The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
January 1970
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS
^ *5
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
George P. Shultz, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner
Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner
Leon Greenberg, Chief Statistician
Peter Henle, Chief Economist
The Monthly Labor Review is fo r sale by
the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and by the Superintendent of Documents,
U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington. D. C. 20402
Subscription price per year —
$9 dom estic; $11.25 foreign.
Single copy 75 cents.
Correspondence regarding subscriptions
should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents.
Com munications on e ditorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-In-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D. C. 20212
Phone: (202) 961-2327.
Use of funds for printing this publication
approved by the D irector of the Bureau
of the Budget (October 31, 1967)
Region I — Boston: Wendell D. M acdonald
1603-A Federal B uilding, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6727
C onnecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region il — New York: H erbert Bienstock
341 Ninth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10001
Phone: (212) 971-5401
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Frederick W. M ueller
406 Penn Square B uilding, 1317 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Phone: (215) 597-7796
Delaware
D istrict of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
V irginia
West V irginia
Region IV — Atlanta: Brunswick A. Bagdon
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: (404) 526-5416
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
M ississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: Thomas J. M cArdle
219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-7226
Illin o is
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
W isconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Jack S trickland
411 N. Akard Street. Dallas. Tex. 75201
Phone: (214) 749-3516
Arkansas
Louisiana
New M exico
Oklahoma
Texas
January cover:
Design by
Arts and Graphics D ivision,
Office of Inform ation,
U. S. Department of Labor
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Regions V II and V III — Kansas City: E llio tt A. Browar
911 W alnut Street. Kansas City. Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2378
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
V III
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, C alif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-3178
IX
Arizona
C alifornia
Hawaii
Nevada
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
2
à
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Editor-in-Chief, Herbert C. Morton
Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern
Paul M. Schwab
3
Unemployment by region and in largest States
Special Labor Force Report shows how jobless rates in West are
higher than U.S. average
H. Charles Spring
13
Collective bargaining calendar for 1970
Negotiation of new agreements will affect 5 million workers;
another 5 million will receive deferred increases
Norman M. Bradburn
27
Selecting the questions to be asked in surveys
Five obstacles to selection
psychological variables
of questions for testing social-
PERSPECTIVES ON 1969
PBS
Robert W. Fisher
30
Labor and the economy in 1969
W. J. Layng, T. Nakayama
44
An analysis of third quarter price changes
O. G. Mitchell, C. T. Sorenson
48
State labor legislation enacted in 1969
Florence C. Johnson
57
How workmen’s compensation changed in 1969
Joseph A. Hickey
62
State unemployment insurance laws: 1969 changes
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEPARTMENTS
2
71
74
75
80
90
Labor month in review
Foreign labor briefs
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews and notes
Current labor statistics
JANUARY 1970
VOLUME 93, NUMBER 1
7 0 —2 5 I 7 9
Labor
Month
in
Review
Railroad bargaining. One of the few areas of
agreement between railroad labor and manage
ment is a mutual dislike of the Railway Labor
Act, the law that governs labor-management
relations in the industry. In December, a Presi
dential Emergency Board, appointed under that
law, spotlighted some of the shortcomings of the
Railway Labor Act and suggested that the law
is failing to serve the public interest.
The Board— the first appointed by President
Nixon— was created to investigate a dispute
between the Nation’s 76 Class I railroads and 4
shopcraft unions (Machinists, Electrical Workers,
Sheet Metal Workers, and Boilermakers) repre
senting 48,000 employees who maintain and
repair locomotives, cars, and other equipment.
The dispute had begun in November 1968 and
was still deadlocked 11 months later when the
unions announced plans for selective strikes of
half a dozen railroads in different parts of the
country and the carriers countered with threats
of a nationwide shutdown. Creation of the
Emergency Board on October 3, 1969, forced
both a 60-day cooling-off period and a public
airing of the dispute.
After investigating the background of the
dispute, the Board reported to the President that,
despite the drawn-out nature of the negotiations,
there had been an “apparent absence of anything
more than perfunctory bargaining between the
parties prior to the creation of this Board.”
Said the Board: “While we do not have detailed
information, we gather from the parties that
between November 1968, when notices were
filed, and October 1969, when the nation was
threatened by strikes and retaliatory lockouts
that might have brought most railroad trans
portation to a halt, the parties met to discuss
the issues on only a few occasions, and the total
time they spent in face-to-face bargaining
amounted to less than 15 hours.”
“I t seems to us,” the Emergency Board con
tinued, “that the parties have assumed from the
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
start that this dispute would eventually be
brought to a Presidential Emergency Board, that
bargaining was futile prior to creation of such
a board, and that the procedures of the National
Mediation Board were little more than hurdles
to be cleared before an Emergency Board could
be created. Indeed, we suspect that in some
minds, at least, the assumption has gone further
than that and even the procedures of this Board
have been considered merely a barrier to be
cleared before the real test comes and it is dis
covered whether, as an alternative to a nation
wide railroad stoppage, Congress will intervene
and provide machinery for final settlement.”
The Board members, Ralph T. Seward,
Robert G. Howlett, and E . Robert Livernash,
added this warning:
“Any system of labor and labor relations
which induces the parties in an essential industry
to operate on such assumptions is failing to serve
the public interest, and calls for serious study
and review.”
Pay patterns. From the beginning, a key issue
in the dispute was whether the 1969 wage pattern,
set in other railroad negotiations, should also
apply to the shopcrafts. Railroad management
argued that it would be uniair to settle with the
shopcrafts at a higher level then with other rail
road employees. B u t the shopcrafts pointed to
rising living costs and larger increases negotiated
in other industries. They refused to be bound by
the earlier pattern.
The negotiated settlement, finally reached
without Congressional intervention, came after
3 days and nights of almost continuous nego
tiations. The settlement went beyond the 1969
pattern and established a new, higher wage pat
tern for 1970. It also provided for carrier-sought
work rule changes designed to reduce wage costs.
B u t the settlement did not end the crisis. Sheet
Metal Workers objected to the work rule change
and further negotiations were scheduled for
January.
Special Labor Force Report shows
that unemployment is not distributed
evenly among all sections of the country;
rates in the West are significantly
higher than the U.S. average
PAUL M. SCHWAB
D uring the 1960’ s the United States made great
strides in reducing unemployment. Not enough
was known, however, about how these improve
ments benefited the various areas of the Nation. In
the past 2 years, more detail on the area impact of
these changes has become available. This detailed
information results from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ publication of labor force estimates
for such geographic areas as the 20 largest standard
metropolitan statistical areas ( smsa’s), 14 central
cities and suburban rings, farm and nonfarm
areas, and poverty neighborhoods in the 100
largest urban areas.1
One of the significant gaps has been regional
and State data showing how the different labor
force groups— whites, Negroes, teenagers, adult
workers— have been faring in their respective job
markets. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in
collaboration with the Bureau of the Census,
recently explored the possibility of publishing
regional and State data from the Current Popula
tion Surveys ( c p s ) . A detailed analysis of the
statistical problems involved indicated that annual
averages for the four census regions (including
their respective divisions) and for the 10 largest
States California, New York, Pennsylvania,
Illinois, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey,
Florida, and Massachusetts—were sufficiently
reliable for publication. These new estimates
form the basis for this article and, in most in
stances, represent the first area labor force data
of their kind since the 1960 Decennial Census.
Unemployment in the regions
A glance at the new regional estimates from the
(table 1) reveals clearly that unemployment is
c ps
Paul M. Schwab is a labor economist in the Division
of Employment and Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Unemployment
by region
and in
10 largest States
not distributed evenly among all geographic
sections of the country. In the West, the incidence
of joblessness in 1968 was far above the average
for the United States. The unemployment rate
in this region, at 4.9 percent, was significantly
higher than the national rate of 3.6 percent.
Approximately 650,000 persons were unemployed
in this 13-State area, nearly one-fourth of national
unemployment, though only 17 percent of the
Nation’s civilian labor force resided there.
In both the Northeast and North Central
regions, unemployment rates (at 3.2 and 3.0
percent respectively) were lower than the national
average. The rate in the South, at 3.7 percent, was
about equal to the national average.
The unemployment rate for Negroes2 was
highest in the North Central region (table 2). Of
every 100 Negro workers in the region, 8 were
unemployed. The rate for Negroes living in the
South was slightly below the Negro national
average, but a disproportionately high percentage
of Southern Negroes were employed part time,
and they were also more concentrated in low-skill
occupations. According to the new Current Popu
lation Survey estimates, 7 out of every 10 Negro
wage and salary workers employed in private
household work reside in the South.
N orth . In 1968, the two northern regions had
the lowest total unemployment rates. Although 54
percent of the Nation’s labor force lived in the
Northeast and North C en tral3 regions combined,
these areas accounted for only 46 percent of the
total unemployed in the country (or 1.3 million
persons).
In both northern regions, workers were more
heavily concentrated in manufacturing than in
the South or West, and the current high production
levels and industry growth may in large part
account for the relatively low unemployment in
the area. The northern regions included 55
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
4
percent of the Nation’s nonagricultural wage
and salary workers in 1968, and 62 percent of
manufacturing workers. In addition, the North
has not had the heavy net migration characteristic
Concepts and methods
The State and regional labor force data were
developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from
information collected as part of the Current
Population Survey ( c p s ) , a national sample
survey of 50,000 households conducted monthly
by the Bureau of the Census for b l s . (The
c p s is explained in Concepts and Methods Used
in Manpower Statistics From the Current Popula
tion Survey, b l s Report 313, which is available
from the b l s upon request.) All data presented
are averages of the 12 monthly estimates for 1968.
The States covered by the Bureau’s analysis
are the 10 most populous on the basis of their
1968 populations. Data also are presented for the
four major census regions and the nine census
divisions. Figures for the 10 States have been
adjusted to independent population estimates
(provisional estimates) made by the Bureau of
the Census for the civilian noninstitutional popu
lation 16 years of age and over in these States as
of July 1, 1968, a central point for the annual
averages. The population adjustment increases
the accuracy of the civilian labor force estimates
for these States. It should be noted, however,
that the statistical variability for State and
regional estimates is somewhat larger than that
for national data, and thus small differences
between figures should be interpreted with
caution.
Labor force and unemployment data in this
report differ in some cases from those published
by the Manpower Administration ( m a ) as part
of its State reporting program. The m a figures
are estimated by State Employment Security
agencies using insured unemployment as a base
for unemployment and then applying standard
ized methodology to estimate the unemployed
not included in these counts. The m a estimates
of employment are based upon employer payroll
records, with the nonagricultural wage and salary
segment being prepared in cooperation with b l s .
Variations between c p s data presented in this
article and the m a estimates chiefly reflect dif
ferences in sources of data, definitions, methods
of collection, estimating procedures, sampling
variability, and response errors.
Additional tables and a technical note on
sources, extent of statistical variability, method
ology, and comparability with m a statistics
are available from b l s .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of the West, and the resultant unemployment
normally associated with it.4
A closer examination, however, indicates that
in both northern regions, only white joblessness
was lower than the U.S. average. The four
census divisions in the area— New England,
Middle Atlantic, East North Central, and West
North Central— all had unemployment rates for
white workers below the corresponding national
rate of 3.2 percent.
The jobless situation for Negroes, on the other
hand, differed considerably between the two
northern regions. The Northeast had the lowest
Negro rate (5.7 percent) of the regions, and the
North Central region the highest (8.0 percent).
Negroes constituted approximately 8 percent of
each region’s labor force.
This interregional difference largely reflected
conditions in the large urban areas located within
these regions. For example, in New York City
and Philadelphia Negro joblessness was among
the lowest of the Nation’s 20 major metropolitan
areas in 1968, but Negro-white jobless rate differ
entials were higher than average in Chicago,
Cleveland, St. Louis, and Detroit.5
S outh . Unemployment in the South,6 for both
white and Negro workers, was generally in line
with the national situation in 1968. Within the
region, joblessness varied only slightly among
the three divisions; unemployment rates for the
individual sectors were all within about one-half
a percentage point of the national rate. Slightly
higher unemployment in the East South Central
division reflected the fact that a large part of
Appalachia lies within the area.7
Although joblessness in the South was in line
with national averages, a relatively high pro
portion of workers, especially Negroes, was
working part time for economic reasons. The
percentage of the Negro labor force that could
find only part-time work was twice as high in the
South as in the other three regions, and, the
difference in the proportions of Negro and white
workers on part time for economic reasons was
considerably greater in the South, as shown below:
United
States
Civilian labor force
Percent unemployed :
3.2
White........................ .............
6.7
Negro and other races------Percent confined to part-time
work for economic reasons:
2.1
White.........................................
5.6
Negro and other races_____
North
east
North
Central
South
3.0
5.7
2.6
8.0
3.1
6.6
1.5
2.7
2.0
3.3
2.5
7.8
West
4.7
6.8
2.8
4.5
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY REGION
Table 1.
5
Civilian labor force and unemployment, by color, by region and in 10 largest States, 1968 annual averages
____________________________________________
Region, State, and color
Civilian
labor
force 1
[Numbers in thousands)
Partici
pation
rates
Unem Dloyment
Civilian
labor
force1
Region, State, and color
Level2
Rate
Partici
pation
rates
Unemployment
Level2
Rate
United States, to ta l..
White............................ .
Negro and other races.
78,740
69,980
8,760
59.6
59.3
62.2
2,815
2,225
590
3.6
3.2
6.7
Michigan, total. .............
White.
Negro and other races____
3,420
3,060
360
59.9
59.8
60.1
135
105
30
3.9
3.4
8.2
Northeast, to ta l____
White...................... .
Negro and other races.
19,570
17,980
1,580
58.9
58.5
63.9
620
530
90
3.2
3.0
5.7
West North Central, to ta l...
White_____ . .
Negro and other races____
6,330
6,060
270
60.4
60.3
63.4
155
135
20
2.4
2.2
6.8
4,950
4, 800
150
61.7
61.5
68.4
145
140
5
2.9
2.9
4.5
23,430
19, 080
4,350
59.4
58.9
61.6
880
590
290
3.7
3.1
6.6
2,230
2,150
80
60.5
60.4
63.3
65
60
2.9
2.8
11,770
9,320
2,450
60.0
59.0
64.2
420
275
150
3.6
2.9
6.0
14,620
13,180
1,440
60.5
60.4
61.5
475
395
85
3.3
3.0
5.8
Florida, total_______
White_________
Negro and other races____
2,260
1,920
340
54.9
53.4
65.1
85
65
20
3.8
3.3
6.0
New York, t o t a l . . . ..........
White........................ ..
Negro and other races.
7,230
6,500
740
57.9
57.6
62.2
230
195
30
3.1
3.0
4.3
East South Central, total___
White_______ ____
Negro and other races______
4, 780
3,990
800
57.9
58.4
55.4
200
140
60
4.2
3.6
7.5
Pennsylvania, total..........
White________ _____ _
Negro and other races.
4,630
4,240
390
57.1
56.6
62.7
155
125
30
3.4
3.0
7.3
West South Central, to ta l______
W hite..
Negro and other races______
6, 870
5, 780
1,100
59.3
59.0
61.0
255
175
80
3.7
3.0
7.4
New Jersey, total..............
White_______ _____ _
Negro and other races.
2,870
2,550
320
59.7
58.8
67.7
95
70
25
3.3
2.8
7.3
4,300
3,700
600
61.2
60.6
65.4
145
110
35
3.4
2.9
6.0
22,610
20,920
1,680
60.5
60.4
61.5
680
545
135
3.0
2.6
8.0
West, to ta l... .
White___________
Negro and other races_________
13,160
12, 000
1,150
59.9
59.5
63.6
645
565
80
4.9
4.7
6.8
16, 280
14,860
1,420
60.5
60.4
61.1
525
410
115
3.2
2.8
8.2
Mountain, total_______
White_________
Negro and other races_____
2,920
2,800
120
59.5
59.5
59.7
125
120
10
4.4
4.2
7.8
Illinois, total_____ ____
W h ite ................... ..
Negro and other races.
4,490
4,020
460
61.1
61.4
58.0
130
95
35
2.9
2.3
7.7
Pacific, total______
White___________ ____
Negro and other races____
10,240
9,210
1,030
59.9
59.5
64.0
520
450
70
5.1
4.9
6.7
Ohio, to ta l.........................
White.......................... .
Negro and other races.
4,160
3, 790
370
59.0
58.7
62.5
145
110
35
3.4
2.9
9.1
7,570
6,810
760
59.9
59.4
64.5
390
330
60
5.1
4.8
7.9
New England, to ta l_____
White..............................
Negro and other races.
Massachusetts, total____
White______________
Negro and other races.
Middle Atlantic, total___
White______ ________
Negro and other races.
North Central, total..............
White______________
Negro and other races.
East North Central, total.
White_____ _________
Negro and other races.
O)
South, total____
White___________
Negro and other races____
South Atlantic, total______
White_______ ______
Negro and other races___
0
Texas, total_______
White___________
Negro and other races____
California, total______
White____________
Negro and other races____
1 Rounded to nearest 10,000.
2 Rounded to nearest 5,000.
Table 2.
3 Not shown separately where unemployment estimate is less than 5,000.
Note: Individual items may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
Unemployment rates, by sex, age, and color, by region and in 10 largest States, 1968 annual averages
Total
White
Negro and other races
Region and State
Male,
20 years
and over
United States_____ ____
Female,
20 years
and over
Both sexes,
16-19 years
Male,
20 years
anti over
Female,
20 years
and over
Both sexes,
16-19 years
Male,
20 years
and over
Female,
20 years
and over
Both sexes,
16-19 years
2.2
3.8
12.7
2.0
3.4
11.0
3.9
6.3
Northeast___________
New England______ _
Massachusetts_____ _ _
Middle Atlantic______ .
New York_______
Pennsylvania___________
New Jersey________
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.3
3.2
3.1
2.9
3.3
3.0
3.4
3.7
11.3
8.9
9.1
12.3
12.0
12.8
11.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.0
3.1
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
10.1
8.5
8.5
10.7
11.1
11.3
• 9.3
3.9
4.3
North Central__________ .
East North Central_____________
Illinois__________
Ohio____________ . .
Michigan________
West North Central_________ .
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.4
1.3
3.2
3.3
2.8
3.6
4.0
2.7
10.7
12.0
11.5
14.7
13.2
8.0
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.6
2.1
1.3
2.7
2.8
2.3
3.0
3.4
2.5
9.8
10.2
9.9
11.8
10.9
7.2
4.5
4.6
4.7
5.0
4 0
4.0
7.9
8.1
6.7
8.0
8.7
6.1
28.8
30.5
27.3
39.4
31.3
24.0
South_________
South Atlantic_________
Florida_______________
East South Central_____ .
West South Central_______ _ .
Texas_____________ . .
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.8
2.0
1.7
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.9
14.5
14.2
16.0
15.2
14.6
12.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.6
1.5
1.4
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.5
3.7
12.0
11.7
15.1
12.7
11.8
10.9
3.6
3.1
4 0
3 9
4.6
3.5
6.3
6.1
5.8
7.3
6.5
5.4
24.0
20.5
20.7
27.4
27.8
24.5
West_____________
.
Mountain_______
Pacific________ .
C a lifornia .................. _.
3.2
2.8
3.3
3.3
5.3
4.4
5.6
5.8
15.2
13.8
15.4
15.9
3.1
2.6
3.1
3.2
5.2
4.2
5.4
5.4
14.2
14.0
14.6
14.7
> Not shown separately where unemployment estimate is less than 5,000.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
( ')
0
4.1
3.7
5.0
4.3
( ')
0
0
4.1
5.0
23.8
0
0
6.5
4.3
0)
4.3
2.8
6.5
6.7
25.0
24.5
19.6
23.7
29.6
26.1
0
6.7
8.5
26.0
25.4
6
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Chart 1. Unemployment rates for the Nation, its regions
and census divisions, and the 10 largest States
[I960 and 1968 annual averages]
0
United States
REGION,
CENSUS DIVISION,
AND STATE
Northeast
New England
Middle Atlantic
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
North Central
East North Central
West North Central
Illin o is
Ohio
Michigan
South
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Florida
Texas
West
Mountain
Pacific
California
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
Unemployment Rates
2
3
4
5
6
7
A primary reason for the extent of economic
part-time work among Negroes in the South is their
heavy concentration in such occupations as private
household work and farm and nonfarm labor.
With generally low wages prevailing in the region
and with a relatively high proportion of Negroes
engaged in low-skilled occupations and working
only part time, it is not surprising that their
median family income in the South ($4,283 in
1968) lagged far behind the national median for
this group ($5,360).8
W e s t . In 1968, the overall unemployment rate
in the W e s t9 was substantially higher than in
the other regions. Considerable migration into the
region was a major reason. Evidently, the many
jobseekers who arrive from other areas, although
often well educated and highly skilled, face re
location problems and cannot be promptly ab
sorbed by the local labor market.
The region’s 4.9-percent unemployment rate
also reflected the age composition of the W est’s
labor force, which was comparatively younger
than nationally. Furthermore, the industrial dis
tribution of employment was also conducive to
higher joblessness. For example, in the region
above-average employment concentrations con
tinue to exist in seasonal industries (construction,
food processing, logging, and so forth) and in the
highly volatile defense and aerospace industries.
In both the Pacific and Mountain divisions,
white joblessness (4.9 and 4.2 percent, respec
tively) was considerably higher than in most areas
of the Nation. The unemployment rate for Negroes
and other races was more in line with those in
the other subdivisions— 6.8 percent, virtually the
same as the U.S. rate.
Although current data are not available, the
1960 Decennial Census— the latest available
data— showed that of all persons in the West
other than white, one-half were Negro, with
Orientals accounting for most of the remaining
half. The incidence of joblessness among Orientals
has traditionally been very low. Given the high
unemployment among whites in the area, it
appears that the presence of this substantial
proportion of Orientals in the category “races
other than white” keeps unemployment rates of
this latter group low relative to white unemploy
ment rates.
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY REGION
Table 3.
7
Unemployment rates, persons 16 years old and over, by color, region and in 10 largest States, 1960 and 1968
Total
White
Negro and other races
Ratio of Negro-white
unemployment rates
1968
1968
Region and State
1968
19601
1968
19601
19601
19601
United States___
3.6
5.1
3.2
4.7
6.7
8.6
2.1:1
1.8:1
Northeast........................
New England_____
Massachusetts.
Middle Atlantic___
New York____
Pennsylvania,.
New J e rs e y ...
3.2
2.9
2.9
3.3
3.1
3.4
3.3
5.2
4.6
4.2
5.4
5.1
6.2
4.6
3.0
2.9
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
4.9
4.5
4.1
5.1
4.9
5.8
4.1
5.7
4.5
8.8
8.3
1.9:1
1.6:1
1.8:1
1.8:1
North Central________
East North Central.
Illinois......... ..
O hio................
Michigan_____
West North Central.
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.4
3.9
2.4
4.8
5.2
4.5
5. 5
6.9
4.0
2.6
2.8
2.3
2.9
3.4
2.2
4.3
4.5
3.7
4.9
6.0
3.8
8.0
8.2
7.7
9.1
8.2
6.8
12.0
12.4
11.4
11.9
16.3
9.2
3.1:1
2.9:1
3.3:1
3.1:1
2.4:1
3.1:1
2.8:1
2.8:1
3.1:1
2.4:1
2.7:1
2.4:1
South...............................
South Atlantic.........
Florida______
East South Central.
West South Central.
T e x a s ............
3.7
3.6
3.8
4.2
3.7
3.4
4.9
4.7
5.0
5.6
4.8
4.4
3.1
2.9
3.3
3.6
3.0
2.9
4.3
4.1
4.6
5.1
4.2
4.0
6.6
6.0
6.0
7.5
7.4
6.0
9.4
6.9
6.7
7.5
8.2
7.0
2.1:1
2.1:1
1.8:1
2.1:1
2.5:1
2.1:1
1.7:1
1.7:1
1.5:1
1.5:1
2.0:1
1.8:1
West____ _______
Mountain____
Pacific______
California
4.9
4.4
5.1
5.1
5.9
5.0
6.1
6.1
4.7
4.2
4.9
4.8
5.6
4.8
5.9
5.7
6.8
7.8
6.7
7.9
9.2
11.3
8.9
4.9
1.4:1
1.9:1
1.4:1
1.6:1
1.6:1
2.4:1
1.5:1
1.7:1
1 1960 data from Decennial Census, collected in April 1960.
1960-68 changes
U nemployment . All regions have registered re
ductions in unemployment during the past 8
years, but the most striking improvements oc
curred among States in the Northeast and North
Central regions. (See chart 1, and table 3.) In
each of the four northern divisions, jobless rates
fell much more sharply than the national decline
during the relatively uninterrupted expansion
following the 1960-61 recession. These heavily
industrialized areas had also been the most ad
versely affected by the slow rate of economic
growth during the late 1950’s.
Unemployment reductions in the South and
West have been less dramatic, reflecting a com
bination of such factors as their more serviceoriented economies, the high rate of migration
into the West, and the relatively large proportion
of Negroes in the South.
Negro unemployment in the past 8 years has
shown the same pattern. In both Northern regions,
Negro jobless rates have dropped substantially
more than in the West and South. These inter
regional differences partly reflect the general pat
tern of economic growth in the United States, as
increased employment opportunities for Negroes
during the last 8 years have occurred primarily in
the Nation’s large urban centers, despite continued
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
0)
5.8
4.3
7.3
7.3
(2)
8.9
7.4
11.3
9.5
0
1.9:1
1.4:1
2.4:1
2.6:1
0)
1.7:1
1.5:1
1.9:1
2.3:1
2 Not shown where unemployment level less than 5,000.
Negro immigration to these centers. (In 1968, 14
of the 20 largest smsa’ s in the country were
located in the Northeast and North Central
regions.)
Another factor is that virtually all Negro agri
cultural workers resided in the South and West—
in 1968, 98 percent of them. Although the number
of farm workers has been steadily declining, con
tinued high unemployment among agricultural
wage workers has dampened large reductions in
overall Negro joblessness.
E mployment . The South Atlantic and Pacific
areas had the highest rates of employment growth
between 1960 and 1968, about 27 percent, or nearly
twice as high as the rest of the country. These two
areas accounted for slightly over two-fifths of the
overall employment growth. (See table 4.)
M ajor job gains in the four regions were gen
erally concentrated in the service-producing in
dustries. Only in the South did the growth of
employment in manufacturing keep pace with job
growth in other industries. Relocation of firms
and new plant openings appear to have been key
factors in the rapid economic growth of the
South.
The migration of Negroes from the South is
clearly reflected in the rates of Negro employment
growth by region. Between 1960 and 1968, Negro
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
8
Table 4. Employment growth by region and in 10 largest
States, 1960 and 1968
Employment (in thousands)
Negro and other races
Total
Region and State
1968
1960t
Percent
change,
1960-68
1968
19601
Percent
change,
1960-68
United States______
75,920
64,050
18.5
8,170
6,570
24.4
Northeast______________
New England________
Massachusetts___
Middle Atlantic---------New York_______
Pennsylvania........
New Jersey_____
18,940
4,800
2,170
14,140
7,010
4,480
2,780
17,000
4,000
1,980
13, 000
6,570
4,100
2,330
11.4
20.0
9.6
8.8
6.7
9.3
19.3
1,490
140
70
1,350
710
360
300
1,180
90
50
1,080
590
300
190
26.3
55. 6
40.0
25.0
20.3
20.0
57.9
North Central___________
East North Central___
Illinois_________
Ohio___________
Michigan_______
West North Central___
21,930
15,750
4,360
4, 020
3,280
6,180
18,700
13,190
3,870
3,480
2,700
5,510
17.3
19.4
12.7
15.5
21.5
12.2
1,550
1,300
430
340
330
250
1,140
940
350
260
210
190
36.0
38.3
22.9
30.8
57.1
31.6
South__________________
South Atlantic. . ----Florida_________
East South Central___
West South Central___
Texas......... ...........
22, 550
18,450
3,540
8,9 5 0
2 ,3 1 0
1,920
20.3
2,180
4,580
6,620
4,160
1,710
3,870
5,620
3,290
22.2
26.8
27.5
18.3
17.8
26.4
4,060
11,350
320
740
1,020
560
330
780
830
400
-3 .0
- 5 .1
22.9
40.0
West___________________
Mountain___________
Pacific_____________
California_______
12,510
2,790
9,720
7,180
9,900
2,310
7,590
5,710
26.4
20.8
28.1
25.7
1,070
110
960
700
720
60
650
440
48.6
83.3
47.7
59.1
14.7
1 1960 data from Decennial Census, collected in April 1960.
Note: Individual items may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
employment in the South grew by only 5 percent,
compared with an average growth of 36 percent
in the other three regions.
Regional employment by occupation
The occupational distribution of employment
reveals the existence of certain interregional dif
ferences 11 (table 5), despite the fact that all
major regions of the country have gradually been
moving toward a generally similar occupational
distribution.
In the Northeast and West, for example, the
proportion of workers in white-collar positions
was higher than in the other two regions, par
ticularly for professional, technical, and clerical
workers. In 1968, in both these regions, at least
one-half of the workers held white-collar jobs,
compared with 44 percent in the South and North
Central regions combined.
The West had a significantly lower proportion
of blue-collar workers than the other three regions.
In 1968, 14 percent of all workers in the region
were employed in operative jobs, compared with
19 percent in the other regions. This resulted
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
largely from the greater importance of the dis
tributive and service industries in the Pacific
census division.12 Nonagricultural payroll data
reveal that in the West, manufacturing employ
ment was 22 percent of total nonagricultural
wage and salary employment in 1968, the lowest
among the four regions.
Employment in service occupations was vir
tually the same in all regions (12 to 13 percent).
Since 1960, however, all regions except the South
have shown an increase in the percentage of
workers employed in these jobs.
In 1968, 5 percent of all workers in the United
States were in farm occupations. In the North
east, the proportion of farm workers was only
1 percent; in the other three regions, the pro
portions were West, 4 percent, South, 6 percent,
and North Central, 7 percent. The farm worker
percentage has dropped since 1960 in all regions,
with the decline in the South the most precipitous.
N egroes . One encouraging employment develop
ment in recent years has been the occupational
upgrading of Negroes as progressively smaller
proportions work in the less attractive, lower
paying, and less secure occupations.13 Consider
able inequalities, however, continue to exist.
In the South, particularly, Negroes were quite
heavily underrepresented in most “higher status”
positions. Negro professional workers in the region,
however, did not appear to be as underrepresented
relative to other regions. This may largely reflect
numerous Negro government workers in the South
Atlantic area (which includes the Washington
smsa) and also the large number of Negro teachers
throughout the region.
A larger proportion of Negroes (and other
races) appeared to be in white-collar positions
in the West than in the other regions. Of all
workers in the region other than white, nearly
40 percent worked in white-collar jobs, compared
with 32, 26, and 17 percent in the Northeast,
North Central, and Southern regions, respectively.
As mentioned earlier, this situation largely results
from the considerable group of Orientals in the
West who possess the needed education to obtain
white-collar positions. This is countered to some
extent by the situation of American Indians,
usually with the lowest levels in terms of educa
tion, occupational status, and income.
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY REGION
9
10-State unemployment
The unevenness of the unemployment burden
was also disclosed in the cps labor force estimates
for the 10 largest States. Although these States
together accounted for approximately the same
proportion of the Nation’s total civilian labor
force and of unemployment (55 percent), jobless
rates varied from 2.9 percent in Massachusetts
and Illinois to 5.1 percent in California. Six States
were clustered around the national average of 3.6
percent.
The Negro unemployment rate was generally
higher in the three North Central States—Ohio,
Michigan, and Illinois. New York State was the
only one where Negro joblessness was substan
tially lower than the national average.
In most States, Negro-white jobless rate differ
entials varied significantly from the national
2-to-l relationship. This finding largely mirrored
the unemployment situations in the major smsa’s
located within these States.
Jobless rates of these States have reflected the
improvements in the national unemployment
picture since 1960. A ranking of the States accord
ing to 1968 unemployment rates, however, varies
somewhat from a 1960 ranking.14 The most
significant reductions, for both white and Negro
workers, have occurred in the large States located
in the two northern regions. Reasons cited earlier
for interregional differences also apply largely to
interstate differences.
The pattern of labor force growth has not been
uniform among the 10 States during this period.
The rate of growth in Florida, Texas, and Cali
fornia has been substantially greater than the
national rate. Generally, the labor force has been
noticeably younger in those States where it has
increased most rapidly. An obvious exception was
Florida, a State which provides a haven for many
of the Nation’s retired. States registering sluggish
growth, such as New York, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania, had the largest shares of labor force
members aged 45 years and over. (See table 6.)
State-by-State differences in joblessness result
from numerous factors, many of which are outside
the scope of this study. Nonetheless, certain
economic and demographic considerations which
influence State unemployment rates can be out
lined. The following discussion presents brief
jobless profiles for the 10 largest States.
M assachusetts , N ew Y ork , P ennsylvania ,
N ew J e r s e y . In 1968, jobless rates for these
and
four States were below the national average.
Together they accounted for nearly all of the
Northeast region’s civilian labor force and its
unemployment.
The jobless rate in Massachusetts, at 2.9
percent, was well below the U.S. average in 1968.
This low rate reflected relatively low unemploy
ment for both adult women and teenagers and a
small proportion of Negro workers (4 per 100
Table 5. Employed persons by major occupation group, by region, by color, 1968 annual averages
[Percent distribution]
Total
White
Negro and other races
Occupation group
United
States
North
east
North
Central
South
All employed persons___
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
White-collar workers.
Professional and technical..
Managers, officials, and
proprietors__________ .
Clerical workers. _
Salesworkers___
46.8
13.6
50.0
14.6
43.9
12.3
44.1
12.6
10.2
16.9
6.1
9.9
19.2
6.2
9.5
16.0
6.1
Blue-collar w o rkers..
Craftsmen and foremen___
Operatives____
Nonfarm laborers
36.3
13.2
18.4
4.7
37.3
13.5
19.8
4.0
Service workers____
Private household workers.
Other serviceworkers_____
12.4
2.3
10.1
Farmworkers___
Farmers and farm managers_________
Farm laborers and foremen_______
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
West
100.0
52T
United
States
North
east
North
Central
100.0
100.0
100.0
South
100.0
West
United
States
North
east
North
Central
South
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
17.1
6.7
West
100.0
3ÔT
16.1
49.5
14.3
51.6
15.2
45.3
12.7
50.0
13.9
53.3
16.5
24.4
7.8
31.6
8.6
26.2
7.4
10.5
15.2
5.8
11.6
17.8
6.7
11.1
17.5
6.6
10.5
19.3
6.5
10.0
16.2
6.4
12.4
17.0
6.8
12.1
17.7
7.0
2.8
11.8
1.9
2.9
17.9
2.1
2.7
14.2
1.9
2.0
7.1
1.3
5.7
18.1
4.0
37.5
13.8
19.1
4.6
37.0
12.6
19.0
5.5
31.2
12.8
14.0
4.4
35.5
13.8
17.7
4.0
36.9
13.9
19.2
3.8
36.7
14.1
18.4
4.2
35.7
13.8
18.1
3.8
31.1
13.2
13.8
4.1
42.4
8.0
23.6
10.7
42.8
9.2
26.8
6.8
48.1
9.2
28.6
10.3
42.7
6.9
22.6
13.2
32.2
8.9
16.0
7.2
11.5
1.5
10.0
12.1
1.9
10.2
13.3
3.4
9.9
12.6
2.1
10.5
10.4
1.4
9.0
10.3
1.1
9.2
11.1
1.6
9.5
9.1
1.2
8.0
11.7
1.9
9.8
28.3
9.5
18.8
25.5
6.4
19.0
25.3
5.5
19.8
32.1
13.5
18.6
22.5
4.5
18.0
4.6
1.2
6.5
5.7
4.1
4.5
1.3
7.0
5.2
3.9
4.9
0.2
0.4
8.1
6.0
2.5
0.7
4.3
1.2
0.1
1.8
2.0
3.7
0.4
6.3
4.0
2.0
0.6
2.3
2.9
2.8
1.7
2.4
2.7
1.8
0.7
0.6
4.6
2.4
3.1
2.1
1.7
2.2
0.1
11.6
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
10
compared to 11 per 100 nationally).
Joblessness in New York was also quite low,
at 3.1 percent. New York recorded an especially
low Negro jobless rate (4.3 percent) and Negrowhite differential (1.4 to 1), both well below the
national average. One possible reason is that
many of the Negroes in New York City, where
three-fourths of the State’s Negroes reside, are
second-, third-, or fourth-generation urban resi
dents. These persons are more likely to have
acquired the education and skills needed to
compete in the local job market and, therefore,
are somewhat less vulnerable to unemployment.
The second largest State in the Northeast,
Pennsylvania, had an overall unemployment
rate in 1968 of 3.4 percent. Joblessness for all
major age-sex groups approximated national
averages. The Negro-white jobless ratio was
somewhat above the national differential; in part,
this resulted from particularly high unemployment
among Negro adult males. Almost all Negro
unemployment was in the Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh metropolitan areas.
Among the 10 States studied, Pennsylvania
registered the sharpest proportional reduction in
unemployment from 1960 to 1968, as the jobless
rate fell from 6.2 to 3.4 percent. Jobless rates
declined more sharply among white workers than
Negroes; as a result, the Negro-white jobless
ratio in the State rose from 1.9 to 1 to 2.4 to 1.
New Jersey had a 1968 unemployment rate of
3.3 percent, slightly below the national average,
as rates for all major age-sex groups also closely
approximated national rates. The Negro-white
jobless differential in the State (2.6 to 1), however,
was higher than the national average. Approxi
mately half of the Negroes in New Jersey resided
Table 6. Civilian labor force, by age, 10 largest States;
1968 annual averages
Age (in years)
State
16 and
over
16-19
20-24
25-44
45-64
65 and
over
California_______________
New York______________
Pennsylvania____________
Illinois_________________
Texas__________________
Ohio___________________
Michigan_______________
New Jersey_____________
Florida_________________
Massachusetts___________
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
8.0
6.7
8.1
8.6
8.4
8.5
9.8
6.9
7.8
9.3
12.0
11.3
11.1
11.3
12.7
11.7
12.6
11.3
11.4
11.3
43.8
39.9
39.4
39.6
42.5
40.8
41.3
41.4
41.0
37.1
33.2
37.8
37.3
36.1
32.1
35.2
33.3
37.2
35.7
38.0
3.0
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.3
3.8
3.0
3.2
4.1
4.3
United States______
100.0
8.4
11.8
41.0
34.7
4.0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in Newark, where Negro joblessness was among
the highest of the 20 largest smsa’s.
Since 1960, the overall unemployment rate in
New Jersey has fallen from 4.6 to 3.3 percent.
The substantial growth of the Negro labor force
(a 50-percent increase compared with 22 percent
nationally) has been largely responsible for the
rate not falling more rapidly.
Ohio , and M ichigan . Unlike the
Northeastern States studied, these North Central
States showed a considerable range in joblessness,
from Illinois’ relatively low 2.9 percent to Ohio’s
3.4 and Michigan’s 3.9 percent.
These three States also had high Negro-white
jobless differentials: about 3 to 1 in both Illinois
and Ohio, and 2.4 to 1 in Michigan. This situation
largely mirrored conditions in such large urban
areas as Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland.
In Illinois, a strong employment situation among
white adult workers was responsible for the State’s
low overall jobless rate. In the Chicago metro
politan area, joblessness among white workers
was among the lowest of the 20 largest smsa’s.
Unemployment rates for all major age-sex groups
in Illinois were virtually the same as those re
corded for the large urban area.
At 7.7 percent, the Negro jobless rate in Illinois
was somewhat higher than the national average.
This, along with the exceptionally low unemploy
ment among white workers, resulted in the State’s
Negro-white jobless ratio being substantially
above the U.S. relationship.
The 1968 unemployment rate in Ohio, 3.4
percent, included a relatively strong labor market
for white workers, particularly adult men. Negro
joblessness, at 9.1 percent, was considerably
above the U.S. average; unemployment among
teenagers was the most striking—nearly 40
percent.
Between 1960 and 1968, unemployment de
clined more rapidly among white workers in
Ohio than among Negroes. As a result, the jobless
differential rose sharply to its current 3.1 to 1
ratio.
Michigan had an overall unemployment rate of
3.9 percent in 1968. Similar to its neighboring
States and the overall region, Michigan also
had a higher than national Negro-white jobless
differential (2.4 to 1). Joblessness among Negro
adult females and teenagers was a considerable
I llinois ,
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY REGION
factor in the high jobless rate among Negroes
(8.2 percent).
The sharpest decline since 1960 among the 10
States in Negro jobless rates was in Michigan. Its
1960 Negro unemployment rate was 16.3 percent,
almost twice the national average at that time.
Although the Negro rate had dropped dramatically
by 1968, to 8.2 percent, the high jobless differ
ential indicates continuing imbalances in the
State’s unemployment situation.
T exa s and F lorida . In the South, Texas and
Florida together accounted for one-fourth of the
region’s total unemployment and one-fifth of the
region’s Negro unemployment. The population
in the South is more evenly distributed among
individual States than in other regions, and there
are more States in the region. Both of these
factors bear upon the relatively smaller impact of
these two States upon the region’s overall un
employment situation.
In 1968, the overall jobless rate in Texas was
3.4 percent, slightly below the rates for the entire
region and the Nation. Job strength was most
apparent among adult males (1.7 percent, com
pared with 2.2 percent nationally). Negro un
employment (6.0 percent) was about equal to
the national average; the Negro-white jobless
differential was 2.1 to 1, also the same as the
national relationship.
The jobless differential has risen slightly since
1960 as a result of somewhat greater improve
ments in white unemployment during this period.
In Houston and Dallas, particularly, the employ
ment situation among white workers has been
especially strong.
The 1968 unemployment rate of 3.8 percent in
Florida was only slightly above the national
average in 1968. White joblessness for all major
age-sex groups closely approximated national
averages. The Negro unemployment rate was
6.0 percent. Florida’s Negro-white jobless ratio
1 For a summary of recent BLS developments in area
labor force estimates, see Howard Stambler, “New direc
tions in area labor force statistics,” Monthly Labor Review,
August 1969, pp. 3-9.
2 Throughout this article, “ Negro” is used to denote the
“ Negro and other races” category, formerly termed “non
white.” In all regions except the West, nearly all of the
group is Negro. In the West, however, about half of the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11
in 1968 was 1.8 to 1, up slightly from the very
low 1.5-to-l relationship of 1960, but still rela
tively low.
The civilian labor force in Florida has increased
substantially since 1960, exclusively among white
workers. The Negro labor force has remained
virtually unchanged, as Negroes migrated from
farm areas in the State.
C alifornia . The most populous State in the
country, California accounted for 10 percent of
the Nation’s civilian labor force in 1968 and 14
percent of overall unemployment. Among the 10
States examined, only California had a jobless
rate (5.1 percent) significantly higher than the
national average. Unemployment rates for all
major age-sex groups were generally higher than
in the other States, particularly for white workers.
Slightly more than half of California’s un
employed persons were in the San FranciscoOakland and the Los Angeles-Long Beach metro
politan areas. Both areas had unemployment
rates of nearly 5 percent, by far the highest
among the 20 largest smsa’s.
As was mentioned earlier, extensive migration
into California was probably one of the main
causes of high unemployment. Since 1960, the
total civilian labor force has grown by 25 percent
and the labor force among races other than white
has increased by 55 percent. Other factors such
as the State’s younger labor force and its service
concentrated employment contribute to higher
joblessness.
Unemployment in California for workers other
than white was still somewhat above national
averages in 1968, despite the sizable proportion
of Orientals. The comparatively low (1.6 to 1)
jobless differential— the ratio of unemployed
workers of Negro and other races to unemployed
white workers—has remained about the same
since 1960.
□
“ Negro and other races” group are American Indians and
persons of Asian descent. This distinction should be con
sidered by the reader in evaluating any interregional com
parison of unemployment rates, participation rates,
occupation concentrations, etc.
3 The Northeast region consists of two subdivisions: New
England— Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu
setts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and Middle Allan-
12
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
tic— New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The North
Central region consists of two subdivisions: East North
Central— Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin,
and West North Central— Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
4 “ Estimates of the Population of States: July 1, 1967,”
Current Population Reports— Population Estimates, Series
P -25, No. 414, January 28, 1969, p. 13.
5 See Paul O. Flaim, “ Unemployment in 20 Large
Urban Areas,” Employment and Earnings and Monthly
Report on the Labor Force, March 1969, pp. 5-18.
See also Urban Employment Survey: Employment Situation in
Poverty Areas of Six Cities, July 1968-Ju n e 1969 (BLS
Report 370, 1969).
No. 63, September 8, 1969, pp. 2-3.
9 The Western region consists of two subdivisions:
Pacific— Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and
Hawaii, and Mountain— Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.
10 Seven of the 10 States in the United States with the
highest projected labor force growth for the 1960-to-1970
period are located in the West— Nevada, Arizona, Utah,
California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Idaho. See Denis F.
Johnston and George R. Methee, “ Labor Force Pro
jections by State, 1970 and 1980,” Monthly Labor Review,
October 1966, pp. 1098-1104, 1149-1175, reprinted as
Special Labor Force Report No. 74.
11 Employment data by occupation are available for
regions and their respective subdivisions and will shortly
become available for the 10 largest States.
6 The Southern region consists of three subdivisions:
South Atlantic— Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia,
Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida; East South Central— Kentucky,
Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi; and West South
Central— Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
12 See Pacific Profile— The Economy of the Eight Western
most States, Bureau of Labor Statistics Regional Report
No. 13, March 1969.
7 See The Appalachian Regional Commission Annual
Report 1968 (Washington, Appalachian Regional Com
mission, 1968), pp. 105-111. 1960 data are used.
13 See Claire C. Hodge, “ The Negro Job Situation: Has
It Improved?” Monthly Labor Review, January 1969, pp.
20-28, reprinted as Special Labor Force Report No. 89.
8 “ Average Family Income Up 8 Percent in 1968,”
Current Population Reports— Consumer Income, Series P -60,
14 Measured statistically, the pattern yields a coefficient
of rank correlation of 0.68.
Manpower Administration research contract program
The U.S. Department of Labor provides financial support for the conduct
of research related to a number of work and training programs, including the
Work Incentive, New Careers, Operation Mainstream, Neighborhood Youth
Corps, JO B S, and Concentrated Employment Programs.
Individual research projects, which are conducted through a system of
contracts to investigators representing the various social science disciplines,
are designed to provide information to improve the overall operations of the
relevant manpower programs. The research program ranges over a wide
subject m atter area, including problems related to strengthening family struc
ture, restoring individuals to economic independence, improving quality of
performance in the human services, and easing the transition from rural to
urban work and living.
For a copy of the guidelines governing submission of research proposals,
as well as a list of research issues and priorities related to the various manpower
work and training programs, interested individuals, academic institutions,
and other organizations with research capabilities in the manpower area
should contact the Manpower Administration, Office of Manpower Research,
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Collective
bargaining
calendar
for 1970
Five m illion workers
will be affected by negotiation
of new agreements in the coming year;
another 5 m illion will receive
deferred wage increases
H. CHARLES SPRING
R enegotiation or reopening of collective bar
gaining agreements 1 covering 1,000 workers or
more will affect more workers in 1970 than in
any year during the 1960’s— about 5 million
workers, compared with 2.7 million last year.
Industries in which bargaining is scheduled
include automobile manufacturing, trucking, rub
ber, meatpacking, apparel, and construction.
On the other hand, contracts covering at least
5.0 million workers neither expire nor provide for
a wage reopening in 1970; substantially all of
these agreements, however, provide for deferred
increases during the year. Continuing the upward
movement in the size of settlements in recent
years, the average deferred increase in 1970
will be the highest on record: 5.6 percent.
Cost-of-living escalator adjustments will be
less important. Although there has been no
decline in the popularity of escalator clauses, a
number of key agreements that expire in 1970
do not provide for reviews in their final year.
Current versus deferred increases
Wage changes going into effect in 1970 for
workers under collective bargaining contracts
affecting 1,000 workers or more will be influenced
more by current negotiations than they were in
1969 when a far greater number received deferred
increases. An estimated 5 million workers will be
affected by negotiations. (Of those covered by
bargaining, 160,000 also will receive a deferred
increase prior to the 1970 contract expiration.)
Most of the workers— 4.9 million—will be affected
by the negotiation of new agreements, the balance
by wage reopening talks. Scheduled 1970 expira
H. Charles Spring is an economist in the Division of
Trends in Employee Compensation, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion and reopening dates of agreements covering
4.0 million workers are shown in tables 1 and 2.
Nearly all of the workers not affected by bar
gaining activity will receive deferred increases;
relatively few contracts signed in 1969 or earlier
and effective through 1970 do not provide such
adjustments. The total number of workers re
ceiving deferred increases in 1970 is significantly
below the number recorded in 1969, a year of
relatively light collective bargaining activity:
Year
1970.................
1969...... ..........
1968.......... .
1967________
1966________
1965____ ____
1964...............
Workers
(in millions)
15.0
2 7.3
2 5. 6
4.5
3 4.3
3.7
2.4
Workers
Year
(in millions)
1963________
3.4
1962____ ____
2.4
1961..
. . ..................
2.9
1960..
. .................... ......................
2.6
1959.................
2.9
1958........ .........
4.0
1957________
5.0
1 Preliminary.
2 Revised.
3 Data for 1966 and earlier years exclude the services, finance, insurance,
and real estate industries.
Excluded from this analysis, prepared in early
December, are contracts covering 2.0 million
workers which either expired late in December or
were in the process of negotiation. (Agreements for
450,000 railroad workers expired December 31,
1969, and have been included in the estimated 5
million workers covered by bargaining in 1970.2)
Wage increases during the first year of a long
term contract are typically larger than those
effective in subsequent years. This, combined
with the relatively great number of workers
scheduled to bargain in 1970, will tend to raise
the average effective wage increase above that
in 1969, a year in which deferred wage changes
had a far greater impact.
Who will bargain
M ajor negotiations are scheduled in the meat
packing, women’s and children’s apparel, rubber,
metalworking (primarily automobiles and farm
13
14
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 1.
Scheduled negotiating activity in bargaining situations 1 affecting 1,000 workers or more, by month and year
Contract expirations2
Scheduled wage reopenings3
Year and month
Principal industries affected
Workers
(in thousands)
Situations
Workers
(in thousands)
Situations
Total, 1 9 7 0 -7 5 ............ .........
2,713
10,984
29
118
1970, t o t a l. . ..............................
855
3,920
22
69
January_______________________
February______________________
March________________________
A p ril.____ ____________________
May__________________________
June__________________________
38
36
86
101
116
110
213
127
682
333
450
241
3
14
2
4
4
1
2
16
19
2
July__________________________
August___ ____________________
September____________________
66
57
63
211
235
751
3
5
1
1
October_______________________
November_____________________
December_____________________
Unknown______________________
79
35
60
8
311
178
153
34
2
3
2
7
1971,total_________________
896
3,732
4
13
1
5
1
4
1
1
3
1
January____ _______
_________
52
119
February_____ ________________
March________________________
47
134
236
A p ril_________________________
91
264
May__________________________
June__________________________
130
116
612
570
July__________________________
August________________________
September____________________
October_______________________
November_____ _______________
December_____________________
Unknown_______________ ____
84
95
65
59
37
31
7
602
410
329
214
92
127
21
1972, total_________________
285
1,132
3
36
January-June____ _____________
July-December_________________
U n know n ..______ _____________
1973________________ _____
1974______________________
1975 or later_________ . . . .
Unknown or in negotiation 4__.
232
52
1
19
7
822
308
2
151
41
3
36
651
2,008
82
Women’s and children's dresses; New York City Transit.
West Coast fru it and vegetable canning.
Trucking; construction.
Construction; rubber.
Construction; women's apparel; New York hotels; paper.
Construction; California gas and electric utilities; New York City
private hospitals.
Construction; women’s knitted clothing.
Construction.
Automobiles and automotive parts; farm and construction equipment; meatpacking.
Farm and construction equipment; automotive parts.
Automotive parts; New York City taxicabs.
Chicago area food stores.
None.
Leather; stone, clay, and glass; machinery (except electrical);
transportation equipment.
Tobacco; metal cans; airlines; food stores.
Stone, clay, and glass; Consolidated Edison of New York; constructiori; West Coast paper.
Construction; public utilities; airlines; New York City office
building service workers.
Construction; communications; leather.
Construction; men’s and boys’ apparel; New York City hospitals;
Calif, motion pictures; REA Express.
Construction; basic steel; communications; aerospace.
Basic steel; food stores.
Bituminous coal mining; aerospace.
Aerospace; basic steel.
Transportation equipment; aerospace.
New York City office building service workers.
None.
Ladies apparel; construction; West Coast restaurants; lumber.
Construction; ladies apparel.
New York City hotels.
Construction.
None.
Railroads; electrical products.
1 Those in the private nonagricultural economy.
2 The contract expiration dates used for two coal mining agreements covering 88,000
workers and 19 railroad situations for 560,000 workers are the expiration dates of their
wage provisions. Two utility agreements covering 14,000 workers are excluded since
they have no fixed expiration or reopening dates.
3 Excludes 285,000 workers in ladies' apparel industries whose contracts provides
for possible wage reopeners during the year based on increases in the Consumer
Price Index. Most of these contracts expire in 1970.
4 Estimates for each year are incomplete because they exclude contracts scheduled
to expire in late December 1969, those that expired earlier but were still being renego
tiated in mid-December, and agreements already renegotiated but whose terms were
not available.
implements), trucking, retail trade, and construc
tion industries.
First to sit at the bargaining table will be the
women’s and children’s dress industry, with
86,500 employees, and the New York City Transit
Authority, with 30,000 employees, both scheduled
to bargain in January 1970.3
The next major group consists of nearly 450,000
general trucking industry employees whose na
tional contract expires on March 31.
Spring and early summer negotiating will be
dominated by the construction industry; con
tracts for 400,000 workers expire between April
and July. Other significant expirations during
this period affect 70,000 workers in the rubber
industry (April), some 90,000 workers in women’s
apparel (May), and 22,000 workers in women’s
knitted clothing (July).
Bargaining will be particularly heavy in the
fall. Automobile and farm and construction
equipment contracts expire in September and
October, opening bargaining doors for 900,000
workers. Also involved in fall bargaining will be
60,000 workers in the meatpacking industry.
Contracts for workers in retail food stores
expire at various times throughout the year; in
the Chicago area agreements terminate in De
cember for 23,000 workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
Deferred wage increases
Deferred wage increases are greater in 1970
than in any previous year for which information
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN 1970
15
is available. The average4 deferred increase is
23.6 cents an hour or 5.6 percent of straight-time
average hourly earnings (table 3). These figures
are influenced by the relatively large size of
construction industry increases, a great many of
which are above 45 cents an hour and 10 percent.5
The most common increase is between 13 and
14 cents an hour, or between 4 and 4.5 percent.
These are the amounts to be received by steel
workers, communication and public utilities em
ployees, and several groups in the leather industry.
Deferred wage changes effective in 1970 range
from a low of 1 cent an hour and 0.5 percent to a
maximum of $1.55 an hour and 35.6 percent.6
Manufacturing industry increases, for the most
Table 2.
industry
part, are smaller than those in nonmanufacturing
industries, the means being 14.6 cents an hour
and 4.3 percent in manufacturing, and 33.1 cents
an hour and 7.1 percent an hour in nonmanufac
turing.
Among manufacturing industry employees
scheduled to receive deferred increases are those
in food and kindred products; apparel; stone, clay,
and glass; and metalworking industries. They
account for 2.2 million workers of the 2.7 million
in manufacturing who are scheduled to receive
deferred increases in 1970.
Deferred changes in the construction industry
influence the averages for the nonmanufacturing
sector. The mean increase for 865,000 construction
Contract expiration and wage reopening dates in bargaining situations 1 affecting 1,000 workers or more, by
[Workers In thousands]
Year of contract termination
Scheduled wage
reopenings in — 3 4
2
Total
I
ndustry
1970
S itu a tions
W orkers
1971
1973 or
later
1972
10,984
855 3,920
896 3,732
285
1,132
26
Manufacturing......... ................................................... 1,550
5, 583
485 2,270
525 1,898
125
528
5
3
7
16
19
1
10
50
77
37
24
101
90
549
26
92
648
101
39
189
107
160
60
123
95
84
32
31
30
52
126
69
168
149
158
32
14
155
632
136
404
546
1; 337
59
30
Nonmanufacturing...................................................... 1,163
5,401
Mining, crude petroleum, and natural gas p ro d u c tio n ...
Transportation, except railroads and airlines............ .......
Railroads...................................... ......................... ....... .........
Airlines....................................................................................
Communications..................................................... ...............
Utilities: Electric and gas.......... ................... ....... ........... .
Wholesale trade____________ __________ ___________
Retail trade, except restaurants.........................................
Restaurants........................................... .............. ...............
Services, except hotels....................................... .................
Hotels............................................................... .......................
Construction...................................... ....................... .............
Finance, insurance, and real estate...................................
2
3
30
181
See table 1, footnote 1.
See table 1, footnote 2.
See table 1, footnote 4.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
17
100
23
43
82
85
31
167
37
81
23
451
23
100
139
851
650
157
627
218
82
532
112
1970
1971
S itua- W ork- S itua- W ork- S itua- W ork- S itu a- W ork- S itu a- W ork- S itu a - W ork- S itu a- W orktions
ers
ers
tions
ers
tions
tions
ers
ers
tions
tions
ers
ers
tions
All industries.................. ......................................... ............. 2,713
Ordnance and accessories.....................................................
Food and kindred products______________ ____ _____
Tobacco manufacturing.........................................................
Textile m ill products........ . ...................................................
Apparel and other finished p ro d u c ts ...............................
Lumber and wood products, except furn iture....................
Furniture and fixtures...........................................................
Paper and allied products....................................................
Printing, publishing, and allied products............................
Chemicals and allied products........................ ...................
Petroleum refining and related industries.... ...................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products____ _____
Leather and leather products................... ....................... ..
Stona, clay, and glass products...........................................
Primary metal industries........................................... .........
Fabricated metal products........................ ................. .........
Machinery, except electrical____ ___________________
Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies________
Transportation equipment.......................................... .........
Instruments and related products......................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.............................
Unknown or
in negotiatio n 3
5
67
16
336
5
41
8
12
31
9
7
32
40
34
17
258
15
11
10
8
20
7
6
9
17
63
48
50
12
64
44
54
31
105
34
14
13
37
218
156
809
27
15
3
43
33
24
25
92
24
25
149
5
69
34
61
2
2
3
13
24
98
25
65
45
59
4
51
94
589
54
6
11
18
4
3
2
1
192
651
2,008
22
69
4
13
21
410
866
14
46
3
8
17
33
66
2
102
2
1
1
6
1
25
24
35
57
1
3
10
10
12
1
4
1
3
1
1
1
5
1
5
20
181
74
5
6
2
1
1
3
28
46
23
17
50
17
41
27
14
14
28
17
35
46
250
53
6
8
4
8
171
241
1,142
2
2
22
20
3
82
612
46
44
56
9
49
15
67
32
100
10
4
23
19
25
13
8
1
1
4
7
5
19
13
12
10
9
18
12
22
10
3
126
353
17
3
23
5
3
19
14
114
7
4
370 1,650
371
1,834
160
604
3
583
11
124
131
38
82
564
74
2
13
9
53
3
13
17
1
2
8
6
11
4
2
36
5
5
33
15
59
9
24
268
98
1,547
168
120
6
8
16
17
80
57
212
25
73
27
526
31
10
28
3
18
70
21
8
121
11
63
12
21
3
109
4
172
42
89
4
471
32
3
4
21
6
6
1
94
6
3
21
1
8
28
4
5
86
30
14
3
351
30
2
13
22
10
4
25
32
99
26
1
13
10
67
7
2
3
6
19
1
1
2
13
8
23
1
2
4
16
1
3
2
2
27
< See table 1, footnote 3.
NOTE:
Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
16
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 3. Distribution of workers 1 receiving deferred wage increases in 1970 in bargaining situations 2 affecting 1,000
workers or more
Number of workers affected (thousands)
Average increase
Total.......... ............... ............. ...........
Number
All
Total
of
private
manu
situa
nonagfac
tions
ricultural turing 4
indus
tries
1,094
5,042
3
7
7
14
15
11
Food
and
kindred
prod
ucts
2,702
Lumber
and
wood
Apparel
prod
ucts
except
furniture
124
354
109
Stone,
clay,
and
glass
prod
ucts
129
Metal
working
1,595
Total
nonmanufacturing 5
3
Mining
2,340
121
10
8
Contract
construc
tion
865
Trans
porta
tion
325
Com
muni
cations
and
public
utilities
Ware
housing,
wholesaleand
retail
trade
637
342
CENTS PER HOUR
Under 5 cents....... ......................... .. .........
5 and under 6 cents____ _____ ________
and under 7 cents_____________ ____
7 and under 8 cents__________________
8 and under 9 cents_____ ____________
9 and under 10 cents_________________
1 0 and under 1 1 cents_________________
11 and under 1 2 cents_________________
12 and under 13 cents________________
13 and under 14 cents________________
14 and under 15 cents_________________
15 and under 17 cents________________
17 and under 19 cents_________ _____
19 and under 21 c e n ts ......... .............. . _
21 and under 23 cents_________________
23 and under 25 cents_______ _____ ___
25 and under 30 cents______ __________
30 and under 35 cents........................ .......
35 and under 40 cents........... ....................
40 and under 45 cents________________
45 cents and over.........................................
Not specified or not computed 7______
6
10
79
59
93
96
56
126
70
84
40
19
57
42
30
21
148
18
Mean increase____________ _________
Median increase________________ _____
PERCENT
13
17
34
62
15
258
454
523
617
264
663
238
293
122
73
275
139
141
51
594
186
23.60
15.00
1
6
1
12
2
18
57
2
1
3
5
3
2
2
12
2
193
215
362
548
188
453
133
166
96
32
89
17
19
7
3
14
38
17
6
110
12
51
3
135
15
9
14
10
6
8
9
12
16
17
10
1
6
55
40
3
23
3
5
11
2
104
162
152
525
172
226
53
53
12
17
23
5
14
7
5
16
5
3
65
239
161
69
76
210
105
127
26
41
194
2
7
3
1
13
3
1
5
2
24
5
3
27
1
5
39
6
12
1
26
2
2
80
63
78
28
50
« 554
46
18
3
i
50
29
98
122
122
94
6
21
5
20
42
51
594
92
14. 60
13. 40
18 80
13 60
12. 50
2 0 60
2 0 .90
13 30
1 8 .90
1 2 .0 0
14 20
13.40
33 10
27.20
21 40
25. 40
1
15
8
16
131
393
659
108
12
57 10
50.00
9
23?
llfi
41
48
76
33
13
41
?
32
17
17
59
29
63
15
6
33
6
1
10
11
23
12
29 840
33. 040
13
12.60
lf i ?^
15.00
15
3
1
37
8
Under2 percent_______ ______ _______
2 and under 2M percent______________
lY t. and under 3 percent. _______ ____ _
3 and under 3J^ percent_______________
and under 4 percent. ___ ______
4 and under 4y2 percent_______ ______
4 )*2 and under 5 percent_______________
5 and under 5}4 percent____________
and 6 percent_____________ ______
6 and under 6 J-6 percent_______________
6 ) ^ and under 7 percent_______________
7 and under 7J£ percent____ ___ ______
lY i and under 8 percent_____
8 and under 9 percent________________
9 and under 10 percent_______________
1 0 and over_______ . . .
Not specified or not computed 7 ..................
Mean increase__________
Median increase_________ . .
10
21
14
46
95
144
152
92
82
63
93
41
32
27
49
27
106
34
213
478
748
893
256
391
302
443
139
103
129
214
72
410
196
21
5.6%
4.4%
1
6
22
1
204
414
703
270
167
266
176
224
40
27
6
2
11
5
3
3
33
148
5
7
7
8
122
10
10
26
4
17
4
21
33
16
9
104
4.3%
4.0%
3
20
42
9
64
45
623
89
125
126
219
99
76
108
181
56
401
92
4.1%
4.0%
3. 8 %
3.6%
7.1%
6 . 1%
17
4
73
95
1
1
66
68
3
10
8
2
54
11
22
9
2
7
6
6
1
7
3
1
6
21
. 1%
. 0%
5.4%
5. 4%
5
5.9%
6 . 0%
1
4
3
5
3
3
7
2
3
25
2
81
5.3%
6 . 1%
2
16
15
23
13
12
8
2
8
37
4
500
9
18
29
36
17
53
48
46
60
17
31
28
58
34
13
54
22
96
56
45
« 368
46
10. 1%
9.1%
1
2
44
6
1
39
2
6
3
4
13
9
2
109
27
11
23
12
7.1%
7.0%
4.3%
4.0%
5.2%
5.0%
* Workers are distributed according to the average adjustment for ail workers in
their bargaining units. Increases include guaranteed minimum adjustments under
cost-of-living escalator clauses.
2 See table 1, footnote 1.
3 Totals for all industries are based on data available in mid-December 1969, and
thus may understate the number of workers receiving deferred wage increases.
4 Includes workers in the following industry groups for which separate data are not
shown: Tobacco (24,000), textiles (40,000), furniture (30,000). paper (82,000), printing
(40,000), chemicals (80,000), petroleum (35,000), rubber (2,000), leather (50,000),
miscellaneous manufacturing ( 8 ,0 0 0 ).
5 Includes workers in the following industry groups for which separate data are not
shown: Finance, insurance, and real estate (46,000); and services (4,000).
6 Includes construction workers in the following intervals: 8 6 , 0 0 0 at 45 and under
50 cents, 104,000 at 50 and under 55, 6,000 at 55 and under 60,173,000 at 60 and under
80, 110,000 at 80 and under $1, 25,000 at $1 or more; and 74,000 at 10 and under 11
percent, 42,000 at 11 and und er 12 percent, 57,000 at 12 and under 13 percent, 34,000
at 13 and under 14 percent, and 44,000 at 14 percent or more.
7 Insufficient information to compute amount of increasa.
8 Percent of estimated straight-time average hourly earnings.
workers is 57.1 cents an hour and 10.1 percent.
Other influential deferred-change provisions of the
nonmanufacturing sector are those in transporta
tion, communication and public utilities, whole
sale and retail trade, and mining industries.
Most of the deferred increases are scheduled for
the first half of the year; 3.0 million workers or
61 percent will receive their increase by the end
of June (table 4). Some 405,000 of these workers
will receive additional pay in the second half of
the year. A majority of those receiving more than
one increase are in the construction industry;
another substantial group are transportation
industry workers. Only 34,000 workers will receive
more than two deferred increases in 1970.
Many multiyear contracts make provisions for
deferred benefit changes, as well as wage changes.
When the employer cost of these benefit increases
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN 1970
17
Table 4. Distribution of workers by month of deferred wage increase due in 1970, bargaining situations covering 1,000
workers or m ore1
Number of
workers
affected
(thousands)
Effective month
T o ta l2.
Principal industries affected
5,042
J a n u a ry...
February..
March____
A p ril..........
M a y..........
June...........
July_____
August___
September.
October___
November.
December..
587
234
335
496
575
806
643
963
180
451
127
98
Petroleum; leather; construction.
Metalworking; retail trade.
Communications; retail trade.
Communications; construction; retail trade.
Construction; communications; tobacco
Construction; maritime; lumber.
Construction.
Steel; construction.
Restaurants; communications.
Aerospace; bituminous coal.
Aerospace; transportation.
Aerospace; construction.
> See table 1, footnote 1
2 This total is smaller than the sum of the individual items since at least 371,000 workers w ill receive 2 increases, and 34,000 w ill receive 3 increases in 1970. The total is based
on data available in mid-December 1969, and thus may understate the number of workers receiving deferred wage increases
is taken into account with deferred wage increases,
the average package increase in 1970 is 5.6 percent
in contracts involving 5,000 workers or more
(table 5).
Cost of living escalators
At the beginning of 1970, an estimated 2.64
million workers were covered by cost-of-living
escalation provisions : 7
January
1970_____________
1969........ ............
1968___________
1967________ ____
1966_.___________
1965________ ____
1964_____________
Number of
workers (in
millions)
12.64
22.6 6
2.46
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
January
1963........ ..................
1962.................... .
1961.......................
1960.......... .......... ..
1959_____________
1958_____________
1957_____________
Number of
workers (in
millions)
1.85
2.5
2. 5-2.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
1Preliminary.
2Revised.
Escalator clauses provide wage increases auto
matically as consumer prices rise. They are most
often found in the meatpacking, tobacco, metal
working, and trucking industries. In 1969 such
provisions were added to major collective bargain
ing agreements in the airline industry and in some
metalworking contracts. Their importance will di
minish in 1970, however, as many contracts do not
provide for escalator review in the year of expira
tion. This will affect about 900,000 workers, leav
ing only 1.7 million workers who may actually
receive escalator adjustments in 1970.
In late 1969, cost-of-living wage escalation was
an issue in collective bargaining going on in the
electrical products industry. General Electric Co.’s
initial offer was a 1-year contract without escala370-356 O— 70---- 42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion, to replace an expired multiyear agreement
containing cost-of-living reviews. The unions in
volved, on the other hand, sought a continuation
and liberalization of the escalator clause and also
retention of a multiyear contract. This impasse had
not been resolved when this article was prepared.8
The trend in escalator clauses has been toward
longer intervals between reviews. At the beginning
of 1970, 2.0 million workers out of the 2.64 million
covered by cost-of-living provisions had reviews on
an annual basis. Only 375,000 had quarterly
reviews, 175,000 semiannual, and 40,000 monthly.
Accompanying the change to annual review,
most contracts included minimum guarantees or
maximum limits, or both, on the escalator adjustTable 5. Distribution of workers by deferred wage and
benefit increases in bargaining situations 1 affecting 5,000
workers or more, 1970
Average deferred wage and benefit increase as a percent of existing
wage and benefit expenditures
Number of
workers (in
thousands)
All settlements providing deferred changes 2 ...........................
Under 3 _________ _____ _______ _______ _ ._ . . . _______
3 and under 3J^___ _______ ________ -............................ ..............
3}^ and under 4 .
_______ . . . _______ ____________
4 and under 4 }^
................................................................
4J^ and under 5
..................................................
5 and under 5)^
.
. . . .
..............
.............
5}^ and under 6
__ . . . . .
.............
6 and under 6 H
................................................................
§y2 and under 7
_______________ ______ _____
7 and under 1}/%
...................................... - .............
l /l i and under 8
. ___________________ ________
and under 9
__
. . . . . . . . . . . .
9 and under 10
...........................................
. .
1 0 and over
.
____
__
3, 206
135
310
89
647
529
292
345
136
79
77
25
215
32
296
Mean increase
Median increase
5.6%
4. 7%
8
._
_
____ ___ ____
-
__ _ __
__
>See table 1, footnote 1.
2 The total excludes those workers covered by contracts expiring in 1970, receiving
a deferred benefit change only.
18
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 6. Prevalence of cost-of-living escalation in bargaining situations 1 covering 1,000 workers or more with scheduled
deferred wage increases in 1970, by size of deferred increase
Number of workers
due to receive
deferred wage
increases
(thousands)
Item
All workers with deferred increases...
AVERAGE DEFERRED WAGE INCREASES
Percent of workers
covered by cost-ofliving escalator
clauses
5,042
16.8
All workers with deferred increases...
2
AVERAGE DEFERRED WAGE INCREASES
Cents per hour
Under 5__________
5 and under 6 ____
6 and under 7........ ..
7 and under 8 _____
8 and under 9 _____
9 and under 10____
lOand under 11___ _
1 1 and under 1 2 ___ .
12 and under 13___ .
13 and under 14_____
14 and under 15___ .
15 and under 17...................
17 and under 19___ _______ . .
19 and under 21___ .
21 and under 23___ .
23 and under 25___ _______
25 and under 30......... ..
30 and under 35.................. _
35 and under 40_____ . .
40 and under 45_____
45 and over...................
Not specified or not computed 3 ........................
1
2
Percent 4
Under 2 ________
and under 2 )£
2 }^ and under 3
3 and under 3)3
3)3 and under 4
4 and under 4)3
4)3 and under 5
5 and under 5)3
5)3 and under 6
6 and under 6 ) 3
6)3 and under 7
7 and under 7)3
7)3 and under 8
8 and under 9
9 and under 10
1 0 and over
Not specified or not computed
11
13
17
34
62
15
258
454
523
617
264
663
238
293
18.2
23.5
26.5
74.2
66.7
30.6
28.6
27.0
6.5
23.9
27.0
13.0
11.3
4.1
16.4
122
73
275
139
141
51
594
186
5,042
16.8
21
19. 0
52 9
55 4
40 0
28 5
18 6
7 0
2 5
9 3
3 6
9 4
5! 9
34
?13
478
748
893
?S6
391
30?
443
189
litt
179
214
72
410
196
3
11
2
? 8
5.1
6 .2
3.6
15.6
Industry Group
? 70?
Manufacturing
Nonmanufacturing
3.5
3
4
?5 1
7.2
2,340
Insufficient information to compute amount of increase.
Percent of estimated straight-time average hourly earnings.
Typical cost-of-living escalator increases in selected industries, 19 57 -69
Increases (in cents per hour) in allowances effective in—
Industry
1969
Automobile_________ ______ ____
Farm and construction equipm ent..
Aerospace______________ .
Trucking_______________
Meatpacking........ ..............
Steel________________
Alum inum __________________ .
Containers (cans)....................
Railroads...... .......................
Mean increase
Percent of workers
covered by cost-ofliving escalator
clauses
2
2
f ee Î a!?ie 1 - footnote L
See table 3, footnote 1.
Table 7.
Number of workers
due to receive
deferred wage
increases
(thousands)
Item
14 .........
................... ..
3
1968
15
3 5
8-17
4
16
5.5
3
1967
15
3 5
3-13
7 3
12
4.9
1966
* 2 or 5
3 5
4 3-8
11
5
io
5.8
1965
1964
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
11
11
4
5-10
8 3
8
8.3
1 Three quarterly escalator reviews of the cost-of-living allowance at American
Motors Corp. and 2 reviews at other automobile companies resulted in increases of 5
cents and 2 cents, respectively, in 1967 prior to contract expiration in the fall. New 3-year
agreements at General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., and Chrysler Corp. changed
escalator reviews to annual from quarterly with a minimum of 3 cents and a maximum
of 8 cents in both 1968 and 1969. In 196/ American Motors Corp. negotiated a 2-year
contract which provided an 8 -cent wage increase in 1968 (in lieu of wage adjustments
based on changes in the CPI) in addition to a 3-percent deferred wage increase. In 1969,
American Motors Corp. negotiated a 1-year agreement, due to expire in October 1970,
providing a 3-percent general increase with “ catch-up” adjustments of 15 cents an
hour for skilled workers and 5 cents for unskilled workers, and an immediate 8 -centan-hour cost-of-living adjustment.
2 Includes 1 cent diverted for pension improvements.
3 Three quarterly escalator reviews in 1967 resulted in total increases of 5 cents prior
to contract expiration in the fall. New 3-year agreements changed escalator reviews to
annual from quarterly with a minimum of 3 cents and a maximum of 8 cents in both 1968
and 1969.
4 Varying by company.
5 Resulting from 2, 3, or 4 reviews of cost-of-living allowances prior to contract
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4.0
4
3.3
1963
4
4
1960
3
3 or 4
3 or 4
2 2
4 1
or
3
94
3
3.3
4
4
2
2
09
12
Si
3
3
3
2.4
2.5
4 1
or
2
4
3
13 3
3
3
00
3.4
1957
1958
1959
6
3
9
9
9
5
6
6
« 8 or 9
6
5
7
7
7
8
2.3
6.4
7.0
3
3
<2 or 3
2
3
1
1
1
4
6
4 or 5
6
8
expirations during 1968 at most companies. Most agreements negotiated in 1968
changed escalator reviews to annual from quarterly, with the first review in 1969.
3
The 1957 changes apply to employees of only a few firm s; escalator clauses were
not established at some others until 1958. By 1965, most companies had escalator
clauses, including all the large firms on the Pacific Coast.
7 Allocated tb pension and/or health and welfare funds in some agreements.
8 A 3-cent increase was diverted into health and welfare funds; no wage increase was
granted.
9 Includes 1 or 2 cents diverted into health and welfare funds.
i° Resulting from one semiannual review prior to contract expirations; new agree
ments negotiated during the year deferred the first semiannual review until 1968.
u Escalation discontinued during the year.
12 Includes 1.5 cents diverted toward a projected increase in the cost of insurance.
13 A 3-cent increase was diverted toward a projected increase in the cost of insurance.
>4 Averages were based on increases in industries where escalation was in effect
during the entire year.
Notes: Dashes indicate no escalation plan in effect during the year. Minimum
guarantees have been excluded from this table and included with the deferred increases.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN 1970
19
merits. Of the 2.64 million workers covered by
cost-of-living provisions, 1.8 million come under
some kind of ceiling. The effect is to reduce the
impact of the inflationary rise in consumer prices.
For example, in 1969 the increase for most workers
would have been much greater than the maximum
allowed, as the rise in consumer prices during 1969
was sufficient to provide adjustments in excess of
the limits for virtually all these workers.
For purposes of analysis, the minimum guar
antees which workers receive under these clauses
have been treated as deferred increases because
they are granted regardless of movement in con
sumer prices. The additional amounts reflecting
the price rise are reported as cost-of-living in
creases. In 1969 the guarantee was 3 cents an
hour for 1.1 million workers affected by minimum
clauses.
Nearly all escalator clauses (96 percent) specify
the b l s national c p i as the index on which possible
cost-of-living adjustments will be based. Some
95,000 workers have clauses tied to b l s city in
dexes, and 2,500 workers to indexes other than
those produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Of the 5.0 million workers scheduled to receive
deferred increases in 1970, 0.8 million are covered
by cost-of-living clauses (table 6), and thus pos
sibly will receive additional increases. Recently,
these changes have averaged from 5 to 8 cents an
hour in some major industries (table 7).
Provisions in selected contracts
The provisions of selected collective bargaining
agreements affecting 5,000 workers or more listed
in table 8 (pp. 20-26) have been chosen as repre
sentative of deferred increases, contract expira
tions, wage reopenings, or cost-of-living reviews in
1970. The 114 agreements covering 3.6 million
workers cover a broad range of industries; how
ever, contracts in the construction industry were
excluded.9
□
FOOTNOTE S1 These agreements include multiplant or multifirm
agreements covering 1,000 workers or more even though
each individual unit is smaller. Government units are
excluded.
2 For settlements providing deferred increases for an
additional 24,000 workers reported too late to be included
in the tables, see Note, p. 26.
3 Agreements which expired in late December 1969 are
excluded from this discussion and from data in the tables.
4 The averages referred to in the text are arithmetic
means. Both means and medians are shown in the tables.
Previous articles in this series contained only medians.
5 The large size of some construction increases is the
result of provisions for options to divert part of the in
crease to benefit funds. In many instances, at the bargain
ing table the parties will decide on a total wage and benefit
amount and leave the division of this amount between
wages and benefits to subsequent determination by the
union. For example, a 75-cent-an-hour deferred increase
agreed upon in 1968 may, at its effective date in 1970,
become 60 cents in wages and 15 cents in benefits, or any
other combination. In the absence of knowledge as to
what division ultimately will be adopted, all of the in
crease is treated here as a wage increase. Options to
divert part of the increase to benefit funds were incorpo
rated into contracts affecting 218,000 construction workers
scheduled to receive deferred increases in 1970.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8 Minimum guarantees under cost-of-living escalator
clauses are included as deferred wage changes. See later
discussion of cost-of-living provisions for the size and
extent of minimums.
7 To these workers should be added at least 825,000
workers who are covered by smaller union agreements
or are not unionized but are covered by provisions for
cost-of-living escalation. These include 475,000 production
workers in nonunion and small union manufacturing
plants and about 350,000 white-collar workers in estab
lishments where unionized employees are covered by
escalator clauses in agreements. The pensions of nearly
1.5 million retired military and Federal Civil Service
employees and survivors are adjusted i f the c p i rises by
3 percent for 3 consecutive months. For a discussion of
the prevalence of and experience with escalator clauses
over the past 20 years, see Monthly Labor Review, Sep
tember 1966, pp. iii-iv.
8 The 200,000 workers in the electrical products industry
affected by collective bargaining agreements which ex
pired in 1969 have been excluded from the total number
of workers covered under cost-of-living escalators.
9 An expiration calendar for all agreements covering
1,000 workers or more will be available from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics early in 1970.
20
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 8. Expiration, reopening, and wage-adjustment provisions, selected collective bargaining agreements, JanuarvDecember 1970 1
*
Order of listing
Manufacturing
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Ordnance and accessories
Food products
Textiles
Apparel
Furniture
Paper
Chemicals
Petroleum
Rubber
Leather and leather products
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Nonmanufacturing
Stone, clay, and glass
Steel and aluminum
Fabricated metal products
Machinery, except electrical
Electrical products
Automobiles
Aircraft
Shipbuilding
Instruments
Miscellaneous manufacturing
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Mining
Railroads
Local transit
Trucking and warehousing
Maritime
Airlines
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Telephone and telegraph
Electric and gas utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
Hotels and restaurants
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Medical and other health services
[1970 expirations shown in boldface)
Company or association
Union
2
3
Approx
imate
number
of em
ployees
covered
Provisions effective January-December 1970 for—
Contract term *
Wage reopening
Automatic cost-ofliving review «
Deferred wage increase (hourly
rate unless otherwise specified)
1. Ordnance and accessories
General Dynamics Corp.,
Convair Division.
M achinists...
Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc.,
LTV Aerospace Corp.
(Dallas, Tex.).
Auto Workers
(Ind.).
6,400
Oct. 11,1965 to
Quarterly (Mar.,
June, Sept.,
Dec.).
OcL 10,1970.
14,000
Oct. 21,1968 to
Oct. 15,1971.
O cL 19,1970
OcL 19, 1970;
11-20 cents.
2. Food products
Armour and C o ...
John Morrell and Co..
Meat Cutters........ _.
1 2 ,0 0 0
Mar. 13, 1967 to
____ do___________
1 0 ,0 0 0
Two agreements:
(a) Mar. 31,
1967, to
Semiannually (Jan.
and July),
do
Aug. 31,1970.
Aug. 31,1970.
(b ) Sept. 1,
1967, to
Swift and Co___
Brewers Board of Trade,
Inc. (New York, N.Y.).
California Processors, Inc.
(California).
Sugar Plantation Companies’
Negotiating Committee
(Hawaii).
Aug. 31,1970.
____ do___________
9,800
Sept. 1,1967 to
Teamsters ( In d .) . . .
5,000
June 1,1967 to
____ do___________
75,000
Longshoremen and
Warehousemen
(Ind.).
9,100
Mar. 1,1967 to
Feb. 20,1970.
Feb. 1,1969 to
Jan. 31,1972.
do
Aug. 31, 1970.
May 31, 1970.
Feb. 1,1970 ; 5-17 cents;
Nov. 1,1970; 6-15 cents.
3. Textiles
United Knitwear Manufac
turers League, Inc. (New
York, N.Y., area).
Ladies’ Garment
Workers.
11,500
July 17,1967 to
July IS, 1970.
4. Apparel
American M illinery Manufac
turers' Association, Inc.
(New York City and New
Jersey).
Clothing Manufacturers Asso
ciation of the U.S.A.
New York Coat and Suit As
sociation, Inc. (N.Y., N.J.,
Conn., Pa.).
Popular Priced Dress Manu
facturing Group, Inc.; Pop
ular Priced Dress Contrac
tors Association, Inc.;
United Better Dress Manu
facturers Association, Inc.;
National Dress Manufac
turers Association, Inc.;
and Affiliated Dress Manu
facturers, Inc.
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Hatters___
Clothing W orkers...
6,500
125,000
Ladies’ Garment
Workers.
42,000
Ladies’ Garment
Workers.
80,
Jan. 1,1969 to
Dec. 3 1 ,1971.«
June 1,1968 to
May 31, 1971.
June 1,1967 to
May 30,1970.
000
Feb. 1, 1967 to
Jan. 30,1970.
Jan. 1, 1970;
workers,
workers.
6
percent for piece
a week for week
$6
June 1,1970; 25 cents.
In event the cost of living shall
have risen since May 15,
1967, the union may give
notice on or before Apr. 15
for fall season or Sept. 15 for
the spring season.
In event of an increase or decrease in the cost of living
since Jan. 15,1967.
21
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN 1970
Table 8.
Continued—Expiration, reopening, and wage-adjustment provisions
Union
Company or association 2
3
Approx
imate
number
of em
ployees
covered
Provisions effective January-December 1970 for—
Contract term *
Wage reopening
Automatic cost-ofliving review 5
Deferred wage increase (hourly
rate unless otherwise specified)
5. Furniture
7,700
Oct. 13,1967, to
O c t 11,1970.
6. Paper
International Paper Co.,
Southern Kraft Division.
Papermakers and
Paperworkers;
Pulp and Sul
phite Workers;
and Electrical
Workers (IBEW).
11,500
June 1,1967, to
May 31,1970.
7. Chemicals
Dow Chemical Co. (Midland
and Bay City, Mich.).
FMC Corp., American Viscose
Division.
Mine Workers
District 50
(Ind.).
Textile Workers
Union.
6,500
Mar. 8,1968, to
Mar. 8,1971.
8,600
June 1,1968, to
June 1,1971.
Quarterly (Mar.,
June, Sept., Dec.).
June 1,1970; 14 cents.
8.
Atlantic Richfield Co.7...... .........
Sinclair Oil Corp.7 ___________
Atlantic Independ
ent Union (Ind.).
Oil, Chemical, and
Atomic Workers.
6,300
Petroleum
Jan. 1,1970; 4 J£ p e rce n t.
Jan. 1, 1969, to
Dec. 3 1 ,1970.«
5,700
M ar. 9 1970; 10 cents.
Jan. 1,1970; average 19.6 cents.
Jan. 1,1969, to
Dec. 3 1 ,1970.«
9. Rubber
Firestone Tire and Rubber Co.
Rubber Workers___
17.000
July 20,1967 to
1 1 .0 0 0
July 15, 1967 to
A pr.
20,1970.
B F Goodrich Co
do
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
do
20,300
July 24,1967 to
do
2 2 ,0 0 0
July 26, 1967 to
A pr. 2 0 , 1970.
Apr. 20, 1970.
Apr. 19,1970.
10. Leather and leather products
Brown Shop Co
Interco Inc
United Shoe
Workers; and
Boot and Shoe
Workers.
Boot and Shoe
Workers; and
United Shoe
Workers.
12,150
Nov. 1 , 1968 to
10,050
Oct. 1, 1968 to
OcL 31, 1970.
SepL 30, 1970.
11. Stone, clay, and glass
35,000
Mar. 22. 1968 to
Feb. 28, 1971.
M ar. 1,1970
Glass and Ceramic
Workers.
9,000
Oct. 25, 1968 to
Oct. 25, 1971.
Oct. 25, 1970 .........
____ do___________
8 ,0 0 0
Feb. 16,1969 to
Feb. 16, 1972. «
Cost of living
clause estab
lis h e d -d e ta ils
not available.
Glass Container Manufac
turers Institute, Inc.,
National Glass Container
Multi-Employer Production
and Maintenance Contract
(Interstate-excluding
West Coast.)
Glass Bottle
Blowers.
Libbey-Owens-Ford Co_______
PPG Industries, Inc.; Glass
Division.
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
( I f CPI in
creases 1X
A per
cent or next cal
endar month
after prelim
inary figures
showing 2 A Per
cent increase
are released.)
M ar. 1, 1970; 4 percent (base
hourly rates).
OcL 25, 1970; 10 cents to base
rates except specified skilled
t rsdcs
Feb. 1970; 10 cents (additional
30 cents to mechanical
workers).
22
Table 8.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Continued— Expiration, reopening, and wage-adjustment provisions
Company or association
Union s
2
Approx
imate
number
of em
ployees
covered
Provisions effective January-December 1970 for—
Contract term *
Wage reopening
Automatic cost-ofliving review 5
Deferred wage increase (hourly
rate unless otherwise specified)
12. Steel and aluminum
Aluminum Co. of America
Aluminum Workers.
Aluminum Co. of America
Steelworkers.
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp.
major basic steel companies— production and
maintenance employees:
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.
Armco Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
C.F. and I. Steel Co. (form erly
Colorado Fuel and Iron
Corp.) (Mass, and Colo.)
Inland Steel Co.
Jones and Laughlin Steel
Corp. (Pa. and Ohio)
National Steel Corp., Great
Lakes Steel Division
(Michigan)
Pittsburgh Steel Co.
Republic Steel Corp.
United States Steel Corp.
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Co.
11
9,000
1 1,00 0
____ do.
9,000
____ do.
400, 000
July 21,1968, to
May 31, 1971.
June 1, 1968 to
May 31, 1971.
June 1968 to
May 1971.®
Aug. 1,1968 to
July 31, 1971.6
June 1, 1970; 8-17.8 cents.
June 1, 1970; 13 cents.
1970; 13 cents.
Aug. 1, 1970; 12-18.2 cents (12 cent
general increase, plus 0 . 2 cent
increment increase.)
13. Fabricated metal products
American Can Co___________
Steelworkers______
16,000
Feb. 1,1968 to
Feb. 14,1971.
Continental Can Co.................... ____ do___________
15, 500
Feb. 1, 1968 to
Feb. 14,1971.
Feb. 1, 1970;
10 cents— standard
hourly wage rates; $4. a w e e k standard weekly rates.
Feb. 1,1970; 10 cents— hourly
rates; $4. a week— weekly
salary rates.
14. Machinery, except electrical
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing
Auto Workers
Co. (West Allis, Wis.).
(Ind .).
Caterpillar Tractor Co________ ____ do___________
Deere and Co. (Iow a and
____ do___________
Illinois).
International Harvester Co.,
____ do___________
production and maintenance.
Tim kin Roller Bearing Co.
Steelworkers______
(Canton, Columbus, and
Wooster, Ohio).
Whirlpool Corp. (Evansville,
Electrical Workers
Ind.).
(IUE).
5,200
26,300
18,100
34, 000
10, 000
6,800
Mar. 5, 1968 to
Nov. 1,1970.
Oct. 23,1967 to
Oct. 1, 1970.
Dec. 25, 1967 to
Sept. 30,1970.
Feb. 12, 1968 to
Sept. 30,1970.
Oct. 11,1968 to
Aug. 23,1971.
Aug. 23, 1970; 12-16.6 cents.
Oct. 17,1967 to
Oct. 17,1970.
15. Electrical products
Allen-Bradley Co.
(Milwaukee, Wis.)
Collins Radio Co. (Anamora
and Cedar Rapids, Iowa).
General Motors Corp. Delco
Products, Delco-Remy, and
Packard Electric Divisions.
Radio Corporation of America. _
Raytheon Co. (Massachusetts).
Electrical Workers
(U E )(lnd.).
Electrical Workers
(IBEW).
Electrical Workers
(IUE).
Electrical Workers
(IBEW).
Electrical Workers
(IBEW).
5,400
7, 000
29,000
19, 800
9, 000
May 12,1967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
Oct. 11,1967 to
Oct. 10,1970.
Dec. 19,1967 to
Sept 14, 1970.
June 30,1967 to
June 1,1970.
Sept. 1,1969 to
Sept. 1971.6
1970 16-25 cents.
16. Automobiles
American Motors Corp.
(Michigan and Wisconsin).
Chrysler Corp. Production
and Maintenance
Ford Motor Co......... ..
Auto Workers
(Ind.).
____ do___________
____ do___________
165, 000
General Motors Corp..
____ do___________
390, 000
____ do___________
6,300
.
Mack Trucks, Inc., Master
Shop Agreement.
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9, 500
105, 000
Oct. 19,1969 to
Oct. 16,1970.6
Nov. 15, 1967 to
Sept 14, 1970.
Oct. 25,1967 to
Sept. 14, 1970.
Jan. 1,1968 to
Sept. 14,1970.
Apr. 11, 1968 to
Oct. 20, 1970.
23
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN 1970
Table 8.
Continued— Expiration, reopening, and wage-adjustment provisions
Union3
Company or association 2
Approx
imate
number
of em
ployees
covered
Provisions effective January-December 1970 for—
Contract term 4
Wage reopening
Automatic cost-ofliving review 5
Deferred wage increase (hourly
rate unless otherwise specified)
17. Aircraft
Avco Corp., Avco Lycoming
Division (Stratford, Conn.).
Auto Workers
(In d .)
R p p d ix H o rp
5,100
Apr. 16,1967, to
14.500
June 17,1968 to
Apr. 16,1971.
Oct. 2 , 1968 to
Oct. 1, 1971.
July 1,1967 to
Apr. 15, 1970.
42.500
____ do___________
Cessna Aircraft Co. (Wichita,
Kans.).
North American Rockwell Corp_ Auto Workers
(Ind.).
8,800
June 15,1970;
Oct. 2,1970;
9.5-14 cents.
Oct. 4,1970;
10-19 cents.
Quarterly (Jan.,
Apr., July, Oct.).
June 28,1970.
30,000
Apr. 20, 1970_ _ _ _ _ _
SepL 25,1970_ _ _ _ _ _
July 19,1970_ _ _ _ _ _
Oct. 6,1968 to
Sept. 3 0 , 1971.
7-16 cents.
18. Shipbuilding
Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.
(Duval County, Fla.).
Newport News Shipbuilding
and Drydock Co. (Newport
News, Va.).
Pacific Coast Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair Firms.
Independent Work
ers Union of
Florida (Ind.).
Peninsula Ship
builders Associ
ation (Ind.).
Pacific Coast Metal
Trades District
Council.
5,000
Jan. 1,1967 to
Jan. 3, 1970.
15.000
July 1,1969 to
July 1972.6
15.000
July 1,1968 to
June 30,1971.
July 1970; 11 cents.
Apr. 1, 1970_ _ _ _ _ _ _ July 1,1970; 12 cents.
19. Instruments
Honeywell, Inc., (Minneapolis
and St. Paul, Minnesota).
Teamsters ( In d ,) .. .
10,500
Feb. 1,1967 to
J a n .31,1970.
20. Miscellaneous manufacturing
10,000
National Association of Doll
Manufacturers, Inc. (New
York and New Jersey)
Jan. 1 , 1967 to
June 30, 1970.
21. Mining
Anthracite Operators
(Pennsylvania).
8,000
Apr. 1, 1969 to
Mar. 31,1972.
80, 000
Oct. 1, 1968 to
Sept. 30, 1971.
(Ind.).
Bituminous Coal Operators___
(Ind.).
Apr. 1, 1970; 35 cents a day to
machine and mechanical
miners, contract miners, and
contract miners’ laborers. All
others 5 cents an hour.
Oct. 1,1970; $2 a day.
22. Railroads
Class 1 Railroads:
Operating unions________
Class 1 Railroads:
Nonoperating unions_____
Locomotive
Engineers (Ind.).
United Transportation Union:
Locomotive
Firemen.
Railroad
Trainmen.
Switchmen
Railway
Conductors.
Maintenance of
Way Employees.
35,000
At any time after Dec. 31,1969.
July 1,1968 to
Open End.6
194,000
Jan. 1, 1968 to
Open End.6
At any time after Dec. 31,1969
July 1,1968, to
At any time after Dec. 31,1969.
Open E n d .6
89, 000
At any time after Dec. 31,1969.
July 1,1968, to
Open End.6
Railroad Signalmen.
10,000
July 1,1968, to
Railway Clerks____
144,000
July 1,1968, to
Railway Clerks.........
34,000
July 1,1968, to
June 30,1971,
At any time after Dec. 31,1969.
Open End.6
At any time after Dec. 31,1969.
Open End.6
Railway Express Agency, In c ...
July 1,1970; 7 percent.
23. Local transit
Metropolitan Taxicab Board
of Trade (New York, N.Y.).
Directly Affiliated
Local Union No.
3036 (N.Y.C.
Taxi Drivers
Union).
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29,000
Nov. 17, 1967, to
Nov. 15,1970.
24
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 8.
Continued—Expiration, reopening, and wage-adjustment provisions
Company or association 2
Approx
imate
number
of em
ployees
covered
Union3
Provisions effective January-December 1970 for—
Contract term 4
Wage reopening
Automatic cost-ofliving review 5
Deferred wage increase (hourly
rate unless otherwise specified)
24. Trucking and warehousing
California Trucking Associa
tion, Inc., and Draymen's
Association of San
Francisco (California).
Carolina Motor Carriers
Labor Negotiating Com
mittee, City Cartage
Agreement (North Carolina
and South Carolina).
Central States Area Local
Cartage and Over-theRoad Motor Freight
Agreements.
Joint Area Cartage Agreement
(Illinois and Indiana).
Upstate New York Trucking,
Over-the-Road Motor
Freight and Local Cartage
Agreements (New York).
Western States Area Overthe-Road Motor Freight
Pick Up and Delivery,
Local Cartage and Dock
Workers Supplemental
Agreements (Western
States Area).
Motor Transport Labor
Relations, Inc., and 4 others.
New England Supplemental
Agreement.
New Jersey-New York Area
General Trucking Supple
mental Agreement (New
York and New Jersey).
Southeastern Area Motor
Carriers Labor Relations
Association, Local Cartage
and Over-the-Road Supple
mental Agreements.
Southwest Operators Asso
ciation, Southwestern Area
Local Cartage Supplemental
Agreement.
M ilk Tank Haul Agreement,
Zone 2 (New Jersey and
New York).
National Iron and Steel
Specialty Commodity
Agreement.
Teamsters (In d .) . .
6, 000
Apr. 1, 1967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
In event of war, declaration of
emergency or imposition of
economic controls upon
60 days notice.
____ do___________
6, 700
Apr. 1, 1967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
____ do______________________
____ do___________
160, 000
Apr. 1,1967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
____ do___________
14, 000
____ do___________
18, 000
Apr. 1, 1967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
Apr. 1, 1967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
____ do___________
30, 000
Apr. 1, 1967 to
Mar. 31, 1970.
_ do
____ do___________
23, 000
16, 000
____ do___________
38, 000
Apr. 1,1967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
Apr. 1,1967 to
Mar. 30,1970.
Sept. 1, Í967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
__ do_
____ do___________
____ do______ ____
13, 000
Apr. 1,1967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
_do_ . . . _______ _______
____ do___________
6,000
Apr. 1,1967 to
Mar. 31, 1970.
__do______ ___ ___ ______
____ do_______
_ .
5,900
Aug. 1,1967 to
July 31, 1970.
____ do___________
5,000
Apr. 1, 1967 to
Mar. 31,1970.
d o ____________________
__ __do____________ ________
___ do_______________________
_ __
do.
do
25. Maritime
American Maritime Associa
tion (A tlantic and Gulf
Coasts).
Maritime Service Committee,
Inc., and Tanker Service
Committee, Inc., Standard
Freightship and Tanker
Agreements, unlicensed
personnel (Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts).
New York Shipping Associa
tion, Inc. (Port of Greater
New York and vicinity).
Pacific Maritime Assocation
(Pacific Coast).
S e afarers............
12,000
June 16,1969 to
June 17, 1970.
M aritim e_______
26, 500
June 16,1969 to
June 15,1972.
Ju n e lS , 1970; 6 percent.
Longshoremen’s
Association.
21,000
Oct. 1,1968 to
Sept. 30,1971.
Oct. 1,1970; 35 cents.
Longshoremen and
Warehousemen
(Ind.).
16, 000
July 1,1966 to
June 30, 1971.
American Airlines, Inc.,
stewardesses.
Eastern Air Lines, Inc.,
ground service.
Pan American World Airways,
Inc., mechanics, ground
service, and Guided Missile
Range Division.
United Airlines, In c .. . ............
Transport W orkers..
4,000
Machinists...... .........
10, 000
Transport Workers..
10,900
Aug. 1,1968 to
Aug. 10,1970.
Jan. 1,1969 to
Dec. 31, 1971.
July 1, 1968 to
Apr. 30, 1971.
June 29, 1970; 20 cents for longshore
men on 6-hr. day; 22)^ cents
to longshoremen on 8-hr
straight-time basis and to
clerks; 24}^ cents to clerk
supervisors; and 27 cents to
clerk chief supervisors.
26. Airlines
Air Line Pilots.
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5, 500
Mar. 2, 1968 to
Mar. 2, 1970.
Jan. 1,1970_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Jan. 1, 1970; 6 percent.
July 1,1970; 8 percent.
Apr. 19, 1970 and Oct.18, 1970;
4 percent.
25
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN 1970
Table 8.
Continued—Expiration, reopening, and wage-adjustment provisions
Union s
Company or association2
Approx
imate
number
of em
ployees
covered
Provisions effective January-December 1970 for—
Contract term *
Wage reopening
Automatic cost-ofliving review5
Deferred wage increase (hourly
rate unless otherwise specified)
27. Telephone and telegraph
American Telephone and
Telegraph Co., Long Lines
Department.
General Telephone Co. of
California.
New York Telephone Co.,
Plant Dept, and Empire
City Subway Co., Ltd.
(New York).
Pacific Telephone Bell of Ne
vada, Northern Plant and
Traffic Dept. Agreements
(California and Nevada).
Southern Bell Telephone &
Telegraph Co. (Fla., Ga.,
N.C. and S.C.).
Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co.
Western Electric Co., Inc.,
Service Division-Installation
Organization.
Communications
Workers.
24,000
July 16,1970; $3.50-6 a week.
Jan. 16,1967 to
July 16,1971.
do
15,700
Nov. 5,1967 to
do
25,000
July 30,1968 to
July 28,1971.
July 29, 1970; $3.50-0 a week.
do
24,600
May 1,1968 to
Apr. 30,1971.
Apr. 16, 1970; $3.50-6 a week.
do
42,600
May 14,1968 to
May 13,1971.
May 14,1970; $3.50-6 a week.
do
50,100
22,500
July 17,1968 to
July 16, 1971.
Mar. 6,1968 to
Apr. 30,1971.
July 19,1970; $3.50-6 a week.
do _
July 14,1970.
Mar. 6, 1970; 10-17 cents.
28. Electric and gas utilities
Consolidated Edison Co. of
New York, Inc. (New York
City and Westchester
County, N.Y.).
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
(Upstate New York).
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
(California).
Southern California Edison
Co. (California).
Jan. 4 , 1970; 6 percent.
Dec. 1,1968 to
Mar. 10,1971.
Utility Workers........
19,200
Electrical Workers
(IBEW ).
____ do_____ _____
7,150
June 1,1968 to
17,700
July 1 ,1 9 6 6 to
____ do......................
5,600
May 30,1970.
June 30, 1970.
Jan. 1 , 1969 to
Dec. 30,1970.
29. Wholesale and retail trade
Chain and Independent Food
Stores, grocery and produce
departments (Illin o is and
Indiana).
Food Employers Council, Inc.
and other Grocery Associa
tions and Independent
Stores (SouthernCalifornia).
Gasoline Retailers Association
of Metropolitan Chicago,
Service Station Agreement
(Chicago, III., area).
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea
Co. (New York and New
Jersey).
R.H. Macy & Co., Inc. Macy's
New York Division.
Philadelphia Food Store Em
ployers’ Labor Council
(Philadelphia, Pa., area).
Washington, D.C., Food Em
ployers Labor Relations As
sociation (Washington, D.C.,
area).
Retail Clerks______
23,000
Dec. 2,1967 to
Dec. 1970. 6
____ do___________
40,000
April 1969 to
Mar. 1972.«
Teamsters (1 nd.)__
6,000
Meat Cutters______
17,000
Aug. 1968 to
Aug. 1971. «
Incorporated into
base rates.
Apr. 1970; 20 cents to journeymen
clerks, porportionate increase to
other employees.
Nov. 1 , 1967 to
Oct. 1970. «
Retail, Wholesale,
Department
Store Union.
Retail Clerks........
8, 500
Apr. 1 , 1968 to
14,000
July 9,1967 to
____ do___________
10,000
Aug. 1970; $6-7 a week.
Jan. 30,1970.
Jan. 10, 1970.
Feb. 28,1968 to
Feb. 1970.
30. Hotels and restaurants
Chicago downtown hotels__
Hotel Association of New
York City, Inc.
Nevada Industrial Council,
Resort Hotels (Las Vegas,
Nev.).
Oregon Food and Beverage
President’s Council (Port
land, Oreg.).
Hotel and Restau
rant Employees.
New York Hotel
and Motel Trades
Council.
Hotel and Restau
rant Employees.
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8,000
Oct. 1,1966 to
M ar. 31,1970.
30,000
Dec. 1,1968 to
May 31,1973.
June 1,1970; $2.50-6 a week.
9,000
Mar. 10,1967 to
Apr. 1,1970; increases according to
M ar. 9,1970.
6,000
July 16,1967 to
July 15, 1970.
classifications.
26
Table 8.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Continued—Expiration, reopening, and wage-adjustment provisions
Company or association2
Union3
Approx
imate
number
of em
ployees
covered
Provisions effective January-December 1970 for—
Contract term 4
Wage reopening
Automatic cost-ofliving review 5
Deferred wage increase (hourly
rate unless otherwise specified)
31. Finance, insurance, and real estate
Realty Advisory Board on
Labor Relations, Inc.,
Apartment Buildings (New
York, N.Y.).
Service Employees..
20,000
Apr. 21, 1967 to
Apr. 20,1970
32. Medical and other health services
League of Voluntary Hos
pitals and Homes of New
York (New York, N.Y.).
Retail, Wholesale
and Department
Store Union.
16.100
July 1, 1968 to
June 30,1970
1 Contracts on file with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nov. 1, 1969, except where
footnote indicates that information is from newspaper source.
2 Interstate unless otherwise specified.
2 Unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO, except where noted as independent.
4 Refers to the date the contract is to go into effect, not the date of signing. Where a
contract has been amended or modified and the original termination date extended, the
effective date of the changes becomes the new effective date of the agreement.
For purposes of this listing, the expiration is the formal termination date established
by the agreement. In general, it is the earliest date on which termination of the contract
could be effective, except for special provisions for termination as in the case of dis
agreement arising out of a wage reopening. Many agreements provide for automatic
renewal at the expiration date unless notice of termination is given. The Labor Man
agement Relations Act of 1947 requires that a party to an agreement desiring to term i
nate or modify it shall serve written notice upon the other party 60 days prior to the
expiration date.
s Date shown indicates the month in which adjustment is to be made, not the month
of the Consumer Price Index on which adjustment is based.
6 Information is from newspaper account of settlement.
7 Atlantic Richfield and Sinclair merged on March 4, 1969. Two refineries at Port
Arthur, Tex., and Marcus Hook, Pa., previously under these contracts, have been sold
to BP Oil Corp., a subsidiary of British Petroleum Co.
N OTE
The summary of deferred wage increases was prepared early in December
and does not reflect settlements reached later in the month. B y mid-December,
the Bureau had recorded settlements that provided deferred wage increases
in 1970 for approximately 24,000 additional workers. Of these, about 9,200
were in transportation industries, 9,100 in metalworking, and 5,200 in textiles.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A discussion of
five obstacles
to the selection of
appropriate questions to test
social-psychological variables
NORMAN M. BRADBURN
Gertrude Stein is reported to
have uttered these memorable words: “What is
the answer? W hat is the answer? Ah, what is the
question?” And that is what we face when we
talk about the problem of selecting questions to
be asked on a questionnaire. W hat are the ques
tions about questions that should be asked?
Questions relating to social-psychological vari
ables are being utilized increasingly in survey
work concerning social programs. Many of the
considerations relevant to the selection of ques
tions on social-psychological variables will also be
pertinent to the choice of questions on other types
of variables.
In formulating adequate decision rules for the
selection of social-psychological questions, there
are five principal obstacles:
On
h e r
d e a t h b e d
,
1. A lack of agreement among behavioral sci
entists about the appropriate social-psychological
dependent variables that are relevant to particular
social programs;
2. An inadequate conceptualization of those socialpsychological variables that are suggested for study;
3. A relative lack of interest in systematic method
ological research and survey measurement;
4. The relative underdevelopment of measure
ment theory in survey work as compared with the
sophistication of sampling theory; and
5. The special historical and cultural problems
that affect the phraseology of questions.
The first two obstacles are intimately related to
one another and concern the problem of knowing
what concepts one wishes to measure. Social
psychologists themselves cannot agree on what the
relevant variables should be, and, because of the
poor state of conceptual development of the
variables that are suggested, there is not even a
reasonable degree of consensus on their relative
importance. L et me give, as an example, some
problems that the National Opinion Research
Center faced in doing surveys connected with the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Selecting
the questions
to be asked
in surveys
evaluation of manpower training programs. In
creasingly, those involved in the evaluation of
these programs believe that some kinds of socialpsychological factors may be important in deter
mining the effectiveness of training programs, and
even, in some instances, that particular types of
social-psychological changes should be viewed as
important outputs of the program in addition to
increased skill level. The extension of interest to
factors other than narrowly defined economic ones
is to be applauded. Behavioral scientists appear to
have succeeded in convincing economists that there
is something more to the world than economic
variables. I t is lamentable, however, that they
cannot now come forward with better suggestions
regarding the social-psychological variables to be
studied.
I t is easy to point out that there is a lack of
consensus among behavioral scientists about the
importance of particular variables. I t is not so
easy to explain why such a lack of consensus should
exist, or to suggest things that could be done to
improve the situation. Although I have no good
evidence, I strongly suspect that the situation is
fostered by two trends in the behavioral sciences
that have been going on for some time.
The first is that most research in the behavioral
sciences limits itself to establishing the existence
of relationships among variables, and gives
practically no attention to the assessment of the
magnitude of those relationships. If one reads the
professional journals in these fields, one has the
feeling that psychologists and sociologists worship
a god of “statistical significance,” and have an
Norman M. Bradburn is director of the National
Opinion Research Center and professor of behavorial
sciences, University of Chicago Graduate School of
Business. This article is based on his paper presented to
the 1969 annual meeting of the American Statistical
Association.
27
28
unquestioning faith that all things which are
statistically significant are equal in importance in
the world, and that all things that are not statis
tically significant are totally unimportant.
Closely allied with such a belief and aiding it is
the fact that the great preponderance of research
is carried out under laboratory or other artificial
conditions which make its applicability to real
world phenomena extremely limited at best.
Neither of these aspects of research is calculated
to aid one in deciding what the practical im
portance of particular variables might be in real
life situations. As the demand from those involved
in applied behavioral research increases, I suspect
that we shall see some changes in these trends.
When challenged “to put up or shut up,” I find it
hard to believe that behavioral scientists will be
able to shut up.
Low priority for methodological research
Two other related difficulties involve the ap
parent lack of interest in systematic methodologi
cal research and the underdevelopment of measure
ment theory in survey work as compared with the
development of sampling theory. I t seems a safe
generalization that in the field of survey research,
methodological research has a relatively low pri
ority. This is not to say that there is no method
ological research being conducted, but rather that
the research that is done tends to be fragmented,
local, unpublished, and usually specific to par
ticular studies.
How does one explain this comparative lack of
interest in response errors as compared with the
fairly sophisticated development of psychometric
models in the measurement of educational achieve
ment and individual differences in abilities? I
suspect that the difference lies in the uses to which
data in social research have been put, compared
with the ways in which data are used in educa
tional systems and in personnel selection and
placement. For the most part, survey data in the
behavioral sciences have not been used to make
important decisions concerning people’s lives.
There is every indication, however, that survey
data will play an increasingly important role for
social planning purposes and in the evaluation of
social programs. In addition, the allocation of large
sums of money is now and will increasingly in the
future be influenced by the results of sample sur
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
veys. Unfortunately, I believe that we are pres
ently at a state where the quality of most survey
data is too poor to support the uses to which it is
put. We must work to improve very significantly
the quality of data that we are collecting.
Changes in the use of language
Finally, there is a set of problems that are
extremely disturbing to anyone seriously interested
in the methodology of question asking— particu
larly disturbing because they seem so intractable.
These difficulties stem from changes in linguistic
usage across time and variations in usage among
different subgroups within the same population
or across different populations. In short, these are
the vexing problems of the comparability of
question meaning to the respondents at different
points in time or at different points in space.
Shifts in the use of language over time is a par
ticular problem if one is interested in monitoring
social change, such as changes in attitude toward
certain types of programs (for example, social
security or social welfare programs), or is concerned
with measuring changes in racial attitudes.
Consider, for example, the changing attitudes
toward the terms “colored,” “Negro,” and “black.”
These alterations in wording are small and may
be inconsequential adjustments to shifting usage.
B u t on the other hand, we don’t really know what
are the effects of the changes. We all know that
slight variations in the wording of a question may
bring about relatively large shifts in the distribu
tion of responses, but we have no systematic data
that would allow us to approximate how much of
the change in distributions is due to alterations
in question wording and how much is due to real
changes in opinion.
The problem of wording differences is not
confined to changes over time but is also omni
present in cross-sectional research. We have taken
it more or less as a canon of faith in survey research
that all respondents— all those who speak English
at least— should be asked the questions in exactly
the same wording, regardless of their educational
level. The result of this article of faith is that
questions addressed to nationwide samples are
couched in a vocabulary that is presumed to be
understandable by even poorly educated respond
ents. Such a presumption, however, may have
little basis in fact for we know little about the
SELECTING THE QUESTIONS
29
way in which poorly educated or minority-group
respondents interpret questions worded in standard,
albeit simplified, English. Many of us in survey
research feel that there is probably considerable
loss of information when the identical question
wording is used for both middle-class and extremely
poor or minority-group respondents. B u t we have
not found any usable way to alter question
wording so that it becomes appropriate to the
characteristics of the respondent. On the other
hand, I don’t think we have tried very hard either.
Some rules of thumb
From the foregoing discussion of these five
obstacles to the delineation of precise decision rules
for selecting questions, we can now point to some
rules of thumb for use in asking the general
questions about what questions to select. I would
summarize these rules of thumb as follows:
(1) W hat is the theoretical relevance to the
problem at hand of the social-psychological
variables that I select for study? If I cannot specify
what these variables are and at least what their
theoretical relation is to the phenomena I am
studying, then I should abandon the effort to
measure them.
(2) From the best information I can get on
operational measures of these variables, what
measure best meets the criteria of good item
construction, has the least susceptibility to re
sponse biases, and has the best psychometric prop
erties? I t may turn out at this point that there are
no scales which meet the minimum standards I
have set for my research, and I must either aban
don the effort to measure the variables or embark
on a side excursion in developing new measures.
(3)
Finally, what are the characteristics of the
population that I am surveying, particularly with
regard to degrees of heterogeneity which might
require different forms of questions for different
segments of the population to be studied? While
I believe it unlikely that one will find any measure
that will have alternate forms of questions for
differing subgroups of the population, I believe
that the researcher should seriously ask himself
whether he should not devote some of his precious
research time to investigating the potential biasing
effects of using the same question form for all
respondents.
I have no illusions that the practice of survey
research comes anywhere near to approximating
the ideal towards which we strive. I do, however,
feel strongly that we must make very substantial
improvements in our measurement standards if we
are to fulfill the promise that survey research
methodology has made to those who are engaged
in social research.
□
Erratum
In the November M o n thly L a b or Review, in the paper from the meeting of
the American Statistical Association entitled “How changes in household com
position affect family income,” the last sentence in the next-to-last paragraph
on page 59 should read “A much smaller proportion . . .”
In table 3 (p. 60), under “Total households,” the percentage of persons
returning from an institution should be 1.8 rather than 17.9.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Labor
and the
economy
in 1969
s ix t y - n in e
opened with 77.2 million
people employed (out of a civilian labor force of
over 79.8 million, seasonally adjusted), incomes
at record levels, and seasonally adjusted unem
ployment of 3.3 percent, the lowest since October
1963. B u t consumer prices, which started their
inflationary rise in the second half of 1965, were
rising at the fastest pace since the Korean war.
At the threshold of the 1970’s, with over 78
million employed, the economic problem, which
has been evident since 1966, was how to choke off
inflation without stifling the high employment
and income of the 1960’s. To do the job, the Fed
eral Government relied on fiscal policies of “firm”
but not “drastic” restraint— of holding down Fed
eral expenditures and continuing the income sur
tax, enacted in 1968, to yield a moderate budget
surplus. The tight monetary policy of the Federal
Reserve Board (permitting little or no growth in
the money supply and precipitating high interest
rates and hard-to-get credit) complemented the
fiscal initiatives. Manpower policies sought to ease
shortages in the labor market that exerted up
ward pressure on wages.
N in e t e e n
Unemployment, growth, earnings
Fears that unemployment would rise sharply,
particularly among minority groups, in the wake
of deflationary fiscal and monetary policies did
not materialize in 1969.1 Table 1 shows that
unemployment remained about as low as it had
been in 1968, which saw the lowest annual level
since the Korean War. However, unemployment
averaged higher in the second half of the year
(roughly 3.7 percent) than in the first half (3.4
percent). The second half increase in unem
ployment occurred mostly among new entrants to
Robert W. Fisher is an economist and editor in the
Office of Publications, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A review of trends
in industrial relations, employment,
prices, wages, and salaries
and a summary of key court decisions
ROBERT W. FISHER
the labor force who were unable to find jobs as
the growth in new jobs failed to keep up with the
growth .in the labor force. The rise in unemploy
ment was proportional for whites and Negroes.
In 1969, unemployment continued to be con
centrated in certain age, race, sex, and occupa
tional groups. Unemployment rates for adults
remained well below those of teenagers. White
unemployment rates were about half the level of
those for Negroes. Men’s rates were significantly
lower than those for women. Broken down by sex,
color, and age, the rates for white men were
lowest—2 percent or below—with white women,
Negro men, Negro women, white teenagers, and
Negro teenagers having progressively higher rates
in that order. (Black teenagers’ rates remained
about 6 times the overall unemployment rate.)
B y occupational group, white-collar workers and
farm workers have had unemployment rates simi
lar to those for white men, while blue-collar and
service workers’ rates have very roughly paralleled
those for Negro men (table 2).
Gross national product grew by about $50 bil
lion during the first three quarters of 1969 with
much of the increase attributable to price in
creases. Consumer prices rose faster in the first
10 months of 1969 than they had in the similar
period in 1968 (table 3), but over the last few
months the rate of increase slowed down. Civilian
labor force growth averaged over 1.9 million in
1969, up from an annual growth of 1.4 million
in 1968.
Based upon preliminary data, gross average
weekly earnings of production (nonsupervisory)
workers on private nonfarm payrolls stood at
$116.94 in October 1969 compared with $110.29
in October 1968. However, the cumulative rise
in consumer prices, coming on top of a drop in the
work week, almost washed out the increase,
real gross earnings standing at $90.09 in October
1969 compared with $89.74 a year earlier. While
LABOR AND THE ECONOMY IN 1969
31
spendable— after Federal payroll taxes— earnings
were up in current dollars, real spendable earn
ings— after allowing for price increases since the
1957-59 period— were virtually unchanged from
a year ago. The growing divergence between cur
rent and real earnings has persisted since the
second half of 1965 (chart 1).
Policy for 1969
F ighting inflation . T
have a stronger anti
inflation effect than that provided in the outgoing
administration’s fiscal year 1970 budget, the
incoming administration reduced Government
spending even more and proposed keeping the
surtax at 10 percent through the end of 1969,
despite earlier plans to recommend its expiration.
However, it proposed reducing the surtax to 5 per
cent for the second half of fiscal year 1970, relying
on reduced Government expenditures to more
than counterbalance the loss in tax revenues.
In Congressional deliberations, the surtax exten
sion became entangled with a separate proposal
to reform income taxes. At mid-year, the 10percent surtax was extended to the end of 1969,
and the balance of the tax measures appeared close
to enactment as the year ended.
As part of its approach to fighting inflation,
the Nixon administration ruled out guideposts,
“jawboning,” and the entire kit of direct wage
and price controls. In October, however, as the
anti-inflation policy seemed to be having an effect
(with concomitant and undesired increases in un
employment), the administration sent letters to
2,200 business and labor leaders, engraving its
intent to maintain policies of restraint until
inflation was beaten. In testimony before the
o
Table 1.
Joint Economic Committee of the Congress, the
Commissioner of Labor Statistics reported that
the increase in the pace of inflation had been
arrested in recent months.
M anaging manpower . Anti-inflation policies drew
prime time, but manpower and other training pro
grams received considerable attention throughout
the year. The new administration expressed hope
that effective manpower training programs could
be used to moderate or prevent increases in un
employment that might be brought on by the
anti-inflation strategy. Training new workers and
upgrading experienced ones would increase the
supply and dispersion of skilled and semiskilled
workers, tilting the labor supply curve toward
greater elasticity.
In February, the new administration announced
that the Job Corps would be placed in the Depart
ment of Labor and some of its centers closed. Some
Congressmen opposed the move, primarily on the
grounds that the corps’ “innovative” feature—
changing the environment of social and economic
dropouts as well as training them— would be lost.
In March, a 14-month study of the corps by
the General Accounting Office was released. Its
principal finding was that Job Corps trainees did
little better than poor youths without the training.
The next month Louis Harris Associates’ study of
the corps was released, and it found that trainees
who completed the program experienced lower
unemployment and earned higher wages than
similar youths without the training.
Plans for the proposed Job Corps shift and shut
downs proceeded. President Nixon directed that
59 training centers be closed and that new, smaller
centers be opened in the “inner city” and near the
Unemployment rates by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, 1968 and 1969
All
civilian
workers
Men (20 years and over)
White
Month
Ja n u a ry .................................................
February______ ______________________
M arch............ .................. ............... .........
A p ril.............. .......... ...........................
May____________________________
June_________
July________
August....................... ................... .............
Septem ber.................... ............... .........
October________ ______ ________
November_________
December___
White
Negro 1
Teenagers (16-19 years)
Negro 1
White
White
Negro 1
1969
1968
1969
1968
1969
1968
1969
1968
1969
1968
1969
1968
1969
1968
1969
1968
1969
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.5
4.0
3.9
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3. 0
3. 0
6.0
5.7
6.0
6.9
6.5
7.0
6.4
6.5
6.8
6.9
6.2
6.6
7.1
6.9
6.8
6.5
7.1
6.8
6.4
6.6
7.3
6 5
6. 0
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.8
3.2
3.2
3.7
3.4
4.0
3.8
3.7
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.7
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.3
5.0
5.3
6.0
7.2
5.7
6.1
6.3
6.5
6.6
5.8
6.6
6.7
6.4
6.4
6.1
6.5
6.7
6.1
6.1
6.1
10.1
10.1
11.4
11.3
10.8
9.5
11.0
11.1
12.0
11.3
10.5
10.8
11.2
10.8
11.3
11.3
11.8
10.9
10.9
10.3
10 2
11.7
22.9
22.0
21.6
23.6
27.8
28.6
22.3
22.7
23.9
27.1
3 .3
1 9
3 7
3 ?
5 9
1.6
3 .5
3 .2
5.8
1Data refer toall races other than white. Negroes make upabout 92 percent of races other thanwhite.
Source: Employment and Earnings (monthly).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Women (20 years and over)
Negro1
1968
20.0
25.1
24.8
23.6
24.1
29.1
24.4
22.8
25.9
29.1
2 6 .9
2 2 .0
32
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 2. Unemployment rates, selected
workers, seasonally adjusted, 1968 and 1969
Month
All
civilian
workers
White
collar
Blue
collar
classes
Service
of
Farm
1969 1968 1969 1968 1969 1968 1969 1968 1969 1968
January................
February...............
March_________
April.............. .....
May,...................
June....................
July.....................
August,.,..............
September............
October........ .......
November.............
December,............
S o u rce :
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.5
4.0
3.9
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.3
Employment and Earnings
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
3.8
3.6
3.7
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.8
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.0
3.8
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.6
4.2
3.8
3.8
4.5
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.9
4.4
3.9
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.5
4.3
5.2
4.9
4.1
4.4
4.7
4.2
4.2
1.5
1.1
2.1
1.9
1.7
2.0
2.9
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.1
2.4
2.0
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.3
1.7
( m o n th ly ) .
city. Savings from the closings were set at $100
million. In July, the Labor Department reported
that the corps had been assimilated.
In the manpower programs,, the administration
changed and clarified lines of authority and
requested funding arrangements to grant States
and localities more authority over the programs.
The top manpower post was split into two— one to
make policy decisions and the other to oversee
operations. Regional offices were consolidated into
nine, headed by regional manpower administrators.
(The Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training main
tained its separate identity.) Absorbing the func
tions of the U.S. Employment Service and the
Bureau of Work-Training Programs, a new U.S.
Training and Employment Service took over oper
ation and coordination of eight manpower training
programs and job placement. I t was hoped that
the changes would permit a person desiring train
ing to walk into a field office, be slotted into an
appropriate program, and eventually leave the
system with a job.
In other manpower developments, the National
Alliance of Businessmen ( nab ) reported in Novem
ber that almost 269,000 disadvantaged and hard
core unemployed persons had been hired under
the jobs program between M ay 1968, when the
program began, and September 1969. Expectations
were that over 614,000 persons would be hired by
the end of June 1971, up from an original target
of 500,000.
In the fall, plans to include 36 cities in a com
puterized job vacancy program to match hardcore
unemployed with jobs was expanded to embrace
55 cities. Early success in test cities encouraged
the planned expansion. Late in the year, job banks
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
were operating in Baltimore, Chicago, Hartford,
Portland, St. Louis, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.
On the statistical front, a new job vacancy
statistics program, which had provoked some
controversy in the planning stages, was scheduled
to begin providing data late in 1969.
Other policy . During the year, the new adminis
tration proposed labor legislation to extend the
unemployment insurance system to cover about
4.8 million additional workers, to grant the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission authority
to go directly to Federal court in cases where it
found discrimination, and to create a farm labor
relations board under a farm labor management
relations act, both of which would be separate
from the Labor Management Relations Act and
the National Labor Relations Board. Other pro
posals of interest to labor included the coal mine
safety bill (see p. 36), a 10-percent increase in
social security benefits, and a new departure on
the welfare system. Under it, the Federal Govern
ment would guarantee every family a minimum
income of $1,600, scaled so as to encourage em
ployable family members to work since working
would increase total family income. Most of these
proposals were still the subject of Congressional
deliberations late in the year.
Collective bargaining
An easier bargaining year had been expected in
1969 because the number of workers being bar
gained for was smaller and industries in which
rough deadlocks have occurred recently— auto
mobiles, rubber, steel, copper, and trucking— were
Table 3.
1969
Selected indexes of consumer prices, 1968 and
[1 9 5 7 -1 9 5 9 = 1 0 0 ]
A l l ite m s
C o m m o d it i e s
S e r v ic e s
M o n th
1968
1969
1968
1969
1968
1969
J a n u a r y _______________________
1 2 4 .1
1 1 3 .2
1 1 3 .5
1 3 9 .0
1 3 0 .8
1 2 4 .6
1 2 5 .6
1 2 6 .4
1 1 8 .6
1 1 9 .0
1 1 9 .5
1 1 7 .4
F e b r u a r y ______________________
M a r c h _________________________
A p r i l ___________________________
M a y , ______ ____________________
1 3 1 .3
1 3 2 .1
1 2 6 .8
1 3 9 .7
1 4 0 .9
1 4 2 .0
1 4 2 .7
1 3 2 .5
1 3 3 .0
J u n e . . ______________________
J u l y ____________________________
A u g u s t ________________________
S e p t e m b e r ____________________
O c t o b e r _______________________
N o v e m b e r ____________________
1 2 7 .6
1 2 8 .2
1 2 8 .7
1 2 9 .3
1 2 9 .8
130. 5
1 4 3 .3
1 4 4 .0
1 4 5 .0
1 4 6 .0
1 3 3 .9
1 3 4 .9
1 3 5 .5
1 3 6 .0
1 4 6 .5
1 4 7 .2
1 3 6 .6
1 3 7 .4
1 2 2 .9
1 2 3 .4
1 2 3 .7
D ecem ber
S o u rce :
1 1 9 .9
1 2 0 .3
1 2 0 .9
1 2 1 .5
1 2 1 .9
1 2 2 .2
Consumer Price Index
( m o n t h ly ) .
1 1 7 .8
1 1 8 .7
1 1 9 .3
1 1 9 .6
1 1 3 .9
1 1 4 .3
1 1 4 .7
1 2 0 .5
1 2 1 .0
1 2 1 .4
1 1 5 .1
1 1 5 .5
1 1 5 .9
1 2 1 .7
1 2 2 .4
1 2 2 .9
1 1 6 .1
1 1 6 .8
1 1 7 .1
1 1 7 .2
1 3 8 .1
33
LABOR AND THE ECONOMY IN 1969
Chart 1. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls,
January 1964 to date
Dollars
525 man-days of work time was lost due to work
stoppages in the first 3 quarters of 1969 (0.19
percent of work time) compared with roughly 1 out
of every 333 in 1968 (0.30 percent).
Many of the stoppages were in support of
compensation demands that boosted median settle
ments again in 1969. The median wage increase hit
6.6 percent in settlements reached during the first
three quarters of 1969 compared with 5.1 percent
for the first three quarters of 1968.3 (The median
boost in manufacturing was considerably lower
than that in nonmanufacturing, in part because
of big settlements in construction and transporta
tion.) The median increase in wages and fringe
benefits was 8.1 percent in settlements reached
during 1969’s first three quarters (6.6 percent in
1968).4 Median first-year wage boosts, which
partly reflect workers desires to “catch-up” with
earlier price increases, were 8.0 percent in the first
three quarters of 1969, compared with 7.2 percent
in 1968.5
Another dock tieup
1 Real dollars (adjusted for price changes, 1957-59 base).
2 Worker with 3 dependents.
Note: Latest data— October 1969; last 2 months preliminary.
off the calendar. However, those segments of the
transportation industry that have been unable
to reach agreements without public intervention
were on the calendar. Also, over 400,000 workers
were bargained for in the key construction
industry, which has been receiving increasing
public attention due to rising costs and prices.
Ju st over 2.7 million workers were covered by
major collective bargaining settlements (affecting
1,000 workers or more) in 1969, compared with
about 4.6 million in 1968 and about 4.4 million in
1967. Workers bargained for divided almost
equally between manufacturing and nonmanu
facturing industries. Bargaining for 328,000 of the
workers occurred under wage-reopening provisions.
Workers scheduled to receive wage increases
deferred in previous years’ settlements totaled
about 6 million, more than in any recent year.
More work stoppages (4,860) occurred during
1969’s first 10 months than in any similar period in
the 1960’s, but less work time was lost (about 29
million man-days)2 than in the comparable period
in 1968 (about 45 million). About 1 out of every
37CM356 0 — 70------- 3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Atlantic and gulf coast stevedoring in
dustry, which has been the most frequent recipient
of injunctions under the national emergency dis
putes procedures of the Taft-Hartley Act, was
served a seventh injunction in October 1968, end
ing a 2-day walkout by about 46,000 dock workers.
Returned to the docks, the longshoremen worked
off the 80-day cooling-off period, then resumed
the strike just before Christmas 1968. The prin
cipal result of the injunction was to deflect most
of the strike’s effects from 1968 to 1969.
Wages, fringe benefits, and guaranteed annual
employment all figured in the dispute between
the International Longshoremen’s Association
( i l a ) , the New York Shipping Association ( n y s a ) ,
and outport shipping associations. Among the
stickiest bargaining issues were the shape of pro
tections against containerization, and the manner
in which the New York and North Atlantic dis
trict (Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Hamp
ton Roads) settlement would apply to ports in the
South Atlantic and on the gulf.
Wrangling among the shippers on one side and
the local unions on the other as to the shape and
extent of offers respecting key provisions pre
vented movement toward a settlement during
early January. Dismaying of settlement prospects,
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
34
the nysa withdrew all offers and requested that
President Johnson refer the entire dispute to
Congress for legislative solution.
Settlement reached for the Port of New York
in mid-January generally followed the outlines of
an earlier pact that had been scuttled by failure to
get acceptable commitments respecting the other
North Atlantic ports. I t provided a $1.60 an hour
wage and fringe benefit boost, an improvement in
pensions, and guaranteed employment at straight
time for a full year. The containerization agree
ment provided the right to the ila to open and
repack all containers moving through the New
York port that had been packed within a 50-mile
radius.
The ila declined to present the settlement to
New York Longshoremen for a vote because it
was not clear that the other ports would buy all
of the provisions contained in the New York
agreement. Following the settlement, there was
a flurry of bargaining activity at other North
Atlantic ports. Bargaining also picked up at
southern and gulf ports.
The mid-January settlement remained on the
table. The New York Shipping Association
threatened to withdraw it if it were not voted
on and the workers did not return to work; the
Longshoremen did not budge. A few days later,
the nysa filed unfair labor practice charges against
the ila with the National Labor Relations Board.
The nlrb went to court for a back-to-work order,
which the court refused. B u t it did order the ila
to vote on the settlement. In mid-February, New
York Longshoremen approved the agreement
almost 3 to 1 (9,328 to 3,213), and returned to
work on February 15.
With the New York Longshoremen back on
the job, and with the ila locals in New Orleans
ordered by a Federal court to vote on a tentative
pact there, settlement fever spread to all other
ports. On the same day the New Orleans Long
shoremen were ordered to vote, shippers and
unions in Baltimore reached tentative agreement;
and the next day, agreement was reached at
Philadelphia. The long strike, which had begun
in earnest December 20, finally ended during the
first week of April when Boston and Galveston
Longshoremen accepted contracts. The agree
ments bore similar shapes but contained different
details, particularly in provisions respecting
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
handling of containerized cargo and guaranteed
annual income provisions.
Builders
Construction labor activity was conducted in
three arenas in 1969. Unions and employers
bargained as usual. Unions and employers con
ducted unscheduled bargaining with Negroes
over more skilled jobs in the industry for black
and other minority group members. Government
initiated new programs, epitomized by the
“Philadelphia Plan” that provoked controversy
in the second half of the year, to get more minor
ity group workers into the skilled building trades.
For the first three quarters of 1969, the median
settlement in wages and benefits in the construc
tion industry was running about 12.5 percent in
settlements affecting 1,000 workers or more.6 A
sampling of recent settlements in the construction
industry can be obtained in 1969 issues of the
M o n th ly L a b o r R eview .7
B lack Monday. Negro protest demonstrations for
more and better jobs in construction in Pitts
burgh, Chicago, Seattle, Buffalo, Charlotte, N.C.,
and other cities bore out the proposition set forth
by Professor R ay Marshall, “The achievement of
political goals and the growing realization that
civil rights mean very little without the means
to translate them into reality have made it
increasingly apparent that education, training,
employment, and incomes are the real keys to
equality [for minorities].” 8
A midsummer nightmare began in Pittsburgh
in August with the start of Negro demonstrations,
which eventually culminated in an interracial
demonstration on “Black Monday” a month
later. The Pittsburgh episode was marked by
white workers’ counterdemonstrations, scuffles
between Pittsburgh police and black demonstra
tors, and exchanges of invective between workers
and demonstrators. After work was temporarily
halted on about $200 million in construction, the
Pittsburgh Building Trades Unions and the
Black Construction Coalition opened discussions
to resolve the dispute. A series of false starts
preceded an agreement under which specified
proportions of black workers would be hired
immediately, others would be hired on probation,
LABOR AND THE ECONOMY IN 1969
and still others taken into apprenticeship or on
the job training programs, depending upon their
experience. The afl - cio’s Civil Rights Depart
ment aided in reaching the settlement.
In Chicago, black demonstrations halted about
$100 million in construction work. Federal officials
conducted a hearing, which was picketed and
disrupted by white workers, on minority employ
ment in Chicago area construction. In subsequent
discussions, the Chicago Building Construction
Trades Council offered a 4-point program, put
together with the aid of the afl - cio ’s Civil
Rights Department, to provide jobs and training
opportunities for about 4,000 black workers. The
Coalition for United Community Action (com
prising a number of black organizations) rejected
the plan in a dispute over control of the training
program. Chicago’s Mayor Richard J. Daley
intervened to mediate the deadlock, and in early
November, he announced that a general agree
ment had been reached but that details had to be
worked out.
P hiladelphia plan . Various figures concerning
the proportions of Negroes and other minority
group members in building trades unions were
quoted during the year. Among the most com
prehensive were the Equal Employment Oppor
tunity Commission’s, covering a survey of onethird of building trades unions (about 1.3 million
members out of a total of about 3.5 million in all
unions). This survey showed that 8.4 percent of
building trades unionists were black and 4.5
percent had Spanish surnames. The proportion
of minority group members ranged from 30.5
percent of the Laborers to 0.2 percent of the
Plumbers and Sheetmetal Workers. A survey of
“referral unions,” which are outside the building
trades unions, showed 12 percent Negro member
ship and 9.3 percent Spanish-surnamed.
On June 27, Assistant Labor Secretary Arthur
Fletcher announced the “Philadelphia Plan” to
increase minority group participation in Federal
or federally assisted construction. Bidders on
contracts valued at $500,000 or more would be
required to submit with their bids their plans for
hiring minority group members in line with
certain “ranges” or “goals” respecting such
employees to be specified in the contract announce
ment. The goals applied to “target” occupations—
plumbing and pipefitting, sheetmetal work, elec
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
35
trical work, ironwork, roofing and waterproofing,
and elevator constructing.
The plan met opposition from some Congres
sional quarters and from the U.S. Comptroller
General, who denounced it as a “quota system”
that violated title V II of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act (which had been passed to promote minority
group employment), and threatened to withhold
payment on such contracts. Armed with a Justice
Department opinion that vouched for the plan’s
legality, the Labor Department decided to go
ahead. However, after the public outcry, hearings
were held in Philadelphia in late August. I t was
revealed that about 12 percent of skilled trades
unionists in the Philadelphia area were Negro
and other minority group but only 1 percent of
the “target” trades. According to the Labor
Department’s findings, there were at least 1,200
minority group craftsmen available in the target
occupations in the Philadelphia area, 7,500
journeymen’s helpers, and between 5,000 and
8,000 minority group members who were available
for training to be craftsmen. To allay white
workers’ job security fears, it was pointed out
that no present craftsman’s or apprentice’s job
was jeopardized by the plan since its “goals”
applied to new jobs only.
At year’s end, plans were being readied for
other cities, and the first contract under the
pioneering plan was let in Philadelphia in October.
B righter fu t u r e . The afl - cio announced during
the winter that the proportion of minority group
apprentices had tripled in the 9 months ending
in February 1969. The federation expected that
the minority group proportion would at least
double during the remainder of the year.
The Labor Department released figures showing
that minority group apprentices reached 15,600
out of a total of 240,000 during 1968, an increase
of 19 percent for minority groups compared with
an overall increase of 9 percent in apprenticeships.
The proportion of minority group apprentices
has increased over 4 times as fast as total ap
prenticeships since 1967.
Coal dust
As the year began, doctors, who had been cru
sading against “black lung” (pneumoconiosis)
36
disease, toured West Virginia mining towns to
build support for a workmen’s compensation pro
gram to cover the disease. A first mass meeting on
the disease was attended by some 3,000 miners in
January. As the West Virginia house debated a
bill to provide compensation for black lung, the
galleries were packed by miners, expressing
their support for the legislation. When in midFebruary it appeared that the bill might be falter
ing, some 12,000 miners precipitated a wildcat
strike to underline their strong support for the
bill. Over 75 percent of West Virginia’s miners
observed the strike, and miners in Pennsylvania
and Kentucky shut down mines in support. Then
the Mine Workers’ leadership threatened a nation
wide strike if the bill failed. Mine operators filed
court suits to end the wildcat walkout, but a Federal
court at Charleston, W.Va., ruled that it lacked
authority to halt the strike. The bill to provide
compensation for miners with black lung conditions
passed the West Virginia legislature and was
signed into law by Governor Arch Moore in midMarch.
In Washington, the Nixon administration re
placed the proposed legislation of the Johnson
administration with its own bill. (A mine safety
bill had been proposed in the wake of the Farm
ington, W.Va., mine disaster that claimed 78 lives
in November 1968.) The new proposal would em
power the Interior Secretary to promulgate regu
lations controlling the reliability of mine supports
and equipment, require the reassignment of miners
with any evidence of black lung, and provide
penalties for mines in which coal dust exceeded 4.5
milligrams a cubic foot of air. Some legislators
favored inclusion of provisions for compensation
for black lung victims.
In October, the U.S. Senate approved unani
mously (70-0) a coal mine health and safety bill
that included interim Federal-State payments to
miners disabled by black lung. To protect miners
in the future from black lung disease and under
ground explosions, the bill established permissible
coal dust levels in some 3,600 U.S. mines, and
provided for stricter controls over the presence of
methane gas in mines. In addition, more frequent
and tighter F ederal inspections and safer electrical
equipment and wiring (a source of explosions) was
provided for. The House passed a similar bill later
in October.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Long disputes
A ir lin es . Except for 1 year-long dispute, early
bargaining in the airline industry was successfully
concluded, even though some work stoppages were
resorted to in order to reach agreement. In the
drawn-out dispute, the Machinists struck National
Airlines in mid-January in a dispute over reduc
tion of plane-taxiing crews, which resulted in sus
pension of three union members. The airline locked
out 1,000 unionists and dismissed most of them
although the dispute was then in the hands of the
National Mediation Board under provisions of the
Railway Labor Act. The Machinists and National
Airlines instituted court suits— the former to move
the negotiations along and gain reinstatement for
discharged workers, the latter to secure damages.
Favorable lower court action in October on a
Machinists’ petition to move the stalled negotia
tions to the next step provided under the act— a
30-day negotiating period after which the union
would be free to strike— was stayed by an appeals
court, acting on a Justice Department motion on
the National Mediation Board’s behalf.
In a separate court action in September, Judge
Homer Thornberry, speaking for the fifth circuit
court, held that the mass discharge of the strikers
was an 1'impermissible” resort to self-help, even
though the strikers were engaged in a walkout
illegal under the contract. National had a right to
hire permanent replacements to keep going, the
Judge continued, but discharge en masse was not
allowed because both sides were obligated under
the rla to maintain the status quo in a bargaining
deadlock that has been passed to the nmb . The
court ruled that strikers who had been replaced
need not be taken back, but all others had to be
reinstated.
R ailroads. Spilling over from 1968, a series of
potential strikes by operating brotherhoods against
the railroads were averted by President Johnson’s
recourse to the emergency board procedures of the
rla . The shape of a “pattern” settlement emerged
from the boards’ recommendations. Generally, it
provided 5-percent increases in basic daily rates
and 3%-percent increases in mileage rates retro
active to the expiration date of the previous
contract. Also, general increases of 2 percent
beginning January 1, 1969, and 3 percent beginning
July 1, 1969, in both daily and mileage rates were
LABOR AND THE ECONOMY IN 1969
provided. Improvements in fringe benefits varied
by settlement. These terms formed the basis of
successfully concluded negotiations with various
operating unions, among them the Conductors,
Engineers, and Signalmen.
Bargaining in the shopcraft union dispute
began in November 1968, and involved the
Boilermakers, Electricians, Machinists, and Sheet
Metal Workers. An obstacle to settling disputed
money issues was the longstanding dissatisfaction
of the shopcraft unions with differences between
their wage rates and those of similar workers in
other industries.
After desultory bargaining from November 1968
to October 1969, the unions set “selective” strikes
and the railroads promised a total lockout.
President Nixon invoked the emergency board
procedures to avert a stoppage, appointing Ralph T.
Seward, Robert Livernash, and Robert Howlett
to the board. Near the beginning of November,
the board recommended acceptance of the
“pattern” terms and negotiation of a special
class I mechanics’ rate.
Agreement was reached in early December,
following intense bargaining. Early reports in
dicated that the negotiations yielded the retro
active “pattern” and additional cents-per-hour
increases that lifted the 1969 shopcraft settlement
above those negotiated earlier. Additional in
creases were provided in 1970. The carriers won
certain long-sought work rules charges.
E lectrical f a il u r e . Ten afl —cio unions met
in the spring to plan for the second round of
coordinated bargaining with the General Electric
Co. and the Westinghouse Corp. The 1966 bargain
ing round has spawned a series of National Labor
Relations Board and court actions, which further
clarified the ground rules for coordinated bar
gaining strategies. The unions repeatedly demarked their plans as coordinated bargaining,
approved by Board and courts, not multiunion
or joint bargaining, which had been disapproved.
Officials of 14 other unions sat in as General
Electric and the Electrical Workers ( iu e ), the
principal union, began bargaining against an
October deadline. Talks deadlocked with a con
siderable gap between the parties— the company
offering 6 percent (about 20 cents) in the first
year and wage reopeners for the second and third
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37
years, and the union seeking 35 cents in the first
year, 30 cents in the second, and 25 in the third.
The company also offered a 5-to-25-cent additional
hike for skilled workers but the union wanted a
50-cent boost for skilled workers, and an im
proved cost-of-living escalator for all workers.
Some 147,000 workers walked out at General
Electric when the contract expired October 26,
as much over the company’s take-it-or-leave-it
mode of bargaining— “Boulwarism”— as over the
actual economic differences.
Bargaining capsules
P ublic em ploym ent . A 4-month strike by mostly
black subprofessionals at the South Carolina
Medical College Hospital and the Charleston
County Hospital dominated public employment
bargaining early in the year. Beginning in March
and ending in July, the strike was stretched out
by the hospital administrations’ insistence that
they lacked enabling legislation to permit public
officials to bargain with unions. State and local
officials’ support of the hospital administration
was counterbalanced by striker support received
from the Drug and Hospital Employees Union
of New York, the afl - cio , the South Carolina
labor movement (including a strike threat by
local Longshoremen), and the Alliance for Labor
Action. The Southern Christian Leadership Con
ference participated by mobilizing the local black
community through the familiar civil rights tac
tics of day and night protest marches, resulting
in mass arrests. In an air of imminent racial
crisis recalling the 1968 strike turmoil in Mem
phis, Tenn., the strike issues were resolved by
sidestepping the union recognition problem, boost
ing wages and benefits, and providing a grievance
procedure and other union contract features.
While the Charleston strikes held center stage,
New York and Detroit teachers quietly signed
contracts for the 1969-70 school year. After the
series of teacher strikes in New York, public
administrators and teachers seemed a little leery
of long stoppages. A short 2-day strike resulted
in a boost of Chicago teacher’s pay to $8,400
minimum, highest in the Nation. Los Angeles’
25,000 public school teachers staged a 1-day
boycott of classes to back up salary demands,
and half of Indiana’s teachers protested the
38
governor’s education budget by engaging in a
1-day walkout. Generally, settlements were
reached in large urban areas with minimum dis
ruption but some deadlocks and turmoil occurred
in smaller communities. In addition, several
States, particularly the more populous ones,
granted sizable increases to public employees
other than teachers. In July, Federal civilian
employees received the third and final step of
a “comparability” pay raise that made their pay
equivalent to that of private employees as of the
most recent survey (June 1968).
G r a pes . The grape strike, begun in 1965 by the
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee and
supplemented by a boycott later in the deadlock,
continued in 1969 with only fitful glimmers of
settlement in a 4-year long tunnel. Picketing and
publicity campaigns that have spread across the
Nation slowed table grape sales, causing some
softening in prices in the last 2 years. The first
significant break in the deadlock occurred in June
when growers of 10 percent of California table
grapes sat down again to negotiate with the ufwoc .
Despite expressions of confidence on both sides,
the talks broke off in July. Moreover, the bulk of
growers, whose assent would be needed in any
lasting settlement, expressed their continuing
determination not to negotiate, although they
implied they might reconsider their stand if Con
gress enacted ground rules for farm labor man
agement relations.
Trade unions
Organized labor started getting used to the idea
that it was again divided. The internecine warfare
that prevailed during the pre-1955 period had not
broken out, and some assurances had been given
that it was not desired. However, with the two
largest unions in the Nation outside the labor
federation, such jurisdictional and membership
struggles were a possibility.
U.S. membership statistics issued at the afl cio ’s biennial convention held in the fall in Atlantic
City, N .J., showed an average federation member
ship over the 2-year period of 13.5 million com
pared with an average membership of about 13.8
million reported at the 1967 convention. Since the
1967 figure included the Automobile Workers,
Federation affiliates actually showed a gain of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
about 550,000 members during the interconvention
period.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released data
late in 1969 that showed U.S. union membership
(afl - cio, independents) hit 18,843,000 in 1968, a
gain of over 900,000 (about 5 percent) since the
last biennial survey in 1966. A FL -C IO affiliates
had 15.6 million members (including Canadian)
at that time, an increase of about 880,000 (exclud
ing the Automobile Workers) since 1966. National
unions not affiliated with the federation, reported
4.6 million U.S. and Canadian members, of whom
about 3.2 million were reported in the Teamsters
and the Automobile Workers.9
The convention boosted monthly per capita
taxes 43 percent, partly in response to a drop in
federation net worth during the interconvention
period, and partly to finance new or increased
initiatives in collective bargaining, organization,
and voter registration in the 1970’s. (Disaffiliation
of the Automobile Workers cost the federation
about $1 million in per capita dues each year.)
Following a spirited debate, the convention
voted overwhelmingly (50-1) to oust the Chemical
Workers Union for affiliating with the Alliance for
Labor Action earlier in the year. The Chemical
Workers’ leadership had pleaded and their sup
porters had urged that the union’s ala affiliation
in no way indicated a desire to sever ties with the
federation and its affiliates. B u t the convention
viewed the ala as a rival federation, citing mem
bership losses of some afl - cio affiliates to ala
action. Its rebuke to the Chemical Workers was,
in effect a warning to other affiliates that they
could not serve two “federations.”
L eadership changes . William Schnitzler retired
as secretary-treasurer of the a fl - cio in June,
ending 35 years of trade union activity. The
Federation’s executive council elevated Joseph
Lane Kirkland, former executive assistant to
President Meany, to the post at its M ay quarterly
meeting. At the same time, the council named
three new vice presidents to the executive body,
the Transport Workers’ Matthew Guinan, the
Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers’ A. F . Grospiron, and the Railway Clerks’ C. L. Dennis
and recommended expansion from 27 to 33 mem
bers (in addition to the a fl - cio president and
secretary-treasurer). The October convention
acted favorably upon this recommendation and
LABOR AND THE ECONOMY IN 1969
added Peter Bommarito (Rubber Workers), Peter
Fosco (Laborers), Thomas Gleason (Longshore
men’s Association), John Griner (Federal Govern
ment Employees), Frederick O’Neal (Actors),
and Jerry Wurf (State, County and Municipal
Employees). In addition, Louis Stulberg (Ladies’
Garment Workers) replaced David Dubinsky;
Floyd Smith (Machinists), Roy Siemiller; and
Charles Luna (United Transportation Union),
Paul Phillips (Paper Workers).
During the 1960’s, incumbent union leaders have
found themselves increasingly challenged and
even defeated for office. Some bitter battles over
leadership either climaxed in 1969 or got under
way. Steelworkers’ President I. W. Abel, who him
self unseated David MacDonald as president in
1965, withstood an unexpectedly strong challenge
in February from a trade union unknown, Steel
workers’ lawyer Emil Narick.
The 3-year wrangle over leadership of the
55,000-member National Maritime Union finally
ended when a New York Federal judge, acting
on the latest round of charges from the defeated
challengers, ruled that the 1969 rerun of the 1966
election satisfied the requirements of the LandrumGriffin Act. Earlier, the U.S. Department of Labor,
which oversaw the election, certified that incum
bent president Joseph Curran and his slate were
properly reelected.
In January, the Committee for a Democratic
Election (composed of some Retail Clerks) filed
suit in Federal court to force the Secretary of
Labor to set aside the June 1968 election of Retail
Clerks officers. Prior to the court action, the
Secretary of Labor had dismissed the dissidents’
complaint under section 402 of Landrum-Griffin on
grounds that the department’s investigation re
vealed that the election had been unaffected by the
irregularities it uncovered.
All year, Mine Workers’ President W. A. Boyle
found himself embroiled in a contest with Joseph
Yablonsky, a member of the union’s executive
council. Early in the year, the election struggle
became entangled with the “black lung” compen
sation controversy, with the challenger charging
the incumbent lacked concern and the incumbent
retorting that the challenger was irresponsible.
In August, a Federal judge enjoined the M in e
Workers Jo u rn a l from “discriminating” against
the candidacy of Yablonsky in providing magazine
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
39
space. W. A. Boyle retained his post in a Decem
ber election.
In other and quieter changes during the year,
Floyd Smith replaced the retiring Roy Siemiller
as Machinists head; Francis Filby succeeded E. C.
Hallbeck, who had died, as head of the Postal
Clerks; and Lonnie Johnson became president of
the Mail Handlers.
The year marked the end for one of the makers
of labor history. John L. Lewis, who had jousted
with Presidents, courts, legislators, other labor
leaders, and the public in his 40 years at the helm
of the coal miners, died in June at the age of 89.
He had retired from active leadership in 1960
when he became president emeritus. Under his
leadership, the Mine Workers were a storm center,
walking out of the a f l in a craft-industrial union
dispute in 1935, helping to found the cio, returning
to the a f l during World War II, and leaving again
2 years later to remain independent to this day.
S
g o a l s . Like management, organized labor had
some changes it would like made in the Labor
Management Relations Act: repeal of the section
14(b) “loophole,” addition of a provision providing
sanctions against willful and continuing violations
of the act (such as the J . P . Stevens cases),10 ac
celerated handling of representation elections and
unfair labor practices complaints, common situs
picketing rights, and limitation of “free speech”
rulings to prohibit “race-baiting” and other un
desirable management tactics in representation
elections. Some of these measures did not emerge
from the relatively sympathetic 89th Congress,
and labor has not advocated them with as much
immediacy since that time. If its labor relations
program appeared destined to go nowhere in 1969,
labor could take comfort that counterproposals
(disliked by labor) such as labor courts, abolition
of the National Labor Relations Board, or new
governmental powers for handling national emer
gency disputes did not appear to be going any
where either.
e
t
t h e
r e c o r d . T
refute u a w leaders’
charges that the a f l - c i o has become a status quo
organization, the federation issued a 40,000-word
booklet in April, To Clear the Record, providing
a blow-by-blow account of the controversy and
cleavage. Its principal charge was that the com-
C l e a r in g
o
40
plaining u a w officials participated broadly and
prominently in policy decisions of the federation.
Moreover, the federation document argued that
the a f l - c i o record in the very fields most criti
cized by the u a w leadership— organizing the
unorganized, social welfare, minority job opportu
nities and civil rights, and international trade union
relations— was much better than that of the u a w .
Further, Walter Reuther and the u a w leadership
were charged with assiduously avoiding the
“forums of the trade union movement” in favor
of a “2-year campaign of public villification.”
In a brief statement issued shortly after the
appearance of the federation’s report, the u a w
leadership promised an “appropriate” response at
a later date.
Delegates from the Automobile Workers and
the Teamsters held the first Alliance for Labor
Action convention in M ay in Washington, D.C.
Any intent to sunder the labor movement further
or to try falls with the a f l - c i o were disavowed.
However, some speakers denounced “paper” ju
risdictional claims that stood in the way of organiz
ing the unorganized. In mid-September, the a l a
announced that it would mount its first concen
trated organizing campaign, in Atlanta, Ga. The
Automobile Workers, the Teamsters, and the
newly affiliated Chemical Workers already repre
sented some workers in the area; hence, the initial
venture was more a fanning-out operation than a
beachhead.
Some unions were reported to have informally
discussed some type of arrangement with the a l a
but only a few negotiations could be factually
noted. Th e Chemical Workers’ bid was accepted;
the independent Telephone Workers of Pennsyl
vania were turned down on grounds that they were
not an international union; and District 65 and
Local 26, both of which disaffiliated from the
parent Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store
Union to form a new union (with over 30,000
members), received loans from the alliance.
a n d
B e g i n n i n g s . Withdrawing from the
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
in May, the a f l - c i o argued that the i c f t u policy
of “rapprochement” with unions in Communist
countries violated the confederation’s charter in
that such unions were State-controlled. Actually,
the i c f t u ’ s slow-and-easy handling of the u a w
membership application triggered the withdrawal.
E n ds
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
The dust settled by midyear, and the a f l - c i o ’ s
executive council expressed willingness to discuss
a possible “restoration” of international free labor
unity with i c f t u officials.
Labor institutes for in-house study of labor
problems as well as study of the social sciences and
humanities were announced by the a f l - c i o and
the Teamsters. The federation’s Labor Studies
Center would train union officials and the rankand-file, beginning with full-time officers. The
Teamsters’ permanent Labor Institute started
operations in 1969 to train Teamsters local
officials, with an initial funding of $1 million.
On the bench
The Supreme Court opened the year by dealing
with 2 cases that arose in part out of the lawridden nature of labor management relations in the
railroad industry. Can employees who hold that
their employer refuses to advance them beyond
the apprentice stage, and that their union does not
fairly represent them in the matter, short circuit
the mediation and negotiation processes provided
in the Railway Labor Act and the collective
bargaining agreement? A group of organized em
ployees, mostly Negro but including whites,
brought suit to force their employer to stop re
fusing to promote them to journeyman carmen
and to stop suffering or permitting them to perform
carmen duties at apprenticeship wage rates. In
Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway C o.,n
the High Court ruled that courts could supply
relief before workers go through the time-con
suming procedures of the r l a and the contract.
Although the Court has generally required that
petitioners exhaust remedial steps contained in
private agreements or in public statutes bearing
on the issues, it characterized the instant case as
one of the exceptions alluded to in earlier decisions,
in that pursuit of precourt remedies would prob
ably result in 5 years of “futility.”
The other railroad case posed the issue of
picketing that might interfere with the operations
of “secondary” parties not involved directly in the
primary dispute. The long strike that occasioned
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainm en v. Ja ckson
Term inal Co.12 was entering its seventh year as
this facet of the dispute reached the Court.
Because the resolving power of the r l a had been
LABOR AND THE ECONOMY IN 1969
exhausted in the view of the court majority, it
relied on analogies with the Labor Management
Relations Act to fashion a makeshift remedy until
such time as Congress saw fit to deal with the issue
of State power over matters within the purview of
the r l a . The Court majority held that States
could not enjoin picketing that might have
secondary effects so long as it was not proscribed
by Federal law. In effect, the ruling placed the
issue before the Congress.
Dissenting Justices Douglas, Black, and Stewart
argued that States had power over secondary
boycotts and other “labor controversies” unless
Federal law expresses a specific, contrary policy.
R e p r e s e n t a t io n
l i s t s . In
W y m an-G ordon ,13 the
Supreme Court reviewed whether the Board’s 1966
E x c e ls io r 14 rule (which requires employers to
furnish lists of workers eligible to vote in represen
tation elections to unions) was property applied
in this case. Splitting three ways, the justices found
majorities that agreed (1) the “rule” should have
been promulgated under the Administrative Pro
cedure Act, not in the quasi-judicial resolution of a
labor-management dispute, and (2) the order to
the Wyman-Gordon Co. was a valid exercise of the
Board’s “judicial” powers. In effect, the 7-2
majority agreed that the “rule” was proper as
part of the Board’s order to a specific company but
they split over whether it was a formal rule to be
obeyed similarly to rules promulgated under the
a p a . Four justices (Fortas, Stewart, Warren, and
White) held that rulemaking must be done under
the procedures of the a p a . The other three justices
(Black, Brennan, and Marshall), concurring in the
application of the “rule” to the Wyman-Gordon
Co., argued that the Board’s “judicial” function
as well as its “legislative” function could be the
occasion for rulemaking.
Dissenting Justices Harlan and Douglas sub
scribed to the view of Justices Fortas, et al., that
the a p a must be used for formal rulemaking, but
disagreed that a rule announced in the course of a
quasi-judicial proceeding had validity in sub
sequent similar cases.
Four cases, which arrived
before the Supreme Court in a package, raised
once more the issue of whether a company could
be ordered to bargain with a union on the basis of
authorization cards rather than a representation
A u t h o r iz a t io n
c a r d s
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.
41
election.15 In three cases, the Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the National
Labor Relations Board’s orders that the Gissel
Packing Co., General Steel Products, Inc., and
Heck’s, Inc., had to bargain with the union on the
basis of the cards because unfair labor practices
had been committed that negated the possibility
of fair representation elections after the signing
of the cards. In the other case (Sinclair Co.), the
first circuit court had agreed wholly with the
Board’s theory that representation rights could
be won by means other than the ballot and that
in cases where unfair labor practices were found,
an employer could be ordered to bargain with the
union, depending on the seriousness of the acts.
The High Court agreed with the Board’s posi
tion in all four cases. The notion that the only
route to representation rights passed through the
ballot box found little favor with the Court. In
effect, it held that there was more than one way
to vote, that authorization cards meeting the
Board’s standards were just such an alternate
way. I t recited points from the legislative history
and provisions of Federal labor relations law
that supported the idea of several routes to
representation.
Both the employers’ contention that cards could
never reliably form the basis of representation
rights and the position of one of the unions that
authorization cards should be given a larger role
than that conveyed by the Board were rejected by
the Court. I t found that the flexibility indicated
in the Board’s position was sufficient to the issues,
present and prospective. In cases of serious,
widespread unfair labor practices, a bargaining
order was appropriate. Where the employer’s
actions affected the outcome, causing a union
majority to evaporate, a bargaining order would
also be in order. However, where the employer’s
actions had only marginal effect and the union had
never won a majority, a bargaining order would
not be called for.
G a r n i s h m e n t . In S n ia d a c h v. F a m ily F in a n c e
C o ry .,16 the Supreme Court was asked to rule on
whether withholding part of an employee’s earn
ings before a formal hearing under State garnish
ment laws constituted State sanction of taking
private property without due process of law (which
is proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment).
A Court majority agreed with the garnisheed
42
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
worker that it was proscribed activity.
Under Wisconsin’s garnishment statute (under
which the case arose), an employer must withhold
a specified part of an employee’s earnings when he,
the employer, is served with a notice (garnishment
writ) warning him of a pending suit against one of
his employees for recovery of a past-due debt.
Until the hearing on the merits is held, the
employee is deprived of the use of the withheld
earnings. In S n ia d a c h , a key question was whether
temporary withholding of wages was tantamount
to deprivation of “property” without due process.
The Court majority ruled that the deprived
“property” is the uses to which the employee
would put the money during the period before
the hearing.
Justice Black stingingly dissented from what
he characterized as a “holding” based more on
“natural law” concepts than the U.S. Constitution.
Before the Board
Although the National Labor Relations Board
has ruled periodically on union practices of racial
discrimination and their effect upon the duty to
fairly represent all members, it was not until the
P a ck in gh o u se W orkers case of 1969 17 that the
Board was asked to rule on the status of alleged
employer discrimination under the Labor Manage
ment Relations Act.
The Board found that the employer’s refusal to
bargain with the union over the alleged dis
criminatory practices violated section 8(a)(5) of
the l m r a , but declined to find that the practice
of invidious discrimination itself constituted an
unfair labor practice. The Packinghouse Workers
took the n l r b decision to the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, which ruled that
invidious discrimination constituted interference,
restraint, or coercion of employees in the exercise
of their rights to organize and bargain collectively
(sections 8(a)(1) and 7 of the l m r a ) . The appeals
court indicated that the unfair labor practices
provisions of the l m r a might be a better, more
expeditious route for employees seeking relief from
invidious discrimination. The court returned the
case to the n l r b for determination of the presence
and extent of discrimination. In a later action, the
Supreme Court let the appeals court order stand.
R e t ir e e
B a r g a in in g .
When the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass Co. attempted to change the health
insurance plan for retired employees to reflect
provisions of the then newly enacted Medicare
program, the Allied Chemical Workers Union
objected to the proposed unilateral change and
sought mid-contract negotiations to shape a new
health insurance plan.18 The company refused,
partly on grounds that the union could not bargain
for retired employees.
Although the issue arrived before the n l r b as a
refusal-to-bargain case, it posed an important
issue of whether retirees were “employees” within
the meaning of the l m r a . A Board majority dis
agreed with the trial examiner and the company,
upholding the implied position of the union that
the retirees were “employees” within the meaning
of the act. The majority marshaled provisions of
the law and a series of earlier cases in which the
term “employee” was broadly interpreted to
buttress its position. In reversing the trial exam
iner’s decision, it stated that an erroneous analogy
had been drawn from the Board’s earlier ruling
that retirees were not “employees” for purposes
of voting in representation elections.
The Board sustained the union’s objection to
the employer’s action to change the health plan
but dismissed the refusal-to-bargain charge be
cause the company was not obligated to bargain
at midterm.
□
FOOTNOTES1 A detailed discussion of employment and unemploy
ment trends in 1969, by Paul O. Flaim and Paul M.
Schwab of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, will appear in
the February 1970 Monthly Labor Review.
2 Preliminary data.
3 Preliminary data based upon settlements affecting
1,000 workers or more.
4 Preliminary data based upon the actual timing of
wage and benefit increases in settlements affecting 5,000
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
workers or more. Assuming that the changes went into
effect at equal intervals over the agreement’s life, the
median increase in wages and benefits amounted to 7.4
percent in settlements reached during the first 9 months
of 1969 compared with a median increase of 6.0 percent in
settlements reached during the first 9 months of 1968.
5 Preliminary data based upon settlements affecting
1,000 workers or more.
6 Preliminary data based upon actual timing of wage and
benefit increases. Assuming the changes went into effect
LABOR AND THE ECONOMY IN 1969
at equal intervals, the median increase in wages and^benefits was 13.9 percent in settlements reached during the
first 9 months of 1969. Median wage increases were 14.0
percent over the life of the agreement, and median firstyear wage boosts were 16.3 percent.
7 See 1969 issues for March (p. 72), April (p. 81), June
(p. 72), July (p. 80), August (p. 74), September (p. 57),
October (p. 62), and November (p. 75).
8 R ay Marshall, “The Employment and Training of
Minorities,” in The American Assembly, Columbia
University, Challenges to Collective Bargaining (Englewood
Cliffs, N .J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), p. 90.
9 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Directory of National
and International Labor Unions in the United States, 1969,
to be published in 1970.
10 See Monthly Labor Review, May 1966, pp. 533-534;
May 1967, p. 55; May 1968, pp. iii-iv.
11 U.S. Sup. Ct., January 14, 1969; see Monthly Labor
Review, April 1969, pp. 71-72.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
43
12 U.S. Sup. Ct., March 25, 1969; see Monthly Labor
Review, June 1969, pp. 62-64.
13 N L R B v. Wyman-Gordon Co. (U.S. Sup. Ct., April 23,
1969); see Monthly Labor Review, July 1969, pp. 73-75.
14 Excelsior Underwear, Inc., 156 n l r b 1236 (1966); see
Monthly Labor Review, April 1966, pp. 415-416.
15 N L R B v. Gissel Packing Co.; N L R B v. Heck’s, In c.;
N L R B v. General Steel Products, Inc.; Sinclair Co. v.
N L R B (U.S. Sup. Ct., June 16, 1969); see Monthly Labor
Review, September 1969, pp. 50-52.
16 U.S. Sup. Ct., June 9, 1969; see Monthly Labor Review,
August 1969, pp. 66-68.
17 United Packinghouse Workers v. N L R B (C .A .-D .C .,
February 7, 1969); see Monthly Labor Review, May 1969,
pp. 66-67.
18 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., and Local 1, Allied Chemical
Workers, 177 n l r b N . 114, July 9, 1969; see Monthly
Labor Review, October 1969, pp. 56-58.
o
An analysis
of price changes
in the third quarter
of 1969
l e v e l e d
o f f in the second half of 1969,
continuing at a rate slightly below that registered
in the first half. The change reflected in part the
restrictive fiscal and monetary policies in effect
since early 1968. The implicit price deflator ( i p i )
for private gross national product ( g n p ) and the
Consumer Price Index ( c p i ) , both of which had
been rising at an accelerating rate since the eco
nomic slowdown in 1966-67, increased at a slower
pace in the third quarter of 1969.1 The i p i de
clined to an annual rate of 4 ){ percent, from 5
percent in the second quarter, as a result of
slower increases in personal consumption ex
penditures, government purchases, and residential
construction. The advance of the c p i 2 decelerated
from a high of 7 percent in the second quarter to
5% percent in the third. Preliminary data indicate
that the rates of increase in both the i p i and c p i
in the fourth quarter were about the same as in
the preceding quarter of the year.3
I n f l a t io n
The anatomy of price change
Unit labor costs, which rose more slowly in the
third quarter than in the first and second, probably
played an important role in checking the rise
of the i p i . These costs reflect the relative behavior
of compensation per man-hour and of productivity.
When hourly compensation increases faster than
productivity, unit labor costs rise, and vice versa.
In the third quarter of 1969 unit labor costs in
the private sector rose slightly more than 6 percent
at an annual rate, compared with 8.4 in the first
quarter and 7.2 in the second. However, the rise
was still larger than quarterly increases in 1967
and 1968. (See table 1.)
The slower rise in unit labor costs in the third
quarter of 1969 occurred despite a faster pace of
increase in employee compensation per man-hour
in the private sector. An increase in productivity,
the first in 1969, more than offset the acceleration
44
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Inflation moderates
in consumer, government, and
residential construction sectors;
unit labor costs increase
at a slower pace
W. JOHN LAYNG AND TOSHIKO NAKAYAMA
in compensation. I t was accompanied by a slower
rate of increase in employment compared with the
previous quarter, and a continued slow pace of
growth in total private output.
Unit labor costs, in conjunction with the im
plicit price deflator for private g n p , determine
labor’s share of the value of private g n p . Although
both of these factors increased at a lower rate in
the third quarter of 1969, the increase in unit
labor costs continued to exceed the increase in the
deflator, resulting in a further rise in the employee
share of private g n p . The rate of increase of that
share was smaller than in the second quarter and
the smallest since the third quarter of 1968.
Starting from a level slightly less than 53 percent
in early 1966, it increased to almost 56 percent
in 1969. Between 1960 and 1966 the employee
share declined slightly with the recovery in
productivity.
An increase in the employee compensation
share, by definition, must be accompanied by a
net decline in the other shares of private g n p .
The corporate profit share, which has been falling
since the employee share began to rise in 1966,
fell further in the third quarter of 1969. (See
table 2.) The decline in the corporate share
stemmed from the slower rise and subsequent
decline in the total corporate profits per unit of
output. Prices would have risen even more
rapidly if unit profit margins had been maintained.
Prices didn’t rise more rapidly partly because
output was increasing at a slower pace.
The rate of increase in output of goods and
services has been slowing down since mid-1968.
First affected by restrictive fiscal and monetary
policies were government purchases and residential
construction; the impact on personal consumption
W. John Layng and Toshiko Nakayama are economists
in the Division of Price and Index Number Research,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
45
THIRD QUARTER PRICE CHANGES
Table 1.
The anatomy of price change, 1968 and 1969
Percent change1 from previous
quarter
Item
1969
III
1968
II
1
IV
PRODUCT DEFLATORS
Private GNP deflator______________________
4.5
5.1
4.7
4.1
Personal consumption expenditures_________
Private construction_______________________
Residential___________________________
Nonresidential_______________________
Producers' durable equipment______________
Government purchases of goods and services2.
4.6
7.2
4.5
9.5
3.6
4.5
4.8
6.9
6.0
7.7
1.2
7.3
3.5
10.2
9.1
11.3
2.3
5.4
4.8
2.2
2.0
2.5
2.6
4.2
Private GNP deflator______________________
4.5
5.1
4.7
4.1
Unit labor costs___________________ ______
Compensation per man-hour___________
Output per m a n -h o u r.-........................... .
Unit nonlabor costs2. . . _______ ____________
6.2
6.4
.2
2.4
7.2
5.4
- 1 .8
2.3
8.4
5.9
-2 .5
.2
7.0
7.0
2.6
.7
UNIT COSTS
1At an annual rate. The percent change in compensation per man-hour minus the
percent change in output per man-hour is approximately equal to the percent change
in unit labor costs.
2 Excludes services of government employees.
2 Includes corporate profits, proprietors' income, capital consumption allowances,
indirect business tax, rental income of persons, business transfer payments, net
interest subsidies less current surplus of government enterprises, and statistical
discrepancy.
expenditures has only become evident in the past
three quarters. These sectors are also the ones in
which price increases slowed in the third quarter
of 1969. Any change in the deflator for personal
consumption expenditures ( p c e ) is particularly
important because of its large weight in private
g n p .
In the third quarter of 1969 the rate of
increase in this implicit price deflator eased slightly
from annual rate of 4.8 percent to 4.6 percent. All
three major components of the p c e deflator,
durables, nondurables, and services, increased at
a slower pace. (See table 3.)
Prices of consumer goods and services are
analyzed below in terms of the c p i , which is used
to derive a substantial part of the p c e deflator.
Use of the detail in the c p i also makes it possible
to compare prices of similar commodities at the
wholesale level.4 (See table 4.)
Consumer goods and services
In the third quarter of 1969, the durables
component of the c p i rose at a slower pace than
in the first two quarters when prices of used cars
and home purchase costs were rising sharply.
A decline in used-car prices and a slower rise for
furniture were chiefly responsible for the slow
down. Prices of appliances and new cars rose at
a somewhat faster pace. The rate of advance of
furniture prices in the third quarter was only
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
slightly less than in 1968. Wholesale furniture
prices continued to move up sharply, reflecting
higher labor and materials costs. For example,
hardwood lumber prices were up 16 percent over
the year from the third quarter of 1968. Both
appliance and auto prices were under pressure
from rising prices for metals and metal products
in 1969. The sharp advance in 1969 for metals
was due to a strong domestic and foreign demand,
and shortages caused by strikes.
In contrast to the pronounced slowdown in the
rise of prices of durable goods, the upward pace
of nondurables in the c p i receded in the third
quarter only slightly from the sharply accelerated
second quarter pace. The most important group
of commodities in nondurables is food, which
accounts for almost 50 percent of the total relative
importance for nondurables in the c p i . Food prices
began rising rapidly in the fourth quarter of 1968
and accelerated in the second quarter of 1969 to a
seasonally adjusted annual rate of almost 7 per
cent. These increases in retail food prices largely
reflected the rapid rise in wholesale prices and
anticipation of less abundant supplies of food
products in 1969. In the third quarter the rate
of increase in food prices at the retail level eased
to an annual rate of about 63^2 percent; the slow
down at the wholesale level was considerably
greater.
Apparel prices have been increasing less than
in 1968 and the slackening continued in the third
quarter of 1969 as the rate of increase in the c p i
dropped from 5.6 percent (annual rate) to 4.2
Table 2. Ratio of employee compensation, corporate
profits, and other nonlabor costs to private GNP,
1967-69
Quarters
Employee
compen
sation!
Corporate
profits before
taxes and
inventory
valuation
adjustment
Other nonlabor costs 2
Total
1967
1________________
I I _______________
I I I ______________
IV_______________
.5405
.5391
.5384
.5401
.1132
.1119
.1108
. 1115
.3463
.3490
.3508
.3484
1.0000
1. 0000
1. 0000
1. 0000
1968
1________________
I I _______________
M L . _____ ______
IV_______________
.5428
.5402
.5425
.5463
.1109
.1153
.1163
.1137
.3463
.3445
.3412
.3400
1.
1.
1.
1.
1969
1________ _____
II_______________
I I I ______________
.5514
.5544
.5567
. 1107
. 1084
. 1060
.3379
.3372
.3373
1. 0000
1. 0000
1. 0000
1 Includes wages, salaries, and supplements of all private employees.
2See footnote 3, table 1. Also excludes corporate profits.
0000
0000
0000
0000
46
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 3. Percent change in prices for major groups of
consumer goods and services, 1968 and 1969
[Seasonally adjusted annual rates, except as indicated]
Percent change from previous quarter
Items
1969
III
II
1968
1
IV
PCE CPI WPI PCE CPI WPI PCE CPI WPI PCE CPI WPI
T o ta l1________
4.6
Consumer goods_____
D u rab les........ ..
Nondurables____
Services i _____ _____
4.4
2.1
4.9
4.6
5.6 0
3.5
1.1
4.2
(2)
4.6
1.6
b. 4
6. b
4.8
4.7
2.3
5.9
4.8
6.9
3.5
0
5.7 5.6 2.6
5.4 2.0 2.0
5.8 6.6 3.1
8.0 <2) 4.9
4.7 <2)
4.4 3.1
5.3 1.2
4.0 4.3
7.3 0
4.8
4.4
3.8
4.8
4.9
4.8 0
4.0 2.6
2.8 3.2
4.8 2.4
5.6 0
1 Total CPI and CPI services are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Not applicable.
Note: PCE— personal consumption expenditures deflator; CPI— Consumer Price
Index; WPI— Wholesale Price Index.
percent on a seasonally adjusted basis. There is
evidence of increased consumer resistance to higher
prices. Clearance sales in women’s and girls’
summer apparel were more widespread and price
reductions were larger in 1969 than usual. In
addition, prices were reduced on some year-round
items. Wholesale price rises for apparel have also
been smaller than in 1968. However, in the third
quarter of 1969 wholesale prices rose sharply.
These increases were primarily for the spring lines
of clothing which will appear in retail stores in
early 1970, and the extent of their effect on the
c p i for apparel will, of course, depend on whether
the demand continues to weaken as it did in late
1969. In contrast, retail footwear prices in 1969
continued to advance at the high rates reached
in 1968.
Gasoline prices declined at both the retail and
wholesale levels in the third quarter of 1969 after
registering large increases in the first half of the
year. The only category of nondurable goods to
show a substantial acceleration in prices were
tobacco products, which are of small relative
importance in the c p i .
The c p i for services also advanced at a slower
pace, dropping from an 8-percent annual rate in
the second quarter to a 6.5-percent rate in the
third. (See table 5.) Although the rate of advance
slowed in all major service categories, the most
significant retardation took place in household
and medical care.
Household services continued to record large
increases but the rate of advance slowed in the
third quarter. This occurred chiefly because the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
rise in mortgage interest rates subsided to an
8.4-percent annual rate from 22 percent in the
second quarter. On the other hand, the uptrend
in home repair charges continued to accelerate.
Medical care services advanced at a 6.8-percent
rate in the third quarter, down from 9.6 percent
in the first two quarters because of smaller in
creases in physicians’ fees. Although costs of
hospital services increased at a slower pace
compared with early 1969, the increase still ex
ceeded 10 percent. In the transportation services
group, auto insurance, auto repairs, and local
transit fares all increased sharply in the first
quarter of 1969, but moved up at a slower pace
in the next two quarters. There were signs early
in the fourth quarter that this slowdown might
not continue. Increases in auto insurance rates
have been granted in many States and transit
fares have been raised in various cities since last
fall. Among other services, the price rise in per
sonal care services, including men’s haircuts and
beauty shop services, was consistently slower than
in 1968.
Fixed investment and government purchases
During the third quarter of 1969, the price
uptrend moderated for government purchases of
goods and services (excluding services of govern
ment employees) and residential construction.
The Wholesale Price Index for construction
materials declined from April through August
as lumber and plywood prices fell substantially.
These declines were due primarily to the cutback
Table 4. Percent change in CPI and WPI selected con
sumer goods, 1968 and 1969
[Seasonally adjusted annual rates, except as Indicated)
1968
1969
Consumer goods
I ll
Nondurable:
Foods_________
Apparel................
Footwear_______
Gasoline_______
Durable:
New cars..............
Furniture_______
Floor c o v e rin g ...
Appliances_____
II
1
6.4
CPI____
WPI___
4.6
CPI____
4.2
WPI___
7.1
CPI____
6.3
WPI___
6.4
CPI____ - 1 . 1
W PI___ - 3 . 3
6.8
8.8
5.6
1.5
6.3
.4
7.6
5.2
4.1
6.9
5.1
3.5
5.2
2.0
6.7
2.2
CPI____
1.7
WPI___ - . 5
CPI____
4.2
W P I.__.
4.7
CPI____
1.4
WPI___ - 4 . 8
2.0
CPI____
W P I .. ..
.7
.6
2.0
9.1
3.4
1.2
- 4 .2
.8
0
1.8
-.6
4.9
6.4
2.1
3.9
.4
- 3 .2
III
II
1
5.1
3.0
6.8
3.8
6.3
8.6
1.3
-8 .0
1.9
4.5
6.7
3.7
6.9
5.2
.6
1.5
4.6
4.3
7.8
3.6
5.7
4.1
.7
9.1
5.4
7.6
4.9
3.7
6.1
6.3
2.8
-8 .6
2.3
3.9
4.9
3.7
1.5
- 2 .6
2.0
- 1 .2
1.6
.1
4.6
4.1
1.3
.2
2.1
.8
.3
- .4
5.6
4.1
3.8
.1
1.1
.8
2.4
1.8
6.4
4.9
4.1
2.8
1.4
1.2
IV
47
THIRD QUARTER PRICE CHANGES
Table 5.
1969
Percent change in CPI for services, 1968 and
[Not seasonally adjusted!
Previous change from previous quarter
1968
1969
Services
III
All services________________
Rent_______ ___________________
Household services less rent_______
Transportation___________________
Medical care_________________ - - Other--------- ------------------------------------
6.5
4.0
8.8
4.0
6.8
4.8
II
8.0
3.2
11.2
5.2
9.6
5.6
1
IV
7.3
5.6
3.2
7.6
13.2
9.6
3.2
3.2
6.0
5.6
8.0
5.2
orders for machinery and equipment and by
recent private surveys of investment plans for
1970. However, in the third quarter the quantity
of equipment purchased by businessmen increased
very little, an indication that higher prices are
absorbing a larger portion of investment budgets.
III
7.1
2.8
12.0
2.0
6.0
4.0
in housing starts last spring and summer. B y the
end of the third quarter, plywood prices had
turned up and the decline in lumber prices had
tapered off. Prices of most other construction
materials continued to increase as did other con
struction costs, such as wages and interest on
loans. Consequently, the deflator for nonresidential construction advanced at a rapid rate.5
The implicit deflator for producers’ durable
equipment in the national income accounts also
accelerated sharply to a rate well above any since
late 1967. Prices for almost all categories of
machinery and equipment increased sharply in
the third quarter and continued to show large
gains early in the fourth quarter. Increases were
particularly large for metal-working, general pur
pose, and construction machinery. Demand, of
course, has been quite strong as evidenced by new
----------FOO TN O TES---------1 For a discussion of changes in the first and second
quarters, see “Price changes in the first quarter of 1969
in perspective” and “An analysis of price changes in second
quarter of 1969,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1969 (pp.
26-30) and October 1969 (pp. 36-41), respectively.
2 Calculated from data which were not seasonally
adjusted.
3 Quarterly percent changes were computed by aver
aging 3-month averages. The percent changes can differ
from those based on the last month of the quarter.
For monthly data, see c p i and w p i tables in Current
Labor Statistics, this issue.
4 The reasons for similarities and differences in move
ments of the p c e deflator and the c p i , as well as between
the c p i and the w p i , were discussed in the article in the
July 1969 issue of Monthly Labor Review, cited above.
5 Most of the private construction component deflators
are based on costs, and some are adjusted for estimated
productivity change rather than output price. Annual
changes in the deflator for residential structures are based
on the new Census Bureau Index of Sales Prices for
nonfarm single-family homes built for sale and not sold.
However, until census data are available for the year of
1969, cost data are used to extrapolate residential
deflators.
A note on communications
The M o n thly L a b o r 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-in-Chief, M o n thly
L ab or Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
State labor
legislation
enacted
in 1969
M ost of the Nation’s State legislatures enacted
significant changes during 1969 in laws setting
labor standards. Principal areas of legislative
attention included wage garnishment, minimum
wages, labor-management relations among public
employees, and occupational safety and health.
This report summarizes major activities during the
year by lawmakers of 47 States, Puerto Rico,
and Guam.
Wages
The State of Texas, which had repealed its
minimum wage law nearly 50 years ago, enacted
a new one this year. Minimum wage rates are
now in effect in 37 States plus the District of
Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico.
The Texas law applies to nonagricultural em
ployers covered by the unemployment compensa
tion fund (employers of four or more in 20 weeks
within the current or preceding calendar year),
and to certain agricultural employers. Effective
February 1, 1970, the act sets $1.25 for nonfarm
workers and $1.10 for agricultural workers. The
nonfarm rate will increase to $1.40 on February 1,
1971.
Guam, Maine, and Vermont adopted statutory
rates equal to the Federal $1.60 rate; 13 juris
dictions now have a minimum wage equal to or
higher than this basic rate. Three other States
provided for rates to equal the Federal level—
Hawaii in 1970, and Maryland and Nevada, and
in Pennsylvania by an earlier enactment in 1971.
Maryland’s rate for previously covered workers
was increased from $1.30 to $1.45, effective
February 1, 1970, and to $1.60 on February 1,
1971; for workers covered after June 1, 1967,
these rates will become effective on June 1, 1970,
and June 1, 1971, respectively. Nevada’s law
increased the hourly rate for persons over 18 from
$1.25 to $1.30, with two annual 15-cent increments
48
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Major attention given to
wage garnishment,
minimum wages,
and occupational
safety and health
ORA G. MITCHELL AND CLARA T. SORENSON
to reach $1.60 on February 1, 1971; rates for boys
and girls under 18 were equalized (formerly $1 for
males, $1.10 for females) by raising the rate to
$1.15, escalating by two 15-cent annual increases
to $1.45 on February 1, 1971.
Two other States increased their rates but to
amounts below the basic Federal rate. North
Carolina raised its rate from $1 to $1.25, and South
Dakota replaced its weekly rate based on popula
tion with an hourly rate of $1, and made the law
applicable to persons under 17, rather than under
14. Coverage was extended to additional indus
tries or occupations in Nebraska, North Carolina,
and South D akota; Nebraska’s law now applies
to persons employed in domestic service, except
for babysitters.
New York and Texas enacted minimum wage
provisions applicable to agricultural workers. They
are the 10th and 11th jurisdictions to provide some
kind of minimum wage coverage for farmworkers.
The New York law applies to employers with an
annual payroll of $1,200 or more and sets a rate
of $1.40 an hour, rising to $1.50 on February 1,
1971. The Texas law applies to agricultural em
ployers who use more than 300 man-days of agri
cultural labor during any calendar quarter during
the preceding calendar year and sets an hourly
rate of $1.10, effective February 1, 1970. The
Department of Agriculture is required to set rates
for agricultural workers employed on a piece-rate
basis equivalent to the hourly rate set for other
agricultural workers. The general minimum wage
increase in Hawaii by January 1970 is also appli
cable to agricultural workers.
Connecticut provided that the State wage,
including wage order rates, shall increase in the
same amount and on the same effective date
Ora G. Mitchell and Clara T. Sorenson are labor stand
ards advisers in the Office of Employment Standards,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
STATE LABOR LEGISLATION
whenever wages are increased under the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Colorado required the ad
ministrative agency to review established wage
orders, which sets minimum wage rates for women
and minors, at least every 4 years.
Five States enacted special provisions for work
ers receiving tips. In Nebraska, such employees
are to receive 7 5 cents an hour plus all their
gratuities; North Carolina and Texas set a maxi
mum tip allowance of 5 0 percent of the applicable
minimum wage rate; and Hawaii provided that
tips may be counted as part of the minimum wage
if the employer pays the employee at least $ 1 . 4 0
an hour and the combined tips and wages are at
least 5 0 cents higher than the applicable minimum
wage. Massachusetts deleted the minimum hourly
wage of 93 cents for service employees who regu
larly receive tips and permitted the employer to
deduct up to 4 0 percent of the applicable m i n i m u m
wage as a tip allowance.
Premium overtime rates are now payable in
Vermont after 40 hours rather than 48, and in
Nevada to male workers, in conformance with
provisions previously applicable only to females.
New Hampshire authorized the labor commis
sioner to establish a subminimum wage rate or no
wage rate for students in work-study programs.
W
. Garnishment was the most
significant area of wage laws passed this year as
several States added to the trend of prohibiting
discharge for garnishment or placing a restriction
on this type of employer practice. Eight States
added provisions concerning discharge for gar
nishment; New York improved its provision,
bringing to 12 the number of States that prohibit
or restrict this practice. Of the eight States,
Michigan and Montana protected employees
from all such dismissals as did New York, the
first State to add a restriction to its law in 1 9 6 6 .
With this year’s enactments and the 1 9 6 7 Hawaii
one, four States now prohibit all discharges be
cause of garnishment. Minnesota, Oklahoma, and
Washington prohibit such discharges but only for
a specified number of garnishments. Utah and
Wisconsin adopted the provision from the Federal garnishment law that prohibits the discharge
of an employee by reason of the fact that his
earnings have been subjected to garnishment for
any one indebtedness. California adopted a varia
tion of the Federal provision by including an
additional proviso, "prior to a final order or judga
g
e
g
a
r
n
i s
h
m
e
n
t
370^356 0 — 70----- 4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
49
ment of a court.” Previous enactments, Connec
ticut in 1967 and Vermont in 1968, make a total
of eight States with prohibitions on discharge
applicable to a specified number of garnishments.
Eight State legislatures have amended their
laws to enact provisions similar to the garnish
ment provisions of the 1968 Federal Consumer
Credit Protection Act or those in the proposed
Uniform Consumer Credit Code, approved by
the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws. The Federal garnishment
law— Title I I I of the Consumer Credit Protection
Act—becomes effective July 1, 1970. The act
protects from garnishment 75 percent of the
worker’s "disposable earnings” for any workweek
or 30 times the Federal minimum wage (or $48
at the present $1.60 rate), whichever is greater.
I t also prohibits an employer from discharging
an employee by reason of garnishment for any
one indebtedness. Enforcement is by the Secre
tary of Labor, who is authorized to exempt from
the Federal restriction garnishments issued under
a "substantially similar” State law. The Uniform
Consumer Credit Code would protect from gar
nishment 75 percent of the worker’s "disposable
earnings” for any workweek or 40 times the
Federal minimum wage, whichever is greater, to
enforce payment of a judgment arising from a
consumer sale, consumer lease, or consumer loan.
Other pertinent Code provisions would prohibit
garnishment before judgment, and would pro
hibit discharge for garnishments arising from the
above specified transactions.
Utah adopted the suggested Code provision.
The Connecticut wage exemption measure is
similar to the Code provision except that it has a
third basis for determining the exemption. Minne
sota, New Mexico, and Washington provided for
the same percentage and dollar exemption as the
Code provision but in New Mexico and Washing
ton the provision is applicable to all garnishments
and in Minnesota it is limited to residents. Okla
homa adopted some of the language of the Code
provision— garnishments arising from "a consumer
credit sale, consumer lease, or consumer loan”
and the 75-percent exemption common to both
provisions— but incorporated the 30 times multi
ple of the Federal consumer protection provision.
Oregon and Wisconsin adopted the Federal wage
exemption provision; Nevada apparently intended
to adopt it but appears to have reversed both the
percentage and dollar limitation.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
50
Four other States also amended their garnish
ment laws. Massachusetts raised from $50 to $80
the amount of wages exempt from garnishment.
Nebraska reduced to 85 percent from 90 percent
the amount of wages of family heads exempt from
garnishment (workers other than family heads
remain unprotected). New Jersey now protects
from garnishment weekly earnings of less than $48,
instead of $18, retaining its provision which ex
empts 90 percent of earnings above that amount
and another one which allows the court to decrease
the percentage exemption if the debtor’s income
exceeds $2,500 per year. Among other changes,
Alaska provided for its exemption to be computed
on “disposable earnings” (after deductions and
payments required by law or court order).
On June 9, 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court issued
a significant decision on the garnishment issue
when it held unconstitutional a Wisconsin statute
permitting garnishment of wages before judgment.1
Wisconsin subsequently made a conforming amend
ment to its law. Oklahoma and Utah adopted the
Code provision which prohibits garnishment be
fore judgment. Although a number of States have
some sort of prejudgment garnishment statutes,
the court decision came too late to be reflected in
this year’s legislation, since many legislatures had
already adjourned.
More than a dozen States provided for com
mittees to study the Uniform Consumer Credit
Code and its impact on existing laws, as well as
other problems of consumer credit transactions.
. North Dakota
authorized the labor commissioner to enter into
reciprocal agreements with other States for the
collection of wage claims. Alaska, Arkansas,
California, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, and Ore
gon also have this provision.
Minnesota specifically authorized the labor
commissioner to take an assignment of an unpaid
wage claim up to $300, bringing to 28 the number
of States with collection authority.
W
a
g
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
c
o
l l e
c
t
i o
n
P
.
Thirty-nine States now re
quire the payment of prevailing wages on public
works. In Arkansas, the new law 2 applies to public
works construction costing more than $75,000,
except State highway construction, and requires
payment of not less than the prevailing wage paid
in the county where the work is being performed.
r
e
v
a
i l
i n
g
w
a
g
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
e
s
Such rates are to be established annually by the
Department of Labor.
The Maryland act is now statewide and applies
to contracts for public works in excess of $500,000.
The prevailing hourly rate of wages, including
specified fringe benefits, is to be determined
annually by the Department of Labor and In
dustry on a locality basis, and consideration is
to be given to wage rates established by union
agreements. Overtime is required at 1% times the
prevailing rate for all hours in excess of 8 a day
and for Sundays and holidays.
Missouri strengthened its prevailing wage law.
Among other changes, the law now provides that
the prevailing wage rate shall not be less than the
minimum wage established by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and that wage schedules shall be
posted at the worksite.
Montana, Nevada, and Oregon now include
fringe benefits in determining the prevailing
minimum hourly rate; 23 States have this
provision.
.
Florida, Idaho, and Minnesota en
acted equal pay laws. Nevada added an equal pay
requirement to its minimum wage law.
E
q
u
a
l
p
a
y
Occupational safety and health
Efforts to secure a Federal occupational safety
and health bill have probably led to the States’
concentration on this area. Maine, Minnesota, and
Wyoming provided for boards or commissions
either to propose or to issue rules and regulations
for general safety. The Maine enactment also au
thorized the labor department to enter and inspect
all places of employment and to enforce the rules
and regulations adopted by the Board of Occupa
tional Rules and Regulations. The Minnesota law
established an advisory board to propose standards
for the prevention and control of accidents in all
places of employment, except agriculture and do
mestic service, and authorized the labor commis
sioner to adopt the board’s proposals. Formerly,
such authority was vested in the Industrial Com
mission. The Minnesota law also required the em
ployer to furnish a safe workplace. The Wyoming
Occupational Health and Safety Act is applicable
to all public and private employers. Formerly, the
State had statutory provisions relating to fire
escapes, floor openings, and machinery safeguard-
STATE LABOR LEGISLATION
ing. The State will now have a health and safety
commission to administer and enforce the safety
provisions, to issue rules and regulations, and to
appoint a safety engineer responsible for inspection
and enforcement.
Montana strengthened its safety provisions by
enacting the Montana Safety Act, which creates
a Department of Safety within the Industrial
Accident Board.
Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and
Wyoming also strengthened their laws by author
izing the administrative agency to order discon
tinuance of work in unsafe work locations.
Two States authorized the administrative agency
to adopt specific safety codes: for building con
struction in Nebraska and electrical wiring in
Alaska.
Other enactments included the restoration of the
authority of the New York Board of Standards
and Appeals to issue rules and regulations gov
erning excavation, construction, and demolition of
buildings; the modernization of the Washington
explosives act and authority for the labor com
missioner to issue rules and regulations concerning
manufacture, sale, purchase, use, transportation,
storage, and disposal of explosives; extension in
Massachusetts of the lighting, ventilation, heat
ing, and sanitary requirements to all buildings, not
previously covered, in which people are employed;
and the establishment in Nebraska of safety pre
cautions for work near high voltage lines for other
than qualified persons.
West Virginia extended application of its mining
law to open-pit mines and to underground lime
stone and sandstone mines. The act further re
quired that a course in mine safety be established
which must be successfully completed within 12
weeks after any person is first hired as a miner.
The first law requiring students and teachers to
wear eye-protective devices while participating in
certain courses (particularly industrial arts classes)
was enacted in 1963. W ith this year’s enactments
of such provisions in Colorado, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, and South Dakota, 30 States now have
such laws.
As has been true for the past several years,
laws dealing with radiation continue to occupy
a prominent place in State legislation. Eight
States (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) provided
for entry into the Western Interstate Nuclear
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
51
Compact, joining California and Colorado which
enacted such legislation in 1968.
A New York law authorized the public health
agency to issue regulations, including licensing
and/or registration of ionizing radiation and
nonionizing electromagnetic radiation. Another
New York law adopted certain standards which
must be met before the construction, operation, or
enlargement of a nuclear steam electric generating
plant. An electronic products radiation control
act in Arkansas authorized the board of health
to issue rules and regulations, and also to require
licensing or registration. Kansas made permanent
its Nuclear Energy Council and authorized it to
assume responsibility for the perpetual custody of
radioactive materials.
Washington created a legislative committee on
nuclear energy to make continuing studies of
problems as to the development, use, and control
of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; Illinois
established a commission to study and promote,
among other things, the economic, social, and
technological impact of atomic energy on cities.
Industrial relations
In 1969, most laws concerning employment
relations affected workers in the public sector.
Twelve States passed laws of major significance
affecting labor-management problems; 8 State
legislatures requested studies in this area, and
another requested review of a 1968 study. Ne
braska and South Dakota granted public em
ployees the right to join employee organizations
for the purpose of collective bargaining on certain
conditions of employment; New Hampshire granted
such rights to State employees, including nonacademic employees of State colleges and univer
sities; Nevada to local government employees;
and Maine to employees of municipalities including
school system employees (teachers, principals, and
other supervisory employees). Maine also repealed
its 1965 law applicable only to municipal fire
fighters. Nevada requires as a condition of recog
nition, that an employee organization
. . pledge
in writing not to strike against the local government
employer under any circumstances” ; Maine, New
Hampshire, and South Dakota prohibit strikes,
and the Nebraska law is silent in this respect.
Oregon strengthened its 1963 law which granted
collective bargaining rights to public employees by
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
52
creating a Public Employees Relations Board for
the purpose of establishing public employee repre
sentation and to aid public employers and labor
organizations in settling disputes through concili
ation, mediation, factfinding, or voluntary arbitra
tion. Vermont, which granted collective bargaining
rights to municipal employees in 1967, has now
granted such rights to State employees, including
those of State colleges. Both Oregon and Vermont
prohibit strikes and recognition of a picket line
while on official duty.
Michigan provided for binding arbitration of
labor disputes between municipal police and fire
departments and corresponding employee organi
zations which are now prohibited by law from
striking. The law will remain in effect for the
period October 1, 1969, through June 30, 1972.
Thus, the State will have about 3 years to deter
mine whether this procedure offers the solution for
handling disputes where public services are
involved.
New York amended its Public Employees’
Fair Employment Act by increasing the penalties
on unions and employees who engage in a strike,
adding prohibited improper practices for govern
mental employers and unions, and providing
additional procedures when an impasse is reached
in negotiations. In addition, an Office of Employee
Relations was established in the executive depart
ment to represent the Governor in negotiations
with public employee organizations.
Washington amended its public employees
bargaining act by adding unfair labor practices
for public employers and for bargaining
representatives. More States than in any other
prior year granted collective bargaining rights to
school system employees. In addition to the
Maine law already noted, Florida, North Dakota,
Oregon, and Vermont enacted laws covering
school employees.
The right to organize and bargain collectively
was granted to teachers and other persons
with classroom teaching duties in Hillsborough
County, F la .; to public school employees including
certificated teachers in North D akota; to certi
ficated school personnel below the rank of super
intendent in Oregon; and to teachers and
administrators in Vermont. The Oregon law
permits administrators (supervisors, principals,
vice principals, or directors) to separate from
teachers for purposes of representation. Another
Florida enactment permits administrators and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
supervisors in Palm Beach County to join a
labor organization representing such personnel
but prohibits them from joining one which
represents members of the teaching profession.
The Hillsborough County legislation requires
the inclusion of a “no strike” provision in any
negotiated agreement. North Dakota prohibits
strikes. The Oregon and Vermont laws are silent
on strikes. However, the Vermont law provides
for issuance of a restraining order or injunction
upon a court finding that an action taken by
either party poses a clear and present danger
to a sound program of school education.
.
In the private sector,
Massachusetts prohibited the use of professional
strikebreakers. I t also extended the provisions
of its labor relations act to employees in chari
table homes for the aged. New York amended the
provisions of its labor relations act applicable
to nonprofit hospitals and residential care centers.
Among other changes, it now permits the commis
sioner to submit a dispute to final and binding
arbitration without first submitting it to a fact
finding commission, and to give the court discre
tion to set the amount of fines on a union engaged
in a strike or a hospital which locks out
its employees.
Maryland established a Division of Mediation
and Conciliation in the Department of Labor
and Industry. Unions are newly required to file
annually with the commissioner of labor, begin
ning January 1, 1970, a report of all collective
bargaining agreements which will expire during
the calendar year.
P
r
i v
a
t
e
e
m
p
l o
y
m
e
n
t
Agriculture
Besides the minimum wage provisions affecting
farm workers in Hawaii, New ork, and Texas,
Puerto Rico took an interesting approach in
providing agricultural workers a living wage.
I t establishes a guaranteed income for workers in
agriculture and in the agricultural phase of the
sugar industry. The act sets a rate of 80 cents an
hour, which will increase by two annual 10-cent
increments to $1. The Department of Agriculture
will compensate farmers for the differences between
the guaranteed rate and the lower minimum rates
prescribed under the minimum wage program.
Four States passed legislation specifically relat
ing to the problems of migrant workers. Iowa
enacted a comprehensive labor camp code ap-
STATE LABOR LEGISLATION
plicable to structures established or maintained
as living quarters for seven migrants or more or
to two structures or more. Washington required
all new housing or new construction for agricultural
workers to be in compliance with labor camp rules
and regulations of the board of health. New York
strengthened procedures for enforcement of laws
relating to labor camps. Texas adopted compre
hensive standards for vehicles used to transport
five migratory farm workers or more within the
State.
Oregon required both the producer of perishable
agricultural products and the labor contractor
providing the crew to give workers a statement of
wages and deductions each pay period or upon
termination of employment.
Child labor and school attendance
This year’s child labor laws reflect the efforts
in the States to provide more job opportunities
for youth. Several States permitted certain minors
to work until a later hour, either on a regular
basis, on nights preceding nonschooldays, or during
summer vacation periods, and others modified
hazardous occupations provisions to permit cer
tain minors to work, under specified conditions,
at an earlier age. A significant amendment in
Hawaii simplified certificate procedures for 16and 17-year-olds by permitting them to obtain a
numbered certificate to be used for the initial and
subsequent jobs until age 18.
Laws were revised or recodified in two States—
New Hampshire and Tennessee. The New Hamp
shire revision set a minimum age of 16 for em
ployment in manufacturing, construction, mining
and quarrying, and reduced the minimum age
for general employment from 14 to 12. I t also
covered employment on a farm, in domestic
service, and as a golf caddy, formerly exempt.
Maximum hours of work for minors under 16
were set at 8 a day and 48 a week during summer
vacations, rather than a 1034-bour day, 54-hour
week. The authority of the labor commissioner
to declare occupations hazardous for minors under
18 was retained. The Tennessee revision authorized
the labor commissioner to determine occupations
hazardous for minors under 18, to enter into
agreement with the State board of education to
permit student learners to work in occupations
otherwise prohibited, and to grant special exemp
tions under specified conditions. Certificates are
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
53
now required for the employment of minors up
to age 18, rather than 16.
Connecticut and Georgia modified the minimum
age at which children may be employed. The
Connecticut labor commissioner may authorize
the employment of minors between 14 and 16
enrolled in certain summer-work recreation pro
grams in specified establishments and industries
where a 16-year minimum age would otherwise
apply; Georgia permitted minors 15 and over on
vacation from school, rather than 16, to engage
in any employment otherwise prohibited upon
presentation of an employment certificate and
proof of physical fitness.
Over the past several years, a number of States
have extended the hours of nightwork for certain
minors. Five States adopted such provisions this
year. Nebraska minors between 14 and 16 years
of age may work beyond 10 p.m. on nights pre
ceding nonschooldays if certain conditions are m et;
Hawaii and North Carolina permitted minors
under 16 to work until 7 p.m., rather than 6 p.m.,
with a further relaxation to 8 p.m. during the
summer months in Hawaii, and until 9 p.m. on
days when schools are not in session in North
Carolina. In New Hampshire minors under 16
may work until 9 p.m., rather than 7 p.m. and
may begin work at 7 a.m., rather than 6:30 a.m.
Formerly, such minors could work until 9 p.m.
only during summer vacations. New York ex
empted boys 16 years of age from the nightwork
prohibition of 12 p.m. to 6 a.m. if they are em
ployed in the maintenance of aircraft for a licensed
airline and enrolled in a recognized work-study
or job-training program.
Two States extended the permissible hours
of work of in-school youth under 16. Hawaii
permits such minors to be employed for 10, rather
than 9, hours in combined hours of school and
work. In Tennessee minors under 16 may work
4, rather than 3, hours on a schoolday, except
5 hours on Friday, and for 28, rather than 23,
hours a week; the provision setting an 8-hour
day for combined school and work was deleted.
On the other hand, New Hampshire reduced
maximum hours of work for minors under 16
from 4 to 3 on a schoolday and from 28 to 23
during a schoolweek.
Several States modified their hazardous occupa
tions provisions. New Hampshire authorized the
labor commissioner to exempt minors under 18
from the hazardous occupations provisions if the
54
minor is enrolled in an approved apprenticeship,
vocational rehabilitation, or training program.
Colorado permitted minors under 18 enrolled
in approved student-learner programs, or where
employment follows such a course, to work in
occupations otherwise prohibited. In Michigan,
17-year-old high school graduates may be employed
in certain otherwise prohibited occupations and
are exempt from the certificate provisions. M ary
land allowed student-learners enrolled in an
approved vocational program to use hazardous
machines under specified conditions and per
mitted high school graduates to be employed in
an occupation for which he has completed training
even though he is not 18. Maryland also permitted
16- and 17-year-old minors to operate a commercial
vehicle during daylight hours if. the vehicle does
not exceed 6,000 pounds gross weight and provided
other specified conditions are met.
Maryland lowered the entry age for compulsory
school attendance from 7 to 6; Washington amended
its attendance law to require completion of the
9th instead of the 8th grade; and Texas removed
the exemption from school attendance for children
living more than 2% miles from the nearest public
school.
Women’s hours
State legislatures again made adjustments in
the State maximum hours laws making more job
opportunities available to women. Nebraska
repealed its women’s maximum hours law. New
Mexico permitted women to work a longer work
day and workweek if they voluntarily agree in
writing and are paid overtime for hours in excess
of 40 a week. New York provided greater flexi
bility in the hours of work standards of women
workers. On issuance of a permit by the labor
commissioner, women may voluntarily work
beyond the present maximum hours standard
(8 hours a day and 48 hours a week). Women 18
to 21 may work a 10-hour day, 48-hour week;
those 21 and over may work a 10-hour day, 54hour week. Nightwork hours were also relaxed:
women 18 to 21 may work until midnight instead
of 10 p.m. and women 21 and over may work after
midnight— formerly such work was generally
prohibited. Puerto Rico permitted women over
18 employed by hospitals or as reporters or newswriters for newspaper, radio, and television
stations to work from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.; work
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
during such hours was formerly prohibited. I t
also authorized the Secretary of Labor to issue
permits for the employment of women over 18
after 10 p.m. in other industries and trades under
specified conditions. Massachusetts authorized
women 18 and over to begin work at 5 a.m.,
rather than 6 a.m., in bakeries. Connecticut
extended the period for which women and minors
under 18 may work more daily and weekly hours
during emergencies and periods of seasonal and
peak demands—from 4 to 8 weeks in mercantile
establishments and from 8 to 12 weeks in manu
facturing or mechanical establishments. Maryland
broadened the women’s hours law (10 a day, 60
a week) to make it applicable to all employment
rather than to employment in specified establish
ments. Maryland and Tennessee exempted from
their maximum hours laws for women, work that
meets or is covered by the
requirements.
On August 19, 1969, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (
)
issued new
guidelines on discrimination because of sex.3 The
Commission
. . concluded that such [State]
laws and regulations [prohibiting or limiting the
employment of females] conflict with Title V II
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and will not be
considered a defense to an otherwise established
unlawful employment practice or as a basis for
the application of a bona fide occupational qualifi
cation exception.” Since then the Ohio Depart
ment of Industrial Relations has issued a release
stating that it “ . . . will not prosecute alleged
violations of the Ohio laws that are in conflict
with the . . . guidelines . . . until the Ohio Gen
eral Assembly has conformed the Ohio law with the
Federal statutes and guidelines.” Even before the
issuance of the new guidelines by the
the
South Dakota Attorney General, in an opinion
dated February 27, 1969, had held that the South
Dakota law limiting the number of hours women
may work is superseded by the ban on sex dis
crimination in employment of Title V II of the
Civil Rights Act.
The North Dakota Attorney General, in an opinion
dated April 18, 1969, had also recognized that
Federal legislation and regulations might preclude
prosecution for violations of the State statutory
provisions limiting hours of work for women to
8% hours per day and 48 hours per week but that
the limitation should not be ignored,
. . with
out regard to actual factual situation that may be
detrimental to a female employee’s health.”
f
l s
e
a
e
o
c
e
e
o
c
55
STATE LABOR LEGISLATION
In several other States, the maximum hours
laws for women as well as other women’s laws such
as those regulating weightlifting have also been
the subject of rulings or litigation.
Employment discrimination
New York provided that it is not an unlawful
discriminatory practice for an employer, employ
ment agency, labor organization, or joint labormanagement committee to carry out a plan to
increase the employment of members of a minority
group which has a statewide unemployment rate
disproportionately higher than that of the general
population. Washington required joint apprentice
ship programs which receive State assistance to
include, when available, members of minority
races in such programs in a ratio at least equal to
the ratio such races bear to the population of the
city or trade area concerned.
The only significant extension of coverage was
in Oregon where the fair employment practice
law was made applicable to employers of one
person or more (formerly employers with less than
six employees were exempted), and to State
agencies, political subdivisions, and municipalities.
Idaho approved an antidiscrimination act ap
plicable to employment and to public accommo
dations, housing, and education and placed ad
ministration in the newly created Commission
on Human Rights. I t prohibits discrimination in
employment because of race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin by employers of four em
ployees, or more by employment agencies, and by
labor organizations. New Mexico repealed its
civil rights act and its equal employment oppor
tunity-fair employment practices act and enacted
a human rights act with administration vested in
a newly created Human Rights Commission.
Among other changes, discrimination on the
basis of sex or age by an employer and on the
basis of sex by labor organizations and em
ployment agencies are included under unlawful
discriminatory practices. In Nevada, responsibil
ity for enforcement of the provisions in the antidiscrimination law prohibiting discrimination in
employment on the basis of sex was transferred
from its Commission on Equal Rights of Citizens
to the labor commissioner.
Since 1966, the number of fair employment
practice laws that prohibit discrimination in em
ployment on the basis of sex has almost doubled—
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to 23 jurisdictions. This year, in addition to
Idaho and New Mexico as mentioned above, five
States (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon,
and Pennsylvania) added this type provision—
applicable to employers, labor organizations, and
employment agencies in Minnesota, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania, and to employers only in Alaska
and Colorado.
Private employment agencies
Washington enacted a law regulating employ
ment agencies for the first time; Maryland,
Texas, and Utah changed their laws. The Wash
ington law requires annual licensing, the posting
of a bond, and prohibits certain undesirable
practices. Following a request for a study com
mission in 1968 to report on the need for revision
of its law, Maryland improved and strengthened
its act, particularly with respect to administra
tion and enforcement.
Utah and Texas deleted the provision setting
maximum placement fees. In Utah, the employ
ment agency is required to file a schedule of fees
with the industrial commission, and Texas gave
power to a regulatory advisory board to set a
schedule of permissible maximum fees, starting
after December 31, 1969. The Maryland law does
not set maximum placement fees for permanent
employment, requiring only the filing of a fee
schedule and prior notification to the adminis
trator of fee changes. In Washington the agency
is required to obtain the director’s approval of
the fee schedule. Both Maryland and Washington
set up advisory boards to assist the administrative
agency on issuance of rules and regulations.
Massachusetts repealed an early law which
provided for the regulation and local adminis
tration of “intelligence offices,” thus vesting re
sponsibility for administration of the private
employment agency law solely within the labor
department.
Hawaii repealed its emigrant agent act which
regulated the activities of person seeking or hiring
workers to go outside the State for employment.
Other laws
In Colorado, a 1966 Constitutional amendment
provided for a restructuring of the State govern
ment. A major overhaul came in 1968 when the
Department of Labor and Employment was
created. The 1969 legislature organized the De-
56
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
partment into three divisions— Division of Labor,
Division of Employment, and the Division of the
State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Divi
sion of Labor is responsible for the administra
tion of all labor laws, including workmen’s
compensation. The Industrial Commission, which
formerly administered labor laws, was retained
and given appellate and rulemaking jurisdiction,
authority to handle investment of the State
compensation insurance fund, and to prescribe
the conditions under which Federal aid may be
accepted and administered.
Three States requested studies relating to labor
agencies. New Mexico directed that a study be
made of labor laws and their administration and
the feasibility of creating a department of labor
and transferring to it all duties and functions of
the Employment Security Commission, the Labor
and Industrial Commission, the Human Rights
Commission, and the Apprenticeship Council. The
Labor and Industrial Commission, as presently
constituted, includes the Apprenticeship Council,
Human Rights Commission, and child labor en
forcement. Texas provided for a committee to
study the feasibility of combining into one agency
the administration and enforcement of all State
laws relating to labor and management. South
Dakota provided for a study of existing labor laws
and the feasibility of establishing a department of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
labor to administer State labor laws, which are
now administered by a division of labor under an
Industrial Commission.
Other studies include an Illinois law which
created a commission on labor laws to make a
thorough study of the laws and decisions of the
State pertaining to labor and employment, espe
cially industrial safety and health, labor standards
and labor relations, and the enforcement of such
laws. Colorado directed the legislative council
to appoint a committee to study, among other
things, laws concerning wages and conditions of
employment.
Two States enacted first-time laws relating to
the commercial practice of debt pooling, also
called debt adjusting— Montana outlawed such
businesses with certain exceptions, and New
Hampshire passed a regulatory law. Minnesota
strengthened its regulatory law.
□
--------- FOO TNO T E S ---------1 For a summary of this decision, see “ Significant
Decisions in Labor Cases,” Monthly Labor Review, August
1969, p. 66.
2 A previous prevailing wage law was held unconstitu
tional by the Arkansas Supreme Court on October 15,
1956. Crowley v. Thornbrough, 226 Ark. 797, 294 S.W.
(2d) 336.
3 See Federal Register, Yol. 34, No. 158, August 19, 1969.
Employee compensation and payroll hours
Four new b l s publications report on 1967 surveys of employee
compensation and payroll hours in banks (Report 362), commercial
research and development laboratories (Report 363), fabricated
structural steel manufacturing (Report 365), and hotels and motels
(Report 366).
Copies of these reports may be obtained without cost as long as
supplies last. Write to any of the Bureau’s regional offices listed on
the inside front cover, or to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.
Amendments focused
on flexible
maximum weekly benefits
and improved
occupational disease laws
FLORENCE C. JOHNSON
D u r i n g 1969, 47 State legislatures met in regular
session to adopt more than 200 amendments to
their workmen’s compensation laws. The slowly
developing trend toward a “flexible maximum”
weekly benefit gained some ground— three more
States added provisions that make it possible to
adjust the maximum weekly benefit in accordance
with changes in statewide average weekly wages
rather than prescribing a uniform maximum
amount by statute. Other significant provisions
included increases in maximum medical benefits,
the enactment of an Occupational Disease Law in
Wyoming, the extension of workmen’s compen
sation coverage to include coal miners’ black lung
disease (pneumoconiosis) in New Mexico, Ohio,
Tennessee, and West Virginia. Also, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, and New Mexico enacted new
rehabilitation provisions for maintenance benefits
while the employee is being retrained.
Weekly benefits
Connecticut was the first State to enact a
“flexible maximum” provision in 1959, followed
by Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and
Vermont. In 1969, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
and West Virginia adopted “flexible maximum”
provisions, thus making nine States where the
weekly benefit can be adjusted annually without
further legislative enactments.
Twenty-one States increased maximum weekly
benefits for temporary total disability, as shown
in the accompanying table. These States, plus
Maryland, raised maximum weekly benefits for
permanent total disability, partial disability, or
death. The Federal Government and 15 State
programs 1 now pay a weekly maximum of $70 a
Florence C. Johnson is a Labor Standards Adviser in
the Office of Employment Standards, Bureau of Labor
Standards.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
How workmen’s
compensation laws
changed
during 1969
week or more for temporary total disability for
a single worker or a married worker with wife and
two dependent children, and eight S ta te s 2 pay
$60 to $69 a week. In spite of these increases in
benefits, the maximum weekly benefit for tem
porary total disability is still below the percentage
goal of many States because of the statutory dollar
limitations on maximum payments.
Many authorities on workmen’s compensation
law advocate that cash benefits be at least twothirds of the average gross weekly wages of all
covered employees in the State. This objective
has been met by only six States— Arizona, Con
necticut, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, and
Rhode Island. In 1969, the median ratio of maxi
mum weekly benefits to average weekly wages was
51 percent, ranging from 36.7 percent in Delaware
to 125.2 percent in Arizona.
In addition to adequate cash benefits, an
effective workmen’s compensation law should limit
the waiting period between the time of injury and
the payment of benefits to 3 days or less, with
retroactive payment to date of injury if disability
continues for 2 weeks. Prior to 1969, eight juris
dictions met this standard— Connecticut, Dela
ware, Hawaii, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. This year, Minnesota
reduced its waiting period from 1 week to 3 days,
with retroactive benefits payable after 10 days of
disability instead of 3 weeks. The M ontana law
states that a disability must continue for 1 week
(rather than 3 weeks, or 6 weeks if the injured
worker had no dependents residing in the United
States) before benefits are payable from the date
of injury.
Several States are extending the duration of
dependency payments in death benefit cases
beyond age 18 so that young persons dependent
upon an employee who dies following an industrial
accident or illness are able to continue their
education. Previously, benefits automatically
57
58
stopped at the age of 18 for dependent minors.
In 1969, amendments to the laws of Alaska,
Minnesota, Montana, and Washington provided
extension of benefits to students over 18, under
specified conditions. Several jurisdictions enacted
such legislation before 1969— Hawaii, Vermont,
West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and the Federal
Employees Compensation Act.
Other improvements in benefits were enacted
this year. South Dakota added hearing loss and
back injuries to its schedule of compensable in
juries; Utah and Rhode Island included loss of
hearing caused by accident or by exposure to
harmful industrial noises. Montana authorized its
Industrial Accident Board to pay benefits beyond
500 weeks in certain cases of permanent total
disability, and made the provision applicable to
persons currently receiving such benefits. Wyo
ming provided additional compensation and set
conditions for its receipt if any continuing impair
ment of earning power remains after a total perma
nent disability award has been paid in full.
Four States increased their burial allowances:
New York and West Virginia increased allowances
to $750 from $400 and $500 respectively, Nebraska
to $1,000 from $750, and Rhode Island to $1,250
from $750.
Medical benefits
Rhode Island deleted the provision setting a
limitation on medical benefits, thereby allowing
unlimited benefits without requiring approval of
the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. Two
other States improved their medical benefits this
year by increasing the maximum limit: Alabama
to $10,000 from $6,000, and Montana to $5,000
from $2,500. South Dakota and Texas liberalized
their provisions relating to furnishing or replacing
prosthetic devices. At the present time, 41
jurisdictions provide unlimited medical benefits
for accidental injuries and 32 have unlimited
benefits for occupational diseases.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is an essential feature of a
complete workmen’s compensation program. I t is
sometimes necessary to give compensation to help
cover expenses, other than the rehabilitation cost,
especially if the employee is required to spend
time away from home for training. In 1969,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, and New Mexico
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 1. Maximum weekly temporary total
benefits increased in 1969
State
Former maximum
benefits
Alabama________ . . . ___ ____ ______
C o lorado___ _________ ______ ______
Idaho___
__________________________
Illinois____________ ____ ______________
Indiana___ _________ _______ ______
Massachusetts___ ____ ___________
Minnesota___________
__________ .
Missouri........................... - ........... ....... ......... ................................................
Montana. . .
Nebraska____ ____ ____ ______ ________
Nevada____________ ________
___ . . .
New Hampshire.
.............. ..
New Mexico....... ......................... ....... . . . . .
North Carolina__ ____ ___ ____________
North Dakota. .
. . . .
...................... ..
$44.00
54.25
37.00-63.00
62. 00-76.00
51.00
65. 00
60. 00
57.00
37. 00-60. 00
45. 00
52. 50-72.69
58. 00
45. 00
42. 00
50. 00-75. 00
Oregon. . . .
. . . . . _______________
Rhode Island_______ ______________ . . .
39.23-73.85
50. 00-62.00
Tennessee. .
.
. . . ______
Texas
...
______________
Utah.
________
______________
West V irg in ia ...................................... ...........
42.00
35.00
44.00-62.00
47. 00
disability
Present maximum
benefits
i $47.00
59.50
43. 00-99.00
74.00-91.00
57.00
70.00
70. 00
63. 50
42. 00-65. 00
55. 00
57.75-79.96
67. 00
48. 00
50. 00
2 “ Flexible”
maximum
$60.00-80.00
3 "Flexible
maxim um”
$47. 00
49. 00
47.00-65. 00
4 “ Flexible
m axim um "
1 Alabama: Effective July 1,1970, the maximum benefit rate w ill increase to $50.
2 North Dakota: 55 percent of State’ s average weekly wage plus $5 for each dependent
child; combined compensation and dependency award not to exceed employee's net
wage after deduction for taxes.
s Rhode Island: 60 percent of State's average weekly wage (not less than $70 a
week) plus $6 for each dependent; combined compensation and dependency award
not to exceed employee's average weekly wage.
< West Virginia: 45 percent of State’ s average weekly wage, effective July 1, 1959;
and 50 percent, effective July 1, 1970.
continued the trend of providing rehabilitation
services beyond the training itself. The Nebraska
Workmen’s Compensation Court is now authorized
to provide: Rehabilitation services for 26 weeks,
and extension of these services for an additional
26 weeks; payment of maintenance benefits when
rehabilitation requires residence away from home,
plus compensation for temporary disability; and
medical care supervision. New Hampshire pro
vided for rehabilitation services for 1 year, au
thorized extension of such services by special order
of the Labor Commissioner, and required the
employer to pay reasonable cost of maintenance
and materials required in the rehabilitation
process.. New Mexico authorized up to $1,000 for
board, lodging, travel, and other expenses, and for
maintenance of the employee’s family during the
period of rehabilitation, in addition to other
compensation, bringing to 24 the number of juris
dictions providing maintenance benefits during
rehabilitation.
North Dakota and Utah liberalized their exist
ing rehabilitation provisions. North D akota de
leted the maximum period (72 weeks) during which
an allowance may be paid to dependents of claim
ants undergoing vocational retraining. U tah in
creased to $890 from $830 the maximum amount
payable for rehabilitation of a permanently and
totally disabled person, and raised to $47 from $44
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION LAWS
the maximum weekly benefits payable from a
special State fund after the employer’s liability
ceases to such persons.
The Rhode Island legislature provided for a
panel of medical advisors, appointed by the Gov
ernor and representing varying fields of specializa
tion, to advise the Director of Labor as to the
rehabilitation of injured workers. The law pro
vided, among other things, that compensation
payments shall not be diminished or terminated
so long as the employee is participating in the
program, but shall be suspended upon willful re
fusal to participate.
Occupational diseases
West Virginia added a widely publicized provi
sion this year when the State extended workmen’s
compensation coverage to occupational pneumo
coniosis. Included in this category is the “black
lung” disease, a particularly important coverage
feature in this leading coal-producing State. West
Virginia miners struck for 3 weeks and marched
on the State Capitol to urge passage of the bill.
Miners’ efforts in several other States contributed
to enactments in their State compensation laws;
legislatures in New Mexico, Ohio, and Tennessee
also passed laws making coal miners’ pneumo
coniosis specifically compensable.
As of 1967, Wyoming was the only State that
did not provide coverage of any occupational dis
ease. Some workers had won benefits through court
decisions and the 1967 amendment to the State’s
workmen’s compensation law made exposure to
ionizing radiation a compensable disease. In 1969,
however, the Wyoming legislature passed a sep
arate law, which covers 46 enumerated diseases
and provides for compensation and payment of
medical and hospital claims in the same amount
as provided by the workmen’s compensation act.
Many States amended their laws to include
specific diseases or to liberalize disease compensa
tion. Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, and
U tah increased compensation benefits for death or
disability resulting from an occupational disease
to conform with increased benefits under their
workmen’s compensation laws. Idaho, Nevada,
and Pennsylvania specified additional compensable
diseases under their laws. Maryland provided that
total disability or death resulting from silicosis,
asbestosis, or other pulmonary dust diseases be
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
59
compensated the same way as other disability
cases; New Hampshire deleted the provision
prohibiting payment of benefits for partial dis
ability caused by silicosis and other pulmonary
dust diseases. Montana increased from $125 to
$140 a month the payments under public welfare
law to persons totally disabled because of silicosis,
and Nevada increased the maximum amount
payable and extended to July 1, 1971, the supple
mental compensation payable to claimants who
have exhausted maximum benefits payable for
silicosis.
South Carolina, which has full coverage of
occupational diseases, enacted a special law
providing workmen’s compensation benefits for all
disabilities or death resulting from an ionizing
radiation injury. The law also requires the furnish
ing of medical and vocational rehabilitation
services, including retraining and j ob replacement,
for persons who have been injured or have medi
cally determined restrictions on radiation expo
sure, and whose skills are not transferable to
equivalent work not involving radiation exposure.
Connecticut, which also has full coverage of
occupational diseases, specifically included occu
pational exposure to radioactive material as a
compensable disease.
Time limitations
Several States changed their time limits for
filing claims. In its occupational disease enact
ment, Wyoming set its limit at 1 year after
diagnosis or within 3 years from the last injurious
exposure, whichever occurs first; claims for
disease caused by ionizing radiation must be filed
within 1 year after diagnosis or 10 years from last
injurious exposure, whichever occurs first. The
law set a 1-year limit in death cases.
South Dakota increased its time for filing a
claim from 1 year to 2 years after the injury, and
Maryland extended the time limit for filing an
application for a modification or change in an
award by the Workmen’s Compensation Commis
sion from 3 years to 5 years following the last
payment.
Coverage
Kansas enacted the most significant coverage
provision by extending its law to quarries, elec-
60
trical work, and engineering work without regard
to the number of workmen employed (formerly,
mines and building work were the only exceptions).
For other employment, the law is still applicable
to employers of three workers or more.
A number of States extended coverage to various
groups of public employees and volunteers doing
public service. For example, Missouri extended
coverage to all State employees; Alaska, to mem
bers of State boards and commissions; Indiana,
to enforcement officers; and California, Maryland,
and Wyoming, to specified firemen. Maryland also
extended coverage to certain hospital employees,
and to specified prisoners in Washington County,
and Wyoming, to State electrical inspectors and
deputies, workmen’s compensation field inspectors,
pilots and flight personnel, and specified prisoners
and parolees. Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon,
and South Dakota provided coverage for various
volunteer workers; Colorado and Oregon extended
coverage to persons receiving training under
certain programs. Nebraska provided benefits to
members of the military forces of the State, and
South Carolina extended coverage to the National
Guard while in actual drill or service. Nevada now
covers “house bands,” or local supporting bands
and orchestras. New York extended coverage to
persons who are officially assigned to furnish
housekeeping or nursing services to injured em
ployees or welfare recipients.
Subsequent-injury fund
Most States have established “second-injury”
or “subsequent-injury” funds to provide that
when a handicapped worker suffers a subsequent
injury the employer must pay for the last injury
only. However, the employee is compensated for
the disability resulting from combined injuries,
with the remainder of the award being paid from
the subsequent-injury fund. In 1969, North
Dakota broadened the coverage of its fund by
permitting it to be charged with compensation
paid for all preexisting injuries or conditions
aggravated in the course of employment, rather
than only preexisting injuries incurred in different
employments. This will make it easier for a dis
abled man to find employment because if his
condition is aggravated, the new employer will be
charged only for the portion resulting from the
aggravation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Three States increased the required contribution
into the second-injury fund in no-dependency
death cases, Maine to $1,000 from $500, Texas to
$4,200 from $3,000, and Utah to $7,500 from
$5,000. Another State, New Hampshire, extended
suspension of payments into its second-injury fund
until July 1, 1971. Connecticut increased to
$250,000 from $100,000 the reserve level in its
fund at which further payments into the fund are
suspended, and increased the assessment to 1 %
percent, from 1 percent, of the total amount
expended in payment of the employer’s liabilitv
for the preceding calendar year.
Administration
Colorado, in its reorganization of State Govern
ment agencies, changed the administration of the
workmen’s compensation law from the Industrial
Commission to the Director of the Division of
Labor; the Commission retained the function of
being an appellate board on rulings in workmen’s
compensation appeals cases and the right to make
procedural rules and to handle the investing of the
funds of the State Compensation Insurance Fund.
Hawaii repealed provisions creating industrial
accident boards in the counties of Hawaii, Maui,
and Kauai. The legislature specifically gave a
restructured Labor and Industrial Relations Ap
peals Board power to decide appeals from decisions
and orders of the Director of Labor and Industrial
Relations issued under the workmen’s compensa
tion law and any other law for which an appeal
to the Board is provided by law. The right of
appeal from the decision of the Director to the
appellate board was retained, but it was provided
that further appeal may be taken to the supreme
court, rather than the circuit court, as previously.
Oregon changed the method of appointment,
composition of membership, and term of members
of the Industrial Accident Advisory Committee.
Several States amended their provisions regu
lating attorneys’ fees. North Dakota provided that
the amount set by the Workmen’s Compensation
Bureau shall constitute the entire remuneration
for the claimant’s attorney for all services before
the Bureau, deleted the maximum fees set for
court cases, and now requires the court in setting
fees to take into consideration the amount already
allowed in Bureau proceedings. New Hampshire
provided that when an appeal is taken to the
superior or supreme court the employee, if he
61
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS
Studies
prevails, shall be entitled to reasonable counsel
fees as approved by the court. Texas made uniform
the maximum amount allowable for attorneys’
fees by setting such fees at 25 percent of total
recovery for representing claimants before the
Industrial Accident Board and the court. For
merly, the maximum fee was 15 percent before the
Board and 30 percent before the court. Alaska
provided for the payment of attorneys’ fees in
successful prosecution of claims for medical and
related benefits, and Utah provided that an em
ployee is entitled to necessary costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees, to be assessed against the em
ployer, in any action resulting from the employer’s
failure to comply with the law.
Several States (Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire) au
thorized studies of various aspects of their work
men’s compensation laws, and Rhode Island peti
tioned the U.S. Congress to enact legislation to
establish a Federal workmen’s compensation law.
----------FOO TNO T E S ---------1 Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and
Wisconsin.
2 Idaho, Maine, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Penn
sylvania, Vermont, and Washington.
Filling the gaps in income protection
A generally recognized gap in the existing social insurance program in the United
States is the absence of nationwide protection against income loss from temporary
disability and in the early months of permanent disability. The most effective way of
filling this gap in income protection would be to gradually reduce the waiting period
(now 6 full months of disability) under
and remove the present requirement
that the disability be expected to last for 12 months, or result in death. There could
be flexible provisions for eligibility related to the actual duration of the disability. A
single integrated system of protection against income loss from disability, whether of
short or long duration, would avoid problems of transition from one system to another
and make it easier to start rehabilitation immediately. Coverage of the self-employed
is not customary in sickness insurance, since at least in the first weeks there may be
no income loss if members of the family or employees keep the business going. After
a month or two this assumption becomes more questionable. The universal coverage
of
would provide protection for all workers. The waiting period might eventually
be as brief as 1 month, during which time it could be assumed that for employees, sick
pay and private sickness schemes would replace a large part of the income loss.
o
o
a
s
d
h
a
s
d
h
i
i
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
— Shirley Jenkins, ed.,
Social Security in International Perspective
Essays in Honor of Eveline M. Burns
(New York, Columbia University Press, 1969), p. 73.
Changes in State
unemployment
insurance laws
during 1969
in unemployment insurance laws were
enacted in 41 of the Nation’s 52 jurisdictions
during 1969. Legislatures made changes in nearly
all important areas of the State programs including
benefit amounts, qualifying requirements, dis
qualification and eligibility provisions, financing,
and coverage. Several States changed their admin
istrative organizations to reflect the current
emphasis on coordinating all functions relating
to manpower services or human resources
development.
There appears to be no significant general pat
tern in the kind of program changes enacted in
1969. A comparison of current State laws and
those at the end of 1967 shows that improve
ments have not kept pace with changing economic
conditions: only two additional States now provide
a maximum weekly benefit as high as 50 percent
of the statewide average weekly wage. No sig
nificant number of new workers has been brought
under unemployment insurance coverage.
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
Benefit provisions
The 1969 amendments made only two changes
in the structure of the State benefit formulas and
no significant change in the benefit year and
base-period provisions on which the formulas
depend. Massachusetts changed its method of
computing weekly benefits from a formula based
on an individual’s highest quarterly earnings to
one based on a percentage (50 percent) of the
claimant’s average weekly wage. Colorado’s law
now provides for computing benefits on the basis
of a fraction of a claimant’s earnings in his
highest quarter, rather than on his average weekly
wage during the same period. Colorado also
repealed its provision for an alternative method
of computing benefits based on an individual’s
usual full-time wage. Maine liberalized and
Montana restricted their formulas for paying
62
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Basic benefits increased
in 35 States
but few new workers
were brought
under coverage
JOSEPH A. HICKEY
benefits to claimants at all benefit levels. Alaska
liberalized its formula for claimants at the lower
end of the benefit schedule; Illinois and New
Hampshire liberalized their formulas for claimants
at the upper end of the schedule.
Higher maximum benefits were enacted in 17
States. Thirteen of these States adopted flat
increases ranging from $3 to $8. Two States,
New Mexico and North Carolina, enacted flexible
maximum weekly benefit amounts.1 Colorado and
Maine, which already had flexible maximum
weekly benefits, increased the percentage used
in computing the maximum benefit from 50
percent to 60 percent and 52 percent, respectively.
Massachusetts, which enacted a flat increase of
$5 in its maximum benefit amount, also provided
for a flexible maximum weekly benefit beginning
in October 1970. In addition to increasing its
maximum through operation of a flexible maxi
mum provision for nonagricultural workers, Puerto
Rico increased its maximum for agricultural
workers by $6, to $26.
The number of States with a flexible maximum
weekly benefit is now 24, up from 12, 5 years ago
and 6, 10 years ago. The operation of flexible max
imum weekly benefits adopted in previous years
resulted this year in increases in 202 (including
Colorado and Maine) of the 21 States which already
had such provisions. The combined result of this
year’s State legislation and flexible maximum
increases raised basic maximum weekly benefit
amounts in 1969 in 35 States with 43 percent of
the workers covered under State unemployment
insurance laws. (See table 1.) In addition to
increasing its maximum through operation of a
Joseph A. Hickey is an Unemployment Insurance
Program Specialist, Office of Program Development and
Legislation, Unemployment Insurance Service, Manpower
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAWS
Table 1.
63
State unemployment insurance laws, selected characteristics, December 1, 1969
[Boldface type indicates changes enacted in 1969.]
Minimum qualifying
Computation of
base-period wages
weekly benefit
or employment (num Waiting
amount (fraction
ber times weekly
period
of high-quarter
benefit amount
(weeks)2 wages unless other
unless otherwise
wise indicated)3
indicated) i
State
Weekly benefit
amount for total
unemployment4
(in dollars)
1x
/ i times highquarter wages;
but not less than
$468.
A la s k a -................
$750 w ith $100
outside high
q u a rte r.
1
2 . 3 - l . l % of annual
wages, plus $5
for each depend
ent up to lesser
of wba or $25
Arizona________
1Yi high-quarter
wages and $250
in high quarter.
1
Arkansas_______ 30; and wages in 2
quarters.
1
California_______
$720............................
Colorado_______
30_______ ________
Connecticut_____
21
Weeks of bene
fits for total
unemployment6
M ini
mum
12
47
44
4 18-23
34 60-85
31-44
U>5____ _____ ____
10
50
H e up to 50% of
State average
weekly wage.
15
47
1
H i - H ? ........................
25
1
6 0 % of 1/13 of
c la im a n t’s h ig h q u a rte r wages
up to 6 0 % Of
State average
weekly wage.
14
30; and wages in 2
quarters.
0
H e, up to 60% of
State average
weekly wage plus
$5 for each
dependent.
15-20
76-114
60-78
Delaware...............
3 6 .______ ________
0
District of
Columbia.
1V i times highquarter wages
but not less than
$276; with $130
in 1 quarter.
1
H 3 up to 50% of
State average
weekly wage,
plus $1 for each
dependent up to
$3.
Florida_________
20 weeks of employment at
average of $20
or more.
1
H of claim ant’s
average weekly
wage.
Georgia________
36; with $175 in 1
quarter and wages
in 2 quarters.
1
Hawaii...................
30; and 14 weeks of
employment.
«1
Idaho__________
33-1—3 8 + but not
less than $547.50;
with $365 in 1
quarter and wages
in 2 quarters.
Illin o is_________
Indiana.
_____
Earnings disregarded in
computi g weekly
benefit for
partial unem
ploym ent5
Maxi
mum
Mini
mum
Alabama_______
Duration in
52-week period
Maximum weekly
benefit amount as
percent of 1968
State average
weekly wage in
covered employment
Coverage
Minimum number
of employees and
or size of payroll
Maxi
mum
$6
13
26
4 in 20 weeks.
Greater of $10 or
H basic wba.
14
28
1 at any time.
41
$10
12+
26
3 in 20 weeks.
50
$5
10
26
1 in 10 days.
65
46
$12
71
60
$9
H wages
» 12-14+
10
« 26
26
1 and over $100
in any quarter.
4 in 20 weeks.
6 22+
«26
1 in 13 weeks.
10
55
40
$7
14+
26
1 in 20 weeks.
8-9
4 63
50
% wba__________
17+
34
1 at any time.
10
40
36
$5
10
26
4 in 20 weeks or
4 in 8 weeks and
over $6,000 in
any quarter.
12
47
43
$8
9
26
4 in 20 weeks.
H s up to 66H per
cent of State
average weekly
wage-
5
72
66.7
$2
<26
«26
1 at any time.
1
H s - H e up to
greater of 52H %
of State average
weekly wage or
$40.
17
56
52.5
o 10
«26
1 and $300 in any
quarter.
$800; with $225 out
side high quarter.
1
H 6-1/25 up to $45;
up to $6 2 - $ 8 8 for
claimants with 1-4
dependents.
10
45-88
33
5 ? 10-26
« 26
4 in 20 weeks.
$500; with $300 in
last 2 quarters.
1
1/25 up to $40; up to
$52 for claimants
with 1-4 depend
ents.
10
40-52
33-40
58
55
Iowa......................
$300; with $200 in 1
quarter and $100
inan other quarter.
28 1
Kansas_________
30_____ __________
l
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
H
2 up to 50% of
State average
weekly wage.
H s up to 50 percent
of State average
weekly wage.
9
10
$7
Greater of $3 or
20% of wba
from other than
base-period
employer.
12+
26
4 in 20 weeks.
50
$6
11+
26
4 in 20 weeks.
50
$8
10
26
4 in 20 weeks or
25 in 1 week.
64
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 1.
Continued—State unemployment insurance laws, selected characteristics, December 1, 1969
Minimum qualifying
Computation of
base-period wages
weekly benefit
amount (fraction
or employment (num Waiting
of high-quarter
ber times weekly
period
benefit amount
(weeks)0 wages unless other
wise indicated)3
unless otherwise
in dicated)1
State
Weekly benefit
amount for total
unemployment4
(in dollars)
M ini
mum
Kentucky. . ___
iy% times high-
1
quarter wages;
with 8 times wba
in last 2 quarters
and $250 in 1
quarter.
Louisiana_______
30
Maine
$600
_________
Ha up to 55 per
12
Duration in
52-week period
Maximum weekly
benefit amount as
percent of 1968
State average
weekly wage in
covered employment
Earnings disregarded in
computi g weekly
benefit for
partial unem
ployment5
Weeks of bene
fits for total
unemploym ent6
M ini
mum
Maxi
mum
52
46.7
% wages________
15
Coverage
Minimum number
of employees and
or size of payroll
Maxi
mum
26
4 in 20 weeks or
4 in 3 quarters
of preceding
year and $50
per quarter for
each worker.
cent of 85 percent
of State average
weekly wage.
12
28
4 in 20 weeks.
______ 1 12)4-30
8 26
4 in 20 weeks.
26
26
1 at any time.
$1 0 ............. ............ 1 9-1—27
30
1 in 13 weeks.
Up to y 2 w b a 5___
26
1 in 20 weeks or
$1,000 in cal
endar year.
12
26
1 in 20 weeks or 4
in 20 weeks.9
12
26
4 in 20 weeks.
26
4 in 20 weeks.
81
^ 0 - ^ 5 ___________
10
50
42
$5______________
81
Ha up to 52 per
10
52
52^
$10
10-13
4 60
51
$ 1 0 .......................
10-15
62-93
52
4 10-12
46-76
31-50
cent of State
average weekly
wage.
W 2 times high-
Maryland
0
M assachusetts...
$900............................
H i, plus $3 for each
dependent up to
$12.
quarter wages;
with $192.01 in
1 quarter and
wages in 2
quarters.
1
H 9 - H 2 , plus $6 for
each dependent.
Michigan
_____
14 weeks of employment at
$15.01 or more.
81
63-54% of average
weekly wage,
plus dependents’
allowances of
$l-$30 based on
claimant's aver
age weekly wage
and number of
dependents.
10+
Minnesota
18 weeks of employ
ment at $30 or
more.
1
50 percent of
claimant's
average weekly
wage.
15
57
47
$12
Mississippi_____
36; with $160 in 1
quarter and wages
in 2 quarters.
1
He up to lesser
10
40
41
$5
Missouri_______
17 weeks of employ
ment at $15 or
more.
1
3
53
42
$ 1 0 __________________
M ontana.. . . . .
1H times high-
13
42
39
( 2 ) __________________
13
26
$500 in current
or preceding
year.
12
11 48
41
Up to y 2 w b a5___
11
26
4 in 20 weeks or
$10,000 in any
quarter.
16-24
47-67
36-51
$5.
_______
11
26
1 and $225 in any
quarter.
______
of 50% of State
average weekly
wage or $40.
°1
1/23-1/28
1 10-1—26
quarter wages;
with $ 2 8 0 in
high quarter.
N e bra ska______
$600; with $200 in
each of 2
quarters.
1
Nevada________
33.
0
Ha, plus $5 for
each dependent up
to lesser of $20 or
6% of high-quar
ter wages.
New Hampshire..
$600; with $100 in
each of 2 quarters.
°1
1.7-1.0% of annual
wages.
13
60
55
Ya wba____ _____
26
26
4 in 20 weeks.
New Jersey_____
17 weeks of employ
ment at $15 or
more; or $1,350.
81
66% % of claim ant’s
average weekly
wage; up to 50%
of State average
weekly wage.
10
65
50
Greater of $5
or H wba.
12+
26
1
New Mexico _ . .
1V a X h ig h -q u a rte r
wages.
1
53
50
18
30
1 and $450 in any
quarter or 2 in
13 weeks.
New York______
20 weeks of employ
ment at average
of $30 or more.10
65
46
26
26
1 and $300 in any
quarter.
S e e f o o t n o t e s a t e n d o f t a b le .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
212 1
n o t less th a n
10 p ercen t nor
m ore th a n 50
p ercen t of S ta te
average weekly
wage.
H e,
67-50% of claim ant's
average weekly
wage.
11
20
1/5 of w b a_____
(13)
and $ 1 ,0 0 0 in
any year.
65
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAWS
Table 1.
Continued—State unemployment insurance laws, selected characteristics, December 1, 1969
State
Minimum qualifying
base-period wages
or employment (num Waiting
ber times weekly
period
benefit amount
(weeks) 2
unless otherwise
in dicated)1
Computation of
weekly benefit
amount (fraction
of high-quarter
wages unless other
wise indicated)3
Weekly benefit
amount for total
unemployment4
(in dollars)
M ini
mum
Duration in
52-week period
Maximum weekly
benefit amount as
percent of 1968
State average
weekly wage in
covered employment
Earnings disregarded in
computing weekly
benefit for
partial unem
ploym ent5
Maxi
mum
Weeks of bene
fits for total
unemployment6
Coverage
Minimum number
of employees and
or size of payroll
M ini
mum
Maxi
mum
6 26
6 26
4 in 20 weeks.
North C a ro lin a ...
$550; wages outside
the high quarter
of at least 30% of
the minimum
of wage bracket
that includes
claim ant's baseperiod wages.
1
2.0-1.0% of annual
wages up to 50 %
of S ta t e average
weekly wage.
12
50
42
K wba__________
North Dakota___
40; and wages in 2
quarters.
1
He up to 50% of
15
51
50
K wba__________
18
26
4 in 20 weeks.
Ohio.......................
20 weeks of em
ployment at $20
or more.
1
K of claim ant's
average weekly
wage plus de
pendent's allow
ances of $1—$19
based on claim
ant’s average
weekly wage and
number of de
pendents.
10-16
3 47-66
34-48
H wba.................. ..
20
26
3 at any time.
Oklahoma______
I K times highquarter wages but
not less than $500
in base period; or
$3,000.
1
H e ________ ______
10
38
33
$7------------------------
16+
39
4 in 20 week .
Oregon_________
20 weeks of employ
ment at average
of $20 or more
but not less than
$700.
1
1.25% of baseperiod wages.
20
55
45
H wba__________
11+
26
1 and $225 in any
quarter.
Pennsylvania____
32-|—36; with $120
in high quarter
& at least 20%
of base-period
wages in another
quarter.
1
H s-H e or K of
11
60
49
Greater of $6 or
30% wba.
6 18
6 30
1 at any time.
Puerto Rico...........
2 1 + -3 0 but less
than $150; with
$50 in 1 quarter
and wages in 2
quarters.
1
K a - K e iu p t o 50%
of average
weekly wage.
7
36
50
wba___ ________
6 12
6 12
2 or more; (eff.
1-1-70,1 or
more).
Rhode Island........
20 weeks of em
ployment at $20
or more; or
$1,200.
1
55% of claim ant’s
average weekly
wage up to 50%
of State average
weekly wage, plus
$5 for each de
pendent up to $20.
12-17
56-76
50-68
$5______________
12
26
1 at any tim e.
South Carolina___
I K times highquarter wages
but not less than
$300; with $180
in 1 quarter.
1
He up to 50 per
10
50
50
K wba__________
10
26
4 in 20 weeks.
South Dakota___
I K times highquarter wages
but not less than
$600; with $250
in 1 quarter.
1
H v - H i- -
------- -
12
41
42
K wages up to
K wba.
16
26
4 in 20 weeks or
$24,000 in a
year.
Tennessee______
36; with $338.01 in
1 quarter.
1
H e— - ......................
14
47
44
$5______________
12
26
4 in 20 weeks.
Texas____ _____
I K times highquarter wages but
not less than $500
o r ?/3 of FICA
ta x base.
81
H e - - - ......................
15
45
38
Greater of $5
or K wba.
9
26
4 in 20 weeks.
Utah___________
19 weeks of employ
ment at $20 or
more but not less
than $700.
1
He up to 50%
10
54
50
Lesser of $12
or K wba from
other than reg
ular employer.
110-22
36
1 and $140 in any
quarter.
See footnotes at end of table.
870-356 O— 70-----
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
State average
weekly wage.
full-tim e weekly
wage if greater.
cent of State
average weekly
wage.
of State average
weekly wage.
66
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Table 1.
Continued—State unemployment insurance laws, selected characteristics, December 1, 1969
D u r a tio n in
5 2 - w e e k p e r io d
W e e k ly b e n e f i t
M in im u m q u a lif y in g
C o m p u t a t io n o f
a m o u n t fo r to ta l
M a x im u m w e e k ly
E a r n in g s d is -
b a s e - p e r io d w a g e s
w e e k ly b e n e fit
a m o u n t ( fr a c t io n
u n e m p lo y m e n t 4
b e n e fit a m o u n t a s
r e g a r d e d in
o r e m p lo y m e n t ( n u m
S ta te
W a it in g
b e r t im e s w e e k ly
p e r io d
b e n e fit a m o u n t
(w e e k s)2
u n l e s s o t h e r w is e
p e rce n t o f 1968
S ta te a v e ra g e
c o m p u tin g w e e k ly
b e n e fit fo r
W eeks of bene
o f h ig h - q u a r t e r
w a g e s u n le s s o t h e r
w e e k l y w a g e in
u n e m p lo y m e n t 6
w is e i n d i c a t e d ) 3
c o v e r e d e m p lo y -
p a r t ia l u n e m
p lo y m e n t 5
( in d o lla r s )
in d ic a t e d ) 1
V e r m o n t . - - .............
2 0 w e e k s o f e m p lo y
m e n t a t $30 o r
f it s f o r t o t a l
1
Yi o f
c la im a n t ’ s
M in im u m
num ber
o f e m p lo y e e s a n d
o r s iz e o f p a y r o ll
m ent
M in i
M a x i
M in i
M a x i
m um
m um
m um
m um
6 26
6 26
3 in 2 0 w e e k s .
15
56
50
a v e r a g e w e e k ly
w a g e f o r h ig h e s t
o r m ore .
C o v e ra g e
$ 1 0 p lu s $ 2 f o r
each d e p e n d e n t
u p to $1 0 .
2 0 w e e k s u p to 50
p e rce n t o f S ta te
a v e r a g e w e e k ly
w age.
V i r g i n i a ...................-
4 0 a n d w a g e s in 2
q u a rte rs .
1
Yt6 —
W a s h i n g t o n . ...........
$ 8 0 0 ___________ ________
1
W e s t V i r g i n i a _____
$ 7 0 0 ____________________
2 1
18
48
45
$ 1 0 ................................
12
26
4 in 2 0 w e e k s .
2 .0 - l.l% of a n n u a l
w ag es.
17
42
31
$ 1 2 ................................
15+
30
1 a t a n y tim e .
1 .6 -0 .9 % o f a n n u a l
12
49
40
$ 1 0 .................. ..............
26
26
4 in 2 0 w e e k s ; o r
...............................
1 0 in 3 w e e k s ; o r
w a g e s u p to 4 0 %
o f S ta te a ve ra g e
w e e k ly w a g e .
4 in a n y q u a r t e r
a n d $ 5 ,0 0 0 ; o r
$ 2 0 ,0 0 0 in a n y
y e a r.
W i s c o n s i n ................
1 8 w e e k s o f e m p lo y
1
m e n t a t a v erag e of
$ 1 6 o r m o r e . 10
6 3 - 5 0 % o f c la im a n t ’ s
11
66
5 2 .5
U p to
y2 w
b a 5_____
14+
34
a v e r a g e w e e k ly
w a g e u p to 5 2 ^ %
q u a rte r; o r
$ 6 ,0 0 0 in a n y
y e a r.
o f S ta te a v erag e
w e e k ly w a g e .
W y o m i n g ..................
2 0 w e e k s o f e m p lo y
m e n t w it h 2 0 h o u r s
in e a c h w e e k p lu s
$ 8 0 0 in b a s e -
1
^ 5 u p to 5 0 % o f
S ta te a v e ra g e
4 in 2 0 w e e k s ; o r
$ 1 0 ,0 0 0 in a n y
10
3 53
50
$ 1 0 ........................
i
1 1 -2 4
26
1 a n d $ 5 0 0 in a n y
y e a r.
w e e k ly w a g e .
p e r io d w a g e s .
1 Weekly benefit amount abbreviated in columns and footnotes as wba.
2 Unless otherwise noted, waiting period is the same for total or partial unemploy
ment. In Alabama, Iowa, and New Hampshire waiting period for partial benefits is 2
weeks; in New York 2-4 weeks; and in West Virginia, no waiting period is required for
partial unemployment. No partial benefits are paid in Montana but earnings not ex
ceeding tw ice th e weekly benefit a m o u n t and work in excess of 12 h ours in any
1 week are disregarded for to ta l u n em p loy m en t.
2 When States use a weighted high-quarter formula, annual-wage formula, or averageweekly-wage formula, approximate fractions or percentages are figured at midpoint
of lowest and highest normal wage brackets. When dependents' allowances are pro
vided, the fraction applies to the basic benefit amount. In Alaska, maximum for inter
state claimants is $20; in Wyoming, maximum amount for interstate claimants may
be less than that shown.
* When 2 amounts are given, higher figure includes dependents' allowances. Higher
for minimum wba includes maximum allowance for one dependent; Michigan,
for 1 dependent child or 2 dependents other than a child. In the District of Columbia
and Maryland, same maximum with or without dependents. In Alaska, no dependents'
allowances are paid to interstate claimants.
s In States noted, full wba is paid if earnings are less than one-half wba; one-half
wba if earnings are one-half wba but less than wba.
6 Benefits are extended when unemployment in State reaches specified levels:
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, by 50
percent and in North Carolina, by 8 weeks. In Puerto Rico, benefits are extended by
40 weeks in certain industries, occupations, or establishments when a special unem
ployment situation exists.
2 For claimants with minimum qualifying wages and minimum wba. In States noted,
range of duration applies to claimants with minimum qualifying wages in base period;
longer duration applies with the minimum wba; the shorter duration applies with
flexible maximum provision for nonagricultural
workers, Puerto Rico increased its maximum for
agricultural workers by $6, to $26.
Minimum weekly benefits were reduced by $2
in two States and increased by amounts ranging
from $1 to $8 in five others. One of these five
States, New Mexico, adopted a flexible minimum
weekly benefit amount to be computed annually
and based on 10 percent of the State’s average
weekly wage. Only one other State has such a
provision. Massachusetts limited the amount of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
maximum possible concentration of wages in the high quarter, and therefore the highes
wba possible fo r such base-period earnings. In Maine, benefits are not exhausted
until claimant receives $300; thus duration may be as long as 30 weeks for some
claimants.
»W aiting period becomes compensable if claim ant is entitled to 12 consecutive
weeks of benefits (Hawaii); 5 consecutive weeks (Iow a); is unemployed for at least
6 weeks and is not disqualified (Louisiana); when benefits become payable for third
consecutive week following waiti ng period (New Jersey); when benefits become payable
for fourth consecutive week following waiting period (M aine); after benefits are paid
for 4 weeks (Texas). Claimant laid off at least 3 weeks but reemployed in 13 weeks,
entitled to one double payment in benefit year for last week of unemployment in which
he is eligible for benefit or waiting-week credit immediately preceding acceptance of
full-tim e employment (Michigan).
9 Employers of fewer than 4 employees (n o t subject to the Federal Unemployment
Tax Act) outside corporate lim its of cities of 10,000 or more population are not liable
for contributions.
10 Or 15 weeks in last year and 40 weeks in last 2 years at average weekly wage of
$30 or more (New York); or 14 weeks in base period and 55 weeks in those 52 weeks
plus any base period which ended not more than 10 weeks before the start of those
52 weeks (Wisconsin).
11 Effective December 25,1969.
12For New York, waiting period is 4 “ effective days" accumulated in 1-4 weeks;
partial benefits are one-fourth of wba for each of 1 to 3 effective days. An effective day
is the fourth and each subsequent day of to ta l unemployment in a week for which not
more than $65 is paid.
Note: Boldface indicates changes in 1969.
dependents’ allowances to 50 percent of the
individual’s weekly benefit amount. Under the
amended law, an individual can receive a maxi
mum augmented benefit of $93. Under the prior
law, the maximum benefit with dependents’
allowances could not exceed the individual’s
average weekly wage. The Massachusetts law
was amended to specify that the amount of
dependency benefits shall not be reduced during
an individual’s benefit year.
All of the five States which increased the
67
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAWS
minimum weekly benefit now require higher
earnings before claimants may be eligible for any
benefit. However, Montana, which reduced the
minimum benefit, also reduced the base period
and high quarter wages needed to qualify. Two
other States, Illinois and North Carolina, retained
their base period wage requirements but increased
the amount of wages needed outside the high
quarter. New Mexico changed its qualifying re
quirement from one based on a multiple of the
weekly benefit amount to one related to an
individual’s high-quarter wages. Alaska changed
from a high-quarter formula to a flat amount of
earnings. Minnesota, which formerly required an
individual to earn at least $26 in each of 18
weeks, and Vermont, which required earnings of
at least $20 in 20 weeks, now require earnings of
$30 in those weeks. Texas added an alternative
requirement of earnings equal to two-thirds of
the Federal Insurance Contributions Act wage
base.
Alaska enacted a provision designed to prevent
the payment of benefits in 2 consecutive benefit
years without intervening employment. Under the
new law, an individual must have earned at least
8 times his weekly benefit amount after the
beginning of his preceding benefit year to estab
lish a new benefit year. Idaho repealed a similar
provision in its law.
The maximum number of weeks for potential
duration of benefit payment was increased from
22 to 26 weeks in South Carolina and from 12 to
15 weeks for agricultural workers in Puerto Rico.
Alaska decreased its minimum duration from
15 to 14 weeks. Minnesota added a provision for
extending benefits for individuals enrolled in or
completing an approved training course. This
extension, however, is available only to individuals
who have demonstrated a substantial labor force
attachment and is limited to a maximum of 9
weeks of extended benefits.
The partial earnings limit, which determines
the point at which a claimant is no longer consid
ered partially unemployed and is no longer eligible
for benefits was increased by $6 in Colorado and
Minnesota. New Mexico changed the amount of
earnings disregarded from $3 to one-fifth of the
claim ant’s weekly benefit amount. North Carolina
modified its definition of partial unemployment
slightly; and Montana, which has no such defini
tion, changed its definition of total unemployment,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
which is broad enough to include some workers
who would be considered partially unemployed
in other States, by disregarding earnings up to
twice the claimant’s weekly benefit amount and
work in excess of 12 hours in any 1 week. Puerto
Rico changed the source of revenue for paying
benefits to individuals who have had partial
earnings in noncovered work by specifying that
such payments be made from the Special Auxiliary
Fund.
Other benefit amendments included repeal of
seasonal provisions in Indiana, Hawaii, and
Minnesota (the most States to do so since 1939)
and adoption of provisions in Colorado and New
Mexico to “freeze” a claimant’s benefit rights
during any 3-year period in which he received
workmen’s compensation benefits, provided he
files his claim within the fourth week after termi
nation of disability.
Eligibility and disqualification
The most significant change made in the re
quirements that claimants be available for work
was the adoption by North Carolina and Oregon
of legislation providing that an individual shall
not be considered unavailable for work while
attending, under specified conditions, certain
vocational training courses approved by the
director of the employment security agency. The
number of State laws with such provisions is now
28, an increase of 2 since 1967.
Nine States made changes in one or more of the
three major causes for disqualification— voluntary
leaving, refusal of suitable work without good
cause, and discharge for misconduct. Montana
amended its disqualification for the three major
causes by providing for a reduction in potential
benefits equal to the number of weeks of dis
qualification. Nebraska decreased the minimum
disqualification period from 3 weeks to 2 weeks for
individuals who leave work without good cause
or who are discharged for misconduct. For the
same two causes, South Carolina increased the
maximum period of disqualification to 10 weeks
and 26 weeks, respectively, and New Hampshire
deleted the $3 portion of its requirement of
earnings of $3 more than the weekly benefit
amount in each of 3 weeks in order to satisfy a
disqualification. Georgia, North Dakota, and
Maine added alternative means of removing a
68
disqualification for one or more of the three major
causes, and Maryland repealed an alternative
method for satisfying a disqualification resulting
from a discharge for misconduct. Massachusetts
amended its law to restrict good cause for volun
tarily leaving work to that which is attributable
to the employing unit.
Alabama and Oregon amended their provisions
relating to denial of benefits to women who are
out of work because of pregnancy. The Alabama
law now provides that a woman on leave of absence
for pregnancy shall not be held ineligible for
benefits 10 weeks after termination of pregnancy,
if she has given her employer 3 weeks’ notice of
her desire to return to work and has not refused
reinstatement to suitable work. Oregon, which
formerly terminated a pregnancy disqualification
6 weeks after childbirth, now will hold a woman
ineligible until she is able, available for work, and
actively seeking work following childbirth.
Five States amended their provisions concern
ing fraud or overpayment. Montana changed its
disqualification for fraud from a fixed period of
12 months to a variable period of 10 to 52 weeks.
Wyoming doubled its disqualification to 4 weeks
for each week for which the claimant was con
victed of fraud. Maryland established a time
limit for the repayment of benefits in cases of
fraud at 5 years following the date of the offense
or 1 year after the disqualification is terminated,
whichever is later. At the expiration of 5 years
any part of the repayment owed may be offset
against future benefits. Colorado and Nebraska
changed their laws to permit nonfraud overpay
ment to be either repaid or offset against future
benefits. Formerly, an overpayment could not be
offset in Colorado until collection efforts failed,
and offset was the only means available in Nebraska
to recoup benefits erroneously paid.
Connecticut and New Hampshire narrowed
the applicability of their labor-dispute provisions.
Connecticut exempted from disqualification an
apprentice who is available for work, and New
Hampshire exempted an individual who has,
since becoming unemployed because of a labor
dispute, been employed in at least 5 consecutive
weeks with earnings in each week equal to 120
percent of his weekly benefit amount, and who
then becomes unemployed due to lack of work.
Five States enacted provisions relating to the
effect of other income on the receipt of unemploy
ment insurance benefits. Missouri and Wyoming
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
repealed provisions calling or the reduction of
unemployment benefits by the amount of pay
ments received under Title I I of the Social
Security Act. Colorado provided that a back-pay
award be reduced by the amount of unemploy
ment insurance benefits paid to a recipient during
the time for which back pay is awarded. New
Hampshire prohibited a reduction in benefits
resulting from receipt of holiday pay or vacation
pay subsequent to the vacation period, when
there was no entitlement to such pay at the time
of the employer’s plant closing. Oregon enacted a
provision requiring disqualifying income to be
prorated on the basis of the individual’s regular
rate of pay.
Coverage
As has been the case in recent years, there was
little legislative activity to bring new workers
under the protection of the unemployment in
surance system. The most significant amendment
was in Connecticut where mandatory coverage
was extended to most employees of towns, cities,
and other political subdivisions. The only change
made in size-of-firm coverage took place in
Montana, where the length of employment is no
longer a factor in determining liability. Now,
M ontana’s sole criteria for coverage is an annual
payroll of $500 or more.
New York, one of only three States that do not
permit the voluntary election of most excluded
employment, amended its law to allow agricultural
workers to elect coverage under specified condi
tions. Oregon amended its law by excluding from
election of coverage by a State or political sub
division services performed by students employed
on a part-time basis by a school district. Hawaii
changed the effective date of an employer election
of coverage from the date of approval to the first
day of the calendar quarter in which approval was
granted.
Legislation was enacted in five States (including
Oregon, listed above) affecting the benefit rights of
students. New York restricted its exemption to
students enrolled in elementary or secondary
schools. Minnesota now excludes services for a
school, college, or university, if performed by a
student enrolled in and regularly attending
classes. Arkansas and Maryland excluded from
the definition of wages remuneration received by
students as part of their regular educational
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAWS
curriculum. Maryland also excluded from baseperiod wages remuneration received by full-time
students during holiday or vacation periods.
Other coverage amendments included: Coverage
of real estate salesmen and exclusion of temporary
State employees engaged in suppressing forest fires
(Minnesota), narrowing the exclusion relating to
the employment of relatives (New Hampshire),
and including tips in the definition of wages if a
regular daily or weekly record is maintained
(New Jersey).
Financing
Although one-third of all the States altered
their financing provisions in 1969, for the second
consecutive year no State increased its taxable
wage base, halting, at least temporarily, a trend
that began over a decade ago.
Increases in the maximum tax rate were enacted
in three States: From 2.7 percent to 3.6 percent
in Colorado, from 4.2 percent to 4.5 percent in
Georgia, and from 2.7 percent to 3.1 percent in
Montana. The minimum tax rate was decreased
from .25 percent to .03 percent in Georgia and
from .15 percent to .75 percent in New Hampshire,
and increased from 0 to .1 percent in Maryland.
The standard rate, the rate from which all others
are varied, was increased in Montana from 2.7
percent to 3.1 percent. Alabama, one of only three
States with employee contributions, enacted a
provision for the elimination of the employee tax
whenever the trust fund is above a specified
amount.
As a result of legislation enacted this year, new
employers in Colorado may qualify for a reduced
rate after 1 year of experience, instead of 18 to 24
months, depending on which half of the year the
employer first became liable. Colorado also pro
vided for cancellation of accounts showing a
negative balance, allowing an employer to pay at
the standard rate until he becomes eligible for
experience rating again after 3 consecutive years.
Three States— Georgia, Hawaii, and North
Carolina— provided additional rate schedules to
become operational when the fund balance reaches
specified levels. Colorado reduced the number of
schedules. Triggers for signaling the application of
lower rates schedules were increased in Minnesota,
New Hampshire, and Tennessee. Maryland re
pealed its provision requiring an adjustment
to be added to the contribution rate of each em
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
69
ployer, and New Hampshire deleted its provision
for suspending reduced rates.
Five States eliminated certain types of benefit
payments from those that are chargeable to the
employer. Hawaii and North Carolina provided
that benefits paid to individuals taking approved
training shall not be charged to the employer.
Alabama extended its provision for exemption from
charging of all benefits following a discharge for
aggravated misconduct, by excluding half the
charges following a discharge for misconduct.
Minnesota now provides that benefits paid to any
individual whose separation occurs under dis
qualifying conditions shall not be charged. Ver
mont now omits charges for employers who paid a
claimant less than $595 (instead of $395) and does
not charge benefits to employers in cases where an
individual’s rights to reemployment with that
employer were terminated by the retirement of
the individual pursuant to an agreed-upon retire
ment plan. Georgia deleted from the types of
benefits which may be excluded from charging
those paid after an individual left work without
good cause connected with the work, after a dis
charge or suspension for failure to obey orders or
willful failure to perform duties, or failing to
apply for or accept suitable work or return to
customary self-employment when so directed.
Alaska and South Carolina created special
administrative funds, consisting primarily of
penalties and interest to be used for special needs
when Federal funds are not available. The Alaska
provision called for transfer to the unemployment
trust fund of any amount in excess of $100,000
at the end of any quarter. Of the 41 other States
with such funds, two amended their existing laws;
Maryland provided for a transfer to the general
fund of any amount in excess of $250,000, and
Nevada included with the special fund moneys
credited to it under Section 903 of the Social
Security Act. Other amendments involving financ
ing included: Repeal of the provision allowing
voluntary contributions (Wyoming), enactment
of a special levy on agricultural employers
(Hawaii), assignment of contribution rates upon
transfer of a business (Indiana and Maryland),
and detailed methods for computing fund ade
quacy rates (Georgia, Hawaii, and Oregon).
Administration
The administrative organization of the employ-
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
70
ment security program was changed or re
designated in six States. General statewide
reorganizations resulted in the employment secu
rity agency being placed within the Division of
Labor and Employment Opportunities in the
Department of Commerce (Florida), within one
of the principal departments to be established
(Maryland), within the Executive Office of
Manpower Affairs (Massachusetts), and within
the Department of Human Resources (Oregon).
The name of the employment security agency
was changed in Minnesota to the Department of
Manpower Services and in Montana to the Em
ployment Security Commission.
Indiana increased from 7 to 10 days the time
limit within which a claimant or an employer
may file an appeal to a referee from the agency’s
determination. Alaska, Hawaii, North Carolina,
and South Dakota spelled out conditions under
which confidential information may be made
available to other government agencies. Alaska
and Montana enacted provisions to enforce
liabilities for contributions, penalties, and interest
on behalf of other States which extend a like
comity to them. Sixteen States 3 amended their
laws to extend to 15 years the period during which
funds credited to their account under Section 903
of the Social Security Act may be obligated for
administrative expenses.
□
--------- F 0 0 TNO T E S ---------1 Provision which relates the maximum weekly benefit to
a specified percentage of statewide average weekly wage.
2 Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New
Jersey, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming.
3 Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada,
Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.
Social welfare expenditures
In round numbers, about $100 billion annually was spent by government in the
late 1960’s for “social welfare” as defined by the Social Security Administration. The
definition includes old age, unemployment, disability, and other types of social insurance,
public aid to the needy, public health and medical programs, public housing, veterans’
benefits, and public education. These expenditures came to $500 per year for every
man, woman, and child in the United States, which is roughly equal to the entire national
income per capita in countries such as Greece and Spain. When education is omitted
from the list, the total of social welfare expenditures amounted to approximately $65
billion or about $325 for each person in the United States per year, which is still large
enough to exceed the per capita national incomes in most of Latin American and Asia.
Within the aggregate, about 60 percent went for old age, unemployment, and other
social insurance, about 20 percent for relief payments and special services for the needy,
and about 10 percent each for public health and for veterans’ benefits.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
—
M E L V IL L E
J .
U L M E R
The Welfare State: U.S.A.
(Boston, the Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969),
pp. 66-67.
Foreign
Labor
Briefs
United Kingdom
The British pension system is undergoing basic
modifications which, when completed, should
afford it greater financial security and provide
higher benefits for retired people. Last November 3,
the Government took the first step in this direc
tion by abandoning the flat-rate basis for assessing
pension contributions in favor of one based on
earnings. One of the objectives of the change was
erasing the $ 192-million deficit that currently
burdens the national insurance fund. The resulting
increases in contributions, to be shared equally
by employees and employers, are the highest
ever imposed. On a weekly basis, they range from
11 cents for women earning $24 to 91 cents for
men Avith earnings of $72 or more.
Before the November changes, the British
pension system Avas based on three types of plans—
a flat-rate state plan, a graduated state plan, and
private occupational plans. The flat-rate state
plan Avas designed to operate on a pay-as-you-go
basis, so th at each year’s contributions Avere
largely paid out in benefits. I t covered all Avorking
residents, but participation Avas optional for
Avorking married women, self-employed persons,
and unemployed persons Avith an annual income
beloAV $624. During the 1950’s, the number of
persons eligible for a flat-rate pension increased
much more rapidly than the number of contrib
utors. There Avas a deficit in the plan despite a
Government subsidy amounting to about 25
percent of annual receipts of the fund. To avoid
further deficits, the Government in 1961 instituted
another plan, Avhich required higher and graduated
contributions from all those earning between
$21.60 and $43.20 a Aveek.
Private occupational plans supplemented these
two state plans. In 1967, 65,000 such plans, most
Prepared in the Office of the Chief Economist, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, on the basis of material available in early
November.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of them operated by firms or groups of employers,
covered more than 12 million persons, or about
one-half of all employees in Britain. These plans
differ greatly in respect to contributions required
and benefits provided. An employer Avith a private
plan for his employees Avas still obligated to con
tribute to the state plan.
W ith the introduction of the state graduated
plan in 1961, Avhich also required contributions
from both employers and employees, the burden
on an employer Avith a plan of his oAvn Avas con
sidered to be severe. The Government, therefore,
alloAved such an employer to “contract out” (that
is, abstain from participation in) a major part of
the graduated plan, provided his private plan
guaranteed a pension at least equivalent to that
provided by the contracted-out portion of the
graduated plan.
There Avere objections to each of these plans.
While the flat-rate plan covered most employed
persons, its annual pension of $912 for a married
couple Avas less than a third of an average family
income, and a single person’s pension Avas only
$561 a year. The graduated plan offered larger
pensions, but it did not provide for gradations
above the income of $42.20 a Aveek. The private
occupational plans did not offer comprehensive
or standardized coverage, and those enrolled in
one plan might lose their benefits if they changed
jobs and became members of another plan.
The Government’s action of last November
provided an interim measure to serve until the
completion of the change in 1972, Avhen the present
state plans will be replaced by the neAv system.
The proposals for 1972 Avere released in January
1969 in a Avhite paper,1 Avhich set out the folloAving
principles:
1. The Government reaffirms that the right to
benefits must be earned through the payment of
contributions, and that the system must operate
on a pay-as-you-go basis.
2. Both contributions and benefits Avill be
related to the earnings of individual employees.
71
72
This arrangement will call for higher contributions
by most persons, but will in return provide
additional and higher benefits.
3. When the plan is in full operation, the bene
fits available to individuals will be adequate for
their needs and no supplementary income will be
necessary. At present, 30 percent of all pensioners
receive supplementary welfare benefits.
4. The Government will be required to review
contributions and benefits every 2 years to adjust
them for cost-of-living increases.
5. Optional participation by working married
women, such as now exists under the flat-rate plan,
will be eliminated.
6. Private pension plans will remain in opera
tion as part of the national pension system, but
details on the relationship between private and
public plans are to be discussed later.
7. Persons enrolled in private pension plans
will not lose their benefits if they change jobs.
If these proposals are adopted, the new earningsrelated pensions will be paid at full rates to
persons who reach retirement age after the plan
has been in operation for 20 years. Persons retiring
during this 20-year period will receive pensions at
intermediate rates—between those available now
and the full rates of the new plan. Those already
in retirement will not basically benefit from the
new system, but their pensions will be increased
whenever adjustments are made for cost-of-living
increases.
In the discussion that followed the issuance of
the white paper, the Government has stated that
it will allow private pension plans to continue in
operation through partial contracting out of the
new national plan. In a separate white paper,2
issued November 5, 1969, the Government has
proposed that state pensions of those belonging
to private plans be reduced by 1 percent, and
that employers’ and employees’ contributions
be lowered by 1.3 percent.
These specific proposals of the Government
have generated a great deal of opposition, espe
cially among employers and insurance companies.
Both feel that the Government should allow a
larger reduction in contributions and state-plan
benefits to those who remain in private pension
plans. They also believe that they are being asked
to enter into an open-ended commitment, since
the state plan proposes increases commensurate
with those in the cost of living. Opposition to the
new pension plan has also come from some unions.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
These maintain that the present combination of
public and! private plans offers greater advantages
to some of their members than would an entirely
public plan.
West Germany
Measures relevant to wage earners’ job security
and sick leave, manpower policies, and vocational
education were outstanding among the labor laws
passed by the West German Parliament in 1969.
Most of them were amendments to old statutes.
An amendment3 to the 1951 law on discharge of
workers gives wage earners nearly the same job
security as that of salaried employees. The new
law, which went into effect last September 1,
extends the required period of dismissal notice
given to wage earners to a maximum of 3 months,
depending on the worker’s wage and seniority; in
the past they were generally entitled to a 2-week
notice. Legal notice periods now range from 2
weeks for most wage earners to 1 month (with the
notice to be given at the end of a month) for those
with 5 years’ seniority and 3 months for persons
55 years old and with 20 years of service.
Another law,4 effective January 1, 1970, estabishes the right of wage earners to sick leave equal
to that of salaried workers. I t obliges employers
to pay full wages, up to 6 weeks, to workers who
have been certified ill or have taken medically
prescribed leave. The requirement will involve
additional costs to employers, who previously paid
to sick wage earners only the difference between
the cash benefits they had received from health
insurance funds (ranging from 65 to 75 percent
of the worker’s net earnings) and their total net
earnings of 6 weeks or less.
A law on manpower development,5 passed unan
imously by the Bundestag and put into effect
July 1, replaces a 1927 statute on labor placement
and unemployment insurance. Basic provisions of
the old law have been retained but adopted to
modern conditions. Emphasis now is on fostering
full employment instead of unemployment com
pensation as formerly, a change that is reflected in
the new name of the agency administering the law,
the Federal Institute for Labor. (Formerly the
name was Federal Institute for Labor Placement
and Unemployment Insurance.)
M ajor tasks of the Institute under the new law
will include development of manpower policies in
conjunction with economic development plans;
73
FOREIGN LABOR BRIEFS
promotion of workers’ occupational mobility
through vocational upgrading and retraining; and
avoidance of human hardship and economic loss
as a result of technological progress or structural
change. The objectives further include prevention
or alleviation of unemployment and underem
ployment, as well as manpower of shortages, and
special programs for the rehabilitation and place
ment of handicapped persons, including older
persons.
The employment statute has been supplemented
by a law on vocational education,6 which became
effective September 1. I t is designed to establish
uniform principles and standards of on-the-job
training of apprentices, as well as to amend and
streamline existing regulations of the industrial
and commercial codes, some of which date back
to the late 19th century.
The vocational education law covers all occupa
tions and branches of the economy except govern
ment service, merchant marine, and the skilled
trades. The Government has provided separate
but identical regulations for the skilled trades
by an amendment to the skilled trades regulation
law of 1953.
Brazil
A recent decree-law has extended the basis for
determining retirement pensions to the salary for
the final 36 months before retirement, instead of
the final 12 months. Pensions are granted to
persons age 65 (men) and 60 (women) if they
have made at least 60 monthly contributions;
persons of any age who have been laid off, provided
they have at least 30 years of service; and workers
employed at heavy labor, or in unhealthful or
otherwise dangerous occupations, if they have a
minimum of 15 years of service and have made
at least 180 monthly contributions.
The new decree-law specifies that the worker
should receive 70 or 80 percent of the average
monthly pay over the last 36 months worked. The
contribution made during the first 24 months of
this period is made subject to monetary correction
in accordance with readjustment coefficients to be
established periodically by the Minister of Labor.
I t also increased from 30 to 35 years the period
an employee must work to be entitled to a de
ferred retirement bonus. This bonus, payable
monthly, equals 25 percent of the average monthly
earnings of the year preceding eligibility.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Workers’ reaction to the promulgation was un
favorable. They were apprehensive lest the new
method of benefit determination result in lower
pensions and resented the fact that, in adopting
the measure, the Government had not consulted
their leaders.
To mollify labor, the Government issued
another decree to soften some of the provisions of
the previous one. I t spelled out in greater detail a
more favorable method of monetary correction,
and cut the period of eligibility for deferred
retirement bonus back to 30 years from 35.
Malaysia
B y drastic amendments to the labor laws on
October 9, the National Operations Council has
seriously hampered the country’s labor movement.
Disputes over dismissal of workers and union
recognition henceforth will be handled solely by
the Minister of Labor. They no longer will be left
to collective bargaining and negotiation by unions
and employers. Employers may dismiss workers,
or suspend them for 1 week without pay, for
“misconduct” ; the workers will have little re
course. Overtime work will be limited to 32 hours
a month. M atters relating to promotion, transfer,
filling of vacancies, and termination of services due
to redundancy or reorganization were declared
management functions not subject to collective
bargaining.
Perhaps the most significant new provision is
the prohibition against holding of union office
by officers of political parties. This will affect
top leaders who hold offices in both the parties
and the unions. Civil service unions will be pre
vented from affiliating with unions of nonpublic
employees, and the national labor center, the
Malasian Trade Union Council, will thus be divorced
from a major source of membership and support.
Legislation enacted since M ay 13 also makes
difficult union organization in so-called “pioneer”
industries— those given governmental encourage
ment in the interest of economic development. □
— FOO TNOTES—
1 National Superannuation and Social Insurance: Propo
sals for Earnings-Related Social Security.
2 National Superannuation: Terms for Partial Contractingout of the National Superannuation Scheme.
3 Erstes Arbeitsrechtsbereinigungsgesetz.
4 Lohnfortzahlungsgesetz.
5 Arbeitsforderungsgesetz.
* Berfausbildunggesetz.
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in February was prepared
in the Bureau's Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agree
ments on file with the Bureau covering 1,000 workers or more in all industries
except government.
Company and location
U nion 1
Industry
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Memphis Chapter (Mem
phis, Tenn.).
Construction_____ _____
Carpenters
Breweries: Anheuser-Busch, Inc., and Falstaff Brewery Corp.2 (St. Louis,
Mo.).
Building Trades Employers Assn, of Boston and Eastern Massachusetts, Inc..
Bloomingdale Brothers (New York, N.Y.)................................ .............................
Food products.............................
Construction______________
Retail trade________ ___ ___
California Metal Trades Assn., Foundry Division (C alifornia).............................
California Processors, Inc. (California)____________ _______ _____ ______
Celanese Corp. of America, Celanese Fibers Co. Division (Narrows, Va.)____
Covered Button Assn, of New York, Inc. (New York, N.Y.)________________
Primary metals_______________
Food products__ __________
Chemicals______________
Miscellaneous manufacturing...........
Textiles______ __________
Electrical products..................
Transportation equipment...........
Stone, clay, and glass products.......
Retail trade_______ __ ___
Electrical products........................
Retail trade______ ___ ____ .
Food products__________ ____
Primary metals..............................
Miscellaneous manufacturing..............
Textiles............................. ......
Apparel_________ ___ ______
Chemicals.________ ______
Retail trade_____________
Construction__ ___ __ . ...
Construction.............. ...............
Brewery Workers
Operating Engineers
Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store
Union.
Molders
Teamsters (Ind.)
District 50(Ind.)
Ladies' Garment Workers
Ampthill RayonWorkers Inc (lnrj )
Electrical Workers (IUE)
AutoWorkers (Ind.)
Machinists............
Meat Cutters
Electrical Switchgear Unionfindt
Retail Clerks
Teamsters (Ind.)
Machinists
Rubber Workers . .
Textile Workers Union
Ladies' Garment Workers
Oil, Chemical andAtomic Workers
Retail Clerks
Laborers
Operating Engineers
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., Badger Army Ammunition Plant (Baraboo,
Wis.).
Ordnance........................
Badger Ordnance Works Conncjl
Pleaters, Stitchers and Embroiderers Assn., Inc. (New York, N.Y.)
Public Service Coordinated Transport Co. (New Jersey)_____ _____ _______
Apparel__________ ___
Transit_____________ ....
Leather__ _______
Electrical products........ ...............
Furniture_________ .
Electrical products................
Electrical products__ _____
Electrical products...............
Ladies’ Garment Workers
Amalgamated Transit Union
Rubber Workers
Independent Stove Workers’ Union (Ind.)..
Furniture Workers
Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Electrical Workers(IBEW)
Electrical Workers(IBEW)
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Am pthill, Va.)_..............................................
Emerson Electric Co. (St. Louis, Mo.)............... ...................................... ...............
FMC Corp., Ordnance Division (South Charleston, W. Va.)..................................
Garlock, Inc. (Palmyra, N.Y.)......... .................. .............................. ......................
Greater New York Food Employers Labor Relations Council (New York, N.Y.)..
I-T -E Circuit Breaker Co. (Philadelphia, Pa.)...................................................... .
Kroger Co. (Dallas and Fort Worth, Tex.)................................................................
Kuner-Empson Co., Cannery Division (Colorado)..................... ...........
Ladish Co. (Cudahy, Wis.)................................ ........................................................
Mattel, Inc. (C alifornia).................. .........................................................................
Munsingwear, Inc. (Minnesota and Wisconsin)..................................... ............. ’
National Hand Embroidery and Novelty Manufacturers Assn., Inc. (New
York, N.Y.).
National Lead Co., Titanium Division (Sayreville, N .J.).......................................
National Tea Co., Standard Grocery Division (Indiana)........................................
New England Road Builders' Assn., Inc. (Connecticut)______ _____________
New England Road Builders' Assn., Massachusetts Labor Relations Division
(Massachusetts).
Samsonite Corp. (Denver, Colo.).................................................................
Tappan Co., Tappan Division (Mansfield, Ohio).....................................................
Ward Furniture Manufacturing Co. (Fort Smith, A rk .)..........................................
Western Electric Co., Inc. (Shreveport, La.)................................................
Western Electric Co., Inc. (Reading, Pa.)............... .........
Western Electric Co., Inc. (Oklahoma City, Okla.)....................
* Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind .).
74
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2Industry
area (two companies or more signing same contract).
Number
of
workers
1 ,8 0 0
1 ,7 5 0
1 ,6 0 0
2 ,5 0 0
1 .4 0 0
7 5 .0 0 0
2,000
1,000
1 ,8 0 0
1 ,6 0 0
3 .4 0 0
1 .0 5 0
6,000
2 ,8 0 0
1 ,8 0 0
6.000
2 .0 5 0
4 .0 0 0
1.000
2,000
1 .3 0 0
1 .3 0 0
9 .0 0 0
2.000
2 ,9 0 0
6,000
4 ,6 0 0
3 .0 0 0
1 .00 0
1,000
1 ,1 0 0
1 ,7 5 0
4 ,1 0 0
Developments
in
Industrial
Relations
Construction
The Carpenters, the Plumbers and Pipefitters,
and the Electrical Workers (
)
signed an
agreement with
,
Inc., to erect prefabricated
homes. The agreement covers workers at the
company’s Charlotte, Mich., plant and six plants
which will be opened in other locations. The first
breakthroughs in traditional union opposition to
“instant housing” came in June 1969, when the
Carpenters signed a contract with the Sterling
Homex Corp. covering the on-site erection of the
firm’s factory-built houses and the Detroit Build
ing Trades Council announced that it would
negotiate industrial-type labor contracts with
producers of prefabricated homes.1
The
agreement provided for cross-union
work (permitting a plumber, for example, to do
some electrical work), for training minority
workers and women, and for a no-strike, no
lockout clause. Wages and benefits will be
negotiated locally and will be the same for all
union-represented workers in each plant. The
homes will bear a new “Tri-Trades Union Label.”
The agreement was supported by the presi
dents of the three international unions— M. A.
Hutcheson of the Carpenters, Charles H. Pillard
of the Electrical Workers, and Peter T. Schoemann
of the Plumbers, all of whom are members of
President Nixon’s recently appointed Construc
tion Industry Collective Bargaining Commission.
I t was hailed as a move to ease the Nation’s
housing crisis and to slow the soaring cost of
homes.
The Electrical Workers (
)
made news
elsewhere in the construction industry by opening
i b
v
v
e
w
t r
t r
i b
e
w
Prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the
staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensa
tion, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and based on information
from newspapers and other secondary sources available
in November.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
union rolls to more members of minority races.
The union called on its construction locals
throughout the Nation to take immediate steps
in that direction. President Charles H. Pillard
outlined for the
locals an affirmative action
program for minority membership based on the
policy statement adopted at the
Building
and Construction Trades Department’s recent
convention.2 I t called for immediate membership
for qualified workers who gained their experience
with nonunion firms and for changes in the local
job referral system, giving minority members the
same priority in employment as current union
members with comparable qualifications.
Mr. Pillard told the locals that they should
waive (for a 1-year period) the existing require
ments for prior employment under their collective
bargaining agreements. In addition, he. asked
construction locals to “accelerate your participa
tion in the Apprenticeship Outreach program in
your area or, where no Outreach program exists,
work through the local Building and Construction
Trades Council to establish one.” (The federally
funded Outreach program, which began in 1967,
is aimed at recruiting members of minority races
for apprenticeships.) Further, the locals were
requested to negotiate “affirmative action pro
grams” with their respective employers, to in
crease minority hiring, and to cooperate with civil
rights organizations “in a program to actively
recruit minorities.”
i b
e
w
a
f l
c io
Executive pay survey
Efforts to keep pace with inflation have not been
limit,p.d to the Nation’s rank and file workers. A
recently completed study by McKinsey and Co.,
a New York City management consulting firm,
indicated that “In the last year and a half, there
has been a sharp upswing in the total compensation
that top officials are receiving.”
The survey was generally limited to the four
75
76
highest-paid executives at 530 firms in 28 in
dustries (and to compensation from sources other
than pension and stock option plans). As reported
in the W all Street J o u r n a l, the study found that
the average chief corporate officer’s compensation
increased 9.8 percent in 1968, compared with 8
percent in 1959, the previous high during the
survey’s 15-year existence. Although specific in
formation was reported on only the chief officer of
each company, indications were that 1968 com
pensation gains for the other three executives were
proportionally as large. The average gains for
company heads ranged from 0.5 percent in the
textile industry to a high of 18.8 percent in the
motor vehicles and equipment industry. Factors in
compensation hikes included a diminished interest
in stock options, due primarily to a weak stock
market pattern, and to the resulting switch to
cash bonus plans.
Airlines assistance pact
In November, seven major airlines 3 announced
changes in their mutual assistance pact, which
provides for financial aid to member carriers
grounded by work stoppages. As a result, a
grounded carrier will receive 50 percent of its
normal operating expenses at the outset of a strike,
with the payment (which is paid by member
carriers not affected by the strike) declining to 35
percent after the fourth week. Under previous
agreements, struck carriers were guaranteed only
25 percent, regardless of the strike duration. To
meet the cost increase, the maximum liability of
each airline for supplemental payments was in
creased to 1 percent of its operating revenue in the
previous year, from 0.5 percent.
In advising the Civil Aeronautics Board of the
changes— which are subject to eventual approval
or rejection by the Board— the airlines said that
the move was necessary to strengthen their
ability to resist “union demands for excessive and
inflationary settlements.” Earlier, National Air
lines became the eighth member of the plan, under
a provision authorizing entry until November 15
without a waiting period or back payment. Later
in the month, seven unions filed objections with
the Civil Aeronautics Board asserting primarily
that the changes would hinder collective bar
gaining.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Jobs and imports
The U.S. Tariff Commission has granted the
Steelworkers’ request for Federal Government
adjustment benefits for 600 workers who lost their
jobs due to increased imports resulting from
tariff cuts. Although such benefits were authorized
under the 1962 Trade Agreement Act, the Com
mission had turned down all previous requests
for benefits because petitioners could not demon
strate, to the Commission’s satisfaction, a clear
tie between increased imports and layoffs or
plant closings.
The 600 workers were employed at U.S. Steel’s
American Bridge Division plants in Pittsburgh
and Los Angeles, which produce power trans
mission towers, and at Armco Steel Corporation’s
weld mill at Ambridge, Pa. They will receive
about $80 a week for up to 52 weeks, retroactive
to their layoff. (The formula for the grants is 65
percent of a worker’s wage, up to a maximum of
65 percent of the national average wage for
manufacturing.) Those over age 60 are entitled
to an additional 13 benefit weeks; workers in
retraining programs are eligible for 26 additional
weeks.
Government
In an unprecedented joint effort, six inde
pendent unions representing Federal Government
workers4 urged President Nixon to make some
changes in Executive Order 11491, the new
authority for the Government’s labor-manage
ment relations program.5 The unions were con
cerned because the informal and formal types of
union recognition which characterized their re
lations with various agencies would no longer be
accorded. The three types of union recognition
were: Informal recognition, which guaranteed
the unions the right to have their grievances
heard; formal recognition, which granted unions
the right to consult with agencies on labor re
lations m atters; and exclusive recognition, which
granted unions the right to negotiate collective
bargaining agreements with agencies. Since under
Executive Order 11491 only those unions holding
exclusive recognition can negotiate voluntary
dues withholding agreements with agencies, the
independent unions fear they will lose a large
portion of their regular monthly income. (Pre-
77
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
viously, voluntary dues checkoff was possible
under both formal and exclusive recognition.) The
unions also claimed that the new order was biased
in favor of the
, because the independents
lack the organizing strength of Federation affiliates
and have consequently settled for less formal
recognition arrangements.
In October, Governor Richard Hughes of New
Jersey signed a bill providing automatic cost-ofliving increases in pensions for retired State
employees with total annual income of less than
$6,000. After a 3-year wait following retirement,
pensions will be adjusted annually in January
by a percentage equal to half the increase in the
U.S. Department of Labor’s Consumer Price
Index during the previous year. Approximately
27,000 pensioners who retired prior to January 1,
1967, will benefit from the first adjustment in
January 1970. The bill also provided special
adjustments for about 4,000 workers who retired
before 1955.
A committee of policemen from 11 cities,
meeting in Omaha, Nebr., drew up the constitution
of the first proposed national police union during
November. The constitution, which contains a
no-strike pledge, will be submitted to the
for approval and to every local police organization
in the country. A national organizing convention
of the proposed International Brotherhood of
Police Officers was planned for early 1970. Al
though there is strong opposition to such a national
union in some cities, the leaders of the movement
nevertheless expect to draw substantial support
from the Nation’s estimated 400,000 policemen.
Immediate salary increases for 12,000 public
school teachers were announced in October by
the Detroit Board of Education and the Detroit
Federation of Teachers. The increases were deter
mined by comparing Detroit scales with the
average scales in nearby suburban school systems,
as provided in a 2-year contract negotiated in
June 1969.6 The new salary ranges are $7,616$12,436 for teachers with bachelor’s degrees, from
$ 7,500-$ll,200, and $8,411-$12,935 for those
with master’s degrees, from $8,000-$ll,700.
a
f l
c
i o
a
f l
c io
Insurance and trade
The Prudential Insurance Co. of America and
the Insurance Workers reached agreement in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
October on a 3-year contract for 17,000 agents in
34 States. William Gillen, president of the union,
said that the package was worth $16.29 a week.
Provisions included about $9.52 in commission
increases; a $20 weekly expense allowance, instead
of $15; $100,000 maximum major medical cover
age, instead of $40,000; and a ninth paid holiday.
Prudential also settled with the independent
International Union of Life Insurance Agents for
2,000 agents in three other States— Ohio, Wiscon
sin, and Minnesota. This 3-year pact, which was
valued at $16.62 a week by the union, provided
for increased commissions, improved pension and
insurance benefits, a tenth paid holiday, and a
maintenance-of-membership clause.
In mid-November the Hotel and Restaurant
Employees Union negotiated a 1-year contract
for 8,000 employees of 400 New York City
restaurants (100 make up the Restaurant League
and 300 are independents). The pact raised the
weekly wage to $55, from $50, for waiters, wait
resses and busboys, and to $82.50-$107.50, from
$75-$100, for captains, checkers, cashiers, and
hostesses. (Many of these employees also receive
tips.) In addition, pay for each week of vacation
was raised from 150 to 200 percent of the rate
paid for working. Part-time employees received
a proportionate wage increase.
Pharmacists will be earning $8.65 an hour at
termination of a 4-year agreement negotiated by
nine Retail Clerks locals and the Thrifty, Daylin,
and Sav-On drug store chains in southern Cali
fornia. The pay increases for pharmacists were
80 cents an hour retroactive to Ju ly 1, 1969, and
40 cents each of the next 3 years. Drug clerks
and other employees received 17-cent wage in
creases in July of 1969, 1970, and 1971, and a
provision for wage bargaining in 1972. The initial
increase brought experienced clerks to $3.11 an
hour. All of the workers were covered by a pro
vision for additional adjustments if the increase
in the cost of living over the term exceeds the
negotiated wage increases.
The maximum pension was raised to $200 a
month on January 1,1970, $225 on July 1,1970, and
$250 a year later. The maximum pension for
current retirees was increased to $150 a month,
from $100, but a provision for automatic semi
annual cost-of-living increases in their benefit
was dropped. Other terms included improved
78
health and welfare benefits, a fourth week of
vacation after 15 years of service, and a provision
for reopening if wage and price controls are
instituted.
Manufacturing
Westinghouse Air Brake Co. and the Electrical
Workers ( u e ) agreed to a 3-year contract on
October 30, ending a 15-day strike by 4,500
workers at plants in Wilmerding and Swissvale,
Pa. The company, a subsidiary of American
Standard, Inc., produces railroad equipment.
Total wage increases ranged from 68 to 88 cents
an hour. The 68 cents was made up of a 20-cent
immediate increase, 14 cents in the second year,
13 cents in the third, 15 cents in cost-of-living
increases, and company assumption of the 6-centan-hour employee pension contribution on Janu
ary 1, 1970. The company agreed to refund, with
interest, all employee contributions to the plan
since January 1, 1937. This reportedly amounts
to about $7 million. In addition, the minimum
normal pension was raised to $6.50 a month for
each year of credited service, from $6; the number
of paid holidays was raised to 10, from 9. A
fifth week of paid vacation was adopted, and a
union shop clause replaced an agency shop clause.
A 57-day strike against the National Biscuit
Co. ended in October, when members of the
American Bakery and Confectionary Workers
ratified a 2-year contract. The settlement covered
9,000 workers at 13 plants in 10 States. Wages
were increased by 27 cents immediately, 20 cents
the second year, and classification adjustments
were provided. Other terms included a 12%-cent
increase in the night shift differential, improve
ments in health and welfare benefits financed
by a $10.20-a-month increase in company funding,
and an increase to $175 in the maximum monthly
pension under the “ Golden Ninety” formula
(that is, when an employee’s age plus his years of
service total 90).
About 4,400 milk distribution workers were
affected by a settlement between three Teamster
locals and the Greater New York Milk Dealers
Committee, which represents 150 firms in New
York City and in Westchester, Nassau, and
Suffolk counties. Plant employees received wage
increases of $27 a week retroactive to October 24
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
and $8 on September 10, 1970. Drivers received
$23 and a $4 increase on the corresponding dates
and they will receive additional pay as a result of
a price increase announced shortly after the
settlement, since commissions are based on the
dollar value of sales. The 2-year package, which
was valued at $37 a week by the union, also
included pension improvements and a prescription
drug plan.
A 50-year history of strike-free settlements was
continued when Local 1 of the Lithographers and
the Metropolitan Lithographers Association of
New York City in late October agreed to a 3-year
contract. The settlement, which covered about
10,000 workers engaged in making graphic deco
rations for tin cans, paper packages, fabrics, and
other products, was expected to set the pattern
for contracts with other firms in New York and
New Jersey. B y termination of the pact, which
replaced one that was scheduled to expire on
April 30, 1970, the minimum scale for skilled
workers will be increased by an average of $65 a
week; the minimum for the highest grade workers
will be $315 for a 35-hour week, or $9 an hour,
Earnings index
The Bureau’s index of manufacturing production
workers average hourly earnings excluding overtime
premium pay and the effects of interindustry em
ployment shifts rose 0.6 in August, to 148.4. Data
for prior periods are shown below.
Index
1968
August _ _
September
October
November
December
(1957- 5 9 = 1 0 0 )
_____139. 8
.____ 141. 2
____ 141. 7
.____ 142. 6
____ 143.6
Index
1969
(1957 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 )
_____144. 4
January
February _____144. 9
March __ _____145. 2
_____146. 0
April _
M a y ____ _____146. 6
June__ __ _____146. 9
July---------- _____147. 8
August____ _____148.4
Annual averages:
1967 ______________________________ 131. 5
1968 ______________________________ 139. 5
Monthly data from 1947-68 and data for selected
periods from 1939 to 1947 are contained in Summary
of Manufacturing Production Workers Earnings
Series, 1939-68 (BLS Bulletin 1616, 1969).
79
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
compared with the previous $6.80.
The 70,000 Eastman Kodak Co. employees in
the United States will share in an annual wage
dividend totaling $87.3 million to be distributed
on March 20, 1970. In its November 20 announce
ment, the company said that each employee’s
bonus would be calculated at $33.80 for each
$1,000 earned during the preceding 5 years (1965
through 1969). The distribution was the 58th in
company history.
Work stoppages
Strike idleness in October totaled 2,850,000
man-days or 0.17 percent of the total estimated
working time,7 compared to 0.25 percent in
October 1968, and 0.47 percent the previous
October. The largest walkout of the month in
volved 147,000 employees of the General Electric
Co., who began their strike on October 27. This
strike pitted the unions’ coalition bargaining
approach against ge ’s “Boulwarism” approach.8
A strike by about 10,000 Auto Workers at Ameri
can Motors Corp.’s Kenosha and Milwaukee,
Wis. plants also drew attention. The walkout,
which began on October 16, continued until
November 21 at the Kenosha plant, despite an
October 19 settlement on company wide wage and
benefit provisions.9 At Milwaukee, local issues
were settled on November 5 but production could
not resume because of parts shortages resulting
from the Kenosha walkout.
□
FOOTNOTE S1 See Monthly Labor Review, August 1969, pp. 73-74.
2 See Monthly Labor Review, November 1969, p. 74.
3 American Airlines, Inc., Braniff Airways, Inc., Eastern
Airlines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., Pan American
World Airways, Trans World Airlines, Inc., and United
Airlines, Inc.
4 The six independent unions are the National Postal
Union, the National Association of Government Em
ployees, the National Federation of Federal Employees,
the National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
the Association of Civilian Technicians, and the National
Customs Service Association.
5 See Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, p. 70 for
details of Executive Order 11491.
6 See Monthly Labor Review, September 1969, p. 59.
7 Data for 1969 are preliminary.
8 See Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, p. 71-72
for further details of the strike.
9 See Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, p. 72 for
settlement terms.
Book
Reviews
and
Notes
Perspectives on poverty
On Understanding Poverty: Perspectives fro m the
Social Sciences. Edited by Daniel P. Moyn-
ihan. New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1969.
425 pp., bibliography. $10.
On Fighting Poverty: Perspectives fro m E xperience.
Edited by Janies L. Sundquist. New York,
Basic Books, Inc., 1969. 256 pp. $8.50.
These companion volumes in the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences Library are the
products of a year-long seminar on poverty,
sponsored by the Academy and under the chair
manship of Daniel P. Moynihan. The first volume
is the work of social scientists who view the
poverty program essentially from an academic or
theoretical standpoint, while the second reflects
the observations and recollections of many active
participants in the decisionmaking from which
the program as a whole or specific projects emerged.
Taken together, they represent one of the most
comprehensive and insightful evaluations of pov
erty currently available.
Their value, however, does not lie in any
capacity of the seminar participants to reach a
consensus either on the meaning of poverty or the
content of a program to ameliorate it. Indeed, a
review of these volumes— particularly the first
one confirms the incapacity of experts to agree
on anything more fundamental than the fact that
the poor definitely need more money, plus the
inevitable conclusion that more research is needed.
The real contribution of the seminar discussions
emerges from their sharpening of the issues, the
raising of relevant and even disturbing questions,
and the puncturing of common myths and tooeasy generalizations about the poverty program
in the 1960’s.
The academicians can be classified very roughly
into two groups: (1) those who believe that there
is a distinct and identifiable “culture of poverty”
which is not automatically eliminated by the
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
\mumm
”
lliiuSll
1
h
if
1
fj 1
infusion of more money, and (2) those who regard
poverty as essentially an economic problem
suffered by particular segments of a population
which share common values with the majority
but are denied access to opportunity. The latter
group would agree that the poor often behave
differently from the nonpoor, but views this as a
situational adaptation rather than as the observ
ance of a different cultural norm. Oscar Lewis is
perhaps the leading exponent of the former
approach, while Peter Rossi and Zahava Blum,
and Otis Dudley Duncan (who emphasizes the
factor of racial discrimination), argue the case
for the latter most cogently.
Most of the contributors (and even the above
advocates would concur in part) reject any one
explanation of poverty in America, preferring a
multicausal interpretation which takes into account
cultural, racial, and economic forces together. This
makes sense to me, and of the individual contri
butions I found those of Herbert Gans, Lee
Rainwater, and Gerald Rosenthal especially
stimulating, mainly because they ask relevant
questions and concern themselves with the policy
implications of alternative ideas. Gans properly
stresses the need for social experimentation;
Rainwater raises the issue of overall income
redistribution (which nearly all current advocates
of “income supplementation” evade, thereby, in
my judgment, relegating the poor to permanent
second-class status in our society); and Rosenthal
considers the time dimensions of alternative
policies, noting that too great an emphasis on the
immediate reduction in the number of the poor,
defined purely in income terms, may thwart the
more permanent institutional changes which
might assure a long-run improvement in their
economic and consumption circumstances.
The second volume, for rather obvious reasons,
makes for considerably easier and more lively
reading. Ranging from the reminiscences and
observations of Jam es Sundquist, Adam Y ar-
81
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
molinsky, and Sanford Kravitz concerning the
origins of the Economic Opportunity Act to the
very personal reactions of Robert Coles and
Gregory Farrell to community action programs
in the South and in New Jersey, it reveals that
the creators of the poverty program had little
real awareness of the implications of “maximum
feasible participation.” Their discussions also
throw light upon the conflict within the Kennedy
Administration between the advocates of the
program as it finally developed and those, mainly
in the Labor Department, who wanted to add a
job creation program. For both tactical and policy
reasons, I believe that the rejection of the latter
was a mistake. The second volume concludes
with an excellent summary by Mr. Sundquist of
major viewpoints.
—
P
a
u
l
B
u
l l o
c
k
Associate Research Economist
Institute of Industrial Relations
University of California, Los Angeles
Radical spirit
W e S ha ll B e A ll ; A
H isto ry
o f the In d u stria l
W orkers o f the W orld. B y Melvyn Dubofsky.
Chicago, Quadrangle Books, Inc., 1969. 557
pp., bibliography. $12.50.
The Industrial Workers of the World lived for
only 14 years (1905-1919) before they were
buried alive by a hysterical government and then
allowed to perish without ceremony. Yet, like
their legendary balladier Joe Hill, they “never
died.” Whenever radicalism resurges in America,
the spirit of the Wobblies comes alive again as
young revolutionaries dig for historic roots, search
for models, and pant for inspiration.
Hence, Dubofsky’s study of the heroic iww is
super-relevant for the New Left. The Wobs were
antistate, antisystem, antipolitical, and antiorganizational. They believed in the “propaganda
of the deed” and, resultantly, got caught up in
mass violence and lengthy legal lynching. Much
of their energy was spent less on their labor cause
than on “free speech” and legal defense. They
spat on “bushwah morality,” developed a special
lingo, created an anticommunity community in
the hobo jungles and the work camps.
The Wobs appealed to the alienated: to the old
settler of the West who was a newcomer to the
industrial society; to the homeless-wifeless migrant
070—356 0 — 701----- 6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
moving from mine to lumber camp to wheat field;
to the immigrants of the E ast; and to the well-todo rebel intellectuals. The Wobblies were also a
youth movement, if one may judge by the age of
their leaders: Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was 19
years old and several months pregnant when she
threw herself into the 1909 Spokane “free speech”
fight; General Organizer Joe E tto r was 19 when
the Wobs were founded in 1905; Giovannitti was
21; the editor of Solid arity , Ben Williams, was 28;
and the old men of the movement— St. John and
Haywood— were 29 and 36 respectively.
Like the New Left, the Wobs were torn by
factionalism almost from their birth: anarchists,
syndicalists, socialists, De Leonites. They were
rent by other inner contradictions: Setting out
as antiorganizational in 1905, by 1916 the iww
recast its practices to make Bill Haywood a oneman dictator, followed, after imprisonment, by
lesser “bosses.” Bent on revolution, rather than
niggardly reform, the greatest successes of the
Wobs were recorded where they behaved— except
rhetorically— like a f l unions: job control, wages,
grievances, dues collection. In their last years, the
passion intended for the class enemy was turned
inward in ludicrous factionalism where a handful
of delegates ended up breaking chairs over one
another’s skulls.
Dubofsky tells the story well— with passion
and compassion, with insight and outlook, with a
scholarly concern for detail and a stylist’s taste
for the phrase. I t is not the first, nor will it be the
last, book on the iww. B u t it is, to date, the fullest
(484 pages, plus 44 pages of notes, plus an added
10 pages on sources). Since Dubofsky had the
advantage of many previous works and new
current material, his solid statement is definitive—
for the nonce.
The controversy surrounding the Wobs— then
and now—is too great to be settled in any one
book, especially when the latest volume is written
by a partisan— as ideologue and scholar. Com
passionately, he identifies with the “cause,”
though intellectually he wonders aloud whether
these men were as wise as they were wonderful to
behold. Passionately, he argues with other his
torians, who question both the innocence and the
motives of some of the leading Wobs.
Because of Dubofsky’s involvement with his
subject, he fails at times to relate the Wobblies
to other currents of the hour. A glaring omission
is the great debate between the Wobs and the
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
82
“reformists” at the 1912 Socialist convention
over art. 2, sec. 6, of the party’s Constitution on
“sabotage.” The split in the “left” over this item
marked a watershed of American radicalism.
Judging from Dubofsky’s interest in (involve
ment with) the rww, he may (now that he has
unloaded his feelings about the Wobblies and
their detractors) decide in a few years to do a
rewrite to turn a grand book into a great work.
— Gus
T
y
l
e
r
Assistant President
International Ladies’ Garment
Workers Union
Taxes and growth
The Individual Incom e T a x and Econom ic Growth:
A n International Comparison. B y Vito Tanzi.
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1969. 136
pp. $8.50.
Can the dull performance of the British economy
or the remarkable postwar achievements of the
West German and Japanese economies be as
cribed to differences in personal taxes? Dr. Tanzi
argues that the British income tax had all the
characteristics that would make it an obstacle
to growth and demonstrates that during the
period 1950-65 the British income tax burdens
were higher than in France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, and the United States.
M any attempts have been made to compare
national tax burdens but no definite method of
analysis has thus far been established. Dr. Tanzi’s
analysis is a valuable improvement over all
previous studies. First, following the conventional
approach, he compares personal exemptions and
statutory rates of these countries, and analyzes
the tax collections in relation to income groups
and to
. He then proceeds to introduce a new
method based on the U.S. situation in which he
assumes that the five countries are subject to the
tax law of the United States rather than to their
own. Assuming that the U.S. income tax law
were applied to the five other countries, he
compares the resultant hypothetical tax ratios
(tax revenue/personal income) with each country’s
actual tax ratios, drawing the conclusion that in
1963 the United Kingdom had the heaviest income
tax, followed by Germany, the United States,
Japan, Italy, and France. This original approach
g
n
p
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
makes it possible to draw direct international
comparison of income tax burdens, although it
may be of limited applicability because of its
presupposition of analogous income distributions.
A further helpful development along this approach
could be expected by applying each country’s
tax scheme to all the others.
The chapter on “Dynamic aspects of the
individual income taxes” is an interesting and
important study on tax policy over the years in
these countries. A notable fact is that in the
relatively short span of a decade in Germany,
discretionary measures transformed this tax from
probably the most progressive personal income
tax in the world to one of the least, and Dr. Tanzi
says that its fiscal policy has been geared almost
exclusively to growth at the expense of equity.
Also of interest is the author’s analysis of the
reaction of the Japanese income tax to the rapid
growth of
.
Sizable built-in increases in the
income tax revenue, which would have put a
drag on growth, were avoided by a “tax-cut
policy.” The tax cuts were undertaken intention
ally and liberally, and they assisted in stimulating
expansion of the economy. On the other hand, in
the United Kingdom, the ratio has increased the
most. Dr. Tanzi notes that the U .K . economy
might have had better achievement than the
actual one without that increase.
The author’s reasoning about cyclical behavior
should be pointed out. The rise in the flexibility
and elasticity of the tax for the sluggish years
is clearly observed in France, Italy, and Japan.
His explanation is that this is due to the time lag
for payment, but the reviewer believes that it
should also be noted in these two measurements
that personal income remains more stable than
in recession years; that is, since the ratio
of personal income to
rises in recession
years (and there is little change in the ratio be
tween tax payments and personal income), the
result is an increase in flexibility and elasticity.
Dr. Tanzi also includes analyses of the different
tax measures used to stimulate personal savings
that contribute substantially to financing new
investments.
This book performs a useful service. The
author has collected a large amount of not easily
available data on the subject of income taxes and
economic growth. His analysis represents an
g
g
n
n
p
p
g
n
p
83
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
important first in this field, and may encourage
other scholars to go more deeply into some of the
questions raised in this book. For example, the
dynamic study of fiscal policy presented in the
book could benefit from further analyses and
other scholars might add additional valuable
insights.
—
T
e
r
u
o
H
i r
a
o
Economist
Fiscal Affairs Department
International Monetary Fund
Labor in India
Issues in In d ia n Labour Policy. Edited by C. K .
Johri. New Delhi, India, Shri Ram Centre
for Industrial Relations, 1969. 344 pp. Rs 40.
The crucial role of government in India’s
tripartite industrial relations system, while
generally supported by public opinion, has come
under increasing fire recently. Questions of labor
policy goals, their implementation, and con
straints on both ends and means are being raised
by policymakers, academics, unionists, and other
practitioners of industrial relations. The Shri
Ram Centre, a pioneer in bringing these groups
together, called its Fourth National Seminar in
October 1968, and this book includes the 14
papers given there as well as two evaluative
essays by Professor John, associate director of
the Centre.
Seminar papers focused on four broad areas,
each wisely narrowed in the discussions: the
social framework, with special attention to the
impact of technological change on industrial
relations; the purpose and direction of labor
legislation, with collective bargaining rather than
adjudication, a standardized national labor code,
and limits on the ease with which new unions
may be founded being recommended; wage policy
and determination, the best of the four sections;
and fringes, incentives, and productivity, a final
grab-bag.
Among the papers, the analysis of contemporary
wage policy, discussion on the integration of wage
and incomes policies, the evaluation of legal and
administrative centralization, and the assessment
of conflict and reconciliation between economic,
social, and industrial relations are most valuable,
offering stimulating hypotheses and careful
attempts to test them. The paper on wage and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
incomes policy is a provocative attempt to
break the dependence of increases in wages and
incomes on changes in productivity, a dependence
commonly accepted in advanced nations but,
the author argues, not applicable to growth
oriented developing economies undergoing ex
tensive structural change. The three papers
concerning legislation on disputes, standing orders,
and other trade union activities tend to be less
analytical and more descriptive.
Labor and development economists will also
value the analysis of the differential social impact
of technology on various types of Indian industries.
With India moving from a seller’s market to more
competitive conditions, and with the technological
changes accompanying new and often more
sophisticated product lines, industries find them
selves caught between economic pressures to
limit labor force to its most efficient size, and
strong traditional social pressures to retain
redundant labor on the payrolls. The ultimate
success of the Indian economy may depend on
how this conflict is resolved.
—
R
o
b
e r
t
E.
W
i l
l
Professor of Economics and Director
of International Studies
Carleton College
Working for health
A llied Health M anpow er: Trends and Prospects.
B y Harry I. Greenfield with the assistance of
Carol A. Brown. New York, Columbia Uni
versity Press, 1969. 195 pp., bibliography. $8.
There are approximately 1.7 million health
workers who have as one common characteristic
less than a full college education and make up the
allied health manpower group. Excluding registered
nurses, the study focuses on five categories of
technicians; x-ray, medical records, occupational
and physical therapy, medical, and dental, and
the large assistant category of licensed practical
nurses, nurses’ aides, and psychiatric aides.
The authors have wisely chosen to view this
segment of the health manpower pool within the
broader purview of the total provision of health
services in our economy. Manpower dynamics, the
first chapter, presents an excellent overview of the
range of factors involved in provision of health
services: the rest of the volume expands on these
individual factors, ranging through basic demo-
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
84
graphic characteristics of the labor pool, sources of
supply, factors in manpower utilization, education
and training, allied health labor markets, and
societal factors of demand for services.
This small volume brings together a wealth of
disparate trend data on economic, educational and
occupational growth with excellent documenta
tion. Considerable emphasis is given to the
preponderance of women in the allied health
occupations— 4 out of 5 workers are female,
primarily in their late teens, or in their late
thirties or above. This emphasis is essential, not
only because of the numbers of women in these
occupations, but because of the training, employ
ment, and economic pattern that follows: a
pattern of training, entry, dropout, and reentry,
which raises training costs and depresses wages.
Thus, successful attempts to increase the number
of men in these occupations would require changes
in the employment structure—higher salaries,
advancement opportunities, and independent job
responsibilities.
The difficulties in implementing such a change
are discussed in detail, including the past attempts
following World War I I to recruit medical corpsmen
and current attempts. The very limited success
of these efforts becomes clear as the authors care
fully focus on the structural deficiencies in the
health services industry (organizational structures,
professionalism, career mobility, etc.)— all serving
to limit manpower utilization, increase costs, and
reduce service delivery.
The concept of “vertical mobility” and “career
ladders,” so widely espoused as an essential in the
design of new careers, is a well-documented and
discussed issue, which is handled in the broader
context of the structural limitations mentioned
above.
Although broadly written, the economic under
pinning of most of these issues is repeatedly shown,
since “the foremost reason for the current per
sonnel shortages is economic—jobs in the health
industry generally offer lower pay and less
attractive employment conditions than other
fields of work calling for comparable educational
preparation . . .”
—
F
r
a
n
k
l y
n
N
.
A
r
n
h
o
f f
Chief, Manpower and Analytic Studies Branch
Division of Manpower and Training Programs
Health Services and Mental Health Administration
Public Health Service
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Research aids
Politics oj Social R esearch: A n In q u iry into the
Ethics and Responsibilities oj Social Scientists.
B y Ralph L. Beals. Chicago, Aldine Pub
lishing Co., 1969. 228 pp., bibliography. $6.95.
This book grew out of research Professor Beals
conducted in 1966 for the Committee on Research
Problems and Ethics of the American Anthro
pological Association. Although the conclusions
were subsequently circulated to Association mem
bers (appendix B of the present book), only little
of the data collected and only urgent problems
were included. Hence, a more adequate, booklength report was judged worthwhile.
Beals informatively treats pitfalls of social
science research in foreign countries— problems
of language, research topic, local officials, local
scholars, students and subjects. However, the
main focus is on the nature of the relationship
between researchers and the U.S. Government
which supports their research.
The first two chapters present an outline of the
problems of government-funded research. The
profoundly troublesome ethical difficulties such
sponsorship may raise are illustrated by the
study on counterinsurgency in South America
known as Project Camelot. A good summary of
the history and aftermath of Camelot describes
how sponsorship by the Department of Defense,
its interest in “insurgency” and “counter
insurgency,” and the clumsy manner in which
Chile became involved led to the tumultuous
collapse of research holding promise for significant
theoretical and methodological contributions to
social science. Camelot underscores the need to
carefully consider the issues Beals examines:
“. . . social scientists . . . must face the implica
tions of involvement with governments, evaluate
their responsibilities to governments, consider
the effects of government utilization of social
science results, be more aware of the consequences
of government policy, and act effectively if
research possibilities are to be maintained. At the
same time, social scientists must not abdicate
their professional responsibilities or their dedi
cation to human welfare.”
Useful data on the diverse governmental
sources and amounts of support for social science
research are presented in chapter IV, and a con
cluding chapter offers thoughtful guidelines to the
problems posed by government support of
research.
85
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Beals’ calm examination of the fundamental
issues raised for social scientists by government
funding of research activities clearly merits the
attention of those who engage in research and those
who administer the funding of research.
—
C
u
r
t
T
a
u
s
k
y
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology
University of Massachusetts
Growing strong
Ja p a n Surges A head: The Story oj an Econom ic
M iracle. B y P. B . Stone. New York, Frederick
A. Praeger, Inc., 1969. 206 pp., bibliography.
$6.95.
This is a well-written, useful introductory
description of the process of Japan’s rapid postwar
industrial growth, aimed at the intelligent layman.
The author, science editor for British Industry
W eek, emphasizes both the specifics of techno
logical change and cost-cutting in a number of
Japanese industries and the overall favorable
attitude, effective government policy and its
efficient implementation— with comparisons ad
verse to Britain— as major forces for industrial
progress. Materials on technology are presented
in an easily understandable style, and make
fascinating reading.
The chapters on shipbuilding and steel are
particularly good. Mr. Stone describes how modern
management techniques in production design have
fundamentally changed the traditional inefficient
method of building ships. The development and
efficient production of mammouth vessels has
made Japan the world’s largest shipbuilder since
1956. Steel is even more impressive. Production
has grown from almost nothing in 1946 to 70
million tons today, exceeded only by the United
States and the Soviet Union. Raw materials for
steel production are almost all imported, yet
production is so efficient that 10 million tons of
steel is exported annually. This is not simply a
consequence of low wage rates. Rather, according
to the author, new Japanese investment has pro
duced twice as much output as the equivalent
investment in Britain. This has been due to
adoption of certain technological improvements
in the operation of new plants at full capacity,
and coastal plant sites, large ships, and other
economies in transportation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Many of the ideas for technological improve
ment have been imported, usually bought under
royalty and licensing agreements. Japan’s own
research efforts—both business and governmentsponsored— have concentrated on improving exist
ing processes. The narrowing technological gap
implies some alteration of this strategy.
I find myself disagreeing with some of the
author’s interpretations of government policy
and business behavior. Over the period as a whole,
private investment demand has not lagged; it
has been the strongest demand force, having to
be held in bounds rather than ‘‘build up by delib
erate government policy.” While agreeing that
profits are not the only business objective, I would
place more emphasis on market share and relative
ranking in the industry than on “fierce group
loyalties.”
The author touches base on a number of other
aspects— the high saving rate and the role of
banks in channeling savings to business invest
ment, foreign trade and the great trading houses,
the ample supply of labor. He stresses the human
factors—group loyalty, strong initiative coupled
with the acceptance of authority, the desire for
and high level of education. What he does not
provide— and it is very difficult to do— is an overall
assessment of the relative importance of these
various causes of Japan’s growth surge.
—
H
u
g
h
T.
P
a
t r
i c
k
Professor of F ar Eastern Economics
Yale University
Firsthand report
Industrial Society in Communist China. B y Barry
M . Richman. New York, Random House,
Inc., 1969. 968 pp. $15.
The author, a professor at u c l a who holds a
Canadian passport, spent 2 months in 1966 touring
Chinese industrial establishments. Having pre
viously conducted similar on-the-spot surveys of
plants and offices in the Soviet Union and India,
Professor Richman was uniquely qualified to
complete the mission of this book’s subtitle, “A
firsthand study of Chinese economic development
and management— with significant comparisons
with industry in India, the U SSR , Japan, and the
United States.” Although he had had only an
amateur’s interest in China before his trip, he has
since mastered most of the material on China
86
available in English and transformed it into a full
account of China’s industrialization. Unfortun
ately, the book is longer, more expensive, and not
as good as it should have been, since it is marred
by numerous typographical blunders, occasional
errors of fact, and long lapses into overblown
academic verbiage. Editorial shortcomings not
withstanding, it is still the single most valuable
work on contemporary China, being both a major
contribution to scholarship and a useful intro
duction to what has been going on in China for
the past 20 years.
An initial theoretical section is followed by four
long chapters which explore the multifarious
aspects of change in China’s industrial society.
Professor Richman argues that mass education,
enhanced social mobility, vigorous ideological
indoctrination, and free medical, welfare, and
pension programs have provided China’s managers
with a strong labor force that is eager to learn,
well disciplined, willing to work hard, and un
fettered by restrictive work rules or protective
unions.
The final section begins with a quantitative
exposition of China’s economic growth, partic
ularly industrialization since 1949 and a de
scription of the organization and planning of
Chinese industry. Against this quantitative and
institutional backdrop, Professor Richman pre
sents the results of his survey of Chinese enter
prises in full detail and with a rich dressing of
comparative analysis, casual empiricism, and
speculative insight. Two final chapters on domestic
and retail trade and the peculiar fate of China’s
capitalists fill out the volume.
This book portrays Chinese industrial society as
progressive, egalitarian, and unsettled, usually
engaged in creative endeavors requiring energetic
cooperation, but liable to periodic displays of
fanatic enthusiasm and discordant acrimony.
Applauding the one as rational and deploring the
other as futile, Professor Richman paradoxically
shares Mao Tse Tung’s view of Chinese society as
the product of a continuing dialectical struggle
between these polar aspects of modern China, the
unified, no-nonsense workaday world of socialist
construction and the ideologically charged,
visionary mission of continuing class struggle in
the incessant pursuit of Communism. Perhaps
idealistic in thinking one possible without the other
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
he nonetheless provides a thorough, thoughtful,
and insightful description of China’s industrial
society.
—
J o h n
D
e s p r e s
Fellow
Center for Chinese Studies
University of California, Berkeley
Other recent publications
Economic development
History and Structure of Economic Development. By Friedrich
Baerwald. Scranton, Pa., International Textbook Co.,
1969. 197 pp., bibliography. $2.95, paperback.
Economic Development and Structural Change. Edited by
I. G. Stewart. Edinburgh, Scotland, Edinburgh
University Press, 1969. 193 pp. $8.95, Aldine Pub
lishing Co., Chicago.
Technology Transfer by Multinational Companies. By
James Brian Quinn. (In Harvard Business Review,
Boston, November-December 1969, 147-161 pp.)
An Astonishing Potential for Growth [Canada]. (In Labor
Gazette, Canada Department of Labor, Ottawa,
November 1969, pp. 652-658. 50 cents.)
Closing the World’s Income Gap. Articles from papers
prepared for the International Industrial Conference.
(In Conference Board Record, National Industrial
Conference Board, New York, November 1969,
pp. 10-46. $3.)
Education and training
The American Indian High School Graduate in the South
west. By Williard P. Bass. Albuquerque, N. Mex.,
Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory,
Inc., 1969. 101 pp.
The American Indian High School Dropout in the South
west. By Charles S. Owens and Williard P. Bass.
Albuquerque, N. Mex., Southwestern Cooperative
Educational Laboratory, Inc., 1969. 101 pp.
The Impotent School Board. By Robert Bendiner. (In
Washington Monthly, Washington, September 1969,
pp. 34-50. $1.)
Hiring, Training, and Retaining the Hard-Core. By Paul
S. Goodman. (In Industrial Relations: A Journal of
Economy and Society, University of California,
Berkeley, October 1969, pp. 54-66. $2.)
87
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Employment, Manpower Training and the Black Worker.
By Herbert Hill. New York, National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People, 1969. 14 pp.
(Reprinted from Journal of Negro Education,
Summer 1969.)
Employee benefits
Variable Annuities— The Next Step. By Thomas F. Cuite
and Martin Lapidus. (In Pension and Welfare News,
New York, August 1969, pp. 79-82. $2.)
Extended Leisure for Blue Collar Workers: A Look at the
Steelworker’s Extended Vacation Program. By Philip
Kienast. (In Labor Law Journal, Chicago, October
1969, pp. 641-648. $1.35.)
Health and safety
Hospital Regulation: The Dilemma of Public Policy. By
Anne R. Somers. Princeton, N .J., Princeton Univer
sity, Industrial Relations Section, 1969. 240 pp. $4.
Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring. Washington,
U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Labor Standards
Administration, 1969. 44 pp.
Annual Report of the Division of Health and Safety [of the
Tennessee Valley Authority], Fiscal Year 1969.
Chattanooga, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1969.
48 pp.
Partnership for Health and Medicare. By John W. Cashman.
(In Public Health Reports, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Washington, October 1969, pp. 899-905.
55 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington.)
Availability and Use of Medical Services in an Alaskan
Eskimo Community. By Robert Fortuine. (In Public
Health Reports, U.S. Department of Health, Educa
tion, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Washington,
October 1969, pp. 845-856. 55 cents, Superintendent
of Documents, Washington.)
Industrial relations
Seminar on Collective Bargaining, 1968: Crisis in Bar
gaining? Edited by Luke Power, Samuel H. Sackman,
Eugene A. Walsh. Niagara Falls, N .Y ., Niagara
University, 1969. 137 pp.
Collective Bargaining in the Postal Service. By Joel Seidman.
(In Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and
Society, University of California, Berkeley, October
1969, pp. 11-26. $2.)
The Limits of Collective Bargaining in Public Employment.
By Harry H. Wellington and Ralph K. Winter, Jr.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(7re Yale Law Journal, New Haven, Conn., June
1969, pp. 1107-1127. $2.50.)
Who Negotiates for the Public Employer? By Milton Derber.
Urbana, 111., University of Illinois, Institute of Labor
and Industrial Relations, 1969. 7 pp. (Reprint Series,
199; from Perspective in Public Employee Negotia
tion, 1969.)
The Collective Bargaining Experience of Canadian Regis
tered Nurses. By Gerald W. Cormick. (In Labor Law
Journal, Chicago, October 1969, pp. 667-682. $1.35.)
Labor Arbitration of Grievances Involving Racial Discrimina
tion. By William B. Gould. (In University of Penn
sylvania Law Review, Philadelphia, Pa., November
1969, pp. 40-68. $2.50.)
Needed! Improved Labor Law Enactment and Administra
tion. By Guy Farmer. (In Personnel Administrator,
Berea, Ohio, September-October 1969, pp. 22-23,
26-28. $1.50.)
Labor force
The Direct Effects of Federal Manpower Programs in Re
ducing Unemployment. By Malcolm S. Cohen. (In
Journal of Human Resources, Madison, Wis., Fall
1969, pp. 491-507. $2, University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison.)
Manpower Policies in Britain. (In Employment and Pro
ductivity Gazette, London, August 1969, pp. 720-724.
6s., H.M. Stationery Office, London.)
Occupational Goals and Satisfactions of the American Work
Force. By Leonard Goodwin. (In Personnel Psy
chology, Durham, N.C., Autumn 1969, pp. 313-325.
$3.)
The New Careers Concept: Potential for Public Employment
of the Poor. By Mark A. Haskell. New York, Frederick
A. Praeger, Publishers, 1969. xxvii, 115 pp., bibliog
raphy. (Special Studies in U.S. Economic and Social
Development.)
Welfare Income and Employment: An Economic Analysis of
Family Choice. By Elizabeth F . Durbin. New York,
Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1969. 177 pp.,
bibliography. (Special Studies in U.S. Economic and
Social Development.) $12.50.
Nursing Homes and Related Health Care Facilities. Wash
ington, U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower
Administration, 1969. 26 pp. (Industry Manpower
Surveys 116.)
Foremen’s Compensation, Recruitment and Training. Chi
cago, Dartnell Corp., Institute of Business Manage
ment, 1969. 43 pp.
88
On-the-Job Training and Reemployment of the Older Worker.
By Edward B. Jakubauskas and Vienna Taylor.
New York, National Council on the Aging, 1969.
10 pp. (Reprinted from Industrial Gerontology, June
1969.)
Seniority and Equal Employment Opportunity: A Glimmer
of Hope. By Alfred W. Blumrosen. (In Rutgers Law
Review, Newark, N .J., Winter 1969, pp. 268-317.)
Facts About Women’s Absenteeism and Labor Turnover. By
Jean A. Wells. Washington, U.S. Department of
Labor, Women’s Bureau, 1969. 9 pp.
A Study to Develop a Model for Employment Services for the
Handicapped. New York, Greenleigh Associates, Inc.
(for U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Adminis
tration), 1969. 134 pp.
Employing the Disadvantaged: Three Viewpoints. By Robert
M. Middlekauff, Nelson J. Edwards, Saul Wallen.
(In Arbitration Journal, New York, Vol. 24, No. 3,
1969, pp. 143-160. $1.75.)
“Hire the Unemployables”— Corporate Slogan or Planned
Program. By John D. McGarr, Jr. (In Labor Law
Journal, Chicago, October 1969, pp. 649-666. $1.35.)
Employing the Hard-Core Unemployed. By Lawrence A.
Johnson. New York, American Management Associa
tion, 1969. 224 pp. (Research Study 98.) $5.
Mobility and Economic Progress of Negro Americans During
the logo’s. By Richard Raymond. (In American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, New York,
October 1969, pp. 337-350. $2.)
The Depressed Area and Labor Mobility: The Eastern
Kentucky Case. By John Sanders. (In Journal of
Human Resources, Madison, Wis., Fall 1969, pp. 4 3 7 450. $2, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.)
Labor organizations
Trade Unions and Industrial Relations: An International
Comparison. By Everett M. Kassalow. New York,
Random House, Inc., 1969. 333 pp. $8.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
The Talent Squeeze in Middle Management. By Caroline
Bird. (In Personnel, American Management Associ
ation, New York, September-October 1969, pp. 2 7 35. $2.25; $1.50 to AM A Members.)
Productivity and technological change
A New View of Technological Change. By Anthony B.
Atkinson and Joseph E. Stiglitz. (In Economic Jour
nal, Royal Economic Society, London, September
1969, pp. 573-578.)
Technological Change in the United States and Western
Europe. By S. P. Prasad and Paul Anton. (In Atlantic
Community Quarterly, Washington, Fall 1969, pp.
401-404. $1.50.)
Technology and the Worker: Technical Demands and Social
Processes in Industry. By Martin Meissner. San
Francisco, Calif., Chandler Publishing Co., 1969.
264 pp.
State Technical Service— An Emerging Social System. By
Donald H. Silva. (In American Journal of Economics
and Sociology, New York, October 1969, pp. 399403. $2.)
Social security
Social Insurance in the United States: A Program in Search
of an Explanation. By Colin D. Campbell. (In Journal
of Law and Order, University of Chicago Law School,
Chicago, October 1969, pp. 249-265, $3.)
New International Standards for Medical Care and Sickness
Benefits Under Social Security Programs. By William
M. Yoffee. (In Social Security Bulletin, U.S. De
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social
Security Administration, Washington, October 1969,
pp. 21-28. 35 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.)
Urban affairs
Business Faces the Urban Crisis. By John S. Morgan.
Houston, Tex., Gulf Publishing Co., 1969. 256 pp.
$7.95.
The Unionization of Teachers: A Case Study of the U FT .
By Stephen Cole. New York, Praeger Publishers,
Inc., 1969. 245 pp. $8.
A Single Society: Alternatives to Urban Apartheid. By
Donald Canty. New York, Praeger Publishers, Inc.,
1969. 181 pp. $5.95.
Personnel management
Exploring Urban Priorities: The Case of Syracuse. By
George H. Frederickson. (In Urban Affairs Quarterly,
Beverly Hills, Calif., September 1969, pp. 31-43. $5.)
Job Analysis: National Survey Findings. By Jean J. Jones,
Jr. and Thomas A. DeCotiis. (In Personnel Journal,
Swarthmore, Pa., October 1969, pp. 805-809. $1.)
Wages and hours
Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human
Resources. By Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard.
Englewood Cliffs, N .J., Prentice-Hall Inc., 1969. 147
pp., bibliography.
Employment Effects of Minimum Wage Rates. By John M.
Peterson and Charles T. Stewart, Jr. Washington,
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy R e
search, 1969. 171 pp., bibliography.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Area Wage Survey: The Atlanta, Ga., Metropolitan Area,
May 1969. Washington, U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1969. 25 pp. (Bulletin
1625-77.) 35 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington. Other recent bulletins in this series in
clude the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles-Long
Beach and Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove,
Calif.; Lawrence-Haverhill, M ass.-N .H .; MuskegonMuskegon Heights, Mich.; Spokane, Wash. (Bulle
tins 1625-78 through 1625-81.) Various pagings and
prices.
Industry Wage Survey— Nursing Homes and Related
Facilities, October 1967 and April 1968. Washington,
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1969. 74 pp. (Bulletin 1638.) 75 cents, Superintendent
of Documents, Washington.
Union Wages and Hours: Printing Industry, July 1, 1968
and Trend 1907-68. Washington, U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1969. 65 pp.
(Bulletin 1623.) 65 cents, Superintendent of Docu
ments, Washington.
89
The United States and the International Labor Organization.
Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of
Information, 1969. 28 pp.
Britain and the ILO: The Story of Fifty Years. By Margaret
Stewart. London, H.M. Stationery Office, 1969.
117 pp. $2.40, British Information Services, New
York.
Essays in the History of Political Thought. Edited by
Issac Kramnick. Englewood Cliffs, N .J., PrenticeHall, Inc., 1969. 384 pp. $4.95, paperback.
Economic Statistics and Economic Problems. By R. J.
Nicholson. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969.
399 pp. $8.95.
Readings in Microeconomics. By Sidney M. Blumner.
Scranton, Pa., International Textbook Co., 1969.
383 pp. $4.50, paperback.
Understanding Quantitative Analysis. By Chester R.
Wasson. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Mere
dith Corp., 1969. 263 pp. $3.50, paperback.
Employee Compensation and Payroll Hours: Banks, 1967
( b l s Report 362, 14 pp.); Commercial Research and
Development Laboratories, 1967 ( b l s Report 363, 14
p p .); Hotels and Motels, 1967 ( b l s Report 366, 15
pp.). Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1969.
The Age of Imperialism: The Economics of U.S. Foreign
Policy. By Harry Magdoff. New York, Monthly
Review Press, 1969. 208 pp. (Modern Reader Paper
backs.) $1.95.
Miscellaneous
Behavioral Science: Concepts and Management Application.
By Harold M. F . Rush. New York, National Industrial
Conference Board, 1969. 178 pp. (Personnel Policy
Study 216.)
Poverty and Discrimination. By Lester C. Thurow. Wash
ington, Brookings Institution, 1969. 214 pp. (Studies
in Social Economics.) $6.75.
The Abolition of Poverty. By David Horowitz. New York,
Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1969. 178 pp., bibliography.
$5.95.
Poverty Area Profiles: The Working Age Population—
Initial Findings. New York, U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Middle Atlantic
Regional Office, 1969. 57 pp. (Regional Reports 13.)
Strategic Hamlets in America . . . An Approach to the
Problems of the Urban and Rural Poor. By David R.
Pender. Columbia, University of South Carolina,
College of Business Administration, 1969. 106 pp.,
bibliography. (Essays in Economics 21.) $2.50.
Politics of Social Research: An Inquiry Into the Ethics and
Responsibilities of Social Scientists. By Ralph L. Beals.
Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co., 1969. 228 pp.,
bibliography. $6.95.
Emerging Concepts in Management: Process, Behavioral,
Quantitative, and Systems. Edited by Max S. Wortman,
Jr. and Fred Luthans. New York, Macmillan Co.,
1969. 462 pp. $5.95.
The Crisis of Industrial Society. By Norman Birnbaum.
New York, Oxford University Press, 1969. 185 pp.,
bibliography. $4.75.
Russia: Hopes and Fears. By Alexander Werth. New York,
Simon and Schuster, 1969. 352 pp. $6.95.
The Possessions of the Poor. By Oscar Lewis. (In Scientific
American, New York, October 1969, pp. 114-124.)
Dilemmas of Change in Soviet Politics. Edited by Zbigniew
Brzezinski. New York, Columbia University Press,
1969. 163 pp. $7.95, cloth; $2.95, paperback.
The Welfare State: U .S.A.—An Exploration in and Beyond
the New Economics. By Melville J. Ulmer. Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969. 203 pp. $4.95.
The Chinese Economy Under Communism. By Nai-Ruenn
Chen and Walter Galenson. Chicago, Aldine Publish
ing Co., 1969. 250 pp., bibliography. $7.95.
American Labor: The Twentieth Century. Edited by Jerold
S. Auerbach. Indianapolis, Ind., Bobbs-Merrill Co.,
Inc., 1969. 474 pp. $3.75, paperback.
Foreign Investment and Industrialization in Singapore. By
Helen Hughes and You Poh Seng. Madison, Wis.,
University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. 226 pp. $6.50.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Current
Labor
Statistics
Employment and unemployment—household data
1.
Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1947 to d ate........................................................................................
91
2.
Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages...................................................
91
3.
Full- and part-time status of civilian labor force.......................................................................................................................
92
4.
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted, quarterly d ata................................................
92
5.
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages..................
93
6.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment................................................................................................................
93
7.
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted...................................................................................................
94
8.
Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted........................................................................................................................
95
9.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted......................................................................................................................
95
10.
Unemployment insurance and employment services..............................................................................................................
96
Nonagricultural employment—payroll data
11.
Employment by industry, 1947 to d ate........................................................................................................................................
97
12.
Employment by State........................................................................................................................................................................
97
13.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group......................................................................................
98
14.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted...............................................
99
Labor turnover rates
15.
Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1959 to d ate.........................................................................................................................
100
16.
Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group....................................................................................................
101
Hours and earnings—private nonagricultural payrolls
17.
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1947 to d ate.........................................................................................................
18.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group...................................................................................
102
103
19.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted............................................
104
20.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group.............................................................................
105
21.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group..............................................................................
106
22.
Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1957-59 d o lla rs .................................................................................................
107
Consumer prices
23.
Consumer Price Index, general summ ary...................................................................................................................................
108
24.
Consumer Price Index, selected item s.........................................................................................................................................
108
25.
Consumer Price Index, selected areas.........................................................................................................................................
114
Wholesale prices
26.
Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of commodities..........................................................................................
27.
Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity groupings......................................................................................................
115
117
28.
Wholesale Price Index, by stage of processing..........................................................................................................................
118
29.
Wholesale Price Index, by durability of product........................................................................................................................
119
30.
Industry-sector price index for output of selected industries................................................................................................
119
Labor-management disputes
31.
Work stoppages and tim e lost........................................................................................................................................................
121
Productivity
32.
Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs...................................................................
90
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
122
HOUSEHOLD DATA
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
1.
91
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947 to date
[In thousands]
C iv ilia n la b o r fo rc e
T o ta l la b o r fo rc e
T o ta l no n
E m p lo y e d
U n e m p lo y e d
in s t it u t io n a l
Year
Num ber
p o p u la t i o n
T o ta l
P e rc e n t o f
p o p u la t i o n
N o t in
T o ta l
N o n a g r ic u lt u r a l
A g r ic u lt u r e
P e rc e n t of
Num ber
in d u s t r ie s
1 9 4 7 ....................................................................
1 9 4 8 _________________ ______ _____________
1 0 3 ,4 1 8
1 0 4 ,5 2 7
1 9 4 9 __________ ___________________________
1 9 5 0 ............................ .............. ........................
1 9 5 1 .................. ............................. ...................
1 0 5 ,6 1 1
1 0 6 ,6 4 5
1 9 5 2 ....................... ............................................
1 0 8 ,8 2 3
1 1 0 ,6 0 1
1 9 5 3 ....................................................................
1 9 5 4 . .................................................................
1 1 1 ,6 7 1
1 9 5 6 ______ _________ ______________________
1 9 5 7 _____________ _______________ _________
1 1 2 ,7 3 2
1 1 3 ,8 1 1
1 1 5 ,0 6 5
1 9 5 8 . . ________ _______________ ______ _
1 9 5 9 .................. .................................................
1 9 6 0 ______________________________________
5 8 .9
6 2 ,0 8 0
5 9 .4
5 9 ,3 5 0
6 0 ,6 2 1
5 7 ,0 3 9
7 ,8 9 1
4 9 ,1 4 8
2 ,3 1 1
5 8 ,3 4 4
7 ,6 2 9
5 0 ,7 1 3
2 ,2 7 6
3 ,6 3 7
3 ,2 8 8
2 ,0 5 5
5 9 .6
5 9 .9
6 1 ,2 8 6
6 2 ,2 0 8
5 7 ,6 4 9
5 8 ,9 2 0
7 ,6 5 6
7 ,1 6 0
4 9 ,9 9 0
6 3 ,8 5 8
6 5 ,1 1 7
6 5 ,7 3 0
6 0 .4
6 0 .4
5 9 ,9 6 2
6 0 ,2 5 4
6 ,7 2 6
6 ,5 0 1
66, 560
6 0 .2
6 2 ,0 1 7
6 2 ,1 3 8
6 3 ,0 1 5
6 1 ,1 8 1
6 ,2 6 1
5 3 ,2 3 9
5 3 ,7 5 3
5 4 ,9 2 2
6 0 .0
6 3 ,6 4 3
6 0 ,1 1 0
6 2 ,9 0 3
1 0 7 ,7 2 1
1 9 5 5 ______________________________________
6 0 ,9 4 1
5 1 ,7 6 0
1 ,8 8 3
1 ,8 3 4
3 .9
3 .8
4 2 ,4 7 7
4 2 ,4 4 7
5 .9
4 2 ,7 0 8
5 .3
3 .3
3 .0
4 2 ,7 8 7
4 2 ,6 0 4
6 5 ,0 2 3
6 2 ,1 7 1
6 ,2 0 6
6 ,4 4 9
5 3 ,9 0 3
5 5 ,7 2 4
6 ,2 8 3
5 7 ,5 1 7
2 ,8 5 2
2 ,7 5 0
5 .5
4 .4
4 .1
6 0 .6
6 0 .4
6 3 ,8 0 2
6 4 ,0 7 1
5 ,9 4 7
6 7 ,6 3 9
6 3 ,0 3 6
5 ,5 8 6
5 8 ,1 2 3
5 7 ,4 5 0
2 ,8 5 9
4 ,6 0 2
4 .3
6 .8
7 0 ,9 2 1
6 0 .2
6 8 ,3 6 9
6 4 ,6 3 0
5 ,5 6 5
5 9 ,0 6 5
3 .7 4 0
7 2 ,1 4 2
6 0 .2
6 0 .2
6 5 ,7 7 8
5 ,4 5 8
6 0 ,3 1 8
6 5 ,7 4 6
66, 702
5 ,2 0 0
4 ,9 4 4
6 0 ,5 4 6
6 1 ,7 5 9
3 ,8 5 2
4 ,7 1 4
5 .5
5 .5
6 9 ,4 0 9
6 0 .4
6 1 .0
1 1 6 ,3 6 3
6 9 ,7 2 9
7 0 ,2 7 5
1 1 7 ,8 8 1
1 1 9 ,7 5 9
1 2 1 ,3 4 3
3 ,5 3 2
1 2 2 ,9 8 1
7 3 ,0 3 1
7 3 ,4 4 2
5 9 .7
6 9 ,6 2 8
7 0 ,4 5 9
7 0 ,6 1 4
1 9 6 3 ....................... .............. .............................
1 2 5 ,1 5 4
7 4 ,5 7 1
5 9 .6
7 1 ,8 3 3
6 7 ,7 6 2
4 ,6 8 7
6 3 ,0 7 6
3 ,9 1 1
4 ,0 7 0
1 9 6 4 ............................ ..............................................
1 2 7 ,2 2 4
7 5 ,8 3 0
5 9 .6
7 3 ,0 9 1
6 9 ,3 0 5
4 ,5 2 3
6 4 ,7 8 2
3 ,7 8 6
7 7 ,1 7 8
7 1 ,0 8 8
7 2 ,8 9 5
4 ,3 6 1
3 ,9 7 9
3 ,8 4 4
6 6 ,7 2 6
6 8 ,9 1 5
3 ,3 6 6
2 ,8 7 5
7 0 ,5 2 7
2 ,9 7 5
3 .8
3 .8
3 ,8 1 7
7 2 ,1 0 3
2 ,8 1 7
3 .6
1 9 6 1 ............................................... ...................
1 9 6 2 .................. ........................ ........................
1 9 6 5 .............................. ...........................................
1 9 6 6 .............. ..................................... .....................
1 9 6 7 ____________ ____________ _______ _
1 9 6 8 .................................... .....................................
2.
1 2 9 ,2 3 6
1 3 1 ,1 8 0
1 3 3 ,3 1 9
1 3 5 , 562
7 4 ,4 5 5
7 8 ,8 9 3
5 9 .7
6 0 .1
7 5 ,7 7 0
8 0 ,7 9 3
6 0 .6
7 7 ,3 4 7
8 2 ,2 7 2
6 0 .7
7 8 ,7 3 7
7 4 ,3 7 2
7 5 ,9 2 0
4 3 ,0 9 3
4 4 ,0 4 1
2 .9
66, 552
6 6 ,9 2 9
6 6 ,9 9 3
6 8 ,0 7 2
la b o r fo rc e
la b o r
fo rc e
4 4 ,6 7 8
4 4 ,6 6 0
4 4 ,4 0 2
4 5 ,3 3 6
4 6 ,0 8 8
4 6 ,9 6 0
4 7 ,6 1 7
4 8 ,3 1 2
6 .7
5 .5
4 9 ,5 3 9
5 .7
5 0 ,5 8 3
5 .2
5 1 ,3 9 4
5 2 ,0 5 8
4 .5
5 2 ,2 8 8
5 2 ,5 2 7
5 3 ,2 9 1
Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages
[In thousands]
1968
1969
Annual average
1966
1967
C h a r a c te r is tic
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
1968
1967
W H IT E
........... ................................. ................... 71,927 71,388 71,421 70,388 70,016 69,813 69,668 69,432 68,915 68,170
Men, 20 years and o v e r.................... ............ 41,851 41,612 41,705 41,428 41,365 41,222 41,250 41,178 40,963 40,645
Women, 20 years and over.............. .............. 23,941 23,624 23,601 23,138 22,830 22,701 22,593 22,640 22,265 21,749
Both sexes, 16-19 years................................ 6,136
6,115
5,687
5,776
6,152
5,822
5,821
5,890
5,825
5,614
69,529 69,185 69,285 68,271 67,753 67,578 67,403 67,034
Men, 20 years and over..... .................. .......... 40,996 40,844 40,982 40,678 40, 540 40,392 40,403 40,300
Women, 20 years and over______________ 23,096 22,837 22,833 22,394 22,043 21,951 21,807 21,781
5,504
Both sexes, 16-19 years______ ________ 5,437
5,470
5,199
5,170
5,235
4,953
5,193
E m p lo y e d
............. ..................................................................
U n e m p lo y e d ............................................................. ...................
Men, 20 years and over_________ ____
Women, 20 years and over............................
Both sexes, 16-19 y e a rs ...............................
.......................................................—
Men, 20 years and over_____ _____ ____
Women, 20 years and over.............. .............
Both sexes, 16-19 years---------------------------
2,398
855
844
699
NEGRO
AND
69,977
41,318
22,821
5,839
22,100
66,526 65,850 66,052 65,734 65,087
40,087 39,745 39,802 39,525 39,360
21,394 20,942 20,930 20,922 20,526
5,201
5,045
5,320
5,287
5,163
67,751
40,503
22,052
5,195
66,361
39,985
21,263
5,113
2,226
814
768
644
2,338
3.2
3.4
............................................................. ...................
Men, 20 years and o v e r . . . ...........................
Women, 20 years and over...................... ..
Both sexes, 16-19 years.................................
U n e m p lo y e d ............................................................. ...................
Men, 20 years and over.................................
Women, 20 years and over---------- ------------Both sexes, 16-19 years.................................
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te
2,137
723
768
645
2,117
750
744
623
2,263
825
787
651
2,235
830
750
655
2,265
847
786
632
2,398
878
859
661
2,389
876
871
642
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.5
11.4
3.3
10.5
3.0
1.7
3.3
10.5
3.2
10.7
2.0
11.2
2.0
11.1
2.1
10.8
2.1
3.8
11.8
8,984
4,598
3,592
794
8,854
4,545
3,525
784
8,947
4,563
3,568
816
8,724
4,507
3,467
750
8,706
4,520
3,416
770
8,818
4,561
3,456
801
8,782
4,548
3,442
792
8,727
4,492
3,444
791
, 391
4,420
3,359
612
8,251
4,375
3,300
575
8,418
4,408
3,375
635
8,147
4,329
3,262
556
8,133
4,350
3,200
583
8,219
4,385
3,238
596
8,181
4,359
3,215
607
593
178
232
182
603
169
225
209
529
155
193
181
577
178
205
194
573
170
216
187
599
176
218
205
601
189
227
185
6.6
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.8
4.2
6.6
2.0
1.8
1.8
3.4
3.3
3.5
2,320
900
807
613
3.4
2,249
828
805
616
3.3
2,202 2,220
851
713
638
3.2
883
691
646
3.3
2.0
11.0
5,748
866
837
635
2.1
3.8
11.0
2.2
3.7
10.6
3.7
10.4
2.0
2.1
3.3
10.8
2.2
3.3
11.0
8,634
4,509
3,349
776
8,624
4,503
3,338
783
8,614
4, 504
3,371
739
8,538
4,492
3,322
724
8,534
4,483
3,299
752
8,760
4,535
3,446
779
8,648
4,502
3,375
771
8,062
4,301
3,190
571
8,005
4,329
3,107
569
7,974
4,300
3,108
566
4,305
3,132
564
7,916
4,268
3,097
551
7,889
4,263
3,054
562
8,169
4,356
3,229
585
4,309
3,134
569
665
191
254
629
180
242
207
650
203
230
217
613
199
239
175
622
224
225
173
645
7.6
4.3
7.4
27.8
7.3
4.0
7.2
26.7
7.5
4.5
6.9
27.7
7.1
4.4
7.1
23.7
7.3
5.0
7.6
4.9
7.1
25.3
2 .1
3.9
1 1 .3
3.4
r T HER
.............................................................
Men, 20 years and o v e r................ ...............
Women, 20 years and over______________
Both sexes, 16-19 years...............................
E m p lo y e d
768
787
648
3.3
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te
C iv ilia n la b o r t o r c e
2,202
68,301
40,630
21,735
5,936
68,699
40,851
67,936 67,307
40,376 40,243
21,635 21,217
5,925
5,847
C iv ilia n la b o r fo r c e
................................................................
Men, 20 years and over.................................
Women, 20 years and over...................... .
Both sexes, 16-19 years............................ ..
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
3.9
6.5
22.9
3.7
6.4
26.7
5.9
3.4
5.4
22.2
3.9
5.9
25.9
3.8
6.3
24.3
3.9
6.3
25.6
23.4
220
8,001
6.8
23.9
220
235
190
590
179 ]
217
195
6.7
3.9
6.3
25.0
8,011
638
193
241
204
7.4
4.3
7.1
26.5
92
3.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force
[In thousands— not seasonally adjusted]
1969
1968
Annual average
Employment status
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
69,296
69,491
70,350
73,713
73,514
72,365
67,818
67,921
67,799
67,700
67,233
67,610
67,747
68,332
67,465
67,433
65, 594
66,206
68,854
68,471
67,011
64,346
64,244
63,778
63, 588
63,126
64,073
64,212
64,225
63,010
2,061
1,955
2,069
2,607
2,456
2,522
1,672
1,704
1,961
1,906
1,897
1,871
1,784
1,970
2,163
1,864
2.7
1,942
2.8
2,075
2.9
2,251
3.1
2,587
3.5
2,831
3.9
1,799
2.7
1,973
2.9
2,060
3.0
2,206
3.3
1,667
2.5
1,751
2.6
2,138
3.1
2,293
3.4
Civilian labor force............................
12,131
12,019
10,634
8,803
9,283
9,991
11,745
11,699
11,467
11,404
11,000
11,508
11,438
10,405
9,882
Employed (voluntary parttim e)............................... ...........
11,284
11,122
9,751
8,185
8,688
9,422
11,245
11,130
10,781
10,687
10,335
10,757
10,613
9,726
9,199
Unemployed, looking for parttime w o rk .................................
Unemployment rate.....................
847
7.0
898
7.5
883
8.3
618
7.0
594
6.4
568
5.7
500
4.3
569
4.9
717
6.3
665
752
6.5
825
7.2
679
6.5
683
6.9
1967
FULL TIME
Civilian labor force............................
Employed:
Full-time schedules1............
Part-time for economic
reasons------- -----------------Unemployed, looking for fu lltim e work________ ________
Unemployment rate.....................
2,211
3.3
PART TIME
686
6.0
6.0
i Employed persons with a job but not at work are distributed proportionately among the fu ll- and part-time employed categories.
4.
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1969
1968
Annual average
Employment status
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Total labor force................................
85,788
85,014
84,902
84,584
84,277
83,957
83,593
83,966
83,999
83,831
83,351
82,868
82,559
82,272
80,793
Civilian labor force.............................
E m ployed.............................
Agriculture.........................
Nonagriculture..................
Unemployed________ ____
81,295
78, 497
3,429
75, 068
2,798
81,486
78, 325
3,332
74,993
3,161
81,359
78,127
3,458
74,669
3,232
81,054
78,187
3,634
74,553
2,867
80,756
77,874
3,551
74,323
2,882
80,433
77,671
3,705
73,966
2,762
80,071
77,265
3,805
73,460
2,806
80,450
77,605
3,664
73,941
2,845
80,495
77,767
3,732
74,035
2,728
80,356
77,729
3,881
73, 848
2,627
79,874
77,229
3,752
73,477
2,645
79,368
76,765
3, 842
72,923
2,603
79,042
76, 388
3,706
72,682
2,654
78,737
75,920
3,817
72,103
2,817
77,347
74, 372
3,844
70,528
2,975
MEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER
Total labor force_________ ______
49, 502
49, 595
49,563
49,552
49,389
49,304
49,267
49,286
49,378
49,336
49,189
49,132
48,926
48,834
48,184
46, 489
45, 487
2,479
43, 008
1,002
46, 552
45,424
2, 531
42,893
1,128
46, 568
45,442
2,570
42, 872
1,126
46,507
45,551
2,693
42,858
956
46,322
45,293
2,646
42,647
1,029
46,206
45,260
2,676
42, 584
946
46,171
45,227
2,731
42, 496
944
46,195
45,285
2,681
42, 604
910
46,297
45,422
2,706
42,716
875
46,280
45,422
2,732
42, 690
858
46,131
45,231
2,680
42,551
900
46, 093
45,254
2,763
42,491
839
45,871
44,940
2,753
42,187
931
45, 852
44, 859
2,816
42, 043
993
45, 353
44,294
2,821
41,473
1,060
27,660
27,817
27,686
27,677
27,511
27,262
27, 049
27,205
27,189
27,230
26,950
26,737
26,630
26,266
25,475
26,695
562
26,133
965
26,711
514
26,197
1,106
26,519
511
26, 008
1,167
26,622
578
26,044
1,055
26,505
540
25,965
1,006
26,251
617
25,634
1,011
26, 046
627
25,419
1,003
26,169
609
25, 560
1,036
26,228
638
25, 590
961
26, 264
731
25, 533
966
25,999
691
25, 308
951
25,802
722
25,080
935
25,702
621
25, 081
928
25,281
606
24,675
985
24,397
619
23,778
1,078
BOTH SEXES, 16-19 YEARS
Civilian labor force...........................
7,146
7,117
7,105
6,870
6,923
6,965
6, 851
7,050
7,009
6,846
6,793
6, 538
6, 541
6,618
6,519
Employed........................... ..
Agriculture........................
Nonagriculture.......... .......
Unemployed..........................
6,315
388
5,927
831
6,190
287
5,903
927
6,166
377
5,789
939
6,014
363
5,651
856
6,076
365
5,711
847
6,160
412
5,748
805
5,992
447
5, 545
859
6,151
374
5,777
899
6,117
388
5,729
892
6,043
418
5,625
803
5,999
381
5,618
794
5,709
357
5,352
829
5,746
332
5,414
795
5,780
394
5, 385
839
5,682
405
5,277
838
Dec.
Nov.
1968
1967
TOTAL
Civilian labor force........ ....................
E m p lo y e d ............................
Agriculture_______ ____
Nonagriculture..................
Unemployed_____ _______
WOMEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER
Civilian labor force........................
Employed........... ....................
Agriculture.........................
Nonagriculture..................
Unemployed.......... ..............
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
5.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
93
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages
1968
1969
1967
Annual average
1966
Characteristic
2d
3d
1st
4 th
3d
1st
2d
4th
3d
2d
1st
4th
3d
1968
1967
EMPLOYMENT (in thousands)
White-collar workers............... ..................................
3 6 ,9 5 9
3 6 ,7 0 0
P r o f e s s i o n a l a n d t e c h n i c a l ____________________ 1 0 , 7 6 5
M a n a g e r s , o f fic ia ls , a n d
p r o p r i e t o r s ____________________________________ 7 , 9 9 2
1 0 ,7 7 5
7 ,9 8 5
7 ,8 2 8
C l e r i c a l w o r k e r s ___________ ____________ ________ 1 3 , 4 8 3
4 ,7 1 9
S a l e s w o r k e r s ___________________________________
1 3 ,2 7 7
1 3 ,1 5 8
4 ,6 6 2
4 ,6 0 3
Blue-collar workers_________ ________________
3 6 ,2 1 7
1 0 ,6 2 8
3 5 ,9 0 6
3 5 ,7 5 6
3 5 ,4 4 5
3 5 ,1 0 9
3 4 ,8 8 2
3 4 ,4 8 1
3 3 ,9 5 5
3 3 ,6 1 6
3 3 ,6 8 6
3 3 ,4 2 0
3 5 ,5 5 1
1 0 ,4 5 2
1 0 ,3 9 3
1 0 ,3 2 6
1 0 ,1 4 2
1 0 ,0 5 7
9 ,9 5 3
9 ,7 8 4
9 ,7 3 1
9 ,5 9 6
9 ,4 4 6
1 0 ,3 2 5
7 ,9 0 0
7 ,8 3 8
1 2 ,3 5 1
7 ,4 4 5
1 2 ,2 4 5
7 ,2 5 4
1 2 ,6 8 5
7 ,6 3 9
1 2 ,6 1 9
7 ,6 4 0
1 2 ,8 2 8
7 ,6 6 1
1 2 ,8 0 8
7 ,7 0 6
1 2 ,8 8 9
1 2 ,1 1 5
7 ,4 2 9
1 2 ,1 5 8
4 ,6 6 5
4 ,6 9 7
4 ,6 5 0
4 ,5 7 6
4 ,5 6 7
4, 537
4 ,4 8 1
4 ,5 1 6
4, 503
2 8 ,2 5 5
1 0 ,3 3 4
2 7 ,7 5 6
1 0 ,1 5 8
2 7 ,5 0 9
2 7 ,4 6 6
9 ,9 7 9
2 7 ,3 4 2
9 ,9 6 4
2 7 ,2 7 3
9 ,8 4 0
2 7 ,3 5 6
9 ,7 7 4
2 7 ,1 4 0
2 7 ,2 7 6
9 ,9 5 3
9 ,3 2 1
1 4 ,0 3 2
1 3 ,9 4 3
1 3 ,9 2 8
1 3 ,9 1 5
1 3 ,9 0 4
1 3 ,7 7 3
3 ,5 3 6
9 ,9 4 2
1 3 ,8 3 6
2 6 ,9 6 2
9 ,7 0 9
1 4 ,2 9 3
3 4 ,2 3 2
9; 8 7 9
7 ,5 0 8
7 ,7 7 6
7 ,4 9 5
1 1 ,9 6 2
4, 504
1 2 ,8 0 3
4 ,6 4 7
12i 333
2 6 ,9 4 6
9 ,6 7 1
1 3 ,7 2 8
2 7 ,5 2 4
lo i 015
2 7 ,2 6 1
9; 8 4 5
1 3 ,8 2 6
1 3 ,9 5 5
13i 884
3 ,4 9 8
3 ,4 2 7
3 ,5 4 7
3 ,5 5 5
3; 5 3 3
4; 5 2 5
2 8 ,4 4 5
2 7 ,8 7 5
C r a f t s m e n a n d f o r e m e n . . ..................... .............. 1 0 , 1 4 4
14, 6 2 8
O p e r a t i v e s ____________ ________________ ________
1 0 ,0 2 0
1 4 ,1 7 0
l a b o r e r s ..................................... .............. ..
3 ,6 7 3
3 ,6 8 5
3 ,6 2 9
3 ,5 6 6
3 ,6 1 3
3 ,5 5 9
3 ,4 6 3
3 ,5 2 9
1 4 ,0 2 2
3 ,5 6 0
Service workers................................ ......... ...................
9 ,4 6 7
9 ,4 6 6
9 ,5 7 5
9 ,4 2 7
9 ,3 6 7
9 ,3 9 2
9 ,3 4 3
9 ,3 3 4
9 ,2 6 4
9 ,2 7 5
9 ,4 2 6
9 ,4 0 8
9 ,2 2 2
9 ,3 8 1
9 ,3 2 5
Farmworkers______
___________________
3 ,2 2 9
3 ,4 4 7
3 ,4 7 9
3 ,3 0 7
3 ,4 0 1
3 ,5 3 6
3 ,6 8 3
3 ,6 2 0
3 ,5 5 6
3 ,4 7 2
3 ,6 1 0
3 ,5 8 5
3 ,5 9 2
3 ,4 6 4
3 ,5 5 4
White-collar workers.................... .............. .. .............
2 .2
1 .4
1 .9
1 .3
1 .9
1 .9
1 .2
2 .0
2 .0
2 .0
2 .3
2 .3
2 .0
2 .0
2 .0
1 .3
1 .2
1 .3
1 .3
1 .4
2 .1
1 .3
2 .0
1.0
1 .3
1 .4
1.1
2.6
.9
1.0
.9
.9
.9
2.6
3 .1
3 .4
3 .4
2 .7
3 .0
3 .0
2 .9
2 .9
3 .2
3 .6
2 .9
3 .2
2 .4
2 .7
N o n fa rm
______
Unemployment rate
P r o f e s s i o n a l a n d t e c h n i c a l ___________ ______ _
M a n g e r s , o f fic ia ls , a n d
p r o p r i e t o r s ____________________________________
1.0
.9
3.3
2.8
1.0
C l e r i c a l w o r k e r s _______ _______ ________________
S a l e s w o r k e r s ................................... ..........................
2 .9
1.0
2.8
3 .0
2 .9
2 .9
2 .9
Blue-collar workers......... ................ ............. ...................
4 .0
3 .0
.9
2 .9
1.1
3 .8
3 .7
3 .8
4 .0
4.4
4 .5
4 .6
2 .1
4 .3
2.6
4 .5
2.8
4 .2
2 .4
4 .3
4 .8
2 .4
5 .1
2 .3
4 .5
5 .1
5 .0
4 .8
7 .4
6 .4
2 .1
4 .1
6 .4
2 .4
4.4
2 .1
4 .3
4 .2
2 .4
O p e r a t i v e s _______ ______ ___________________ . . .
N o n f a r m l a b o r e r s .......................................................
6 .7
7 .6
6 .9
7 .6
7 .8
7 .8
7 .9
Serviceworkers.................................................. ............
4 .6
4.4
3 .9
4.4
4 .5
4 .6
4 .3
4 .9
4 .5
Farmworkers..................................... ............ .................
2 .3
1 .9
1.6
1 .7
2 .4
2 .3
1 .9
2 .3
2 .5
2.2
C r a f t s m e n a n d f o r e m e n --------- ------------------------
6.
.9
1.0
1.2
2 .2
1 .3
1.0
.9
3 .0
3 .1
2.8
3 .2
4 .4
2.8
4 .1
4 .3
2.8
4 .1
2 .4
4 .5
4 .5
2 .5
5 .0
7 .1
4 .2
7 .5
7 .7
7 .2
7 .6
4 .2
4 .5
4 .5
4 .6
4.4.
4 .5
2 .4
2.2
2 .0
1 .9
2 .1
2 .3
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment
[In thousands— not seasonally adjusted]
1969
1968
Annual average
Reason for unemployment,
age, and sex
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
Total, 16 years and over__________
2,710
2,839
2,958
2,869
3,182
3,400
2,299
2, 542
2,746
2,923
2,876
2,419
2, 577
2,817
3,008
Lost last jo b ..........................
Left last jo b . . .................... ..
Reentered labor force..........
Never worked before...........
939
421
894
507
997
471
979
459
339
823
586
1,105
445
875
448
1,275
802
892
325
796
286
1,088
394
770
290
1,186
391
869
301
1,245
409
947
323
1,266
463
881
265
914
339
822
343
886
1,011
882
451
1,093
414
415
900
375
1,070
431
909
407
1,229
438
945
396
Male, 20 years and over.....................
909
906
914
1,048
1,134
1,142
873
844
993
1,061
Lost last jo b...........................
Left last jo b _____________
Reentered labor force..........
Never worked before...........
524
141
226
18
458
141
267
40
440
209
235
30
139
203
19
707
167
232
28
721
179
512
129
502
139
182
599
167
205
678
165
194
25
Female, 20 years and over.................
994
1,097
1,202
Lost last jo b _____________
Left last jo b ........................ .
Reentered labor force.........
Never worked before_____
309
183
457
45
314
209
501
72
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years........ .........
807
836
Lost last jo b ..........................
Left last jo b _____________
Reentered labor force_____
Never worked before_____
106
97
328
276
110
101
324
301
888
1,010
734
945
905
810
901
24
534
170
195
46
427
183
262
33
438
148
204
19
575
145
164
17
29
211
21
1,119
987
1,058
867
967
964
1,061
1,031
818
956
985
1,088
288
237
596
81
310
196
549
64
307
184
434
62
336
172
480
69
344
107
377
39
374
159
399
35
353
144
414
52
394
153
457
57
385
168
438
41
286
132
360
40
270
170
458
58
341
167
422
55
401
179
454
54
842
865
1,250
1,437
623
674
734
729
703
728
776
839
859
95
140
274
334
115
119
248
383
138
105
380
627
139
90
207
238
147
107
252
229
145
89
257
238
160
116
232
195
116
78
251
283
114
106
260
297
130
97
281
330
151
94
297
317
469
192
200
112
93
533
699
i
Unemployment levels and rates for 1967 differ somewhat from those published
elsewhere. The first half of 1967 was the initial period for which data for this series
were available on a regular monthly basis, and the procedures used in the Current
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
19671
110
70
214
228
686
212
20
22
Population Survey require several months of continuous data before the necessary
statistical techniques exert their full effects.
94
7.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted
1968
1969
Annual average
Age and sex
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
1967
TO T A L
16 years and o v e r.......................
16 to 19 years.......................
16 and 17 years______
18 and 19 years............
20 to 24 years.____ _____
25 years and over________
25 to 54 years_______
55 years and over____
3.4
11.6
14.2
9.0
5.9
2.2
2.4
2.0
3.6
3.4
3.5
12.2
11.6
13.4
10.0
12.5
13.8
11.8
14.5
11.5
5.3
5.4
5.7
2.3
1.7
2.3
3.9
4.0
3.5
13.0
16.8
10.6
13.2
16.7
10.8
12.5
16,1
9.9
14.7
10.4
6.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
6.7
2.5
2.5
2.3
5.4
2.3
2.4
5.9
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.2
3.5
12.8
2.2
2.0
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
12.7
14.0
11.6
11.7
13.1
11.1
11.7
13.5
10.5
12.7
15.0
10.9
13.7
10.5
5.3
5.5
5.2
5.3
5.9
2.1
2.2
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
3.4
12.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
3.6
3.8
12.7
14.7
12.9
14.7
11.5
11.2
5.8
2.3
2.3
2.2
5.7
2.6
2.7
2.5
M ALE
16 years and o v e r.............. .........
2.9
3.2
3.2
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.7
16 to 19 years___________
16 and 17 years______
18 and 19 years............
11.5
14.0
12.2
15.1
10.0
12.1
15.0
9.6
11.1
15.7
7.6
12.0
14.7
10.0
10.4
12.7
8.3
11.0
13.9
8.8
20 to 24 years............... .......
25 years and over________
25 to 54 years...............
55 years and over.........
5.3
6.5
1.9
6.3
1.9
4.5
1.7
1.7
5.5
4.8
4.8
1.7
8.6
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.2
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.6
2.7
11.4
2.6
12.6
11.5
12.9
10.4
10.2
4.7
4.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.5
2.6
11.0
12.5
9.5
4.9
1.5
1.4
1.7
2.7
11.8
13.2
10.6
5.0
1.6
1.5
1.9
2.6
11.6
14.2
9.5
4.2
1.5
1.4
1.9
2.7
11.3
13.7
8.6
4.7
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.9
11.6
3.1
13.9
9.7
12.3
14.5
10.5
5.1
4 .7
1.8
1.7
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.5
FE M A L E
16 years and over_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16 to 19 years..... ..............
16 and 17 years............
18 and 19 years............
20 to 24 y e a rs ........... .........
25 years and over.................
25 to 54 years............. ..
55 years and over____
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4.3
11.8
14.5
9.5
6.6
3.0
3.4
2.0
5.0
5.3
4.9
4.6
4 .7
4.8
4.9
4.6
4.5
14.0
19.0
14.6
19.2
14.1
16.7
12.3
12.5
14.8
10.8
12.9
14.3
11.9
14.5
13.5
15.2
14.5
16.9
12.7
14.3
15.6
13.3
12.7
13.9
13.0
6.5
3.4
3.6
7.1
3.5
3.7
2.7
6.4
3.3
3.6
6.3
3.2
3.5
2.3
5.9
3.3
3.6
2.3
6.1
6.8
11.2
2.6
12.1
2.1
3.1
3.4
1.8
3.2
3.6
2.4
6.3
3.0
3.3
1.9
6.1
3.1
3.2
2.5
4.3
11.6
14.0
10.4
5.5
3.2
3.4
1.9
4.5
4.4
4.8
5.2
14.1
16.2
13.3
13.7
12.8
14.0
15.9
12.9
13.5
14.8
12.7
6.5
2.9
3.1
2.4
7.2
2.9
3.1
2.5
6.7
3.2
3.4
2.3
7.0
3.7
4.1
2.5
12.6
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
8.
HOUSEHOLD DATA
95
Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[In percent]
1969
1968
Annual average
Selected categories
Nov.
Total (all civilian workers)_____
Men, 20 years and over___
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 y e a rs ...
White__________________
Negro and other........ ...........
Married men____________
Full-time workers.................
Unemployed 15 weeks and
ove r1. _____ __________
State insured 2 .......... ...........
Labor force time lo st3_____
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
1967
3.4
2.2
3.5
11.6
3.1
6.2
1.5
3.0
3.9
2.4
4.0
13.0
3.5
6.9
1.7
3.2
4.0
2.4
4.2
13.2
3.6
6.8
1.7
3.4
3.5
2.1
3.8
12.5
3.2
6.5
1.5
3.1
3.6
2.2
3.7
12.2
3.2
6.4
1.6
3.1
3.4
2.0
3.7
11.6
3.0
7.0
1.5
3.1
3.5
2.0
3.7
12.5
3.1
6.5
1.5
3.1
3.5
4.0
3.8
12.8
3.1
6.9
1.5
3.2
3.4
1.9
3.5
12.7
3.1
6.0
1.4
2.9
3.3
1.9
3.5
11.7
2.9
5.7
1.4
2.8
3.3
2.0
3.5
11.7
3.0
6.0
1.4
2.9
3.3
1.8
3.5
12.7
3.0
6.0
1.4
2.7
3.4
2.0
3.5
12.2
3.0
6.5
1.6
3.0
3.6
2.2
3.8
12.7
3.2
6.7
1.6
3.1
3.8
2.3
4.2
12.9
3.4
7.4
1.8
3.4
.5
2.4
4.0
.5
2.2
4.4
.5
2.2
4.4
.5
2.1
4.1
.5
2.2
4.1
.5
3 .9
.5
2.0
3.5
.5
2.1
3.7
.4
2.1
3.7
.4
2.2
3.6
.4
2.1
3.6
.4
2.0
3.6
.4
2.2
3.8
.5
2.2
4.0
.6
2.6
4.2
White-collar workers____________
Professional and managerial_________________
Clerical w o rk e rs ............... ..
Sales workers.......................
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2 .1
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.1
3.5
2.2
1.4
3.3
3.6
1.3
3.3
2.8
1.2
3.3
2.9
1.2
3.2
3.3
1.2
3.0
1.2
2.8
2.6
1.0
2.4
3.3
Blue-collar workers_____________
Craftsmen and foremen___
Operatives........... ..................
Nonfarm laborers________
4.2
2.2
4.9
7.0
4.3
2.4
5.0
6.8
4.4
2.6
4.8
7.7
3.8
2.2
4.1
6.9
3.8
1.9
4.2
7.5
3 .7
1 .9
4 .3
5 .9
3.8
2.4
4.0
6.4
Service workers_______ ________
3.9
4.4
4.9
4.5
4.3
4 .5
3.6
5.6
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.8
7.3
3.7
3.3
4.2
4.0
7.6
3.7
3.3
4.4
3.6
7.4
2.9
2.3
3.8
3.6
5.7
3 .5
5 .0
3 .2
3 .2
3 .3
3 .3
3 .2
2.4
3.9
2.8
4.3
2.0
4.7
2.0
4.4
2 .1
O C C U PATIO N
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.2
3.0
2.6
1.1
3.1
2.5
1.1
3.0
2.8
1.1
3.1
3.2
3.6
2.1
4.2
5.5
3.8
2.1
4.2
6.6
3.6
1.9
4.2
6.1
3.9
2.3
4.3
6.8
4.1
2.4
4.5
7.2
4.4
2.5
5.0
7 .6
3.8
3.8
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.5
3.6
6.2
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.4
6.2
3.1
2.7
3.7
3.3
5.5
2.9
2.4
3.6
3.4
5.5
3.2
2.7
3.9
3.3
5.4
2.8
2.6
3.3
3.4
6.5
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.6
6.9
3.3
3.0
3.7
3.9
7.3
3.7
3.4
4.1
2.8
3.9
2.3
4.2
2.4
3.8
1.8
3.9
1.8
3.8
1.6
4.1
2.1
3.9
2.0
4.0
2.4
4.2
3.1
2.9
1.0
2.7
3.3
4.1
2.2
4.6
6.8
3.7
2.2
3.9
7.0
4.2
4.5
3 .3
3.5
5.5
3.1
2.9
3.4
1 .9
4 .1
1 .9
4 .2
2 .9
1.9
1.0
2.7
2.9
1.0
1.0
IN D U STR Y
Nonagricultural private wage
and salary w orkers1________
Construction........................
Manufacturing................ ..
Durable goods_________
Nondurable goods.......... ..
Transportation and public
utilities____ _____ ____
Wholesale and retail trade..
Finance and service industries__ ____ __________
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.5
3 .7
3 .2
3.4
3.3
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.6
Government wage and salary
workers......................................
2.1
2.5
1.9
1.9
1 .9
1 .8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
Agricultural wage and salary
workers..................................
5.0
6.6
7.4
7.0
9 .1
5 .5
4.9
5.7
5.9
4 .1
5.8
5.7
4.5
6.3
6.9
‘ Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force.
a Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered
employment.
9.
3 Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons
as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours,
* Includes mining, not shown separately.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1969
1968
Annual average
Period
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
Less than 5 weeks................... ..
5 to 14 weeks_____ _____ ____
15 weeks and over.......................
15 to 26 weeks.......... ...............
27 weeks and over...................
1,564
910
384
244
144
1,857
948
370
240
130
1,818
1,000
389
233
156
1,636
861
382
244
138
1,677
830
419
244
175
1,591
813
383
258
125
1,777
629
409
278
131
1,724
737
393
254
139
1,646
757
355
237
118
1,436
829
346
237
109
1,476
741
316
193
123
1,363
825
322
177
145
1,576
785
348
221
127
1,594
810
412
256
156
15 weeks and over as a percent
of civilian labor force...............
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
. 4
.4
.4
.5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.4
.4
1967
1,635
893
449
271
177
.6
96
10.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1
[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1969
1968
Item
Oct.
Employment service:2
New applications for work....................................
Nonfarm placements............................... .............
Sept.
762
462
Aug.
750
471
801
503
May
June
July
874
469
822
454
Apr.
850
437
Mar.
822
454
Feb.
745
397
Jan.
794
373
Dec.
849
392
Nov.
608
360
Oct.
687
426
807
540
Rate unemployment insurance programs:
710
709
744
655
1,105
613
890
731
1,240
756
1,161
788
Initial claim s34------------------------------------ --------701
Insured unemployment3 (average weekly
852
1300
948
1,021
906
864
840
1,491
1,090,
1,459
1,172
volum e)6_____ _________________ ______
913
794
1.8
2.0
1.7
26
1.8
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.9
3.0
2.3
Rate of insured unemployment2.......... ................
1.8
1.6
3,123
4,998
33,149
3,104
3,626
3,519
3,496
5,159
4,496
5,547
3,896
Weeks of unemployment compensated_______
2,853
2,961
Average weekly benefit amount for total un$45. 30 $44. 88 $45.14
$46. 71
$46. 80
$46.16
$45. 34 $44.72
$46.03
employment____ ________________ ______ 3 $46. 22 $45. 70 $46.16
$44.37
Total benefits paid........ ....................................... $139,245 $136,182 $156,707 $159,161 $135,004 $152,966 $200,052 $226, 516 $234,199 $246,117 $170,340 $122,494 $125,979
Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen:«8
in itial claim s36______ ___________ ______ _
Insured unemployment6 (average weekly
v o lu m e ) ..--------- ----------------------------------Weeks of unemployment compensated_______
Total benefits paid------------------ -----------------------
31
3
32
26
20
2.2
24
27
32
29
26
26
37
148
$7,156
36
143
$6,946
30
114
$5, b l l
29
122
$5,847
35
155
$7,425
40
163
$7,794
43
169
$7,997
44
191
$9,046
38
151
$7,218
32
111
$5,305
27
109
$5,169
10
8
8
8
9
13
10
9
11
18
69
$3,155
17
72
$3,318
2C
88
$4,038
23
94
$4,265
24
97
$4,362
24
102
$4.595
2?
95
$4,246
21
81
$3,637
20
82
$3,627
26
27
32
3 127
$6,262
32
133
$6, 514
12
10
8
11
17
74
$3,163
18
76
$3,497
19
78
$3, 597
Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian em
ployees: 8 46
Initial claims 3.__ . ................ ................. .........
Insured unemployment5 (average weekly
v o lu m e ) ..------- ---------------- -------------------Weeks of unemployment compensated.............
Total benefits paid----- ---------------- -------------------
18
374
3 $3,415
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications11__________________ _________
Insured unemployment (average weekly
volume). ............ ....... ................ .......... ........
10
6
7
17
11
11
5
15
13
13
13
10
18
17
Number of payments 42._.......... ..................... ...................
Average amount of benefit payment 13_._..........
Total benefit paid 14. . ........................ ...................
36
$89. 31
$2,918
28
$93.62
$2,478
28
$94.12
$2,375
26
$91.74
$2,113
25
$90. 69
$2,043
39
$75.65
$2, 804
41
$88.32
$3,386
All programs: 45
Insured unemployment6....... ...............................
929
902
1,015
1,088
911
970
1,162
1 I n c l u d e s d a t a f o r P u e r t o R ic o .
2 I n c l u d e s G u a m a n d t h e V i r g i n I s la n d s .
3 P re lim in a r y .
4 I n it i a l c l a i m s a r e n o t i c e s f il e d b y w o r k e r s t o i n d i c a t e t h e y a r e s t a r t i n g
u n e m p l o y m e n t . E x c lu d e s t r a n s i t io n c l a i m s u n d e r S t a t e p r o g r a m s .
p e r io d s o f
5 I n c l u d e s in t e r s t a t e c l a i m s f o r t h e V i r g i n I s la n d s .
6 N u m b e r o f w o r k e r s r e p o r t i n g t h e c o m p le t io n o f a t l e a s t 1 w e e k o f u n e m p l o y m e n t .
7 1 n it ia l c l a i m s a n d S t a t e i n s u r e d u n e m p l o y m e n t i n c l u d e d a t a u n d e r t h e p r o g r a m
f o r P u e r t o R ic a n s u g a r c a n e w o r k e r s .
s T h e ra te is t h e n u m b e r o f in s u r e d u n e m p lo y e d e x p r e s s e d a s a p e r c e n t o f t h e a v e r a g e
c o v e r e d e m p lo y m e n t in a 1 2 - m o n t h p e r io d .
8 E x c lu d e s d a t a o n c l a i m s a n d p a y m e n t s m a d e j o i n t l y w it h o t h e r p r o g r a m s .
10 I n c l u d e s t h e V i r g i n I s la n d s .
11 E x c lu d e s d a t a o n c l a i m s a n d p a y m e n t s m a d e j o i n t l y w it h S t a t e p r o g r a m s .
12 A n a p p li c a t io n f o r b e n e f i t s i s f il e d b y a r a il r o a d w o r k e r a t t h e b e g in n in g o f h i s f i r s t
p e r io d o f u n e m p l o y m e n t in a b e n e f i t y e a r ; n o a p p li c a t io n i s r e q u ir e d f o r s u b s e q u e n t
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5
6
12
11
6
9
23
24
19
18
20
46
$91.06
$4,056
47
$92.2(
$4,251
54
$91.2:
$4,797
42
$87. 9C
$3, 590
39
$91.89
$3,404
46
$92.16
$3,966
1,384
1,550
1,584
1,252
984
861
21
periods in the same year.
*3 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods.
« T h e average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for
recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments.
15 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments.
is Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State,
Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
NOTE: Figures under Railroad Unemployment 'nsurance and Number of Payments
were erroneously submitted for the months of September and October and have been
corrected in this issue.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Management Data Systems
for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board. Data for latest month are subject to revision.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
11.
PAYROLL DATA
97
Employees1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date
[In thousands]
Year
TOTAL
Mining
Contract
construc
tion
Manufacturing
Transpor
tation and
public
utilities
Total
Wholesale
trade
Retail
trade
Finance,
insurance,
and real
estate
Government
Services
Total
Federal
State
and local
1947______
1948______
1949______
1950.............
43,881
44, 891
43,778
45,222
955
994
930
901
1,982
2,169
2,165
2,333
15, 545
15, 582
14,441
15,241
4,166
4,189
4,001
4,034
8,955
9,272
9,264
9,386
2,361
2,489
2,487
2,518
6, 595
6,783
6,778
6,868
1,754
1,829
1,857
1,919
5,050
5,206
5,264
5,382
5,474
5,650
5,856
6,026
1,892
1,863
1,908
1,928
3,582
3; 787
3,948
4,098
1951.............
1952.............
1953.............
1954______
1955.............
47, 849
48, 825
50,232
49, 022
50,675
929
898
866
791
792
2,603
2,634
2,623
2,612
2,802
16,393
16,632
17, 549
16,314
16,882
4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141
9,742
10,004
10,247
10,235
10, 535
2,606
2,687
2,727
2,739
2,796
7,136
7,317
7,520
7,496
7,740
1,991
2,069
2,146
2,234
2,335
5, 576
5,730
5,867
6,002
6,274
6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914
2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2,187
4,087
4; 188
4,340
4; 563
4,727
1956______
1957.............
1958.............
1959 2...........
1960.............
52.408
52, 894
51,363
53,313
54,234
822
828
751
732
712
2,999
2,923
2,778
2,960
2, 885
17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16, 796
4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004
10,858
10, 886
10,750
11,127
11,391
2, 884
2,893
2,848
2,946
3,004
7,974
7,992
7,902
8,182
8,388
2,429
2,477
2,519
2,594
2,669
6,536
6,749
6,806
7,130
7,423
7,277
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353
2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270
5, 069
5, 399
5i 648
5,850
6,083
1961.............
1962.............
1963______
1964______
1965.............
54, 042
55, 596
56,702
58,331
60,815
672
650
635
634
632
2,816
2,902
2,963
3,050
3,186
16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18,062
3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4, 036
11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716
2,993
3,056
3,104
3,189
3,312
8,344
8,511
8,675
8,971
9,404
2,731
2,800
2,877
2,957
3,023
7,664
8,028
8,325
8,709
9,087
8,594
8, 890
9,225
9, 596
10,074
2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378
6,315
6, 550
6i 868
7,248
7 ¡696
1966______
1967.............
1968______
63,955
65,857
67, 860
627
613
610
3,275
3,208
3,267
19,214
19,447
19,768
4,151
4,261
4,313
13,245
13,606
14, 081
3,437
3,525
3,618
9,808
10, 081
10,464
3,100
3,225
3,383
9,551
10,099
10, 592
10,792
11,398
11,846
2,564
2,719
2,737
8,227
8¡ 679
9¡ 109
i The industry series have been adjusted to March 1968 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to August 1969. For comparable back data, see Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909-69 (BLS Bulletin 1312-7) to be released this fall.
These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all fu ll- and part-time
employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or received pay for
any part of the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons who
12.
Wholesale and retail trade
worked in more than one establishment during the reporting period are counted more
than once. Proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic
servants are excluded.
2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an
increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench
mark month.
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State
[In thousands]
State
Oct. 1969
Sept. 1969
Oct. 1968
State
Oct. 1969
Sept. 1969
Oct. 1968
Alabama....................... ..
Alaska_________ _____
Arizona_____ _____
Arkansas_____________
California____________
989.6
88.1
523.0
536.1
6,980. 7
990.6
91.3
516.7
536.8
6,993.6
969.4
82.6
485.5
518.4
6,753.1
Montana................... ........
Nebraska...... ............... ..
Nevada....... ..................
New Hampshire2—.........
New Jersey......................
201.9
481.9
193.6
258.3
2,572. 0
205.2
477.4
195.4
262.4
2, 568.1
199.5
469.3
182.1
254.4
2, 522. 5
Colorado..................... ..
Connecticut........ .............
Delaware______ _____ _
District of Columbia___
Florida........ ............... ..
0
1,179.3
211.4
681.3
2,026. 0
0
1,173.4
211.2
679.4
2, 000. 0
697.7
1,176.8
207.1
674.8
1,939.9
New Mexico......... ............
New York____________
North Carolina________
North Dakota..................
Ohio..................................
287.5
7,207.4
1,702.9
160.9
3,963.8
287.6
7,179.0
1,698.4
159.2
3,956. 5
280.5
7,096. 2
1,675.9
158.0
3,817.4
Georgia.............................
Hawaii........................ ..
Idaho..................... .........
Illin o is_______________
Indiana 2_................... .
1,506.8
270.6
203.6
4,417.4
1,891.6
1,501.4
271.6
205.8
4,409. 5
1,894.9
1,455.2
254.7
198.1
4,344.9
1,827.5
Oklahoma........................
Oregon_______________
Pennsylvania....................
Rhode Island_________
South Carolina________
757.2
711.9
4,348. 9
346.1
792.1
751.4
722.2
4,345. 8
344.8
791.3
737.7
694.3
4,277.3
347.9
777.2
Iowa.................. ...............
Kansas2............................
Kentucky .......................
Louisiana.........................
M aine............ ............... ..
885.0
688.3
901.8
1,068.1
330.2
886.0
687.8
900.3
1,067.2
330.6
871.7
680.5
891.0
1,054.9
329.3
South Dakota_________
Tennessee____________
Texas____ ____ ______
U tah_________________
V erm ont2____________
172.1
1,317.7
3,609.7
353.4
148.1
171.8
1,310.3
3,601.0
355.8
147.4
170.1
1,294.6
3,470.0
344.0
143.0
M aryland.........................
Massachusetts________
Michigan ..........
Minnesota___________
Mississippi......... .........
M issouri......... ..........
1,300.6
2,257.7
3,088. 4
1,312.2
570.7
1,663.9
1,296.7
2,261.5
3,090. 9
1,320.1
571.6
1,655.5
1,248.0
2,223.0
3,051.2
1,273.3
560.7
1,643.9
Virginia____ _________
Washington 2.....................
West Virginia_________
Wisconsin____________
Wyoming 2........................
1,439.4
1,143.0
513.8
1,536.3
108.1
1,435.5
1,152.0
515.0
1,541.2
112.6
1,407.9
1,124.6
503.8
1,499.8
106.0
1 Not available.
2 Revised series: not strictly comparable with previously published data.
NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary.
870-^356 0 — 70 ------ 7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE: State agencies in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. More detailed industry data are available from the State agencies.
For addresses, see inside back cover of Employment and Earnings.
98
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
PAYROLL DATA
13.
Employees 1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[In thousands!
1968
1969
Annual average
Industry division and group
TOTAL.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
71,214
71,188
70,814
70,607
70,347
70,980
69,929
69,462
68,894
68,403
68,196
69,805
69,248
67,860
1967
65,857
M IN IN G ..................................
629
633
639
647
645
638
624
619
610
610
611
619
621
610
613
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N .......
3, 521
3,620
3,663
3,707
3,681
3,601
3,404
3,255
3,077
2,999
3,024
3,247
3,379
3,267
3,208
M A N U F A C T U R IN G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P ro d u c tio n w o rk e rs 2..........
90 \9\
1 4 ; 702
?0 .3.38
1 4 ; 918
20,421
H ! 997
20,435
14,971
20,114
14,665
20,336
14,923
19,982
14,624
19,952
14,604
19,978
14,644
19,891
14,584
19,803
14,509
20,008
14,701
20,036
14,741
19,768
14,505
19,447
14,308
Durable goods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P ro d u c tio n w o r k e d . . .
11 789
8; 532
11 993
8! 737
12,014
8! 755
11,976
8,691
11,874
8,600
12,036
8,781
11,846
8,615
11,835
8,612
11,841
8,623
11,785
8,585
11,760
8,555
11,793
8,595
11,776
8,586
11,624
8,456
11,439
8,364
O rd n a n c e a n d a c c e s s o r ie s ..
L u m b e r a n d w ood p ro d u c ts .
F u rn itu re a n d fix tu re s ........
S to n e , c la y , a n d g la ss
p ro d u c ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
308 8
58? 5
489! 4
308 1
593 4
497.0
315.1
605.3
495.9
323.4
617.8
497.9
331.7
616.3
485.0
335.3
624.4
496.0
338.7
604.1
489.6
341.2
593.4
490.7
345.5
594.2
490.6
346.8
590.1
491.1
350.3
587.8
488.5
352.0
598.0
490.1
349.5
598.5
490.3
341.5
597.8
474.2
317.2
596.8
455.4
667.6
669.8
674.2
679.1
676.2
676.1
657.2
654.8
646.6
639.2
639.2
650.1
654.9
637.0
628.3
1 356 6
1,464.2
1 358 0
1>68.3
1,365.5
1,472.5
1,367.9
1,461.9
1,366.7
1,441.7
1,375.6
1,469.1
1,346.1
1,445.5
1,336.8
1,441.6
1,333.3
1,441.1
1,326.0
1,435.4
1,311.9
1,432.5
1,302.5
1,437.2
1,280.1
1,434.3
1,314.3
1,393.7
1,322.1
1,363.1
2 010 9
2 094 3
2,056.6
2,009.7 1,999.3 2, 009. 3 2, 025. 6 2, 000.9 2,007. 0 2.005.2 2,002.6 1,983.4
2]083.1 2,074.2 2, 047. 7 2, 058.7 2, 035. 8 2,027.7 2, 025.9 2,026.1 2,019.1
2|063.8 2! 023. 4 1,991.0 2,053. 7 2,018.9 2,037. 3 2,057. 8 2,037. 8 2,061.3
1,965.3 1,966.1
2,019.6 2,011.3
2,069. 3 2,063.4
1,960.5
1,981.9
2,028.4
1,969.6
1,958.9
1,948.5
P rim a ry m e ta l i n d u s t r ie s ...
F a b rica te d m eta l p ro d u c t s ..
M a c h in e ry , e x ce p t
1 985 6
e le c tric a l....... ........... .
E le ctrica l e q u ip m e n t......... 1975 4
T ra n s p o rta tio n e q u ip m e n t.. 2Ì027.3
In stru m e n ts an d rela ted
465.6
p ro d u c ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
469.3
469.8
475.7
470.9
474.1
470.3
469.6
469.3
467.1
465.0
467.5
466.5
459.9
450.8
M isc e lla n e o u s
m a n u fa c tu rin g ...............
465.7
467.0
458.9
455.8
437.5
447.6
439.2
435.3
431.0
422.7
421.1
441.6
461.5
434.6
428.4
Nondurable goods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P ro d u ctio n w o r k e r s 2. . .
8 332
6! 170
8,345
6! 181
8,407
6,242
8,459
6,280
8,240
6,065
8,300
6,142
8,136
6, 009
8,117
5,992
8,137
6,021
8,106
5,999
8,043
5,954
8,215
6,106
8,260
6,155
8,144
6,049
8,008
5,944
Food a n d k in d re d p ro d u c ts .
T o b a c co m a n u fa c tu re s .......
T e x tile m ill p r o d u c t s ...—
A p p a re l a n d o th e r tex tile
p ro d u c ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 841 1
' 84 5
990.1
1 854.3
’ 91.4
983.1
1,920.2
93.9
984.7
1,932.0
90.0
988.1
1,827.6
71.9
980.7
1,785.3
72.1
1,000.9
1.725.3
71.3
984.7
1,710.8
71.6
988.4
1,706.7
75.6
992.1
1,710.9
79.3
990.8
1,720.3
83.1
987.5
1,776.7
88.0
997.7
1,805.7
89.1
1,003.2
1,780.8
83.8
990.6
1,786.3
86.5
958.5
1,421.5
1,429.7
1,427.3
1,433.3
1,375.8
1,440.1
1,419.1
1,411.2
1,426. 5 1,414.7
1,397.1
1,411.0
1,426.2
1,407.9
1,397.5
726.8
1,091.1
719.8
1,085.4
725.0
1,085.0
707.6
1,071.1
703.5
1,077.3
707.3
1,077.0
706.2
1,073.6
703.5
1,070.1
708.5
1,079.9
706.5
1,075.6
692.5
1,063.1
679.1
1,047.8
P a p e r a n d a llie d p r o d u c t s ..
P rin tin g a n d p u b lis h in g - - - C h e m ic a ls a n d a llie d
p ro d u c ts .......................
P etro leu m a n d coal
p ro d u c ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R u b b e r a n d p la stics
p ro d u cts , n e c .................
L e a th e r a n d le a th e r
p ro d u c ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D PUBLIC
U TILITIES.............................
723 4
1,100.0
720.2
1,100.3
722.2
1,091.6
1,050.6
1,047.1
1,052.2 1,064. 4 1,064.5
1, 060.9
1,045.1
1,046.9
1,043.2
1,036.9
1,030.9
1,035.1
1,033.2
1,026.1
1,001.4
192.5
192.7
192.9
196.0
196.3
193.7
188.9
187.8
183.9
166.3
124.8
186.1
187.8
187.0
183.2
587.1
587.1
585.8
586.2
576.1
586.2
577.0
575.7
575.8
574.9
572.3
576.2
573.3
557.1
516.4
341.0
338.7
336.2
351.0
341.4
350.3
345.5
343.8
348j5
352.2
352.9
356.0
359.2
355.5
350.9
4, 512
4, 508
4,529
4,533
4,528
4,512
4,431
4,403
4,346
4,303
4,288
4,370
4,373
4,313
4,261
14,398
14,201
14,097
14,189
15,113
14,536
14,081
13,606
3,688
10,710
3,678
10,523
3,666
10,431
3,671
10,518
3,715
11,398
3,702
10,834
3,618
10,464
3,525
10,081
W H O L E S A L E A N D R ETA IL T R A D E .
15,118
14, 865
14,702
14,660
14,662
14,717
14,517
Wholesale trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Retail trade.........................
3 843
11,275
3,835
l l ! 030
3,806
10! 896
3,821
10,839
.3,8 1 8
10, 844
3,793
10,924
3,709
10,808
FIN A N C E , IN SU R A N C E, AN D
R EA L ESTA TE........................
3,597
3,590
3,597
3,642
3,629
3,585
3,534
3,517
3,490
3,467
3,448
3,449
3,439
3,383
3,225
11,044
10,913
10,792
10,693
10,773
10,755
10,592
10,099
SE R V IC E S
H o te ls a n d o th e r lo d g in g
p la c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P e rso n a l s e r v i c e s . . ...........
M e d ica l a n d o th e r h ealth
s e rv ic e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E d u c a tio n a l s e rv ic e s ..........
G O V E R N M E N T .........................
Federal2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State and Local....................
11,211
11,246
11,183
11,243
11,131
690.6
1,027.1
716.6
1,028.6
743.5
825.9
1,021.8 1,023.0
829.2
763.0
1,036. 0 1,042.2
727.4
1,031.1
714.6
1,025.4
691.7
1,016.6
681.2
1,012.7
669.8
1,017.6
675.3
1,037.0
678.7
1,034.6
719.4
1,031.3
695.7
1,027.8
2 941.9
1,166.0
2,912.5
1,153.7
2,893.8 2,891.0
1,053.4
951.1
2,889.3
967.2
2,866.6
1,062.5
2,816.9
1,158.3
2,804. 3 2,789.5
1,159.8 1,164.7
2,772.1
1,157.6
2,748.2
1,127.5
2,728.9
1,144.3
2,720.6
1,145.4
2,637.7
1,065.9
2,434.3
1,008.4
12, 505
12,388
12,080
11,822
12,348
12,306
2,712
9,793
2,715
9', 673
2,733
9,347
11,253
11,730
2,804
8,926
11,266
2,841
8,981
2,832
9,516
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers
(including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling,
inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance,
repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production
for plant’s own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely
associated with the above production operations.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2,740
9,566
12,274
12,279
12,244
12,140
12,226
12,109
11,846
11,398
2,747
9,527
2,737
9,542
2,739
9,505
2,735
9,405
2,769
9,457
2,703
9,406
2,737
9,109
3,719
8,679
2 Beginning January 1969, Federal employment includes approximately 39,000
civilian technicians of the National Guard, who were transferred from State to
Federal status in accordance with Public Law 90-486.
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
14.
PAYROLL DATA
99
Employees 1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]
1969
1968
Industry division and group
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
70,621
70,642
70,390
70, 500
70,247
70,300
70,013
69,789
69,710
69,487
69,199
68,875
68,664
630
632
631
631
629
622
622
624
626
628
626
623
622
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N ..... ......... .......... . .......
3,452
3,415
3,420
3,410
3,434
3,466
3,407
3,363
3,374
3,366
3,338
3,330
3,313
M A N U F A C T U R IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Production w orkers 2................ ................. .........
19,982
14, 556
20,156
14, 730
20,197
14,772
20, 334
14, 922
20,164
14,772
20,198
14,811
20,118
14,740
20,111
14,739
20,122
14,771
20.061
14,731
19,999
14,684
19,958
14,635
19,897
14,594
Durable goods..... ......................... ..................
Production w orkers2............ ........... ............
Ordnance and accessories___________ _____ _
Lumber and wood products...... ............................
Furniture and fixtures.................................. .........
Stone, clay, and glass products............................
11,712
8,453
306
584
483
664
11,937
8,677
307
588
492
663
11,965
8,701
314
595
492
660
12,081
8,823
325
598
493
659
11,912
8,668
332
600
491
658
11,931
8,687
337
607
496
662
11,874
8,630
342
610
496
656
11,868
8,634
343
604
496
658
11,881
8, 654
346
608
494
664
11,839
8, 628
346
607
494
666
11,819
8,606
349
606
490
664
11,744
8| 536
351
603
485
658
11,700
8j 505
'347
600
484
652
Prm ary metal industries____ ________ ______
Faibricated metal products__________________
Machinery, except electrical................................
Electrical equipment_______________________
Transportation equipment__________________
Instrum ents and related products ...... ...............
1,377
1,450
1,994
1,952
1,995
464
1,383
1,457
2,029
2,076
2,032
469
1,378
1,468
2,020
2,075
2,054
469
1,361
1,465
2,005
2, 076
2,183
473
1,348
1,456
2, 007
2,070
2,032
471
1,347
1,456
2,010
2,063
2, 035
473
1,333
1,453
1,999
2, 058
2, 009
474
1,326
1,450
1,999
2,046
2,029
472
1,332
1,451
1,993
2, 036
2,042
470
1,330
1,444
1,997
2,026
2, 020
468
1,321
l j 437
1,981
2,013
2, 045
'466
1,313
i; 426
1' 971
l ' 996
2, 031
'465
1,300
l ' 420
L 974
l j 988
2,031
'465
T O T A L ........................................................ . . . . . . . .
M IN IN G ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. .
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........ ............... ..
443
441
440
443
447
445
444
445
445
441
447
445
439
Production w o rkers2...................................
Food and kindred products_________ ___ _
Tobacco manufactures_________ _ _ _ _ _ ____
Textile m ill p ro d u c ts ............... ....................... .
Apparel and other textile products.....................
Paper and allied products.....................................
8,270
6,103
1,816
78
984
1,407
721
8,219
6,053
1,771
78
978
1,411
719
8,232
6,071
1,791
80
979
1,412
718
8,253
6,099
1,797
83
979
1,414
718
8,252
6,104
1,787
81
988
1,423
716
8,267
6,124
1,789
81
990
1,429
717
8,244
6,110
1,793
82
987
1,426
714
8,243
6,105
1,795
81
991
1,425
710
8,241
6,117
1,793
83
995
1,417
'714
8,222
6,103
l j 801
82
999
1,409
'713
8,180
6j 078
l i 792
84
1,000
1,424
'709
8,214
', 099
1,789
81
998
1,412
'706
8,197
6 089
1,781
82
997
1 412
'704
Printing and p u b lis h in g ........... ..........................
Chemicals and allied products_______________
Petroleum and coal products________________
Rubber and plastics products, nec___________
Leather and leather products_______________
1,097
1,056
193
580
338
1,099
1,051
191
582
339
1,093
1,051
189
583
336
1,089
1,052
190
586
345
1,084
1,054
191
585
343
1,083
1,055
191
584
348
1,075
1,046
190
581
350
1,078
1,044
190
579
350
1,078
1,045
187
579
350
1,077
l ’ 044
170
577
350
1,076
1,040
128
573
354
1,074
1,040
' 189
571
354
1 072
1 038
188
567
356
Nondurable goods................ ...... ......................
TR A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D PUBLIC U TILITIES......... .
6
4, 490
4, 486
4,480
4, 484
4,483
4,467
4, 444
4,439
4,399
4, 373
4,353
4,360
4,352
W H O L E S A L E A N D R ET A IL T R A D E ............. .............
14,863
14,827
14,716
14, 702
14,671
14,665
14, 609
14, 533
14,508
14,468
14,412
14,271
14,291
Wholesale trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............
Retail trade_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
3,809
11, 054
3,808
11,019
3,787
10,929
3,776
10, 926
3,773
10, 898
3; 774
10,891
3,758
10,851
3,737
10,796
3,726
10,782
3,714
10, 754
3,701
lo i 711
3,678
10; 593
3 669
10; 622
FIN A N CE , IN SU R A N C E, A N D R E A L E S T A T E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,611
3,594
3, 586
3, 581
3, 568
3,557
3, 541
3,531
3,515
3, 502
3,490
3,463
3,453
SE R V IC E S ................................................. . .........
Hotels and other lodging places........... ............. ..
Personal services.......................... ..........................
Medical and other health services ...... ....................
Educational services ...... .......................................
11,245
736
1,023
2,942
1,109
11,235
738
1,026
2,915
1,111
11,150
721
1,026
2,897
1,092
11,120
704
1,026
2,874
1,094
11,067
706
1,030
2,861
1,099
11,066
724
1,026
2,850
1,102
11,065
730
1,025
2,831
1,120
11,044
741
1,024
2,813
1,119
11,034
745
1,026
2, 795
1,117
10,967
'733
1,027
2, 778
1,112
10,900
'733
1,028
2, 762
l i 090
10 838
'729
1 032
2, 737
l j 096
10 787
724
1 031
2 721
1,090
G O V E R N M E N T ................................ . ....................
12,348
12,297
12,210
12,238
12,231
12, 259
12,207
12,144
12,132
12,122
12, 081
12, 032
11,949
Federal2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
State and local...... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2,728
9,620
2,729
9,568
2,749
9, 461
2,752
9, 486
2,777
9,454
2,790
9,469
2,754
9, 453
2,758
9,386
2,759
9,373
2, 767
9,355
2,760
9; 321
2,724
9; 308
2 709
9; 240
'F o r comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969,
and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
2 For definition of production workers, see footnote 2, table 13.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 See footnote 3, table 13
NOTE. Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary.
100
15.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
LABOR TURNOVER
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1959 to date 1
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
May
Apr.
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Annual
average
Total accessions
1959 ........................ ..........................
1960 _________________________
1961 __ ________ ______________
1962 _________________________
1963 ______________ __________
3. 8
4.0
3.7
4.1
3 .6
3.7
3 .5
3.2
3 .6
3 .3
4.1
3. 3
4. 0
3. 8
3. 5
4.1
3.4
4 .0
4 .0
3 .9
4. 2
3 .9
4 .3
4 .3
3 .9
5. 4
4.7
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.4
3 .9
4 .4
4.6
4 .3
5.2
4.9
5.3
5.1
4 .8
5.1
4 .8
4.7
4 .9
4.8
3.9
3.5
4. 3
3. 9
3. 9
3. 4
2 .9
3 .4
3 .0
2 .9
3.6
2.3
2 .6
2.4
2.5
4. 2
3 .8
4.1
4.1
3.9
1964 _________________________
1965 _________________________
1966 _________________________
1967 _____________ ___________
1968 ______ __________________
1969
3 .6
3 .8
4 .6
4 .3
4.2
4.6
3 .4
3 .5
4.2
3 .6
3 .8
3.9
3.7
4. 0
4. 9
3. 9
3. 9
4. 4
3.8
3 .8
4.6
3 .9
4 .3
4 .5
3 .9
4.1
5.1
4.6
4.6
4.8
5.1
5.6
6.7
5.9
5.9
6.6
4 .4
4. 5
5.1
4.7
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.4
6.4
5.5
5.7
5.6
4 .8
5.5
6.1
5.3
5.7
5.9
4.0
4 .5
5.1
4.7
5.0
5.0
3 .2
3 .9
3 .9
3.7
3.8
2 .6
3.1
2 .9
2 .8
3.0
4 .0
4 .3
5 .0
4 .4
4 .6
New hires
1959........ ........... .....................
1960____________________
1961_____________________
1962____________________
1963_____________________
2.0
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.9
2.1
2.2
1.4
2.1
1.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
2.2
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.8
2.4
2.3
3.7
2.3
2.1
2.8
2.5
2.7
3.0
2.9
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.4
2.5
2.9
2.7
3.5
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.5
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2
2.6
2.1
2.7
2.5
2.6
1.9
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.4
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.4
1964_____ _______________
1965..........................................
1966_____________________
1967_____________________
1968.............. .......... ...............
1969
2.0
2.4
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.3
2.0
2.4
3.1
2.7
2.7
3 0
2.2
2.8
3.7
2.8
2.9
3.4
2.4
2.6
3.6
2.8
3.2
3. 5
2.5
3.0
4.1
3.3
3.6
3.8
3.6
4.3
5.6
4.6
4.7
5.4
2.9
3.2
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.9
3.4
3.9
4.8
4.0
4.3
4.3
3.5
4.0
4.7
4.1
4.5
4.8
2.8
3.5
4.2
3.7
4.0
4.0
2.2
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
1.6
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.6
3.1
3.8
3.3
3.5
4 .6
4 .8
5 .3
5 .3
5 .1
5 .5
4 .7
4.5
4 .0
4 .0
3
4
4
3
.9
.8
.0
.8
4 .1
4 .3
4 .0
1.0
Total separations
1 9 5 9 ____________ ___________________
1 9 6 0 _ .............................................................
1 9 6 1 ................................................................
1 9 6 2 ______ _________________________
1 9 6 3 ............. ..................................................
1 9 6 4 ________________________________
1 9 6 5 ............................................................ ...
1 9 6 6 ______ _________________________
1 9 6 7 . .............................................................
1 9 6 8 ________________________ _______
1969
3 .7
3 .6
4 .7
3 .9
4 .0
4 .0
3 .7
4 .0
3 .1
3 .5
3 .9
3 .4
3 .2
3 .3
3 .1
4 .5
3 .6
4 .0
4.4
3 .9
4 .5
4 .0
3 .5
3 .6
4 .2
3 .4
3 .6
3 .5
3 .6
3 .8
3 .6
3 .8
4 .4
4 .1
4 .4
3 .6
3 .6
3 .4
4 .1
3 .5
3 .4
4 .1
3 .5
3 .7
4 .3
3 .6
3 .5
3 .6
4 .4
4 .4
4 .3
4 .6
4 .3
4 .1
3
4
4
4
4.5
4 .6
4.1
4.4
3 .6
4 .0
4 .0
3 .3
4 .0
3.8
3 .9
3 .5
.6
.3
.2
.3
4 .3
4 .1
4.5
5 .3
4 .8
5 .0
5 .3
4 .2
5.1
4.8
5 .0
4 .7
4 .2
4 .4
4 .9
4 .1
3 .9
3 .7
3 .9
4 .3
5 .1
5 .8
5 .1
5 .6
6 .6
4 .2
4.5
3 .6
3 .9
4 .3
3 .7
4 .1
4 .2
3 .9
4 .1
4 .6
4 .0
3 .9
4 .1
3.8
4 .6
4 .6
1.2
.9
1. 1
1. 1
1.1
1.0
.7
.9
4 .8
5 .3
6.2
6.0
6.2
6 .3
4 .7
4 .9
6.6
5 .3
1.7
1 .3
1 .4
1.5
1.5
4 .1
Quits
19 59 .............................................................
19 60 ...............................................................
1 96 1 _________ _______ ______________
1 96 2 ______ ________ ________________
1 96 3 ...............................................................
1 .1
1 .2
.9
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1 .2
.8
1. 1
1.0
1.2
1.2
.9
1 .2
1 .2
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.2
1 .5
1 .4
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
2.1
1 .8
1.7
2 .1
2.1
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
19 64 ................................................... ..
19 65 ...................... .. ......................................
19 66 . .............................................................
1.2
1.4
1 .9
1. 1
1.3
1.8
1.2
1.5
2.3
1 .3
1.7
2.5
1.5
1 .7
2.5
1.4
1 .7
2.5
1.5
1.8
2.5
2.1
2.6
3.6
2.7
3.5
4.5
1967................ .........................
1968........................................
1969
2.1
2.0
2.3
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.3
2.2
2.6
2.1
2.3
2.6
3.2
3.7
4.0
.8
.8
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.7
2.2
1.2
1.7
1.0
1.4
1.5
1 .9
4.0
4.1
4.4
2.8
2.5
2.8
3.0
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.5
1.6
2.6
2.3
2.5
Layoffs
1959..........................................
1960.............. ...........................
1961.................... .....................
1962..........................................
1963..........................................
2.1
1.8
3.2
2.1
2.2
1.5
1.7
2.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.3
1.6
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.8
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.8
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.8
3.2
2.8
2.0
2.2
1.9
2.9
3.1
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.4
3.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1964..........................................
1965..........................................
1966-.................................. ..
1967..........................................
1 9 6 8 ................ .......................
1969
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.8
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.0
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.1
.9
1.1
1.0
9
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.0
9
1.0
1.1
.9
9
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11.
Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufac
turing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the
changes shown by the Bureau's employment series for the following reasons: (1) The
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
labor turnover series measures changes during the calendar month, while the employ
ment series measures changes from midmonth to midmonth and (2) the turnover
series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series
reflects the influence of such stoppages.
NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
16.
LABOR TURNOVER
101
Labor turnover rates 1 in manufacturing, by major industry group
[P er 100 em ployees]
Accession rates
Major industry group
Total
Oct.
1969
M A N U FA C TU R IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Seasonally adjusted............ .
Durable g o o d s .,................... .
Ordnance and
accessories.....................
Lumber and wood
products..................... ..
Furniture and fixtures___
Stone, clay, and glass
products.........................
Sept.
1969
Separation rates
To ta l
New hires
Oct.
1968
Oct.
1969
Sept.
1969
Oct.
1968
Oct.
1969
Sept.
1969
Quits
Oct.
1968
Oct.
1969
Sept.
1969
Layoffs
Oct.
1968
Oct.
1969
Sept.
1969
5.0
4.8
5.9
4.8
5.0
4.8
4.0
3.6
4.8
3.8
4.0
3.6
5.3
5.0
6.6
4.8
4.9
4.6
3.0
2.8
4.4
2.5
2.8
2.6
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
4.5
5.4
4.7
3.8
4.4
3.8
4.9
6.1
4.5
2.7
4.0
2.5
1.1
.9
Oct.
1968
1
?
1.2
1 .0
2.3
2.8
3.5
1.5
2.1
2.8
3.6
5.2
3.5
1.7
2.9
1.9
1.1
1.4
.7
5.7
6.8
7.1
8.5
6.8
7.7
5.0
6.1
6.4
7.8
6.2
7.1
6.4
6.6
8.9
8.8
6.9
6.8
4.3
4.7
6.7
6.8
4.8
4.9
1.1
.5
1 0
.6
1 o
.6
5.2
5.7
4.6
4.3
5.0
3.9
5.6
7.2
4.8
3.3
5.1
2.9
1.1
.9
.8
4.0
4.6
4.1
3.3
3.6
2.4
4.1
5.8
4.4
2.3
4.0
1.8
.5
.5
1.7
5.7
6.7
5.9
5.0
5.7
5.0
6.1
7.2
5.4
3.5
4.8
3.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
3.8
4.2
4.4
5.2
3.6
4.2
3.2
3.4
3.6
4.3
2.8
3.3
3.7
4.6
4.8
5.4
3.5
3.9
2.0
2.5
3.1
3.7
1.8
2.2
7
1.0
6
.5
8
.6
4.2
5.1
4.7
3.1
3.4
3.4
5.0
5.7
4.3
2.0
2.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.3
3.4
3.9
3.4
2.9
3.3
3.1
4.2
4.9
3.1
2.8
3.1
1.9
.7
.7
.5
Miscellaneous manufa c tu rin g ......................
6.8
8.0
6.8
5.9
7.0
6.1
6.9
8.1
6.3
4.6
5.8
3.9
1.1
1.0
1.1
Nondurable goods.................. .
5.6
6.6
5.5
4.5
5.3
4.3
5.8
7.4
5.5
3.4
5.0
3.2
1.5
1.4
1.5
8.3
4.4
6.1
10.2
8.8
6.5
7.9
7.4
5.8
6.3
3.7
5.0
7.9
5.9
5.3
5.7
4.5
4.8
9.2
4.8
6.2
10.9
6.3
7.0
9.0
5.9
5.5
4.7
2.4
4.4
6.9
3.9
5.2
4.3
2 2
4.0
3 6
1 5
.8
?
14
.7
3 8
2.8
.6
5.5
6.2
5.5
4.0
4.6
4.1
5.7
7.1
5.6
3.2
4.3
3.2
1.7
1.9
1.6
4.6
4.0
5.3
5.1
4.5
4.0
4.1
3.6
4.8
4.5
4.2
3.5
4 .4
6.7
5.0
4.1
3.7
2.8
2.4
5.0
3.7
2.7
2.4
6
J j
4
.6
.5
.7
Primary metal industries.
Fabricated metal
products.........................
Machinery, except
electrical______ _____
Electrical equipment____
Transportation equipm ent...............................
Instruments and related
products____________
Food and kindred
products.........................
Tobacco m anufactures...
Textile m ill products........
Apparel and other textile
products........... .............
Paper and allied
p ro d u c ts .......................
Printing and publishing..
Chemicals and allied
products........... .............
Petroleum and coal
products_____ ____ _
Rubber a n d p l a s t i c s
products, n.e.c...............
Leather and leather
products..................... ..
2.5
3.1
2.7
2.1
2.7
2.3
2.7
4.5
2.6
1.5
3.2
1.5
.5
.5
.4
2.8
2.9
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.2
4.2
2.5
1.3
2.8
1.3
.3
.3
.5
6.1
7.0
5.9
5.3
6.2
5.2
6.0
7.7
5.5
4.0
5.5
3.6
.7
.6
.5
7.1
7.2
6 .6
4.8
5.3
5.3
7.6
9.5
5.9
4.5
5.8
4.2
1.9
2.5
.7
1 F o r co m p a ra b ility of data w ith th ose p u b lish e d in issu es p rio r to A u g u s t 1969, s e e
fo o tn o te 1, ta b le 11. Fo r re la tio n s h ip to e m p lo y m e n t s e rie s see footn ote 1, ta b le 15.
870-3516 O— 70-----8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3.8
9
N O T E : D ata fo r th e c u rre n t m onth are p re lim in a ry . F o r ad d itio n a l d etail see E m p lo y
m en t and Earn in g s, ta b le D -2 .
102
17.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
HOURS AND EARNINGS
Gross hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry
division, 1947 to date
Year
W e e k ly
h o u rs
W e e k ly
e a r n in g s
A ve ra g e s
A v e ra g e s
A v e ra g e s
H o u r ly
e a r n in g s
W e e k ly
e a r n in g s
W e e k ly
H o u r ly
e a r n in g s
h o u rs
W e e k ly
W e e k ly
e a r n in g s
h o u rs
H o u r ly
e a r n in g s
W e e k ly
e a r n in g s
Durable goods
Manufacturing
Total private
A v e ra g e s
W e e k ly
H o u r ly
h o u rs
e a r n in g s
Nondurable goods
1Q47
mai!
1Q4Q
1950......................................
$45. 58
49. 00
50.24
53.13
40.3
40.0
39.4
39.8
$1.131
1.225
1.275
1.335
$49.17
53.12
53. 88
58. 32
40.4
40.0
39.1
40.5
$1.217
1.328
1.378
1.440
$51.76
56. 36
57.25
62.43
40.5
40.4
39.4
41.1
$1.278
1.395
1.453
1.519
$46.03
49. 50
50. 38
53.48
40.2
39.6
38.9
39.7
$1.145
1.250
1.295
1.347
1951
195?
1959
1954
1955.................. - .................
57.86
60.65
63.76
64.52
67.72
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
63. 34
67.16
70. 47
70.49
75.70
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.65
1.74
1.78
1.86
68. 48
72.63
76.63
76.19
82.19
41.5
41.5
41.2
40.1
41.3
1.65
1.75
1.86
1.90
1.99
56. 88
59.95
62.57
63.18
66.63
39.5
39.7
39.6
39.0
39.9
1.44
1.51
1.58
1.62
1.67
1956
1957
1958
1959 2
I960......................................
70.74
73.33
75.08
78.78
80.67
39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6
1.80
1.89
1.95
2.02
2.09
78.78
81.59
82.71
88.26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.05
2.11
2.19
2.26
85. 28
88.26
89.27
96.05
97.44
41.0
40.3
39.5
40.7
40.1
2. 08
2.19
2.26
2.36
2. 43
70.09
72. 52
74.11
78.61
80. 36
39.6
39.2
38.8
39.7
39.2
1.77
1.85
1.91
1.98
2.05
1961
1962
1963
1964
........
1965......................................
82.60
85.91
88. 46
91.33
95. 06
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
2.14
2. 22
2.28
2. 36
2.45
92. 34
96. 56
99.63
102.97
107. 53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2. 32
2. 39
2. 46
2. 53
2.61
100. 35
104.70
108. 09
112.19
117.18
40.3
40.9
41.1
41.4
42.0
2.49
2.56
2.63
2.71
2.79
82.92
85.93
87.91
90.91
94.64
39.3
39.6
39.6
39.7
40.1
2.11
2.17
2. 22
2.29
2. 36
1966
1967
1968........ .............................
98. 82
101. 84
107. 73
38.6
38.0
37.8
2.56
2.68
2. 85
112. 34
114.90
122. 51
41.3
40.6
40.7
2.72
2.83
3.01
122. 09
123.60
132. 07
42.1
41.2
41.4
2.90
3. 00
3.19
98. 49
102.03
109.05
40.2
39.7
39.8
2.45
2. 57
2. 74
Wholesale and retail trade
Contract construction
Mining
$43.21
45. 48
47.63
50. 52
37.9
37.9
37.8
37.7
$1.140
1.200
1.260
1.340
1.18
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.40
54.67
57.08
59. 57
62.04
63.92
37.7
37.8
37.7
37.6
37.6
1.45
1. 51
1. 58
1.65
1.70
39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
1.47
1.54
1.60
1.66
1.71
65.68
67. 53
70.12
72.74
75.14
36.9
36.7
37.1
37.3
37.2
1.78
1.84
1.89
1.95
2.02
67.41
69.91
72.01
74.28
76. 53
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.96
2. 03
77.12
80.94
84.38
85.79
88.91
36.9
37.3
3 /. b
37.3
37.2
2.09
2.17
2.25
2.30
2. 39
79. 02
81.76
86.40
37.1
36.5
36.0
2.13
2.24
2.40
92.13
95.46
101.75
37.3
37.0
37.0
2.47
2. 58
2.75
1947
1948
1949
1950......................................
$59.94
65.56
62.33
67.16
40.8
39.4
36.3
37.9
$1.469
1.664
1.717
1.772
$58.87
65.27
67. 56
69.68
38.2
38.1
37.7
37.4
$1. 541
1.713
1.792
1.863
$38. 07
40. 80
42.93
44. 55
40.5
40.4
40.5
40.5
$0.940
1.010
1.060
1.100
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955.................... ..............
74.11
77. 59
83. 03
82. 60
89.54
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7
1.93
2. 01
2.14
2.14
2.20
76.96
82.86
86.41
88.91
90.90
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
2. 02
2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45
47. 79
49.20
51.35
53. 33
55.16
40.5
40.0
39.5
39.5
39.4
1956
............
1957
..................
1958
..................
1959 2
.................
I9 6 0 ................................ ..
95.06
98.65
96. 08
103.68
105. 44
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2.33
2. 46
2.47
2.56
2.61
96.38
100.27
103. 78
108.41
113.04
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2. 57
2.71
2. 82
2.93
3. 08
57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66.01
1961
...............
_________ _____
1962
1963
.............................
1964
.................. .......
1965........ .............................
106.92
110. 43
114. 40
117.74
123. 52
40.5
40.9
41.6
41.9
42.3
2.64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92
118. 08
122.47
127.19
132. 06
138. 38
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
3.20
3.31
3.41
3. 55
3.70
1966 ..................................
1967....................................
1968.....................................
130. 24
135. 89
143.05
42.7
42.6
4 ,7
3.05
3.19
3.35
146. 26
154.95
164. 56
37.6
37.7
37.4
3. 89
4.11
4.40
i F o r c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f d a t a w it h t h o s e p u b li s h e d in i s s u e s p r i o r t o A u g u s t 1 9 6 9 , s e e
fo o t n o t e 1, t a b le 11.
D a t a r e la t e t o p r o d u c t io n
Finance, insurance, and real estate
m e n t o n p r i v a t e n o n a g r ic u l t u r a l p a y r o l ls . T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s , a n d s e r v
i c e s a r e i n c l u d e d in t o t a l p r i v a t e b u t a r e n o t s h o w n s e p a r a t e ly in t h i s t a b l e .
w o r k e r s in
w o r k e r s in c o n t r a c t c o n s t r u c t io n , a n d
r e la t e d t r a d e , f in a n c e , i n s u r a n c e , a n d
m in i n g
and
m a n u fa c t u r in g ; to
c o n s t r u c t io n
t o n o n s u p e r v i s o r y w o r k e r s i n w h o le s a l e a n d
r e a l e s t a t e ; t r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b li c u t i l i t i e s
a n d s e r v ic e s . T h e s e g r o u p s a c c o u n t f o r a p p r o x im a t e l y f o u r - f i f t h s o f t h e t o t a l e m p lo y
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 D a t a i n c l u d e A l a s k a a n d H a w a i i b e g in n in g 1 9 5 9 .
NO TE:
F o r a d d it i o n a l d e t a i l s e e E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , t a b l e C - l .
HOURS AND EARNINGS 1 0 3
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
18.
Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group
1969
1968
Annual average
Industry division and group
Nov
TOTAL PRIVATE........................
37.5
Oct.
Sept.
37.7
38.0
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
1967
38.1
38.0
37.7
37.5
37.6
37.2
37.5
37.8
37.5
37.8
38.0
43.7
43.1
42.5
43.5
43.6
42.2
42.5
42.9
43.3
42.8
42.7
42.6
38.2
MINING...................................
43.4
43.4
43.5
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION........
37.0
38.3
39.3
39.2
38.8
38.5
38.2
37.6
37.2
36.6
36.7
37.1
35.1
37.4
37.7
MANUFACTURING.....................
Overtime hours.................
40.6
3.5
40.7
3.7
41.0
4.0
40.6
3.7
40.5
3.5
40.9
3.7
40.7
3.6
40.5
3.5
40.7
3.5
40.0
3.3
40.4
3.6
41.1
3.9
40.9
3.9
40.7
3.6
40.6
3.4
Durable Goods.................... ~ ~
Overtime hours...............
41.2
3.6
41.4
3.9
41.7
4.2
41.1
3.8
40.9
3.6
41.5
3.9
41.4
3.7
41.2
3.6
41.4
3.7
40.8
3.6
41.1
3.7
41.7
4.1
41.7
4.2
41.4
3.8
41.2
3.5
Ordnance and accessories----Lumber and wood products...
Furniture and fixtures..........
Stone, clay, and glass
products....................—
40.7
40.1
40.2
40.4
40.3
40.6
40.6
40.4
40.7
40.2
40.2
40.8
39.8
39.7
39.7
40.8
40.7
40.8
40.6
40.7
40.4
40.5
40.2
40.1
40.6
40.7
40.4
40.1
40.0
39.7
40.4
39.6
40.0
41.8
40.9
41.3
41.7
40.2
40.9
41.5
40.6
40.6
41.7
40.2
40.4
41.7
42.2
42.6
42.6
41.9
42.4
42.4
41.9
41.7
41.3
41.1
41.9
41.8
41.8
41.6
Primary metal industries.......
Fabricated metal products__
Machinery, except electrical..
Electrical equipment and
supplies........................ .
Transportation equipment—
Instruments and related
products______________
41.5
41.7
42.6
41.7
41.8
42.4
42.1
42.1
42.7
41.8
41.7
42.0
41.6
41.2
41.8
42.0
42.0
42.6
41.9
41.7
42.6
42.1
41.4
42.6
42.0
41.6
43.0
41.5
40.8
42.4
41.8
41.4
42.4
41.6
42 0
42.7
41.2
42.3
42.3
41.6
41.7
42.1
41.1
41.5
42.6
40.3
41.2
40.4
42.0
40.7
42.3
40.3
40.5
39.8
41.6
40.7
41.6
40.5
41.3
40.3
41.0
40.6
41.2
39.7
41.0
40.3
41.5
40.8
42.6
40.7
43.2
40.3
42.2
40.2
41.4
41.4
40.9
41.2
40.7
40.5
41.0
40.7
40.5
40.7
39.7
40.5
40.9
40.9
40.5
41.3
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries.........................
39.5
39.4
39.2
39.1
38.4
39.2
39.0
39.1
39.1
37.7
38.7
39.2
39.6
3.93
39.4
Nondurable goods.....................
Overtime hours............ .
39.7
3.3
39.7
3.4
40.0
3.7
39.9
3.5
39.8
3.4
39.9
3.4
39.7
3.3
39.4
3.2
39.7
3.2
38.9
3.0
39.4
3.3
40.1
3.5
39.9
3.5
39.8
3.3
39.7
3.1
Food and kindred products...
Tobacco manufactures_____
Textile mill products.............
Apparel and other textile
products.............. ............
41.0
37.7
41.0
40.9
38.5
40.9
41.8
38.9
41.0
41.4
37.5
41.0
41.2
37.7
40.7
40.9
39.9
41.4
40.6
37.6
40.9
40.1
35.8
40.4
40.3
35.6
40.9
40.0
36.2
39.9
40.3
36.2
40.4
41.1
37.7
41.6
40.8
37.5
41.4
40.8
37.8
41.2
40.9
38.6
40.9
36.3
35.9
36.3
36.1
35.9
36.3
35.2
35.7
36.0
36.0
36.1
36.0
43.0
38.3
41.7
42.7
42.1
37.7
41.5
41.7
42.9
37.9
41.6
41.3
43.6
38.9
42.1
42.1
43.2
38.4
42.0
42.6
42.9
38.3
41.8
42.5
42.8
38.4
41.6
42.7
41.3
37.7
41.9
38.4
41.7
37.9
41.5
38.3
41.4
38.1
35.7
36.1
35.8
43.2
38.6
41.7
42.6
43.0
38.6
41.7
42.9
43.0
38.4
41.7
43.6
43.0
38.4
41.8
42.5
43.0
38.3
41.9
43.3
42.9
38.1
41.9
43.2
Paper and allied products___
Printing and publishing.........
Chemicals and allied products.
Petroleum and coal products.
Rubber and plastics prod
ucts, nec...........................
Leather and leather products.
42.8
38.5
41.8
42.2
43.0
38.4
41.7
42.6
41.1
37.6
41.2
36.9
41.5
36.8
41.0
37.1
40.8
37.4
41.3
37.8
41.2
37.3
41.0
36.5
41.1
37.3
40.3
35.7
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.
35.1
35.3
35.7
36.6
36.5
35.9
35.4
35.3
35.4
35.3
35.5
35.9
35.5
36.0
36.5
40.5
35.3
40.3
35.2
40.1
34.5
40.0
33.9
40.0
33.8
40.0
33.9
39.9
33.8
40.0
34.0
40.3
34.6
40.0
34.1
40.1
34.7
40.3
35.3
37.0
37.1
37.1
37.0
37.1
37.1
37.1
37.2
37.1
37.0
37.0
Wholesale trade....................
Retail trade.......... ...............
40.3
33.5
40.2
33.6
40.3
34.2
FINANCE. INSURANCE. AND REAL
ESTATE..... ..........................
37.3
37.1
37.0
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 196S,
see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36.9
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail, see
Employment and Earnings, table C-2
104
19.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
HOURS AND EARNINGS
Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
1969
1968
Industry division and group
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
Ju ly
June
May
A p r.
M ar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
T O T A L P R IVA TE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 7.6
3 7.6
3 7 .8
3 7 .8
3 7 .8
3 7 .8
3 7 .8
3 7 .8
3 7 .8
3 7.5
3 7 .8
3 7 .6
3 7 .6
M IN IN G ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 3 .8
42.9
4 3.2
4 3 .2
4 2 .6
4 2 .0
4 3 .4
4 3 .8
4 2 .8
4 3.3
4 3 .3
4 3 .3
4 3 .2
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N .................................
38.1
3 7 .4
38.1
3 7.9
3 7 .5
3 7.6
38.1
3 8 .0
3 7 .9
3 8 .0
3 8.2
3 7 .6
3 6 .2
M A N U FA C TU R IN G ............ ....... . ..................
4 0.5
3 .4
4 0.5
3 .5
4 0.8
3 .7
4 0 .6
3 .7
4 0 .7
3 .6
40.7
3 .6
4 0 .7
3 .6
4 0 .8
3 .7
4 0 .9
3 .7
40.1
3 .5
4 0 .6
3 .8
4 0 .8
3 .7
4 0 .8
3 .8
O vertim e h o u rs.................................................
41.1
3 .4
41.2
3 .7
4 1 .5
3 .9
4 1.3
3 .8
4 1 .2
3 .8
4 1.3
3 .9
4 1.4
3 .8
41.4
3 .8
4 1 .5
3 .9
40.9
3 .8
4 1.3
3 .8
4 1 .3
3 .9
4 1.6
4 .0
Ordnance and a c c e s s o rie s .....................................
L u m b e r and wood p r o d u c t s .. . ................ ...............
F u rn itu re and fix tu re s ------------- ---------- ---------------S tone, cla y, and glass p ro du cts___________
.
P rim a ry m etal in d u s trie s ------------ ----------------------Fabricated m etal p ro du cts .............................. ..........
M achinery, except e le c tric a l------- ---------- ---------- E lectrical e q u ip m e n t and su p p lie s ..........................
T ra n spo rta tion e q u ip m e n t____________________
In s tru m e n ts and related p ro d u c ts ...................... ..
4 0.4
4 0.5
39.8
41.7
4 1.8
4 1.5
42.6
39.9
40.4
41.2
40.2
39.9
39.9
41.7
42.2
41.5
4 2.4
4 0.2
4 1.4
40.7
4 0.4
40.1
40.1
42.1
4 2.2
4 1 .5
42.7
4 0.5
4 1.8
4 1.0
4 0 .4
3 9.8
4 0.3
42.1
4 2 .0
41.6
4 2.6
4 0.4
4 1.2
40.9
4 0 .2
3 9 .7
40.1
4 1.7
4 1 .5
4 1.6
4 2 .2
4 0 .3
4 2 .3
4 0.9
4 0.9
4 0.2
40.7
41.9
41.7
4 1.8
4 2.5
4 0.6
4 1.6
4 0.9
4 0 .6
4 0.3
4 0.9
42.1
41.7
4 1.6
42.6
4 0.6
41.1
4 0 .8
4 0.9
40.2
40.9
4 2.0
4 1.8
41.8
42.6
40.9
41.5
4 0.8
4 0.8
4 0 .9
40.7
4 2.3
4 1 .9
4 1.9
42.7
4 0 .7
4 1.6
4 0 .7
4 0.3
4 0 .8
40.1
4 2 .2
4 1 .6
4 1.2
4 2 .3
3 9.7
4 1 .6
39.7
4 0 .0
4 0 .0
4 0 .6
4 1.8
4 1 .7
4 1.8
4 2.5
4 0.4
4 1.4
4 0.7
4 1 .3
41.1
4 0 .5
4 2 .0
4 1 .6
4 1.7
4 2 .2
4 0.2
4 1 .8
4 0 .5
4 1 .4
4 0 .6
4 0 .5
4 1 .8
4 1 .4
42.1
4 2.3
4 0 .3
4 2 .3
4 0 .7
M iscellaneous m a n u fa ctu rin g in d u s trie s _______
39.1
3 8.9
3 9 .0
3 9 .0
3 9.1
3 9.2
39.1
3 9.5
3 9 .0
3 7 .6
3 9.2
3 9 .0
3 9 .2
Nondurable Goods................. ........................
O vertim e h ou rs................................................
3 9.5
3 .2
3 9.5
3 .2
39.7
3 .3
3 9 .6
3 .4
3 9 .7
3 .4
3 9.8
3 .4
3 9 .8
3 .4
3 9 .8
3 .4
3 9.9
3 .4
39.1
3 .2
3 9 .8
3 .6
3 9.9
3 .4
3 9 .7
3 .4
Food and kin d re d p ro d u c ts .....................................
Tobacco m a n ufa ctu re s------------ ----------- -------------T e x tile m ill p ro du cts............................................... ..
A pp a rel and o th e r te x tile pro du cts.........................
4 0 .8
37.7
40.7
35.7
40.7
37.3
40.6
3 6.0
4 1.0
3 7 .4
4 0.8
3 5.8
4 0.9
3 7.2
4 0.9
3 5.9
4 0 .6
3 8 .2
4 1 .2
3 6 .0
4 0.7
3 9 .5
4 1.2
3 6.2
4 0.8
38.1
4 1 .0
36.1
40.9
3 6.4
41.1
3 6 .0
4 0 .9
3 6 .5
4 0 .9
3 6 .0
4 0 .7
3 6 .6
3 9 .9
3 5.2
4 0 .6
3 7.2
4 0 .6
3 6.2
4 0 .9
37.1
4 1.2
36.1
4 0 .6
3 7.5
41.1
3 6 .0
Paper and a llie d p ro du cts ................. ........................
P rin tin g and p u b lis h in g ..................................... .. ._
Chem icals and a llie d pro du cts.................................
Petroleum and coal p ro d u c ts .......................... .. .
Rubber and plastics products, nec______ ______
L eather and le a th e r p ro du cts....................................
4 2.6
3 8.5
41.7
42.2
4 0.8
3 7.6
42.7
38.3
41.7
4 2.5
4 0.8
3 7.2
4 2.8
3 8.3
4 1.6
4 2.0
4 1.0
37.1
4 2.8
3 8.4
41.9
4 2.8
4 0.9
3 6.8
4 3 .0
3 8 .5
4 1 .9
4 2 .9
4 1 .2
3 7 .0
4 2.9
3 8 .4
4 1.8
4 2.2
4 1.3
3 7 .4
4 3 .0
3 8 .4
41.8
4 3 .0
4 1 .4
3 7 .6
4 3.4
38.3
41.6
4 2.9
4 1.4
3 7.7
4 3.2
3 8.3
41.7
4 3 .2
4 1.4
3 7 .6
4 2 .5
3 7 .9
4 1.7
4 2.6
4 0.7
3 5.3
4 3 .5
3 8.4
4 1.9
4 1.8
4 1.5
3 7 .6
4 3.2
3 8.5
4 1 .9
4 2.7
4 1.5
3 7 .8
4 3 .0
3 8 .4
4 1 .9
4 2.6
4 1 .4
3 7 .9
O vertim e h ou rs......... .......................................
Durable Goods..... ...........................................
W H O L E S A L E AN D R ET A IL T R A D E ....... . ............ ..
3 5 .4
3 5.5
3 5.7
3 5 .8
3 5 .7
35.7
3 5 .7
3 5.6
3 5.7
3 5.7
3 5 .8
3 5.7
3 5 .8
Wholesale Trade......................................... .
Retail trade....................... . ...........................
40.3
3 3.9
40.2
3 3 .8
4 0.3
3 4.2
4 0 .3
3 4 .3
4 0 .0
3 4 .2
4 0 .0
3 4 .2
40.1
3 4 .3
4 0.2
34.1
40.1
3 4.3
40.1
3 4.2
4 0.1
3 4 .4
4 0 .0
3 4 .3
4 0 .0
3 4 .5
FIN A N CE , IN SU R A N C E, AN D R E A L E S T A T E ..............
3 7.3
37.1
37.1
3 7 .0
3 7 .0
3 7 .2
3 7 .0
37.1
37.1
37.1
3 7.2
3 7 .0
3 6 .9
i F o r c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f d a t a w it h t h o s e p u b li s h e d i n i s s u e s p r i o r t o A u g u s t , 1 9 6 9 , s e e
f o o t n o t e 1 , t a b l e 1 1 . F o r e m p lo y e e s c o v e r e d , s e e f o o t n o t e 1 , t a b l e 1 7 .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N O T E : D a t a f o r t h e 2 m o s t r e c e n t m o n t h s a r e p r e li m i n a r y ,
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
20.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
105
Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls bv
industry division and major manufacturing group
’ 3
1969
1968
A n n u a l a v e ra g e
I n d u s t r y a n d d iv is io n g r o u p
T O T A L P R IV A TE ........ . ....... .
N ov.
O ct.
S e p t.
Aug.
J u ly
Ju n e
M ay
A p r.
M a r.
Feb.
Ja n .
D ec.
Nov.
1968
$ 3 .1 0
$ 3 .0 3
1967
$ 3 .1 1
$ 3 .1 1
$ 3 .0 5
$ 3 .0 4
$ 3 .0 1
$ 2 .9 8
$ 2 .9 7
$ 2 .9 6
$ 2 .9 4
$ 2 .9 2
$ 2 .9 2
$ 2 .8 5
$ 2 .6 8
M I N I N G ............. .......... .........
3 .6 8
3 .6 8
3 .6 3
3 .5 9
3 .5 8
3 .5 5
3. 57
3 .5 5
3 .5 2
3 .5 2
3. 50
3 .4 9
3 .4 7
3 .3 5
3 .1 9
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N _ _ _
4 .9 4
4 .9 4
4 .9 1
4 .7 9
4 .7 4
4 .7 1
4 .7 1
4 .6 4
4 .6 2
4 .5 6
4. 58
4 .5 5
4 .5 4
4 .4 0
4 .1 1
M A N U F A C TU R IN G .............. ......
3 .2 6
3 .2 5
3 .2 4
3 .1 9
3 .1 9
3 .1 7
3 .1 6
3 .1 5
3 .1 3
3 .1 2
3 .1 2
3 .1 1
3 .0 8
3 .0 1
2 .8 3
3 .4 6
3 .4 4
3. 44
3 .3 9
3 .3 7
3 .3 6
3 .3 5
3 .3 3
3 .3 2
3 .3 1
3 .3 1
3 .3 0
3 .2 7
3 .1 9
3 .0 0
s o r i e s . ____________________
Lu m b e r and w ood
3 .5 2
3 .5 0
3. 49
3 .4 6
3 .4 4
3 .4 5
3 .4 2
3 .4 1
3 .3 8
3 .3 8
3 .3 6
3 .3 8
3 .3 3
3 .2 7
3 .1 8
p r o d u c t s ____________________
F u r n i t u r e a n d f i x t u r e s ............
2 .8 4
2 .8 2
2 .8 3
2 .7 8
2. 74
2 .7 1
2 .6 8
2 .6 2
2 .6 2
2. 57
2 .5 6
2 .5 9
2 .5 4
2 .6 3
2 .6 4
2 .6 1
2 .5 4
2 .6 2
2 .6 8
2 .6 4
2 .5 8
2 .6 5
2 .6 9
2 .6 8
2 .6 0
2 .3 7
2 .5 5
2 .5 3
2 .4 7
2 .3 3
3 .2 7
3 .2 6
3 .2 5
3 .2 1
3 .1 8
3 .1 7
3 .1 7
3 .1 4
3 .1 0
3 .0 6
3 .0 5
3 .0 6
3 .0 5
2 .9 9
2 .8 2
t r i e s _______ ____________ _____
F a b r ic a t e d m e t a l
3 .8 5
3 .8 5
3. 87
3 .8 4
3 .7 9
3 .7 6
3 .7 5
3 .7 4
3 .7 1
3 .6 9
3 .7 0
3 .6 7
3 .6 2
3 .5 5
3 .3 4
p r o d u c t s ................................. ..
3 .4 1
3 .3 9
3 .3 9
3 .3 3
3 .3 2
3 .3 3
3 .3 1
3 .2 9
3 .2 8
3 .2 6
3 .2 6
3 .2 5
3 .2 4
M a c h in e r y , e x c e p t
.................. .........
e le c t r ic a l
3 .1 6
2 .9 8
3 .6 9
3 .6 7
3 .6 3
3 .5 7
3 .5 5
3 .5 6
3 .5 6
3 .5 4
3 .5 2
3 .5 1
3 .4 8
3 .4 7
3 .4 5
3 .3 6
3 .1 9
Durable Goods__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O rd n a n c e a n d a c ce s-
S t o n e , c la y , a n d g la s s
p ro d u c ts
___________________
P r im a r y m e t a l in d u s -
E le c t r ic a l e q u ip m e n t a n d
s u p p lie s
................
T r a n s p o r t a t io n e q u ip -
3 .1 4
3 .1 3
3 .1 3
3 .0 9
3 .0 9
3. 08
3 .0 7
3 .0 5
3. 04
3 .0 4
3 .0 4
3 .0 3
3. 00
2 .9 3
2 .7 7
m e n t ________ ______________
I n s t r u m e n t s a n d r e la t e d
p r o d u c t s ....................................
3 .9 9
3 .9 6
3 .9 5
3 .9 3
3 .9 1
3 .8 6
3 .8 3
3 .8 4
3 .8 2
3 .8 3
3 .8 6
3 .8 7
3 .8 2
3 .6 9
3 .4 4
3 .2 4
3 .2 2
3 .2 0
3 .1 6
3 .1 4
3 .1 5
3 .1 3
3 .1 1
3 .1 0
3 .1 0
3 .0 8
3. 08
3 .0 5
2 .9 8
2 .8 5
M i s c e l la n e o u s m a n u f a c t u r i n g i n d u s t r i e s ...... ............
2 .7 0
2 .6 9
2 .6 7
2 .6 4
2 .6 4
2 .6 5
2 .6 4
2 .6 2
2 .6 1
2 .6 1
2 .6 0
2 .5 8
2 .5 3
2 .5 0
2 .3 5
Nondurable Goods........ .......
2 .9 7
2 .9 6
2 .9 5
2 .9 2
2 .9 2
2 .8 9
2 .8 8
2 .8 7
2 .8 5
2 .8 4
2 .8 3
2 .8 2
2 .8 0
2 .7 4
2 .5 7
p r o d u c t s ........... ...................
T o b a c c o m a n u f a c t u r e s ...........
3 .0 0
2 .9 6
2. 54
2 .4 1
2 .9 3
2 .9 7
2 .7 7
2 .9 4
2 .9 5
2 .9 4
2 .9 1
2 .8 7
2 55
2 .8 0
2 .4 9
2 .2 8
2 .2 8
? 5?
2. 27
2 .6 4
2 .3 1
2 .3 0
2 .6 3
2 .2 7
2 .5 7
2 .3 9
2. 74
2 .3 0
2 .6 8
2 .3 5
2 .9 3
2 .6 6
2 .2 9
2 .9 1
2 .7 9
2 .4 2
2 .9 7
2 .5 2
2 .4 1
2 .5 2
T e x t i l e m i l l p r o d u c t s ...............
A p p a re l a n d o th e r te x t i l e p r o d u c t s ............................
2 .2 1
2 .0 6
2 .3 4
2 .3 5
2 .3 5
2 .3 1
2 .2 9
2 .3 0
2 .2 9
2 .2 8
2 .2 9
2 .2 7
2 .2 8
2 .2 6
2 .2 6
2 .2 1
2 .0 3
2 .8 7
F o o d a n d k in d r e d
2 .6 3
2 .8 5
2 .2 7
P a p e r a n d a llie d
p r o d u c t s ....................................
3 .3 2
3 .3 1
3 .3 1
3. 28
3 .2 6
3 .2 2
3 .1 9
3 .1 7
3 .1 5
3 .1 4
3 .1 5
3 .1 4
P r i n t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g _____
3 .7 7
3 .7 7
3 .1 2
3 .7 5
3 .7 0
3 .6 8
3 .6 8
3 .6 6
3 .6 4
3 .0 5
3 .6 3
3 .6 1
3 .5 9
3 .5 9
C h e m i c a ls a n d a l li e d
p r o d u c t s ................ ................ ..
P e t r o le u m a n d c o a l
3 .5 5
3 .4 8
3 .2 8
3 . 57
3. 54
3 . 52
3 .4 9
3 .4 9
3 .4 6
3. 43
3 .4 0
3 .3 8
3 .3 7
3 .3 7
3 .3 6
3 .3 3
3 .2 6
3 .1 0
4. 00
4. 04
4. 00
4. 03
4 .0 3
3 .9 5
3 .8 7
3 .6 9
3 .7 9
3 .8 0
3 .7 5
3 .5 8
3 .0 4
3 .0 2
3 .0 0
3 .0 1
3 .0 2
3 .0 1
2 .9 9
2 .9 2
2 .7 4
p r o d u c t s _________ _________
R u b b e r a n d p la s t ic s
p r o d u c t s , n e c ..........................
L e a t h e r a n d le a t h e r
4 .0 7
4 .0 6
4. 0 4
3 .1 3
3 .1 2
3 .1 3
3 .0 9
3 .0 9
3. 05
2 .3 5
2 .3 4
2 .3 5
2 .3 5
2 .3 5
2 .3 4
2 .3 3
2 .3 2
2 .3 0
2 .2 7
2 .2 3
2 .0 7
2 .5 5
2. 54
2 .5 2
2 .5 1
2 .5 1
2 .4 9
2 .4 5
2 .4 6
2 .4 0
2 .2 4
p r o d u c t s ...... .............................
2. 42
2 .4 0
2 .3 8
W H O L E S A L E AN D R ETAIL T R A D E .
2 .6 2
2 .6 1
2 .5 9
2 .5 6
2 .5 5
Wholesale trade....................
Retail trade..............
3 .3 2
2 .3 5
3 .2 9
2 .3 4
3. 29
3 .2 4
2 .3 0
3 .2 3
3 .2 4
3 .2 0
3 .1 8
3 .1 6
3 .1 6
3 .1 2
2 .3 0
2 .3 0
2 .2 9
2 .2 7
3 .0 5
2 .2 6
2 .2 6
2 .2 4
3 .1 2
2 .2 1
3 .1 1
2 .3 3
2 .2 2
2 .1 6
2 .8 8
2 .0 1
2. 98
2 .9 5
2 .9 3
2 .9 2
2 .9 1
2 .9 3
2 .9 0
2. 88
2 .8 9
2 .9 0
2 .8 7
2 .8 3
2 .8 1
2 .7 5
2 .5 8
FIN A N CE , IN SU RA N CE, AND
R E A L E S T A T E ................
1For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail see
Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
106
21.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
HOURS AND EARNINGS
Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1969
1968
Annual average
Industry division and group
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
T O T A L PR IVA TE....................... $116.63 $117.25 $117.80 $116.51 $115.82 $115.14 $113.48 $111.75 $111.67 $110.11 $110.25 $110.38 $109. 50 $107.73
1967
$101.84
M IN IN G ..................................
159.71
159.71
157.91
156.88
154.30
150.88
155.30
154.78
148.54
149.60
150.15
151.12
148. 52
143.05
C O N T R A C T C O N ST R U C T IO N ........
182.78
189.20
192.96
187.77
183.91
181.34
179.92
174.46
171.86
166.90
168.09
168.81
159.35
164.56
154.95
M A N U F A C TU R IN G .....................
132.36
132.28
132.84
129.51
129.20
129.65
128.61
127.58
127.39
124.80
126.05
127.82
125.97
122.51
114.90
Durable goods.....................
142.55
142.42
143.45
139.33
137.83
139.44
138.69
137.20
137.45
135.05
136.04
137.61
136.36
132.07
123.60
O rd n a n ce and
a c c e s so rie s ....................
L u m b e r an d w ood
p ro d u cts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F u rn itu re a n d fix tu re s _ _ _
S to n e , c la y , an d g lass
p ro d u cts .......................
135.89
143.26
141.40
141.69
139.09
136.91
140.76
138.85
138.11
137.23
135.54
135.74
141.28
138.86
135.71
132.61
113.88
108.14
113.65
108. 81
114.33
109. 08
111.76
107.71
108.78
104. 01
110.30
106.90
109. 08
105. 04
106.13
103.46
107.86
103.42
104.40
100.84
102.56
101.60
107.16
105.32
105.73
103.48
104.34
100.28
95.27
94.13
136.36
137.57
138. 45
136.75
133.24
134.41
134.41
131.57
129.27
126.38
125.36
128.21
127.49
124.98
117.31
159.78
160. 55
162.93
160. 51
157.66
157.92
157.13
157.45
155.82
153.14
154.66
152.67
149.14
147.68
137.27
131.77
123.67
P rim a ry m etal in d u s trie s _ _
Fa b rica te d m etal
p ro d u cts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M a c h in e ry , e x ce p t
e le c tric a l.......................
E lectrica l e q u ip m e n t
a n d s u p p lie s ................ .
T ra n s p o rta tio n
e q u ip m e n t....................
In stru m en ts an d related
p ro d u cts .................... .
M isc e lla n e o u s m a n u fa c
tu rin g in d u s trie s .......... -
142.20
141.70
142.72
138.86
136.78
139.86
138.03
136.21
136.45
133.01
134.96
136.50
137.05
157.19
155.61
155.00
149.94
148.39
151.66
151.66
150.80
151.36
148.82
147.55
148.17
145.94
141.46
135.89
126.54
126.45
127.39
124.53
122.98
125. 36
124.34
122.92
123.42
120.69
122.51
123.62
122.10
118.08
111.35
Nondurable goods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
164.39
166.32
167.09
159.17
162.66
160. 58
158.18
157.44
157.38
157.03
160.19
164.86
165.02
155.72
142.42
134.14
131.70
131.84
128.61
127.17
129.15
127.39
125.96
126.17
123.07
124.74
125.97
124.75
120.69
117.71
106.65
105.99
104.66
103.22
101.38
103.88
102.96
102.44
102.05
98.40
100.62
101.14
100.19
98.25
92.59
117.91
117.51
118.00
116.51
116.22
115.31
114. 34
113.08
113.15
110.48
111.50
113.08
111.72
109.05
102.03
123. 00
99.15
99.22
121.47
97.02
98. 57
123.73
98.81
98. 81
121.30
94. 50
97.99
122.36
104. 43
95.65
120.25
111.32
95.63
119.77
103. 02
94. 07
117.89
95.94
92.92
118.08
94.70
93.66
116.40
95.21
90.57
117.27
93.03
92.11
117.96
96.14
94.85
116.28
94. 50
93.98
114.24
94.12
91.05
107.98
87.62
84.25
83. 54
84.84
84.13
83. 85
82.21
83.49
82.67
81.85
83.13
79.90
81.40
81.36
81.36
79.78
73.08
142.10
145.15
142.33
144.77
142.99
144. 75
141.04
142. 82
140.18
141.31
138.46
141.31
137.17
140.18
135.99
138.68
135.45
139.03
132.19
136.10
135.14
136.06
136.90
139.65
134.78
136.32
130 85
133.28
122.84
125.95
149.23
147.62
146.78
145. 53
145.53
144.63
143.72
142.46
140.95
139.86
140.19
141.46
139.86
136.27
128.96
171.75
172.96
172.10
171.60
176.14
170. 00
174.50
174.10
168.67
161.38
152.40
159.56
161.88
159.38
152.87
128.64
128.54
129.90
126.69
126.07
125.97
125.25
123.82
123.30
121.30
124.73
126.12
124.68
121.18
113.44
90.99
88.56
87.58
87.19
87.52
88.83
87.66
85.78
87.28
83.18
87.46
88.32
86.03
85.41
78.87
W H O LE S A L E AN D R ETA IL T R A D E .
91.96
92.13
92.46
93. 70
93.08
91.55
89.92
88.96
88.85
88.60
88.40
87.96
87.33
86.40
81.76
Wholesale tra d e ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Retail trade.........................
133.80
78.73
132.26
78.62
132. 59
79.69
131.22
81.19
130.17
80.96
129.92
79.35
128.00
77.63
127.20
76.73
126.40
76.61
126.08
76.39
124.80
76.16
125.74
76.47
124.40
75.70
122.31
74.95
116.06
70.95
FIN A N CE, IN SU R A N C E, A N D R EAL
E S T A T E ................................
111.15
109. 45
108.41
108.04
107.96
108.70
107.30
106.85
107.22
107.59
106.76
104.99
103.69
101.75
95.46
Food an d k in d re d
p ro d u cts .................... .
T o b a c co m a n u fa c tu re s .......
T e x tile m ill p ro d u cts..........
A p p a re l a n d o the r
tex tile p ro d u cts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P a p e r a n d a llie d
p ro d u cts .................... .
P rin tin g an d p u b lis h in g _ _ _
C h e m ic a ls an d a llie d
p ro d u cts .......... . ...........
P etro leu m an d coal
p ro d u cts .......................
R u b b e r an d p la stics
p ro d u cts, n e c ............. .
Le a th e r an d leath er
p ro d u cts ...................... -
i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail see
Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
HOURS AND EARNINGS
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
22.
107
Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural
payrolls, in current and 19 57 -59 dollars, 1960 to date
Total private
Manufacturing
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker w ith no
dependents
Year and month
Current
dollars
I9 6 0 ________________________
1961___ ________ ____________
1962________________________
1963________________________
1964________________________
$80.67
82.60
85.91
. 46
91.33
1965________________________
1966________________________
1967________________________
1968________________________
95.06
98.82
101.84
107.73
1968:
September_______________
October__________________
November________________
December________________
1969:
January__________________
February_________________
March___________________
A p ril_______ ____ _______
May_____________________
June____________________
July..................... ........... .........
August.................. ......... .........
September_______________
1
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
Current
dollars
1957-59
dollars
69.42
$77.70
78.87
81.15
82.08
85.27
71.87
71.87
71.69
71.54
86.30
90. 86
95.28
78.53
78.39
78.13
78.61
107.53
112. 34
114. 90
122. 51
97.84
99.33
98.80
101.08
89.08
91.57
93.28
97.70
81.06
80.96
80.21
80.61
96.78
99.45
101.26
106.75
88.06
87.93
87.07
88.08
72.32
71.79
71.02
71.37
97.30
97.15
96. 55
97.22
79. 62
79.05
78.24
78. 59
125.25
125.77
125.97
127.82
102. 50
102. 34
. 08
103.33
102
99.27
99.65
99.80
101.17
81.24
81.08
80.88
81.79
108.66
109. 06
109.22
110.65
88.92
88.74
88.51
89.45
70.72
70.35
70.70
70.30
71.08
71.59
71.65
71.76
72.16
96.68
96. 57
97.76
97.82
99.13
100. 40
100.92
101.45
102.44
77.90
77.50
77.83
77.39
78.18
78.68
78.72
78. 83
79.23
126. 05
124. 80
127.39
127. 58
128.61
129. 65
129.20
129. 51
132.84
101.57
100.16
101.43
100.93
101.43
101.61
100.78
100. 63
102.74
99. 36
98. 44
100. 34
100. 48
101.24
. 00
101.67
101.90
104.34
80. 06
79. 00
79.89
79.49
79.84
79.94
79.31
79.18
80.70
108.78
107. 82
109.81
109.95
110.74
111.54
87.66
86.53
87.43
.99
87.33
87.41
86.74
86.59
88.17
110.25
88.84
88.37
88.91
88.41
89. 50
90.24
90. 34
90. 53
91.11
87.76
87.65
66.00
66. 59
88.66
For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as
published in table 21 less the estimated amount of the workers’ Federal social security
and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax liability depends on the number of
dependents supported by the worker as well as on the level of his gross income, spend
able earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) A worker with
no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1957-59
dollars
$80.11
82.18
85.53
87.58
92.18
88.37
88.23
87.64
. 29
90.13
91.35
91.85
92.35
93. 30
Current
dollars
$70.39
71.59
73.87
74.81
78.08
90. 42
89.74
88.74
89.23
88. 80
88.86
1957-59
dollars
$72.57
74.60
77.86
79.82
84.40
110.49
110.29
109. 50
100.38
111.67
111.75
113. 48
115.14
115. 82
116. 51
117.80
Current
dollars
$87.02
88.62
91.61
93.37
95.25
87.37
87.57
88.89
110.11
1957-59
dollars
Worker with 3
dependents
$89.72
92.34
96. 56
99.63
102.97
78.99
81.29
83.38
86.71
88
Current
dollars
Worker with no
dependents
$70.77
71.48
73.05
73.63
76.38
$63.62
64.38
86. 50
Worker with 3
dependents
$72.96
74.48
76.99
78. 56
82. 57
$65.95
67. 08
69. 56
71.05
75. 04
88
$78.24
79.27
81.55
82.91
84. 49
Spendable average weekly earnings
weekly earnings
weekly earnings
102
111.20
111.44
114.01
86
The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes in p u r
chasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
These series are described in "The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note
on its Calculation,” in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor
Force, February 1969, pp. 6-13.
NOTE: Data for the most recent month are preliminary. For additional detail see
Employment and Earnings, table C-5.
108
23.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index—general summary
[The official name of the index is, "Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical W orkers." It measures the average change in prices of goods and services purchased
by families and single workers. The indexes shown below represent the average of price changes in 56 metropolitan areas, selected to represent all U.S. urban places having
populations of more than 2500.)
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified)
1968
1969
Annual average
Item and group
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
All items_________ ____________
All items (1947-49=100)___ ______
130.5
160.1
129.8
159.3
129.3
158.6
128.7
157.9
128.2
157.3
127.6
156.6
126.8
155.6
126.4
155.0
125.6
154.1
124.6
152.9
124.1
152.3
123.7
151.8
123.4
151.4
148.7
116.3
142.7
Food_______________________
Food at home____________
Food away from home____
128.1
123.8
149.0
127.2
122.9
148.1
127.5
123.6
146.7
127.4
123.6
145.8
126.7
123.0
144.8
125.5
143.7
121.8
123.7
119.8
142.8
123.2
119.3
142.2
122.4
118.5
141.3
121.9
118.1
140.7
118.3
140.3
117.4
139.9
120.5
116.6
139.4
119.3
115.9
136.3
115.2
112.3
129.6
Housing----------------------------------Rent____________________
Homeownership__________
129.8
120.5
144.5
120.1
129.2
128.6
119.7
142.6
127.8
119.3
141.3
127.0
118.8
140.0
126.3
118.5
138.7
125.8
118.1
138.0
125.3
117.8
137.1
124.4
117.5
135.7
123.3
117.2
133.6
122.7
116.9
132.7
122.3
116.7
132.0
121.7
116.3
131.1
119.1
115.1
127.0
114.3
112.4
143.6
Apparel and upkeep____ _
Transportation... . _____
Health and recreation_________
Medical care_______________
130.7
125.6
139.1
157.4
129.8
125.7
138.6
156.9
128.7
123.6
138.4
157.6
126.6
124.2
137.7
156.8
126.8
124.3
137.0
155.9
127.0
124.6
136.3
155.2
126.6
124.0
135.7
154.5
125.6
124.6
135.1
153.6
124.9
124.3
134.3
152.5
123.9
124.3
120.2
124.0
121.2
120.1
133.7
151.3
123.4
120.7
133.3
150.2
Special groups:
A ll items less shelter_______
A ll items less food......... .........
All items less medical c a re ...
128.6
131.4
128.9
128.1
130.8
128.2
127.6
130.0
127.6
127.1
129.3
127.0
126.7
128.8
126.5
126.3
128.4
126.0
125.4
127.9
125.2
125.0
127.5
124.7
124.4
126.8
124.0
123.5
125.6
123.0
123.1
124.9
122.5
122.7
124.7
122.5
124.4
121.9
120.6
122.2
121.9
119.7
115.9
116.8
115.0
Commodities________________
Nondurables____
... .
Durables___________ ____
Services_______
. . .
122.9
126.7
113.5
147.2
122.4
126.1
113.2
146.5
121.7
125.8
119.6
123.0
111.3
142.7
119.3
122.5
111.4
142.0
121.8
111.1
117.4
124.7
111.9
144.0
120.5
124.1
111.7
143.3
117.8
146.0
121.4
125.2
111.9
145.0
118.7
111.6
125.5
130.4
119.8
125.1
129.3
118.7
124.4
128.1
118.2
123.3
125.9
118.1
123.1
126.2
118.0
123.0
126.4
117.5
122.4
126.0
117.2
121.9
124.9
127.7
126.6
125.3
122.8
123.5
123.7
123.4
122.6
122.2
120.2
Commodities less food___ . .
Nondurables less food____
Apparel commodities___
Apparel commodities
less footwear______
Nondurables less food
and apparel___ __ . .
Household durables......... ..
Housefurnishings_________
106.5
110.4
122.6
106.4
110.2
Service less r e n t .. .
Household services less rent.
Transportation services___
Medical care services___ .
Other services___________
153.1
151.4
145.8
171.8
148.2
152.3
150.4
145.1
171.2
147.6
24.
121.0
106.2
109.9
121.7
106.0
109.4
121.3
106.0
109.3
151.7
149.5
144.0
172.2
147.2
150.7
148.2
143.1
171.1
146.5
149.6
146.9
142.5
170.1
145.7
121.0
105.8
109.0
120.3
105.6
108.8
148.8
145.7
142.3
169.1
145.2
148.1
145.0
141.8
168.2
144.7
122.0
122.0
121.2
132.8
149.1
121.2
119.6
130.0
145.0
132.4
148.2
1967
120.2
114.0
115.9
123.8
136.7
111.2
121.1
121.0
140.9
109.7
139.7
117.2
120.7
108.7
138.1
117.1
120.3
109.3
137.4
115.3
118.4
107.5
134.3
114.0
104.3
127.7
116.8
121.4
124.3
115.7
120.5
123.1
115.0
115.2
120.3
123.7
120.2
115.3
113.2
117.7
119.3
109.2
113.1
113.0
122.2 121.6
120.2 119.7
108.6
139.0
120.1
122.6
123.4
120.5
119.9
121.2
121.0
118.6
103. 3
106.6
118.3
103.0
106.6
118.3
143.9
139.8
139.2
162.8
142.3
142.9
139.2
136.8
161.4
142.0
105.0
108.3
104.4
107.8
118.9
103.7
107.1
147.4
144.2
141.4
167.2
144.2
146.1
142.5
140.9
165.8
143.2
144.6
140.6
139.8
164.3
142.7
116.8
110.5
102.8
113.1
98.2
106.5
116.8
101.4
104.7
142.0
138.5
135.2
160.3
141.5
138.6
134.5
133.5
156.3
138.8
131.1
127.0
128.4
145.6
131.5
100.8
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1957-59 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Item or group
Other
index
bases
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
FOOD......................................................................
128.1
127.2
127.5
127.4
Food away from home...................................
Restaurant meals___________________
Snacks_________________ __________
149.0
149.3
129.2
148.1
148.3
128.8
146.7
147.2
126.2
145.8
146.2
125.6
Food at home......................................................
Cereals and bakery products____ __________
Flour........... ............... ......................... ..
Cracker meal_______ ________ ____ Dec. 63
Corn flakes.............................. ........... ..
Rice........................ .................................
Bread, w hite...........................................
Bread, whole wheat........................... ..
Dec. 63
Cookies.................................................
Layer c a k e .........................................
Dec. 63
Cinnamon r o lls ...................................... Dec. 63
123.8
124.1
122.9
123.7
123.6
123.0
127.2
129.7
113.0
129.7
123.4
99.8
117.1
115.1
126.9
129.6
113.0
129.1
122.5
99.8
115.4
115.2
113.2
113.2
Meats, poultry, and fish...................................
M eats..................................... .................
Beef and veal......................................
Steak, round....................................
Steak, sirlo in .................................
Apr. 60
Steak, porterhouse....................... Dec. 63
Rump roast...................................... Dec. 63
Rib roast.......... ...............................
Chuck roast...................................
Hamburger.......................................
Beef live r......................................... Dec. 63
Veal cutlets......................................
127.2
131.1
131.5
125.2
127.6
132.0
132.9
126.8
123.4
129.0
129.0
133.1
135.0
128.1
128.3
132.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec. 63
111.2 111.6 111.2
121.1
125.9
119.5
140.9
122.7
138.4
117.9
162.1
125.8
129.4
112.9
128.8
121.6
101.0
121.1 122.1
140.8
125.3
139.1
117.8
162.8
145.9
127.2
140.9
117.8
162.8
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
126.7
125.5
123.7
123.2
122.4
121.9
144.8
145.1
125.1
143.7
144.0'
124.4
142.8
143.0
124.1
142.2
142.3
123.7
141.3
141.4
123.0
140.7
140.8
122.4
119.8
119.3
121.3
111.7
117.9
128.4
111.7
127.2
119.5
118.5
118.1
111.5
117.8
129.3
111.7
117.6
129.4
123.0
121.8
122.6 122.6 122.0
111.4
111.6 112.1
122.1
124.7
123.3
129.4
129.0
129.0
112.6 112.3 112.1
123.6
128.1
120.3
100.9
113.8
112.8
128.2
120.9
100.9
113.6
113.4
127.9
131.9
135.4
129.9
127.4
132.7
123.4
146.5
128.7
140.5
116.8
162.1
127.6
131.7
136.8
132.5
131.1
135.5
125.0
150.1
131.0
140.0
115.4
161.1
127.2
119.6
100.1
114.1
113.2
125.3
129.5
134.6
131.0
129.6
133.0
123.0
147.1
127.9
137.9
112.1
159.8
Annual
average
1968
1968
1969
121.6
112.2
119.3
127.9
112.0
127.1
119.6
100.9
113.9
111.9
119.9
123.4
127.9
124.1
120.7
125.2
117.2
138.1
121.5
131.4
109.6
154.2
121.2 120.8
121.2
125.1
121.4
117.2
121.6
115.4
133.6
119.2
128.3
110.1
150.6
Dec.
Nov.
122.0 121.2
120.5
119.3
140.3
140.4
139.9
140.0
139.4
139.6
136.3
136.5
118.0
117.4
116.6
117.5
129.3
117.5
129.0
122.2 121.6 121.1
111.1
111.0
126.6
117.1
126.0
117.9
126.6
117.5
101.1 100.6 100.1
110.5 110.5
110.3
111.1 109.0 108.3
115.9
119.0
112.4
117.3
128.7
110.3
124.4
115.3
100.5
108.8
107.3
115.6
118.6
114.4
117.1
118.7
112.7
114.6
117.4
119.5
114.6
112.4
117.4
113.7
116.4
117.7
112.5
118.3
120.5
110.4
117.6
129.6
111.6 111.6 111.2
127.4
119.2
126.8
118.5
99.5
111.3
111.5
116.5
119.1
121.4
116.8
113.5
118.5
112.3
129.3
114.3
125.0
107.7
147.7
116.2
119.0
121.3
117.0
113.8
118.6
111.9
130.8
114.0
124.4
108.1
146.1
101.1 100.8
112.3
111.1
112.1 111.8
118.4
Jan.
121.1
116.8
114.7
119.4
111.5
132.5
113.1
124.0
106.4
145.0
120.1 120.1
110.2 112.0
111.1
116.7
108.8
129.3
110.4
123.1
106.2
143.8
110.1
128.0
111.7
122.9
107.5
144.7
111.0
116.1
108.7
125.8
109.9
120.6
106.8
142.2
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.
CONSUMER PRICES
109
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or {roup
Other
index
bases
1968
1969
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
117.5
116.4
126.6
125.7
113.1
118.3
114.3
116.6
121.9
127.8
125.5
112.4
118.4
113.6
115.7
128.1
127.4
108.0
126.2
124.5
114.5
117.9
114.9
118.0
124.6
125.4
112.4
117.2
113.0
114.5
116.6
124.9
126.4
114.1
114.2
115.0
118.8
125.3
124.0
110.9
115.0
114.8
120.7
129.9
117.9
115.5
121.3
116.1
117.6
120.7
129.9
118.4
116.5
120.9
116.1
116.1
119.5
128.3
117.2
115.0
119.4
114.6
116.4
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
132.0
134.1
140.4
148.3
124.8
136.0
132.4
132.7
134.0
141.8
149.1
123.9
136.5
134.9
133.7
137.6
143.0
149.6
129.0
136.4
141.9
143.6
114.2
130.9
126.8
126.1
134.8
139.7
137.2
114.2
124.8
124.1
118.8
122.4
129.8
130.0
135.5
135.6
130.2
135.7
141.3
146.0
117.0
134.5
128.7
133.6
139.4
134.7
127.8
136.1
127.1
129.8
133.3
139.9
134.7
125.1
136.2
127.2
129.9
132.6
139.7
135.4
131.2
139.3
133.7
136.2
127.0
128.0
134.5
126.0
126.3
128.8
140.9
129.4
115.6
132.0
123.7
125.0
127.2
139.1
127.6
117.6
128.8
121.5
99.1
99.5
98.2
98.6
101.4
103.3
113.0
104.7
100.4
103.1
109.4
97.3
99.2
107.6
134.0
122.9
141.1
116.7
125.0
133.4
122.5
139.9
116.2
124.9
132.2
131.5
138.6
114.9
124.2
126.3
123.4
130.4
125.0
124.3
125.8
125.5
130.1
124.3
123.8
129.4
124.8
124.1
Ice c re a m ...............................................
Cheese, American process................
B u tte r .............................................. ..
100.7
151.0
119.4
99.9
149.9
119.9
100.1
Fruits and vegetables___________________
Fresh fru its and vegetables_________
A p p le s ...............................................
Bananas..............................................
Oranges........ .......................................
Orange juice, fresh...........................
127.0
135.4
125.7
93.9
132.4
91.8
Grapefruit_______________ _____
Grapes...................... ............................
Strawberries___________________
Watermelon.........................................
Potatoes......... ..................... ...............
Onions............ ........................... .........
Asparagus..._____ _____________
Cabbage................. .............................
Carrots_____________ __________
FOOD—Continued
Meats— Continued
Pork......................................................
Chops_____________ _____ ___
Loin roast.........................................
Pork sausage_________________
Ham, whole................................... ..
Picnics.................. ...........................
Bacon..................... ................... ..
Other meats........................................
Lamb chops................... ..................
Frankfurters........................... ........
Ham, c a n n e d .................................
Bologna s a u s a g e .........................
Salami sausage_____ _________
Liverw urst____________ ______
Poultry.....................................................
Frying chicken........................ ...........
Chicken b re a s ts ...............................
Turkey..................................................
Fish............. ..............................................
Shrimp, frozen_________________
Fish,fresh or frozen...........................
Tuna, fish, canned______________
Sardines, canned.............. .................
Dairy products.................... ....................... .
M ilk, fresh, grocery_______________
M ilk, fresh, delivered.............................
M ilk, fresh, skim ............ .......................
M ilk, evaporated....................................
Celery........................... .......................
Cucumbers...........................................
L e ttu c e ...............................................
Peppers, green...................................
Spinach................................................
Tomatoes....... ......................... ...........
Processed fruits and vegetables......... ................
Fruit coctail, canned............................
Pears, canned____________________
Grapefruit-pineapple juice, can n e d ...
Orange juice concentrate, frozen____
Lemonade concentrate, frozen.............
Beets, canned................. .......................
Peas, green, ca n n e d ............................
Tomatoes, canned......................... .......
Dried beans..... ............................... ........
Broccoli, fro z e n ...................................
Other food at home_______________________
Eggs................ ..................... ........... ...........
Fats and oils:
Margarine................. ........... ......... .......
Salad dressing, Ita lia n ................. .......
Salad or cooking o i l . . ...........................
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
121.8 121.8
116.7
118.4
101.8 101.1
93.3
94.7
104.4
98.7
95.3
97.9
106.7
93.4
94.2
95.5
105.3
99.7
92.3
93.0
103.9
100.5
90.8
90.9
103.6
100.4
90.8
91.2
103.6
98.4
91.1
91.2
103.5
101.4
91.7
92.7
103.2
97.9
137.2
114.4
123.5
130.6
119.7
134.5
113.6
124.4
129.8
118.3
133.1
113.8
124.0
129.5
118.2
132.0
114.0
123.7
128.4
116.8
130.2
113.1
123.7
127.7
116.5
128.6
112.4
123.5
127.7
115.6
128.3
113.3
123.9
127.0
114.5
128.1
112.4
123.6
126.3
112.5
127.5
125.5
111.5
126.4
123.6
123.3
123.8
108.6
125.5
110.7
121.7
125.0
122.3
128.7
124.3
124.1
124.4
121.7
128.0
122.9
123.9
124.0
121.3
127.6
122.3
124.0
123.6
120.7
127.3
121.7
123.8
122.9
120.5
126.8
121.5
122.9
123.0
120.7
127.0
121.4
122.4
148.9
118.3
99.5
148.5
118.0
99.0
147.7
118.0
99.8
146.6
117.8
98.8
146.1
117.9
124.0
130.1
131.7
100.7
131.9
92.0
126.8
134.9
174.6
99.6
132.1
92.1
130.2
141.0
190.5
97.4
132.7
92.0
132.3
145.0
192.9
97.7
127.9
91.4
130.8
142.4
185.3
94.5
125.4
91.8
144.1
154.3
(O
184.0
144.0
O)
)
205.9
137.8
156.6
188.3
0
194.6
147.4
O)
116.1
143.5
0
0)
119.6
126.8
159.9
140.1
133.2
137.6
134.2
( ')
145.9
129.6
144.5
139.0
( ')
135.6
128.3
159.0
152:2
131.2
122.5
177.9
160.9
116.5
146.7
115.5
118.5
133.3
145.7
120.1
116.8
105.4
106.9
110.8 112.0
110.0 107.2
0
102.0
103.8
113.8
105.9
121.0 120.8
120.6
121.5
121.7
97.0
143.6
117.4
98.9
142.5
117.4
99.4
142.7
117.6
99.4
142.1
117.8
99.0
141.2
117.1
99.7
141.3
117.3
98.8
139 2
116.8
130.0
140.9
171.4
95.3
126.2
91.2
127.9
137.6
167.4
91.7
126.4
91.7
127.6
137.2
164.7
91.4
126.9
90.2
124 . 7
132.3
160.1
94.7
126.6
126.4
135.2
150.0
87.8
131.5
123.8
130.6
142.6
88.0
127.0
136.4
156.0
92.9
127.1
87.4
126.8
136.0
163.4
93.0
147.6
84.7
0
137.3
( i)
121.5
(O
134.5
134.3
0
0
0
141.6
143.1
151.3
147.5
0
154.5
135.0
138.3
139.6
165.2
141.5
129.6
145. 7
129.5
143.8
130.5
118.9
152.6
109.7
141.2
124.3
152.2
148.8
114.0
139.1
123.6
171.5
149.7
113.0
130.2
122.5
124.2
146.4
117.2
116.3
151.8
123.0
126.8
165.6
118.8
131.0
139.2
124.6
119.0
111.7
130.8
147.8
118.0
103.2
134.3
161.1
149.3
188.0
109.6
173.8
113.2
161.9
166.1
163.7
113.4
118.7
116.6
105.6
107.6
116.9
106.6
108.2
116.7
106.3
108.8
116.4
107.1
108.6
100.4
100.4
116.3
106.3
108.9
99.9
115.9
106.5
109.4
99.6
110.1 110.1
101.0
116.3
106.0
109.0
99.1
103.7
121.0 121.1
92.3
113.1
121.3
123.6
124.6
120.6 120.1
120.1
93.8
112.8
122.9
124.8
124.3
106.7
111.0
114.5
0
121.1
155.6
119.8
120.2
180.7
111.1
158.0
99.4
99.5
98.7
94.8
91.4
113.5
91.2
113.2
101.1
124.3
124.8
101.3
124.9
125.3
100.7
109.0
109.8
108.5
108.5
109.4
116.2
102.8 102.6
103.0
92.5
113.4
124.1
124.9
104.9
123.8
125.4
103.2
110.5
113.8
110.5
114.4
107.2
95.6
106.6
92.5
107.1
97.4
102.2
126.6
116.2
126.4
116.3
126.0
116.4
125.4
116.5
125.3
116.2
G r a p e j e l l y ..................... ................
1 2 6 .5
1 2 5 .6
1 2 4 .7
C h o c o la t e b a r __________
1 2 6 .6
1 2 6 .7
1 2 6 .5
1 2 3 .9
1 2 5 .1
1 2 3 .9
1 2 4 .9
1 0 6 .9
1 0 6 .8
1 0 6 .5
1 0 6 .5
1 0 6 .4
102.1
110.0
141.2
107.0
0
135.1
146.6
124.6
147.4
128.4
135.9
110.7
217.1
138.6
160.1
107.1
166.0
106.6
134.6
126.0
148.0
103.9
132.4
113.3
150.8
127.8
162.7
104. 5
133.0
115.3
107.2
110.9
98.4
92.6
115.7
107.9
111.5
98.5
91.8
115.6
107.5
112.9
98.3
91.9
115.3
108.3
116.3
95.9
87.0
90.7
113.3
120.7
125.7
124.9
90.6
113.2
126.4
125.5
89.9
113.3
121.3
126.2
125.2
89.5
111.3
121.4
129.3
124.1
100.9
109.8
119.8
112.2 102.6
108.4
106.7
104.5
95.3
102.7
101.3
122.4
122.8
102.5
101.3
103.3
102.4
122.0
121.4
118.6
174.3
114.2
115.3
106.9
92.3
112.7
103.5
103.4
123.3
102.7
145.3
156.0
192.9
131.9
130.0
153.8
114.3
110.6 111.6
0
117.7
237.8
143.9
167.2
110.2
0
0
0
133.4
132.0
0
156.3
112.6
121.6
102.6
101.6
102.9
122.3
102.6
122.8
102.3
102.3
123.5
125.2
115.6
124.7
115.0
124.4
114.4
123.8
114.1
123.1
113.5
122.7
113.5
1 2 4 .1
1 2 3 .1
1 2 4 .5
1 2 2 .5
1 2 2 .4
121
P I .6
1 2 0 .6
1 2 4 .5
1 0 6 .4
1 0 6 .3
1 2 3 .0
103. 7
1 2 2 .9
1 2 4 .8
1 0 6 .5
1 2 3 .7
1 0 5 .4
1 2 3 .1
1 0 4 .7
0
0
101.2 101.2 101.1
103.2
122.7
6
88.2
162.4
87.7
167.4
144.0
128.8
124.5
133.7
131.5
0
88.1
183.1
144.6
0
0
0
136.4
128.2
115.8
106.6
90.6
113.3
121.7
124. 5
124.7
105.4
92.5
0
0
0
144.3
122.7
124.6
125.0
106.7
112.8
0
0
120.3
126.7
171.5
115.3
192.1
110.3
133.2
93.3
113.1
122.9
124.1
125.0
107.5
103.1
102.4
123.5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
122.6 122.6
120.6
120.7
126.1
126.3
121.0 120.3
121.1
121.8
102.4
102.3
123.6
63
122.8
112.1 111.6
118.5
123.7
117.5
119.8
122.8 122.8
102.3
123.6
D ec.
122.2
116.6
123.7
118.6
122.7
120.5
126.4
120.3
121.7
102.6 102.2 101.8 101.0
98.2
97.2
99.4
100.0
94.1
113.3
123.1
125.5
123.6
108.0
124.0
136.2
122.2 120.6
123.0
S y r u p , c h o c o l a t e f l a v o r e d ...........................
112.6
121.2
116.6
118.3
122.6 120.6
102.8
S e e f o o t n o t e s a t e n d o f t a b le .
117.3
122.2 122.0
111.6
130.6
118.1
116.4
121.5
116.8
117.5
103.7
102.5
123.9
Sugar and s w e e ts .......................
Sugar_____________
121.1
132.4
119.2
117.2
112.9
122.3
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
121.5
118.4
120.1
133.7
120.4
115.3
122.4
116.6
118.8
150.6
127.1
Dec. 63
111.1
122.0 121.0
121.4
131.9
118.5
115.0
0
Dec. 63
121.8
Annual
average
1968
123.2
1 1 3 .5
1 0 2 .2
1 1 3 .6
1 2 0 .2
1 2 1 .1
1 0 2 .3
122.1
1 1 3 .2
1 1 8 .9
1 1 2 .9
1 0 1 .9
110
24.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Item or group
1969
Other
index
bases
1968
Jan.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
104.3
87.0
104.2
103.7
103.8
103.3
103.4
102.7
July SI
106.1
90.0
106.0
Dec. 63
158.7
124.7
158.0
124.5
156.8
123.4
156.6
123.1
155.3
122.7
155.1
121.9
153.8
120.4
153.8
119.8
152.8
119.3
152.4
119.1
152.1
119.2
151.6
119.0
150.6
118.6
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
107.6
107.2
99.5
119.8
107.4
106.3
98.3
118.9
106.9
105.6
98.1
117.2
106.7
105.4
98.3
117.3
106.2
105.1
98.0
117.0
105.9
105.1
97.8
116.4
106.0
105.2
98.2
116.2
105.8
104.5
97.5
116.0
105.1
103.5
96.7
115.7
104.5
102.4
96.2
115.1
104.3
103.9
95.9
114.4
103.8
100.5
96.1
113.5
102.7
96.5
114.6
92.1
111.4
114.3
107.0
109.6
92.8
111.7
114.2
107.6
108.9
92.7
112.7
108.5
92.5
108.1
91.8
111.7
107.7
90.8
110.7
106.4
91.2
104.5
90.7
111.1
107.6
107.4
107.0
113.2
106.9
103.2
102.6
89.0
89.7
111.8 111.8
102.5
89.0
111.1
107.6
107.7
90.6
110.9
112.5
106.8
106.7
112.3
106.9
112.4
106.7
111.9
106.5
102.4
87.0
108.3
109.7
105.8
129.8
129.2
128.6
127.8
127.0
126.3
125.8
125.3
124.4
123.3
122.7
122.3
121.7
119.1
137.7
120.5
144.5
137.0
120.1
143.6
136.1
119.7
142.6
135.1
119.3
141.3
134.0
118.8
140.0
133.0
118.5
138.7
132.4
118.1
138.0
131.6
117.8
137.1
130.5
117.5
135.7
128.9
117.2
133.6
128.2
116.9
132.7
127.6
116.7
132.0
126.9
116.3
131.1
123.6
115.1
127.0
139.3
131.5
152.3
144.9
138.8
130.5
150.7
144.5
138.2
130.4
149.5
143.8
137.1
129.9
150.3
142.4
135.8
128.7
149.6
141.5
134.9
128.2
147.4
140.8
134.3
128.3
146.9
139.6
133.5
128.1
146.0
138.4
129.5
127.7
146.1
137.4
126.1
126.4
146.0
135.4
125.4
126.1
145.7
134.3
125.3
125.1
145.6
133.5
116.0
118.7
113.6
116.2
118.0
113.8
116.7
117.6
113.1
117.2
116.5
113.1
117.5
115.7
112.3
117.8
115.6
117.5
115.9
111.6
117.0
116.2
111.7
115.9
115.5
111.6 111.2
113.9
114.6
114.0
109.9
142.2
182.6
163.0
134.2
142.6
145.2
141.6
181.8
162.3
133.7
142.0
144.1
140.4
179.7
161.4
133.0
140.4
142.8
138.2
178.3
157.6
130.0
139.0
141.2
136.9
176.1
155.4
129.3
137.8
139.7
135.7
174.0
154.2
128.6
137.2
137.7
134.2
171.5
152.3
127.6
135.3
136.4
132.9
167.9
151.4
126.5
134.7
135.0
132.0
167.1
150.4
125.3
133.7
134.5
130.1
166.5
149.4
123.3
131.1
131.5
129.6
165.5
148.5
122.9
130.8
130.8
129.0
164.9
147.5
122.3
130.0
130.4
Fuel oil and coal_______ _______ ____
Fuel oil, # 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _
Gas and electricity____________ _____
Gas.........................................................
Electricity.................................................
114.2
118.9
116.0
113.2
118.8
107.2
113.5
118.4
115.5
113.3
118.1
115.4
112.7
117.5
115.0
111.3
116.4
105.7
117.4
114.8
117.2
114.5
116.9
114.3
111.7
116.7
114.0
111.5
116.2
113.5
116.7
106.8
117.4
115.0
110.9
115.7
105.6
117.5
114.9
116.9
106.9
113.0
117.7
115.2
111.5
116.1
106.4
116.4
105.5
116.5
105.4
116.2
104.5
116.1
104.0
116.0
104.0
115.6
103.9
Other utilities:
Residential telephone services.............
Residential water and sewerage..........
103.7
147.5
103.6
145.3
103.6
145.3
103.6
145.3
103.6
145.3
103.6
143.4
103.4
143.4
103.3
143.4
103.1
143.4
103.1
141.6
103.0
141.6
102.9
141.6
119.6
110.4
119.3
110.2
119.0
109.9
118.5
109.4
118.2
109.3
117.9
109.0
117.4
108.8
116.9
108.3
116.4
107.8
115.8
107.1
115.2
106.6
115.1
106.6
115.7
121.7
115.0
115.2
113.8
114.8
114.8
114.4
118.3
121.0
114.6
113.6
119.6
112.7
119.6
111.7
117.5
121.2
109.3
116.3
108.0
113.5
FO O D — Continued
Other food at home— Continued
Nonalcoholic beverages-----------------------Coffee, can and bag________ ______
Coffee, in sta n t-____ ______________
Tea_____________________________
Cola d rin k ___________ _______ —
Carbonated fru it d rin k _____________
Prepared and partially prepared foods..
Bean soup, canned________________
Chicken soup, canned..........................
Spaghetti, canned_________________
Mashed potatoes, instant.............. .......
Potatoes, french fried, frozen_______
Baby foods, canned_____________ Sweet pickle relish________ ____ _
Pretzels.......... ........... ............... .............
63
63
63
63
Dec. 63
Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
H O U S IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
S h e lte r.. ------- --------------------- -------------------Rent.............. ....................... ..................... .
Homeownership____________________
Mortgage interest rates____________
Property taxes____________________
Property insurance r a te s .............. ..
Maintenance and repairs------------------
Dec. 63
Commodities......... ....................... ..
Exterior house paint......................
Interior house p a in t .. ..................
Dec. 63
Services______ ____ __________ _
Repainting living and diningrooms.
Reshingling ro o fs .........................
Residing houses............................
Replacing s in k s .............................
Repairing fu rn a c e s ......................
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Fuel and utilities ................. ............... .............
Household furnishings and operation.................
Housefurnishings......................................
Textiles...................................................
Sheets, percale or muslin.................
Curtains, tailored, polyester marquisette................................ ...........
Bedspreads, chiefly cotton, tu fte d ..
Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/
acetate............................... .............
Slipcovers, ready made, chiefly
cotton................... ............. .............
Furniture and bedding______ ______
Bedroom suites, good or inexpensive quality...... ...............................
Living room suites, good and inexpensive quality_____ _____ ___
Lounge chairs, upholstered_______
Dining room suites_________ ____
Sofas, upholstered______________
Sofas, dual purpose....... ................
Sleep sets, Hollywood bed type___
Box s p r in g s .....................................
Cribs___________________ .
Floor coverings.......... ....... ..................
Rugs, soft surface_______________
Rugs, hard surface............. ...............
Tile, v i n y l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
A p p lia n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
.
Washing machines, electric, autom a tic .............. ...................
Vacuum cleaners, canister type___
See foo tn o tes at en d of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
102.2
110.0
112.1
86.6 8). 7 86.3 86.8
103.9
103.7
103.6
102.1 102.0 102.2 102.0 102.0
103.8
112.1
112.6 112.0
112.2 112.0
111.0
112.6
111.8
112.2
120.1 119.8 116.2 118.7 120.2
112.0 112.0 112.0 111.6 111.5
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Annual
average
1968
Dec.
Nov.
102.6 102.5 102.2 102.3 102.3 102.1
86.6 86.8 87.0 87.0 87.2 87.4 87.5
102.1 101.2 99.7 99.7 100.6 100.6
100.8 101.0 101.6 101.5 101.8 101.2 100.7
103.0
112.8
112.6 112.6 112.2 111.8
101.2 100.8
102.7
89.0
111.1
106.6
87.3
98.5
100.7
147.7
116.0
100.8
96.0
112.3
119.5
121.8
142.5
129.8
112.1 111.2
113.4
110.2
111.2 111.2 110.6 110.2 110.2 110.0
111.1
111.2
112.0
101.0
108.8
112.0
108.7
125.0
159.0
141.6
119.4
126.5
126.1
111.3
115.9
113.2
109.9
115.4
103.9
110.4
115.1
112.7
109.5
114.7
103.8
102.2
135.3
114.8
106.5
113.0
104.7
113.7
111.0
108.1
106.3
117.8
117.7
117.1
116.9
115.7
116.5
116.9
117.3
110.4
117.3
111.2
107.9
113.7
126.0
124.1
124.5
125.0
124.8
122.2
122.1
121.3
121.1 120.1
119.7
119.3
116.6
110.0
111.1
110.0
110.3
109.4
109.3
108.6
108.0
108.4
108.9
106.3
123.7
123.6
122.9
122.4
110.1 109.6
122.1 121.8
121.6
120.5
119.7
118.3
117.6
117.4
114.9
128.0
127.6
127.2
125.8
125.3
124.8
124.4
123.0
122.3
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
125.8
118.6
129.4
115.7
124.9
119.0
127.5
114.8
118.8
123.4
116.2
126.1
113.8
117.1
123.3
114.6
126.7
114.3
116.2
122.4
113.3
125.7
113.3
116.0
110.9
121.9
112.7
125.0
112.7
114.8
122.5
119.5
124.1
119.2
123.7
117.1
124.8
117.9
126.0
115.1
118.6
112.9
123.2
118.0
123.9
116.5
126.6
114.3
117.9
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
120.2
125.9
118.9
128.7
115.9
118.9
123.0
117.7
123.0
117.5
117.1
115.8
107.1
104.8
112.5
107.1
104.9
107.0
104.9
106.3
104.1
112.1 111.8 111.6
106.2
104.1
106.2
104.2
109.6
109.3
108.5
106.4
104.4
111.5
108.2
108.0
108.0
106.2
104.4
110.3
107.7
86.3
86.2 86.0 86.0
85.9
85.8
85.6
91.2
81.4
90.9
81.5
91.0
81.3
90.5
82.0
90.5
81.8
90.2
81.4
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
( 2)
110.1
( 2)
( 2)
90.8
82.1
112.2 111.6
111.2
116.7
118.3
108.5
119.2
108.7
113.2
108.2
117.2
113.4
113.0
108.8
116.8
113.5
107.0
113.5
115.1
114.1
109.3
119.7
113.2
106.1
104.4
106.1
104.5
105.8
104.0
107.2
106.8
107.3
105.5
103.6
109.6
107.2
104.6
103.0
103.5
105.8
85.6
85.4
85.4
85.5
85.5
84.8
90.1
81.2
89.9
81.1
90 0
81.1
90.0
81.2
8 9 .8
8 8 .8
8 0 .1
111.6
110.0
122.8 121.6 120.4
111.1
121.2 120.6 120.7
121.2 120.4 120.3
112.0 111.3 111.7
121.2
123.6
124.5
112.0 112.1 111.6
112.8
110.0 110.0 110.0
80.9
111.1
111.0
CONSUMER PRICES 1 1 1
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or group
O th e r
in d e x
bases
H O U S IN G — Continued
Household furnishings and operation— Con.
A p p lia n c e s — C o n tin u e d
R e frig e r a to rs
or
r e f r ig e r a to r fre e z e rs , e l e c t r i c . . . ...................... ..
R a ng e s, f r e e s t a n d in g , g as o r
e le c t r ic ......................................................
C lo th e s d r y e r s , e le c t r ic , a u to m a tic ..
A i r c o n d itio n e r s , d e m o u n ta b le _____
R oom h e a te rs , e le c tr ic , p o r ta b le ___
G a rb a g e d is p o s a l u n it s ...........................
O th e r h o u s e f u r n is h in g s :
D in n e r w a r e , e a r t h e n w a r e . . ...............
F la tw a re , s ta in le s s s t e e l____________
T a b le la m p s , w it h s h a d e . . .......... ..
B oys’ :
C o a ts , a l l p u rp o s e , c o tto n o r c o tto n
b le n d ______________
S p o r t c o a ts , w o o l o r w o o l b le n d ____
D u n g a re e s , c o tto n o r c o tto n b le n d ____
U n d e r s h o r ts , c o tt o n _______
8 5 .8
A ug.
8 5 .8
8 5 .7
J u ly
8 5 .4
June
8 5 .2
Feb.
Ja n.
Dec.
N o v.
8 4 .8
8 4 .7
8 4 .7
8 4 .6
8 4 .6
9 5 .2
9 7 .4
8 3 .8
9 8 .1
9 8 .2
9 7 .6
9 7 .4
9 7 .0
9 7 .1
9 7 .1
9 6 .5
9 6 .6
9 9 .6
9 9 .5
9 9 .5
9 9 .1
9 9 .2
9 8 .9
9 9 .3
9 8 .4
9 8 .6
0
0
1 0 4 .3
0
1 0 3 .9
9 9 .5
9 9 .7
(■)
1 0 3 .9
9 8 .8
(0
9 9 .6
1 0 4 .7
9 9 .7
9 9 .8
(0
1 0 3 .9
0
1 0 3 .6
(0
1 0 3 .1
0
9 8 .0
1 0 2 .8
0
9 7 .5
1 0 3 .2
0
9 7 .7
1 0 3 .0
9 8 .7
0
9 7 .2
1 0 2 .9
0
9 6 .4
1 0 0 .9
D ec. 63
Dec. 63
1 3 5 .2
1 1 9 .6
1 1 8 .3
1 3 4 .8
1 1 9 .6
1 1 7 .8
1 3 4 .3
1 1 9 .8
1 1 6 .0
1 3 3 .5
1 1 9 .6
1 1 5 .4
1 3 3 .6
1 1 9 .5
1 1 5 .3
1 3 2 .7
1 1 8 .9
1 1 4 .0
1 3 2 .5
1 1 8 .1
1 1 3 .6
1 3 2 .2
1 1 8 .1
1 1 3 .0
1 3 2 .0
1 1 7 .0
1 1 2 .4
1 3 1 .8
1 1 7 .0
1 1 1 .3
1 3 0 .9
1 1 8 .2
1 0 9 .6
1 3 0 .0
1 1 8 .2
1 0 9 .3
1 2 8 .6
1 1 3 .5
1 0 8 .0
1 0 6 .2
1 3 0 .0
1 2 1 .2
1 0 6 .8
1 2 9 .0
1 2 1 .2
1 0 7 .4
1 2 8 .6
1 2 0 .7
1 0 7 .4
1 2 8 .0
1 1 9 .1
1 0 6 .4
1 2 7 .2
1 1 9 .5
1 0 6 .5
1 2 8 .1
1 1 9 .8
1 06 .1
1 27 .1
1 1 8 .0
1 0 5 .7
1 2 7 .0
1 1 7 .7
1 0 5 .6
1 2 7 .5
1 1 6 .8
1 0 5 .3
1 2 7 .6
1 1 6 .5
1 0 5 .3
1 2 7 .0
1 1 6 .1
1 0 5 .4
1 2 6 .5
1 1 5 .5
1 0 5 .0
1 2 2 .3
1 1 4 .7
D ec. 63
1 7 8 .7
1 3 6 .6
1 6 5 .5
1 4 4 .3
1 7 7 .6
1 3 5 .7
1 6 5 .5
1 4 3 .2
1 7 5 .1
1 3 5 .6
1 6 5 .5
1 4 2 .7
1 7 3 .9
1 3 4 .9
1 6 5 .5
1 4 1 .4
1 7 2 .9
1 3 4 .5
1 6 5 .5
1 4 0 .6
1 7 2 .2
1 3 3 .7
1 6 5 .5
1 4 0 .2
1 7 1 .9
1 3 3 .1
1 6 5 .5
1 3 9 .6
1 7 1 .1
1 3 1 .9
1 6 5 .5
1 3 9 .0
1 7 0 .2
1 3 1 .0
1 6 5 .5
1 3 7 .9
1 6 9 .8
1 3 0 .1
1 6 5 .5
1 3 6 .6
1 6 8 .7
1 2 9 .4
1 6 5 .5
1 3 4 .4
1 6 8 .4
1 2 9 .0
1 6 5 .5
1 3 3 .4
1 6 2 .6
1 2 4 .9
1 6 0 .9
1 2 9 .6
D e c. 63
D ec. 63
1 3 1 .8
1 35 .1
1 3 0 .7
1 3 5 .2
1 3 0 .3
1 3 4 .4
1 2 9 .7
1 3 3 .5
1 2 8 .4
1 3 3 .0
1 2 8 .1
1 3 1 .6
1 2 7 .2
1 3 1 .0
1 2 5 .3
1 2 9 .2
1 2 4 .1
1 2 9 .0
1 2 3 .7
1 2 7 .3
1 2 3 .4
1 2 5 .8
1 2 3 .3
1 2 5 .2
1 2 3 .1
1 2 1 .5
1 3 0 .7
1 2 9 .8
1 2 8 .7
1 2 6 .6
1 2 6 .8
1 2 7 .0
1 2 6 .6
1 2 5 .6
1 2 4 .9
1 2 3 .9
1 2 3 .4
1 2 4 .3
1 2 4 .0
1 2 0 .1
1 3 2 .1
1 3 1 .0
1 3 0 .0
1 2 8 .7
1 2 8 .1
1 2 8 .5
1 2 8 .1
1 2 7 .3
1 2 6 .4
1 2 5 .3
1 2 4 .9
1 2 5 .3
1 2 5 .0
1 2 0 .8
1 4 8 .5
1 5 8 .2
1 4 5 .9
1 5 6 .4
(>)
1 5 0 .7
0
1 2 5 .0
1 2 7 .1
1 1 4 .5
1 1 6 .8
(•)
1 4 9 .6
1 2 7 .7
1 2 5 .1
1 2 6 .1
1 1 2 .1
1 1 6 .9
(0
1 5 0 .0
1 3 0 .8
1 2 5 .6
1 2 6 .6
1 1 4 .3
1 1 6 .7
0
1 5 0 .1
1 3 0 .0
1 2 5 .3
1 2 6 .3
1 1 4 .3
1 1 6 .5
(0
1 4 8 .1
128. 1
1 2 4 .6
1 2 6 .5
1 1 4 .2
1 1 6 .0
1 3 7 .7
1 4 6 .8
1 2 6 .2
1 2 3 .1
1 2 5 .3
1 1 2 .9
1 1 5 .5
1 3 9 .4
1 4 4 .1
0
1 2 5 .4
1 3 0 .4
1 1 5 .6
1 1 6 .9
1 4 4 .0
1 5 4 .5
(0
1 2 5 .2
1 2 8 .9
1 1 5 .2
1 1 6 .9
1 3 7 .5
1 4 4 .6
O)
1 2 5 .6
1 3 1 .7
1 1 7 .1
1 1 7 .0
0
1 2 2 .7
1 2 3 .4
1 1 1 .0
1 1 5 .1
0
1 2 2 .3
1 25 .1
1 0 7 .7
1 1 5 .2
1 4 0 .1
1 4 6 .1
0
1 2 0 .6
1 2 6 .3
1 0 8 .9
1 1 4 .4
1 2 4 .7
1 2 2 .2
1 3 1 .8
1 2 0 .4
1 1 3 .3
1 2 4 .2
1 2 2 .2
1 3 1 .5
1 2 1 .1
1 1 2 .9
1 2 3 .2
1 2 1 .8
1 3 0 .6
1 2 1 .6
1 1 2 .7
1 2 3 .3
1 2 1 .6
1 3 0 .6
1 2 1 .6
1 1 2 .4
1 2 3 .1
1 2 1 .5
1 3 0 .1
1 2 1 .1
1 1 2 .3
1 2 3 .4
1 2 1 .7
1 2 9 .4
1 2 0 .5
1 1 2 .3
1 2 2 .6
1 2 1 .3
1 2 8 .8
1 1 9 .4
1 1 1 .5
1 2 2 .2
120 5
1 2 9 .0
1 1 8 .9
1 1 1 .6
1 2 1 .8
1 2 0 .4
1 2 9 .2
1 1 8 .1
1 1 1 .4
1 2 1 .1
1 2 0 .1
1 2 8 .7
1 1 7 .5
1 1 0 .9
1 2 0 .7
1 2 0 .5
1 2 7 .9
1 1 6 .6
1 0 9 .9
1 2 0 .6
1 2 0 .1
1 2 7 .3
1 1 6 .9
1 0 9 .2
1 1 8 .9
1 1 7 .6
1 2 2 .5
1 1 4 .2
1 0 5 .6
1 1 5 .9
1 3 1 .0
1 2 7 .9
1 3 0 .3
1 1 5 .2
1 2 6 .4
1 2 6 .9
1 2 9 .0
1 1 3 .5
1 2 2 .5
1 2 7 .4
1 2 8 .9
( ')
(■)
1 2 7 .4
1 2 8 .4
(0
(i)
1 2 7 .2
1 2 7 .9
( ')
(0
1 2 7 .0
1 2 6 .6
0
0
1 2 6 .0
1 2 6 .1
(>)
(0
1 2 5 .2
1 2 5 .6
1 0 8 .7
0
1 2 4 .3
1 2 5 .0
1 0 8 .2
0
1 2 4 .9
124. 0
1 0 9 .2
1 1 7 .6
1 2 3 .8
1 2 3 .1
1 1 1 .5
1 1 8 .4
1 2 3 .1
1 2 2 .2
1 0 8 .9
1 1 3 .7
1 1 9 .6
1 1 8 .7
1 2 7 .4
1 2 6 .2
1 2 4 .6
1 2 0 .8
1 2 2 .5
1 2 2 .7
1 2 2 .4
1 2 1 .0
1 2 0 .6
1 1 9 .3
1 1 8 .7
1 2 0 .8
1 3 9 .9
1 4 5 .3
0
1 2 7 .2
1 3 9 .9
1 3 3 .9
0)
1 2 5 .4
1 3 6 .0
1 2 9 .4
0
1 2 2 .7
(>)
0)
1 2 1 .8
1 2 2 .2
<0
0)
1 3 0 .7
1 2 2 .4
(0
(i)
1 3 5 .0
1 2 2 .7
0
0
1 3 4 .4
1 2 3 .4
0
0
1 2 4 .4
1 2 3 .2
0
(0
( 2)
1 2 3 .1
0
104. 4
1 1 9 .9
1 1 8 .3
1 3 0 .0
1 2 7 .9
1 2 6 .7
1 1 9 .7
0
1 2 1 .2
0
1 2 1 .9
0
1 2 2 .5
0
1 1 6 .3
1 5 8 .8
1 4 4 .8
(0
1 5 2 .1
1 5 5 .9
1 4 5 .7
1 5 2 .5
1 4 0 .8
1 4 7 .3
1 4 7 .6
1 4 7 .3
147-. 7
(0
1 5 0 .6
1 4 9 .6
0
1 5 0 .5
1 4 7 .3
1 4 8 .4
0
0
1 4 4 .2
0)
0
1 4 2 .5
1 4 3 .7
1 2 8 .0
(i)
1 4 1 .3
1 3 7 .0
1 2 8 .4
1 3 6 .6
1 5 0 .0
0)
1 4 9 .9
1 4 8 .8
1 4 5 .2
1 3 6 .8
(0
1 4 9 .0
1 4 8 .8
(> )
1 4 8 .5
1 4 6 .4
1 4 6 .3
(■)
(0
1 5 0 .7
0
1 3 9 .8
0
1 2 8 .6
1 1 1 .9
1 1 0 .5
1 2 0 .2
1 2 3 .1
1 1 1 .9
1 0 9 .9
1 1 9 .5
1 2 2 .9
1 1 1 .6
1 0 9 .1
1 1 9 .4
1 2 2 .5
1 0 9 .7
1 0 8 .6
1 1 9 .0
1 2 2 .2
1 1 0 .5
1 0 8 .4
1 1 8 .7
1 2 2 .0
1 1 0 .1
1 0 8 .8
1 1 9 .0
1 2 0 .8
1 1 0 .3
1 0 8 .5
1 1 9 .1
1 2 0 .7
1 0 9 .4
1 0 7 .9
1 1 8 .2
1 1 9 .4
109. 4
1 0 8 .1
1 1 8 .2
1 1 9 .1
1 0 9 .8
1 0 7 .9
1 1 6 .4
1 1 8 .8
1 0 9 .6
1 0 8 .1
1 1 3 .9
1 1 8 .8
1 0 7 .7
1 0 5 .6
1 1 1 .5
1 1 6 .4
9 9 .1
1 1 6 .6
1 0 8 .6
1 1 3 .0
9 8 .7
1 1 5 .2
1 0 8 .4
1 1 2 .1
9 9 .1
1 1 4 .7
1 0 7 .8
1 1 1 .4
9 8 .0
1 1 4 .6
1 0 6 .7
1 1 0 .8
9 8 .2
1 1 4 .0
1 0 5 .7
1 0 9 .7
9 9 .5
1 1 3 .9
1 0 5 .5
1 0 9 .1
9 9 .4
1 1 0 .9
1 0 4 .7
1 0 5 .2
1 1 8 .3
1 1 8 .9
1 1 6 .3
1 1 5 .0
1 1 7 .1
1 1 8 .9
Dec. 63
J u n e 64
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
S e p t. 61
M a r. 62
Dec. 63
H ose, n y lo n , s e a m le s s ......... .....................
A n k le ts , c o tt o n _______
G lo ves, fa b r ic , n y lo n o r c o tto n ________
H a n d b a g s , ra y o n f a i lle o r p la s tic _____
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
9 9 .8
1 1 8 .5
1 0 9 .8
1 1 7 .2
9 9 .4
1 1 8 .5
1 0 9 .2
1 1 5 .5
9 9 .2
1 1 8 .4
1 0 9 .0
1 1 4 .8
9 8 .8
1 1 8 .2
1 0 9 .3
1 1 4 .1
9 9 .6
1 1 8 .1
1 0 8 .9
1 1 3 .8
9 9 .0
1 1 7 .6
1 0 8 .9
1 1 3 .7
1 2 4 .4
1 2 3 .4
1 2 1 .7
1 2 4 .0
1 2 0 .8
0
0
0)
(0
(i)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M a r.
9 9 .8
1 1 2 .2
1 1 1 .4
1 2 0 .5
1 2 3 .8
See footnotes at end of table.
8 4 .9
A p r.
9 8 .5
S lip s , n y lo n ______
P a n tie s , a c e ta te .................
G ird le s , m a n m a d e b le n d ............................
B ra s s ie re s , c o tto n .......................................
G ir l s ':
R a in c o a ts , v in y l p la s t ic o r c h ie fly
c o tt o n .......................
S k ir t s , w o o l o r w o o l b le n d __________ .
M ay
9 8 .8
W om en's and g ir ls '. . ..................................
W o m e n ’s :
C o ats, h e a v y w e ig h t, w o o l o r w o o l
b l e n d . .................... .....................
S k ir ts , w o o l o r w o o l b l e n d . . .
S k ir ts , c o tto n o r c o tto n b l e n d . . .............
B lo u s e s , c o tto n _______________
D re s s e s , s tr e e t, c h ie f ly
m anm ade
f ib e r ...........................
D re s s e s , s t r e e t , w o o l o r w o o l b l e n d . . .
D re s s e s , s t r e e t , c o tt o n ________
H o u s e d re s s e s , c o tt o n ...... ...................
8 5 .8
S e p t.
1 0 0 .5
0
9 9 .8
1 0 5 .0
M en's and boys’ ..................... ...........
S h ir ts , w o r k , c o tt o n .....................................
S h ir ts , b u s in e s s , c o tt o n __________
T - s h ir ts , c h ie f ly c o t t o n . . ......................
S o c k s , c o tt o n ..................................
H a n d k e rc h ie fs , c o tt o n ________________
O ct.
63
64
63
63
D ec.
June
Dec.
Dec.
APPAREL AN D UPKEEP.............
M en’s:
T o p c o a ts , w o o l____________
. ..
S u its , y e a r ro u n d w e ig h t ____________
S u its , t r o p ic a l w e i g h t . . ________
J a c k e ts , lig h t w e ig h t ___________________
S la c k s , w o o l o r w o o l b le n d ______
S la c k s , c o tto n o r m a n m a d e b le n d .
T ro u s e r s , w o r k , c o tt o n ________ _______
N o v.
Annual
a ve ra g e
1968
9 6 .7
H o u s e k e e p in g s u p p lie s :
L a u n d r y s o a p s a n d d e te r g e n ts _____
P a p e r n a p k in s _____________ ________
T o ile t t is s u e ________________________
H o u s e k e e p in g s e r v ic e s :
D o m e s tic s e rv ic e , g e n e ra l h o u s e w o r k ______________________ _______
B a b y s i t t e r s e r v i c e . . ______ ________
P o s ta l c h a r g e s __________ _________
L a u n d r y , f la t w o r k , fin is h e d s e rv ic e .
L ic e n s e d d a y c a re s e rv ic e , p re s c h o o lc h ild ......... ..................... ..............
W a s h in g m a c h in e r e p a ir s __________
1968
1969
D ec. 63
( 2)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 3 4 .1
1 3 8 .1
0
1 1 5 .9
1 2 0 .6
1 0 4 .6
1 1 2 .1
1 2 0 .7
1 1 6 .4
1
1 1 2 .5
1 1 6 .2
112
24.
CONSUMER PRICES
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
O th er
Index or group
1968
1969
index
bases
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
136.3
131.7
108.6
114.7
137.4
127.9
108.5
111.1
136.9
135.4
107.7
108.9
108.0
108.3
143.9
143.3
142.3
J u ly
June
134.2
133.9
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
134.1
134.1
133.5
A n nual
average
1968
Nov.
A P P A R E L AN D U P K E E P — Continued
Women’s and girls'— Continued
Girls’ Continued
Dresses, c o t to n .. . ................................
Slacks, cotton______________ _____
Slips, cotton blend......... ..................... ..
H andbags..............................................
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Footwear_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Men's:
Shoes, street, oxford.............................
Shoes, work, high................................
0)
108.1
108.2
107.0
108.5
107.0
108.8
<2>
107.2
106.5
106.9
108.0
132.5
117.7
106.6
107.7
130.6
119.9
106.0
106.6
131.2
123.9
106.1
107.4
141.5
139.9
140.1
139.6
138.4
137.6
136.8
136.3
136.3
138.6
136.8
138.2
136.1
136.7
135.2
136.0
134.5
134.4
133.5
134.0
132.6
135.0
131.9
131.6
130.0
O)
O)
142.1
139.5
141.5
139.0
140.1
138.4
138.7
138.1
137.5
137.3
( ')
O)
(>)
125.1
120.1
104.0
102.9
135.7
132.2
Women's:
Shoes, street, pump...............................
Shoes, evening, p u m p . .. .....................
Shoes, casual, pump______ ________
Houseslippers, scuff............. ..................
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
152.5
122.9
133.4
127.1
152.0
122.9
132.0
126.6
150.8
122.3
129.6
126.4
149.9
121.8
128.9
125.4
147.3
121.0
126.8
123.9
147.9
120.0
128.2
124.0
148.0
119.1
127.1
123.9
147.2
118.0
125.5
123.4
145.9
117.9
123.3
123.0
144.9
117.4
122.5
122.7
144.0
117.1
121.5
122.1
144.8
116.3
123.1
121.5
139.0
131.1
119.6
115.6
Children's:
Shoes, oxford..........................................
Sneakers, boys', oxford type................
Dress shoes, girls’, strap___________
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
143.3
119.3
135.7
142.3
119.1
134.6
141.4
118.9
134.1
140.7
118.1
133.1
140.2
116.9
130.6
139.8
116.2
131.9
139.4
115.8
130.7
138.2
115.8
129.1
137.6
115.7
127.6
137.1
115.7
127.7
137.2
115.5
127.0
136.7
114.9
126.8
132.8
113.1
122.3
104.1
123.1
103.8
123.5
103.9
123.2
104.0
123.2
103.5
122.1
103.2
123.2
102.7
120.5
102.3
119.3
101.7
118.1
101.9
1L5.8
101.3
115.0
101.9
114.8
100.1
111.2
132.9
111.8
124.3
127.6
123.6
132.2
111.4
123.8
127.5
122.7
132.0
111.3
123.4
126.5
123.1
131.7
111.0
123.2
125.4
121.3
130.5
111.0
123.0
125.2
121.1
130.2
110.4
122.5
125.1
120.4
129.8
110.3
122.1
123.5
120.1
129.9
108.4
122.2
122.7
120.1
129.4
108.4
121.9
121.8
119.6
129.1
107.9
121.3
121.3
119.6
128.3
107.8
120.7
120.1
120.7
128.0
107.9
119.9
119.9
120.4
125.1
106.5
117.4
116.5
119.7
Miscellaneous apparel:
Diapers, cotton gauze_______ ______ _
Yard goods, cotton....... .............................
Apparel services:
Drycleaning, men’s suits and women’s
dre sse s...................... ............... ............
Automatic laundry service...... .................
Laundry, men’s shirts_______________
Tailoring charges, hem adjustment____
Shoe repairs, women's heel lift _______
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
125.6
125.7
123.6
124.2
124.3
124.6
124.0
124.6
124.3
122.0
120.7
120.2
121.2
119.6
Automobiles, n e w ....................................
Automobiles, used.....................................
Gasoline, regular and premium...............
Motor oil, p re m iu m ..................... ...........
122.7
105.1
124.9
116.3
140.1
122.8
104.2
125.8
118.0
139.6
120.5
99.5
121.4
117.7
139.1
121.3
101.0
125.4
118.0
138.7
121.4
101.6
127.0
117.7
138.1
121.8
101.8
128.2
118.6
137.4
121.2
101.8
126.8
117.3
136.7
121.9
101.9
131.2
117.8
136.0
121.6
102.4
130.5
117.2
135.5
119.3
102.3
122.6
114.5
134.6
117.9
102.3
115.5
114.5
134.1
117.5
102.7
118.7
113.3
134.0
118.9
103.8
( 2)
117.3
100.8
( 2)
113.3
131.7
Tires, new, tu b e le s s ...______ _______
Auto repairs and maintenance _______
Auto insurance rates________________
Auto registration_____ ____ _________
118.0
136.6
164.6
134.2
117.4
136.1
163.7
134.2
117.0
135.2
163.2
134.2
116.0
134.5
160.3
134.2
116.3
133.8
159.0
134.2
115.5
133.3
158.7
134.2
115.6
132.9
158.1
134.2
115.7
132.3
157.2
134.2
114.8
132.0
156.1
133.5
114.9
131.1
155.7
130.7
115.0
130.3
154.7
131.0
114.3
128.9
150.0
127.4
151.1
163.0
127.5
115.5
111.6
127.0
150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0
150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0
149.7
160.8
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
149.5
160.5
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
149.1
159.9
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
148.0
159.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
118.6
148.0
159.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
113.6
147.5
158.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
118.6
145.5
158.4
124.8
108.4
103.3
117.8
144.8
157.3
124.8
108.4
103.3
117.8
144.3
156.5
124.8
108.4
103.3
117.8
139.1
138.6
138.4
137.7
137.0
136.3
135.7
135.1
134.3
133.7
133.3
132.8
132.4
130.0
153.6
99.0
103.8
92.2
103.3
152.5
98.8
106.6
92.2
106.5
151.3
98.6
106.4
92.2
105.6
150.2
98.6
106.7
92.9
105.2
149.1
98.5
106.6
92.2
105.7
148.2
145.0
98.1
106.0
93.7
105.5
Private. . . . . . ...... ................. . ......... ...............
Public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ..................
Local transit fares.................. ...................
Taxicab fares____ __________________
Railroad fares, coach________ _______
Airplane fares, chiefly coach....................
Bus fares, intercity.....................................
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
H E A L T H A N D R E C R E A T IO N ............................
Medical care........... .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111.8
125.7
147.1
126.3
139.4
138.2
148.5
121.7
107.3
103.0
116.3
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
157.4
99.6
107.1
92.4
106.2
156.9
99.4
106.9
92.5
106.1
157.6
99.3
106.9
92.4
105.5
156.8
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.8
155.9
99.2
106.9
92.1
106.4
155.2
99.3
107.1
92.2
106.6
154.5
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.2
Liquid tonics....................... ...............
Adhesive bandages, package_____
Cold tablets or capsules...................
Cough syrup........ ...............................
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
63
63
63
63
101.3
117.1
110.0
114.7
100.8
117.4
109.6
113.7
100.9
117.0
109.1
115.1
100.9
116.5
109.2
114.8
100.8
116.7
109.1
114.8
100.9
117.0
109.5
115.2
100.9
116.9
109.3
115.1
100.9
116.6
103.3
114.5
100.9
116.4
108.8
113.5
101.0
116.5
108.1
113.8
100.9
116.4
107.8
115.5
100.9
116.3
107.7
115.6
101.0
114.3
107.2
113.5
Prescriptions...........................................
Anti-infectives................................ .
Sedatives and hypnotics_________
A taractics..........................................
Anti-spamodics............. ................... ..
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
60
60
60
60
89.0
62.8
109.6
89.8
101.3
89.0
63.0
108.9
89.8
101.3
88.8
62.9
107.8
89.8
101.2
88.7
62.9
107.6
89.7
101.0
88.6
62.8
107.1
89.9
101.0
88.6
63.1
106.9
90.0
101.2
88.6
63.1
106.4
90.0
101.1
88.3
62.5
103.1
89.7
100.9
88.2
62.5
105.9
89.7
101.1
88.0
62.4
105.0
89.8
101.1
87.8
62.4
104.3
89.8
101.1
87.6
62.2
103.4
89.8
100.7
87.5
63.2
101.2
89.8
100.6
Mar. 60
111.7
111.4
111.1
110.8
110.2
109.7
109.3
108.5
106.7
106.4
105.1
104.5
102.7
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
60
67
67
67
98.0
103.2
104.3
93.9
97.9
103.1
104.2
94.3
97.7
103.1
103.6
93.9
97.6
103.1
103.3
93.9
97.1
102.9
102.9
93.8
97.0
102.8
102.6
93.9
96.9
103.0
102.6
94.9
96.9
103.0
102.4
94.7
96.5
102.4
102.8
94.3
95.9
102.1
102.1
94.7
95.4
101.8
101.9
94.9
95.1
101.5
101.4
95.5
94.7
101.2
99.5
95.5
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
159.0
161.0
166.2
154.9
145.5
132.6
158.3
160.6
165.9
153.9
144.2
131.7
158.0
160.3
165.6
153.2
144.1
131.7
156.8
158.7
163.9
152.8
142.8
130.9
156.0
158.3
163.8
150.1
140.9
129.3
155.5
157.6
163.4
149.4
140.3
129.6
154.3
155 8
162.9
148.6
140.2
129.2
153.3
154.9
162.4
147.4
139.9
126.6
152.6
154.1
161.5
146.5
139.6
125.5
151.1
152.0
158.8
145.9
139.0
125.2
149.7
151.0
157.6
144.1
134.7
123.7
149.1
150.5
157.0
142.9
133.3
123.3
145.3
146.8
151.9
139.2
129.6
119,7
Drugs and prescriptions............................
Over-the-counter items____ _______
Multiple vitamin concentrates..........
Aspirin com pounds..........................
Cough preparations...........................
Cardiovascular and antihypertensives...........................................
Analgesics, internal...........................
A n ti-ob esity...............................
Hormones.................................. .........
Professional services:
Physicians’ fees......................
Family doc'or, office visits............ ..
Family doctor, house v is its ...
Obstetrical cases__________
Pediatric care, office visits................
Psychiatrist, office visits....................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.
CONSUMER PRICES
113
Consumer Price Index—U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Other
index
bases
Index or group
1969
Nov.
Oct.
125.2
151.3
1968
Annual
average
1968
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
124.6
149.3
124.6
149.1
124.3
149.0
124.3
148.1
124.1
147.8
123.9
147.3
123.2
146.5
123.1
146.4
122.8
146.3
121.3
145.5
121.2
145.3
119 1
140.9
147.2
146.9
146.0
145.5
144.9
141.2
143.6
142.9
140.1
139.4
138.9
137.3
134.5
Dec. 63
148.3
146.7
129.7
148.3
145.9
129.5
147.1
145.3
128.9
146.4
144.7
128.8
145.7
144.5
128.3
145.1
143.4
127.7
144.6
142.6
127.3
144.0
141.8
126.5
141.1
138.9
124.3
140.2
138.4
124.1
139.1
138.3
124.0
137.3
137.6
122.5
135 0
133. 3
120.3
Dec. 63
133.8
119.4
132.8
118.5
132.4
118.5
132.2
118.6
131.7
118.0
131.2
117.9
130.8
117.6
129.5
115.6
128.9
115.4
128.5
115.1
127.8
114.3
127.6
114.2
125.7
113.0
UfeC. 63
Dec. 63
265.4
261.7
256.1
170.6
124.5
263.8
260.1
254.7
170.9
124.8
261.9
258.4
252.6
168.7
124.6
259.9
25 .3
250.8
167.6
123.2
256.7
253.0
247.9
166.4
122.7
253.8
250.0
245.5
165.6
122.3
252.4
248.4
244.4
164.8
122.1
251.4
247.4
243.5
163.0
121.8
249.2
245.1
241.6
160.4
121.4
246.2
242.2
238.4
158.1
120.3
243.1
239.0
235.8
155.1
119.9
239.3
235.1
232.3
150.9
119.0
226.6
222. 5
220 2
143.2
117.1
127.3
111.6
114.4
125.1
110.7
127.3
111.7
113.8
126.3
Dec. 63
127.8
111.8
114.7
124.8
109.7
111.1
126.8
111.4
113.4
123.3
111.2
126.6
111.2
112.9
125.1
110.4
126.2
110.9
113.6
123.6
109.0
125.8
110.4
113.2
123.9
107.7
125.5
110.4
114.1
124.2
107.0
124.8
109.8
113.9
123.9
106.4
124.1
109.2
113.3
123.5
105.4
123.7
108.7
112.8
122.6
105.1
123.4
108.6
111.3
122.9
104.3
101.6
127.5
95.0
111.8
98.6
102.0
127.2
95.1
109.2
98.5
102.1
126.8
95.3
108.4
99.2
102.1
126.6
95.5
109.3
99.1
101.4
126.1
95.0
109.3
98.8
102.3
125. 0
94.9
108.7
99.3
102.3
124.0
95.4
107.9
98.4
101.9
124.4
95.1
108.0
97.5
101.9
123.1
94.9
107.1
96.6
102.4
121.4
93.9
106.8
96.0
102.6
120.4
93.9
106.2
95.4
102.8
120.8
94.7
106.5
94.6
101 9
117 5
9? 3
104 5
91.2
147.5
156.4
138.0
124.0
146.7
155.2
137.7
123.4
146.5
154.8
137.5
123.2
145.8
154.5
136.6
121.9
145.5
154.7
136.0
121.2
144.9
153.8
135.6
120.9
144.7
153.1
135.7
121.7
144.2
152.3
135.4
121.4
143.2
151.7
134.2
120.7
142.5
150.5
133.9
120.5
142.1
150.0
133.5
120.3
141.6
149.7
133.0
119.7
137.9
144.7
130.2
117.2
155.3
107.2
154.9
107.1
154.6
107.0
153.6
106.9
152.8
106.7
152.3
106.5
152.1
106.5
151.7
106.1
150.1
105.4
149.7
105.3
149.0
105.1
148.3
104.9
132.0
99.1
80.2
115.9
131.6
99.0
80.0
115.7
131.2
98.8
79.7
115.4
130.7
98.7
79.8
115.6
130.4
98.6
80.0
115.8
130.2
98.6
80.1
115.6
129.6
98.4
80.1
115.3
128.7
97.9
79.8
114.8
128.4
97.7
80.1
114.7
128.4
97.8
80.3
114.8
128.2
97.9
80.5
114.0
Dec.
Nov.
H E A L T H AN D R EC R EA TIO N — Continued
Medical care— Continued
Professional services— Continued
Physicians’ fees— Continued
Herniorrhaphy, adult....... ..................
Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy..
Dentists’ fees........ .................................
Fillings, adult, amalgam, one
surface......... ......... ....................... ..
Extractions, adult_______________
Dentures, full upper_____________
Other professional services:
Examination, prescription, and dispensing of eyeglasses___ ____
Routine laboratory tests................. ..
Hospital service charges:
Daily service charges______________
Semiprivate rooms______________
Private rooms__________________
Operating room charges.. _________
X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G.l___
Dec. 63
Personal care__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Toilet goods................................ ............
Toothpaste, standard d e n tifric e ..
Toilet soap, hard m illed________
Hand lotions, liquid________ _
Shaving cream, aerosol................
Face powder, pressed__________
Deodorants, cream or roll-on___
Cleansing tissues_____________
Home permanent refills.................
Personal care services.........................
Men's haircuts.................... ............
Beauty shop services__________
Women’s haircu ts..................
Shampoo and wave sets,
plain....................... ..............
Permanent waves, cold_____
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Reading and recreation_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
122.8
120 3
106 0
107 8
122.3
99.9
144.6
103.8
Recreational goods_____________
TV sets, portable and console___
TV replacement tubes____ ____
Radios, portable and table
model__________ ____ _____
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
132.3
99.2
80.3
116.3
76.5
76.6
76.9
76.5
76.5
76.6
76.6
76.5
76.3
76.3
76.7
76.8
77.0
Tape recorders, portable_______
Phonograph
records, stereophonic___________
Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom
le n s.......................................
Film, 35mm, c o lo r.................
Bicycle, boys’_________
Tricycles.________ ___________
Dec. 63
91.2
91.4
91.5
91.4
91.5
91.9
91.7
91.7
91.2
91.1
90.6
91.2
91.8
Dec. 63
98.0
98.1
97.6
97.7
97.9
97.5
97.5
96.6
96.4
95.9
95.6
96.7
96.7
63
63
63
63
83.4
99.1
110.0
111.4
83.1
99.4
109.7
111.9
83.5
99.6
109.9
111.6
83.4
99.2
109.5
111.2
83.5
99.1
109.7
109.4
84.1
99.0
109.1
109.2
85.0
99.0
109 0
108.5
84.9
98.9
108.6
107.9
84.8
98.9
107.8
107.5
84.5
98.6
107.3
107.2
85.0
98.6
107.2
107.8
85.3
98.6
106.7
107.7
85.6
98.0
105.0
106.8
Recreational services.............
Indoor movie admissions___ . . .
Adult__________
Children’s.................... ...........
Dec. 63
132.6
208.3
203.2
225.4
132.1
207.0
201.9
224.5
131.7
206.5
201.6
223.2
131.1
204.2
198.8
222.1
130.1
200.2
194.4
219.6
129.7
198.3
192.9
216.7
129.2
197.4
192.0
215.6
128.7
196.3
191.5
212.5
127.1
193.2
188.6
208.6
126.7
192.6
188.2
207.4
126.6
192.6
187.9
208.5
126.3
190.3
185.3
207.0
123.4
185.3
181.2
199.1
Drive-in movie admissions, adult.
Bowing fees, evening_____
Golf greens fees________ _
TV repairs, picture tube replacem ent______ .
Film developing, black and w h ite.
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
165.0
113.6
0)
164.5
112.1
135.5
164.1
110.9
135.9
163.5
110.3
135.8
161.9
110.4
134.7
160.1
110.6
134.6
157.0
110.6
133.8
156.0
110.8
130.9
153.1
110.4
127.3
153.6
110.1
125.0
153.9
109.8
124.8
153.7
109.2
127.2
146.2
107.4
124.9
Dec. 63
100.0
117.9
101.4
117.9
101.0
118.3
101.0
118.4
101.0
118.9
102.2
119.2
102.3
120.0
103.3
120.5
102.7
120.2
102.6
120.0
102.6
120.1
102.6
120.2
102.9
118.3
Dec. 63
156.7
126.7
156.4
126.5
155.9
126.1
155.8
123.8
155.2
122.8
154.3
122.3
153.7
122.2
153.2
122.2
152.7
121.7
152.3
121.6
152.1
121.3
151.3
121.1
147.7
117.5
133.1
153.1
132.2
151.5
131.3
150.6
130.1
148.7
129.1
146.7
127.9
144.0
126.9
142.3
126.6
142.1
126.1
141.8
125.8
141.7
125.6
141.6
125.6
141.3
160.7
152.6
109.9
158.9
151.0
109.4
158.0
150.0
109.6
155.8
148.1
108.7
153.7
146.2
107.1
150.8
143.4
106.5
149.3
141.0
106.1
149.1
140.9
106.0
148.7
140.7
105.9
148.6
140.5
105.9
148.5
140.5
105.6
148.0
140.4
105.4
145.7
138.0
104.5
120.4
116.6
120.0
116.3
119.1
116.4
118.2
115.3
117.7
114.8
117.4
114.5
116.8
114.2
116.5
113.9
115.9
113.5
115.6
113.0
115.3
112.8
115.6
112.6
113.7
111.9
111.4
114.5
125.6
111.3
113.6
125.0
110.4
112.0
123.0
110.1
110.6
122.3
109.8
110.2
121.8
109.4
109.5
121.5
109.2
108.8
120.5
109.2
108.6
119.9
108.9
108.0
118.9
108.9
107.8
118.8
109.0
107.4
118.1
109. 0
107.1
119.3
108.7
106.0
114.9
Dec. 63
117.3
116.9
116.5
115.9
115.5
115.2
114.6
114.0
113.6
113.1
112.5
112.3
110.7
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
109.9
139.5
109.1
139.5
108.3
138.8
10 .4
137.8
108.2
135.0
108.2
134.5
107.9
132.9
107.8
130.8
107.5
129.5
107.4
128.2
106.9
128.3
106.6
127.6
107.3
124.3
Reading and education:
Newspapers, street sale and
delivery..................
Piano lessons, beginner.........
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Other goods and services_ _ _ _ _ _
Tobacco products________
Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular
size____________
Cigarettes, filter tip, king size___
Cigars, domestic, regular size___
Alcoholic beverages___
Beer....................
Whiskey, spirit blended
straight bourbon_____
Wine, dessert and table.
Beer, away from home___
and
Financial and miscellaneous personal
expenses:
Funeral services, a d u lt..
Bank service charges, checking
accounts........................
Legal services, short form w i ll . . .
1 Priced only in season.
2 Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Mar. 59
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
128.0
125.4
NOTE: Monthly data for individual nonfood items not available for 1968.
125.7
96.9
80.2
109.3
123.6
139.1
114
25.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price In d e x 1—U.S. c ity average, and selected areas
[1957-59 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1969
1968
Annual average
Area2
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
1968
1967
124.6
124.1
123.7
123.4
121.2
116.3
O)
(9
<9
116.9
120.3
(9
119.6
120.9
124.7
114.8
118.5
118.9
115.0
116.1
119.8
109.9
113.6
113.5
112.9
108.1
114.9
107.8
114.4
118.7
All items
U.S. city average3_______________ ___________
130.5
129.8
129.3
128.7
128.2
127.6
126.8
126.4
125.6
(9
(9
(9
121.2
126.1
(9
(9
(9
132.1
(9
125.3
(9
126.1
127.9
(9
(9
124.6
124.6
(9
(9
(9
120.2
123.6
(9
(9
(9
129.8
(9
123.2
(9
124.9
125.7
(9
<9
122.9
122.7
O)
(9
(9
127.9
117.3
121.9
(9
121.4
(9
122.1
124.0
(9
(9
121.0
121.1
Atlanta, Ga______________________ __________
Baltimore, M d ._ ..................................... ...................
Boston, Mass.............................................. .................
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100)________________
Chicago, 111.-Northwestern Ind.............. ...................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky.........................................
(9
(4)
(9
123.2
127.7
(9
(9
(9
134.7
(9
126.9
(9
128.6
130.4
(9
(9
127.2
125.5
Cleveland, Ohio.................................. .........................
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100 )................ .................
Detroit, Mich____ _____ _____________________
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100 )......................
Houston, Tex......... ............................... ............... .......
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas........ .................... ........... .
129.5
123.7
129.8
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
129.2
(9
129.8
(9
(9
<«>
128.6
118.1
(9
131.4
127.3
121.2
128.5
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
127.6
(9
127.0
(9
(9
«
127.3
116.6
(9
130.4
125.3
119.4
126.4
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
125.7
(9
125.5
(9
(9
<9
125.1
115.6
(9
128.1
123.1
116.8
123.4
«
(9
(9
O)
(9
122.8
O)
123.2
(9
O)
(9
122.5
113.9
O)
125.5
121.8
115.4
122.1
(9
(9
119.6
113.0
119.8
111.9
119.3
123.5
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif...................... ...........
Milwaukee, W is . .. ...................... ...............................
Minneapoiis-St. Paul, Minn ............................... ..
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J______________
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J._.................. ................. .........
Pittsburgh, Pa________________________ _____ _
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.5.............................. ................
130.0
127.0
(9
134.6
131.7
(4)
(9
130.1
(9
130.3
134.1
131.2
128.5
130.1
129.6
(9
(9
133.5
131.0
(9
(9
128.9
123.9
(9
132.5
130.2
(9
(9
128.6
(9
128.0
132.1
129.2
127.7
128.4
127.9
(9
(9
131.6
128.2
(9
(9
126.9
122.8
(9
130.8
127.5
(9
(9
126.9
<9
125.1
130.5
127.6
126.0
127.9
126.6
(9
(9
129.6
127.0
(9
(9
125.2
120.8
(9
128.3
126.0
(9
(9
124.7
(9
122.9
127.8
125.2
124.0
125.3
124.2
O)
«
127.2
125.1
(9
O)
124.2
118.7
(9
126.9
124.9
(9
(9
122.2
116.8
121.2
124.1
122.4
120.4
122.3
117.6
112.9
115.9
119.0
116.8
115.0
118.2
St. Louis, Mo.—1II_________________ ____ _____
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965=100)______ ______
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif..................... ...............
Scranton, Pa.5.................................. ...........................
Seattle, Wash.............. ........................... .....................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va............................... ...........
(9
117.0
(9
127.3
130.0
132.0
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
129.2
(9
132.8
(9
(9
(9
(9
116.0
(9
130.5
129.5
130.8
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
127.0
(9
130.8
(9
(9
(9
(9
114.4
(9
128.1
127.6
128.8
(9
125.4
(9
128.9
(9
(9
(9
(9
(9
t.9
(9
123.4
O)
126.7
(9
(9
(9
O)
111.2
(9
(9
112.8
(9
126.2
125.9
126.3
124.9
124.5
124.9
121.5
109.4
124.3
122.8
122.3
122.0
116.8
105.1
119.0
118.0
117.5
116.5
O)
<9
P>
(9
(9
O)
(9
(9
O)
0)
O)
Food
U.S.city average3_____________ _______ ________
128.1
127.2
127.5
127.4
126.7
125.5
123.7
123.2
122.4
121.9
122.0
121.2
120.5
119.3
115.2
Atlanta, Ga________________________________ _
Baltimore, Md___________________ ____ ______
Boston, Mass___________ ______ _________ ___
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100)_______________ _
Chicago, 1II.—Northwestern Ind_________________
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky..........................................
126.9
132.3
131.6
126.5
131.5
131.2
121.9
128.3
124.1
126.7
131.8
131.4
126.3
130.8
131.8
122.5
130.5
123.2
124.4
130.1
130.2
122.4
129.0
123.3
122.8
127.9
129.5
121.8
126.3
127.5
118.2
124.4
120.7
125.3
126.3
117.4
123.9
119.1
120.0
124.1
126.0
117.2
123.0
118.8
119.7
124.8
125.1
117.5
124.0
118.7
119 1
123.9
124.6
117.0
122.5
118.4
118.6
122.6
123.7
115.7
121.7
117.9
117.2
121.3
122.7
114.6
120.4
116.3
114.2
116.3
119.4
127.5
121.9
121.2
126.2
127.8
118.9
125.3
120.7
Cleveland, Ohio.................. ....................................... ..
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100)...............................
Detroit, Mich________________ _______________
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 10 0 ).........................
Houston, Tex______________ ___________ _____
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas.................. ..........................
125.7
123.3
123.2
119.9
116.7
119.5
115.6
123.4
125.0
119.2
115.9
118.4
113.9
122.9
124.4
118.6
114.9
118.3
114.1
116.7
113.7
117.6
111.4
109.7
114.1
108.3
115.8
117.9
119.6
121.4
119.3
123.1
122.9
118.7
119.6
121.4
120.5
123.3
122.7
119.6
122.5
119.3
120.4
119.3
122. 3
121.9
118.8
125.2
113.8
125.8
113.4
120.2 120.1
124.9
112.9
119.6
121.6
121.5
126.0
121.4
125.5
120.5
124.9
122.8
129.4
125.1
122.8
126.8
119.5
129.2
132.9
121.8
130.2
123.6
125.0
121.7
126.1
119.7
128.7
131.2
125.1
126.5
119.1
129.2
131.9
125.2
121.9
127.3
118.0
129.0
131.3
122.0
121.2
120.6 120.1
126.5
116.9
127.7
130.7
124.5
116.3
126.8
129.8
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif..................................
Milwaukee, Wis________________ ______ ______
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn..................................... .
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N .J ...........................
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J................................................ ..
Pittsburgh, Pa_______________ ________ ______
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.5
.........
124.7
127.8
127.2
130.6
128.0
125.7
124.0
127.6
126.5
129.6
127.0
123.3
124.4
124.0
127.9
125.9
129.1
127.2
123.2
123.9
127.6
126.4
128.7
127.2
123.9
124.0
126.5
125.4
128.1
126.0
124.2
125.2
123.0
125.1
St. Louis, Mo.—I ll.................... .....................................
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965 = 100)..........................
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif......... ...........................
Scranton , Pa.
Seattle, Wash......... ....... ................................. ...........
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va...........................................
133.5
119.1
126.2
131.9
126.2
131.2
132.4
117.8
125.6
132.6
118.3
124.9
129.8
118.7
125.9
128.6
118.1
124.3
125.2
130.5
125.9
131.6
131.2
118.6
124.9
127.5
126.2
132.5
125.8
131.3
125.0
129.1
1 See table 23. Indexes measure tim e-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate
whether it costs more to live in one area than in another.
3 The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire urban portion of the
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1960 Census of Population;
except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
122.8
126.6
124.5
123.2
122.3
118.2
122.7
116.1
125.2
127.5
120.2
120.1
119.6
116.5
116.9
121.9
115.8
124.3
126.6
115.7
124.3
125.6
121.6 121.2
120.3
120.8
122.0
120.2
123.3
121.3
124.9
123.1
120.9
122.9
120.7
124.7
124.3
119.6
122.7
126.9
116.4
122.7
123.4
123.6
128.3
126.4
115.3
122.3
125.8
114.5
121.4
123.2
127.6
122.3
126.3
123.6
123.2
119.2
120.0
116.2
119.9
115.7
123.8
125.5
122.1
112.2
124.1
119.7
122.7
118.4
119.5
118.7
117.5
118.2
117.3
110.0
115.4
112.5
121.8 120.2
121.1 119.6
114.1
114.5
113.0
115.7
114.5
117.2
115.9
119.3
123.9
112.5
119.3
119.8
119.8
124.1
123.5
111.3
118.4
118.4
118.8
121.3
119.0
107.6
114.7
113.6
114.6
115.9
111.2
115.4
s Average of 56 "c itie s ” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places
beginning January 1961).
* A ll items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a
rotating cycle for other areas.
* Old series.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
26.
WHOLESALE PRICES
115
Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]2
1969
Code
1968
Commodity Group
Annual
average
1968
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
114.7
114.0
113.6
113.4
113.3
113.2
112.8
111.9
111.7
111.1
110.7
109.8
109.6
108.7
FAR M PR O D U C TS AN D PR O C E SSE D FO O D S
AN D F E E D S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
115.7
114.3
114.3
114.6
115.5
115.5
114.1
110.9
110.7
110.0
109.8
108.4
108.3
107.6
114.2
113.8
113.2
112.8
112.4
112.2
112.2
112.1
112.0
111.4
110.9
110.2
109.9
109.0
Farm products.............
.......................
Fresh and dried fru its and vegetables...........
Grains
Livestock
Live poultry______________
Plant and animal f ib e r s . . . ..............................
Fluid m ilk _____________________________
Eggs---------------------------- ----------------------------Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds
Other farm products---------------
111.1
125.3
81.7
116.6
86.3
66.0
137.6
139.8
103.4
115.9
107.9
101.3
84.8
118.7
85.3
66.1
136.8
113.8
101.2
116.7
108.4
103.4
83.4
119.2
89.0
66.4
135.6
122.5
105.7
110.6
108.9
106.7
81.9
123.6
92.3
66.9
135.1
100.5
107.3
109.5
110.5
103.1
83.7
126.8
90.2
67.7
134.9
117.0
111.3
106.9
111.2
112.9
85.6
130.4
89.8
67.7
134.6
85.9
110.6
106.2
110.5
126.7
83.7
123.0
90.7
67.7
134.1
80.6
115.1
105.6
105.6
106.8
83.1
113.8
87.0
67.3
133.5
97.3
113.8
106.1
106.5
112.1
81.6
112.5
95.5
67.3
132.8
110.9
112.5
106.8
105.0
108.7
82.0
109.2
94.3
67.7
132 6
108.1
112.4
105.4
104.9
112.0
82.5
106.1
90.5
68.8
131.8
122.3
111.5
105.9
103.3
109.3
80.4
104.2
82.9
69.0
132.3
117.8
108.8
107.7
103.1
109.4
82.0
103.9
87.6
71.2
132.4
107.6
107.3
106.9
102.2
108.2
81.9
104.8
84.9
75.4
128.8
93.9
111.5
103.1
Cereal and bakery products........................... ..
Meats, poultry, and fish....................................
Dairy products
.........................................
Processed fruits and vegetables______
Sugar and confectionery
............. .............
Beverages and beverage m aterials................
Animal fats and o ils ...................... ........... ..
Crude vegetable o ils . . ...................................
Refined vegetable o ils .................. .........
Vegetable oil end products
.......................
Miscellaneous processed foods........................
Manufactured animal feeds.............. ...............
121.8
121.9
120. 5
131.2
116. 3
127.9
116.0
123.0
97.0
91.1
106.5
127.2
119.5
121.6
121.2
120.2
130.7
116.0
127.7
115.0
118.3
88.4
88.9
104.7
131.6
119.9
121.3
120.4
122.9
133.4
116.6
127.2
113.1
104.0
79.8
85.0
102.1
121.2
119.3
121.5
120.1
124.5
133.0
116.8
127.2
112.6
105.0
80.0
84.7
102.1
119.8
118.2
122.0
119.9
127.5
133.0
116.6
122.3
112.6
96.4
80.0
89.4
102.1
119.5
118.7
121.4
119.7
126.5
133.0
115.6
123.0
112.4
91.2
81.9
89.4
103.3
118.6
116.9
119.4
119.4
121.0
132.5
115.7
122.7
111.8
89.0
81.0
89.4
103.3
118.6
114.9
117.3
119.3
114.0
131.4
115.4
120.2
111.4
90.8
80.6
89.4
103.3
119.0
118.3
116.4
119.3
112.2
130.4
115.1
119.5
111.3
96.1
83.0
91.6
103.1
119.3
115.7
116.3
119.3
111.4
130. 2
114.5
119.2
111.1
90.3
83.4
95.0
102. 9
119.1
117.5
116.0
119.3
130.1
113.6
119.2
110.8
84.0
80.4
91.5
101.1
118.2
118.2
114.7
119.3
107.3
130.4
113.3
118.8
110.6
74.1
78.0
90.0
100.5
118.2
118.2
114.7
119.3
107.7
130.0
114.1
117.9
110.6
78.2
76.2
90.0
99.9
118.5
117.3
114.1
118.2
108.3
127.7
114.1
115.8
109.6
69.6
84.5
91.4
100.2
115.5
118.5
A L L C O M M O D IT IE S
_
.
IN D U STR IAL C O M M O D IT IE S .......... ......
.
FAR M PR O D U C TS , AN D P R O CESSED FO O D S
A N D FE ED S
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9
02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-71
02-72
02-73
02-74
02-8
02-9
...........
....
----------- ---------------------- ---- - -------------_______
____ ___
---------Processed foods and feeds------ --- --------- ....
...
.
.
.
....
.
__
....
111.1
IN D U STR IAL C O M M O D ITIE S
_
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-41
03-5
03-6
03-7
T extile products and apparel______ _______ ________
Cotton products................................. ...............
Wool products
............ .........................
Manmade fiber textile products.......................
Silk yarns____________
Apparel.................................................................
Textile housefurnishings.................................
Miscellaneous textile products......... ...........
.
109.2
106.0
104.6
91.5
184.6
116.7
108.0
129.6
109.1
105.8
104.5
91.6
183.9
116.5
108.0
127.2
109.0
105.9
105.0
92.1
181.2
116.2
107.3
121.4
108.7
105.7
104.8
92.7
177.1
115.8
104.7
119.6
107.7
105.3
105.0
92.6
168.2
113.9
104.2
120.3
107.2
104.5
105.0
92.7
164.6
113.3
104.2
118.0
106.9
104.6
104.3
92.6
157.9
112.9
103.2
114.7
107.1
104.5
104.3
92.4
155.4
113.0
107.7
119.7
107.1
104.6
104.2
92.1
155.0
112.8
107.7
121.9
107.2
104.8
104.4
92.3
156.4
112.7
107.6
127.1
107.4
104.8
104.7
92.8
160.8
112.7
110.2
126.2
107.1
105.1
104.6
92.9
165.2
111.9
110.2
125.3
107.2
105.4
104.6
93.0
172.0
111.8
110.1
125.2
105.7
105.1
103.7
90.8
183.0
110.3
110.5
115.5
04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4
Hides,skins, leather, and related products____________
Hides and skins.......................... .......................
Leather..............
...........................
Footwear_____________
Other leather and related products
.........
126.8
110.4
119.6
135.5
118.6
127.4
118.0
120.3
135.2
118.4
128.2
128.7
121.7
134.9
117.9
126.4
123.1
121.0
132.7
117.6
126.4
123.0
121.2
132.7
117.5
125.7
117.4
121.5
132.3
117.2
126.1
122.6
121.7
132.1
117.0
126.0
125.8
122.3
131.9
116.0
123.4
109.1
116.4
131.5
115.3
123.4
106.3
116.5
132.2
114.8
123.5
109.2
116 8
132.1
114.2
122.8
106.8
115.8
131.7
113.8
122.4
107.0
113.8
131.7
113.3
119.5
99.6
112.6
128.0
112.7
105.5
123. 5
126.9
128.8
103.4
104.5
101.6
105.4
120.6
126.9
128.7
103.7
104.5
101.6
104.7
115.9
120.3
123.0
103.5
104.5
101.8
104.7
115.5
120.3
121.8
102.4
104.5
102.5
105.0
115.4
120.3
121.6
102.5
104.5
103.2
105.0
114.2
120.3
121.8
102.6
104.5
103.3
104.5
113.5
120.3
121.6
102.5
104.7
102.4
104.5
112.8
120.3
121.8
102.3
104.8
102.5
104.2
112.7
120.3
124.6
102.3
103.7
101.7
102.7
112.7
120.3
124.0
102.2
99.9
99.5
102.4
112.7
120.3
124.4
102.0
99.7
98.9
102.2
112.7
120.3
120.9
102.1
99.7
99.0
102.0
117.0
120.4
102.0
99.7
99.2
102.4
106.7
116.0
123.8
101.5
99.4
100.3
98.6
97.6
120.3
93.9
94.0
98.9
86.3
80.2
114.3
98.9
98.2
119.2
93.3
94.0
102.1
87.4
81.0
113.9
98.7
98.2
119.2
93.3
93.8
99.3
88.4
80.7
112.9
98.2
97.7
119.2
93.2
93.8
90.5
88.6
80.2
112.8
98.3
97.0
119.2
92.8
93.8
86.8
92.1
80.8
112.8
98.1
96.9
118.7
92.8
93.8
83.3
92.1
80.8
112.7
97.9
96.7
118.7
92.2
93.7
83.7
92.1
80.9
112.2
98.0
97.9
118.7
91.9
93.6
80.4
92.3
81.3
111.2
97.8
98.1
118.2
92.0
93.4
73.6
92.2
81.5
111.1
97.6
98.1
118.2
92.0
93.4
72.2
92.9
80.8
110.4
97.7
97.9
115.9
91.9
93.6
69.8
96.4
80.5
110.3
97.8
97.9
115.9
91.9
93.5
73.4
96.7
80.8
110.2
98.2
98.4
114.6
92.2
93.3
73.9
99.7
82.0
110.0
102.5
90.7
98.4
101.1
89.5
96.3
110.2
101.2
90.1
96.3
110.1
100.9
88.9
96.3
109.7
100.5
87.5
96.3
109.5
100.0
86.4
96.3
108.7
101.1
86.8
99.5
108.3
101.1
86.7
99.5
108.3
100.3
84.9
99.2
107.4
138.0
155.9
134.3
103.5
114.7
143.3
164.9
132.3
149.5
164.7
128.8
146.9
112.4
144.5
155.8
126.7
146.5
111.2
137. 8
147.9
124.8
135.0
133.5
142.2
123.8
128.9
110.3
126.8
136.2
122.5
112.6
109.2
119.3
127.2
118.5
103.1
106.7
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
.......
.
.
_________
.
......
.....
____ _____
....
Fuels and related products and power.... ................ .
Coal..................................................... ..........
Coke ......... ................... ...... ......... .....
Gas fuels (Jan. 1958=100)_______________
Electric power (Jan. 1958 = 100).... .............
Crude petroleum___________________ __
Petroleum products, refined................ ......
Chemicals and allied products__ ________________
Industrial chemicals........................ ...........
Prepared paint................ ..................................
Paint materials____ __ _______ ____
Drugs and pharmaceuticals..............................
Fats and oils, inedible ...... ............. .......
.
98.9
97.8
120.3
93.1
94.2
100.5
86.7
79.6
114.9
07
07-11
07-12
07-13
Rubber and rubber products
___________
Crude ru b b e r.................. ............. ........... ..
Tires and tubes
......... .........................
Miscellaneous rubber p ro d u c ts .....................
104.4
88.7
101.7
113.0
103.5
89.7
100.6
111.7
102.7
90.6
99.2
110.7
103.0
92.5
99.2
110.8
111.0
101.2
89.7
96.3
110.2
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products........................ ................. _
Lumber______
______________
M illw ork. ................................. ..................... ..
Plywood
Other wood products (Dec. 1966 = 100)_____
123.9
129.3
133.2
99.6
116.7
122.6
123.0
133.9
95.8
116.7
123.2
129.5
134.4
94.4
116.5
124.0
131.1
135.1
93.6
116.8
125.3
133.4
135.6
93.9
115.6
129.8
142.3
136.0
94.2
115.1
06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Agricultural chemicals and chem. products..
Plastic resins and materials.............................
Other chemicals and allied products.............
_____
.
.
.......
.
.
_____
.
..................................
See footnotes at end o (table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
111.0
112.6
111.0
111.0
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
1 1 6 WHOLESALE PRICES
26.
Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued
[1957=100 unless otherwise specified]2
1969
Code
1968
Annual
average
1968
Commodity Group
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
109.3
109.0
108.8
108.7
108.4
108.3
108.1
108.0
107.4
106.8
106.2
105.2
105.2
105.2
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2
Pulp, paper, and allied products.......................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding build
ing paper and board_______ _______ —
Woodpulp............................................................
Wastepaper.........................................................
Paper........ ......................................... .................
Paperboard.............. ............................... .........
Converted paper and paperboard pro d u c ts ...
Building paper and board_________________
109.9
98.0
107.0
117.0
96.0
110.6
94.4
109.6
98.0
107.2
116.5
95.9
110.3
94.6
109.3
98.0
108.4
116.5
95.9
109.8
95.1
109.2
98.0
110.3
117.2
95.8
109.2
95.2
108.9
98.0
111.2
117.1
93.7
109.0
95.9
108.6
98.0
108.8
117.0
93.5
108.7
99.4
108.3
98.0
107.1
116.7
93.5
108.4
100.7
108.3
98.0
109.1
116.4
93.5
108.3
100.4
107.7
98.0
108.1
116.1
93.6
107.6
99.6
107.1
98.0
107.8
115.7
92.6
106.8
98.2
106.6
98.0
107.4
115.0
92.2
106.3
97.3
105.6
98.0
109.6
113.4
91.4
105.4
94.8
105.7
98.0
112.8
113.4
91.0
105.4
93.8
105.6
98.0
101.5
112.7
92.2
105.9
92.8
10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
Metals and metal products...........................................
Iron and steel......... ......... .................................
Steel m ill products.............................................
Nonferrous m e ta ls ...........................................
Metal c o n ta in e rs .............................................
H a rdw are....................... ..................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings_______
Heating e q u ip m e n t........... .............................
Fabricated structural metal products.............
Miscellaneous metal products..........................
122.9
113.7
116.7
146.4
120.6
122.7
122.2
99.3
113.6
124.4
122.4
113.7
116.4
144.8
120.6
122.2
120.8
98.7
113.4
124.4
121.7
113.2
115.5
143.5
120.3
121.0
120.2
98.0
112.8
124.2
120.4
112.7
115.4
139.5
119.7
120.6
119.4
97.7
112.6
123.2
118.7
111.1
113.6
136.1
119.7
120.5
119.4
97.7
112.0
121.3
117.9
110.3
112.8
135.5
119.7
119.9
117.9
97.2
111.0
120.7
117.5
109.9
112.7
134.2
119.7
119.9
117.1
97.0
110.8
120.5
116.5
108.9
111.9
132.4
119.7
119.9
116.6
96.8
110.2
120.4
115.8
108.8
111.7
129.9
119.4
119.1
116.6
96.6
109.6
120.4
115.2
108.0
110.7
128.9
119.4
119.0
116.1
96.3
109.4
120.4
114.4
107.5
110.4
127.2
117.0
118.5
115.8
96.1
109.3
119.6
112.8
106.1
109.1
123.5
117.0
117.7
115.3
96.0
109.0
118.3
112.4
106.0
109.1
122.4
117.3
117.6
115.0
95.8
108.8
117.7
112.4
105.5
108.5
125.3
116.0
116.9
114.1
94.9
107.6
116.1
11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
121.0
135.8
138.6
136.5
123.7
120.5
133.2
137.7
135.4
123.4
119.9
133.0
136.1
134.4
122.6
119.1
132.3
134.9
133.5
121.8
119.0
132.3
134.8
133.3
121.5
118.6
132.0
134.5
132.3
121.2
118.3
131.9
134.3
132.1
120.3
118.0
131.8
134.1
131.8
120.0
117.8
131.7
134.0
131.4
119.8
117.3
131.6
133.6
131.1
119.1
117.0
131.2
133.5
131.0
118.5
116.7
130.1
132.7
130.5
118.3
116.6
129.3
132.1
130.4
118.3
115.2
127.1
129.6
128.6
117.2
11-7
11-9
Machinery and equipment................................ .............
Agricultural machinery and equipm ent..........
Construction machinery and equipment____
Metalworking machinery and equipment . . .
General purpose machinery and equipm ent..
Special industry machinery and equipment
(Jan. 1961 = 100 )...........................................
Electrical machinery and equipment...............
Miscellaneous machinery........ ....................... ..
130.6
106.0
120.4
130.2
105.6
120.0
129.6
105.4
119.2
129.2
104.7
118.5
129.2
104.8
118.1
128.1
104.7
117.8
128.0
104.5
117.6
127.2
104.3
116.6
126.9
104.2
116.5
126.6
103.5
116.1
125.5
103.5
115.7
125.0
103.5
115.6
124.8
103.6
115.2
122.2
103.0
114.0
12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Furniture and household durables................. ...................
Household furn itu re ................... .......................
Commercial fu rn itu re ........................................
Floor coverings........... ..................................... ..
Household appliances.......................................
Home electronic equipm ent..............................
Other household durable goods.......................
106.9
123.6
124.0
93.1
93.6
77.7
131.1
106.5
123.3
122.4
93.1
93.1
77.9
131.2
106.4
123.0
121.7
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4
106.2
123.0
119.5
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.4
106.1
122.8
119.5
93.2
93.0
77.9
131.2
105.9
122.3
119.3
93.8
92.9
78.1
130.2
105.9
121.9
119.0
94.6
93.0
78.1
130.0
105.8
121.5
118.0
95.0
93.0
78.5
130.0
105.7
121.3
117.8
95.5
92.8
78.6
129.6
105.4
121.0
117.2
95.5
92.5
78.7
129.1
105.3
120.7
117.0
95.5
92.6
78.7
128.9
105.0
119.2
117.0
94.8
92.9
79.8
127.3
104.7
118.9
116.7
94.8
92.7
80.2
125.9
104.0
117.2
115.4
95.0
92.2
81.0
124.9
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetallic mineral products..........................................
Flat glass.............................................................
Concrete ingredients.................... ...................
Concrete products.......... ...................................
Structural clay products exc. refractories___
Refractories........... ......................................... ..
Asphalt roofing........... ....................... ...............
Gypsum products...............................................
Glass containers..................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals..............................
113.9
116.2
116.7
113.6
118.5
117.2
94.0
109.8
116.1
110.6
113.8
116.2
116.6
113.5
117.8
117.2
96.7
105.9
116.1
110.6
113.5
116.2
116.5
113.2
117.5
117.2
96.7
106.1
116.1
109.6
113.0
116.2
116.1
112.4
117.0
117.0
96.7
103.2
116.1
109.2
113.0
116.2
116.1
112.3
116.9
113.6
100.9
104.9
116.1
109.0
112.8
115.2
115.9
111.6
116.9
113.6
100.2
108.7
116.1
.109. 0
112.6
114.6
115.6
111.6
116.8
113.6
97.9
108.7
116.1
109.0
112.3
113.4
115.6
111.3
116.7
113.6
99.2
106.2
116.1
109.0
111.9
112.3
115.5
111.2
116.0
112.6
99.2
106.2
116.1
107.6
111.2
110.8
113.8
110.8
115.9
112.6
99.6
106.2
116.1
107.6
110.6
109.9
112.2
110.7
115.8
112.6
96.8
106.2
116.1
107.2
109.3
110.0
110.2
109.5
115.4
112.6
96.8
106.2
110.3
106.8
109.2
110.0
110.2
109.2
115.2
112.6
96.8
106.2
110.3
106.8
108.1
109.5
109.2
108.1
113.1
112.1
97.5
105.5
108.4
105.0
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (Dec. 1 9 6 8 = 1 0 0 )...............
Motor vehicles and equipment........................
Railroad equipment (Jan. 1961 = 100).............
102.7
109.0
115.1
102.3
108.7
115.1
100.0
106.1
114.4
99.9
106.0
114.3
100.4
106.6
114.3
100.3
106.6
111.8
100.2
106.5
111.1
100.1
106.4
110.2
100.0
106.3
110.2
100.1
106.4
108.5
100.1
106.5
108.5
100.0
106.6
108.5
106.6
108.5
104.9
106.6
15
15-1
Miscellaneous products...................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni
tion......... ............. ............................... ...........
Tobacco products............. .................................
Notions.................................... ............. .............
Photographic equipment and supplies............
Other miscellaneous products..........................
117.0
116.7
116.4
115.9
115.5
115.1
112.8
112.7
112.5
112.5
112.5
112.5
112.5
111.8
112.8
124.0
107.2
115.0
114.9
112.3
123.8
106.7
114.9
114.8
112.1
123.8
106.7
113.9
114.3
111.8
123.5
106.7
111.4
114.2
111.2
123.4
102.0
111.4
114.1
110.9
123.2
102.0
112.6
112.6
110.7
117.0
102.0
112.4
111.7
110.8
116.9
100.8
112.1
111.7
110.5
116.7
100.7
112.0
111.4
110.1
116.7
100.7
112.7
111.2
110.2
116.6
100.7
112.7
111.2
109.3
116.5
100.7
113.2
112.0
109.2
116.5
100.7
113.0
111.9
108.3
115.2
103.4
113.6
110.9
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES— Continued
09
09-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-9
■As of January 1967, the indexes incorporated a revised weighting structure reflect
ing 1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure,
and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this
table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre
viously published. See “ Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes’ ’ , January 1967 (final)
and February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 As of January 1962, the indexes were converted from the former base of 1947-49 =
100 to the new base of 1957-59=100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1957-59
base furnished upon request to the Bureau.
NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Wholesale
Price Index, see “ BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies" (BLS Bulletin
1458, October 1966), Chapter 11.
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
27.
WHOLESALE PRICES
117
Wholesale price indexes for special commodity groupings 1
[1957-59 = 100, unless otherwise specified]2
1969
1968
Annual
average
1968
Commodity group
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
All commodities—less farm products...................
All foods_____ ________________________
Processed foods......... ...................................
115.0
123.1
122.1
114.7
119.8
121.8
114.1
120.1
121.6
113.8
119.9
121.9
113.6
120.7
122.5
113.3
119.9
122.0
112.9
119.0
119.9
112.5
115.4
117.0
112.3
115.7
116.2
111.8
115.0
115.8
111.3
115.5
115.4
110.5
113.8
114.0
110.3
113.5
114.0
109.4
112.2
113.3
Textile products, excluding hard and bast
fiber products......... ............... ...................
Hosiery________ _______ ______ ______
Underwear and nightwear.......... .................
Refined petroleum products.........................
East C oast................................... .........
Mid-Continent___________ ____ ___
Gulf C o a s t............................................
Pacific Coast............. ........................... ..
Midwest (Jan. 1961 = 100 )...................
101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
102.5
99.8
92.5
98.4
101.1
92.7
115.7
101.6
103.4
98.7
101.4
92.3
97.4
101.3
92.7
115.6
101.8
103.4
98.0
101.4
94.9
97.0
101.3
92.7
115.6
102.5
103.4
103.9
101.4
94.9
97.0
101.0
92.7
115.6
103.2
103.4
98.8
104.8
94.9
97.0
100.8
92.7
114.5
103.3
103.4
103.9
103.2
93.6
98.7
100.6
92.7
114.3
102.4
103.4
101.0
102.4
93.6
97.4
100.9
92.7
114.2
102.5
103.4
103.2
101.8
93.6
97.6
100.8
92.7
114.3
101.7
103.4
106 9
99.5
91.0
98.4
101.0
92.4
114.2
99.5
103.4
101.1
96.8
91.0
95.8
101.5
92.5
114.3
98.9
103.4
101.8
95.2
90.9
95.8
101.6
93.2
113.6
99.0
103.4
97.1
97.3
90.9
96.4
101.8
93.2
113.6
99.2
103.4
97.1
97.5
92.2
95.6
100.6
92.5
112.6
100.3
104.9
99.6
99.8
91.8
95.3
Pharmaceutical preparations......... .............
Lumber and wood products excluding
m illwork and other wood products2___
Special metals and metal products4_____
Machinery and motive products..................
Machinery and equipment, except elec
t r ic a l. . . ______ ____________ _______
Agricultural machinery, including tractors.
Metalworking machinery_______________
Total tractors.................................................
Industrial valves...... .....................................
Abrasive grinding wheels.............................
Construction m a te ria ls...............................
96.7
96.5
96.5
96.2
96.3
96.2
96.2
96.2
96.1
95.9
95.9
96.1
96.0
95.4
122.2
119.2
117.4
120.1
118.8
116.9
120.8
117.5
115.5
121.7
116.6
115.1
123.5
115.7
115.2
130.0
115.2
114.9
142.5
114.9
114.7
151.1
114.3
114.4
161.6
113.7
114.3
155.0
113.4
114.0
146.0
112.9
113.8
140.1
111.9
113.6
131.0
111.6
113.5
121.7
110.9
112.0
130.6
138.5
143.6
129.9
135.5
143.4
129.0
135.3
141.7
128.3
134.6
140.9
128.1
134.7
140.9
127.5
134.3
139.2
127.1
134.3
138.9
126.6
134.4
138.6
126.4
134.4
138.1
126.0
134.1
137.8
125.5
133.7
137.7
125.0
132.6
136.9
124.8
131.7
136.8
123.0
129.4
135.3
141.3
125.8
118.6
107.0
116.9
139.4
125.8
118. 0
102.6
116.3
138.4
124.8
118.0
102.6
115.9
137.1
124.8
115.3
102.6
115.7
137.0
125.8
115.3
102.6
115.9
137.0
126.5
115.9
102.6
116.9
137.0
123.5
115.9
102.6
118.9
137.0
123.1
114.7
102.6
120.2
136.8
122.4
114.7
102.6
121.6
136. 8
120.4
113.0
102.6
119.8
136.8
120.6
112.0
102.6
117.4
135.6
121.0
112.0
102.3
115.4
134.8
123.8
109.0
102.3
113.5
131.5
124.6
107.7
99.0
'See footnote 1, table 26.
J See footnote 2, table 26.
'Formerly titled "Lum ber and wood products, excluding m illw o rk."
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
111.1
4 Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor
vehicles and equipment.
118
28.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
WHOLESALE PRICES
Wholesale price indexes,1 by stage of processing
[1957-59=100] 2
1968
1969
Annual
average
1968
Commodity group
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
ALL COMMODITIES.................... ...................
114.7
114.0
113.6
113.4
113.3
113.2
112.8
111.9
111.7
111.1
110.7
109.8
109.6
108.7
CRUDE MATERIALS FOR FURTHER PROCESSING____________ ______
____
109.0
108.7
108.7
109.5
110.2
111.2
109.7
105.7
105.2
103.8
102.8
101.3
101.5
101.1
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs.----------------------
111.0
110.5
110.4
112.1
113.8
115.6
113.5
107.6
107.6
105.9
104.5
102.6
103.2
102.5
Nonfood materials exceptfuel....................
Manufacturing............ ................. ..
Construction..................................... ..
104.0
103.0
115.3
104.0
103.0
115.1
104.8
103.9
114.9
104.1
103.2
114.1
102.6
101.6
114.1
102.1
101.0
113.8
101.8
100.8
113.2
101.1
100.0
113.2
99.5
98.3
113.1
98.3
97.0
112.8
97.9
96.6
112.8
97.1
95.8
111.7
96.8
95.5
111.6
97.4
96.4
109.8
Crude fuel___________ _____ ______ Manufacturing industries________
Nonmanufacturing industries_____
121.1
118.6
124.5
119.9
117.8
122.8
118.1
116.7
120.1
117.2
115.6
119.4
117.1
115.5
119.3
116.8
115.3
118.7
116.4
115.0
118.2
116.2
114.9
117.8
115.8
114.7
117.4
115.4
114.2
117.1
115.7
114.5
117.3
115.3
114.0
117.0
114.3
113.2
115.8
112.7
112.2
113.5
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND
COMPONENTS____ _____ ____________
113.1
112.8
112.4
111.9
111.4
111.4
111.4
111.4
111.4
110.7
110.1
109.2
108.6
108.0
112.6
120.0
112.2
119.2
111.8
118.3
111.4
118.4
110.6
117.8
110.4
117.8
110.2
116.3
109.8
114.1
109.6
113.4
109.1
113.1
108.5
112.7
107.8
111.5
107.6
111.3
107.1
110.7
101.7
101.5
101.7
101.7
101.2
101.1
100.9
100.8
100.7
100.6
100.5
100.5
100.5
100.2
120.4
116.7
120.0
116.1
119.6
115.1
118.7
114.3
117.4
113.9
117.1
113.4
117.5
113.1
117.3
112.6
117.0
112.4
116.0
111.9
114.8
111.5
112.9
111.4
112.1
111.3
111.7
110.5
Materials and Components for Manufacturing___ ___________ _______
Materials for food m anufacturing...
Materials for nondurable manufactu rin g ---- ---------------------------------Materials for durable manufacturing______ ______________ ____
Components for manufacturing—
Materials and Componentsfor Construction..
116.7
116.2
115.8
115.5
115.4
116.0
117.6
118.4
119.7
118.3
116.3
114.6
112.9
110.7
Processed fuels and lubricants......................
Manufacturing industries________
Nonmanufacturing industries..........
102.1
104.5
98.4
102.3
104.8
98.4
101.0
103.2
97.6
100.6
102.3
97.8
100.8
102.4
98.4
100.9
102.4
98.5
100.5
102.4
97.5
100.3
102.2
97.2
100.4
102.8
96.7
99.6
102.8
94.7
99.5
102.6
94.8
99.2
101.9
94.9
99.1
101.7
95.1
99.7
102.0
96.2
Containers.................. ......... .....................
114.6
114.5
114.2
113.7
113.3
113.2
113.1
112.9
112.3
111.7
110.9
109.1
109.2
109.2
Supplies____ _____ _______________ _
Manufacturing industries________
Nonmanufacturing industries..........
Manufactured animal feeds____
Other supplies________ ______
115.9
118.7
113.9
111.6
111.4
115.6
118.0
113.9
112.3
111.0
115.1
117.8
113.3
111.7
110.4
114.4
117.4
112.4
110.5
109.7
114.3
116.8
112.5
110.8
109.7
113.8
116.7
111.9
109.3
109.6
113.3
116.5
111.2
107.4
109.4
113.9
116.3
112.1
110.8
109.2
112.9
115.8
111.0
108.1
108.8
113.0
115.2
111.4
109.8
108.6
113.1
115.0
111.5
110.6
108.4
112.8
114.6
111.3
110.6
108.1
112.4
114.5
110.7
109.7
107.7
112.5
113.8
111.2
111.0
107.8
FINISHED GOODS (Including Raw Foods and
Fuels)................................................. ...........
117.6
116.5
116.0
115.7
115.9
115.4
114.7
113.8
113.7
113.3
113.2
112.6
112.5
111.3
Consumer Goods_____ ____________ _
F oo ds................................................
C ru d e ............................................
Processed...................... ..................
Other nondurable goods....... ............
Durable goods____________ _____
116.2
123.9
131.0
122.5
113.8
107.1
115.1
121.2
114.2
122.4
113.6
106.9
114.7
121.6
116.9
122.4
113.3
105.3
114.4
121.2
112.4
122.8
113.0
105.2
114.8
122.3
114.9
123.7
112.6
105.6
114.2
121.3
111.3
123.1
112.2
105.5
113.5
120.1
116.0
120.9
111.4
105.4
112.3
116.9
111.4
117.9
111.5
105.4
112.2
117.1
117.4
116.9
111.2
105.3
111.7
116.4
115.1
116.5
110.7
105.1
111.8
116.8
119.7
116.2
110.4
105.1
111.1
115.2
117.6
114.7
110.2
105.0
111.0
114.8
114.3
114.9
110.2
105.0
109.9
113.4
109.1
114.2
109.4
103.9
Producer Finished Goods_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
121.5
126.2
117.0
120.8
125.8
116.1
119.9
125.0
115.0
119.3
124.4
114.4
119.3
124.4
114.5
118.7
123.5
114.2
118.5
123.2
113.9
118.1
122.7
113.7
118.0
122.6
113.7
117.8
122.3
113.5
117.6
121.9
113.3
117.1
121.5
112.8
116.9
121.5
112.5
115.3
119.8
111.1
Crude materials for further processing, excluding
crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers, oilseeds and leaf tobacco............
114.1
113.7
113.9
112.5
110.7
110.2
109.7
109.0
107.2
105.5
105.0
103.8
103.0
101.8
Intermediate materials supplies and compo
nents, excluding intermediate materials for
food mfg., and mfr.'d animal fe e d s ............
112.6
112.2
111.8
111.3
110.9
110.8
111.1
111.0
111.1
110.4
109.7
108.8
108.2
107.5
Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer
foods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111.3
111.1
110.3
110.1
110.0
109.7
109.2
109.2
109.0
108.7
108.4
108.3
108.4
107.4
Manufacturing in d u s trie s ...............
Nonmanufacturing industries_____
SPE C IA L G R O U PIN G S
1 See footnote 1, table 26.
2 See footnote 2, table 26.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: For description of the series by stage of processing, see "Wholesale Prices
and Price Indexes," January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final).
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
29.
WHOLESALE PRICES
119
Wholesale price indexes,1 by durability of product
[1957-59=1001 2
1969
Commodity group
1968
Annual
average
1968
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
All commodities..................................
Total durable goods....... .............. .
Total nondurable goods....................
114.7
118.4
111.9
114.0
117.9
111.2
113.6
117.1
111.1
113.4
116.5
111.1
113.3
116.1
111.3
113.2
115.9
111.2
112.8
116.1
110.3
111.9
116.0
108.8
111.7
116.1
108.6
111.1
115.4
108.0
110.7
114.6
107.8
109.8
113.6
107.1
109.6
113.1
107.0
108.7
111.8
105.5
Total manufactures____________ _____ _______
Durable__________________________
Nondurable_________________ _______
114.9
118.3
111.6
114.6
117.9
111.4
113.9
117.0
111.0
113.6
116.4
111.0
113.5
116.1
111.0
113.2
116.0
110.6
112.8
116.2
109.6
112.4
116.2
108.9
112.2
116.3
108.3
111.7
115.6
103.0
111.3
114.8
107.7
110.5
113.9
107.2
110.3
113.4
107.2
109.4
112.0
106.9
Total rawor slightly processed goods................
Durable__________________
Nondurable_____ _____ ________
113.1
124.0
112.5
111.0
122.8
110.3
111.6
123.7
110.9
111.5
119.7
111.1
112.2
114.8
112.1
112.6
114.9
112.4
112.1
113.3
112.0
108.6
110.6
108.5
109.1
108.1
109.1
107.8
107.1
107.8
107.6
105.0
107.7
106.2
101.3
106.5
105.9
99.6
106.3
104.9
101.1
105.2
1See footnote 1, table 26.
2See footnote 2, table 26.
30.
NOTE: For description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with
1947, see “Wholesale Price and Price Indexes, 1957” (BLS Bulletin 1235,1958).
Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries1
[1957-59=100 unless otherwise indicated]
1963
SIC
Code
Industry
1968
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Annual
average
1968
1969
Other
bases
MINING
1111
1211
1311
1421
Anthracite__________ .
Bituminous coal
Crude petroleum and natural gas___
Crushed and broken stone______
114.9
124.2
110.9
114.5
111.4
121.3
110.8
114.2
111.4
116.2
110.9
114.2
108.0
116.1
110.6
113.6
108.0
116.0
110.5
113.6
104.2
115.0
110.6
113.6
104.2
114.1
110.7
112.6
106.2
113.4
110.9
112.5
107.4
113.1
109.9
112.5
107.4
113.1
106.6
112.5
107.0
113.1
106.5
112.5
107.0
113.1
106.4
111.3
102.8
111.6
106.3
111.3
99.9
107.2
106.0
109.5
1442
1475
1476
1477
Construction sand and gravel
Phosphate rock____ ________
Rock salt________________
Sulfur______________________________
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.3
123.0
147.4
107.0
124.1
122.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.7
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.6
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.8
147.4
107.0
165.4
120.6
147.4
100.8
165.4
119.8
147.4
100.8
165.4
119.8
147.4
100.8
173.7
118.6
147.4
100.8
173.7
118.5
147.4
100.8
173.7
116.6
147.4
100.8
171.6
2011
2013
2015
2021
2033
Meat slaughtering plants__________
Meat processing plants.., .
Poultry dressing plants
Creamery butter_______ .
Canned fruits and vegetables
12/66
12/66
113.5
118.5
103.3
105.1
109.7
113.8
119.1
101.7
105.1
109.5
116.2
120.3
104.0
105.1
109.0
117.4
122.0
107.8
104.9
108.7
121.7
118.7
103.3
104.9
108.7
121.2
117.0
101.7
104.8
107.7
114.8
109.7
102.3
104.8
107.7
108.0
104.8
96.1
104.9
107.8
104.6
103.4
99.6
103.4
107.7
103.9
101.7
98.5
103.3
107.6
104.2
100.3
95.9
103.4
107.4
100.1
100.7
90.4
105.0
107.3
100.6
99.5
92.6
103.8
108.2
101.1
98.8
93.8
102.6
109.4
2036
2044
2052
2061
2062
2063
Fresh or frozen packaged fish.
Rice milling___________
Biscuits, crackers and cookies_____
Raw cane sugar____
Cane sugar refining_________
Beet sugar_______ __
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
154.1
94.0
109.7
110.1
109.3
106.6
146.5
94.0
108.0
110.5
109.2
106.7
145.9
93.1
107.1
109.6
108.4
106.4
143.8
92.6
104.5
108.9
108.1
106.3
146.4
92.6
104.4
104.5
107.6
105.7
139.9
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.6
106.7
140.4
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.2
104.9
136.8
93.8
104.3
109.0
105.8
105.0
141.7
93.8
104.3
108.5
103.9
102.3
141.4
93.8
104.3
107.7
103.6
102.2
140.1
93.8
104.3
107.5
103.6
102.6
139.0
93.8
104.3
106.8
103.2
102.5
140.0
91.9
104.3
105.8
102.9
102.1
131.5
96.6
104.3
105.4
101.9
102.3
2073
2082
2083
2084
2091
2092
Chewing gum_____ __ __
Malt liquors_________ _
Malt_________ .
Wines and brandy______
Cottonseed oil mills_________
Soybean oil mills_____ ___
106.1
107.3
96.8
118.3
95.8
88.0
106.1
107.7
96.8
118.3
91.5
91.0
106.1
107.1
96.8
115.5
97.0
85.7
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.5
97.2
87.4
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.7
98.3
87.1
106.1
106.7
96.8
115.7
92.9
87.0
106.1
106.0
96.8
115.7
92.7
86.3
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.9
85.6
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.6
84.8
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
93.7
83.1
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
95.0
83.3
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
94.5
82.2
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
93.0
83.9
106.0
104.6
96.8
115.2
108.9
86.9
2094
2096
2098
2111
2121
2131
Animal and marine fats and oils
Shortening and cooking oils..
Macaroni and noodle products
Cigarettes________________
Cigars_____________ -_
Chewing and smoking tobacco___
104.9
107.2
101.9
125.0
107.3
140.6
102.1
105.5
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.5
105.8
102.6
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.3
104.6
102.5
101.8
125.0
105.2
138.1
99.6
102.3
101.9
125.0
103.8
138.1
93.8
103.3
101.8
124.9
102.7
137.1
89.0
103.1
101.8
117.5
102.7
137.0
88.9
103.2
101.5
117.5
102.7
136.0
85.1
103.1
100.4
117.4
102.1
134.7
82.9
102.9
100.3
117.4
102.0
134.7
81.3
101.0
100.3
117,4
102.0
132.4
79.7
100.3
100.3
117.4
101.7
132.4
83.1
99.8
100.3
117.4
101.7
132.4
79.0
100.5
100.3
115.8
101.6
130.7
2254
2311
2321
2322
2327
Knit underwear mills_________
Men s and boys' suits and coats...
Men’s dress shirts and nightwear
Men’s and boys’ underwear...
Men’s and boys’ separate trousers........
12/66
12/66
107.7
142.2
121.0
109.0
106.8
107.7
140.4
121.0
109.0
106.8
107.7
139.4
120.6
107.9
106.4
107.7
138. 5
120.6
107.9
106.3
107.7
137.1
118. 3
107.7
106.1
106.3
135.8
118.2
106.9
106.1
106.4
134.4
118.2
107.0
104.8
106.3
134.7
118.8
107.1
104.8
106.3
134.3
118.8
107.1
104.7
106.3
134.3
118.9
107.0
104.7
106.3
134.2
118.7
106.9
104.7
105.7
133.4
115.5
106.4
103.9
105.8
133.3
115.4
106.4
103.8
104.7
127.3
114.4
104.5
102.8
2328
2381
2426
2442
2blb
Work clothing_____
Fabric dress and work gloves
Hardwood dimension and flooring.
Wirebound boxes and crates.
Mattresses and bedsprings...
12/66
12/67
12/66
119.0
135.4
116.6
110.0
108.7
119.0
135.4
116.7
110.0
108.5
118.3
134.8
117.2
110.0
108.5
117.7
132.1
117.3
108.6
108.5
117.4
131.9
117.8
108.3
108.3
117.4
131.9
119.0
107.4
108.2
116.6
131.9
120.7
107.4
108.2
116.6
131.7
121.1
106.5
108.3
116.6
130.8
120.6
106.4
108.2
116.6
130.6
118.8
106.4
108.2
116.5
130.1
116.5
106.3
106.7
115.1
128.4
114.7
105.6
104.3
114.9
128.4
111.9
105.6
104.3
114.3
127.5
106.6
104.6
103.7
2521
2647
2654
Wood office furniture...
Sanitary paper products________
Sanitary food containers______
12/66
12/66
138.9
115.3
101.2
137.6
113.9
100.6
135.9
113.5
100.4
134.3
113.1
100.4
134.3
112.3
100.1
134.3
111.5
100.7
133.4
111.1
100.6
132.8
111.1
100.6
132.2
111.1
100.4
131.7
110.2
100.7
131.1
108.0
100.8
131.1
108.0
100.5
129.9
108.0
101.0
128.0
107.1
101.5
MANUFACTURING
See footnote at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
120
30.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
WHOLESALE PRICES
Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries ^C o n tin u ed
S IC
1968
1969
1963
In d u s try
C ode
Annual
A v e ra g e
O th e r
bases
1968
M a r.
Feb.
Ja n .
Dec.
N ov.
9 5 .8
9 5 .6
9 6 .0
9 5 .3
9 5 .8
9 6 .0
9 5 .3
9 5 .8
9 6 .0
9 4 .5
9 5 .8
9 6 .0
9 4 .7
9 5 .7
9 6 .0
9 4 .7
9 5 .7
9 6 .0
9 5 .3
9 5 .2
9 6 .1
9 9 .2
9 3 .3
1 1 6 .9
9 8 .0
1 2 2 .2
1 1 5 .4
9 9 .2
9 3 .3
1 1 5 .0
9 8 .0
1 2 2 .8
1 1 2 .0
9 9 .4
9 3 .9
1 1 4 .8
9 7 .1
1 1 6 .7
1 1 1 .5
9 9 .4
9 3 .7
1 1 4 .1
9 5 .1
1 1 6 .7
1 1 0 .5
9 9 .6
9 4 .1
1 14 .1
9 4 .7
1 1 7 .0
1 0 9 .7
1 0 0 .3
9 4 .8
1 1 4 .6
9 5 .1
1 1 6 .1
1 1 1 .0
1 0 0 .4
9 5 .2
1 1 3 .9
9 5 .3
1 1 3 .9
1 1 0 .3
1 0 2 .0
9 3 .4
1 1 3 .8
9 6 .3
1 1 2 .7
1 1 0 .4
1 1 6 .1
1 1 4 .8
1 2 3 .4
1 1 7 .8
1 1 4 .8
1 1 6 .1
1 1 4 .8
1 2 3 .2
1 1 7 .8
1 1 5 .3
1 1 6 .1
1 1 4 .8
1 2 3 .0
1 1 7 .8
1 1 5 .3
116 .1
1 1 4 .7
1 2 1 .5
1 16 .7
1 1 5 .3
1 16.1
1 1 1 .7
1 2 1 .5
1 1 6 .7
1 15 .1
1 16 .1
1 0 8 .5
1 2 1 .4
1 1 6 .7
1 1 5 .0
1 1 0 .3
1 0 5 .9
1 2 1 .2
1 1 6 .7
1 1 4 .1
1 1 0 .3
1 0 5 .9
1 2 0 .7
1 1 6 .7
1 1 4 .1
1 0 8 .4
1 0 5 .7
1 1 7 .8
1 1 6 .0
1 1 4 .3
1 0 2 .4
1 3 9 .8
1 3 0 .9
1 1 4 .5
1 1 3 .5
1 0 5 .2
1 1 2 .5
1 0 6 .4
1 0 0 .9
1 3 7 .2
1 2 7 .0
1 1 3 .7
1 1 2 .7
1 0 8 .9
1 1 1 .8
1 0 6 .3
1 0 0 .8
1 3 7 .2
1 2 7 .0
1 1 4 .2
1 1 2 .6
1 0 8 .9
1 1 1 .7
1 0 5 .9
9 9 .8
1 3 7 .2
1 2 7 .0
1 1 4 .2
1 1 2 .3
1 0 6 .5
1 1 0 .8
1 0 5 .1
9 9 .8
1 3 4 .3
1 2 3 .3
1 1 4 .5
1 1 2 .0
1 0 6 .5
1 1 0 .6
1 05 .1
9 9 .7
1 3 4 .3
1 2 3 .3
1 1 3 .4
1 1 1 .8
1 0 6 .5
1 0 9 .5
1 05 .1
9 9 .5
1 3 4 .3
1 2 3 .3
1 1 2 .9
1 1 1 .7
1 0 6 .5
1 0 9 .3
1 0 4 .5
9 9 .1
1 3 4 .3
1 2 3 .3
1 1 1 .7
1 1 0 .3
1 0 6 .5
1 0 7 .7
1 0 3 .7
9 8 .7
1 3 1 .7
1 2 3 .1
1 1 1 .7
1 0 9 .9
1 0 6 .5
1 0 7 .7
1 0 3 .3
9 8 .2
1 3 0 .8
1 2 3 .1
1 1 0 .8
1 0 8 .6
1 0 5 .8
1 0 7 .6
1 0 1 .5
1 1 2 .1
1 0 7 .8
1 0 0 .9
1 1 0 .0
1 2 3 .8
1 6 0 .6
1 0 9 .0
1 0 9 .0
1 0 7 .7
1 0 0 .6
1 1 0 .0
1 2 0 .5
154. 5
1 0 8 .9
1 0 9 .0
1 0 7 .3
1 0 0 .5
1 0 9 .0
1 2 0 .1
1 5 2 .3
1 0 8 .9
1 0 8 .7
1 0 7 .3
1 0 0 .4
1 0 9 .0
1 2 0 .1
1 5 1 .7
1 0 8 .9
1 0 7 .5
1 0 7 .2
9 7 .1
1 0 9 .0
1 2 0 .3
1 4 7 .8
1 0 8 .9
1 0 7 .4
1 0 5 .7
9 6 .9
1 0 9 .0
1 1 9 .5
1 4 4 .6
1 0 8 .9
1 0 7 .4
1 0 5 .6
9 6 .9
1 0 9 .0
1 1 9 .8
1 4 2 .8
1 0 8 .8
1 0 7 .2
1 0 4 .8
9 7 .2
1 0 6 .1
1 2 2 .3
1 4 2 .8
1 0 6 .3
1 0 7 .0
1 0 4 .7
9 3 .9
1 0 5 .4
1 1 9 .4
1 3 4 .3
1 0 6 .2
1 0 6 .9
1 0 4 .7
9 3 .9
1 0 5 .4
1 2 0 .2
1 3 2 .5
1 0 6 .5
1 0 4 .6
1 0 3 .6
9 3 .9
1 0 4 .0
1 2 2 .3
1 4 0 .3
105. 6
1 0 8 .4
9 9 .4
1 0 6 .8
1 0 3 .7
1 3 0 .4
1 0 9 .7
1 0 8 .4
9 8 .8
1 0 6 .8
1 0 3 .6
1 3 0 .3
1 0 9 .1
1 0 7 .8
9 8 .7
1 0 6 .8
1 0 3 .6
1 3 0 .3
1 0 8 .0
1 0 7 .1
9 7 .3
1 0 6 .3
1 0 3 .5
1 2 9 .7
1 0 8 .3
1 0 6 .9
9 6 .6
1 0 6 .0
1 0 3 .2
1 2 9 .7
1 0 8 .3
1 0 7 .2
9 5 .8
1 0 5 .9
1 0 3 .2
1 2 9 .7
1 0 7 .9
1 0 6 .3
9 5 .8
1 0 5 .8
1 03 .1
1 2 3 .4
1 0 7 .5
1 0 5 .9
9 5 .7
1 0 5 .8
1 0 3 .0
1 2 3 .4
1 0 6 .9
1 0 5 .0
9 5 .3
1 0 5 .8
1 0 2 .9
1 2 3 .4
1 0 6 .7
1 0 4 .8
9 5 .0
1 0 5 .2
1 0 1 .5
1 2 2 .7
1 0 6 .6
1 0 4 .3
9 4 .6
1 0 4 .9
1 0 1 .5
1 2 2 .7
1 0 6 .3
1 0 2 .6
93. 5
1 0 2 .6
1 0 0 .2
1 1 9 .8
104. 5
1 2 2 .5
1 0 7 .7
1 3 3 .6
1 0 3 .7
1 0 3 .2
1 2 2 .4
1 0 7 .6
1 3 2 .6
1 0 2 .6
1 0 3 .1
1 2 1 .8
1 0 7 .6
1 3 1 .2
1 0 2 .6
1 0 3 .1
1 2 1 .5
1 0 7 .6
1 3 1 .2
1 0 2 .2
1 0 1 .5
1 2 1 .0
1 0 4 .5
1 3 0 .5
1 0 2 .2
1 0 1 .4
1 2 0 .8
1 0 4 .5
1 29 .1
1 0 2 .1
1 0 1 .3
1 2 0 .4
1 0 4 .5
1 2 8 .6
1 0 2 .1
1 0 0 .5
1 2 0 .0
1 0 4 .5
1 2 8 .6
1 02 .1
1 0 0 .6
1 19 .1
1 0 3 .9
1 2 8 .2
1 02 .1
1 0 0 .6
1 1 9 .0
1 0 3 .9
1 2 8 .1
1 0 1 .6
1 0 0 .6
1 1 8 .0
1 0 3 .9
1 2 7 .2
1 0 1 .6
1 0 0 .6
1 1 7 .0
1 0 3 .9
1 2 7 .2
1 0 1 .7
1 0 0 .6
1 1 4 .6
1 0 2 .8
1 2 3 .7
100. 8
1 0 1 .3
June
M ay
Nov.
O ct.
S e p t.
A ug.
J u ly
9 6 .0
9 5 .6
9 6 .0
9 6 .0
9 5 .6
9 6 .0
9 6 .0
9 5 .6
9 6 .0
9 5 .9
9 5 .6
9 6 .0
9 5 .9
9 5 .6
9 6 .0
9 5 .9
9 5 .6
9 6 .0
9 5 .9
9 5 .6
9 6 .0
8 5 .0
9 0 .6
1 1 7 .3
9 7 .3
1 2 0 .5
1 1 7 .2
8 5 .4
9 1 .2
1 1 7 .3
9 7 .3
1 2 1 .2
1 1 7 .4
8 8 .3
9 2 .7
1 1 7 .4
9 7 .5
1 2 2 .3
1 1 7 .6
8 8 .5
9 2 .6
1 1 7 .5
9 8 .1
1 2 1 .5
1 1 8 .2
8 8 .7
9 3 .1
1 1 7 .4
9 8 .8
1 2 1 .7
1 1 7 .5
9 9 .2
9 3 .3
117. 5
9 8 .8
1 2 2 .1
1 1 3 .5
____
___- G la ss c o n ta in e rs
C e m e n t, h y d r a u lic . .
.. . —
—
B r ic k a n d s t r u c tu r a l c l a y t i l e . . . . . . . .
C la y r e f r a c t o r i e s . . . . .
------------------------S tr u c tu r a l c la y p ro d u c ts , n .e .c ------------------
1 16 .1
1 1 4 .9
1 25 .1
1 2 2 .2
1 1 6 .4
1 1 6 .1
1 1 4 .9
1 2 4 .4
1 2 2 .2
1 1 5 .9
1 1 6 .1
1 1 4 .9
1 2 4 .4
1 2 2 .2
1 15 .1
1 1 6 .1
1 1 4 .8
1 2 3 .5
1 2 2 .0
1 1 5 .0
1 1 6 .1
1 1 4 .8
1 2 3 .5
1 1 7 .8
1 1 4 .4
V itr e o u s p lu m b in g f ix t u r e s ----------- ----------V itr e o u s c h in a fo o d u te n s ils . . .
F in e e a r th e n w a re fo o d u te n s ils .
______
C o n c re te b lo c k a n d b r i c k . .
_____
R e ad y m ix e d c o n c re te .
G y p s u m p ro d u c ts ______
. . .
------------B la s t fu r n a c e a n d s te e l m ills . . . .
S te e l w ir e d r a w in g , e tc ____
. . . . . .
1 0 4 .2
1 4 3 .7
1 3 1 .2
1 1 5 .0
1 1 4 .9
1 10 .1
1 1 5 .3
1 0 8 .5
1 0 3 .4
1 3 9 .8
1 3 0 .9
1 1 4 .9
1 1 4 .7
1 0 6 .2
1 1 5 .2
1 0 8 .4
1 0 2 .4
1 3 9 .8
1 3 0 .9
1 1 4 .6
1 1 4 .4
1 0 6 .4
1 1 4 .4
1 0 7 .5
1 0 2 .4
1 3 9 .8
1 3 0 .9
1 1 4 .5
1 1 3 .7
1 0 3 .6
1 1 4 .3
1 0 7 .0
1 1 3 .7
1 1 0 .4
1 0 7 .7
1 1 4 .0
1 3 8 .9
1 6 6 .4
1 0 9 .0
1 1 3 .7
1 1 0 .4
1 0 7 .4
1 1 4 .0
1 3 3 .9
1 6 6 .4
1 0 9 .0
1 1 2 .1
1 0 8 .4
1 0 5 .6
1 1 0 .0
1 3 1 .8
1 6 5 .9
1 0 9 .0
1 1 0 .6
1 0 0 .3
1 0 7 .2
1 0 3 .7
1 3 0 .8
1 1 0 .8
1 0 9 .6
9 9 .8
1 0 7 .2
1 0 3 .7
1 3 0 .4
1 1 0 .1
1 2/66
1 2/66
1 2 2 .7
1 0 7 .7
1 3 3 .9
1 0 3 .7
1 0 3 .8
A p r.
M A N U F A C T U R IN G - C o n tin u e d
2822
282 3
2824
S y n th e tic r u b b e r -------------------- ---------------C e llu lo s ic m a n -m a d e f ib e r s ___________ .
O rg a n ic fib e r s , n o n c e llu lo s ic --------------------
2871
287 2
?RQ?
2911
F e r t iliz e r s . ,
....................
...........
F e r t iliz e r s , m ix in g o n l y . . . .
E x p lo s iv e s ...
--------------- --P e tro le u m r e f in in g . .
______ __
L e a th e r ta n n in g a n d f in is h in g -------------------In d u s tr ia l le a th e r b e lt in g --------- ------------------
3111
3121
9241
3251
3259
3261
3262
326 3
3271
3273
3275
3312
3315
12/66
12/66
1 2/66
12/6 6
1958
12/6 6
3334
333 9
3351
3411
C o ld fin is h in g o f s te e l s h a p e s _____ . . .
S te e l p ip e a n d t u b e ------------------------------------P r im a r y z in c ______________ __________ _
P r im a r y a lu m in u m
__ .
P r im a r y n o n fe r ro u s m e ta ls , n .e .c _______
C o p p e r r o llin g a n d d r a w in g _____________
M e ta l c a n s _______________________________
3423
3431
34Q3
3496
349 8
3519
H a n d a n d e d g e to o ls _____________ _______
M e ta l p lu m b in g f ix t u r e s ........ .... ................ ..
S te e l s p r in g s .......... ........................ ...................
C o lla p s ib le t u b e s __________ ________ _____
F a b ric a te d p ip e a n d f it t in g s _____________
I n t e r n a l c o m b u s tio n e n g i n e s . . . ............... ..
3533
353 4
3537
3562
3572
O il fie ld m a c h in e ry . .
.......... .....................
E le v a to rs a n d m o v in g s t a ir w a y s . ................
In d u s tr ia l tr u c k s a n d t r a c t o r s . . ..................
B a ll a n d r o lle r b e a r in g s ...... ............................
T y p e w r it e r s ---------- ----------------------------------------
3576
3612
3613
3624
363 5
3641
S c a le s a n d b a la n c e s ................................. .........
T r a n s fo r m e r s
.................................
S w itc h g e a r a n d s w itc h b o a rd s ......... ..............
C a r b o n a n d g r a p h ite p ro d u c ts ......................
H o u s e h o ld v ic u u m c le a n e rs ........................ ..
E le c tr ic la m p s .......... ........... ....................... .........
12/6 6
12/66
12/67
1 2/66
1 2/6 6
1 3 3 .2
9 9 .3
1 0 6 .7
1 0 4 .4
9 9 .9
9 8 .5
1 3 3 .0
1 0 0 .2
1 0 5 .7
1 0 4 .4
9 9 .9
9 9 .2
1 3 3 .0
1 0 1 .6
1 0 5 .9
1 0 4 .3
9 9 .8
1 0 1 .1
1 2 9 .9
1 0 1 .6
1 0 3 .6
1 0 4 .3
9 9 .8
1 0 0 .3
1 2 9 .9
1 0 1 .3
1 0 4 .4
1 0 4 .3
9 9 .8
9 9 .6
1 2 8 .6
1 01 .1
1 0 4 .9
1 0 3 .0
9 9 .8
1 0 4 .1
1 2 7 .0
1 0 0 .2
1 0 4 .0
1 0 1 .1
9 9 .8
1 0 3 .1
1 2 7 .0
1 0 0 .8
1 0 3 .6
1 0 1 .0
9 9 .8
1 0 3 .6
1 2 6 .9
1 0 2 .2
1 0 4 .3
1 0 1 .0
9 9 .8
1 0 2 .7
1 2 6 .9
1 0 2 .3
1 0 4 .9
1 0 1 .0
9 9 .7
1 0 3 .0
1 2 6 .3
1 0 4 .6
1 0 4 .8
1 0 1 .0
9 9 .7
1 0 3 .0
1 2 6 .4
1 0 4 .6
1 0 4 .4
1 0 1 .0
9 9 .5
1 0 3 .0
1 2 6 .4
1 0 6 .9
1 0 4 .9
1 0 1 .0
9 9 .5
1 0 3 .0
1 2 3 .4
1 0 6 .1
1 0 4 .3
1 0 0 .8
1 0 1 .2
1 0 4 .9
3652
3671
3672
3673
P h o n o g ra p h re c o rd s .............. ........... ...........
E le c tro n tu b e s , r e c e iv in g t y p e .......... ...........
C a th o d e ra y p ic tu r e t u b e s ....................... ..
E le c tro n tu b e s , t r a n s m it tin g ....... ................ ..
1 2/66
1 2/66
1 2/66
1 2 3 .5
1 2 1 .3
8 9 .7
1 0 3 .2
1 2 3 .5
1 2 1 .3
9 0 .0
1 0 3 .1
1 2 3 .5
1 2 1 .2
9 0 .0
1 0 3 .0
1 2 2 .6
1 1 7 .8
9 0 .0
1 0 2 .9
1 2 2 .6
1 1 7 .8
9 0 .0
1 0 2 .9
1 2 2 .6
1 1 7 .8
8 9 .9
1 0 2 .1
1 2 2 .3
1 1 7 .8
8 9 .9
1 0 2 .1
1 2 2 .3
1 1 7 .8
8 9 .9
1 0 2 .0
1 2 2 .3
1 1 7 .7
8 9 .9
1 0 2 .0
1 2 2 .3
1 0 9 .6
8 9 .8
1 0 2 .0
1 2 1 .3
1 0 5 .9
8 9 .9
1 0 2 .1
1 1 9 .8
1 0 5 .9
9 2 .4
1 0 2 .0
1 1 9 .8
1 0 5 .9
9 2 .4
1 0 2 .0
1 1 9 .8
105. 9
94. 5
101. 4
3674
3692
3693
3941
S e m ic o n d u c to rs __________ __ __________ _
P r im a r y b a tte r ie s , d r y a n d w e t .......... .........
X - r a y a p p a r a tu s a n d t u b e s ______________
G am es a n d t o y s ...................................................
9 2 .8
1 1 5 .4
1 1 5 .6
1 1 2 .2
9 2 .7
1 1 5 .3
1 1 5 .4
1 1 1 .4
9 2 .6
1 1 5 .2
1 1 3 .1
1 1 1 .4
9 2 .7
1 1 5 .2
1 1 2 .8
1 1 1 .4
9 2 .6
1 1 5 .2
1 1 2 .8
9 2 .6
1 1 5 .2
1 1 2 .5
9 2 .7
1 1 5 .2
1 1 2 .6
9 2 .7
1 1 5 .2
111.1
9 2 .5
1 1 1 .3
1 0 7 .7
111.1
111.1
111.1
1 1 1 .2
111.1
9 2 .4
1 1 3 .8
1 1 1 .4
1 1 1 .2
9 2 .4
1 1 2 .5
111.0
9 2 .6
1 1 4 .9
1 1 1 .3
1 1 0 .3
110.1
9 2 .4
1 1 1 .3
1 0 8 .2
1 1 0 .1
9 2 .3
1 1 1 .3
1 0 5 .1
1 0 9 .3
3 31 6
3317
3333
12/6 6
12/66
12/66
12/6 6
12/6 6
12/6 6
12/67
12/6 6
1958
1 2/66
1 2/66
1 2/66
12/67
12/6 6
i For a description of the series, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and
Studies(BLS Bulletin 1458), Chapter 12. See also, “ Industry and Sector Price indexes,”
in Monthly Labor Review, August 1965, pp. 974-982.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE. Beginning in January 1967, index weights and classifications are based on the
1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were formerly based on the 1958
Industrial Censuses.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
31.
121
Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1
Workers involved in stoppages
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
In effect during
month
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
In effect during
month
(thousands)
Man-days idle during month or year
Number
(thousands)
Percent of esti
mated working
time
1Q45
)946
1947
1948
1949
4,750
4; 985
693
3,419
3 ; 606
3,470
4,600
2,170
1,960
3,030
38,000
116,000
34,600
34,100
50; 500
0.31
1.04
.30
.28
.44
1950
1951
195?
1959
1954
4, 843
4; 737
5,117
5; 091
3 ; 468
2,410
2,220
3, 540
2,400
1’ 530
38,800
22i 900
59,100
28, 300
22i 600
.33
. 18
.48
.22
. 18
iqss
1956
1957
IQSR
1959
4,320
3,825
3,673
3,708
2,650
1,900
1,390
2; 060
i ; 880
28,200
33,100
16, 500
23,900
69,000
.22
.24
.12
.18
.50
3,333
3^367
3) 614
3’ 362
3 ; 655
1,320
1,450
l j 230
'941
1,640
19,100
16,300
18,600
16,100
22,900
.14
. 11
. 13
. 11
.15
3,963
; 405
’ 595
5; 045
1,550
1,960
2,870
2,649
23,300
25,400
42,100
49,018
.15
.15
.25
.28
3’ 694
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
............
1965
1966
1967
1968
...........
1967:
1968:
1969:
4
4
Ja n u a ry .......................
F e b ru a ry .................
March............................
286
292
368
443
485
545
94.4
104.1
129.9
163.5
159.2
195.4
1,247.9
1,275.8
1,507.8
.09
.10
.10
A p ril............... .............
May....... .......................
June...........................
462
528
472
638
769
759
397.6
277.8
211.8
438.8
584.9
405.0
2, 544.8
4,406. 4
4,927.4
.19
.30
.33
July..................- .........
August_____________
September__________
389
392
415
682
689
681
664.6
91.3
372.8
865.5
233.1
473.6
4,328.7
2,859. 5
6,159.8
.32
.18
.45
O c to b e r......................
November................
December.....................
449
360
182
727
653
445
178.8
277.1
74.4
458.7
559.5
209.5
7,105.6
3,213.2
2,546. 5
.47
.22
.18
January.........................
February___________
March....... ....................
314
357
381
483
569
618
187.8
275.0
174.5
275.7
451.3
368.7
2,668.5
4,104.1
3,682. 0
.18
.29
.26
A p ril_______ ______
May________ ______
June..............................
505
610
500
748
930
810
537.2
307.3
168.5
656.7
736.2
399.9
5,677.4
7,452. 2
5, 576. 8
.38
.49
.40
July_____ _________
August_____________
Septem ber..................
520
466
448
880
821
738
202.0
153.8
169.8
465.1
359.6
349.0
4,611.9
4, 048. 9
3,081.1
.30
.26
.22
O ctober.......................
November....................
December.....................
434
327
183
741
617
408
279.0
129.9
64.1
414.5
306.1
189.2
3,991.7
2,430. 5
1,692.5
.25
.17
.11
January2 .............. ..
February2 ____ _____
March 2......... ........... ..
A p r il2...........................
M ay2 .............................
June 2 _______ ____ _
J u ly 2.............................
August2____ ____ _
September2_________
October2____ _______
320
330
420
570
660
560
500
500
490
510
480
500
600
770
870
800
760
770
740
750
182
137
112
253
219
181
220
160
157
317
255
266
261
303
329
302
307
280
215
372
3,380
2,590
2,080
2,740
3,530
3,370
3,420
2, 890
1,830
2,850
.22
.19
.14
.18
.24
.22
.22
.19
.12
.17
i The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and
lasting a fu ll day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle
cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift in establishments directly involved in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments
or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages,
2 Preliminary.
122
32.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JANUARY 1970
PRODUCTIVITY
Output per man-hour, hourly compensation and unit labor costs, private economy, seasonally adjusted
[Indexes 1957-59 = 100]
Output per
man-hour
Man-hours
Output
Compensation per
m an-hour1
Real compensation
per m an-hour2
Unit labor
costs
Year and quarter
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
Private
Private
nonfarm
109.6
110.3
110.9
110.4
110.6
115.5
114.9
115.3
116.0
115.4
132.4
134.4
134.9
135.4
134.3
128.3
129.6
130.6
131.1
129.9
147.9
150.3
152.2
154.3
151.2
143.5
145.5
147.6
149.7
146.6
129.0
130.1
130.4
131.1
130.1
125.2
126.0
126.4
127.2
126.2
111.7
111.9
112.9
114.0
112.6
111.9
112.3
113.0
114.2
112.9
154.3
157.5
159.0
160.6
157.9
111.2
112.2
112.7
112.6
112.2
116.4
117.5
118.3
118.3
117.6
137.0
138.3
139.0
140.4
138.7
132.6
134.1
134.4
135.8
134.2
158.5
160.8
163.7
167.8
162.7
153.6
155.7
158.1
162.0
157.4
133.3
133.7
134.5
136.3
134.4
129.2
129.4
129.8
131.5
130.0
115.7
116.3
117.8
119.6
117.4
115.9
116.1
117.6
119.4
117.3
161.5
162.3
163.1
113.7
114.6
115.0
119.6
120.7
121.4
139.9
139.5
139.8
135.0
134.5
134.3
170.5
172.7
175.7
164.4
166.5
169.0
136.7
136.2
136.7
131.8
131.3
131.4
123.8
125.8
123.8
125.8
1.3
1.7
0.3
0.7
Private
Private
nonfarm
1st quarter.
d quarter..
3d quarter..
4th quarter.
Annual average____
146.4
147.2
148.9
150.2
148.2
148.2
148.9
150.7
152.1
150.0
1968:
1st quarter.
d quarter..
3d quarter..
4th quarter.
Annual average____
152.4
155.2
156.7
158.1
155.6
1969:
159.1
159.9
160.7
1967:
2
2
1st quarter.
d quarter.
3d quarter
2
Private
121.8
121.8
Percent change from previous q u a rte r3
1967:
ls tq u a rte r.
2d quarter..
3d quarter..
4th quarter.
1968:
1969:
1st quarter.
2d quarter..
- 0 .4
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.5
1.8
1.0
3d quarter..
4th quarter.
0.9
1st quarter.
d quarter.
3d quarter.
0.7
0.5
0.5
2
-0 .6
0.5
1.2
1.0
0
-0 .9
0.7
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.9
0 .5
- 0 .1
0.6
0 .9
1.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
-0 .1
-0 .5
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.6
- 0 .4
1.5
0.4
0.4
1.2
0.3
0.9
0 .7
0.9
0.5
0 .9
0
1.1
0.9
0.6
- 0 .3
- 0 .3
0.2
- 0 .5
1.0
1.0
1.6
0.7
0.4
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.1
2.7
1.5
1.0
2.5
0.3
-0 .6
-0 .4
- 0 .1
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.6
1.6
0.2
2.6
1.3
1.6
1.7
0.3
2.5
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
0.3
-0 .4
0.3
-0 .4
0.6
0.3
1.3
0.1
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.5
0 .5
1.3
0.2
1.4
1.3
1.5
0.2
0.0
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.0
1.7
1.6
3.1
3.9
2.7
3.4
4.4
4.9
4.1
4.5
2.6
2.0
1.5
1.2
5.3
6.5
6.6
Percent change over previous year4
1968:
1969:
3d quarter.
4th quarter.
5.3
5.3
5.6
5.6
1st quarter.
4.4
3.0
2.5
4.6
3.0
2.5
2d quarter,
3d quarter.
2.1
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.8
2.7
2.6
1.5
i Wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance
and private benefit plans. Also includes an estimate of wages, salaries, and supple
mentary payments for the self-employed.
- Compensation per man-hour adjusted for changes in the consumer price index.
3
Percent change based on aggregates.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3.1
3.7
1.9
2.1
0.8
0.5
4
2.9
3.6
1.8
0.3
- 0 .1
8.8
7.6
7.2
8.3
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.0
7.0
6.9
1.9
1.7
6.8
5.1
6.9
Current quarter divided by comparable quarter a year ago.
SOURCE: Output data from the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Man-hours and compensation of all persons from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
NOTE: Data for 1967,1968, and first quarter 1969 have been revised to reflect new
benchmark information on output, employment and compensation.
Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1969. Bulletin 1630. 89 pp. $1.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
National Emergency Disputes: Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act, 19 47 -68.
Bulletin 1633. 89 pp. $1.
MANPOWER
Employment Situation in Poverty Areas of Six Cities, July 1968-June 1969. Report 3 70.
23 pp.
WAGES AND HOURS
Summary of Manufacturing Production Workers Earnings Series, 19 39 -68. Bulletin 1616.
17 pp. 30 cents.
Union Wages and Hours: Printing Industry, July 1, 1968 and Trend 19 07 -68. Bulletin 1623.
65 pp. 65 cents.
Industry Wage Surveys:
Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textiles, September 1968. Bulletin 1637. 82 pp. $1.
Nursing Homes and Related Facilities, October 1967 and April 1968. Bulletin 1638. 74 pp.
75 cents.
Area Wage Surveys (metropolitan areas):
Atlanta, Ga., May 1969. Bulletin 1625-77. 25 pp. 35 cents.
Lawrence-Haverhill, Mass.-N.H., June 1699. Bulletin 1625-79. 13 pp. 30 cents.
Muskegon-Muskegon Heights, Mich., May 1969. Bulletin 1625-80. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Spokane, Wash., June 1969. Bulletin 1625-81. 15 pp. 30 cents.
Houston, Tex., May 1969. Bulletin 1625-83. 35 pp. 45 cents.
Worcester, Mass., May 1969. Bulletin 1625-84. 16 pp. 30 cents.
San Antonio, Tex., June 1969. Bulletin 1625-85. 25 pp. 35 cents.
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa.-N.J., May 1969. Bulletin 1625-86. 16 pp. 30 cents.
Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J., May 1969. Bulletin 1625-87. 23 pp. 35 cents.
Send check or money order to any of the Bureau's regional offices, listed on the inside front
cover. Copies may also be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U . S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING O F F I C E : 1 9 7 0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Y o u r B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s R e g io n a l O f f ic e
is e q u ip p e d to...
*
H e l p y o u f i n d t h e inform ation you need ab ou t p ric e s , e m p lo y m e n t ,
w a g e s , frin g e benefits, e arnings, and o th e r c u r rent statistical series.
B E x p l a i n w h a t t h e d a t a m e an to y o u r r e g i o n , y o u r i n d u s t r y ,
your laborm arket.
■
H e lp you use th e d a t a c o rrectly.
■
D e liv e r the information p ro m p tly .
For the address of your nearest Bureau of Labor Statistics Regional Office, see the inside
front cover of this issue of the Monthly Labor Review.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
\
1
@FedFRASER