earlier compara ble unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, 1909-84, Bulletin 1312-12 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985) and its annual supplement. For a detailed discus sion of the methodology of the survey, see b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 2. For addi tional data, see Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). A comprehensive discus-sion of the differences between household and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20. Unemployment data by State D escription o f the series Data presented in this section are obtained from two major sources— the Current Population Survey (cps) and the Local Area Unemployment Statis tics (laus) program, which is conducted in cooperation with State employ ment security agencies. Monthly estimates of the labor force, employment, and unemployment for States and sub-State areas are a key indicator of local economic condi tions and form the basis for determining the eligibility of an area for benefits under Federal economic assistance programs such as the Job Train ing Partnership Act and the Public Works and Economic Development Act. Insofar as possible, the concepts and definitions underlying these data are those used in the national estimates obtained from the cps . N otes on the data Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data for 11 States— California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas— are obtained directly from the cps , because the size of the sample is large enough to meet bls standards of reliability. Data for the remaining 39 States and the District of Columbia are derived using standardized procedures established by BLS. Once a year, estimates for the 11 States are revised to new population controls. For the remaining States and the District of Columbia, data are benchmarked to annual average cps levels. A dditional sources o f inform ation Information on the concepts, definitions, and technical procedures used to develop labor force data for States and sub-State areas as well as addi tional data on sub-States are provided in the monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics periodical, Employment and Earnings, and the annual report, Geographic Profde o f Employment and Unemployment (Bureau of Labor Statistics). See also b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 4. COMPENSATION AND WAGE DATA (T ables 1 -3 ; 2 2 -2 9 ) are gathered by the Bureau from business establishments, State and local governments, labor unions, collective bar gaining agreements on file with the Bureau, and secondary sources. Compensation and wage data Employment Cost Index D escription o f the series The Employment Cost Index (eci) is a quarterly measure of the rate of change in compensation per hour worked and includes wages, salaries, and employer costs of employee benefits. It uses a fixed market basket of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis labor— similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed market basket of goods and services— to measure change over time in employer costs of employing labor. The index is not seasonally adjusted. Statistical series on total compensation costs and on wages and salaries are available for private nonfarm workers excluding proprietors, the selfemployed, and household workers. Both series are also available for State and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy, which consists of private industry and State and local government workers combined. Federal workers are excluded. The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists of about 2,200 private nonfarm establishments providing about 12,000 occupational ob servations and 700 State and local government establishments providing 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics 3,500 occupational observations selected to represent total employment in each sector. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensa tion information on five well-specified occupations. Data are collected each quarter for the pay period including the 12th day of March, June, Septem ber, and December. Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed employment weights from the 1980 Census of Population are used each quarter to calculate the indexes for civilian, private, and State and local governments. (Prior to June 1986, the employment weights are from the 1970 Census of Population.) These fixed weights, also used to derive all of the industry and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these indexes reflect only changes in com pensation, not employment shifts among industries or occupations with different levels of wages and compensation. For the bargaining status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employ ment data by industry and occupation are not available from the census. Instead, the 1980 employment weights are reallocated within these series each quarter based on the current sample. Therefore, these indexes are not strictly comparable to those for the aggregate, industry, and occupation series. D efinitions Total compensation costs include wages, salaries, and the employer’s costs for employee benefits. Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions, in cluding production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and cost-ofliving adjustments. Benefits include the cost to employers for paid leave, supplemental pay (including nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retirement and savings plans, and legally required benefits (such as Social Security, workers’ compensation, and unemployment insurance). Excluded from wages and salaries and employee benefits are such items as payment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips. N otes on th e data The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quarter of 1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in the private nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee benefits were in cluded in 1980 to produce, when combined with the wages and salaries series, a measure of the percent change in employer costs for employee total compensation. State and local government units were added to the eci coverage in 1981, providing a measure of total compensation change in the civilian nonfarm economy (excluding Federal employees). Historical in dexes (June 1981 —100) of the quarterly rates of change are presented in the May issue of the bls monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. (wage and benefit costs) and wages alone, quarterly for private industry and semiannually for State and local government. Compensation measures cover all collective bargaining situations involving 5,000 workers or more and wage measures cover all situations involving 1,000 workers or more. These data, covering private nonagricultural industries and State and local governments, are calculated using information obtained from bargaining agreements on file with the Bureau, parties to the agreements, and second ary sources, such as newspaper accounts. The data are not seasonally adjusted. Settlement data are measured in terms of future specified adjustments: those that will occur within 12 months after contract ratification— firstyear— and all adjustments that will occur over the life of the contract expressed as an average annual rate. Adjustments are worker weighted. Both first-year and over-the-life measures exclude wage changes that may occur under cost-of-living clauses that are triggered by future movements in the Consumer Price Index. Effective wage adjustments measure all adjustments occurring in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. Included are changes from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from con tracts negotiated in earlier periods, and changes under cost-of-living adjust ment clauses. Each wage change is worker weighted. The changes are prorated over all workers under agreements during the reference period yielding the average adjustment. D efinitions Wage rate changes are calculated by dividing newly negotiated wages by the average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, at the time the agree ment is reached. Compensation changes are calculated by dividing the change in the value of the newly negotiated wage and benefit package by existing average hourly compensation, which includes the cost of previ ously negotiated benefits, legally required social insurance programs, and average hourly earnings. Compensation changes are calculated by placing a value on the benefit portion of the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time of settle ment (for example, methods of financing pensions or composition of labor force) will remain constant. The data, therefore, are measures of negotiated changes and not of total changes in employer cost. Contract duration runs from the effective date of the agreement to the expiration date or first wage reopening date, if applicable. Average annual percent changes over the contract term take account of the compounding of successive changes. A dditional sources o f inform ation N otes on the data For a more detailed discussion of the Employment Cost Index, see the Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 11, and the follow ing M onthly L abor R eview articles: “Employment Cost Index: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor’,” July 1975; “How benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost In dex,” January 1978; “Estimation procedures for the Employment Cost Index,” May 1982; and “Introducing new weights for the Employment Cost Index,” June 1985. Data on the eci are also available in bls quarterly press releases issued in the month following the reference months of March, June, September, and December; and from the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Care should be exercised in comparing the size and nature of the settle ments in State and local government with those in the private sector because of differences in bargaining practices and settlement characteristics. A principal difference is the incidence of cost-of-living adjustment (cola) clauses which cover only about 2 percent of workers under a few local government settlements, but cover 50 percent of workers under private sector settlements. Agreements without cola’s tend to provide larger speci fied wage increases than those with cola’s . Another difference is that State and local government bargaining frequently excludes pension benefits which are often prescribed by law. In the private sector, in contrast, pensions are typically a bargaining issue. Collective bargaining settlements D escription o f the series Collective bargaining settlements data provide statistical measures of negotiated adjustments (increases, decreases, and freezes) in compensation 78 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A dditional sou rces o f inform ation For a more detailed discussion on the series, see the b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 10. Comprehensive data are published in press releases issued quarterly (in January, April, July, and October) for private industry, and semi- annually (in February and August) for State and local government. Histor ical data and additional detailed tabulations for the prior calendar year appear in the April issue of the bls monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. Historical data appear in the b l s Handbook o f Labor Statistics. Work stoppages Other bls data on pay and benefits, not included in the Current Labor Statistics section of the Monthly Labor Review, appear in and consist of the following: Industry Wage Surveys provide data for specific occupations selected to represent an industry’s wage structure and the types of activities performed by its workers. The Bureau collects information on weekly work schedules, shift operations and pay differentials, paid holiday and vacation practices, and information on incidence of health, insurance, and retirement plans. Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries of the data and special analyses also appear in the Monthly Labor Review. Area Wage Surveys annually provide data for selected office, clerical, professional, technical, maintenance, toolroom, powerplant, material movement, and custodial occupations common to a wide variety of indus tries in the areas (labor markets) surveyed. Reports are issued throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries of the data and special analyses also appear in the Review. The National Survey o f Professional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay provides detailed information annually on salary levels and distributions for the types of jobs mentioned in the survey’s title in private employment. Although the definitions of the jobs surveyed reflect the duties and responsibilities in private industry, they are designed to match specific pay grades of Federal white-collar employees under the General Schedule pay system. Accordingly, this survey provides the legally re quired information for comparing the pay of salaried employees in the Federal civil service with pay in private industry. (See Federal Pay Com parability Act of 1970, 5 u.s.c. 5305.) Data are published in a bls news release issued in the summer and in a bulletin each fall; summaries and analytical articles also appear in the Review. Employee Benefits Survey provides nationwide information on the inci dence and characteristics of employee benefit plans in medium and large establishments in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. Data are published in an annual bls news release and bulletin, as well as in special articles appearing in the Review. D escription o f the series Data on work stoppages measure the number and duration of major strikes or lockouts (involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring during the month (or year), the number of workers involved, and the amount of time lost because of stoppage. Data are largely from newspaper accounts and cover only establishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or second ary effect of stoppages on other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material shortages or lack of service. D efinitions Number of stoppages: The number of strikes and lockouts involving 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Workers involved: The number of workers directly involved in the stoppage. Number of days idle: The aggregate number of workdays lost by workers involved in the stoppages. Days of idleness as a percent of estimated working time: Aggregate workdays lost as a percent of the aggregate number of standard workdays in the period multiplied by total employment in the period. N otes on the data This series is not comparable with the one terminated in 1981 that covered strikes involving six workers or more. A dditional sources o f inform ation Data for each calendar year are reported in a bls press release issued in the first quarter of the following year. Monthly data appear in the BLS Other compensation data PRICE DATA (T ables 2; 3 0 -4 1 ) Price data 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). Consumer Price Indexes D escription o f the series The Consumer Price Index (cpi) is a measure of the average change in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market basket of goods and services. The cpi is calculated monthly for two population groups, one consisting only of urban households whose primary source of income is derived from the employment of wage earners and clerical workers, and the other consisting of all urban households. The wage earner index (C Pl-w ) is a continuation of the historic index that was introduced well over a halfcentury ago for use in wage negotiations. As new uses were developed for the cpi in recent years, the need for a broader and more representative index became apparent. The all urban consumer index (cpi- u ), introduced in 1978, is representative of the 1982-84 buying habits of about 80 percent of the noninstitutional population of the United States at that time, com pared with 32 percent represented in the cpi- w . In addition to wage earners https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and clerical workers, the cpi- u covers professional, managerial, and tech nical 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, trans portation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality of these items are kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that only price changes will be measured. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Data collected from more than 21,000 retail establishments and 60,000 housing units in 91 urban areas across the country are used to develop the “U.S. city average.” Separate estimates for 15 major urban centers are presented in table 31. The areas listed are as indicated in footnote 1 to the table. The area indexes measure only the average change in prices for each area since the base period, and do not indicate differences in the level of prices among cities. N otes on the data In January 1983, the Bureau changed the way in which homeownership costs are measured for the cpi-U. A rental equivalence method replaced the 79 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics asset-price approach to homeownership costs for that series. In January 1985, the same change was made in the cpi- w . The central purpose of the change was to separate shelter costs from the investment component of homeownership so that the index would reflect only the cost of shelter services provided by owner-occupied homes. An updated cpi-u and cpi-w were introduced with release of the January 1987 data. A dditional sources o f inform ation For a discussion of the general method for computing the CPI, see b l s Handbook o f Methods, Volume II, The Consumer Price Index, Bulletin 2134-2 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1984). The recent change in the mea surement of homeownership costs is discussed in Robert Gillingham and Walter Lane, “Changing the treatment of shelter costs for homeowners in the cpi,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1982, pp. 9-14. An overview of the recently introduced revised cpi, reflecting 1982-84 expenditure patterns, is contained in The Consumer Price Index: 1987 Revision, Report 736 (Bu reau of Labor Statistics, 1987). Additional detailed cpi data and regular analyses of consumer price changes are provided in the c p i Detailed Report, a monthly publication of the Bureau. Historical data for the overall cpi and for selected groupings may be found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). Producer Price Indexes D escription o f the series Producer Price Indexes ( ppi) measure average changes in prices re ceived in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodi ties in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes currently contains about 3,200 commodities and about 60,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The stage of proc essing structure of Producer Price Indexes organizes products by class of buyer and degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate goods, and crude materials). The traditional commodity structure of PPI organizes products by similarity of end use or material composition. To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month. Since January 1987, price changes for the various commodities have been averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as of 1982. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-of-processing groupings, commodity groupings, durability-of-product groupings, and a number of special composite groups. All Producer Price Index data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. N otes on the data Beginning with the January 1986 issue, the Review is no longer present ing tables of Producer Price Indexes for commodity groupings, special composite groups, or sic industries. However, these data will continue to be presented in the Bureau’s monthly publication Producer Price Indexes. The Bureau has completed the first major stage of its comprehensive overhaul of the theory, methods, and procedures used to construct the Producer Price Indexes. Changes include the replacement of judgment sampling with probability sampling techniques; expansion to systematic 80 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis coverage of the net output of virtually all industries in the mining and manufacturing sectors; a shift from a commodity to an industry orientation; the exclusion of imports from, and the inclusion of exports in, the survey universe; and the respecification of commodities priced to conform to Bureau of the Census definitions. These and other changes have been phased in gradually since 1978. The result is a system of indexes that is easier to use in conjunction with data on wages, productivity, and employ ment and other series that are organized in terms of the Standard Industrial Classification and the Census product class designations. A dditional sou rces o f inform ation For a discussion of the methodology for computing Producer Price In dexes, see b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. Additional detailed data and analyses of price changes are provided monthly in Producer Price Indexes. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). International Price Indexes D escription o f the series The bls International Price Program produces quarterly export and import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded between the United States and the rest of the world. The export price index provides a measure of price change for all products sold by U.S. residents to foreign buyers. (“Residents” is defined as in the national income accounts: it includes corporations, businesses, and individuals but does not require the organiza tions to be U.S. owned nor the individuals to have U.S. citizenship.) The import price index provides a measure of price change for goods purchased from other countries by U.S. residents. With publication of an all-import index in February 1983 and an all-export index in February 1984, all U.S. merchandise imports and exports now are represented in these indexes. The reference period for the indexes is 1977 = 100, unless otherwise indicated. The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes raw materials, agricultural products, semifinished manufactures, and finished manufactures, including both capital and consumer goods. Price data for these items are collected quarterly by mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the data are collected directly from the exporter or importer, al though in a few cases, prices are obtained from other sources. To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U.S. border for exports and at either the foreign border or the U.S. border for imports. For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions completed during the first 2 weeks of the third month of each calendar quarter— March, June, September, and December. Survey respondents are asked to indicate all discounts, allowances, and rebates applicable to the reported prices, so that the price used in the calculation of the indexes is the actual price for which the product was bought or sold. In addition to general indexes of prices for U.S. exports and imports, indexes are also published for detailed product categories of exports and imports. These categories are defined by the 4- and 5-digit level of detail of the Standard Industrial Trade Classification System (sitc). The calcula tion of indexes by su e category facilitates the comparison of U.S. price trends and sector production with similar data for other countries. Detailed indexes are also computed and published on a Standard Industrial Classifi cation (sic-based) basis, as well as by end-use class. N otes on the data The export and import price indexes are weighted indexes of the Laspeyres type. Price relatives are assigned equal importance within each weight category and are then aggregated to the sitc level. The values assigned to each weight category are based on trade value figures compiled by the Bureau of the Census. The trade weights currently used to compute both indexes relate to 1980. Because a price index depends on the same items being priced from period to period, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s specifica tions or terms of transaction have been modified. For this reason, the Bureau’s quarterly questionnaire requests detailed descriptions of the phys ical and functional characteristics of the products being priced, as well as information on the number of units bought or sold, discounts, credit terms, packaging, class of buyer or seller, and so forth. When there are changes in either the specifications or terms of transaction of a product, the dollar value of each change is deleted from the total price change to obtain the “pure” change. Once this value is determined, a linking procedure is employed which allows for the continued repricing of the item. For the export price indexes, the preferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U.S. port of exportation. When firms report export prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point information is collected which enables the Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port of exportation. An attempt is made to collect two prices for imports. The first is the import price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation, which is consistent with the basis for valuation of imports in the national accounts. The second is the import price c.i.f. (cost, insurance, and freight) at the U.S. port of impor tation, which also includes the other costs associated with bringing the product to the U.S. border. It does not, however, include duty charges. A dditional sources o f inform ation For a discussion of the general method of computing International Price Indexes, see b l s Handbook o f M ethods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 8. Additional detailed data and analyses of international price develop ments are presented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes and in occasional Monthly Labor Review articles prepared by bls analysts. Selected historical data may be found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). PRODUCTIVITY DATA (Tables 2; 42-44) U. S. productivity and related data D escription o f the series The productivity measures relate real physical output to real input. As such, they encompass a family of measures which include single-factor input measures, such as output per unit of labor input (output per hour) or output per unit of capital input, as well as measures of multifactor produc tivity (output per unit of labor and capital inputs combined). The Bureau indexes show the change in output relative to changes in the various inputs. The measures cover the business, nonfarm business, manufacturing, and nonfinancial corporate sectors. Corresponding indexes of hourly compensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided. Unit profits include corporate profits and the value of inventory adjust ments per unit of output. Hours of all persons are the total hours paid of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Capital services is the flow of services from the capital stock used in production. It is developed from measures of the net stock of physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inventories— weighted by rental prices for each type of asset. Labor and capital inputs combined are derived by combining changes in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s share of total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units of labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages of the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomqvist index-number formula). N otes on the data D efinitions Output per hour of all persons (labor productivity) is the value of goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor input. Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) is the value of goods and services in constant dollars produced per unit of capital services input. Multifactor productivity is the ratio output per unit of labor and capital inputs combined. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number of factors which affect the production process such as changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, manage ment, and so forth. Changes in the output per hour measures reflect the impact of these factors as well as the substitution of capital for labor. Compensation per hour is the wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans, and the wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the self-employed (except for nonfinancial corporations in which there are no selfemployed)— the sum divided by hours paid for. Real compensation per hour is compensation per hour deflated by the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Unit labor costs are the labor compensation costs expended in the production of a unit of output and are derived by dividing compensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by subtracting compensation of all persons from current dollar value of output and divid ing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Output measures for the business sector and the nonfarm businesss sector exclude the constant dollar value of owner-occupied housing, rest of world, households and institutions, and general government output from the con stant dollar value of gross national product. The measures are derived from data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing out put indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual esti mates of output (gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data are developed from data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The productivity and associated cost measures in tables 42-44 describe the relationship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit of input. Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they do not measure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of many influ ences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level of output; utilization of capacity, energy, and materials; the organization of produc tion; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force. A dditional sou rces o f inform ation Descriptions of methodology underlying the measurement of output per hour and multifactor productivity are found in the b l s Handbook o f Meth ods , Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 13. His torical data for selected industries are provided in the Bureau’s Handbook o f Labor Statistics, 1985, Bulletin 2217. 81 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS (Tables 45-47) L abor force and u nem ploym ent D escription o f the series Tables 45 and 46 present comparative measures of the labor force, employment, and unemployment— approximating U.S. concepts— for the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and six European countries. The unemployment statistics (and, to a lesser extent, employment statistics) published by other industrial countries are not, in most cases, comparable to U.S. unemployment statistics. Therefore, the Bureau adjusts the figures for selected countries, where necessary, for all known major definitional differences. Although precise comparability may not be achieved, these adjusted figures provide a better basis for international comparisons than the figures regularly published by each country. D efinitions For the principal U.S. definitions of the labor force, employment, and unemployment, see the Notes section on EMPLOYMENT DATA: House hold Survey Data. N otes on the data The adjusted statistics have been adapted to the age at which compulsory schooling ends in each country, rather than to the U.S. standard of 16 years of age and over. Therefore, the adjusted statistics relate to the population age 16 and over in France, Sweden, and from 1973 onward, the United Kingdom; 16 and over in Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany, the Nether lands, and prior to 1973, the United Kingdom; and 14 and over in Italy. The institutional population is included in the denominator of the labor force participation rates and employment-population ratios for Japan and Ger many; it is excluded for the United States and the other countries. In the U.S. labor force survey, persons on layoff who are awaiting recall to their job are classified as unemployed. European and Japanese layoff practices are quite different in nature from those in the United States; therefore, strict application of the U.S. definition has not been made on this point. For further information, see Monthly Labor Review, December 1981, pp. 8-11. The figures for one or more recent years for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are calculated using adjustment factors based on labor force surveys for earlier years and are considered preliminary. The recent-year measures for these countries are, therefore, subject to revision whenever data from more current labor force surveys become available. A dditional sources o f inform ation For further information, see International Comparisons o f Unemploy ment , Bulletin 1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978), Appendix B, and unpublished Supplements to Appendix B available on request. The statis tics are also analyzed periodically in the Monthly Labor Review. Additional historical data, generally beginning with 1959, are published in the Hand book o f Labor Statistics and are available in unpublished statistical supple ments to Bulletin 1979. M anufactu rin g p roductivity and labor costs D escription o f the series Table 47 presents comparative measures of manufacturing labor produc tivity, hourly compensation costs, and unit labor costs for the United 82 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis States, Canada, Japan, and nine European countries. These measures are limited to trend comparisons— that is, intercountry series of changes over time— rather than level comparisons because reliable international com parisons of the levels of manufacturing output are unavailable. D efinitions Output is constant value output (value added), generally taken from the national accounts of each country. While the national accounting methods for measuring real output differ considerably among the 12 countries, the use of different procedures does not, in itself, connote lack of comparabil ity— rather, it reflects differences among countries in the availability and reliability of underlying data series. Hours refer to all employed persons including the self-employed in the United States and Canada; to all wage and salary employees in the other countries. The U.S. hours measure is hours paid; the hours measures for the other countries are hours worked. Compensation (labor cost) includes all payments in cash or kind made directly to employees plus employer expenditures for legally required in surance programs and contractual and private benefit plans. In addition, for some countries, compensation is adjusted for other significant taxes on payrolls or employment (or reduced to reflect subsidies), even if they are not for the direct benefit of workers, because such taxes are regarded as labor costs. However, compensation does not include all items of labor cost. The costs of recruitment, employee training, and plant facilities and services— such as cafeterias and medical clinics— are not covered because data are not available for most countries. Self-employed workers are in cluded in the U.S. and Canadian compensation figures by assuming that their hourly compensation is equal to the average for wage and salary employees. N otes on the data For most of the countries, the measures refer to total manufacturing as defined by the International Standard Industrial Classification. However, the measures for France (beginning 1959), Italy (beginning 1970), and the United Kingdom (beginning 1971) refer to manufacturing and mining less energy-related products, and the figures for the Netherlands exclude petroleum refining from 1969 to 1976. For all countries, manufacturing includes the activities of government enterprises. The figures for one or more recent years are generally based on current indicators of manufacturing output, employment, hours, and hourly com pensation and are considered preliminary until the national accounts and other statistics used for the long-term measures become available. A dditional sources o f inform ation For additional information, see the b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 16, and periodic Monthly Labor Review articles. Historical data are provided in the Bureau’s Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217, 1985. The statistics are issued twice per year— in a news release (generally in May) and in a Monthly Labor Review article (generally in December). OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS DATA (T able 48) D escription o f the series The Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is designed to collect data on injuries and illnesses based on records which employers in the following industries maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: agriculture, forestry, and fishing; oil and gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. Excluded from the survey are self-employed individuals, farmers with fewer than 11 employees, employers regulated by other Federal safety and health laws, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. Because the survey is a Federal-State cooperative program and the data must meet the needs of participating State agencies, an independent sam ple is selected for each State. The sample is selected to represent all pri vate industries in the States and territories. The sample size for the survey is dependent upon (1) the characteristics for which estimates are needed; (2) the industries for which estimates are desired; (3) the charac teristics of the population being sampled; (4) the target reliability of the estimates; and (5) the survey design employed. While there are many characteristics upon which the sample design could be based, the total recorded case incidence rate is used because it is one of the most important characteristics and the least variable; therefore, it re quires the smallest sample size. The survey is based on stratified random sampling with a Neyman allocation and a ratio estimator. The characteristics used to stratify the establishments are the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) code and size of employment. D efinitions Recordable occupational injuries and illnesses are: (1) occupational deaths, regardless of the time between injury and death, or the length of the illness; or (2) nonfatal occupational illnesses; or (3) nonfatal occupational injuries which involve one or more of the following: loss of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or medical treatment (other than first aid). Occupational injury is any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain, ampu tation, and so forth, which results from a work accident or from exposure involving a single incident in the work environment. Occupational illness is an abnormal condition or disorder, other than one resulting from an occupational injury, caused by exposure to environ mental factors associated with employment. It includes acute and chronic illnesses or disease which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, inges tion, or direct contact. Lost workday cases are cases which involve days away from work, or days of restricted work activity, or both. Lost workday cases involving restricted work activity are those cases which result in restricted work activity only. Lost workdays away from work are the number of workdays (consec utive or not) on which the employee would have worked but could not because of occupational injury or illness. Lost workdays— restricted work activity are the number of workdays (consecutive or not) on which, because of injury or illness: (1) the em ployee was assigned to another job on a temporary basis; or (2) the em https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ployee worked at a permanent job less than full time; or (3) the employee worked at a permanently assigned job but could not perform all duties normally connected with it. The number of days away from work or days of restricted work activity does not include the day of injury or onset of illness or any days on which the employee would not have worked even though able to work. Incidence rates represent the number of injuries and/or illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers. N otes on the data Estimates are made for industries and employment-size classes and for severity classification: fatalities, lost workday cases, and nonfatal cases without lost workdays. Lost workday cases are separated into those where the employee would have worked but could not and those in which work activity was restricted. Estimates of the number of cases and the number of days lost are made for both categories. Most of the estimates are in the form of incidence rates, defined as the number of injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays, per 100 full-time em ployees. For this purpose, 200,000 employee hours represent 100 em ployee years (2,000 hours per employee). Only a few of the available measures are included in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics. Full detail is presented in the annual bulletin, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry. Comparable data for individual States are available from the bls Office of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics. Mining and railroad data are furnished to bls by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, respec tively. Data from these organizations are included in bls and State publica tions. Federal employee experience is compiled and published by the Occu pational Safety and Health Administration. Data on State and local government employees are collected by about half of the States and territo ries; these data are not compiled nationally. A dditional sources o f inform ation The Supplementary Data System provides detailed information describ ing various factors associated with work-related injuries and illnesses. These data are obtained from information reported by employers to State workers’ compensation agencies. The Work Injury Report program exam ines selected types of accidents through an employee survey which focuses on the circumstances surrounding the injury. These data are not included in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics but are available from the bls Office of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics. The definitions of occupational injuries and illnesses and lost workdays are from Recordkeeping Requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act o f 1970. For additional data, see Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry, annual Bureau of Labor Statistics bulletin; b l s Handbook o f M ethods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 17; Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985), pp. 411-14; annual reports in the Monthly Labor Review; and annual U.S. Department of Labor press releases. 83 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 Current Labor Statistics: Comparative Indicators 1. Labor market indicators Selected indicators 1985 1985 1986 Employment data Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population (household survey)1 Labor force participation rate.............................................. Employment-population ratio............................................... Unemployment rate........................................................... Men....................................................................... 16 to 24 years .............................................................. 25 years and over.................................. ....................... Women.......................................................................... 16 to 24 years.............................................................. 25 years and over......................................................... Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and over............................. 64.8 60.1 7.2 7.0 14.1 5.3 7.4 13.0 5.9 65.3 60.7 7.0 6.9 13.7 5.4 7.1 65.0 60.5 7.0 2.0 5.5 1.9 64.9 60.3 7.1 6.9 14.2 5.2 7.2 13.1 5.6 1.9 97,519 81,125 24,859 19,260 72,660 99,610 82,900 24,681 18,994 74,930 34.9 40.5 3.3 34.8 40.7 3.4 12.8 65.4 60.8 7.0 7.0 13.9 5.4 7.0 12.7 5.4 1.9 65.4 60.9 13.4 5.3 7.2 13.1 5.6 1.9 65.2 60.6 7.2 7.0 14.1 5.4 7.3 13.1 5.7 1.9 1.8 4.7 1.7 98,444 81,905 24,788 19,133 73,656 98,901 82,299 24,767 19,086 74,134 99,321 82,670 24,702 19,003 74,619 99,804 83,119 24,629 18,939 75,175 100,397 83,498 24,624 18,953 75,773 101,133 84,183 24,733 18,979 76,399 101,708 84,675 24,757 19,015 76,951 102,278 85,240 24,884 19,134 77,394 34.9 40.8 3.4 34.9 40.7 3.4 34.8 40.7 3.4 34.7 40.7 3.5 34.7 40.8 3.5 34.8 41.0 3.6 34.8 40.9 3.7 34.8 40.9 3.7 6.8 65.5 61.1 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.9 13.4 5.4 13.3 5.1 6.8 6.6 12.5 5.3 1.9 12.5 5.0 65.5 61.4 6.3 6.3 12.9 4.9 6.2 11.8 65.6 61.7 6.0 5.9 12.2 4.6 6.1 11.4 4.7 1.6 Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data), in thousands:1 Total .................................................. Private sector..... Goods-producing .. Manufacturing .... Service-producing Average hours: Private sector.... Manufacturing Overtime...... Employment Cost Index Percent change in the ECI, compensation: All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) Private industry workers ................................................. Goods-producing2...................................................... Service-producing2 ..................................................... State and local government workers................................. 1.2 1.0 .8 1.0 2.3 Workers by bargaining status (private industry): Union...................................................... Nonunion .............................................. . Quarterly data seasonally adjusted. Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service- 84 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .6 1.1 producing industries include all other private sector industries. 2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity 1985 Selected measures 1985 1986 1987 1986 IV I II III IV I II III Compensation data 1, 2 Employment Cost Index-compensation (wages, salaries, benefits): Civilian nonfarm .......................................................... Private nonfarm ......................................................... Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries Civilian nonfarm .......................................................... Private nonfarm......................................................... 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 0.6 .6 1.1 1.1 0.7 .8 1.1 .7 0.6 .6 0.9 1.0 0.7 .7 1.2 1.0 4.4 4.1 3.5 3.1 .6 .6 1.0 1.0 .8 .9 1.1 .7 .6 .5 1.0 1.0 .5 .7 1.3 1.0 Price data1 Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All items..... 3.8 1.1 .9 -.4 .6 .7 .3 1.4 1.3 1.3 Producer Price Index: Finished goods............................................................ Finished consumer goods............................................ Capital equipment ...................................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, components ................. Crude materials........................................................... 1.8 1.5 2.7 -.3 -5.6 -2.3 -3.6 2.1 -4.4 -9.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 .4 4.3 -3.1 -4.1 .2 -2.9 -7.6 .5 .4 .6 -.9 -1.5 -.7 -.7 -.7 -.2 -.5 1.1 .8 2.0 -.4 .6 .8 .9 .1 1.4 4.2 1.2 1.5 .3 1.9 5.2 .2 .3 -.1 1.2 .6 Productivity data3 Output per hour of all persons: Business sector......................................................... Nonfarm business sector............................................ Nonfinancial corporations 4.......................................... 1.8 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.6 1 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes are calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and price data are not seasonally adjusted and the price data are not compounded. 2 Excludes Federal and private household workers. 3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages. 1.9 1.0 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.1 .7 1.5 1.5 1.5 .2 -.1 .0 .4 .3 .2 1.4 1.3 .6 Quarterly percent changes reflect annual rates of change In quarterly Indexes. The data are seasonally adjusted. 4 Output per hour of all employees. 3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes Four quarters ended- Quarterly average Components II Average hourly compensation:1 All persons, business sector......................................................... All employees, nonfarm business sector........................................ Employment Cost Index-compensation: Civilian nonfarm 2 ....................................................................... Private nonfarm ....................................................................... Union .................................................................................... Nonunion............................................................................... State and local governments...................................................... Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries: Civilian nonfarm2 ........................................................................ Private nonfarm ....................................................................... Nonunion............................................................................... State and local governments ...................................................... Total effective wage adjustments3...................................................... From current settlements............................................................. From prior settlements................................................................ From cost-of-living provision......................................................... Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3 First-year adjustments ................................................................. Annual rate over life of contract................................................... Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:5 First-year adjustment .................................................................. Annual rate over life of contract................................................... 1987 III II I IV 1987 1986 III IV III II II i hi 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.4 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 3.1 3.0 3.5 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.6 4.0 1.4 1.1 3.3 3.0 4.0 3.8 .7 .8 .2 .9 .6 1.1 .7 .5 .8 2.8 .6 .6 .3 .7 .8 .9 1.0 .5 1.1 .8 .7 .7 .5 .7 .3 1.2 1.0 .6 1.1 2.3 4.0 3.8 2.5 4.2 5.8 3.6 3.2 2.3 3.5 5.2 3.6 3.2 2.1 3.6 5.2 3.4 3.1 1.6 3.6 5.0 3.3 3.0 1.9 3.4 4.7 3.4 3.3 2.0 3.7 4.2 .8 .9 .4 .9 .4 .7 .2 .6 1.1 .7 .6 .7 3.2 .5 .1 .5 (4) .6 .5 .2 .7 .7 .5 .2 .2 .1 1.0 1.0 .4 1.2 .8 .4 (4) .3 .1 .5 .7 .5 .8 .2 1.0 .1 .7 .2 1.3 1.0 .6 1.1 2.3 .9 .2 .6 .1 4.1 3.7 2.5 4.1 5.7 2.9 .5 1.8 .7 3.5 3.1 2.3 3.4 5.4 2.3 .5 1.6 .2 3.5 3.1 2.0 3.5 5.4 2.3 .5 1.7 .2 3.5 3.2 1.7 3.5 5.2 2.0 3.2 3.0 1.7 3.3 5.0 2.2 3.4 3.3 1.7 3.8 4.1 2.6 1.5 .1 1.6 .3 1.7 1.3 2.0 .8 1.5 2.0 2.1 1.2 1.8 2.6 2.9 2.1 2.0 1.6 2.2 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.5 2.0 2.1 .7 1.6 .7 1.2 2.7 2.4 1.7 2.4 4.1 3.9 2.5 2.1 1.4 2.0 .9 1.4 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.8 (4) 1 Seasonally adjusted. 2 Excludes Federal and household workers. 3 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1986 4 Data round to zero. 5 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The most recent data are preliminary. 85 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 4. February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data Employment status of the total population, by sex, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Employment status Annual average 1986 1986 Dec. 1987 1987 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. TOTAL Noninstitutional population 2 ...... 182,293 184,490 183,297 Labor force2............................ 119,540 121,602 120,326 Participation rate 3.............. 65.6 65.9 65.6 Total employed 2.................... 111,303 114,177 112,407 Employment-population ratio 4 .............................. 61.1 61.9 61.3 Resident Armed Forces 1 ...... 1,706 1,737 1,750 Civilian employed ................ 109,597 112,440 110,657 Agriculture ........................ 3,163 3,208 3,153 Nonagricultural industries.... 106,434 109,232 107,504 Unemployed...................... 8,237 7,425 7,919 Unemployment rate 5.......... 6.9 6.1 6.6 Not in labor force ..................... 62,752 62,888 62,971 183,575 183,738 183,915 184,079 184,259 184,421 184,605 184,738 184,904 185,052 185,225 185,370 120,726 120,970 120,982 121,098 121,633 121,326 121,610 122,042 121,706 122,128 122,349 122,472 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.1 65.8 66.0 66.1 66.1 112,762 113,084 113,191 113,541 114,060 114,018 114,359 114,786 114,615 114,951 115,259 115,494 61.4 61.5 61.5 61.7 61.9 61.8 61.9 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.2 62.3 1,748 1,740 1,736 1,735 1,726 1,718 1,720 1,736 1,743 1,741 1,755 1,750 111,014 111,344 111,455 111,806 112,334 112,300 112,639 113,050 112,872 113,210 113,504 113,744 3,174 3,225 3,237 3,250 3,269 3,192 3,212 3,143 3,184 3,249 3,172 3,215 107,840 108,119 108,218 108,556 109,065 109,108 109,427 109,907 109,688 109,961 110,332 110,529 7,964 7,886 7,791 7,557 7,573 7,308 7,251 7,256 7,091 7,177 7,090 6,978 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.7 62,849 62,768 62,933 62,981 62,626 63,095 62,995 62,696 63,198 62,924 62,876 62,898 Men, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population 2 ...... Labor force2............................. Participation rate 3.............. Total employed 2.................... Employment-population ratio 4 .............................. Resident Armed Forces 1 ...... Civilian employed ................. Unemployed........................... Unemployment rate 5.......... 87,349 66,973 76.7 62,443 88,476 67,784 76.6 63,684 87,868 67,409 76.7 62,960 88,020 67,602 76.8 63,153 88,099 67,655 76.8 63,281 88,186 67,590 76.6 63,263 88,271 67,604 76.6 63,390 88,361 67,802 76.7 63,543 88,442 67,623 76.5 63,543 88,534 67,671 76.4 63,711 88,598 67,937 76.7 63,916 88,683 67,776 76.4 63,949 88,756 67,947 76.6 64,048 88,849 68,019 76.6 64,174 88,924 68,030 76.5 64,245 71.5 1,551 60,892 4,530 6.8 72.0 1,577 62,107 4,101 6.1 71.7 1,593 61,367 4,449 6.6 71.7 1,591 61,562 4,449 6.6 71.8 1,584 61,697 4,374 6.5 71.7 1,575 61,688 4,327 6.4 71.8 1,575 61,815 4,214 6.2 71.9 1,566 61,977 4,259 6.3 71.8 1,559 61,984 4,080 6.0 72.0 1,561 62,150 3,960 5.9 72.1 1,575 62,341 4,021 5.9 72.1 1,581 62,368 3,827 5.6 72.2 1,580 62,468 3,899 5.7 72.2 1,593 62,581 3,845 5.7 72.2 1,589 62,656 3,785 5.6 94,944 52,568 55.4 48,861 96,013 53,818 56.1 50,494 95,429 52,917 55.5 49,447 95,556 53,124 55.6 49,609 95,639 53,315 55.7 49,803 95,729 53,392 55.8 49,928 95,808 53,494 55.8 50,151 95,898 53,831 56.1 50,517 95,979 53,703 56.0 50,475 96,071 53,939 56.1 50,648 96,140 54,105 56.3 50,870 96,221 53,930 56.0 50,666 96,295 54,181 56.3 50,903 96,376 54,330 56.4 51,085 96,446 54,442 56.4 51,249 51.5 155 48,706 3,707 7.1 52.6 160 50,334 3,324 6.2 51.8 157 49,290 3,470 6.6 51.9 157 49,452 3,515 6.6 52.1 156 49,647 3,512 6.6 52.2 161 49,767 3,464 6.5 52.3 160 49,991 3,343 6.2 52.7 160 50,357 3,314 6.2 52.6 159 50,316 3,228 6.0 52.7 159 50,489 3,291 6.1 52.9 161 50,709 3,235 6.0 52.7 162 50,504 3,264 6.1 52.9 161 50,742 3,278 6.1 53.0 162 50,923 3,245 6.0 53.1 161 51,088 3,193 5.9 Women, 16 years and over Noninstitutional population 1, 2 ...... Labor force2............................. Participation rate 3.............. Total employed2 ..................... Employment-population ratio 4 .............................. Resident Armed Forces 1 ...... Civilian employed ................. Unemployed........................... Unemployment rate 5.......... ' population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 86 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including Forces). the resident Armed 5. Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1986 1986 Dec. 1987 Employment status 1987 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. TOTAL Civilian noninstitutional population1............................... Civilian labor force.................... Participation rate ............... Employed .............................. Employment-population ratio2 ............................... Unemployed........................... Unemployment rate............ Not in labor force ..................... 180,587 182,753 181,547 181,827 181,998 182,179 182,344 182,533 182,703 182,885 183,002 183,161 183,311 183,470 183,620 117,834 119,865 118,576 118,978 119,230 119,246 119,363 119,907 119,608 119,890 120,306 119,963 120,387 120,594 120,722 65.3 65.6 65.4 65.7 65.7 65.3 65.5 65.5 65.7 65.5 65.6 65.7 65.5 65.7 65.5 109,597 112,440 110,657 111,014 111,344 111,455 111,806 112,334 112,300 112,639 113,050 112,872 113,210 113,504 113,744 60.7 8,237 7.0 62,752 61.5 7,425 6.2 62,888 61.0 7,919 6.7 62,971 61.1 7,964 6.7 62,849 61.2 7,886 6.6 62,768 61.2 7,791 6.5 62,933 61.3 7,557 6.3 62,981 61.5 7,573 6.3 62,626 61.5 7,308 6.1 63,095 61.6 7,251 6.0 62,995 61.8 7,256 6.0 62,696 61.6 7,091 5.9 63,198 61.8 7,177 6.0 62,924 61.9 7,090 5.9 62,876 61.9 6,978 5.8 62,898 78,523 61,320 78.1 57,569 79,565 62,095 78.0 58,726 78,973 61,848 78.3 58,120 79,132 61,911 78.2 58,220 79,216 61,930 78.2 58,324 79,303 61,933 78.1 58,380 79,387 61,970 78.1 58,516 79,474 62,129 78.2 58,673 79,536 62,054 78.0 58,632 79,625 62,106 78.0 58,783 79,668 62,083 77.9 58,825 79,740 62,085 77.9 58,967 79,807 62,211 78.0 59,037 79,885 62,299 78.0 59,164 80,002 62,248 77.8 59,185 73.3 2,292 55,277 3,751 6.1 73.8 2,329 56,397 3,369 5.4 73.6 2,304 55,816 3,728 6.0 73.6 2,287 55,933 3,691 6.0 73.6 2,317 56,007 3,606 5.8 73.6 2,361 56,019 3,553 5.7 73.7 2,378 56,138 3,454 5.6 73.8 2,383 56,290 3,456 5.6 73.7 2,316 56,316 3,422 5.5 73.8 2,333 56,450 3,323 5.4 73.8 2,289 56,536 3,258 5.2 73.9 2,345 56,622 3,118 5.0 74.0 2,343 56,694 3,174 5.1 74.1 2,297 56,867 3,135 5.0 74.0 2,298 56,887 3,063 4.9 87,567 48,589 55.5 45,556 88,583 49,783 56.2 47,074 88,016 48,947 55.6 46,121 88,150 49,167 55.8 46,290 88,237 49,343 55.9 46,485 88,321 49,414 55.9 46,582 88,395 49,494 56.0 46,761 88,464 49,728 56.2 47,028 88,546 49,722 56.2 47,088 88,632 49,886 56.3 47,206 88,685 49,969 56.3 47,308 88,785 49,922 56.2 47,251 88,843 50,095 56.4 47,480 88,923 50,254 56.5 47,634 89,010 50,361 56.6 47,750 52.0 614 44,943 3,032 6.2 53.1 622 46,453 2,709 5.4 52.4 609 45,512 2,826 5.8 52.5 625 45,665 2,877 5.9 52.7 634 45,851 2,858 5.8 52.7 602 45,980 2,832 5.7 52.9 603 46,158 2,733 5.5 53.2 629 46,399 2,700 5.4 53.2 619 46,469 2,634 5.3 53.3 620 46,586 2,680 5.4 53.3 609 46,699 2,661 5.3 53.2 600 46,651 2,671 5.4 53.4 636 46,844 2,615 5.2 53.6 636 46,998 2,620 *5.2 53.6 643 47,107 2,611 5.2 14,496 7,926 54.7 6,472 14,606 7,988 54.7 6,640 14,558 7,781 53.4 6,416 14,545 7,900 54.3 6,504 14,546 7,957 54.7 6,535 14,555 7,899 54.3 6,493 14,562 7,899 54.2 6,529 14,595 8,050 55.2 6,633 14,621 7,832 53.6 6,580 14,628 7,898 54.0 6,650 14,649 8,254 56.3 6,917 14,637 7,956 54.4 6,654 14,661 8,081 55.1 6,693 14,663 8,041 54.8 6,706 14,609 8,113 55.5 6,809 44.6 258 6,215 1,454 18.3 45.5 258 6,382 1,347 16.9 44.1 240 6,176 1,365 17.5 44.7 262 6,242 1,396 17.7 44.9 274 6,261 1,422 17.9 44.6 274 6,219 1,406 17.8 44.8 269 6,260 1,370 17.3 45.4 257 6,376 1,417 17.6 45.0 257 6,323 1,252 16.0 45.5 259 6,391 1,248 15.8 47.2 245 6,672 1,337 16.2 45.5 239 6,415 1,302 16.4 45.7 270 6,423 1,388 17.2 45.7 239 6,467 1,335 16.6 46.6 274 6,535 1,304 16.1 Men, 20 years and over Civilian noninstitutional population1............................... Civilian labor force.................... Participation rate ............... Employed .............................. Employment-population ratio2 ............................... Agriculture........................... Nonagrlcultural industries...... Unemployed........................... Unemployment rate............ Women, 20 years ond over Civilian noninstitutional population1............................... Civilian labor force.................... Participation rate ............... Employed .............................. Employment-population ratio2 ............................... Agriculture........................... Nonagricultural industries...... Unemployed........................... Unemployment rate............ Both sexes, 16 to 19 years Civilian noninstitutional population1............................... Civilian labor force.................... Participation rate ............... Employed .............................. Employment-population ratio2 ............................... Agriculture ........................... Nonagricultural industries...... Unemployed........................... Unemployment rate............ White Civilian noninstitutional population1............................... 155,432 156,958 156,111 156,313 156,431 156,561 156,676 156,811 156,930 157,058 157,134 157,242 157,342 157,449 157,552 Civilian labor force.................... 101,801 103,290 102,474 102,669 102,825 102,836 102,972 103,416 103,150 103,248 103,516 103,357 103,669 103,731 103,907 Participation rate ............... 65.5 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 66.0 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.9 65.9 65.9 65.9 Employed .............................. 95,660 97,789 96,544 96,749 97,001 97,074 97,338 97,829 97,698 97,917 98,181 98,069 98,317 98,492 98,779 Employment-population ratio2 ............................... 61.5 62.3 61.8 62.7 61.9 62.0 62.1 62.4 62.4 62.5 62.6 62.0 62.3 62.3 62.5 Unemployed........................... 6,140 5,501 5,930 5,920 5,352 5,239 5,128 5,824 5,762 5,634 5,587 5,452 5,331 5,335 5,288 Unemployment rate............ 6.0 5.3 5.8 5.8 5.1 4.9 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2 Black Civilian noninstitutional population1............................... Civilian labor force.................... Participation rate ............... Employed .............................. Employment-population ratio2 ............................... Unemployed........................... Unemployment rate............ 19,989 12,654 63.3 10,814 20,352 12,993 63.8 11,309 20,152 12,706 63.1 10,968 20,187 12,807 63.4 10,995 20,218 12,894 63.8 11,086 20,249 12,853 63.5 11,072 20,279 12,778 63.0 11,114 20,312 12,889 63.5 11,129 20,341 12,892 63.4 11,238 20,373 13,039 64.0 11,381 20,396 13,150 64.5 11,513 20,426 13,028 63.8 11,421 20,453 13,152 64.3 11,556 20,482 13,193 64.4 11,589 20,508 13,215 64.4 11,605 54.1 1,840 14.5 55.6 1,684 13.0 54.4 1,738 13.7 54.5 1,812 14.1 54.8 1,808 14.0 54.7 1,781 13.9 54.8 1,664 13.0 54.8 1,760 13.7 55.2 1,654 12.8 55.9 1,658 12.7 56.4 1,637 12.4 55.9 1,607 12.3 56.5 1,596 12.1 56.6 1,604 12.2 56.6 1,610 12.2 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 87 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data 5. Continued— Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) 1987 Annual average 1986 1986 1987 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 12,344 8,076 65.4 7,219 12,867 8,541 66.4 7,790 12,540 8,328 66.4 7,460 12,653 8,387 66.3 7,533 12,692 8,423 66.4 7,614 12,732 8,395 65.9 7,632 12,770 8,468 66.3 7,686 12,809 8,549 66.7 7,797 12,848 8,468 65.9 7,738 12,887 8,447 65.5 7,762 12,925 8,549 66.1 7,856 58.5 857 10.6 60.5 751 8.8 59.5 868 10.4 59.5 854 10.2 60.0 809 9.6 59.9 763 9.1 60.2 782 9.2 60.9 752 8.8 60.2 730 8.6 60.2 685 8.1 60.8 693 8.1 Employment status Oct. Nov. Dec. 12,965 8,581 66.2 7,877 13,003 8,654 66.6 7,935 13,043 8,763 67.2 7,978 13,082 8,772 67.1 8,058 60.8 704 8.2 61.0 719 8.3 61.2 785 9.0 61.6 714 8.1 Sept. Hispanic origin Civilian noninstitutional population'............................... Civilian labor force.................... Participation rate ............... Employed .............................. Employment-population ratio2 ............................... Unemployed........................... Unemployment rate............ ' The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. 2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals 6. because data for the “other races’’ groups are not presented and Hispanics are Included in both the white and black population groups. Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) Annual average 1986 1987 Dec. Selected categories 1986 1987 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. CHARACTERISTIC Civilian employed, 16 years and 109,597 112,440 110,657 111,014 111,344 111,455 111,806 112,334 112,300 112,639 113,050 112,872 113,210 113,504 113,744 60,892 62,107 61,367 61,562 61,697 61,688 61,815 61,977 61,984 62,150 62,341 62,368 62,468 62,581 62,656 48,706 50,334 49,290 49,452 49,647 49,767 49,991 50,357 50,316 50,489 50,709 50,504 50,742 50,923 51,088 40,711 Married men, spouse present .. 39,658 40,265 40,082 40,047 39,958 40,054 40,021 40,075 40,120 40,262 40,308 40,404 40,556 40,645 Married women, spouse 27,144 28,107 27,517 27,713 27,837 27,966 28,130 28,314 28,282 28,283 28,189 28,069 28,099 28,175 28,249 6,227 6,237 6,178 6,107 6,151 6,033 5,963 6,011 5,971 5,946 5,925 5,958 5,958 6,060 5,837 Women who maintain families MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER Agriculture: Wage and salary workers ...... Self-employed workers.......... Unpaid family workers........... Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary workers ...... Private households........... Other.............................. Self-employed workers.......... Unpaid family workers........... 1,689 1,416 152 1,599 1,488 170 1,672 1,429 165 1,622 1,403 162 1,625 1,424 153 1,591 1,393 155 1,624 1,415 139 1,705 1,430 140 1,595 1,407 155 1,599 1,450 156 1,632 1,423 153 1,626 1,387 149 1,635 1,392 143 1,640 1,440 132 98,299 100,771 16,342 16,800 81,957 83,970 1,208 1,235 80,722 82,762 8,201 7,881 260 255 99,197 16,458 82,739 1,225 81,514 8,057 241 99,557 16,492 83,065 1,245 81,820 8,136 245 99,772 16,553 83,219 1,213 82,006 8,166 254 99,863 100,106 100,634 100,510 100,825 101,241 101,282 101,522 101,943 101,997 16,594 16,518 16,708 16,920 16,876 16,794 16,928 17,033 17,118 17,064 83,269 83,588 83,926 83,590 83,949 84,447 84,354 84,489 84,825 84,933 1,200 1,286 1,222 1,100 1,175 1,212 1,163 1,240 1,234 1,227 82,042 82,354 82,686 82,427 82,737 83,272 83,254 83,267 83,539 83,733 8,280 8,274 8,222 8,204 8,214 8,216 8,157 8,293 8,139 8,082 248 235 242 297 248 266 274 276 268 270 5,588 2,456 2,800 13,935 5,401 2,385 2,672 14,395 5,592 2,459 2,895 13,860 5,508 2,467 2,721 14,147 5,766 2,501 2,773 14,110 5,459 2,438 2,707 14,201 5,394 2,345 2,725 13,940 5,333 2,292 2,677 14,498 5,254 2,345 2,623 14,836 5,428 2,429 2,683 14,437 5,283 2,468 2,526 14,573 5,261 2,213 2,683 14,415 5,353 2,377 2,655 14,488 5,534 2,408 2,696 14,523 5,262 2,284 2,638 14,711 5,345 2,305 2,719 13,502 5,122 2,201 2,587 13,928 5,324 2,291 2,791 13,459 5,211 2,279 2,631 13,706 5,458 2,315 2,682 13,635 5,180 2,234 2,612 13,717 5,104 2,163 2,648 13,544 5,058 2,126 2,603 13,995 4,979 2,176 2,530 14,334 5,154 2,261 2,599 13,953 5,016 2,265 2,463 14,099 4,986 2,034 2,603 13,987 5,067 2,196 2,557 14,011 5,241 2,209 2,597 14,064 5,004 2,111 2,552 14,222 1,547 1,447 169 PERSONS AT WORK PART TIME’ All industries: Pari time for economic reasons Could only find part-time work Voluntary part time ................. Nonagricultural industries: Part time for economic reasons Slack work .......................... Could only find part-time work Voluntary part time ................. ’ Excludes persons “with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. 88 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7. Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Unemployment rates) Annual average 1987 1986 Selected categories 1986 1987 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total, all civilian workers......................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................................ Men, 20 years and over .................................... Women, 20 years and over................................ 7.0 18.3 6.1 6.2 6.2 16.9 5.4 5.4 6.7 17.5 6.0 5.8 6.7 17.7 6.0 5.9 6.6 17.9 5.8 5.8 6.5 17.8 5.7 5.7 6.3 17.3 5.6 5.5 6.3 17.6 5.6 5.4 6.1 16.0 5.5 5.3 6.0 15.8 5.4 5.4 6.0 16.2 5.2 5.3 5.9 16.4 5.0 5.4 6.0 17.2 5.1 5.2 5.9 16.6 5.0 5.2 5.8 16.1 4.9 5.2 White, to ta l......................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years............................. Men, 16 to 19 years ................................... Women, 16 to 19 years.............................. Men, 20 years and over .................................. Women, 20 years and o ver............................. 6.0 15.6 16.3 14.9 5.3 5.4 5.3 14.4 15.5 13.4 4.8 4.6 5.8 15.2 15.8 14.5 5.3 4.9 5.8 15.1 16.1 14.0 5.2 5.0 5.7 15.1 16.0 14.1 5.1 4.8 5.6 15.3 16.8 13.7 5.0 4.7 5.5 14.8 16.3 13.3 4.9 4.6 5.4 15.2 17.0 13.3 4.8 4.5 5.3 13.9 14.8 13.0 4.9 4.4 5.2 13.3 13.5 13.1 4.7 4.5 5.2 14.1 15.2 12.9 4.6 4.4 5.1 14.3 15.1 13.4 4.4 4.5 5.2 14.5 15.1 13.8 4.6 4.3 5.1 14.1 14.8 13.3 4.4 4.4 4.9 13.6 14.9 12.3 4.3 4.4 Black, total ......................................................... Both sexes, 16 to 19 years............................. Men, 16 to 19 years ................................... Women, 16 to 19 years.............................. Men, 20 years and over .................................. Women, 20 years and o ver............................. 14.5 39.3 39.3 39.2 12.9 12.4 13.0 34.7 34.4 34.9 11.1 11.6 13.7 36.6 36.2 37.1 11.8 12.3 14.1 39.2 36.5 42.3 12.1 12.6 14.0 38.0 37.9 38.0 11.9 12.6 13.9 37.0 36.1 38.0 11.6 12.7 13.0 37.1 37.8 36.3 11.0 11.6 13.7 37.5 38.3 36.6 12.3 11.6 12.8 33.4 31.4 35.4 11.4 11.3 12.7 32.7 32.4 33.1 11.2 11.4 12.4 30.6 33.7 27.1 10.7 11.3 12.3 30.8 31.5 30.0 10.1 11.7 12.1 33.8 32.5 35.2 9.8 11.0 12.2 33.9 32.2 35.8 10.2 10.8 12.2 33.4 33.5 33.4 10.1 10.9 Hispanic origin, to ta l........................................... 10.6 8.8 10.4 10.2 9.6 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.6 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.0 8.1 Married men, spouse present............................ Married women, spouse present....................... Women who maintain families........................... Full-time workers ................................................ Part-time workers ............................................... Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................... Labor force time lost1 ........................................ 4.4 5.2 9.8 6.6 9.1 1.9 7.9 3.9 4.3 9.2 5.8 8.4 1.7 7.1 4.3 4.7 10.0 6.4 8.8 1.9 7.6 4.2 4.7 9.8 6.3 8.9 1.8 7.6 4.1 4.8 9.6 6.2 8.8 1.8 7.5 4.1 4.5 9.7 6.1 9.1 1.7 7.4 4.1 4.4 9.4 5.9 8.6 1.7 7.3 4.0 4.2 9.5 5.9 8.7 1.7 7.2 4.0 4.0 9.5 5.9 7.3 1.7 7.1 3.8 4.2 9.3 5.7 8.1 1.6 6.9 3.7 4.3 9.0 5.6 8.2 1.6 6.9 3.7 4.2 8.8 5.5 8.4 1.6 6.8 3.7 4.2 8.9 5.6 8.3 1.5 6.8 3.5 4.2 8.5 5.5 8.2 1.5 6.8 3.4 4.3 8.4 5.4 8.0 1.5 6.6 7.0 13.5 . 13.1 7.1 6.9 7.4 5.1 7.6 5.5 3.6 12.5 6.2 10.0 11.6 6.0 5.8 6.3 4.5 6.9 4.9 3.5 10.5 6.7 13.9 13.5 6.9 6.5 7.6 4.6 7.3 5.1 3.5 11.5 6.7 14.1 12.5 6.8 6.8 6.7 4.7 7.4 5.2 3.5 11.4 6.6 13.0 11.7 6.8 6.7 6.9 4.1 7.2 5.2 3.6 11.0 6.5 9.5 12.4 6.7 6.6 7.0 4.5 7.3 4.9 3.5 10.8 6.3 11.2 12.0 6.3 6.2 6.4 4.7 7.1 4.8 3.5 9.5 6.3 13.0 12.1 6.3 6.2 6.5 4.4 7.0 4.9 3.4 9.4 6.1 9.5 11.7 5.7 5.4 6.1 4.8 7.1 4.9 3.4 9.3 6.1 7.9 10.8 6.0 6.0 5.9 4.4 6.8 5.1 3.4 10.9 6.0 8.6 11.3 5.6 5.5 5.8 4.4 7.0 4.7 3.7 10.6 5.9 7.4 11.9 5.6 5.4 5.9 4.1 6.4 4.8 3.4 8.6 5.9 8.3 11.2 5.7 5.2 6.5 4.4 6.5 4.7 3.3 10.6 5.8 7.0 10.6 5.3 4.8 5.9 4.5 6.8 4.8 3.4 11.1 5.7 8.0 10.6 5.1 4.8 5.6 4.6 6.2 4.8 3.2 10.9 CHARACTERISTIC INDUSTRY Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers .... Mining................................................................. Construction ....................................................... Manufacturing .................................................... Durable goods................................................. Nondurable goods ........................................... Transportation and public utilities ..................... Wholesale and retail tra d e ................................. Finance and service industries.......................... Government w orkers............................................... 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. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 89 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 8. February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Civilian workers) Annual average Sex and age 1986 1986 1987 1987 Dec. Jan. Mar. Feb. Apr. June May July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total, 16 years and over ................................... 16 to 24 years.......................................... 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 o v e r.................................................................... 7.0 13.3 18.3 20.2 17.0 10.7 5.4 5.7 3.9 6.2 12.2 16.9 19.1 15.2 9.7 4.8 5.0 3.3 6.7 13.0 17.5 19.1 16.3 10.7 5.1 5.4 3.5 6.7 13.0 17.7 19.9 16.2 10.7 5.2 5.5 3.3 6.6 13.0 17.9 19.8 16.4 10.4 5.1 5.5 3.1 6.5 12.8 17.8 19.9 16.2 10.2 5.0 5.3 3.4 6.3 12.6 17.3 18.9 15.9 10.1 4.8 5.1 3.4 6.3 12.5 17.6 21.0 15.2 9.8 4.8 5.1 3.6 6.1 12.1 16.0 18.8 14.5 10.0 4.7 4.9 3.2 6.0 11.8 15.8 17.5 13.9 9.7 4.7 5.0 3.1 6.0 11.8 16.2 18.3 14.7 9.4 4.7 4.9 3.2 5.9 11.8 16.4 18.3 15.2 9.4 4.6 4.8 3.3 6.0 11.8 17.2 20.4 14.7 8.8 4.6 4.8 3.1 5.9 11.6 16.6 19.2 14.8 8.9 4.5 4.7 3.4 5.8 11.2 16.1 17.8 14.7 8.5 4.5 4.8 3.2 Men, 16 years and o ve r.............................................................. 16 to 24 years .......................................................................... 16 to 19 years........................................................................ 16 to 17 years..................................................................... 18 to 19 years..................................................................... 20 to 24 years........................................................................ 25 years and o v e r.................................................................... 25 to 54 years..................................................................... 55 years and over................................................................ 6.9 13.7 19.0 20.8 17.7 11.0 5.4 5.6 4.1 6.2 12.6 17.8 20.2 16.0 9.9 4.8 5.0 3.5 6.8 13.5 18.2 19.0 17.2 11.2 5.2 5.5 3.9 6.7 13.4 18.5 21.1 17.1 10.8 5.2 5.6 3.7 6.6 13.5 18.5 20.5 17.1 10.9 5.1 5.4 3.4 6.6 13.2 19.0 20.3 17.9 10.2 5.1 5.3 3.6 6.4 13.1 18.7 21.0 17.1 10.3 4.9 5.1 3.7 6.4 13.2 19.6 22.7 17.2 9.9 4.9 5.1 3.9 6.2 12.4 16.4 19.1 15.4 10.4 4.8 5.0 3.4 6.0 11.9 15.9 17.1 13.7 9.9 4.7 4.9 3.4 6.1 12.5 17.8 20.5 15.9 9.6 4.7 4.9 3.4 5.8 12.1 17.3 19.7 15.9 9.3 4.5 4.7 3.2 5.9 12.1 17.4 20.9 14.8 9.2 4.5 4.8 3.1 5.8 12.0 17.2 20.4 14.8 9.2 4.4 4.6 3.5 5.7 11.7 17.2 19.3 15.3 8.7 4.4 4.6 3.2 Women, 16 years and o ver....................................................... 16 to 24 years......................................................................... 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 o v e r.............................................................. 7.1 12.8 17.6 19.6 16.3 10.3 5.5 5.9 3.6 6.2 11.7 15.9 18.0 14.3 9.4 4.8 5.1 3.0 6.6 12.5 16.9 19.1 15.3 10.2 5.0 5.4 2.9 6.6 12.7 16.8 18.6 15.3 10.5 5.1 5.5 2.8 6.6 12.4 17.1 19.0 15.7 9.9 5.1 5.5 2.7 6.5 12.4 16.6 19.6 14.3 10.1 5.0 5.3 3.0 6.3 12.0 15.9 16.6 14.7 10.0 4.8 5.1 2.9 6.2 11.8 15.6 19.1 13.1 9.7 4.7 5.0 3.0 6.0 11.7 15.5 18.4 13.6 9.6 4.5 4.9 2.8 6.1 11.7 15.7 18.0 14.1 9.5 4.7 5.0 2.6 6.0 11.0 14.4 16.0 13.4 9.0 4.7 5.0 2.9 6.1 11.5 15.4 16.9 14.4 9.4 4.7 4.9 3.5 6.1 11.5 16.9 19.9 14.6 8.5 4.7 4.9 3.1 6.0 11.2 16.0 17.9 14.7 8.6 4.7 4.9 3.2 5.9 10.7 14.8 16.2 14.1 8.4 4.7 4.9 3.3 Sept. Oct. 9. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1986 1987 Reason for unemployment 1986 Job losers .................. On layoff........................... Other job losers................................. Job leavers ................. Reentrants ......................... New entrants ....................... 1987 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Aug. July Dec. Nov. 4,033 1,090 2,943 1,015 2,160 1,029 3,566 943 2,623 965 1,974 920 3,913 1,064 2,849 1,024 2,005 990 3,971 1,087 2,884 909 2,059 1,048 3,835 1,001 2,834 1,033 2,038 1,007 3,791 1,003 2,788 996 2,078 952 3,705 963 2,742 955 1,965 918 3,612 924 2,688 931 1,995 999 3,554 919 2,635 959 1,980 854 3,529 916 2,613 989 1,930 844 3,389 874 2,515 992 1,969 855 3,313 820 2,493 981 1,908 882 3,388 944 2,444 960 1,845 914 3,307 878 2,429 926 1,974 855 3,200 856 2,344 946 1,945 909 48.9 13.2 35.7 12.3 26.2 12.5 48.0 12.7 35.3 13.0 26.6 12.4 49.3 13.4 35.9 12.9 25.3 12.5 49.7 13.6 36.1 11.4 25.8 13.1 48.5 12.7 35.8 13.1 25.8 12.7 48.5 12.8 35.7 12.7 26.6 12.2 49.1 12.8 36.4 12.7 26.1 12.2 47.9 12.3 35.7 12.4 26.5 13.3 48.4 12.5 35.9 13.1 26.9 47.0 12.1 34.9 13.8 27.3 11.9 46.8 47.7 13.3 34.4 13.5 26.0 12.9 46.8 12.4 34.4 13.1 28.0 12.1 45.7 11.6 48.4 12.6 35.8 13.6 26.5 11.6 33.5 13.5 27.8 13.0 3.4 .9 1.8 .9 3.0 .8 1.6 .8 3.3 .9 1.7 .8 3.3 .8 1.7 .9 3.2 .9 1.7 .8 3.2 .8 1.7 .8 3.1 .8 1.6 .8 3.0 .8 1.7 .8 3.0 .8 1.7 .7 2.9 .8 1.6 .7 2.8 2.8 2.7 .8 2.8 .8 2.7 .8 1.6 .8 .8 1.6 1.5 1.6 .7 .7 .8 1.6 .7 PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED Job losers................ On layo ff......................... Other job losers............................. Job leavers................................ Reentrants..................................... New entrants ........................................................ 11.6 35.2 13.8 26.9 12.5 12.2 PERCENT OF CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE Job losers ........................... Job leavers....................... Reentrants ........................ New entrants ....................... 10. .8 Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted (Numbers in thousands) Annual average 1986 1987 Weeks of unemployment 90 1986 1987 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Less than 5 weeks ........................................... 5 to 14 weeks .................................................. 15 weeks and o v e r........................................... 15 to 26 weeks .............................................. 27 weeks and o v e r........................................ 3,448 2,557 2,232 1,045 1,187 3,246 2,196 1,983 943 1,040 3,335 2,403 2,194 1,042 1,152 3,365 2,489 2,187 1,023 1,164 3,343 2,444 2,129 1,004 1,125 3,352 2,411 2,055 944 1,111 3,195 2,256 2,060 984 1,076 3,308 2,165 2,067 974 1,093 3,138 2,151 2,029 973 1,056 3,186 2,144 1,920 945 975 3,203 2,142 1,896 834 1,062 3,220 1,949 1,904 917 987 3,223 2,093 1,801 844 957 3,218 2,029 1,834 899 935 3,229 1,968 1,791 892 899 Mean duration in w eeks................................... Median duration in w eeks................................. 15.0 6.9 14.5 6.5 15.0 7.1 15.0 7.0 14.8 6.7 14.9 6.7 14.8 6.9 14.8 6.6 14.7 6.6 14.2 6.6 14.3 6.4 14.2 5.8 14.1 6.2 14.0 6.1 14.2 6.0 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11. Unemployment rates of civilian workers by State, data not seasonally adjusted Nov. 1986 Nov. 1987 Alabama.............. Alaska ................. Arizona................ Arkansas .............. California.............. 9.6 10.6 6.7 8.9 6.5 6.9 9.6 5.6 7.7 5.1 Colorado ............. Connecticut ......... Delaware............. District of Columbia Florida................ 7.6 3.3 3.5 7.3 5.6 6.7 3.2 2.9 6.4 5.1 Georgia .............. Hawaii................. Idaho .................. Illinois ................. Indiana ............... 5.6 4.6 7.8 6.9 6.2 5.4 3.8 6.4 6.3 5.7 Iowa................... Kansas ............... Kentucky............. Louisiana............. Maine.................. 5.8 5.1 8.1 13.4 4.4 5.3 4.7 7.2 10.5 3.5 Maryland ............. Massachusetts..... Michigan.............. Minnesota........... Mississippi........... Missouri.............. 4.0 3.6 8.0 4.8 11.2 5.8 4.1 2.3 7.4 5.9 9.4 6.1 State NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the 12. Nov. 1986 Nov. 1987 Montana .............................................. Nebraska ............................................. Nevada ................................................ New Hampshire.................................... 7.9 4.6 5.5 2.4 7.5 4.5 6.1 2.2 New Jersey .......................................... New Mexico ......................................... New York............................................. North Carolina ...................................... North Dakota ........................................ 4.1 9.1 5.3 5.4 6.3 3.2 8.7 4.9 4.0 5.2 Ohio .................................................... Oklahoma............................................. Oregon................................................. Pennsylvania........................................ Rhode Island........................................ 7.3 8.1 7.9 6.0 3.3 5.8 6.2 5.6 5.2 3.1 South Carolina...................................... South Dakota........................................ Tennessee ........................................... Texas .................................................. Utah .................................................... 5.9 5.6 7.3 8.8 5.7 4.5 5.5 5.9 7.9 5.5 Vermont............................................... Virginia................................................. Washington .......................................... West Virginia......................................... Wisconsin............................................. 4.5 4.7 8.1 11.0 6.4 3.4 3.6 7.0 10.8 6.0 Wyoming.............................................. 9.3 7.1 State database, Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by State, data not seasonally adjusted (In thousands) State Nov. 1986 Oct. 1987 Alabama................................................ Alaska .................................................. Arizona................................................. Arkansas............................................... California............................................... 1,473.0 214.7 1,374.9 824.5 11,478.9 1,503.3 211 8 1,387.3 856.3 11,824.7 Colorado ............................................... Connecticut ........................................... 1,398.8 1,635.4 311.0 645.1 4,689.2 1,399.4 1,663.2 320.9 648.8 4,843.4 Hawaii................................................... Idaho .................................................... Illinois ................................................... Indiana ................................................. 2,735.3 444.1 340.6 4,847.4 2,278.6 2,774.7 454.5 346.9 4,927.2 2,359.0 Kansas ................................................. Kentucky............................................... Louisiana............................................... 1,098.8 1,000.7 1,304.1 1,514.1 486.8 1.127.7 1.015.8 1.325.9 1,510.6 509.0 1,991.6 3,028.5 3.704.6 1.925.7 859.7 2,160.0 277.9 2,001.6 3,080.1 3,747.8 1,998.4 878.0 2,191.8 278.1 District of Columbia................................ Maryland ............................................... Massachusetts....................................... Michigan................................................ Minnesota............................................. Nov. 1987p p = preliminary NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis State 1,503.2 206.0 1,394.8 853.7 11,887.9 New Jersey .......................................... New Mexico ......................................... 1,405.6 Now York............................................. 1,673.6 North Carolina ...................................... 322.1 652.3 4,897.6 Oklahoma............................................. 2,778.3 459.4 343.7 4.934.2 2.362.2 South Dakota........................................ 1,128.8 1,018.9 1,326.8 Utah .................................................... 1,511.2 509.8 Virginia ................................................. 2,005.9 Washington .......................................... 3,096.9 West Virginia......................................... 3.754.4 1.996.5 879.1 2,189.8 276.7 Nov. 1986 Oct. 1987 Nov. 1987p 666.8 481.0 496 8 677.3 509.1 517.6 679.2 511.6 517.0 3,545.2 533.1 8,056.6 2,791.7 250.6 3,621.5 540.7 8,218.2 2,880.1 257.7 3,634.6 540.9 8,259.6 2,891.1 255.6 4,563.9 1,141.7 1.077.4 4.878.5 453.1 4,660.9 1,135.1 1,122.7 5,017.5 455.4 4,675.4 1,132.8 1,124.2 5,029.5 456.4 1,353.9 256.1 1,974.1 6,536.9 644.2 1,407.0 258.9 2,047.6 6,567.8 647.4 1,409.7 257.6 2,050.5 6,582.8 650.2 238 4 2,620.2 1,796.9 600.8 2,050.7 242.7 2,666.9 1,878.6 608.5 2,101.5 241.6 2,681.9 1,872.3 609.9 2,102.3 193.4 723.8 37.7 193.5 746.3 37.9 190.4 748.7 38.8 because of the continual updating of the database. 91 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 13. February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted (In thousands) Annual average 1986 1986 1987 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 1987 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.p Dec.p TOTAL ..................................... PRIVATE SECTOR ..................... 99,610 82,900 102,105 85,042 100,567 83,643 100,919 83,983 101,150 84,215 101,329 84,352 101,598 84,560 101,708 84,677 101,818 84,787 102,126 85,106 102,275 85,229 102,434 85,386 102,983 85,795 103,246 86,038 103,572 86,294 GOODS-PRODUCING ................... Mining .......................................... Oil and gas extraction ............... 24,681 783 457 24,885 742 426 24,630 724 406 24,708 718 405 24,743 719 406 24,749 722 408 24,759 729 416 24,752 735 420 24,761 738 425 24,850 744 430 24,886 751 434 24,917 759 439 25,064 764 443 25,173 760 440 25,270 762 440 Construction ............................... General building contractors...... 4,904 1,293 5,032 1,279 4,936 1,277 5,034 1,311 5,038 1,309 5,032 1,291 5,019 1,272 4,999 1,267 5,008 1,266 5,002 1,261 5,006 1,262 4,989 1,260 5,053 1,279 5,077 1,283 5,132 1,292 Manufacturing............................. Production workers .................... 18,994 12,895 19,112 13,022 18,970 12,906 18,956 12,884 18,986 12,916 18,995 12,925 19,011 12,939 19,018 12,946 19,015 12,958 19,104 13,020 19,129 13,038 19,169 13,072 19,247 13,129 19,336 13,205 19,376 13,251 Durable goods........................... Production workers .................... 11,244 7,432 11,235 7,458 11,175 7,393 11,157 7,370 11,179 7,398 11,176 7,399 11,175 7,406 11,175 7,409 11,176 7,421 11,195 7,425 11,248 7,475 11,268 7,494 11,319 7,530 11,364 7,573 11,390 7,602 Lumber and wood products....... Furniture and fixtures.................. Stone, clay, and glass products .. Primary metal industries ............. Blast furnaces and basic steel products...................................... Fabricated metal products.......... 711 497 586 753 739 513 585 751 728 499 584 733 731 500 586 726 733 501 588 733 734 502 586 739 736 504 586 743 738 509 584 742 735 510 582 746 740 518 582 750 736 518 582 754 740 520 581 764 741 524 583 768 750 526 588 770 753 527 590 770 275 1,431 274 1,428 259 1,422 254 1,422 261 1,419 266 1,419 272 1,423 272 1,420 275 1,424 277 1,424 278 1,425 283 1,429 286 1,438 286 1,446 285 1,450 Industry Machinery, except electrical........ Electrical and electronic equipment................................... Transportation equipment........... Motor vehicles and equipment ... Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.................................... 2,060 2,038 2,011 2,007 2,018 2,015 2,022 2,025 2,028 2,033 2,044 2,053 2,064 2,070 2,080 2,123 2,015 865 707 2,101 2,015 842 696 2,118 2,018 853 698 2,111 2,014 851 697 2,106 2,022 859 695 2,099 2,022 854 694 2,092 2,011 847 694 2,087 2,011 843 693 2,080 2,010 842 693 2,088 1,995 814 695 2,095 2,028 848 695 2,096 2,018 837 695 2,111 2,019 838 697 2,118 2,018 836 701 2,128 2,016 833 700 362 369 364 363 364 366 364 366 368 370 371 372 374 377 376 Nondurable goods...................... Production workers...................... 7,750 5,463 7,876 5,564 7,795 5,513 7,799 5,514 7,807 5,518 7,819 5,526 7,836 5,533 7,843 5,537 7,839 5,537 7,909 5,595 7,881 5,563 7,901 5,578 7,928 5,599 7,972 5,632 7,986 5,649 Food and kindred products......... Tobacco manufactures............... Textile mill products.................... Apparel and other textile products...................................... Paper and allied products .......... 1,617 59 705 1,636 57 730 1,631 58 715 1,628 58 718 1,630 58 722 1,635 57 725 1,642 56 724 1,633 57 727 1,634 57 729 1,644 57 736 1,632 56 732 1,631 55 735 1,635 55 736 1,644 56 738 1,641 56 740 1,106 674 1,114 679 1,110 679 1,106 678 1,101 679 1,103 678 1,104 677 1,107 677 1,108 676 1,130 678 1,110 677 1,117 681 1,123 678 1,128 682 1,126 684 Printing and publishing................ Chemicals and allied products.... Petroleum and coal products...... Rubber and misc. plastics products...................................... Leather and leather products ..... 1,457 1,023 169 1,501 1,027 165 1,474 1,017 163 1,479 1,018 164 1,483 1,018 164 1,485 1,017 164 1,493 1,018 164 1,497 1,022 164 1,498 1,014 164 1,504 1,026 164 1,508 1,031 164 1,509 1,031 166 1,514 1,035 167 1,522 1,042 166 1,526 1,047 167 790 151 818 151 800 148 803 147 805 147 807 148 809 149 809 150 810 149 815 155 819 152 824 152 833 152 841 153 845 154 SERVICE-PRODUCING ................ Transportation and public utilities........................................ Transportation............................. Communication and public utilities.......................’................ 74,930 77,219 75,937 76,211 76,407 76,580 76,839 76,956 77,057 77,276 77,389 77,517 77,919 78,073 78,302 5,244 3,041 5,377 3,148 5,286 3,078 5,304 3,089 5,315 3,097 5,333 3,112 5,348 3,124 5,344 3,120 5,350 3,128 5,363 3,133 5,377 3,147 5,416 3,183 5,436 3,198 5,460 3,215 5,458 3,214 2,203 2,229 2,208 2,215 2,218 2,221 2,224 2,224 2,222 2,230 2,230 2,233 2,238 2,245 2,244 Wholesale tra d e ......................... Durable goods............................. Nondurable goods....................... 5,735 3,383 2,351 5,797 3,419 2,378 5,725 3,383 2,342 5,741 3,386 2,355 5,757 3,391 2,366 5,766 3,397 2,369 5,772 3,397 2,375 5,775 3,401 2,374 5,781 3,405 2,376 5,797 3,418 2,379 5,807 3,422 2,385 5,815 3,431 2,384 5,831 3,444 2,387 5,851 3,458 2,393 5,871 3,475 2,396 Retail trad e.................................. General merchandise stores....... Food stores................................. Automotive dealers and service stations....................................... Eating and drinking places......... 17,845 2,363 2,873 18,259 2,402 2,958 18,007 2,363 2,916 18,080 2,358 2,929 18,140 2,373 2,940 18,136 2,380 2,944 18,197 2,385 2,953 18,205 2,390 2,956 18,226 2,387 2,960 18,274 2,407 2,959 18,256 2,411 2,962 18,314 2,415 2,958 18,408 2,459 2,969 18,424 2,437 2,980 18,420 2,425 2,990 1,943 5,879 1,987 5,994 1,970 5,938 1,978 5,946 1,979 5,956 1,979 5,964 1,978 5,962 1,978 5,976 1,983 5,982 1,985 5,985 1,985 5,992 1,988 6,018 2,000 6,032 2,002 6,047 2,012 6,063 Finance, insurance, and real estate.......................................... Finance ....................................... Insurance..................................... Real estate.................................. 6,297 3,152 1,945 1,200 6,588 3,278 2,043 1,267 6,451 3,227 1,999 1,225 6,480 3,235 2,012 1,233 6,501 3,243 2,016 1,242 6,526 3,256 2,022 1,248 6,558 3,272 2,032 1,254 6,576 3,276 2,037 1,263 6,586 3,280 2,037 1,269 6,608 3,291 2,043 1,274 6,624 3,293 2,050 1,281 6,629 3,292 2,054 1,283 6,650 3,296 2,068 1,286 6,658 3,302 2,069 1,287 6,660 3,300 2,078 1,282 Services....................................... Business services........................ Health services........................... 23,099 4,781 6,551 24,136 5,098 6,880 23,544 4,912 6,691 23,670 4,950 6,721 23,759 4,984 6,748 23,842 5,020 6,773 23,926 5,044 6,800 24,025 5,083 6,822 24,083 5,086 6,853 24,214 5,105 6,887 24,279 5,133 6,923 24,295 5,152 6,943 24,406 5,194 6,987 24,472 5,192 7,025 24,615 5,227 7,066 Government ................................ Federal........................................ State............................................ Local............................................ 16,711 2,899 3,888 9,923 17,063 2,943 3,954 10,167 16,924 2,904 3,927 10,093 16,936 2,912 3,929 10,095 16,935 2,916 3,927 10,092 16,977 2,922 3,930 10,125 17,038 2,933 3,943 10,162 17,031 2,935 3,947 10,149 17,031 2,935 3,932 10,164 17,020 2,936 3,952 10,132 17,046 2,940 3,964 10,142 17,048 2,962 3,957 10,129 17,188 2,965 3,973 10,250 17,208 2,975 3,979 10,254 17,278 2,979 4,009 10,290 p = preliminary NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 92 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 14. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted Industry Annual average 1986 PRIVATE SECTOR ...................................... 34.8 1987 1986 1987 34.8 Dec. 34.6 Jan. Mar. Feb. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.p Dec.p 34.7 34.9 34.8 34.7 34.9 34.8 34.8 34.9 34.6 34.9 34.9 34.7 40.9 3.6 40.6 3.5 41.0 3.8 41.0 3.7 41.0 3.8 41.0 3.8 40.6 3.6 41.3 4.0 41.2 3.9 41.1 3.9 40.7 3.4 41.0 3.7 40.8 3.6 40.9 3.6 41.1 3.6 Overtime hours........................................ Lumber and wood products............................ Furniture and fixtures.................................... Stone, clay, and glass products...................... Primary metal industries ................................ Blast furnaces and basic steel products........ Fabricated metal products ............................. 41.3 3.5 40.3 39.8 42.2 41.9 41.7 41.3 41.6 3.8 40.6 39.9 42.3 43.1 43.5 41.5 41.4 3.6 40.6 39.9 42.2 42.5 42.6 41.2 41.6 3.7 40.8 40.2 42.5 42.6 42.7 41.6 41.7 3.7 41.3 40.2 42.8 42.6 42.3 41.6 41.5 3.7 40.9 40.0 42.5 42.6 42.3 41.5 41.2 3.6 40.6 39.1 41.9 42.3 42.4 41.2 41.6 3.9 41.0 39.9 42.3 43.1 43.3 41.6 41.5 3.8 40.6 40.0 42.0 43.1 43.5 41.5 41.6 3.8 40.6 40.0 42.2 43.4 44.1 41.4 41.6 4.0 40.4 40.1 42.1 43.5 44.0 41.5 41.0 3.7 39.4 39.3 41.9 43.4 45.2 40.8 41.9 4.1 40.4 40.0 42.6 43.7 44.3 42.0 41.8 4.0 40.8 40.0 42.4 43.6 43.8 42.0 41.6 4.0 40.7 39.7 42.6 43.5 44.1 41.7 Machinery except electrical ........................... Electrical and electronic equipment................. Transportation equipment............................... Motor vehicles and equipment...................... Instruments and related products................... 41.6 41.0 42.3 42.6 41.0 42.2 40.9 42.1 42.3 41.5 41.7 41.0 42.1 42.4 41.1 42.0 41.0 42.3 42.9 41.2 42.2 41.1 42.5 43.0 41.3 42.0 40.9 42.3 42.9 41.3 41.8 40.6 41.9 42.1 41.0 42.2 40.8 42.2 42.5 41.5 42.2 41.1 41.9 42.0 41.5 42.4 41.1 41.7 41.9 41.6 42.2 41.0 41.9 41.9 41.7 41.6 40.4 41.3 41.3 41.1 42.6 41.1 42.5 43.0 42.1 42.7 41.0 42.4 43.1 41.8 42.5 41.0 41.5 41.4 42.3 Nondurable goods.......................................... Overtime hours........................................ Food and kindred products............................ Textile mill products...................................... Apparel and other textile products................... Paper and allied products.............................. 39.9 3.3 40.0 41.1 36.7 43.2 40.2 3.6 40.2 41.9 37.1 43.4 40.0 3.5 39.8 41.6 37.0 43.2 40.1 3.5 40.0 41.6 37.0 43.4 40.3 3.5 40.1 42.0 37.4 43.3 40.1 3.5 40.0 42.1 37.0 43.0 39.7 3.3 39.8 41.4 36.1 43.0 40.2 3.7 40.1 42.0 37.2 43.5 40.2 3.6 40.1 42.1 37.1 43.3 40.3 3.7 39.9 42.4 37.3 43.5 40.3 3.7 40.3 42.1 37.4 43.4 40.1 3.6 40.2 41.3 36.3 43.8 40.5 3.8 40.5 41.9 37.4 43.7 40.4 3.8 40.6 41.8 37.1 43.4 40.4 3.7 40.6 41.7 37.4 43.2 Printing and publishing................................... Chemicals and allied products........................ Petroleum and coal products.......................... 38.0 41.9 43.8 38.0 42.3 43.8 38.0 42.1 43.6 37.9 42.2 44.6 38.1 42.2 44.0 37.9 42.0 44.1 37.7 42.2 43.9 37.9 42.1 44.3 38.1 42.0 43.3 38.1 42.2 44.4 37.9 42.4 43.3 38.2 42.8 43.2 38.0 42.7 43.5 38.0 42.6 43.5 37.9 42.5 43.9 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES... 39.2 39.1 38.9 39.0 39.2 39.0 39.0 39.2 38.8 39.2 39.3 39.1 39.3 39.2 38.9 38.3 38.2 MANUFACTURING Overtime hours......................................... Durable goods................................................ WHOLESALE TRADE 37.7 - 38.2 38.3 38.3 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.2 38.1 38.3 38.0 38.4 RETAIL TRADE ................................................ 29.2 29.3 28.9 29.0 29.3 29.3 29.5 29.4 29.2 29.3 29.6 29.6 29.3 29.2 28.8 SERVICES ....................................................... 32.5 32.5 32.4 32.4 32.6 32.5 32.4 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.6 32.5 - Data not available. p = preliminary https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: See "Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark adjustment. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data 15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry Industry Annual average 1987 1986 1987 Dec. Mar. Apr. May $8.76 Seasonally adjusted ...................................... - $8.98 - $8.86 $8.90 $8.92 $8.92 8.84 8.86 8.88 8.91 $8.91 8.91 $8.93 8.95 $8.92 $8.91 $8.94 $9.06 $9.09 $9.14 $9.13 8.94 8.96 9.02 9.02 9.08 9.13 9.11 M IN IN G ................................................................................. 12.44 12.44 12.63 12.66 12.56 12.51 12.43 12.42 12.44 12.31 12.32 12.43 12.34 12.46 12.46 C O N S T R U C T IO N .............................................................. 12.47 12.66 12.77 12.58 12.51 12.59 12.55 12.60 12.61 12.57 12.67 12.77 12.79 12.81 12.81 9.84 9.87 10.01 10.08 P R IV A TE S E C T O R .......................................................... Jan. Feb. June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.p Dec.p M A N U F A C T U R IN G .......................................................... 9.73 9.91 9.85 9.84 9.85 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.86 10.00 9.95 D urable g o o d s ................................................................. 10.29 8.33 7.46 10.05 11.86 13.73 9.89 10.46 8.40 7.67 10.27 11.98 13.84 10.03 10.40 8.32 7.65 10.17 11.82 13.74 10.02 10.38 10.39 8.27 8.31 7.61 7.58 10.17 10.15 11.76 11.78 13.55 13.59 9.98 9.99 10.39 8.28 7.58 10.13 11.82 13.66 9.99 10.39 8.34 7.58 10.23 11.96 13.84 9.98 10.40 8.37 7.64 10.26 11.96 13.80 9.97 10.42 10.40 8.44 8.46 7.66 7.67 10.29 10.33 11.97 11.97 13.83 13.70 10.00 9.95 10.42 8.49 7.74 10.31 11.98 13.81 9.97 10.53 8.48 7.75 10.40 12.24 14.17 10.04 10.51 8.44 7.73 10.31 12.05 13.97 10.11 Machinery, except electrical ............................ 10.59 Electrical and electronic equipment.................. 9.65 Transportation equipment................................ 12.81 Motor vehicles and equipment....................... 13.45 Instruments and related products .................... 9.47 7.54 Miscellaneous manufacturing........................... 10.77 9.90 12.96 13.57 9.76 7.74 10.67 9.82 12.96 13.56 9.65 7.69 10.64 9.84 12.93 13.58 9.64 7.69 10.68 9.84 12.88 13.49 9.67 7.68 10.72 9.84 12.86 13.49 9.67 7.66 10.70 9.82 12.80 13.40 9.67 7.67 10.70 9.83 12.85 13.42 9.69 7.72 10.76 9.84 12.88 13.47 9.70 7.74 10.74 9.89 12.83 13.36 9.74 7.72 10.76 9.90 12.90 13.43 9.78 7.70 10.81 10.86 9.98 9.95 13.07 13.09 13.69 13.73 9.80 9.81 7.76 7.77 10.89 10.01 13.18 13.81 9.90 7.81 10.97 10.09 13.26 13.91 9.99 7.89 8.94 Food and kindred products.............................. 8.74 Tobacco manufactures .................................... 12.85 Textile mill products........................................ 6.93 Apparel and other textile products.................... 5.84 Paper and allied products ................................ 11.18 9.16 8.92 13.82 7.18 5.95 11.42 9.07 8.88 12.93 7.10 5.90 11.34 9.09 8.90 12.97 7.10 5.94 11.26 9.08 8.91 13.44 7.11 5.93 11.26 9.09 8.93 13.80 7.12 5.93 11.27 9.14 8.95 14.28 7.12 5.94 11.37 9.13 8.96 14.53 7.13 5.89 11.40 9.11 8.91 15.57 7.15 5.91 11.41 9.16 8.88 14.85 7.14 5.89 11.48 9.12 8.80 14.20 7.16 5.90 11.41 9.28 8.92 12.89 7.23 6.01 11.67 9.18 8.86 12.77 7.24 5.99 11.48 9.24 8.97 13.59 7.31 5.99 11.49 9.30 9.07 13.58 7.31 6.02 11.58 Printing and publishing..................................... 9.99 Chemicals and allied products.......................... 11.98 Petroleum and coal products........................... 14.18 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.... 8.73 Leather and leather products ........................... 5.92 10.28 12.37 14.57 8.89 6.06 10.15 12.20 14.41 8.82 5.98 10.14 12.18 14.57 8.83 6.04 10.16 12.21 14.51 8.79 6.01 10.17 12.24 14.50 8.80 6.06 10.14 12.30 14.50 8.82 6.12 10.19 12.31 14.52 8.84 6.05 10.19 12.27 14.43 8.87 6.04 10.25 12.37 14.48 8.93 5.98 10.31 12.34 14.52 8.90 6.01 10.48 12.56 14.71 8.98 6.09 10.42 12.52 14.66 8.91 6.09 10.40 12.58 14.72 8.93 6.11 10.44 12.61 14.72 9.02 6.14 TR A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B LIC U T IL IT IE S ..... 11.70 12.01 11.90 11.89 11.93 11.90 11.94 11.95 11.91 12.00 12.04 12.09 12.09 12.19 12.16 W H O LE S A LE T R A D E .................................................... 9.35 9.61 9.47 9.49 9.55 9.53 9.53 9.57 9.57 9.57 9.62 9.67 9.67 9.75 9.75 Lumber and wood products............................. Furniture and fixtures...................................... Stone, clay, and glass products....................... Primary metal industries .................................. Blast furnaces and basic steel products........ Fabricated metal products ............................... N ond u ra b le go o d s ......................................................... 10.57 10.64 8.48 8.45 7.74 7.79 10.34 10.34 12.08 12.15 13.97 14.04 10.15 10.23 R E TA IL TR A D E ................................................................ 6.03 6.12 6.07 6.09 6.09 6.08 6.09 6.09 6.08 6.07 6.06 6.20 6.16 6.19 6.17 F IN A N C E, IN S U R A N C E, A N D R E A L E S T A T E .... 8.35 8.75 8.48 8.60 8.75 8.72 8.71 8.72 8.68 8.69 8.81 8.79 8.81 8.92 8.85 S E R V IC E S .......................................................................... 8.16 8.47 8.32 8.37 8.43 8.41 8.40 8.38 8.35 8.33 8.40 8.55 8.61 8.70 8.72 - Data not available. p = preliminary 94 1986 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 16. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry Annual average 1986 1987 Dec. 1987 Industry 1986 Jan. Feb. Apr. Mar. May June Aug. July Sept. Oct. Nov.» Dec.p P R IV A TE S EC TO R Current dollars............................................ $304.85 $312.50 $308.33 $306.16 $307.74 $308.63 $308.29 $310.76 $312.20 $312.74 $315.58 $314.38 $317.24 $318.07 $318.64 Seasonally adjusted.................................. 305.86 307.44 309.91 310.07 309.18 312.36 311.11 311.81 314.80 312.09 316.89 318.64 316.12 Constant (1977) dollars ............................... 171.07 171.87 169.52 169.74 169.48 168.28 169.17 169.21 169.14 169.76 168.30 169.38 169.64 535.51 538.05 527.52 522.92 519.57 526.61 527.46 518.25 522.37 523.30 526.92 529.55 533.29 M IN IN G ................................................................................. 524.97 526.21 C O N S T R U C T IO N .............................................................. 466.38 478.55 469.94 467.98 460.37 470.87 469.37 485.10 480.44 485.20 489.06 464.83 496.25 475.25 484.22 M A N U FA C T U R IN G 396.01 406.31 222.23 - 408.78 401.47 401.47 402.87 398.75 403.68 405.66 400.72 403.27 408.00 410.94 414.41 422.35 227.86 222.30 221.44 221.24 217.78 219.75 219.87 216.72 216.93 218.42 219.40 221.02 - Lumber and wood oroducts............................ Furniture and fixtures.................................... Stone, clay, and glass products...................... Primary metal industries ................................ Blast furnaces and basic steel products........ Fabricated metal products ............................. 424.98 335.70 296.91 424.11 496.93 572.54 408.46 435.14 341.04 306.03 434.42 516.34 602.04 416.25 439.92 337.79 314.42 427.14 508.26 589.45 422.84 430.77 331.63 302.88 421.04 500.98 575.88 414.17 431.19 337.39 299.41 423.26 503.01 577.58 413.59 432.22 337.00 301.68 425.46 505.90 581.92 414.59 427.03 338.60 294.10 430.68 508.30 593.74 408.18 431.60 345.68 301.78 439.13 514.28 598.92 412.76 434.51 348.57 306.40 437.33 517.10 605.75 417.00 426.40 341.78 300.66 439.03 514.71 602.80 405.96 430.35 345.54 311.92 439.21 515.14 600.74 411.76 432.78 338.35 308.45 442.00 531.22 639.07 410.64 439.32 342.66 313.84 443.33 522.97 610.49 424.62 443.94 342.59 312.70 437.38 527.90 610.49 428.33 452.20 343.92 318.61 437.38 535.82 623.38 436.82 Machinery, except electrical ........................... Electrical and electronic equipment................. Transportation equipment............................... Motor vehicles and equipment...................... Instruments and related products ................... Miscellaneous manufacturing.......................... 440.54 395.65 541.86 572.97 388.27 298.58 454.49 404.91 545.62 574.01 405.04 304.96 456.68 413.42 562.46 595.28 407.23 309.14 446.88 404.42 549.53 585.30 397.17 303.76 449.63 402.46 546.11 577.37 399.37 301.06 452.38 402.46 547.84 582.77 401.31 301.04 445.12 395.75 536.32 566.82 394.54 297.60 449.40 399.10 542.27 571.69 399.23 302.62 455.15 404.42 539.67 567.09 402.55 304.18 447.86 399.56 526.03 549.10 398.37 299.54 449.77 403.92 530.19 547.94 403.91 303.38 449.70 404.19 538.48 562.66 402.78 302.64 460.46 408.95 553.71 586.27 410.06 310.80 467.18 414.41 561.47 593.83 416.79 309.28 478.29 424.79 567.53 596.74 433.57 316.39 N ondu ra ble go o d s ......................................................... 356.71 349.60 480.59 284.82 214.33 482.98 368.23 358.58 533.45 300.84 220.75 495.63 368.24 357.86 483.58 299.62 220.66 500.09 362.69 354.22 481.19 293.94 218.59 488.68 362.29 351.05 486.53 295.78 220.00 484.18 363.60 352.74 525.78 299.04 219.41 483.48 361.03 351.74 536.93 291.21 212.65 486.64 366.11 359.30 571.03 298.75 219.11 493.62 367.13 357.29 624.36 303.16 221.03 494.05 366.40 354.31 527.18 297.02 217.93 495 94 368.45 358.16 512.62 302.87 220.66 492.91 374.91 363.94 501.42 301.49 218.16 514.65 371.79 360.60 526.12 305.53 224.63 501.68 375.14 365.98 559.91 308.48 224.03 500.96 381.30 374.59 559.50 309.21 227.56 510.68 Current dollars............................................. Constant (1977) dollars................................ D urable go o d s ................................................................. 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 ......................... 379.62 390.64 392.81 381.26 384.05 386.46 381.26 384.16 384.16 387.45 392.81 403.48 397.00 398.32 404.03 501.96 523.25 519.72 514.00 514.04 515.30 519.06 518.25 516.57 518.30 519.51 537.57 530.85 537.17 542.23 621.08 638.17 628.28 645.45 629.73 636.55 635.10 637.43 624.82 645.81 631.62 644.30 642.11 643.26 646.21 360.55 369.82 373.09 367.33 364.79 365.20 360.74 366.86 370.77 366.13 368.46 371.77 373.33 375.95 383.35 218.45 231.49 227.84 225.29 223.57 227.25 224.60 233.53 237.37 230.83 233.79 229.59 235.68 235.24 238.85 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N AN D PUBLIC U T IL IT IE S .......................................................................... 458.64 469.59 465.29 457.77 465.27 462.91 463.27 466.05 465.68 472.80 476.78 473.93 475.14 479.07 475.46 368.43 371.33 373.43 374.40 W H O LE S A LE T R A D E ..................................................... 359.04 367.10 363.65 361.57 361.95 361.19 363.09 366.53 367.49 366.53 369.41 R E T A IL TR A D E ................................................................ 176.08 179.32 178.46 172.35 174.78 175.71 FIN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E, A N D REAL E S TA TE .............................................................................. 303.94 317.63 309.52 312.18 318.50 316.54 316.17 316.54 315.95 314.58 320.68 316.44 318.92 324.69 319.49 S ER V IC E S .......................................................................... 265.20 275.28 269.57 269.51 177.83 178.44 179.97 182.10 183.62 183.52 179.87 179.51 273.13 272.48 271.32 271.51 - Data not available. p = preliminary 180.78 272.21 273.22 276.36 277.02 279.83 282.75 283.40 NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 17. The Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry Seasonally adjusted Not seasonally adjusted Nov. 1987" Dec. 1986 Oct. 1987 c u rre n t do llars ) ............................... 171.6 174.9 176.0 176.2 Mining'................................................................ Construction......................................................... Manufacturing ...................................................... Transportation and public utilities............................ Wholesale trade' .................................................. Retail trade .......................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate'....................... Services.............................................................. 182.7 155.3 173.7 174.7 174.8 159.2 182.4 177.5 182.3 156.3 175.7 177.3 178.5 161.9 189.4 183.9 184.1 156.2 176.5 178.6 179.7 162.3 191.8 185.7 184.0 155.8 177.4 178.6 179.8 161.9 190.7 186.0 P R IV A TE S EC TO R |in c o n stan t (1 9 77 ) d o lla rs ] ............. 95.6 93.4 93.9 - PRIVATE SECTOR (in 1 This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component Is small relative to the trend-cycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision. - Data not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dec. 1987p Sept. 1987 Oct. 1987 Nov. 1987" d) C pO L ; 0 Q 05 Industry Dec. 1986 Aug. 1987 171.1 174.1 _ . _ _ _ 154.3 173.4 173.5 154.7 175.5 177.0 154.0 176.7 176.6 154.7 176.3 176.9 156.7 176.7 177.3 174.6 174.9 175.8 175.6 - - - - - 159.3 161.5 162.7 162.2 - - - - 176.6 182.4 182.3 183.9 162.3 185.1 154.7 177.0 177.3 162.1 184.9 95.3 93.7 93.8 93.7 93.8 - p = preliminary, NOTE: See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 95 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data 18. Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, data seasonally adjusted (In percent) Jan. Time span and year Feb. Mar. Apr. June May Aug. July Sept. Over 1-month span: 1985 ............................................................ 1986 ....................................................................... 1987 ....................................................................... 55.9 53.2 53.5 47.0 48.1 56.8 52.4 48.1 58.6 47.3 53.5 58.4 53.2 52.4 58.6 46.8 46.8 55.7 53.8 52.4 68.6 53.8 56.2 54.6 47.8 55.1 65.4 Over 3-month span: 1985 ....................................................................... 1986 ....................................................................... 1987 ....................................................................... 51.1 49.7 58.6 48.4 44.9 59.5 42.4 45.7 61.1 46.5 48.4 61.6 44.3 47.6 61.4 49.7 45.4 67.3 47.0 48.4 66.2 48.6 55.1 75.1 Over 6-month span: 1985 ....................................................................... 1986 ....................................................................... 1987 ................................................................. 46.5 47.6 61.9 46.5 47.6 62.7 43.2 43.0 58.9 44.3 43.2 67.3 44.3 45.4 67.6 45.1 48.4 71.1 43.0 47.3 Over 1985 1986 1987 44.6 43.2 62.2 44.1 44.1 63.5 43.8 46.2 67.3 40.8 45.7 41.6 47.8 41.6 49.5 68.9 72.4 73.0 12-month span: ...................................................................... ...................................................................... ....................................................................... - Data not available. NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment rising. (Half of the unchanged components are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the Oct. Nov. 54.3 59.7 53.2 53.2 65.4 70.3 57.3 59.7 62.4 45.9 55.9 47.6 58.1 55.1 58.6 56.5 60.3 69.7 78.4 75.4 _ 44.3 53.0 49.2 59.2 49.2 58.9 47.3 57.8 45.9 58.9 76.2 80.3 80.3 _ 42.2 49.5 42.4 51.6 43.8 54.9 44.3 52.2 44.1 55.1 42.4 56.5 _ _ _ _ _ _ (Numbers in thousands) Employment status 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Noninstitutional population................................ 166,460 169,349 171,775 173,939 175,891 178,080 179,912 182,293 184,490 Labor force: Total (number)............................................ Percent of population.................................. 106,559 64.0 108,544 64.1 110,315 64.2 111,872 64.3 113,226 64.4 115,241 64.7 117,167 65.1 119,540 65.6 121,602 65.9 100,421 60.3 1,597 100,907 59.6 1,604 102,042 59.4 1,645 101,194 58.2 1,668 102,510 58.3 1,676 106,702 59.9 1,697 108,856 60.5 1,706 111,303 61.1 1,706 114,177 61.9 1,737 98,824 3,347 95,477 99,303 3,364 95,938 100,397 3,368 97,030 99,526 3,401 96,125 100,834 3,383 97,450 105,005 3,321 101,685 107,150 3,179 103,971 109,597 3,163 106,434 112,440 3,208 109,232 Unemployed: Total (number)...................................... Percent of labor force............................ 6,137 5.8 7,637 7.0 8,273 7.5 10,678 9.5 10,717 9.5 8,539 7.4 8,312 7.1 8,237 6.9 7,425 6.1 Not in labor force (number) ........................... 59,900 60,806 61,460 62,067 62,665 62,839 62,744 62,752 62,888 1986 1987P 20. Annual data: Employment levels by industry (Numbers in thousands) Industry 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total employment........................................................... Private sector............................................................... Goods-producing ........................................................ Mining................................................................... Construction .......................................................... Manufacturing........................................................ 89,823 73,876 26,461 958 4,463 21,040 90,406 74,166 25,658 1,027 4,346 20,285 91,156 75,126 25,497 1,139 4,188 20,170 89,566 73,729 23,813 1,128 3,905 18,781 90,200 74,330 23,334 952 3,948 18,434 94,496 78,472 24,727 966 4,383 19,378 97,519 81,125 24,859 927 4,673 19,260 99,610 102,105 82,900 85,042 24,681 24,885 783 742 4,904 5,032 18,994 19,112 Service-producing....................................................... Transportation and public utilities.............................. Wholesale trade ...................................................... Retail trade ............................................................ Finance, insurance, and real estate ........................... Services................................................................. 63,363 5,136 5,204 14,989 4,975 17,112 64,748 5,146 5,275 15,035 5,160 17,890 65,659 5,165 5,358 15,139 5,298 18,619 65,753 5,082 5,278 15,179 5,341 19,036 66,866 4,954 5,268 15,613 5,468 19,694 69,769 5,159 5,555 16,545 5,689 20,797 72,660 5,238 5,717 17,356 5,955 22,000 74,930 5,244 5,735 17,845 6,297 23,099 77,219 5,377 5,797 18,259 6,588 24,136 Government.......................................................... Federal............................................................. State ................................................................ Local ............................................................... 15,947 2,773 3,541 9,633 16,241 2,866 3,610 9,765 16,031 2,772 3,640 9,619 15,837 2,739 3,640 9,458 15,869 2,774 3,662 9,434 16,024 2,807 3,734 9,482 16,394 2,875 3,832 9,687 16,711 2,899 3,888 9,923 17,063 2,943 3,954 10,167 NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 96 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis _ _ spans. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are preliminary. See the “Definitions" in this section. See “Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 19. Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population Employed: Total (number) ....................................... Percent of population ............................. Resident Armed Forces........................ Civilian Total ................................................ Agriculture...................................... Nonagricultural Industries.................. Dec. p = preliminary, 21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry Industry 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987P 35.7 6.16 219.91 35.3 6.66 235.10 35.2 7.25 255.20 34.8 7.68 267.26 35.0 8.02 280.70 35.2 8.32 292.86 34.9 8.57 299.09 34.8 8.76 304.85 34.8 8.98 312.50 43.0 8.49 365.07 43.3 9.17 397.06 43.7 10.04 438.75 42.7 10.77 459.88 42.5 11.28 479.40 43.3 11.63 503.58 43.4 11.98 519.93 42.2 12.44 524.97 42.3 12.44 526.21 37.0 9.27 342.99 37.0 9.94 367.78 36.9 10.82 399.26 36.7 11.63 426.82 37.1 11.94 442.97 37.8 12.13 458.51 37.7 12.32 464.46 37.4 12.47 466.38 37.8 12.66 478.55 40.2 6.70 269.34 39.7 7.27 288.62 39.8 7.99 318.00 38.9 8.49 330.26 40.1 8.83 354.08 40.7 9.19 374.03 40.5 9.54 386.37 40.7 9.73 396.01 41.0 9.91 406.31 39.9 8.16 325.58 39.6 8.87 351.25 39.4 9.70 382.18 39.0 10.32 402.48 39.0 10.79 420.81 39.4 11.12 438.13 39.5 11.40 450.30 39.2 11.70 458.64 39.1 12.01 469.59 38.8 6.39 247.93 38.5 6.96 267.96 38.5 7.56 291.06 38.3 8.09 309.85 38.5 8.55 329.18 38.5 8.89 342.27 38.4 9.16 351.74 38.4 9.35 359.04 38.2 9.61 367.10 30.6 4.53 138.62 30.2 4.88 147.38 30.1 5.25 158.03 29.9 5.48 163.85 29.8 5.74 171.05 29.8 5.85 174.33 29.4 5.94 174.64 29.2 6.03 176.08 29.3 6.12 179.32 36.2 5.27 190.77 36.2 5.79 209.60 36.3 6.31 229.05 36.2 6.78 245.44 36.2 7.29 263.90 36.5 7.63 278.50 36.4 7.94 289.02 36.4 8.35 303.94 36.3 8.75 317.63 32.7 5.36 175.27 32.6 5.85 190.71 32.6 6.41 208.97 32.6 6.92 225.59 32.7 7.31 239.04 32.6 7.59 247.43 32.5 7.90 256.75 32.5 8.16 265.20 32.5 8.47 275.28 P riv a te sec to r Average weekly hours........................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)..................................... Average weekly earnings (in dollars) ................................... Mining Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... C ons tru c tio n Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... M a nufacturing Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... T ra n s p o rta tio n and public utilities Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... W h o le s ale tra d e Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... R etail tra d e Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars)................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... Finance, insu rance, and real e s ta te Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... S erv ice s Average weekly hours ..................................................... Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ................................ Average weekly earnings (in dollars)............................... p = preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 22. February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data Employment Cost Index, compensation,' by occupation and industry group (June 1981 = 100) 1985 1986 1987 Percent change Series Sept. Dec. Mar. June 128.4 129.2 130.6 131.5 130.7 124.4 130.9 131.6 124.9 131.8 133.1 126.2 133.1 124.9 125.5 130.7 136.4 134.2 129.7 125.5 126.0 131.5 137.1 _ 134.8 130.6 126.8 Sept. 3 months ended 12 months ended Dec. Mar. June 133.0 133.8 135.0 135.9 137.5 1.2 3.4 134.2 126.8 133.7 136.0 127.8 135.4 136.9 128.4 136.6 138.5 129.1 138.0 139.3 130.1 138.5 141.2 131.3 139.9 1.4 .9 1.0 3.8 2.7 3.3 126.9 127.7 132.9 138.8 _ 136.8 131.9 128.1 128.7 133.7 139.4 _ 138.0 132.8 128.8 129.3 135.6 142.4 _ 140.6 134.6 129.5 130.1 136.5 143.6 _ _ 141.6 135.4 130.2 130.7 138.1 145.2 131.1 131.5 138.9 145.8 132.2 132.7 140.8 149.2 _ _ _ _ 144.1 136.9 _ 144.7 137.8 _ 146.4 139.6 .8 .9 1.4 2.3 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.3 2.6 2.6 3.8 4.8 4.3 4.6 4.1 3.7 127.5 128.9 129.9 130.8 131.6 132.9 133.8 135.1 1.0 3.3 128.8 - 129.8 - 131.3 - 132.5 - 133.5 - 134.3 _ - 136.1 _ - 137.0 _ _ - 138.5 _ _ _ 1.1 1.4 1.4 .0 -3.7 3.9 4.8 1.5 124.0 _ 124.4 125.7 _ 126.3 _ 127.2 _ 127.8 - - - - - - 128.8 129.5 130.9 131.1 132.3 _ 133.5 _ 128.4 _ 134.7 _ 129.5 _ 135.2 _ 130.6 _ _ _ 135.9 1.1 .8 1.1 .5 .7 .9 .5 3.9 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.7 124.6 125.5 _ 128.7 _ _ _ - 125.3 126.0 _ _ 129.4 _ _ _ _ _ 126.7 _ 127.7 _ _ 130.8 _ _ « 127.8 _ 128.7 _ _ 131.6 _ _ 128.6 _ 129.3 129.2 _ 130.1 129.9 _ 130.7 130.8 _ 131.5 131.9 _ 132.7 _ _ _ _ _ _ 132.7 _ _ _ _ 133.5 _ _ _ 135.3 _ _ _ 136.3 _ _ 137.7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ « 2.6 3.1 2.6 2.3 3.3 3.8 2.7 2.2 3.4 3.3 4.3 2.8 2.7 5.2 4.3 4.7 Sept. Sept. 1987 Civilian workers 2.............................................. Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ................................................... Blue-collar workers................................................ Service occupations................................................... Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing.......................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................ Service-producing ........................................................ Services........................................................... Health services............................... Hospitals................................................................ Public administration 3................................................ Nonmanufacturing........................................................ Private industry workers............................................. Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers.................................................. Professional specialty and technical occupations ........ Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations Sales occupations................................................... Administrative support occupations, including clerical.................................................................. Blue-collar workers................................................... Precision production, craft, and repair occupation....... Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors.......... Transportation and material moving occupations......... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers .... Service occupations................................................. Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing...................................................... Construction ...................................................... Manufacturing.......................................................... Durables ........................................ Nondurables......................................... Service-producing ...................................................... Transportation and public utilities................................ Transportation................................................ Public utilities.......................................... Wholesale and retail trade.............. Wholesale trade ............................................. Retail trade ........................................ Finance, insurance, and real estate........................... Service...................................... Health services..................................... Hospitals...................................................... Nonmanufacturing .............................. State and local government workers ........................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers................................... Blue-collar workers.......................................... Workers, by industry division: Services ........................................ Hospitals and other services4 .................................. Health services................................ Schools ............................................. Elementary and secondary.................................... Public administration3....................................... - - - - - - - - - .8 .8 .9 .7 1.3 1.0 .5 .2 1.0 .5 .6 .5 .3 2.0 1.1 1.7 127.6 128.4 129.7 130.6 131.7 132.4 134.1 135.1 136.4 1.0 3.6 136.5 137.5 138.9 139.7 143.6 144.7 145.9 146.3 149.7 2.3 4.2 137.6 131.9 138.6 132.7 140.0 134.7 140.5 136.3 145.0 138.5 146.0 139.5 147.2 140.8 147.5 141.3 151.2 143.3 2.5 1.4 4.3 3.5 137.9 134.1 139.1 135.2 140.4 136.8 140.8 137.9 145.5 139.4 146.6 141.1 147.3 142.5 147.6 143.3 151.8 145.1 - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ 139.1 140.9 134.2 140.3 142.0 134.8 141.5 143.0 136.8 141.7 143.2 138.0 147.6 149.4 140.6 148.4 150.3 141.6 148.9 150.5 144.1 149.1 150.7 144.7 154.1 156.5 146.4 2.8 1.3 2.1 3.4 3.8 1.2 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.1 1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits. 2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 98 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. - Data not available. 23. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group (June 1981=100) 1985 Percent change 1987 1986 Series Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. 3 months ended 12 months ended Sept. 1987 Civilian workers 1.......................................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers ................................................... Blue-collar workers..................................................... Service occupations.................................................... 126.3 127.0 128.3 129.3 130.7 131.5 132.8 133.5 135.2 1.3 3.4 128.8 122.0 128.0 129.8 122.3 128.6 131.2 123.4 129.8 132.4 124.1 130.0 134.1 125.0 131.7 135.0 125.6 132.8 136.6 126.2 134.2 137.3 127.1 134.7 139.4 128.3 136.0 1.5 .9 1.0 4.0 2.6 3.3 Workers, by industry division Goods-producing......................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................ Service-producing........................................................ Services.................................................................. Health services....................................................... Hospitals................................................................ Public administration 2 .............................................. Nonmanufacturing...................................................... 122.5 123.2 128.6 134.2 131.4 127.6 123.1 123.8 129.4 134.8 132.0 128.4 124.4 125.3 130.7 136.4 133.8 129.6 125.6 126.5 131.5 137.0 134.6 130.4 126.3 127.2 133.4 139.9 137.5 132.2 127.0 127.9 134.2 141.1 138.1 133.0 127.8 128.7 135.8 142.7 128.5 129.5 136.5 143.4 141.0 135.2 129.8 130.8 138.5 146.8 142.6 137.1 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.1 1.4 2.8 2.8 3.8 4.9 4.7 4.9 3.7 3.7 Private industry workers........................................... Workers, by occupational group: White-collar workers............................................... Professional specialty and technical occupations..... Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations....................................................... Sales occupations................................................ Administrative support occupations, including clerical.............................................................. - 140.5 134.5 124.9 125.6 126.8 127.9 128.8 129.5 130.8 131.7 133.0 1.0 3.3 127.3 131.2 128.3 131.5 129.6 132.7 131.1 134.0 132.0 135.4 132.7 136.4 134.6 138.4 135.4 139.1 137.0 141.2 1.2 1.5 3.8 4.3 127.7 119.3 128.4 122.5 130.5 122.4 132.1 124.3 132.4 125.2 133.5 124.9 135.6 126.7 136.4 127.1 138.6 127.0 1.6 -.1 4.7 1.4 127.1 127.9 129.6 130.8 131.7 132.7 134.3 135.5 137.1 1.2 4.1 121.7 122.0 123.1 123.7 124.5 125.1 125.6 126.6 127.7 .9 2.6 123.7 121.1 117.7 123.8 121.6 117.8 125.3 122.6 118.0 125.7 123.6 118.9 126.7 124.1 119.8 127.4 124.9 120.1 127.9 125.5 120.5 128.8 126.7 121.5 130.2 127.5 122.3 1.1 .6 .7 2.8 2.7 2.1 118.6 126.3 119.8 126.6 120.0 128.0 120.3 128.0 120.9 128.9 121.4 130.1 121.9 131.4 122.6 131.9 123.7 132.6 .9 .5 2.3 2.9 Workers, by industry division: Goods-producing..................................................... Construction ......................................................... Manufacturing........................................................ Durables......................................................... Nondurables........................................................ Service-producing.................................................... Transportation and public utilities....................... Transportation.................................................... Public utilities..................................................... Wholesale and retail trade.................................... Wholesale trade ................................................ Retail trade....................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate....................... Services............................................................. Health services .......................... Hospitals.......................................................... 122.3 117.3 123.2 122.7 124.0 127.0 124.8 _ 122.7 127.7 120.8 124.1 133.9 122.9 117.9 123.8 123.4 124.6 127.8 125.2 124.2 118.3 125.3 124.8 126.1 129.0 126.3 _ _ 124.5 129.7 122.5 126.6 136.2 125.4 119.8 126.5 125.8 127.9 129.9 126.6 _ 125.8 131.2 123.7 128.0 136.9 126.1 120.5 127.2 126.4 128.5 130.9 127.3 _ _ 126.5 131.8 124.4 129.0 138.2 - 126.8 120.8 127.9 127.2 129.3 131.6 127.5 127.5 121.7 128.7 127.7 130.5 133.4 128.1 _ 127.9 134.8 125.2 133.5 141.8 128.3 122.7 129.5 128.7 131.0 134.3 129.3 - 129.6 123.8 130.8 129.7 132.8 135.7 130.0 130.6 137.8 127.8 131.8 145.9 1.0 .9 1.0 .8 1.4 1.0 .5 .4 .6 .5 .4 .6 .2 2.2 1.4 1.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 3.3 3.7 2.1 1.6 2.8 3.2 4.6 2.7 2.2 5.6 5.0 5.3 Nonmanufacturing.................................................. 125.9 126.6 127.7 128.7 129.7 130.4 131.9 132.8 134.2 1.1 3.5 State and local government workers......................... Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers............................................... Blue-collar workers................................................ Workers, by industry division Services ............................................................... Hospitals and other services 3............................... Health services .................................................. Schools............................................................. Elementary and secondary ................................. Public administration 2............................................. 133.2 134.2 135.5 136.0 140.4 141.4 142.5 142.8 146.1 2.3 4.1 134.3 127.9 135.3 128.4 136.6 130.4 137.0 131.9 141.8 134.5 142.8 135.1 143.9 136.3 144.1 136.9 147.7 139.0 2.5 1.5 4.2 3.3 134.5 130.2 135.6 130.9 136.8 132.4 137.1 133.3 142.1 135.8 143.3 137.3 143.9 138.6 144.2 139.4 148.2 141.2 2.8 1.3 1.9 3.2 3.7 1.1 4.3 4.0 3.8 4.3 4.3 3.7 Blue-collar workers................................................. Precision production, craft, and repair occupations...................................................... Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors...... Transportation and material moving occupations...... Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers............................................................. Service occupations............................................... - _ 123.7 128.3 121.9 126.5 134.1 - _ - _ - - - - - 135.8 137.5 131.4 - 137.0 138.5 132.0 1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers. 2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 138.0 139.4 133.8 - 138.2 139.4 134.6 - 144.1 145.7 137.5 - _ 126.9 133.1 124.5 130.0 139.5 - 129.9 137.2 127.1 131.5 142.8 _ _ - _ - - - - - 145.1 146.4 138.1 - 145.5 146.5 140.5 - 145.6 146.6 141.0 - 150.3 152.0 142.6 3 Includes, for example, library, social and health services, - Data not available. 99 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 24. February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size (June 1981 = 100) 1985 1986 1987 Percent change Series Sept. Mar. Dec. June Sept. Mar. Dec. June Sept. 3 months ended 12 months ended Sept. 1987 COMPENSATION Workers, by bargaining status1 Union .................................................. Goods-producing ........................................................ Service-producing....................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................ Nonmanufacturing ...................................................... 126.5 124.6 129.5 125.0 127.8 127.1 125.2 130.2 125.5 128.6 128.4 126.4 131.6 127.0 129.7 128.7 126.7 131.9 126.9 130.4 129.4 127.3 132.8 127.5 131.2 129.8 127.5 133.4 127.9 131.5 130.5 128.0 134.4 128.0 132.6 131.2 128.7 135.2 128.7 133.5 132.0 129.5 135.9 129.5 134.3 0.6 .6 .5 .6 .6 2.0 1.7 2.3 1.6 2.4 Nonunion..................................................................... Goods-producing........................................................ Service-producing....................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................ Nonmanufacturing ...................................................... 126.8 124.4 128.3 125.7 127.3 127.5 125.1 129.0 126.3 128.1 129.0 126.7 130.4 128.1 129.5 130.2 128.2 131.4 129.7 130.4 131.2 129.1 132.5 130.4 131.6 132.1 130.0 133.4 131.4 132.5 133.6 130.8 135.3 132.2 134.3 134.6 131.8 136.4 133.2 135.3 136.1 133.1 137.9 134.6 136.8 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.7 3.1 4.1 3.2 4.0 Workers, by region 1 Northeast..................................................................... South .......................................................................... Midwest (formerly North Central).................................... West........................................................................... 128.8 126.5 124.2 129.1 129.9 127.2 124.6 129.8 131.6 128.7 125.9 130.8 133.3 129.6 126.2 131.6 134.2 130.7 127.3 132.1 135.2 131.4 128.1 132.8 137.4 132.1 129.1 134.1 138.6 133.2 130.2 134.2 140.3 134.2 131.2 135.8 1.2 .8 .8 1.2 4.5 2.7 3.1 2.8 Workers, by area size 1 Metropolitan areas........................................................ Other areas.................................................................. 127.3 123.9 128.1 123.9 129.5 125.5 130.5 126.4 131.4 127.2 132.2 127.9 133.5 129.0 134.4 130.2 135.8 131.3 1.0 .8 3.3 3.2 Workers, by bargaining status 1 Union .......................................................................... Goods-producing ........................................................ Service-producing....................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................ Nonmanufacturing ...................................................... 124.1 122.2 127.1 122.8 125.3 124.7 122.7 127.8 123.3 125.9 125.6 123.4 129.0 124.2 126.9 126.1 124.1 129.3 124.6 127.4 126.9 124.5 130.5 125.0 128.5 127.2 124.8 130.9 125.5 128.7 127.7 125.0 131.7 125.6 129.5 128.3 125.8 132.2 126.2 130.1 129.1 126.5 132.9 127.0 130.8 .6 .6 .5 .6 .5 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 Nonunion..................................................................... Goods-producing ........................................................ Service-producing....................................................... Manufacturing ............................................................ Nonmanufacturing...................................................... 125.2 122.3 126.9 123.7 125.9 125.9 123.0 127.7 124.4 126.6 127.3 124.5 128.9 126.1 127.8 128.5 126.1 129.9 127.7 128.9 129.4 127.0 130.8 128.5 129.8 130.3 127.8 131.7 129.5 130.6 131.8 128.8 133.6 130.6 132.4 132.8 129.6 134.6 131.5 133.4 134.3 131.1 136.2 133.0 134.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 3.8 3.2 4.1 3.5 3.9 Workers, by region 1 Northeast.............................................................. South ................................................. Midwest (formerly North Central).................................... West...................................................... 126.8 124.8 122.5 126.6 128.1 125.4 122.9 127.1 129.2 126.8 124.2 128.1 131.3 127.8 124.4 128.9 132.3 128.8 125.3 129.3 133.1 129.4 126.2 130.1 135.4 130.1 127.4 131.2 136.6 131.1 128.5 131.1 138.3 132.1 129.6 133.1 1.2 .8 .9 1.5 4.5 2.6 3.4 2.9 Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan areas................................................. Other areas................................................................. 125.5 121.9 126.3 122.0 127.4 123.6 128.5 124.5 129.4 125.0 130.2 125.6 131.6 126.6 132.4 127.8 133.7 129.1 1.0 1.0 3.3 3.3 WAGES AND SALARIES 1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w Technical Note, “Estimation procedures for the Employment Cost Index,” May 1982. 25. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent) Annual average Measure Quarterly average 1985 1985 1986 1987 1986 IV I II III IV P IIP IIP Specified adjustments: Total compensation 1 adjustments,2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: First year of contract ..................................... Annual rate over life of contract...................... 2.6 2.7 1.1 1.6 2.0 1.4 0.6 1.2 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.2 2.7 2.4 1.7 2.4 4.1 3.9 2.5 2.1 Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: First year of contract..................................... Annual rate over life of contract...................... 2.3 2.7 1.2 1.8 2.1 1.9 .8 1.5 1.3 2.0 .8 1.5 2.0 2.1 1.2 1.8 2.6 2.9 2.1 2.0 3.3 .7 2.3 .5 .5 .1 .6 .0 .7 .2 .5 .1 .5 .2 .4 .0 1.0 .1 .9 .2 1.8 .7 1.7 .2 .2 .1 .4 .2 .6 .0 .5 .0 .2 .1 .3 .1 .7 .2 .6 .1 Effective adjustments: Total effective wage adjustment 3 ...................... From settlements reached in period ................ Deferred from settlements reached in earlier periods........................................................ From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses........... 1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee benefits when contract is negotiated. 2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in 100 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis compensation or wages. 3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. 26. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, major collective bargaining settlements in private industry situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent) Average for four quarters ending-Measure 1987 1986 1985 II I IV IP IV III IIP IMP Specified total compensation adjustments, settlements covering 5,000 workers or more, all industries: 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.5 1.4 2.0 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.8 2.6 2.3 1.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.0 1.6 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.8 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.1 1.2 2.2 .8 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.9 .9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.2 2.0 .9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.7 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.6 .8 .8 .9 1.8 2.1 1.6 .8 .8 .9 1.8 2.1 1.5 .1 .7 -.4 1.4 2.0 .9 -1.0 1.1 -2.0 .3 1.1 -.1 -1.2 1.3 -2.8 .2 .9 -.2 -1.6 1.3 -3.5 (2) .8 -.6 -.9 1.3 -2.9 .2 .8 -.3 1.1 2.2 -.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.3 2.8 3.5 2.7 3.0 3.6 2.8 2.6 3.4 2.4 2.8 3.3 2.6 2.1 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.9 1.6 2.3 1.1 2.4 2.5 1.2 2.6 2.3 1.4 2.4 2.6 1.6 2.6 2.2 1.4 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.5 2.4 1.6 2.4 2.5 1.4 2.6 2.7 3.7 2.7 2.9 3.8 2.9 Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: All industries Manufacturing Nonmanufacturing Construction 1.5 (’) (1) (1) 0 2.1 (1) (1) 2.2 (’) 0 1 Data do not meet publication standards. 2 Between -0.05 and 0.05 percent. p = preliminary. 27. Average effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent) Average for four quarters endingEffective wage adjustment 1986 1987 I II III IV |p IP MF 3.1 .6 1.7 .8 2.9 .5 1.8 .7 2.3 .5 1.6 .2 2.3 .5 1.7 .2 2.0 .4 1.5 .1 2.2 .3 1.6 .3 2.6 .5 1.7 .4 4.0 2.9 3.5 2.5 3.8 2.5 3.4 2.0 3.1 1.7 3.8 1.0 2.8 1.6 3.9 1.0 2.5 1.2 3.7 .6 2.8 1.0 3.5 1.8 3.2 1.9 3.3 2.3 For all workers:1 Total..................................................................... From settlements reached in period .................................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period .................... From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses..................................... For workers receiving changes: Total................................................................... From settlements reached in period .................................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period .................... From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses..................................... 1 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis » = preliminary. 3.0 (1) (') (1) (1) 3.2 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations Data 28. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, State and local government collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent) Annual average Measure 1985 1986 1987p 4.2 5.1 6.2 6.0 4.9 4.8 Annual rate over life of contract................................................................................................................. 4.6 5.4 57 5.7 4.9 5.1 Effective adjustments: Total effective wage adjustment3 ................................................................................................................. From settlements reached in period............................................................................................................ Deferred from settlements reached in earlier periods .................................................................................... From cost-of-living-adjustment clauses........................................................................................................ 5.7 4.1 1.6 (4> 5.5 2.4 3.0 n 4.9 2.6 2.2 (4) Specified adjustments: Total compensation ' adjustments, 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more: First year of contract................................................................................................................................ Annual rate over life of contract ................................................................................................................. Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more: 1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee benefits when contract is negotiated. 2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in compensation or wages. 29. 3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts. 4 Less than 0.05 percent. p = preliminary. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more 1986 Annual totals 1987 Measure 1986 Number of stoppages: Beginning in period.................. In effect during period.............. 1987 Jan. Dec. 2 7 5 7 Apr. 69 72 46 51 533.0 174.4 3.0 7.3 37.6 12.2 899.5 377.7 49.4 47.6 41.6 16.2 Days idle: Number (in thousands)............. 11,£ Percent of estimated working time* .................................... .05 4,480.7 933.2 828.6 194.1 104.4 .02 .04 .04 .01 .01 Workers involved: Beginning in period (in thousands)............................ In effect during period (in thousands)............................ 1 6 Mar. Feb. 1 Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An explanation of the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found in “ Total economy’ measure of strike idleness,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1968, 102 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 5 May 2 5 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 6 14 3 11 7 15 16.1 14.1 18.4 45.9 25.8 31.1 36.0 71.9 201.2 278.0 471.0 361.4 1,155.1 .01 .01 .02 .02 .05 3 7 8 12 2.7 7.0 8.9 13.9 151.3 .01 pp. 54-56. - Data not available, Nov. 1 12 Dec. 6 11 0 5 1.3 11.8 .0 53.7 22.2 8.9 353.3 222.9 159.4 .02 .01 .01 30. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series Annual average 1986 1987 1987 1986 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS: All items (1957-59-100)......................................................... 328.4 340.4 331.1 381.9 395.9 385.1 333.1 334.4 335.9 337.7 338.7 340.1 340.8 342.7 344.4 345.3 345.8 345.7 387.4 388.9 390.7 392.7 393.9 395.6 396.3 398.5 400.5 401.6 402.2 402.0 Food and beverages............................................................ Food................................................................................. Food at home................................................................. Cereals and bakery products.......................................... Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs......................................... Dairy products............................................................... Fruits and vegetables..................................................... Other foods at home...................................................... Sugar and sweets....................................................... Fats and oils............................................................... Nonalcoholic beverages............................................... Other prepared foods.................................................. Food away from home ..................................................... Alcoholic beverages........................................................... 311.8 319.7 305.3 325.8 275.1 258.4 328.7 373.6 411.1 287.8 478.2 301.9 360.1 239.7 324.5 333.0 318.5 337.2 290.8 264.8 357.7 377.3 418.5 292.0 465.6 314.7 374.4 246.0 317.0 325.2 310.2 329.5 287.3 262.2 328.5 372.2 411.8 286.0 470.2 305.2 367.1 240.8 320.5 328.9 315.2 331.5 289.2 263.3 344.3 378.7 415.8 293.2 482.6 308.4 368.6 242.5 321.6 330.1 316.6 332.7 286.4 264.7 355.2 380.0 415.8 290.3 481.9 312.1 369.6 243.2 321.6 330.0 315.8 333.2 286.5 263.7 352.5 378.6 417.2 294.6 475.4 311.3 370.9 243.6 322.5 331.0 316.9 335.6 285.9 263.2 360.6 377.6 417.4 291.8 469.8 313.2 371.5 244.3 324.0 332.5 318.8 336.5 288.5 264.3 365.7 377.5 417.7 293.3 467.9 313.5 372.3 245.0 325.4 334.1 320.4 337.0 290.7 263.7 372.8 376.4 419.3 291.4 462.6 314.5 373.8 245.9 325.1 333.6 319.1 338.4 293.1 263.2 359.3 375.9 418.8 292.9 458.5 315.4 374.9 246.7 325.4 333.8 319.0 338.8 294.6 264.2 352.5 377.0 419.6 292.6 458.8 317.5 375.9 247.3 326.4 334.9 319.8 338.9 296.6 266.0 352.5 376.6 420.6 291.2 458.4 316.9 377.4 247.8 326.9 335.3 319.9 339.5 294.7 267.2 353.8 377.7 420.9 290.1 462.3 317.2 378.4 248.4 326.7 335.1 319.0 341.2 292.8 267.2 352.6 376.3 419.9 291.8 455.0 318.2 379.6 248.9 328.1 336.7 321.0 343.2 290.3 266.8 370.5 375.5 418.6 291.0 453.7 318.0 380.4 248.8 Housing .............................................................................. Shelter............................................................................. Renters’ costs (12/82 = 100)............................................ Rent, residential............................................................ Other renters’ costs ...................................................... Homeowners’ costs (12/82=100)..................................... Owners’ equivalent rent (12/82=100)............................. Household insurance (12/82=100)................................. Maintenance and repairs.................................................. Maintenance and repair services ..................................... Maintenance and repair commodities............................... Fuel and other utilities........................................................ Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas......................................... Gas (piped) and electricity ............................................. Other utilities and public services...................................... Household furnishings and operations.................................. Housefurnishings................... ......................................... Housekeeping supplies..................................................... Housekeeping services..................................................... 360.2 402.9 121.9 280.0 416.2 119.4 119.4 119.2 373.8 430.9 269.7 384.7 463.1 501.5 446.7 253.1 250.4 201.1 319.5 346.6 371.0 421.8 128.1 291.5 446.9 124.8 124.8 124.0 387.3 444.8 280.4 380.7 454.3 503.0 438.8 257.9 254.9 203.8 329.4 353.2 362.1 410.4 124.2 286.0 418.2 121.6 121.6 121.6 380.0 433.1 278.3 371.0 438.1 460.6 425.3 254.9 252.4 202.5 322.9 349.3 363.9 412.3 125.3 287.1 428.3 122.0 122.0 121.8 382.1 437.7 277.7 373.7 443.7 487.9 428.8 254.9 253.1 203.0 324.6 349.8 365.1 414.0 125.8 288.0 430.8 122.5 122.5 122.0 381.9 436.1 278.8 374.8 445.1 503.2 428.9 255.6 253.5 203.2 325.3 350.6 366.4 415.9 126.4 288.3 438.7 123.0 123.0 122.2 383.4 439.4 278.5 374.9 444.6 500.6 428.7 256.2 254.3 203.8 327.7 351.0 367.7 418.0 127.1 288.8 446.1 123.6 123.6 122.4 382.4 437.1 278.7 374.2 442.0 500.5 425.9 257.0 255.2 204.7 328.2 352.2 368.9 419.2 127.3 289.4 446.1 124.0 124.1 123.0 381.9 435.3 279.6 377.5 448.7 497.7 433.3 257.2 254.9 203.7 330.1 353.1 371.3 420.2 127.9 289.6 453.1 124.2 124.2 123.6 385.0 440.5 280.2 387.6 470.8 498.6 456.8 256.4 254.9 203.6 330.5 353.0 372.5 422.1 129.3 291.2 465.9 124.4 124.4 124.5 392.4 452.8 281.9 388.1 468.9 497.9 454.8 258.6 255.1 203.9 330.1 353.8 374.9 425.1 130.1 293.1 467.7 125.4 125.4 125.1 391.3 451.5 281.3 391.1 473.6 502.3 459.4 259.9 255.4 204.2 329.5 354.3 375.4 426.2 129.8 294.5 458.0 126.0 126.0 125.5 390.5 450.8 280.4 389.8 471.6 501.0 457.4 259.3 255.8 204.6 330.4 354.6 375.2 428.6 129.4 295.4 448.0 127.1 127.2 125.8 390.9 451.0 281.0 381.3 452.6 507.0 436.6 260.2 255.6 203.9 331.7 355.3 374.9 429.2 129.2 295.5 444.6 127.4 127.5 125.9 393.2 453.1 283.1 378.2 445.9 518.8 428.4 260.3 255.6 203.9 332.0 355.1 375.3 430.4 129.1 297.2 435.5 128.0 128.0 126.2 392.7 451.8 283.6 376.9 444.3 520.2 426.6 259.5 255.3 203.3 332.2 355.7 Apparel and upkeep............................................................. Apparel commodities.......................................................... Men’s and boys’ apparel.................................................. Women’s and girls’ apparel.............................................. Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel............................................ Footwear........................................................................ Other apparel commodities............................................... Apparel services................................................................ 207.8 192.0 200.0 168.0 312.7 211.2 217.9 334.6 216.9 200.6 205.6 178.3 313.4 217.8 231.4 347.5 210.9 194.9 202.3 171.7 312.7 214.0 220.0 339.5 207.1 190.9 199.2 166.6 301.8 209.9 223.2 342.5 208.4 192.1 199.9 167.8 304.5 211.0 226.0 343.2 215.2 199.1 203.5 177.0 319.6 216.5 227.4 344.7 218.7 202.6 205.6 182.2 319.1 219.2 227.0 344.7 218.0 201.8 207.1 179.6 316.4 220.8 226.7 346.8 214.5 198.1 205.3 173.7 308.0 218.8 230.6 347.4 210.5 214.7 222.2 226.3 226.4 221.1 194.0 198.3 206.0 209.9 209.9 204.5 203.0 204.1 208.4 211.0 211.9 208.6 168.3 175.0 186.2 191.0 190.1 181.8 301.2 304.8 313.6 3 2 4 .9 326.3 3 2 0 .1 214.3 215.9 219.1 222.4 223.9 222.3 231.9 234.2 236.4 237.3 237.2 238.4 348.7 348.2 348.4 351.0 352.0 352.8 Transportation ..................................................................... Private transportation.......................................................... New vehicles................................................................... New cars...................................................................... Used cars....................................................................... Motor fuel ....................................................................... Gasoline....................................................................... Maintenance and repair.................................................... Other private transportation.............................................. Other private transportation commodities......................... Other private transportation services................................ Public transportation........................................................... 307.5 299.5 224.1 224.4 363.2 292.1 291.4 363.1 303.9 201.6 333.9 426.4 316.8 308.5 231.8 232.5 377.6 303.9 303.4 377.7 318.9 202.8 352.9 441.4 304.8 295.9 231.7 232.2 356.6 261.9 261.2 370.7 312.0 200.4 344.5 437.5 308.5 299.8 232.3 233.0 354.6 275.8 275.1 371.3 314.9 202.2 347.7 438.9 310.0 301.3 229.9 230.2 356.9 288.1 287.5 373.0 314.0 201.8 346.7 439.8 310.6 301.9 229.2 229.4 363.0 290.0 289.4 373.0 314.4 202.3 347.0 441.4 313.3 304.8 229.9 230.4 371.6 297.2 296.7 376.1 315.1 200.8 348.6 440.8 314.6 306.3 230.6 231.3 378.6 299.7 299.3 376.1 315.9 202.3 349.1 439.6 316.7 308.6 231.2 232.0 383.0 306.0 305.5 376.3 317.6 202.3 351.3 438.1 318.5 310.5 231.8 232.7 385.5 311.2 310.8 376.8 318.8 201.6 353.2 438.3 320.2 312.0 231.0 232.1 385.7 319.5 319.1 378.6 318.6 202.6 352.6 442.8 320.4 312.1 230.6 231.6 387.3 318.4 317.9 380.7 319.7 204.2 353.5 445.1 324.1 316.0 235.7 236.6 389.0 315.2 314.5 383.5 326.9 204.2 363.1 444.8 323.3 315.1 235.9 236.6 388.4 310.6 309.8 384.7 326.8 203.9 363.1 445.3 Medical care........................................................................ Medical care commodities.................................................. Medical care services......................................................... Professional services....................................................... Hospital and related services ............................................ 433.5 273.6 468.6 390.9 237.4 462.2 291.9 499.6 416.8 253.9 446.8 280.8 483.4 401.0 245.0 449.6 282.4 486.5 403.7 246.7 452.4 283.9 489.6 406.8 248.1 455.0 286.3 492.1 409.6 249.0 457.3 287.5 494.7 412.5 250.1 458.9 289.6 496.0 413.9 251.0 461.3 291.5 498.4 416.7 251.8 464.1 293.4 501.5 418.9 254.6 466.1 294.6 503.6 420.6 256.4 467.8 469.8 471.7 295.8 297.4 299.1 505.4 507.4 509.3 422.8 424.4 425.6 257.1 258.8 261.1 472.9 300.7 510.3 426.5 262.0 Entertainment............................................ .......................... Entertainment commodities ................................................. Entertainment services............................................... ........ 274.1 283.2 277.4 278.3 278.7 279.8 281.3 282.0 282.3 283.5 283.9 285.2 287.1 288.1 288.5 265.9 272.2 267.4 268.1 268.1 269.9 270.8 271.7 271.8 272.8 272.5 272.6 274.0 276.5 277.3 286.3 299.1 292.2 293.3 294.1 294.5 296.6 297.2 297.6 299.1 300.1 302.6 305.2 304.7 304.6 Other goods and services..................................................... Tobacco products.............................................................. Personal care.................................................................... Toilet goods and personal care appliances......................... Personal care services..................................................... Personal and educational expenses..................................... School books and supplies............................................... Personal and educational services..................................... 346.4 351.0 291.3 287.9 295.4 428.8 380.3 440.1 366.5 376.1 299.6 294.8 305.2 461.6 410.0 474.2 355.2 357.6 293.6 289.6 298.2 448.8 392.6 461.6 358.1 364.9 295.7 291.3 300.8 450.6 400.7 462.8 359.7 368.3 296.4 292.1 301.3 452.0 403.4 464.2 360.3 369.6 296.4 292.0 301.5 452.8 403.9 465.0 361.1 370.4 297.3 292.9 302.3 453.8 404.4 466.0 362.0 370.9 299.0 294.2 304.6 454.4 404.9 466.6 362.9 372.7 299.2 294.2 304.9 455.5 405.1 467.9 365.1 379.9 300.2 295.8 305.3 456.5 405.2 469.0 366.6 380.8 300.8 295.7 306.7 459.0 405.7 471.6 373.9 382.4 301.8 296.7 307.8 473.7 419.6 486.7 321.9 313.8 233.0 233.8 388.0 315.2 314.6 382.0 324.1 205.0 359.1 442.0 375.5 383.7 302.5 297.4 308.3 476.2 422.4 489.2 376.1 384.3 302.7 297.6 308.7 477.1 422.5 490.2 376.9 385.7 303.3 297.7 309.7 477.9 422.7 491.1 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 103 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 30. Continued— Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (1967 = 100, unless otherwise indicated) Series Annual average 1986 1987 1986 1987 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. All items ................................................................................ Commodities........................................................................ Food and beverages.......................................................... Commodities less food and beverages................................. Nondurables less food and beverages ............................... Apparel commodities...................................................... Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel ............... Durables......................................................................... 328.4 283.9 311.8 264.7 265.2 192.0 307.3 270.2 340.4 293.0 324.5 271.6 274.3 200.6 318.9 274.3 331.1 284.2 317.0 262.4 260.0 194.9 298.0 271.7 333.1 286.3 320.5 263.7 261.8 190.9 304.8 272.4 334.4 287.7 321.6 265.2 265.4 192.1 310.3 271.2 335.9 289.5 321.6 267.9 269.7 199.1 311.9 271.7 337.7 291.4 322.5 270.4 273.2 202.6 315.0 273.0 338.7 292.3 324.0 270.9 273.5 201.8 316.4 273.6 340.1 292.8 325.4 270.9 273.2 198.1 319.1 274.2 340.8 292.8 325.1 271.0 272.8 194.0 322.0 274.9 342.7 294.2 325.4 273.0 276.6 198.3 325.2 274.6 344.4 296.1 326.4 275.4 280.7 206.0 325.7 274.6 345.3 297.3 326.9 276.9 282.5 209.9 325.4 276.0 345.8 297.9 326.7 278.0 283.0 209.9 326.2 277.8 345.7 297.2 328.1 276.1 279.7 204.5 325.1 277.6 Services.............................................................................. Rent of shelter (12/82-100).............................................. Household services less rent of’ shelter (12/82=100)........... Transportation services...................................................... Medical care services........................................................ Other services ................................................................... 400.5 120.2 112.8 356.3 468.6 331.8 417.1 125.9 113.1 373.5 499.6 349.5 406.6 122.5 110.8 366.2 483.4 340.8 408.6 123.1 111.3 368.5 486.5 342.2 409.9 123.6 111.5 368.5 489.6 343.1 411.2 124.1 111.5 369.0 492.1 343.7 412.8 124.8 111.4 370.5 494.7 345.0 414.2 125.1 112.3 370.5 496.0 345.9 416.7 125.4 114.8 371.6 498.4 346.6 418.3 126.0 115.1 372.9 501.5 347.7 420.7 126.9 115.8 373.8 503.6 349.2 422.4 127.2 115.5 375.2 505.4 355.6 423.1 128.0 113.5 378.1 507.4 357.9 423.4 128.1 112.6 381.3 509.3 358.1 424.0 128.5 112.3 381.7 510.3 358.6 Special indexes: All items less food ............................................................. All items less shelter.......................................................... All items less homeowners’ costs (12/82=100).................... All items less medical care.................................................. Commodities less food....................................................... Nondurables less food ....................................................... Nondurables less food and apparel ..................................... Nondurables...................................................................... Services less rent of’ shelter (12/82 = 100)........................... Services less medical care.................................................. Energy.............................................................................. All items less energy .......................................................... All items less food and energy ............................................ Commodities less food and energy...................................... Energy commodities ........................................................... Services less energy........................................................... 328.6 306.7 111.2 322.6 263.4 262.2 297.1 289.6 118.7 390.6 370.3 327.0 327.1 263.2 322.4 397.1 340.1 317.0 115.1 333.8 270.2 270.9 307.3 300.7 123.1 405.7 371.7 340.4 340.5 271.0 334.7 415.9 330.6 308.3 111.9 324.8 261.2 257.5 288.9 289.5 120.2 395.8 342.4 332.6 332.8 265.8 290.5 405.7 332.2 310.3 112.7 326.7 262.5 259.2 294.9 292.1 120.8 397.6 352.2 334.0 333.6 265.5 306.1 407.5 333.6 311.5 113.1 328.0 264.0 262.6 299.6 294.6 121.1 398.8 359.2 334.9 334.5 265.7 319.2 408.9 335.4 312.9 113.6 329.4 266.5 266.4 301.0 296.8 121.3 400.0 360.0 336.5 336.4 268.4 320.9 410.4 337.3 314.6 114.2 331.1 268.9 269.6 303.7 299.1 121.6 401.5 362.4 338.2 338.3 270.3 328.0 412.3 338.3 315.6 114.6 332.2 269.4 270.0 305.0 300.0 122.1 402.9 366.9 339.0 338.9 270.7 330.2 413.2 339.6 317.1 115.1 333.5 269.5 269.8 307.4 300.5 123.2 405.4 380.6 339.5 339.1 270.1 336.4 414.1 340.5 317.4 115.3 334.1 269.6 269.5 309.9 300.1 123.7 406.8 382.4 340.1 339.9 269.6 341.4 416.0 342.7 319.0 115.9 336.0 271.6 273.1 312.7 302.3 124.2 409.3 388.9 341.6 341.7 270.9 349.9 418.3 344.6 320.9 116.5 337.7 273.8 276.8 313.2 304.9 124.9 410.9 387.4 343.6 343.9 273.6 348.7 420.2 345.6 321.4 116.6 338.6 275.4 278.4 313.1 306.0 124.6 411.5 376.7 345.4 346.1 275.6 346.0 422.6 346.2 321.9 116.8 339.0 276.3 278.9 313.9 306.2 124.6 411.7 373.5 346.2 347.0 276.6 346.9 423.5 345.7 321.3 116.6 338.8 274.5 276.0 312.9 305.2 124.6 412.2 370.4 346.3 346.8 275.1 342.5 424.3 Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1967—$1.00...................................................................... 1957-59-51.00 ................................................................. 30.5 26.2 29.4 25.3 30.2 26.0 30.0 25.8 29.9 25.7 29.8 25.6 29.6 25.5 29.5 25.4 29.4 25.3 29.2 25.1 29.0 25.0 29.0 24.9 28.9 24.9 28.9 24.9 29.3 ' 25.2 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS: All items ............................................................................. All items (1957-59 = 100)......................................................... 323.4 335.0 325.7 327.7 329.0 330.5 332.3 333.4 376.1 389.7 378.8 381.1 382.6 384.4 386.5 387.8 334.9 335.6 337.4 339.1 340.0 340.4 340.2 389.5 390.3 392.4 394.3 395.4 395.9 395.7 Food and beverages ............................................................ Food................................................................................. Food at home ................................................................. Cereals and bakery products.......................................... Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs......................................... Dairy products.............................................................. Fruits and vegetables..................................................... Other foods at home...................................................... Sugar and sweets....................................................... Fats and oils............................................................... Nonalcoholic beverages............................................... Other prepared foods.................................................. Food away from home ..................................................... Alcoholic beverages........................................................... 311.6 319.2 303.7 324.2 274.4 257.1 323.8 373.5 410.5 287.2 478.1 303.2 363.4 242.5 324.2 332.4 316.7 335.7 290.1 263.5 351.5 377.7 417.8 291.4 467.4 315.9 377.9 248.7 316.8 324.8 308.7 328.0 286.6 260.9 323.4 372.2 411.2 285.5 470.3 306.6 370.5 243.9 320.3 328.4 313.4 330.0 288.5 262.0 338.2 378.9 414.9 292.6 483.7 309.7 372.2 245.4 321.3 329.5 314.6 331.2 285.8 263.6 348.2 380.0 414.8 289.9 482.5 313.3 373.2 246.2 321.2 329.4 313.8 331.6 285.6 262.4 346.0 378.8 416.5 293.9 476.9 312.6 374.3 246.5 322.1 330.2 314.9 334.1 285.2 262.0 353.6 377.8 416.5 291.3 471.3 314.5 374.8 247.2 323.5 331.8 316.8 334.8 287.9 263.1 358.5 377.9 417.1 292.6 470.0 314.9 375.6 247.8 325.0 333.4 318.5 335.4 290.0 262.5 366.7 376.8 418.7 290.7 464.5 315.8 377.1 248.6 324.8 333.1 317.5 336.8 292.5 261.9 354.1 376.3 418.3 292.2 460.5 316.7 378.2 249.2 325.1 333.4 317.4 337.1 293.9 262.9 347.1 377.5 419.3 291.9 461.0 318.7 379.2 249.8 326.2 334.5 318.3 337.4 296.1 264.7 346.7 377.1 420.1 290.6 460.9 318.1 380.9 250.2 326.6 334.8 318.3 338.1 294.3 266.0 347.6 378.1 420.4 289.7 464.6 318.3 381.9 250.9 326.5 334.6 317.5 339.6 292.2 265.9 347.4 376.8 419.1 291.3 457.5 319.4 383.0 251.5 327.5 335.9 318.9 341.7 289.4 265.3 364.0 375.9 417.8 290.5 456.0 319.2 383.8 251.3 Housing .............................................................................. Shelter ............................................................................. Renters’ costs (12/84—100)............................................ Rent, residential............................................................ Other renters’ costs ...................................................... Homeowners’ costs (12/84=100)..................................... Owners’ equivalent rent (12/84=100)............................. Household insurance (12/84 —100)................................. Maintenance and repairs.................................................. Maintenance and repair services ..................................... Maintenance and repair commodities............................... Fuel and other utilities........................................................ Fuels ............................................................................. Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas......................................... Gas (piped) and electricity ............................................. Other utilities and public services...................................... Household furnishings and operations.................................. Housefurnishings ............................................................. Housekeeping supplies..................................................... Housekeeping services..................................................... 353.2 390.7 109.5 279.1 416.0 108.8 108.8 109.4 369.4 425.3 262.5 385.4 462.7 504.5 445.6 253.8 246.5 198.4 317.1 348.2 363.1 408.7 114.6 290.3 447.9 113.8 113.7 114.1 382.0 441.5 269.8 380.8 452.9 503.5 437.0 258.8 250.5 200.7 326.8 354.0 354.8 398.1 111.6 285.1 417.3 110.8 110.8 111.7 374.6 428.1 268.0 371.1 437.3 463.5 423.8 255.3 248.5 199.7 320.6 350.8 356.3 399.6 112.3 286.1 424.9 111.1 111.1 111.9 377.3 434.5 267.6 373.9 442.7 489.3 427.4 255.6 248.9 200.0 322.0 351.2 357.5 401.2 112.7 287.0 427.6 111.6 111.5 112.1 376.9 432.5 268.4 374.9 443.7 503.9 427.3 256.5 249.4 200.2 323.1 352.0 358.8 403.2 113.3 287.3 439.0 112.1 112.1 112.4 378.5 436.8 267.9 375.1 443.2 501.4 427.0 257.1 250.1 200.7 325.2 352.3 360.0 405.1 113.8 287.8 448.1 112.7 112.7 112.5 378.0 435.7 267.9 374.3 440.7 501.1 424.4 257.8 250.8 201.4 325.7 353.3 361.1 406.3 114.0 288.3 449.2 113.1 113.1 113.1 378.0 433.2 269.7 377.5 446.9 498.2 431.2 258.1 250.5 200.5 327.2 354.0 363.5 406.9 114.2 288.5 453.1 113.2 113.2 113.8 380.9 438.3 270.5 388.0 470.0 499.4 455.4 257.4 250.4 200.5 327.5 354.0 364.6 408.7 115.3 290.0 467.0 113.4 113.4 114.6 386.4 449.8 270.7 388.3 467.6 498.4 453.0 259.5 250.7 200.8 327.6 354.4 367.0 411.7 116.0 291.9 468.8 114.3 114.3 115.1 385.7 448.7 270.4 391.5 472.6 502.7 457.8 260.8 251.0 201.2 327.0 354.8 367.5 413.0 116.2 293.2 462.0 114.8 114.8 115.5 384.6 447.9 269.4 390.0 470.5 501.5 455.7 260.1 251.3 201.3 327.8 355.1 367.1 415.4 116.0 294.0 451.7 115.9 115.9 115.8 384.8 446.5 270.6 381.1 450.5 507.2 434.2 261.1 251.1 200.7 329.3 355.6 366.9 416.0 115.9 294.1 447.7 116.2 116.2 115.9 386.6 448.2 272.1 378.1 444.0 519.1 426.4 261.3 251.2 200.8 329.6 355.5 367.2 417.1 115.9 295.8 435.1 116.6 116.6 116.1 386.0 446.2 272.6 376.9 442.4 520.3 424.7 260.6 250.9 200.4 329.9 356.0 Apparel and upkeep ............................................................. 206.5 215.5 209.6 205.8 206.9 213.7 217.4 216.6 213.0 209.1 See footnotes at end of table. 104 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 212.9 220.5 224.9 224.9 219.9 30. Continued— Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group; and CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, all items (1967=100, unless otherwise indicated) Series Annual average 1987 1986 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 197.5 193.6 204.0 201.7 175.8 170.4 324.2 318.3 219.4 215.5 217.0 217.6 343.8 344.8 197.4 203.1 176.6 320.9 217.2 219.4 344.2 205.0 207.2 188.0 330.5 219.9 222.6 344.6 209.3 210.4 192.9 344.1 223.7 223.9 347.2 209.3 211.2 192.0 344.3 225.1 224.0 348.3 204.2 208.3 183.8 337.7 224.0 224.2 349.0 319.7 313.6 230.3 231.6 385.4 313.0 312.6 378.8 315.8 203.8 348.7 426.9 321.4 315.2 229.5 230.9 385.6 321.4 321.0 380.6 315.4 204.7 347.7 430.7 321.7 315.4 229.2 230.4 387.1 320.0 319.6 382.6 316.4 206.0 348.5 433.0 323.2 317.1 231.6 232.7 387.7 316.7 316.1 383.7 321.5 206.8 355.2 430.4 325.2 319.1 234.4 235.4 388.7 316.8 316.1 384.8 324.0 205.8 359.1 432.3 324.4 318.2 234.7 235.5 388.1 312.0 311.2 385.9 324.2 206.2 359.1 432.6 452.3 454.9 456.6 459.3 462.1 464.2 466.2 468.4 285.1 286.2 288.2 290.5 292.1 293.2 294.4 296.1 489.2 492.1 493.6 496.2 499.4 501.7 503.9 506.1 410.2 413.3 414.7 417.5 419.7 421.5 424.0 425.6 245.4 246.5 247.4 248.2 250.9 252.8 253.5 255.4 470.0 297.7 507.7 426.5 257.6 471.3 299.4 508.7 427.5 258.5 1986 1987 Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Apparel commodities.......................................................... Men's and boys’ apparel.................................................. Women’s and girls’ apparel .............................................. Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel............................................ Footwear........................................................................ Other apparel commodities............................................... Apparel services................................................................ 191.5 199.7 169.4 329.4 211.8 206.1 332.0 200.0 204.6 180.1 330.8 218.9 217.7 344.1 194.5 202.1 173.1 329.3 214.9 207.8 336.6 190.5 198.6 168.2 319.1 211.1 210.1 339.7 191.5 198.9 169.2 322.2 212.4 212.1 340.5 198.3 201.9 178.6 337.3 217.7 214.1 341.8 202.1 204.3 184.4 336.3 220.0 213.9 341.6 201.2 205.7 181.8 334.7 221.3 213.1 343.3 Transportation ..................................................................... Private transportation.......................................................... New vehicles.................................................................. New cars...................................................................... Used cars...................................................................... Motor fuel ....................................................................... Gasoline....................................................................... Maintenance and repair.................................................... Other private transportation.............................................. Other private transportation commodities......................... Other private transportation services................................ Public transportation.......................................................... 307.6 301.5 223.3 223.6 363.2 293.1 292.5 364.7 302.2 203.9 330.9 416.3 317.7 311.3 230.5 231.4 377.6 305.5 305.0 379.5 316.1 204.7 348.6 429.4 304.2 297.5 230.7 231.4 356.6 263.2 262.5 372.3 309.9 202.8 341.0 425.8 308.2 301.6 231.2 232.0 354.7 277.7 277.1 373.4 312.6 204.3 344.0 426.7 309.9 303.4 228.9 229.3 357.0 289.5 288.9 375.1 311.5 204.0 342.6 427.2 310.8 304.2 228.2 228.5 363.1 291.3 290.7 374.9 311.7 204.3 342.9 428.7 313.9 307.4 229.0 229.5 371.7 298.7 298.3 377.9 312.1 202.6 344.1 428.9 315.5 309.1 229.5 230.3 378.7 301.2 300.7 378.1 312.9 204.0 344.6 428.9 317.9 311.7 229.9 230.9 383.0 307.6 307.2 378.3 314.7 204.4 346.9 426.9 Medical care....................................................................... Medical care commodities.................................................. Medical care services......................................................... Professional services....................................................... Hospital and related services............................................ 431.0 272.8 465.7 391.4 234.2 460.1 290.6 497.4 417.7 250.3 443.9 279.8 480.1 401.5 241.6 446.7 281.4 483.2 404.2 243.2 449.7 282.9 486.5 407.4 244.6 Entertainment...................................................................... Entertainment commodities ................................................. Entertainment services....................................................... 268.7 277.8 272.3 272.9 273.4 274.4 276.0 276.9 277.0 278.2 278.5 279.7 281.4 282.3 282.8 259.5 266.2 261.7 262.2 262.3 263.7 264.7 265.9 265.9 266.8 266.8 266.9 267.9 269.9 271.0 286.0 298.9 292.0 292.7 293.9 294.2 296.6 297.2 297.4 299.0 299.9 302.4 305.1 304.6 304.3 Other goods and services ..................................................... Tobacco products.............................................................. Personal care.................................................................... Toilet goods and personal care appliances......................... Personal care services..................................................... Personal and educational expenses..................................... School books and supplies............................................... Personal and educational services.................................... 341.7 350.7 289.0 288.6 289.8 430.7 384.8 442.0 361.3 375.8 297.0 295.6 299.0 463.2 415.3 475.9 349.5 357.2 291.3 290.3 292.7 450.0 397.1 462.8 352.8 364.7 293.2 292.0 294.9 452.0 406.5 464.3 354.6 368.0 294.1 293.2 295.4 453.7 409.3 465.9 355.1 369.2 293.9 292.7 295.5 454.3 409.6 466.6 356.0 370.0 294.7 293.6 296.2 455.5 410.1 467.8 356.9 370.5 296.4 294.9 298.4 456.1 410.5 468.5 357.8 372.3 296.4 294.8 298.8 457.3 410.6 469.8 360.5 379.7 297.3 296.1 299.1 458.4 410.7 471.0 361.9 380.5 298.2 296.6 300.4 460.6 411.4 473.4 368.3 382.1 299.1 297.4 301.5 475.3 423.7 488.5 369.8 383.4 299.9 298.4 302.0 477.5 427.0 490.6 370.5 384.1 300.1 298.6 302.3 478.6 427.0 491.8 371.2 385.5 300.6 298.7 303.3 479.2 427.1 492.5 All items................................................................................ Commodities....................................................................... Food and beverages.......................................................... Commodities less food and beverages................................. Nondurables less food and beverages ............................... Apparel commodities..................................................... Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel ............... Durables......................................................................... 323.4 283.1 311.6 264.2 265.6 191.5 306.7 264.0 335.0 292.4 324.2 271.4 275.2 200.0 319.2 268.3 325.7 283.3 316.8 261.5 259.9 194.5 296.9 265.0 327.7 285.5 320.3 262.9 262.3 190.5 304.4 265.4 329.0 287.0 321.3 264.6 266.0 191.5 310.2 264.5 330.5 288.6 321.2 267.2 270.0 198.3 311.5 265.3 332.3 290.7 322.1 269.9 273.7 202.1 315.0 266.8 333.4 291.6 323.5 270.6 274.2 201.2 316.5 267.8 334.9 292.4 325.0 270.9 274.1 197.5 319.5 268.5 335.6 292.5 324.8 271.2 274.1 193.6 322.8 269.1 337.4 293.9 325.1 273.3 277.9 197.4 326.2 269.0 339.1 295.7 326.2 275.4 281.7 205.0 326.5 269.1 340.0 296.8 326.6 276.9 283.4 209.3 326.0 270.2 340.4 297.4 326.5 277.8 283.9 209.3 326.8 271.8 340.2 296.6 327.5 276.1 280.7 204.2 325.4 271.9 Services.............................................................................. Rent of shelter (12/84 —100).............................................. Household services less rent of shelter (12/84 —100)............ Transportation services...................................................... Medical care services......................................................... Other services ................................................................... 395.7 109.0 103.9 350.1 465.7 326.9 411.7 114.0 104.0 366.4 497.4 343.7 401.5 111.1 101.8 359.5 480.1 335.1 403.3 111.5 102.3 361.7 483.2 336.4 404.5 111.9 102.5 361.3 486.5 337.5 405.9 112.5 102.5 361.6 489.2 338.0 407.3 113.0 102.4 363.2 492.1 339.4 408.8 113.4 103.2 363.5 493.6 340.3 411.4 113.5 105.7 364.7 496.2 340.9 412.8 114.0 105.9 365.9 499.4 342.0 415.3 114.9 106.6 366.3 501.7 343.3 416.9 115.2 106.3 367.6 503.9 349.7 417.6 115.9 104.2 371.6 506.1 351.8 417.9 116.1 103.4 374.6 507.7 352.2 418.4 116.4 103.1 374.9 508.7 352.5 Special indexes: All items less food............................................................. All items less shelter.......................................................... All items less homeowners’ costs (12/84—100).................... All items less medical care................................................. Commodities less food....................................................... Nondurables less food ....................................................... Nondurables less food and apparel ..................................... Nondurables...................................................................... Services less rent of shelter (12/84 = 100)............................ Services less medical care.................................................. Energy.............................................................................. All items less energy .......................................................... All items less food and energy ............................................ Commodities less food and energy...................................... Energy commodities .......................................................... Services less energy.......................................................... 323.0 305.1 102.8 318.0 262.9 262.7 296.9 289.8 107.1 385.9 367.5 321.2 320.3 259.8 322.9 391.9 334.1 315.3 106.4 328.9 270.0 271.8 307.8 301.0 110.8 400.3 369.9 334.1 333.1 267.4 335.9 410.1 324.4 306.3 103.4 319.8 260.4 257.6 288.2 289.6 108.3 390.7 339.2 326.5 325.6 262.1 291.1 400.2 326.0 308.4 104.0 321.8 261.8 259.9 294.8 292.5 108.8 392.5 349.8 327.8 326.3 261.7 307.2 401.9 327.4 309.6 104.5 323.0 263.5 263.3 299.7 294.9 109.0 393.5 356.9 328.7 327.1 262.0 319.9 403.2 329.3 311.0 104.9 324.5 265.9 266.9 300.9 296.9 109.2 394.7 357.7 330.2 329.0 264.6 321.5 404.7 331.3 312.8 105.5 326.2 268.5 270.4 303.9 299.2 109.5 396.1 360.8 331.9 330.9 266.6 328.9 406.5 332.3 313.9 105.9 327.3 269.2 270.8 305.3 300.1 109.9 397.5 364.9 332.8 331.6 267.1 331.2 407.5 333.7 315.6 106.4 328.8 269.5 270.9 307.9 300.9 111.1 400.1 378.6 333.2 331.8 266.7 337.7 408.2 334.6 315.9 106.6 329.3 269.8 270.9 310.8 300.8 111.5 401.4 380.6 333.8 332.6 266.3 343.1 410.1 336.8 317.4 107.1 331.1 271.8 274.4 313.8 302.9 112.0 403.8 387.5 335.2 334.2 267.5 351.8 412.3 338.5 319.2 107.7 332.8 273.8 277.8 314.1 305.3 112.5 405.4 385.8 337.2 336.4 270.0 350.4 414.2 339.6 319.7 107.8 333.7 275.3 279.4 313.8 306.4 112.2 405.9 375.2 339.1 338.6 272.0 347.3 416.8 340.2 320.1 108.0 334.1 276.2 279.9 314.6 306.6 112.2 406.2 372.4 339.8 339.6 273.0 348.1 417.8 339.6 319.6 107.8 333.8 274.5 277.0 313.4 305.5 112.2 406.6 369.0 339.9 339.4 271.7 343.4 418.6 Purchasing power of the consumer dollar: 1967—$1.00...................................................................... 1957-59-$1.00................................................................. 30.9 26.6 29.9 25.7 30.7 26.4 30.5 26.2 30.4 26.1 30.3 26.0 30.1 25.9 30.0 25.8 29.9 25.7 29.8 25.6 29.6 25.5 29.5 25.4 29.4 25.3 29.4 25.3 29.4 25.3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis July 105 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 31. February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items (1967 = 100, unless otherwise indicated) All Urban Consumers Area1 U.S. city average................ Region and area size3 Northeast urban................... Size A - More than 1,200,000 ......................... Size B - 500,000 to 1,200,000 ......................... Size C - 50,000 to 500,000 ........................... North Central urban ............. Size A - More than 1,200,000 ......................... Size B - 360,000 to 1,200,000 ......................... Size C - 50,000 to 360,000 ........................... Size D - Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,0000 .................... South urban........................ Size A - More than 1,200,000 ......................... Size B - 450,000 to 1,200,000 ......................... Size C - 50,000 to 450,000 ........................... Size D - Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000) ..................... West urban......................... Size A - More than 1,250,000 ......................... Size B - 330,000 to 1,250,000 ......................... Size C - 50,000 to 330,000 ............................ Pricing Other sche index dule2 base 1986 Urban Wage Earners 1987 1986 1987 Dec. Jan. Aug. - 331.1 333.1 342.7 344.4 345.3 345.8 345.7 325.7 327.7 337.4 339.1 M 12/77 177.2 178.4 184.1 185.1 185.9 186.2 186.3 174.3 175.5 181.2 182.1 183.0 183.3 183.3 M 12/77 174.7 176.1 182.1 183.5 184.1 184.3 184.5 170.3 171.6 177.7 179.0 179.7 179.8 179.9 M 12/77 178.3 179.3 183.3 183.2 185.7 186.7 185.9 175.1 176.2 180.3 180.2 182.4 183.5 182.7 M 12/77 M 12/77 186.3 177.1 187.1 178.3 192.5 184.0 192.2 184.8 192.3 184.6 192.6 184.7 192.9 184.3 190.5 173.0 191.4 174.3 196.6 197.0 179.8 180.6 197.2 180.5 197.3 180.6 197.6 180.2 189.2 188.5 188.8 188.1 175.3 176.3 182.3 182.6 182.8 182.2 M Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Dec. Jan. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 340.0 340.4 Dec. 340.2 M 12/77 181.0 182.1 188.2 M 12/77 176.1 177.2 182.0 182.4 182.7 182.6 182.7 171.5 172.7 177.4 177.8 178.3 178.3 178.2 M 12/77 171.9 173.9 179.6 180.8 181.4 181.3 180.8 168.4 170.3 175.5 176.6 177.3 177.3 177.0 M 12/77 M 12/77 171.6 177.9 172.5 178.7 177.1 183.2 176.7 184.0 177.1 184.7 177.2 185.1 177.8 184.8 172.7 176.5 173.7 177.5 178.5 182.1 178.3 183.0 178.8 183.6 179.0 184.0 179.4 183.8 183.3 M 12/77 177.9 178.6 184.0 184.7 185.4 186.0 185.5 177.0 177.8 183.3 184.2 184.8 185.4 185.0 M 12/77 179.9 180.8 184.8 186.3 186.7 187.0 186.9 175.6 176.5 180.6 182.1 182.5 182.7 182.6 177.5 181.7 182.0 182.6 183.0 182.6 176.7 177.9 182.5 182.9 183 3 183.8 183.4 177.4 180.6 180.0 185.6 181.1 186.7 182.1 187.4 182.9 187.4 182.9 187.8 177.0 177.0 177.9 177.9 180.9 183.0 181.9 183.9 182.8 184.6 183.5 184.7 183.4 185.0 178.4 183.9 184.9 185.6 185.4 185.8 M 12/77 M 12/77 M 12/77 176.6 179.6 M 12/77 182.6 183.6 189.2 190.3 191.0 190.8 191.1 177.5 M 12/77 178.9 179.9 184.3 185.8 187.0 186.7 187.1 179.0 180.0 184.6 185.9 187.1 186.9 187.1 M 12/77 172.9 173.8 177.1 177.9 178.5 179.7 180.0 171.1 171.9 175.2 175.9 176.5 177.7 178.0 M M M M 12/77 12/77 12/77 12/77 100.0 100.6 178.7 179.6 176.5 177.7 175.4 176.1 103.8 183.9 182.4 179.7 104.4 184.8 182.9 180.3 104.6 185.8 183.4 181.0 104.8 186.0 183.8 181.6 104.7 185.9 183.6 181.8 100.0 100.6 175.5 176.5 176.2 177.5 175.9 176.7 103.9 104.5 180.8 181.7 182.2 182.9 180.7 181.3 104.7 182.6 183.4 182.1 104.8 182.9 183.7 182.6 104.7 182.7 183.5 182.8 M - 331.0 334.3 348.8 332.5 333.5 328.2 329.4 329.5 M - 332.9 335.1 - 329.1 331.6 343.7 346.4 347.4 325.2 327.7 342.2 342.8 344.1 - 343.6 345.8 356.9 358.5 Ï V Size classes: A ........................................... B ..................................... C .................................... D .................................... Selected local areas Chicago, ILNorthwestern IN ................. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, CA.......... New York, NYNortheastern NJ................. Philadelphia, PA-NJ.............. San FranciscoOakland, CA....................... M M M - _ - - 1 1 1 1 11/77 1 1 - 334.1 333.2 351.8 352.9 177.2 326.7 335.7 - Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX......................... Detroit, M l........................... Houston, TX ....................... Pittsburgh, PA ..................... 2 2 2 - 2 “ 342.8 324.7 331.0 333.0 _ 346.7 348.6 350.4 349.3 - Baltimore, MD ..................... Boston, MA ............................ Cleveland, OH..................... Miami, FL............................ St. Louis, MO-IL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, DC-MD-VA .............. _ - “ 349.9 343.9 345.7 345.7 315.8 - 356.0 333.5 344.0 341.7 346.0 347.2 367.5 181.3 339.5 347.8 _ - " 1 Area is the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), exclu sive of farms and military. Area definitions are those established by the Of fice of Management and Budget in 1983, except for Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH Area (excludes Monroe County); and Milwaukee, Wl Area (in cludes only the Milwaukee MSA). Definitions do not include revisions made since 1983. 2 Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas; most other goods and services priced as indicated:. M - Every month. 1 - January, March, May, July, September, and November. 2 - February, April, June, August, October, and December. 106 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - 360.5 339.3 346.5 344.1 350.2 325.3 327.4 338.8 340.4 342.1 348.2 348.6 320.1 322.3 342.6 343.5 326.6 329.1 359.9 360.5 _ 319.1 346.2 348.5 366.9 183.4 336.0 349.7 _ - 341.1 342.0 334.4 337.4 338.3 339.1 339.0 343.9 344.2 345.8 344.6 345.6 360.9 337.0 339.0 349.9 351.4 353.2 353.9 354.4 _ _ _ 357.4 334.6 344.0 344.9 _ 331.1 _ 330.9 328.9 330.1 _ 177.6 _ 321.9 337.7 335.0 314.0 328.5 311.8 . _ _ - _ _ _ _ - 349.5 322.7 341.7 320.3 344.3 345.5 343.4 181.6 335.7 350.8 _ _ _ _ _ _ 353.8 327.8 345.1 322.2 - - 343.6 346.7 343.5 183.7 331.7 353.1 _ _ - _ _ _ _ - 350.8 323.4 342.9 323.0 3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions. - Data not available. NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI pro gram. Because each local index is a small subset of the national index, it has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national index. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Sta tistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in escalator clauses. 32. Annual data: Consumer Price Index all items and major groups Series Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All items: Food and beverages: Housing: Apparel and upkeep: Transportation: Medical care: Entertainment: Other goods and services: Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: All items: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 217.4 11.3 246.8 13.5 272.4 10.4 289.1 6.1 298.4 3.2 311.1 4.3 322.2 3.6 328.4 1.9 340.4 3.7 228.5 10.8 248.0 8.5 267.3 7.8 278.2 4.1 284.4 2.2 295.1 3.8 302.0 2.3 311.8 3.2 324.5 4.1 227.6 12.2 263.3 15.7 293.5 11.5 314.7 7.2 323.1 2.7 336.5 4.1 349.9 4.0 360.2 2.9 371.0 3.0 166.6 4.4 178.4 7.1 186.9 4.8 191.8 2.6 196.5 2.5 200.2 1.9 206.0 2.9 207.8 .9 216.9 4.4 212.0 14.3 249.7 17.8 280.0 12.1 291.5 4.1 298.4 2.4 311.7 4.5 319.9 2.6 307.5 -3.9 316.8 3.0 239.7 9.3 265.9 10.9 294.5 10.8 328.7 11.6 357.3 8.7 379.5 6.2 403.1 6.2 433.5 7.5 462.2 6.6 188.5 6.7 205.3 8.9 221.4 7.8 235.8 6.5 246.0 4.3 255.1 3.7 265.0 3.9 274.1 3.4 283.2 3.3 196.7 7.3 214.5 9.0 235.7 9.9 259.9 10.3 288.3 10.9 307.7 6.7 326.6 6.1 346.4 6.1 366.5 5.8 217.7 11.5 247.0 13.5 272.3 10.2 288.6 6.0 297.4 3.0 307.6 3.4 318.5 3.5 323.4 1.5 335.0 3.6 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 33. February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1967 = 100) Annual average 1987 Grouping 1986 1987 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Finished consumer goods ..................... Finished consumer foods.................... Finished consumer goods excluding foods .............................................. Nondurable goods less food ............. Durable goods ................................ Capital equipment................................ 289.7 284.9 278.1 295.7 291.0 283.9 291.8 286.2 280.1 292.3 287.1 280.8 292.6 287.5 280.3 294.9 290.1 283.2 295.8 291.3 286.6 296.2 291.9 286.7 297.4 293.4 287.5 297.3 293.2 284.0 296.7 292.7 286.0 298.2 293.5 284.1 298.1 293.6 284.9 296.8 291.8 282.2 283.5 311.2 246.8 306.4 289.7 316.4 252.7 312.1 284.4 307.7 253.2 311.2 285.3 310.5 250.7 310.7 286.3 312.2 250.6 310.5 288.6 314.7 252.5 311.8 288.6 314.9 252.1 311.8 289.5 316.3 252.1 311.4 291.4 319.3 252.3 311.7 292.9 322.3 251.4 312.0 291.1 320.5 249.4 311.0 293.5 319.4 257.6 314.7 293.0 319.7 256.0 314.3 291.8 318.8 254.3 314.2 Intermediate materials, supplies, and components........................................... 307.6 315.2 307.0 308.9 309.3 311.0 313.1 315.2 316.9 318.2 318.9 320.0 321.3 322.0 296.1 251.0 279.1 313.8 294.4 305.1 257.0 290.9 329.2 297.9 297.8 251.1 281.3 315.8 295.8 298.7 251.6 283.1 316.2 296.1 299.5 250.4 283.9 317.8 297.0 301.4 255.3 286.9 320.3 297.0 303.2 261.9 288.1 324.0 297.1 304.5 260.8 291.5 325.2 297.2 305.8 262.0 291.9 329.2 297.8 306.6 258.8 292.7 331.9 298.2 308.0 261.9 294.0 334.9 298.5 310.7 259.4 297.8 341.2 299.4 311.8 255.9 299.2 343.8 300.2 313.4 254.5 299.8 350.2 300.9 317.4 430.2 314.9 287.3 322.5 434.1 326.9 293.1 317.1 406.7 320.7 289.0 317.9 418.5 323.6 289.5 318.7 416.0 324.9 289.6 319.3 421.3 325.4 290.5 319.9 429.3 325.5 292.0 320.9 440.8 326.2 292.8 322.4 450.0 326.0 293.2 323.6 457.6 326.5 293.4 325.4 450.1 329.6 294.5 326.8 442.0 331.0 295.9 328.2 443.0 332.2 297.7 330.3 433.7 331.4 299.6 280.3 231.0 386.8 299.2 238.3 416.4 284.2 227.6 394.2 287.2 229.9 398.5 288.6 229.6 402.0 295.3 240.1 405.3 302.9 251.7 409.4 303.7 247.0 416.8 306.8 243.8 427.7 308.4 240.6 435.0 305.4 238.8 430.3 304.3 237.7 428.9 302.2 235.8 426.3 301.3 237.5 422.2 291.1 518.5 275.6 267.9 274.9 297.1 508.2 282.0 274.5 281.6 293.2 477.4 279.7 271.8 279.8 293.6 489.6 279.5 271.7 279.3 294.3 495.5 279.5 271.8 279.5 296.3 507.4 281.2 273.6 280.7 296.3 506.9 282.2 274.9 280.7 296.7 514.3 282.2 275.0 280.7 298.1 522.0 283.0 276.0 281.5 299.3 533.9 282.2 274.8 281.8 297.7 521.8 282.3 275.3 281.1 300.5 514.5 284.3 276.8 284.7 300.1 513.5 284.3 276.8 284.4 299.2 501.0 283.6 276.0 284.5 Finished goods ...................................... Materials and components for manufacturing .................................... Materials for food manufacturing.......... Materials for nondurable manufacturing . Materials for durable manufacturing...... Components for manufacturing............ Materials and components for construction........................................ Processed fuels and lubricants.............. Containers........................................... Supplies.............................................. Crude materials for further processing ... Foodstuffs and feedstuffs .................... Crude nonfood materials...................... Special groupings Finished goods, excluding foods............... Finished energy goods ............................ Finished goods less energy..................... Finished consumer goods less energy...... Finished goods less food and energy ....... Finished consumer goods less food and energy.................................................. Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy................................................. 108 258.4 265.6 263.4 262.9 263.3 264.4 264.5 264.6 265.8 265.9 265.5 269.1 268.7 269.0 253.0 260.2 256.4 257.2 257.9 258.4 258.8 258.9 260.7 261.6 262.3 262.5 263.0 264.7 320.7 241.1 423.2 310.9 322.6 241.2 432.1 312.0 324.2 238.3 439.5 312.6 324.6 241.4 432.5 314.1 325.9 240.5 424.8 316.3 327.2 242.0 425.6 317.7 327.8 243.8 416.8 319.4 Intermediate materials less foods and feeds................................................... Intermediate foods and feeds................... Intermediate energy goods ...................... Intermediate goods less energy............... Intermediate materials less foods and energy................................................ 313.3 230.3 414.4 303.5 320.9 237.3 417.2 311.6 312.8 229.5 391.3 305.2 314.7 230.0 402.6 306.1 315.3 227.6 400.3 306.8 316.9 231.9 405.3 308.2 318.5 240.4 412.2 309.8 304.4 312.8 306.2 307.2 308.1 309.3 310.5 311.7 312.9 313.9 315.3 317.8 319.3 321.0 Crude energy materials........................... Crude materials less energy .................... Crude nonfood materials less energy........ 575.8 229.2 245.6 601.2 242.3 275.2 578.0 228.1 250.3 584.4 230.4 252.8 590.1 230.6 254.4 594.1 238.9 257.4 597.4 248.7 263.2 606.3 247.2 270.2 623.8 246.2 275.5 632.3 245.9 282.6 615.4 246.8 291.2 604.9 248.4 300.1 598.3 247.5 301.8 589.4 248.9 302.4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 34. Producer Price indexes, by durability of product (1967 = 100) Annual average 1987 Grouping 1986 1987 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total durable goods................................ Total nondurable goods........................... 300.0 298.8 306.5 307.4 302.9 298.2 302.8 300.7 303.4 301.1 304.3 304.4 304.7 307.7 305.0 309.5 306.1 311.5 306.9 312.1 307.4 311.5 310.9 310.7 311.5 311.0 312.5 309.9 Total manufactures................................. Durable........................................ Nondurable ....................................... 297.6 300.8 294.0 305.4 306.7 303.7 299.5 303.7 294.7 300.7 303.5 297.4 300.8 304.1 297.0 303.0 305.0 300.5 304.4 305.3 303.0 305.3 305.4 304.8 306.6 306.2 306.6 307.6 306.8 307.9 307.5 307.1 307.5 309.6 310.3 308.4 310.2 310.9 309.0 310.1 311.9 307.9 Total raw or slightly processed goods ...... Durable.......................................... Nondurable......................................... 305.6 252.0 308.6 312.1 286.0 313.2 301.6 258.8 303.9 303.6 260.9 305.8 305.9 261.1 308.3 308.4 262.1 310.9 313.9 267.8 316.4 315.9 277.2 317.9 318.8 284.8 320.4 318.4 293.8 319.5 317.8 302.8 318.3 314.0 318.7 313.2 313.7 322.0 312.6 312.8 322.0 311.7 35. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing (1967 = 100) Index 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 195.9 194.9 199.2 217.7 217.9 216.5 247.0 248.9 239.8 269.8 271.3 264.3 280.7 281.0 279.4 285.2 284.6 287.2 291.1 290.3 294.0 293.7 291.8 300.5 289.7 284.9 306.4 215.6 243.2 280.3 306.0 310.4 312.3 320.0 318.7 307.6 208.7 224.7 295.3 202.8 198.5 234.4 247.4 364.8 226.8 218.2 265.7 268.3 503.0 254.5 244.5 286.1 287.6 595.4 276.1 263.8 289.8 293.7 591.7 285.6 272.1 293.4 301.8 564.8 286.6 277.1 301.8 310.3 566.2 302.3 283.4 299.5 315.2 548.9 311.2 284.2 296.1 317.4 430.2 314.9 287.3 234.4 216.2 272.3 426.8 274.3 247.9 330.0 507.6 304.6 259.2 401.0 615.0 329.0 257.4 482.3 751.2 319.5 247.8 473.9 886.1 323.6 252.2 477.4 931.5 330.8 259.5 484.5 931.3 306.1 235.0 459.2 909.6 280.3 231.0 386.8 817.2 Finished goods: Total .................................................. Consumer goods ................................ Capital equipment ..................................... Intermediate materials, supplies, and components: Total ............................................ Materials and components for manufacturing.................................. Materials and components for construction .... Processed fuels and lubricants ................... Containers.............................................. Supplies .................................... Crude materials for further processing: Total ................................................ Foodstuffs and feedstuffs ........................... Nonfood materials except fuel ................... Fuel .......................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 109 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data 36. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated) Category 1974 SITO 1987 June Sept. June Sept. June Sept. 97.5 97.5 96.5 96.7 97.0 96.7 95.1 96.2 97.2 99.9 100.2 0 01 03 04 05 08 09 95.8 103.9 101.0 92.4 119.5 72.8 110.6 94.0 104.7 103.6 90.3 120.2 68.6 109.2 90.2 106.1 102.6 82.6 126.9 75.7 108.1 93.6 112.2 101.8 87.1 118.9 83.4 107.7 90.5 111.5 102.2 82.1 115.3 88.5 106.0 89.5 114.7 106.2 79.1 125.8 85.5 104.7 77.2 122.0 111.2 59.0 131.4 90.2 106.6 81.2 122.6 116.9 64.8 131.9 87.4 108.2 79.8 123.4 118.5 62.9 130.8 85.7 108.6 83.4 129.0 122.9 66.5 130.8 93.7 110.0 79.6 127.9 126.3 62.1 124.4 92.4 109.4 1 11 12 99.9 104.0 99.5 100.1 105.3 99.6 99.7 101.8 99.5 98.6 100.9 98.4 95.6 101.9 95.1 96.5 103.0 95.9 96.3 102.2 95.8 101.6 102.9 101.4 101.7 104.7 101.4 104.0 104.8 104.0 104.4 104.4 104.5 Raw hides and skins (6/80—100).................................................... Oilseeds and oleaginous fruit (9/77 —100)......................................... Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed) (9/83 = 100)............. Wood............................................................ ............................... Pulp and waste paper (6/83 = 100) .................................................. Textile fibers.................................................................................. Crude fertilizers and minerals........................................................... Metalliferous ores and metal scrap .................................................. 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 97.5 121.0 71.0 106.4 128.7 100.5 102.4 165.6 . 89.2 96.8 126.2 71.2 106.3 125.7 96.1 105.8 167.9 82.0 93.3 129.0 64.2 107.1 124.5 93.8 103.6 169.4 80.1 92.5 139.9 63.9 106.0 128.1 92.7 97.7 165.5 78.7 95.8 138.9 66.9 106.0 128.7 98.8 101.6 168.0 83.4 95.6 148.9 65.8 106.1 128.7 109.7 98.6 166.1 80.5 92.3 138.0 64.5 105.3 129.7 119.8 74.7 164.3 84.6 94.8 148.3 62.9 104.4 135.5 121.2 92.2 162.8 80.7 97.1 168.8 60.4 106.2 139.0 133.0 99.7 155.6 82.2 106.3 191.2 68.6 107.5 146.2 138.7 115.0 155.1 90.7 109.1 189.1 64.3 109.0 174.0 142.6 119.2 149.8 99.7 Mineral fuels........................................................................................ 3 100.1 99.2 97.6 96.6 91.9 86.7 85.7 84.7 85.6 84.4 85.6 Animal and vegetables oils, fats, and waxes...................................... 4 42 142.0 152.9 144.5 164.8 114.5 128.8 101.4 108.7 90.8 95.4 84.4 ■95.3 76.5 80.8 86.8 87.0 88.9 89.1 94.5 94.7 94.1 94.3 5 51 56 97.0 93.8 92.5 96.8 96.5 87.9 97.1 97.1 89.8 96.6 95.4 90.0 96.5 93.5 88.6 95.4 89.3 84.0 93.1 88.0 77.4 92.2 89.4 68.7 96.6 99.5 75.4 103.1 114.3 80.4 104.1 111.1 88.0 6 61 62 64 67 68 69 99.4 82.5 150.2 155.0 95.5 79.7 105.4 99.2 79.2 149.0 151.6 95.3 79.6 105.2 99.2 75.9 148.3 149.6 95.9 79.8 105.4 99.1 78.5 148.7 148.2 98.2 78.2 104.4 100.3 77.8 151.0 152.2 98.4 80.2 105.3 101.2 82.5 150.0 158.7 99.4 79.1 105.5 102.2 84.2 150.4 165.3 100.2 79.4 105.6 102.7 88.0 151.3 167.9 100.1 78.8 105.7 104.4 96.3 152.1 174.4 101.5 80.3 105.7 106.8 101.1 153.9 177.7 101.5 90.1 105.6 108.5 99.7 155.2 182.3 102.4 94.6 106.2 7 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 142.3 165.3 155.0 153.4 152.4 100.9 133.3 114.9 133.1 195.5 142.9 167.4 155.7 155.1 152.0 100.0 133.3 116.1 133.9 196.6 143.1 167.1 156.0 156.3 152.4 99.9 134.1 115.3 133.8 199.3 143.3 167.5 156.2 158.4 152.2 99.4 134.5 113.8 135.0 200.7 144.0 169.1 155.5 159.0 152.3 99.9 136.5 115.1 135.5 203.3 144.2 169.2 154.7 158.9 153.3 99.2 137.0 114.2 136.4 206.8 144.6 169.5 155.0 160.4 154.4 98.9 137.8 114.4 136.5 207.4 145.5 171.4 155.7 161.8 155.3 98.1 139.7 114.9 137.9 209.7 146.2 173.0 154.7 165.0 157.7 96.1 141.3 117.0 138.0 211.4 146.7 171.7 155.9 165.8 157.8 96.0 140.8 117.4 138.5 214.7 147.2 173.4 156.5 167.8 157.9 95.5 141.2 117.6 138.9 215.7 8 84 87 99.5 104.7 175.5 100.4 104.7 178.3 100.3 105.0 178.7 100.3 105.3 178.8 102.6 103.4 104.1 105.3 107.3 107.7 182.1 183.8 183.8 104.3 110.0 184.8 186.4 188.5 190.2 88 128.0 129.1 127.5 128.5 131.6 132.9 132.7 132.0 133.4 133.1 129.5 Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s......................................... 89 92.4 93.1 93.1 92.4 95.6 95.6 97.6 97.7 98.1 102.1 103.0 Gold, non-monetary (6/83—100)...................................................... 971 69.1 75.4 77.4 77.5 81.8 82.2 97.5 94.5 98.2 108.4 110.0 ALL COMMODITIES (9/83-100)...................................................... Food (3/83-100)............................................................................ Meat (3/83-100)........................................................................... Fish (3/83-100) ............................................................................ Grain and grain preparations (3/80—100) ......................................... Vegetables and fruit (3/83-100) ..................................................... Feedstuffs for animals (3/83—100).................................................. Misc. food products (3/83—100)...................................................... Beverages and tobacco (6/83-100)................................................ Beverages (9/83 —100)................................................................... Tobacco and tobacco products (6/83 —100)..................................... Crude materials (6/83 —100)............................................................ Fixed vegetable oils and fats (6/83 —100)......................................... Chemicals (3/83 —100).................................................................... Organic chemicals (12/83 —100) ...................................................... Fertilizers, manufactured (3/83—100)............................................... Intermediate manufactured products (9/81 -1 0 0 ).............................. Leather and furskins (9/79—100)..................................................... Rubber manufactures ..................................................................... Paper and paperboard products (6/78=100)..................................... Iron and steel (3/82-100) .............................................................. Nonferrous metals (9/81—100) ....................................................... Metal manufactures, n.e.s. (3/82=100) ............................................ Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military and commercial aircraft (12/78 —100) ............................................. Power generating machinery and equipment (12/78-100) ................. Machinery specialized for particular industries (9/78-100) ................. Metalworking machinery (6/78=100) ............................................... General industrial machines and parts n.e.s. 9/78—100).................... Office machines and automatic data processing equipment ................ Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment...... Electrical machinery and equipment.................................................. Road vehicles and parts (3/80=100)............................................... Other transport equipment, excl. military and commercial aviation ...... Other manufactured articles ............................................................... Apparel (9/83=100)....................................................................... Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus....... Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches and clocks (12/77=100)...................................................................... - Data not available. 110 1986 1985 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Mar. Dec. Mar. - - - Dec. Mar. - - - 37. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification (June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated) Category Sept. 92.9 94.2 88.5 83.2 83.9 86.0 91.6 95.3 96.8 0 01 02 03 94.9 120.6 99.1 129.7 102.8 131.2 100.5 132.7 113.4 122.7 106.7 139.3 104.7 118.5 107.1 144.8 109.1 126.9 109.4 149.6 105.3 134.4 111.5 157.1 100.2 132.1 116.8 161.6 102.0 135.9 119.6 167.4 102.8 142.9 118.9 174.4 04 05 06 07 136.3 120.2 123.1 54.4 141.9 131.3 111.9 64.6 146.9 119.4 124.6 85.9 149.2 119.4 121.6 69.2 154.0 127.1 123.9 71.8 155.3 125.5 124.3 61.0 161.0 120.5 126.0 50.9 165.2 125.4 128.6 49.3 161.2 124.5 128.0 48.3 1 11 158.0 156.0 162.1 159.1 163.2 161.8 165.5 163.9 165.8 165.5 168.0 168.2 170.8 171.5 174.1 174.6 174.4 175.6 2 23 24 25 27 28 29 91.5 68.9 101.6 76.8 102.7 89.5 102.5 91.2 73.2 99.4 75.8 102.1 90.1 102.5 94.2 78.8 104.3 74.9 101.5 94.5 103.6 95.3 75.5 106.3 79.9 100.0 95.6 104.4 98.1 76.9 109.4 86.0 100.4 98.2 104.8 98.5 78.5 107.2 92.8 100.2 95.4 104.7 103.1 79.1 115.0 100.5 99.5 98.0 113.4 105.6 84.5 112.0 104.6 98.5 100.0 120.3 108.6 89.4 119.2 105.9 97.3 102.9 113.6 3 33 79.8 80.3 79.1 80.1 55.3 54.7 37.5 36.1 33.6 32.1 38.4 37.9 49.7 49.9 54.8 55.2 56.4 57.3 4 42 57.6 56.2 50.6 48.9 41.4 39.3 39.3 37.4 35.5 33.5 51.6 50.0 50.8 49.2 54.5 52.6 61.3 59.4 5 54 56 59 94.5 95.3 80.8 96.9 94.2 96.7 78.5 97.8 94.6 102.9 79.2 99.9 93.3 104.9 79.7 100.3 93.4 110.0 77.4 101.0 93.2 110.1 79.7 102.8 95.9 116.2 81.8 104.3 98.7 120.3 83.6 105.0 99.5 118.8 98.8 108.2 6 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 133.6 137.0 137.3 123.4 157.8 126.5 157.6 119.1 83.7 119.5 133.4 141.3 138.1 124.0 156.5 128.1 162.2 118.3 80.4 121.6 134.0 141.6 136.5 130.8 157.1 131.2 164.2 117.3 79.4 124.4 135.6 143.0 137.7 134.3 157.1 132.9 169.6 118.1 78.9 127.8 138.8 147.4 138.1 137.4 157.5 135.1 178.2 119.0 83.5 129.1 139.4 143.3 138.1 142.7 164.8 135.3 180.2 118.5 81.6 129.1 142.2 149.5 140.8 144.3 165.2 138.8 183.1 122.3 82.4 133.4 147.4 156.6 140.5 151.6 165.0 140.4 190.3 127.1 90.9 134.5 152.8 159.6 138.0 156.3 174.6 142.8 195.1 132.1 97.5 136.0 7 72 73 74 103.5 101.4 94.2 94.3 107.2 104.9 98.1 98.0 111.5 112.1 105.0 103.8 115.3 115.4 107.7 109.0 118.1 120.1 110.7 112.8 120.2 121.0 115.7 113.9 123.9 127.5 122.4 120.5 126.1 130.0 126.1 123.3 126.4 130.0 129.8 122.4 75 90.3 93.7 96.9 101.3 102.5 102.4 103.2 106.4 106.8 76 77 78 88.3 81.4 112.7 88.6 83.1 117.8 89.4 84.5 123.4 91.6 87.5 127.1 93.7 89.5 129.8 93.9 91.7 133.2 94.6 93.6 137.0 95.5 94.8 139.2 95.9 94.2 139.6 8 81 82 84 85 99.6 117.8 142.1 134.5 142.1 100.8 115.0 142.7 134.5 142.7 103.3 120.1 147.0 133.4 147.0 104.8 123.5 142.2 135.3 142.2 109.5 125.5 145.8 137.8 145.8 109.6 125.5 146.9 139.1 146.9 114.3 125.5 148.9 145.5 148.9 118.1 130.6 153.3 150.9 153.3 119.8 131.1 156.1 153.8 156.1 87 98.8 102.4 106.4 112.5 118.3 118.0 125.6 129.5 127.0 88 89 91.1 96.4 94.5 97.9 99.3 102.1 103.2 103.4 106.9 112.3 107.6 111.0 111.8 116.9 114.4 121.8 113.2 124.6 971 101.1 101.0 106.7 107.3 126.9 123.3 128.0 141.5 143.5 ALL COMMODITIES (9/82-100)...................................................... Food (9/77-100)............................................................................ Meat ............................................................................................ Dairy products and eggs (6/81 =100) ............................................. Fish.............................................................................................. Bakery goods, pasta products, grain and grain preparations (9/77-100) ................................................................................. Fruits and vegetables ..................................................................... Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey (3/82—100)............................ Coffee, tea, cocoa.......................................................................... Beverages and tobacco ..................................................................... Beverages .................................................................................... Crude materials.................................................................................. Crude rubber (inc. synthetic & reclaimed) (3/84—100)....................... Wood (9/81-100) ......................................................................... Pulp and waste paper (12/81 —100)................................................. Crude fertilizers and crude minerals (12/83—100) ............................. Metalliferous ores and metal scrap (3/84-100)................................ Crude vegetable and animal materials, n.e.s....................................... Fuels and related products (6/82 —100)........................................... Petroleum and petroleum products (6/82—100) ................................. Fats and oils (9/83-100)................................................................ Vegetable oils (9/83 —100).............................................................. Chemicals (9/82—100).................................................................... Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (3/84-100) .......................... Manufactured fertilizers (3/84 —100)................................................. Chemical materials and products, n.e.s. (9/84—100).......................... Intermediate manufactured products (12/77—100) .......................... Leather and furskins....................................................................... Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.............................................................. Cork and wood manufactures ......................................................... Paper and paperboard products ...................................................... Textiles......................................................................................... Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s............................................ Iron and steel (9/78—100) .............................................................. Nonferrous metals (12/81—100) ...................................................... Metal manufactures, n.e.s................................................................ Machinery and transport equipment (6/81 -1 0 0 ).............................. Machinery specialized for particular industries (9/78=100) ................. Metalworking machinery (3/80-100) ............................................... General industrial machinery and parts, n.e.s. (6/81 =100) ................. Office machines and automatic data processing equipment (3/80-100)................................................................................ Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing apparatus (3/80-100)................................................................................ Electrical machinery and equipment (12/81-100)............................. Road vehicles and parts (6/81 —100)............................................... Mise, manufactured articles (3/80-100).......................................... Plumbing, heating, and lighting fixtures (6/80=100) ........................... Furniture and parts (6/80=100) ...................................................... Clothing (9/77-100) ...................................................................... Footwear....................................................................................... Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus (12/79—100)................................................................. Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and clocks (3/80—100)....................................................................... Mise, manufactured articles, n.e.s. (6/82—100)................................. Gold, non-monetary (6 /82-100)........................................................ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1987 1986 1985 1974 SITC Dec. Mar. June Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 38. February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Price Data U.S. export price indexes by end-use category (September 1983 = 100 unless otherwise indicated) Category Percentage of 1980 trade value Foods, feeds, and beverages ................................................ Raw materials...................................................................... Raw materials, nondurable................................................. Raw materials, durable....................................................... Capital goods (12/82 —100).................................................. Automotive vehicles, parts and engines (12/82—100) .............. Consumer goods.................................................................. Durables ........................................................................... Nondurables...................................................................... 39. 1986 1985 Sept. 16.294 30.696 21.327 9.368 30.186 7.483 7.467 3.965 3.501 Mar. Dec. 76.2 96.5 98.7 91.1 106.6 108.1 101.9 100.4 103.3 77.5 95.9 97.9 91.0 106.6 109.2 101.4 99.5 103.3 June 1987 Sept. 74.7 94.9 96.1 91.9 107.5 110.4 104.5 101.8 107.2 75.5 96.0 97.5 92.5 107.4 109.5 103.7 101.8 105.5 Dec. 66.0 93.3 93.7 92.5 107.7 110.8 104.5 102.1 106.9 Mar. 68.4 94.8 95.4 93.2 108.3 111.8 105.7 102.7 108.5 June 67.1 98.2 99.4 95.1 108.9 111.9 106.9 103.9 109.8 Sept. 71.3 103.1 104.7 99.2 109.4 112.1 107.1 103.6 110.5 68.0 105.9 106.1 105.3 109.8 112.5 107.5 104.3 110.5 U.S. import price indexes by end-use category (December 1982 = 100) Category Foods, feeds, and beverages ................................................ Petroleum and petroleum products, excl. natural gas............... Raw materials, excluding petroleum ....................................... Raw materials, nondurable ................................................. Raw materials, durable....................................................... Capital goods....................................................................... Automotive vehicles, parts and engines.................................. Consumer goods.................................................................. Durable ............................................................................ Nondurable....................................................................... 40. Per centage of 1980 trade value 7.477 31.108 19.205 9.391 9.814 13.164 11.750 14.250 5.507 8.743 1985 Sept. 99.0 80.9 95.4 93.5 97.4 97.6 106.4 101.0 98.9 103.9 1986 Dec. 106.0 80.5 93.9 91.8 96.2 100.0 111.4 102.4 100.7 104.7 Mar. June 115.8 55.4 94.5 91.1 98.1 102.8 115.6 104.5 103.4 106.0 108.2 36.8 94.0 89.7 98.7 106.7 119.0 106.5 106.5 106.6 1987 Sept. 112.3 32.6 95.3 89.5 101.4 109.4 121.0 110.1 111.2 108.6 Dec. 109.2 38.3 94.9 89.7 100.3 110.7 123.9 110.6 111.6 109.2 Mar. 104.7 50.5 96.9 91.8 102.3 115.3 126.2 114.3 114.8 113.7 June 106.6 55.8 100.5 94.5 106.8 117.9 128.0 117.5 117.5 117.6 U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1 1985 Industry group Sept. Manufacturing: Food and kindred products (6/83=100) ........ Lumber and wood products, except furniture (6/83 = 100)................................ Furniture and fixtures (9/83 = 100) ...... Paper and allied products (3/81 =100)................ Chemicals and allied products (12/84 = 100) ... Petroleum and coal products (12/83 = 100)............. Primary metal products (3/82=100) .......................... Machinery, except electrical (9/78 = 100)............... Electrical machinery (12/80=100) ................... Transportation equipment (12/78=100)......... Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks (6/77 = 100)................................... 1 SIC - based classification. 112 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1986 Dec. Mar. June 1987 Sept. Dec. Mar. June Sept. 96.7 98.1 97.0 95.0 95.2 97.6 99.0 104 1 103 6 98.3 107.1 93.2 99.7 102.0 88.1 140.6 111.9 162.6 101.2 108.4 92.1 99.2 99.1 87.9 140.5 111.2 164.1 101.5 109.2 95.7 98.9 93.5 89.8 140.6 112.6 165.1 101.2 109.7 101.5 98.3 83.1 89.8 140.3 112.3 167.1 102.1 110.1 106.1 96.2 83.1 90.7 140.5 112.6 167.4 105.7 110.4 108.7 95.9 82.2 89.9 140.7 113.6 169.4 109.8 113.4 113.7 100.1 83.5 91.7 141.0 115.2 170.0 113.0 114.0 116 7 106.3 86.8 97.4 141.2 115.3 171.2 133 1 114 1 120 3 107 6 87 1 100 1 141 4 115 8 172 3 156.2 156.7 159.7 161.2 161.5 162.3 163.3 164.6 164.7 Sept. 107.5 57.9 103.5 95.4 112.0 118.2 127.9 119.1 119.0 119.3 41. U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification ’ 1987 1986 1985 Industry group Sept. Manufacturing: Food and kindred products (6/77—100) ............................ Textile mill products (9/82—100)....................................... Apparel and related products (6/77-100).......................... Lumber and wood products, except furniture (6/77-100) .................................................................. Furniture and fixtures (6/80—100)..................................... Paper and allied products (6/77—100)............................... Chemicals and allied products (9/82-100)........................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products (12/80-100)................................................................ Leather and leather products ............................................ Primary metal products (6/81 =100) .................................. Fabricated metal products (12/84 = 100)............................. Machinery, except electrical (3/80—100)............................ Electrical machinery (9/84 -100)....................................... Transportation equipment (6/81 —100) ............................... Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks (12/79-100)................................................................ Miscellaneous manufactured commodities (9/82-100).................................................................. Mar. Dec. Sept. June Dec. Mar. June Sept. 114.2 100.4 133.9 115.1 101.8 134.4 117.7 104.7 133.4 115.6 106.4 135.1 118.0 107.1 137.8 122.4 108.0 139.3 122.7 111.7 146.0 125.9 113.6 150.9 128.5 116.2 153.9 117.5 97.7 138.7 93.3 115.8 98.2 137.4 95.8 122.1 101.2 137.6 98.6 124.8 103.5 139.4 102.1 127.9 105.4 142.2 103.8 127.9 105.6 150.3 102.4 134.5 109.6 154.0 104.7 135.0 110.2 155.7 105.7 141.3 111.5 162.9 106.1 96.6 142.3 84.3 101.0 96.6 94.5 114.8 97.5 144.0 82.6 102.6 100.0 95.8 119.6 100.9 145.8 82.0 104.9 105.5 97.0 123.9 100.6 144.6 82.4 108.5 109.0 100.2 128.0 101.9 147.7 84.9 110.3 112.5 102.6 130.4 102.1 148.7 84.0 111.1 114.2 104.0 133.2 104.4 151.8 85.4 115.5 119.1 105.7 136.5 105.8 156.2 91.3 116.2 122.2 106.9 138.4 104.9 159.8 96.0 118.1 122.6 106.6 138.7 94.6 98.8 103.9 109.1 113.7 113.7 119.1 122.1 120.4 96.6 98.7 99.9 101.7 106.9 108.1 110.3 113.8 116.4 1 SIC - based classification. 42. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted (1977 = 100) Quarterly Indexes Business: Output per hour of all persons......................... Compensation per hour................................... Real compensation per hour............................ Unit labor costs .............................................. Unit nonlabor payments .................................. Implicit price deflator ...................................... Nonfarm business: Output per hour of all persons......................... Compensation per hour................................... Real compensation per hour............................ Unit labor costs.............................................. 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..................................................... Unit nonlabor payments.................................. Implicit price deflator ...................................... Output per hour of all persons......................... Compensation per hour................................... Real compensation per hour............................ Unit labor costs........................................... . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis II III III IV 109.5 180.7 100.1 165.0 163.1 164.3 109.7 182.2 101.3 166.2 163.9 165.4 109.6 183.6 101.4 167.5 165.7 166.9 109.6 185.2 101.6 169.0 162.4 166.7 109.7 185.8 100.7 169.4 166.0 168.2 110.1 187.3 100.3 170.2 168.6 169.6 111.1 189.2 100.3 170.2 171.3 170.6 105.9 178.3 99.2 168.3 160.8 165.7 107.7 180.0 99.7 167.2 164.7 166.4 107.7 181.3 100.8 168.4 165.2 167.3 107.5 182.6 100.9 169.8 167.0 168.8 107.5 184.4 101.2 171.5 163.9 168.8 107.6 184.9 100.2 171.8 167.4 170.3 108.0 186.3 99.7 172.5 169.2 171.4 108.9 188.0 99.7 172.6 172.2 172.5 109.2 173.8 97.6 163.7 159.1 177.5 142.5 165.2 161.2 108.9 175.7 97.7 166.0 161.4 179.4 128.7 161.6 161.5 109.8 177.2 98.2 166.3 161.5 180.7 129.7 162.8 161.9 109.7 178.4 99.1 167.2 162.6 180.6 129.5 162.7 162.7 109.9 179.5 99.2 168.5 163.2 184.2 130.6 165.4 164.0 110.5 181.0 99.3 168.7 163.8 183.2 127.7 163.7 163.8 109.7 180.8 98.0 169.7 164.8 184.1 132.2 165.9 165.2 109.9 182.0 97.4 170.9 165.6 186.6 132.9 167.8 166.3 110.6 183.4 97.2 171.2 165.8 187.2 140.5 170.8 167.5 125.3 178.0 99.9 142.1 126.1 180.2 100.2 142.9 127.6 181.0 100.3 141.9 128.4 182.1 101.2 141.8 129.3 183.1 101.2 141.7 129.8 184.3 101.2 142.0 130.8 183.9 99.6 140.5 132.9 184.8 98.9 139.0 134.1 185.4 98.3 138.2 III IV 106.5 172.4 98.5 161.9 158.7 160.8 107.2 174.6 98.6 162.8 160.4 162.0 108.2 177.0 99.4 163.6 161.8 163.0 107.9 179.3 99.7 166.1 160.2 164.0 105.2 172.2 98.4 163.6 159.5 162.2 105.7 174.1 98.3 164.7 161.5 163.6 106.4 176.2 98.9 165.7 163.4 164.9 107.0 169.9 97.0 163.6 158.9 177.5 132.0 161.6 159.8 107.7 171.8 97.0 164.3 159.5 178.7 132.2 162.5 160.5 121.3 173.3 99.0 142.9 124.1 176.1 99.5 142.0 Manufacturing: I II II I 1987 1986 1985 Item I MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity Data 43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years (1977 = 100) Item 1960 1970 1973 1976 1978 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Private business Productivity: Output per hour of all persons....................... Output per unit of capital services.................. Multifactor productivity.................................. Output.......................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons..................................... Capital services ........................................... Combined units of labor and capital input....... Capital per hour of all persons......................... 67.3 102.1 78.1 55.3 88.4 101.9 92.9 80.2 95.9 105.3 99.1 93.0 98.4 97.2 98.0 94.5 100.8 102.0 101.2 105.8 99.2 94.2 97.4 106.6 100.6 92.4 97.7 108.9 100.3 86.7 95.3 105.4 103.1 88.4 97.7 109.9 105.7 92.8 101.0 119.2 107.6 92.8 102.2 124.0 109.7 92.8 103.4 128.1 82.2 54.2 70.8 65.9 90.8 78.7 86.3 86.7 96.9 88.3 93.8 91.1 96.1 97.2 96.5 101.2 105.0 103.8 104.5 98.8 107.5 113.1 109.4 105.3 108.2 117.8 111.5 108.8 105.2 121.7 110.7 115.7 106.7 124.4 112.6 116.6 112.8 128.5 118.1 113.9 115.2 133.6 121.3 116.0 116.8 138.0 123.8 118.2 70.7 103.6 80.9 54.4 89.2 102.8 93.7 79.9 96.4 106.0 99.6 92.9 98.5 97.3 98.1 94.4 100.8 101.9 101.2 106.0 98.7 93.4 96.9 106.6 99.6 91.1 96.7 108.4 99.1 85.1 94.1 104.8 102.5 87.3 97.0 110.1 104.7 91.3 99.9 119.3 105.9 90.8 100.5 123.7 107.6 90.5 101.4 127.6 77.0 52.5 67.3 68.2 89.6 77.8 85.3 86.8 96.3 87.6 93.3 91.0 95.8 97.0 96.2 101.3 105.1 104.0 104.7 98.9 108.0 114.1 110.0 105.6 108.8 119.0 112.2 109.4 105.7 123.2 111.4 116.5 107.4 126.1 113.5 117.4 114.0 130.6 119.4 114.6 116.8 136.3 123.1 116.7 118.5 141.0 125.8 119.0 62.2 102.5 71.9 52.5 80.8 98.6 85.2 78.6 93.4 111.4 97.9 96.3 97.1 96.2 96.8 93.1 101.5 102.1 101.7 106.0 101.4 91.2 98.7 103.2 103.6 89.2 99.8 104.8 105.9 81.8 99.2 98.4 112.0 86.9 105.1 104.7 118.1 95.7 112.2 117.5 124.2 97.8 117.0 122.5 128.8 99.3 120.6 125.9 84.4 51.2 73.0 60.7 97.3 79.7 92.2 82.0 103.1 86.4 98.4 83.8 95.9 96.7 96.1 100.9 104.4 103.7 104.2 99.4 101.7 113.1 104.5 111.2 101.1 117.5 105.0 116.2 92.9 120.3 99.2 129.4 93.5 120.6 99.7 129.0 99.5 122.8 104.7 123.5 98.7 125.3 104.8 127.0 97.8 126.8 104.4 129.7 Private nonfarm business Productivity: Output per hour of all persons....................... Output per unit of capital services.................. Multifactor productivity.................................. Output.......................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons..................................... Capital services ........................................... Combined units of labor and capital input....... Capital per hour of all persons......................... Manufacturing Productivity: Output per hour of all persons....................... Output per unit of capital services.................. Multifactor productivity.................................. Output.......................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons..................................... Capital services ........................................... Combined units of labor and capital inputs...... Capital per hour of all persons......................... 114 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 44. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years (1977=100) Item 1960 1970 1973 1975 1977 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Output per hour of all persons......................... Compensation per hour................................... Real compensation per hour............................ Unit labor costs............................................. Unit nonlabor payments .................................. Implicit price deflator...................................... 67.6 33.6 68.9 49.7 46.4 48.5 88.4 57.8 90.2 65.4 59.4 63.2 95.9 70.9 96.7 73.9 72.5 73.4 95.7 85.2 95.9 89.0 88.2 88.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 119.1 99.4 119.5 112.5 117.0 99.3 131.5 96.7 132.5 118.7 127.6 100.7 143.7 95.7 142.7 134.6 139.8 100.3 154.9 97.3 154.5 136.6 148.1 103.0 161.5 98.2 156.7 146.4 153.0 105.6 168.0 98.0 159.1 156.5 158.2 107.5 175.9 99.1 163.6 160.3 162.4 109.5 182.8 101.0 166.9 163.8 165.8 71.0 35.3 72.3 49.7 46.3 48.5 89.3 58.2 90.8 65.2 60.0 63.4 96.4 71.2 97.1 73.9 69.3 72.3 96.0 85.6 96.4 89.2 86.7 88.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 118.9 99.2 119.7 110.5 116.5 98.8 131.3 96.6 132.9 118.5 127.8 99.8 143.6 95.7 144.0 133.5 140.3 99.2 154.8 97.2 156.0 136.5 149.2 102.5 161.5 98.2 157.6 148.3 154.3 104.6 167.8 97.9 160.4 156.4 159.0 105.8 175.2 98.7 165.6 161.3 164.1 107.5 182.0 100.6 169.3 165.2 167.8 73.4 36.9 75.5 49.4 50.2 47.0 59.8 51.5 50.7 91.1 59.2 92.4 64.8 65.0 64.2 52.3 60.1 63.3 97.5 71.6 97.6 72.7 73.4 70.7 65.6 68.9 71.9 96.7 85.9 96.7 90.3 88.8 94.9 77.0 88.6 88.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 118.7 99.1 118.2 119.0 115.8 94.5 108.4 115.4 99.1 131.1 96.4 133.4 132.3 136.7 85.2 118.6 127.6 99.6 143.3 95.5 147.7 143.8 159.1 98.1 137.8 141.7 100.4 154.3 96.9 159.5 153.8 176.4 78.5 142.1 149.8 103.5 159.9 97.3 159.5 154.5 174.3 110.9 152.1 153.7 106.0 165.8 96.7 160.8 156.5 173.6 136.5 160.6 157.9 108.2 172.8 97.4 164.4 159.7 178.3 133.9 162.7 160.7 109.9 178.9 98.9 167.7 162.8 182.2 129.3 163.7 163.1 62.2 36.5 74.8 58.7 60.0 59.1 80.8 57.4 89.5 71.0 64.1 69.0 93.4 68.8 93.8 73.7 70.7 72.8 92.9 85.1 95.9 91.7 87.5 90.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 101.4 118.6 99.1 117.0 98.9 111.7 101.4 132.4 97.4 130.6 97.8 121.0 103.6 145.2 96.7 140.1 111.8 131.8 105.9 157.5 98.9 148.7 114.0 138.6 112.0 162.4 98.8 145.0 128.5 140.2 118.1 168.0 98.0 142.2 138.6 141.2 124.2 176.9 99.6 142.4 134.7 140.2 128.8 182.7 100.9 141.8 137.9 140.7 Business: Nonfarm business: Output per hour of all persons......................... Compensation per hour................................... Real compensation per hour............................ Unit labor costs ............................................. 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..................................................... Unit nonlabor payments.................................. Implicit price deflator ...................................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons......................... Compensation per hour................................... Real compensation per hour............................ Unit labor costs............................................. Unit nonlabor payments .................................. Implicit price deflator...................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 45. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data seasonally adjusted Annual average 1987 1986 Country 1985 1986 I II III IV I II III Total labor force basis United States................................ Canada ........................................ Australia ...................................... Japan .......................................... 7.1 10.4 8.2 2.6 6.9 9.5 8.0 2.8 6.9 9.7 7.9 2.7 7.1 9.5 7.7 2.8 6.9 9.6 8.2 2.9 6.8 9.4 8.3 2.9 6.5 9.6 8.3 3.0 6.2 9.0 8.1 3.1 5.9 8.8 8.0 2.8 France ......................................... Germany...................................... Italy ’, 2........................................ Sweden ....................................... United Kingdom............................ 10.2 7.4 5.9 2.8 11.2 10.4 7.1 6.2 2.6 11.1 10.2 7.3 6.1 2.7 11.1 10.4 7.2 6.2 2.6 11.2 10.6 7.0 5.9 2.6 11.1 10.6 6.9 6.5 2.6 10.9 11.0 7.0 6.6 2.0 10.6 11.0 7.1 6.6 1.9 10.2 10.9 7.1 6.6 1.8 9.7 United States................................ Canada ........................................ Australia ...................................... Japan .......................................... 7.2 10.5 8.3 2.6 7.0 9.6 8.1 2.8 7.0 9.7 8.0 2.7 7.2 9.6 7.8 2.8 7.0 9.7 8.3 2.9 6.8 9.4 8.4 2.9 6.6 9.6 8.3 3.0 6.3 9.1 8.2 3.1 6.0 8.8 8.0 2.8 France ......................................... Germany...................................... Italy1, 2 ......................................... Sweden ....................................... United Kingdom............................ 10.4 7.5 6.0 2.8 11.2 10.7 7.2 6.3 2.7 11.1 10.5 7.4 6.2 2.8 11.2 10.7 7.3 6.3 2.6 11.2 10.8 7.2 6.0 2.6 11.2 10.8 7.0 6.6 2.6 10.9 11.2 7.1 6.7 2.0 10.7 11.3 7.2 6.7 1.9 10.3 11.2 7.3 6.8 1.9 9.8 Civilian labor force basis 1 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter. 2 Major changes in the Italian labor force survey, intro duced in 1977, resulted in a large increase in persons enu merated as unemployed. However, many persons reported that they had not actively sought work in the past 30 days, and they have been provisionally excluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Inclusion of such persons would about double the Italian unemployment rate shown. NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjust ment factors to current published data and therefore should be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual figures. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: International Comparisons Data 46. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts, 10 countries (Numbers in thousands) Employment status and country Labor force United States................................................. Canada ......................................................... Australia........................................................ Japan ........................................................... France........................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy............................................................... Netherlands................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom.............................................. 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985 1986 99,009 102,251 104,962 106,940 108,670 110,204 111,550 113,544 115,461 117,834 10,500 10,895 11,231 11,573 11,904 11,958 12,183 12,399 12,639 12,870 7,562 6,910 6,997 7,133 7,272 6,443 6,519 6,693 6,810 6,358 53,820 54,610 55,210 55,740 56,320 56,980 58,110 58,480 58,820 59,410 23,480 22,300 22,460 22,670 22,800 22,930 23,160 23,130 23,290 23,340 25,870 26,000 26,250 26,520 26,650 26,700 26,650 26,760 26,980 27,180 20,510 20,570 20,850 21,120 21,320 21,410 21,590 21,670 21,800 21,990 5,710 5,760 5,310 5,520 5,570 5,600 5,620 4,950 5,010 5,100 4,437 4,369 4,385 4,418 4,312 4,327 4,350 4,168 4,203 4,262 26,050 26,260 26,350 26,520 26,590 26,740 26,790 27,180 27,370 27,460 Participation rate' United States................................................. Canada ......................................................... Australia........................................................ Japan ........................................................... France........................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy............................................................... Netherlands................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom............................................. 1984 63.8 64.1 62.1 62.6 57.2 53.2 48.2 50.2 66.9 62.5 63.9 64.8 61.9 62.6 57.1 52.9 48.3 51.4 66.8 62.2 64.0 64.1 61.7 62.7 57.1 52.6 47.7 51.2 66.8 62.3 64.0 64.4 61.4 63.1 56.6 52.3 47.5 50.9 66.7 62.1 64.4 64.8 61.5 62.7 56.6 52.4 47.3 50.5 66.6 62.6 64.8 65.2 61.8 62.3 56.2 52.6 47.2 50.7 66.9 62.7 65.3 65.7 63.0 62.1 56.2 53.0 47.5 50.8 67.2 62.5 62.3 61.6 62.7 62.5 57.6 53.4 48.2 49.0 65.9 62.7 63.2 62.7 61.9 62.8 57.5 53.3 47.8 48.8 66.1 62.8 63.7 63.4 61.6 62.7 57.5 53.3 48.0 49.0 66.6 62.6 92,017 9,651 6,000 52,720 21,180 24,970 19,670 4,700 4,093 24,400 96,048 9,987 6,038 53,370 21,250 25,130 19,720 4,750 4,109 24,610 98,824 10,395 6,111 54,040 21,300 25,470 19,930 4,830 4,174 24,940 57.9 56.6 59.2 61.2 54.7 51.6 46.3 46.5 64.8 58.7 59.3 57.5 58.0 61.3 54.4 51.5 45.9 46.3 64.6 58.8 59.9 58.7 57.8 61.4 54.0 51.7 45.9 46.4 65.3 59.2 59.2 59.3 58.3 61.3 53.5 51.7 46.1 47.0 65.6 58.1 59.0 59.9 58.4 61.2 52.8 50.8 45.9 46.6 65.1 55.7 57.8 57.0 57.3 61.2 52.3 49.6 45.2 45.8 64.7 55.3 57.9 56.7 55.3 61.4 51.8 48.6 44.7 44.5 64.4 54.7 59.5 57.4 56.0 61.0 51.0 48.5 44.5 44.3 64.5 55.3 60.1 58.4 56.6 60.6 50.4 48.7 44.4 45.4 65.0 55.7 60.7 59.4 57.9 60.4 50.2 49.1 44.6 45.9 65.4 55.6 6,991 849 358 1,100 1,120 900 840 250 75 1,660 6,202 908 405 1,240 1,210 870 850 260 94 1,650 6,137 836 408 1,170 1,370 780 920 270 88 1,420 7,637 865 409 1,140 1,470 770 920 330 86 1,850 8,273 898 394 1,260 1,730 1,090 1,040 510 108 2,790 10,678 1,314 495 1,360 1,920 1,560 1,160 590 137 3,030 10,717 1,448 697 1,560 1,960 1,900 1,270 710 151 3,190 8,539 1,399 642 1,610 2,310 1,970 1,280 690 136 3,180 8,312 1,328 602 1,560 2,440 2,030 1,310 600 125 3,070 8,237 1,236 610 1,670 2,510 1,970 1,380 560 118 3,060 7.1 8.1 5.6 2.0 5.0 3.5 4.1 5.1 1.8 6.4 6.1 8.3 6.3 2.3 5.4 3.3 4.1 5.2 2.2 6.3 5.8 7.4 6.3 2.1 6.0 3.0 4.4 5.3 2.1 5.4 7.1 7.5 6.1 2.0 6.4 2.9 4.4 6.2 2.0 7.0 7.6 7.5 5.8 2.2 7.5 4.1 4.9 9.2 2.5 10.5 9.7 11.0 7.2 2.4 8.3 5.8 5.4 10.6 3.1 11.3 9.6 11.9 10.0 2.7 8.5 7.1 5.9 12.7 3.5 11.9 7.5 11.3 9.0 2.8 9.9 7.4 5.9 12.3 3.1 11.7 7.2 10.5 8.3 2.6 10.4 7.5 6.0 10.5 2.8 11.2 7.0 9.6 8.1 2.8 10.7 7.2 6.3 9.7 2.7 11.1 Employed United States................................................. Canada ......................................................... Australia........................................................ Japan ........................................................... France........................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy............................................................... Netherlands................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom.............................................. 99,303 100,397 10,708 11,006 6,284 6,416 54,600 55,060 21,330 21,200 25,750 25,560 20,200 20,280 4,980 5,010 4,219 4,226 24,670 23,800 99,526 100,834 105,005 107,150 109,597 10,644 10,734 11,000 11,311 11,634 6,300 6,490 6,670 6,952 6,415 55,620 56,550 56,870 57,260 57,740 21,240 21,170 20,980 20,900 20,970 25,140 24,750 24,790 24,950 25,210 20,250 20,320 20,390 20,490 20,610 5,200 4,890 4,930 5,110 4,980 4,249 4,293 4,319 4,213 4,218 23,710 23,600 24,000 24,300 24,400 Employment-population ratio2 United States ................................................. Canada ......................................................... Australia........................................................ Japan ........................................................... France ........................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy............................................................... Netherlands................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom.............................................. Unemployed United States ................................................. Canada ......................................................... Australia........................................................ Japan ........................................................... France........................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy............................................................... Netherlands................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom.............................................. Unemployment rate United States................................................. Canada ......................................................... Australia........................................................ Japan ........................................................... France ........................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy............................................................... Netherlands................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom.............................................. 1 Labor force as a percent of the civilian working-age population. 116FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 Employment as a percent of the civilian working-age population. 47. Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries (1977=100) Item and country 1960 1970 1973 1974 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 62.2 50.7 23.2 33.0 37.2 36.4 40.3 35.4 32.4 54.6 42.3 55.9 80.8 75.6 64.8 60.4 65.6 69.6 71.2 72.7 64.3 81.7 80.7 80.4 93.4 90.3 83.1 78.8 83.3 82.3 84.0 90.9 81.5 94.6 94.8 95.5 90.6 91.7 86.5 83.2 86.0 85.3 87.4 95.3 88.1 97.7 98.8 97.1 92.9 88.6 87.7 86.5 94.6 88.5 90.1 91.1 86.2 96.8 100.2 94.9 97.1 94.8 94.3 95.3 98.2 95.1 96.5 98.9 95.8 99.7 101.7 99.1 101.5 101.1 108.0 106.1 101.5 104.6 103.1 103.0 106.4 101.8 102.8 101.5 101.4 102.0 114.8 111.9 106.5 109.7 108.2 110.5 112.3 107.1 110.9 102.5 101.4 98.2 122.7 119.2 112.3 110.6 108.6 116.9 113.9 106.7 112.7 101.8 103.6 102.9 127.2 127.6 114.2 114.0 111.0 124.8 116.9 107.0 113.2 107.0 105.9 98.3 135.0 135.2 114.6 122.0 112.6 129.6 119.4 109.8 116.5 113.5 112.0 105.4 142.3 148.2 120.2 125.2 119.2 135.7 127.5 117.2 125.5 123.2 118.1 116.8 152.5 154.4 118.6 129.0 123.6 144.4 140.5 123.9 131.0 129.8 124.2 119.7 163.7 159.0 118.3 133.0 128.7 146.6 145.1 125.2 136.1 134.7 128.8 119.4 168.2 163.1 119.9 135.6 130.6 148.3 144.7 124.4 136.4 139.5 52.5 41.3 19.2 41.9 49.2 35.4 50.0 36.4 44.8 55.1 52.6 71.2 78.6 73.5 69.9 78.6 82.0 73.3 86.6 78.0 84.4 86.9 92.5 95.0 96.3 93.5 91.9 96.4 95.9 88.6 96.1 90.5 95.8 99.5 100.3 104.8 91.7 96.3 91.7 100.2 97.4 91.8 95.4 96.3 100.0 104.0 105.7 103.5 84.9 89.9 86.2 92.7 95.0 90.0 91.0 86.9 92.7 101.0 106.1 96.3 93.1 96.5 94.8 99.7 99.6 96.1 98.0 97.9 99.0 101.4 106.1 98.2 106.0 104.6 106.7 101.4 99.7 102.3 101.8 101.8 102.8 98.2 97.3 100.6 108.1 108.5 113.9 104.1 105.4 105.3 106.6 108.6 106.1 100.3 103.6 100.5 103.2 103.6 124.1 106.8 110.1 104.6 106.6 115.4 106.6 98.8 104.0 91.7 104.8 107.4 129.8 105.7 106.6 102.9 104.9 115.1 106.7 97.7 100.6 86.2 98.4 93.6 137.3 110.1 108.3 104.0 102.4 113.4 105.0 97.4 100.1 86.4 104.7 99.6 148.2 114.8 115.6 103.8 103.6 111.5 107.0 97.2 105.2 88.9 117.5 114.9 165.4 117.5 119.7 104.0 106.4 116.2 113.3 102.6 111.5 92.5 122.5 121.2 179.3 119.9 123.4 103.3 110.1 118.0 116.0 105.2 115.3 95.2 125.9 123.9 182.1 122.0 126.7 103.0 112.8 121.9 117.3 107.0 115.2 96.2 84.4 81.4 82.7 127.1 132.4 97.2 123.8 102.8 138.4 101.0 124.4 127.3 97.3 97.2 107.9 130.2 125.1 105.3 121.7 107.4 131.2 106.4 114.6 118.1 103.1 103.6 110.7 122.3 115.2 107.7 114.4 99.6 117.6 105.1 105.7 109.8 101.2 105.0 106.1 120.4 113.2 107.6 109.2 101.0 113.5 106.5 107.0 106.6 91.4 101.5 98.2 107.1 100.4 101.7 101.0 95.4 107.6 104.3 105.9 101.5 95.9 101.8 100.6 104.6 101.4 101.2 101.6 99.0 103.3 101.7 104.3 99.0 104.4 103.4 98.8 95.5 98.3 97.8 98.7 98.8 96.6 96.5 94.6 99.1 106.5 106.3 99.3 93.0 99.0 95.9 98.5 98.2 94.4 93.6 93.4 98.0 101.7 105.5 101.2 89.6 98.0 94.6 98.1 98.7 93.6 92.6 92.3 90.1 101.1 104.3 102.0 82.8 93.4 90.3 94.6 92.2 91.2 91.3 88.9 80.6 92.9 95.2 101.7 81.4 94.5 85.2 91.0 87.5 88.0 88.6 85.9 76.2 93.5 94.5 104.2 77.5 96.2 82.9 86.9 82.2 83.9 82.9 83.9 72.2 99.5 98.3 108.5 76.1 100.9 80.6 86.1 80.5 80.6 82.8 85.1 71.2 98.7 101.2 109.6 75.4 104.3 77.7 85.6 80.5 79.9 84.0 84.7 70.7 97.8 103.8 108.3 74.8 105.7 75.9 86.4 82.2 81.1 86.0 84.5 69.0 36.5 27.5 8.9 13.8 12.6 15.1 18.8 8.4 12.5 15.8 14.7 15.1 57.4 47.9 33.9 34.9 36.3 36.5 48.0 26.1 39.0 37.9 38.5 31.3 68.8 60.0 55.1 53.5 56.1 52.1 67.5 43.7 60.5 54.5 54.2 47.5 76.2 69.1 72.3 65.2 67.9 61.9 76.9 54.5 71.9 63.6 63.8 57.0 85.1 78.9 84.2 79.0 81.0 76.5 84.5 70.2 82.2 77.2 77.3 76.0 92.1 90.3 90.7 89.5 90.4 88.7 91.3 84.2 91.9 88.8 91.5 88.3 108.2 107.6 106.6 107.8 110.2 113.0 107.8 114.5 108.4 110.0 111.4 115.9 118.6 118.6 113.4 117.5 123.1 128.4 116.1 134.7 117.0 116.0 120.1 137.4 132.4 131.3 120.7 130.4 135.9 148.5 125.6 160.2 123.6 128.0 133.6 167.4 145.2 151.1 129.8 144.5 149.7 172.0 134.5 198.4 129.1 142.8 148.1 193.9 157.5 167.0 136.6 150.7 162.9 203.9 141.0 238.3 137.5 156.0 158.9 209.3 162.4 177.2 140.7 159.7 174.2 225.2 148.3 282.8 144.0 173.5 173.3 224.4 168.0 185.5 144.9 173.0 184.4 247.3 155.5 314.5 150.0 188.3 189.7 238.8 176.9 194.7 152.0 184.9 196.1 267.3 164.9 347.3 157.7 204.8 212.4 254.6 182.7 202.3 157.3 191.8 207.7 279.2 172.5 362.1 161.5 224.6 228.1 273.5 58.7 54.2 38.4 41.7 33.8 41.5 46.6 23.7 38.5 29.0 34.8 27.1 71.0 63.4 52.3 57.8 55.4 52.5 67.4 36.0 60.7 46.4 47.7 38.9 73.7 66.5 66.4 67.9 67.4 63.4 80.3 48.1 74.3 57.6 57.2 49.8 84.1 75.3 83.6 78.3 79.0 72.6 88.0 57.2 81.6 65.2 64.6 58.7 91.7 89.1 96.0 91.2 85.6 86.5 93.8 77.1 95.4 79.7 77.1 80.2 94.9 95.3 96.2 93.9 92.1 93.3 94.6 85.1 96.0 89.1 90.0 89.1 106.6 106.5 98.7 101.6 108.6 108.0 104.5 111.2 101.8 108.1 108.4 114.2 117.0 116.2 98.8 105.0 115.7 117.0 107.3 121.9 104.1 108.2 108.3 134.1 130.6 133.7 98.4 109.4 121.0 134.3 115.7 137.0 108.5 120.0 118.6 164.5 140.1 146.7 102.0 113.2 131.1 151.0 121.2 158.9 110.4 133.4 130.9 181.2 148.7 170.0 101.2 111.4 142.2 167.2 125.2 184.0 115.2 142.1 136.3 184.4 145.0 168.1 98.9 107.8 144.9 179.9 124.4 208.4 113.0 148.0 138.1 182.2 142.2 158.8 95.0 112.1 155.4 191.6 125.8 217.8 106.8 152.0 144.8 183.9 142.4 162.6 92.9 116.3 165.7 200.9 128.1 236.9 108.7 163.5 156.1 189.0 141.8 169.4 93.5 117.6 173.2 205.9 132.1 244.1 111.6 180.5 167.3 196.1 58.7 59.4 28.5 30.0 29.5 41.6 25.9 33.7 25.1 21.7 30.1 43.6 71.0 64.5 39.1 41.7 44.4 46.7 42.9 50.6 41.2 34.5 41.1 53.5 73.7 70.6 65.6 62.7 67.2 70.2 70.4 73.1 65.6 53.4 58.7 70.0 84.1 81.8 76.8 72.1 77.9 74.3 79.1 77.6 74.6 62.8 65.1 78.8 91.7 93.1 86.7 89.1 89.6 99.3 88.7 104.3 92.8 81.4 83.2 102.0 94.9 102.7 86.9 87.2 91.5 96.1 87.3 90.5 89.1 86.9 92.3 92.1 106.6 99.3 126.8 115.8 118.4 117.9 121.0 115.6 115.7 109.7 107.2 125.6 117.0 105.4 121.3 128.3 132.0 135.2 135.9 129.5 127.4 113.8 112.9 163.1 130.6 121.5 116.8 134.3 129.0 156.4 147.9 141.4 134.1 129.3 125.3 219.2 140.1 130.0 123.8 109.6 110.3 136.4 124.9 123.2 108.9 123.6 115.4 210.2 148.7 146.3 108.8 87.2 102.3 124.9 119.7 119.9 105.8 117.1 96.9 184.8 145.0 144.9 111.5 75.5 95.1 116.1 113.1 121.1 97.1 107.9 80.4 158.3 142.2 130.3 107.2 69.5 90.1 107.8 102.6 109.5 81.6 99.1 78.2 140.9 142.4 126.5 104.3 70.2 93.9 110.0 101.1 109.6 80.4 101.3 81.1 140.5 141.8 129.5 148.7 94.3 128.4 146.2 141.3 144.5 111.9 129.8 104.9 164.9 Output per hour United States................................................. Canada ......................................................... Japan ........................................................... Belgium......................................................... Denmark....................................................... France.......................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy.............................................................. Netherlands................................................... Norway.......................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom............................................. Output United States................................................. Canada ......................................................... Japan ........................................................... Belgium......................................................... Denmark....................................................... France.......................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy............................................................... Netherlands................................................... Nonway.......................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom............................................. Total hours United States................................................. Canada ......................................................... Japan ........................................................... Belgium......................................................... Denmark....................................................... France .......................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy............................................................... Netherlands................................................... Norway.......................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom............................................. Compensation per hour United States................................................. Canada ......................................................... Japan ........................................................... Belgium......................................................... Denmark....................................................... France .......................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy.................................................................. Netherlands................................................... Norway.......................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom............................................. Unit labor costs: National currency basis United States................................................. Canada ......................................................... Japan ........................................................... Belgium......................................................... Denmark....................................................... France.......................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy.............................................................. Netherlands................................................... Nonway......................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom............................................. Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis United States................................................. Canada............................. ........................... Japan ........................................................... Belgium......................................................... Denmark....................................................... France .......................................................... Germany....................................................... Italy............................................................... Netherlands................................................... Norway.......................................................... Sweden......................................................... United Kingdom............................................. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 117 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW February 1988 • Current Labor Statistics: Illness and Injury Data 48. Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2 Industry and type of case1 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 PRIVATE SECTOR3 Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ 9.3 3.8 61.6 9.4 4.1 63.5 9.5 4.3 67.7 8.7 4.0 65.2 8.3 3.8 61.7 7.7 3.5 58.7 7.6 3.4 58.5 8.0 3.7 63.4 7.9 3.6 64.9 11.5 5.1 81.1 11.6 5.4 80.7 11.7 5.7 83.7 11.9 5.8 82.7 12.3 5.9 82.8 11.8 5.9 86.0 11.9 6.1 90.8 12.0 6.1 90.7 11.4 5.7 91.3 10.9 6.0 128.8 11.5 6.4 143.2 11.4 6.8 150.5 11.2 6.5 163.6 11.6 6.2 146.4 10.5 5.4 137.3 8.4 4.5 125.1 9.7 5.3 160.2 8.4 4.8 145.3 15.5 5.9 111.5 16.0 6.4 109.4 16.2 6.8 120.4 15.7 6.5 117.0 15.1 6.3 113.1 14.6 6.0 115.7 14.8 6.3 118.2 15.5 6.9 128.1 15.2 6.8 128.9 15.0 5.7 100.2 15.9 6.3 105.3 16.3 6.8 111.2 15.5 6.5 113.0 15.1 6.1 107.1 14.1 5.9 112.0 14.4 6.2 113.0 15.4 6.9 121.3 15.2 6.8 120.4 16.0 5.7 116.7 16.6 6.2 110.9 16.6 6.7 123.1 16.3 6.3 117.6 14.9 6.0 106.0 15.1 5.8 113.1 15.4 6.2 122.4 14.9 6.4 131.7 14.5 6.3 127.3 15.6 6.1 115.5 15.8 6.6 111.0 16.0 6.9 124.3 15.5 6.7 118.9 15.2 6.6 119.3 14.7 6.2 118.6 14.8 6.4 119.0 15.8 7.1 130.1 15.4 7.0 133.3 13.1 5.1 82.3 13.2 5.6 84.9 13.3 5.9 90.2 12.2 5.4 86.7 11.5 5.1 82.0 10.2 4.4 75.0 10.0 4.3 73.5 10.6 4.7 77.9 10.4 4.6 80.2 22.3 10.4 178.0 22.6 11.1 178.8 20.7 10.8 175.9 18.6 9.5 171.8 17.6 9.0 158.4 16.9 8.3 153.3 18.3 9.2 163.5 19.6 9.9 172.0 18.5 9.3 171.4 17.2 6.0 92.0 17.5 6.9 95.9 17.6 7.1 99.6 16.0 6.6 97.6 15.1 6.2 91.9 13.9 5.5 85.6 14.1 5.7 83.0 15.3 6.4 101.5 15.0 6.3 100.4 16.9 6.9 120.4 16.8 7.8 126.3 16.8 8.0 133.7 15.0 7.1 128.1 14.1 6.9 122.2 13.0 6.1 112.2 13.1 6.0 112.0 13.6 6.6 120.8 13.9 6.7 127.8 16.2 6.8 119.4 17.0 7.5 123.6 17.3 8.1 134.7 15.2 7.1 128.3 14.4 6.7 121.3 12.4 5.4 101.6 12.4 5.4 103.4 13.3 6.1 115.3 12.6 5.7 113.8 19.1 7.2 109.0 19.3 8.0 112.4 19.9 8.7 124.2 18.5 8.0 118.4 17.5 7.5 109.9 15.3 6.4 102.5 15.1 6.1 96.5 16.1 6.7 104.9 16.3 6.9 110.1 14.0 4.7 69.9 14.4 5.4 75.1 14.7 5.9 83.6 13.7 5.5 81.3 12.9 5.1 74.9 10.7 4.2 66.0 9.8 3.6 58.1 10.7 4.1 65.8 10.8 4.2 69.3 8.6 3.0 46.7 8.7 3.3 50.3 8.6 3.4 51.9 8.0 3.3 51.8 7.4 3.1 48.4 6.5 2.7 42.2 6.3 2.6 41.4 6.8 2.8 45.0 6.4 2.7 45.7 11.8 5.0 79.3 11.5 5.1 78.0 11.6 5.5 85.9 10.6 4.9 82.4 9.8 4.6 78.1 9.2 4.0 72.2 8.4 3.6 64.5 9.3 4.2 68.8 9.0 3.9 71.6 7.0 2.4 37.4 6.9 2.6 37.0 7.2 2.8 40.0 6.8 2.7 41.8 6.5 2.7 39.2 5.6 2.3 37.0 5.2 2.1 35.6 5.4 2.2 37.5 5.2 2.2 37.9 11.5 4.0 58.7 11.8 4.5 66.4 11.7 4.7 67.7 10.9 4.4 67.9 10.7 4.4 68.3 9.9 4.1 69.9 9.9 4.0 66.3 10.5 4.3 70.2 9.7 4.2 73.2 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3 Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays............................................................................... Mining Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Construction Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ General building contractors: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Heavy construction contractors: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Special trade contractors: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Manufacturing Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Durable goods Lumber and wood products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Furniture and fixtures: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Stone, clay, and glass products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Primary metal industries: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Fabricated metal products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Machinery, except electrical: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Electric and electronic equipment: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Transportation equipment: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays............................................................................... Instruments and related products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Miscellaneous manufacturing industries: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ See footnotes at end of table. 118 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 48. Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2 Industry and type of case1 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Tobacco manufacturing: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Textile mill products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Apparel and other textile products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Paper and allied products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Printing and publishing: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Chemicals and allied products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Petroleum and coal products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Leather and leather products: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ 19.5 8.5 130.1 19.4 8.9 132.2 19.9 9.5 141.8 18.7 9.0 136.8 17.8 8.6 130.7 16.7 8.0 129.3 16.5 7.9 131.2 16.7 8.1 131.6 16.7 8.1 138.0 9.1 3.8 66.7 8.7 4.0 58.6 9.3 4.2 64.8 8.1 3.8 45.8 8.2 3.9 56.8 7.2 3.2 44.6 6.5 3.0 42.8 7.7 3.2 51.7 7.3 3.0 51.7 10.2 2.9 57.4 10.2 3.4 61.5 9.7 3.4 61.3 9.1 3.3 62.8 8.8 3.2 59.2 7.6 2.8 53.8 7.4 2.8 51.4 8.0 3.0 54.0 7.5 3.0 57.4 6.7 2.0 31.7 6.5 2.2 32.4 6.5 2.2 34.1 6.4 2.2 34.9 6.3 2.2 35.0 6.0 2.1 36.4 6.4 2.4 40.6 6.7 2.5 40.9 6.7 2.6 44.1 13.6 5.0 101.6 13.5 5.7 103.3 13.5 6.0 108.4 12.7 5.8 112.3 11.6 5.4 103.6 10.6 4.9 99.1 10.0 4.5 90.3 10.4 4.7 93.8 10.2 4.7 94.6 6.8 2.7 41.7 7.0 2.9 43.8 7.1 3.1 45.1 6.9 3.1 46.5 6.7 3.0 47.4 6.6 2.8 45.7 6.6 2.9 44.6 6.5 2.9 46.0 6.3 2.9 49.2 8.0 3.1 51.4 7.8 3.3 50.9 7.7 3.5 54.9 6.8 3.1 50.3 6.6 3.0 48.1 5.7 2.5 39.4 5.5 2.5 42.3 5.3 2.4 40.8 5.1 2.3 38.8 8.1 3.3 59.2 7.9 3.4 58.3 7.7 3.6 62.0 7.2 3.5 59.1 6.7 2.9 51.2 5.3 2.5 46.4 5.5 2.4 46.8 5.1 2.4 53.5 5.1 2.4 49.9 16.8 7.6 118.1 17.1 8.1 125.5 17.1 8.2 127.1 15.5 7.4 118.6 14.6 7.2 117.4 12.7 6.0 100.9 13.0 6.2 101.4 13.6 6.4 104.3 13.4 6.3 107.4 11.5 4.4 68.9 11.7 4.7 72.5 11.5 4.9 76.2 11.7 5.0 82.7 11.5 5.1 82.6 9.9 4.5 86.5 10.0 4.4 87.3 10.5 4.7 94.4 10.3 4.6 88.3 9.7 5.3 95.9 10.1 5.7 102.3 10.0 5.9 107.0 9.4 5.5 104.5 9.0 5.3 100.6 8.5 4.9 96.7 8.2 4.7 94.9 8.8 5.2 105.1 8.6 5.0 107.1 7.7 2.9 44.0 7.9 3.2 44.9 8.0 3.4 49.0 7.4 3.2 48.7 7.3 3.1 45.3 7.2 3.1 45.5 7.2 3.1 47.8 7.4 3.3 50.5 7.4 3.2 50.7 8.5 3.6 52.5 8.9 3.9 57.5 8.8 4.1 59.1 8.2 3.9 58.2 7.7 3.6 54.7 7.1 3.4 52.1 7.0 3.2 50.6 7.2 3.5 55.5 7.2 3.5 59.8 7.4 2.7 40.5 7.5 2.8 39.7 7.7 3.1 44.7 7.1 2.9 44.5 7.1 2.9 41.1 7.2 2.9 42.6 7.3 3.0 46.7 7.5 3.2 48.4 7.5 3.1 47.0 2.0 .8 10.4 2.1 .8 12.5 2.1 .9 13.3 2.0 .8 12.2 1.9 .8 11.6 2.0 .9 13.2 2.0 .9 12.8 1.9 .9 13.6 2.0 .9 15.4 5.5 2.2 35.4 5.5 2.4 36.2 5.5 2.5 38.1 5.2 2.3 35.8 5.0 2.3 35.9 4.9 2.3 35.8 5.1 2.4 37.0 5.2 2.5 41.1 5.4 2.6 45.4 Transportation and public utilities Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases........................................................................ Lost workdays .............................................................................. Wholesale and retail trade Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Wholesale trade: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Retail trade: Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ........................................................................ Lost workdays................................................................................ Finance, insurance, and real estate Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases ....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ Services Total cases.................................................................................... Lost workday cases....................................................................... Lost workdays................................................................................ 1 Total cases include fatalities. 2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as: (N/EH) X 200,000, where: N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year. 200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year.) 3 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976. 1988U .S . INDUSTRIAL OUTLOOK The U.S. Government’s Best-Selling Business Reference Book • Official Department of Commerce forecasts for over 350 industries • Year-ahead and 5-year forecasts and industry-by-industry reviews • 650 pages of outlooks and historical summary by over 100 skilled industry analysts • Vast data base—tailored for business and investment planning Order the completely new 1988 edition now. m a il this form TO: Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402 Please send_________ copies of the 1988 U.S. INDUSTRIAL OUTLOOK (SN 003-009-00522-1) at $24 per copy to: $____________ Name Charge my: C om p any Name A c c o u n t N um ber S treet C ity https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O □ S tate ZIP C ode S ignature Total Enclosed (Check/Money Order) GPO Deposit Account MasterCard D VISA E xpiratio n Date All of this for only $16 per year? Yes! Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Developments in Industrial Relations Current Labor Statistics Twelve issues of the Monthly Labor Review for only $16. Analytical articles Developments in Industrial Relations Major Agreements Expiring Foreign Labor 48 tables of Current Labor Statistics Developments Research Summaries, Book Reviews and much more. Use the coupon below Research to place your order Summaries for 1 or 2 years. Labor Month In Review Conference Papers i* H r mm rrr— tf i 1tir TMrfriinfc Book Reviews https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis S end su b scrip tio n orders to: S upe rin te n d e n t of D ocum ents U.S. G ove rnm ent P rinting O ffice W ashington, D.C. 20402 U.S. Department of Laoor Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, DC 20212 Second Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Deoartment of Labor ISSN 0098-1818 Official Business P enalty for private use, $300 RETURN POSTAGE G UA R A N TE ED https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MUR LIBRAA42L ISSDUE002R ^RESERVE SA INT^ L O UI S United States Departm ent of Labor BANK OE ST LOUIS NO « V * Years o f Working for America's Future