Full text of Monthly Labor Review : February 1988, Volume 111, Number 2

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