Full text of Monthly Labor Review : July 1970, Volume 93, Number 7

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
July 1970
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
In this issue
Union membership
and labor-management policies
in public employment


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

'

BUREAU OF LABOR S T A T IS T IC S
R E G IO N A L O FFIC E S AND D IRECTO RS

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
J. D. Hodgson, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner
Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner
Leon Greenberg. Chief Statistician
Peter Henle, Chief Economist
The M o nthly Labor R eview is fo r sale by
th e re g io n a l office s of the B ureau of Lab or S ta tis tic s
and by the S u p e rin te n d e n t of D o cum e nts.
U S. G overnm e nt P rin tin g O ffice
W a sh in g to n D. C. 20402
S u b s c rip tio n p ric e per year
$9 d o m e s tic ; $11 25 fo re ig n .
S in g le copy 75 cents.
C o rre s p o n d e n c e re g a rd in g s u b s c rip tio n s
sh o u ld be a d d re sse d to the S u p e rin te n d e n t of D o cum e nts
C o m m u n ic a tio n s on e d ito ria l m atters
sh o u ld be ad d re sse d to the E d ito r-in -C h ie f.
M o n th ly Lab or Review . B ureau of Lab or S ta tis tic s
W ash in g to n . D C. 20212
P hone: (202) 961-2327
Use of fu n d s fo r p rin tin g th is p u b lic a tio n
app ro ve d by the D ire c to r of the Bureau
of the B u d g e t (O c to b e r 31, 1967)

O

Region I — Boston: W end el l D. M a c d o n a ld
1603-A F ed era l B u ild in g , G o vernm e nt C e nte r, B o ston, M ass. 02203
P hone. (617) 223-6727
C o n n e c tic u t
M aine
M assa c h u s e tts
New H a m psh ire
Rhode Is la n d
V e rm ont
Region II — New York: Herb er t Bi en s to ck
341 N inth Avenue, New Y o rk, N.Y. 10001
P hone: (212) 971-5405
New Jersey
New Y ork
P u erto R ico
V irg in Is la n d s
Region III — Philadelphia: Fr ed er ic k W M ue ll er
406 Penn S quare B u ild in g , 1317 F ilb e rt S treet, P h ila d e lp h ia . Pa. 19107
P hone: (215) 597-7796
D e law are
D is tric t of C o lu m b ia
M a ry la n d
P e n n s y lv a n ia
V irg in ia
W est V irg in ia
Region IV — Atlanta: B ru ns w ic k A. Ba gdon
1371 P e achtree S treet. N.E.. A tla n ta , Ga. 30309
P hone: (404) 526-5416
A labam a
F lo rid a
G e o rq ia
K e ntucky
M is s is s ip p i
N o rth C a ro lin a
South C a ro lin a
Ten nessee
Region V — Chicago: Thomas J. M c A r dl e
219 S. D e arb orn S treet. C h ic a g o , III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-7226
Illin o is
In d ia n a
M ic h ig a n
M in n e s o ta
O h io
W is c o n s in
Region VI — Dallas: J ac k S t r ic k la n d
411 N. A ka rd S treet. D a lla s, Tex. 75201
P hone: (214) 749-3516
A rkansa s
L o u is ia n a
New M e x ic o
O k la h o m a
Texas

C o ver design
by S a lly M o tle y
A rts and G ra p h ic s D iv is io n
U.S. D e p a rtm e n t of Lab or


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Regions V I I and V I II — Kansas City: E ll io tt A. Br ow ar
911 W a ln u t S treet. Kansas C ity. Mo. 64106
Phone- (816) 374-2378
VII
Iow a
Kansas
M is s o u ri
N e bra ska
VI II
C o lo ra d o
M ontana
N orth D a kota
South Dakota
Utah
W yom ing
Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset
450 G olde n G ate Avenue, Box 36017, San F ra n c is c o , C a lif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-3178
IX
A riz o n a
C a lifo rn ia
H a w aii
Nevada
X
A la s k a
Id a h o
O regon
W a s h in g to n

Joseph P. Goldberg

5 Changing policies in public employee labor relations
Task forces differ over efficacy of “ meet and confer”
or collective bargaining approach

H. P. Cohany, L. M. Dewey

15

Union membership among government employees
Union advances will bring changes in government policies
on personnel, budget, and management practices

E. Wight Bakke

21

Reflections on the future of public sector bargaining
Rapid expansion of bargaining and militant action
are among major identifiable trends

Robert C. Joiner

26

Trends in homeownership and rental costs
Rapid advance in cost of shelter accounts for substantial portion
of rise in Consumer Price Index

J. W. Ferris, H. Gale

32

Trends in output per man-hour in the sugar industry
Above-average increase in productivity marked by average
annual gain of 4.4 percent in output per man-hour

John Kinyon

35

Wage developments in manufacturing, 1969
More than 5 million production workers
won wage raises during the year

Janice Neipert Hedges

40

Prospects for growth in preprimary education
Ample supply of teachers in the 1970's may balance
the increasing demand for very early schooling

H. E. Davis, A. Strasser

45

Private pension plans, 1960 to 1969—an overview
Coverage remained stable during the 1960’s
while benefits were liberalized

Michael H. Cimini

57

Emergency boards in the airline industry, 1936-69
Since 1936, only 33 presidential emergency boards have been
needed, out of nearly 1,500 mediation cases

Michael E. Borus

66

Using Ul wage reports as a data source

Joseph C. Bush

69

Wages in meat products plants


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

DEPARTMENTS

2 Labor month in review
66 Communications
69 Research summaries
71 Significant decisions in labor cases
76 Major agreements expiring next month
77 Developments in industrial relations
85 Book reviews and notes
94 Introducing new benchmarks
95 Current labor statistics
JULY 1970

VOLUME 93, NUMBER 7

slowdown in
economic activity has had a strong impact on em­
ployment and unemployment in the first 5 months
of 1970. Employment showed hardly any growth
from December to April and declined substantially
in May. Unemployment, on the other hand, has
risen steadily. The jobless rate (seasonally ad­
justed) climbed from 3.5 percent of the labor force
in December to 5 percent in May.
The rise in unemployment has affected indus­
trial sectors, labor force groups, and geographic
areas somewhat unevenly.
Employment

in perspective. The

Industries and Regions. A drop of nearly 700,000
jobs in manufacturing between July 1969
and May 1970 was largely confined to the durable
goods segment, although employment in “soft”
goods manufacturing was increasingly involved.
Elsewhere in goods producing industries—mining,
construction, agriculture—employment has not
grown since the fall of 1969. In the serviceproducing sector, employment increased all through
1969 but has grown very little since February.
Among durable goods industries, job cuts were
most severe in aerospace and ordnance. Aerospace
lost about 110,000 jobs (seasonally adjusted) or
about 13 percent of industry employment since
July 1969; ordnance, about 70,000 jobs, a full
21 percent of industry employment. Cutbacks in
government contracts as well as the economic
slowdown were blamed.
Elsewhere in durable goods industries, auto­
mobile manufacturers cut back employment by
about 30,000 jobs since mid-1969 because of
weakening sales. Low housing starts and the
overall construction slowdown due to tight money
contributed to a reduction of jobs in contract
construction and in building materials industries
over the same period. Cutbacks in defense out­
lays and the generally weaker economy figured
in job reductions in fabricated metal products, ma­
chinery, electrical equipment, and other industries.
Among regions, the Pacific Coast and the Mid2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

west, home of much durable goods production,
have suffered somewhat sharper rises in unem­
ployment. Stemming principally from increased
joblessness in the aerospace and defense-related
industries, unemployment on the Pacific Coast,
which has about 13 percent of the Nation’s work
force, accounted for about 20 percent of the in­
crease in State-insured unemployment between
April 1969 and May 1970. The housing slump
also boosted unemployment by causing a decline
in lumber production. In the Midwest, increased
unemployment resulted mainly from cutbacks in
durable goods production in general and auto­
mobile manufacture in particular.
Jobless workers. Until March, workers continued
to enter the labor force at a brisk pace despite a
sharp fall-off in employment opportunities. This
may turn out to be the usual lag in labor force
reaction to worsening job prospects. Between
December 1969 and April 1970, the labor force
expanded by 1.3 million while total employment
rose by only 200,000, resulting in a sharp increase
in joblessness. Following up more moderate
growth in April, the labor force declined in May
by 300,000. This decline in the labor force occurred
in conjunction with a decrease in the number of
employed persons amounting to about half a
million (seasonally adjusted) between April and
May.
Professional and technical workers’ and crafts­
men’s unemployment rates rose faster than others
but rates remained much higher for less skilled
workers. The unemployment rate of white-collar
workers rose from 2.1 percent in December 1969
to 2.8 percent in May 1970. Initially, much of the
rise occurred among professional and technical
workers (whose jobless rate doubled since early
1969 to just over 2 percent) but has now spread to
other white-collar workers. Among blue-collar
workers, unemployment rose from 4.3 percent in
December to 6.2 percent in May. Again, the sharp­
er rise occurred among higher skilled workers—

LABOR MONTH IN REVIEW

craftsmen and operatives—rather than the lesser
skilled. These unemployment increases reflect the
concentration of the higher joblessness in indus­
tries, such as aerospace and defense, that use rela­
tively little low-skill labor.
When anti-inflation measures were instituted
last year, considerable fear was expressed about
employment opportunities for Negro workers in a
slack economy. But the increase in Negro unem­
ployment (from 6.5 percent in July 1969 to 8.0
percent in May 1970) has been more moderate, as
a proportion of the July rate, than the increase for
whites (from 3.2 percent to 4.6 percent). This has
resulted in a significant narrowing of the better
than 2-to-l ratio between the white and Negro
unemployment rates that has persisted for the last
15 years.
It is not clear as yet whether the relative im­
provement in the Negro rate will be permanent
(resulting from occupational upgrading, the im­
pact of Government manpower programs, and in­
creased social consciousness among employers) or
is another short-lived narrowing of the ratio,
which has occurred in previous economic slow­
downs. One factor contributing to the narrowing is
that Negro employment is more heavily con­

3

centrated in service-producing industries, which
have been least affected by the jobless rise, than
in hard-goods industries—such as aerospace and
ordnance—where blacks are under-represented.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Report 380, available
from BLS regional offices, offers a more detailed
examination of these developments.
Women’s rights. Eleven women and

two men,
asked by President Nixon to appraise the effec­
tiveness of programs to enhance women’s rights,
have examined the programs and found them
wanting.
The Task Force on Women’s Rights and Re­
sponsibilities, chaired by Miss Virginia R. Allan,
"a former president of the National Federation of
Business and Professional Women’s Clubs, told
Mr. Nixon that the United States “lags behind
other enlightened, and indeed some newly emerg­
ing countries in the role ascribed to women.”
Discriminatory practices and “ancient entrenched
injustices” against women are “so widespread and
pervasive” in the United States that “they have
come to be regarded, more often than not, as
normal.”
The report warned that “American women are

Mollie Orshansky wins first Lawrence R. Klein award
An article by Mollie Orshansky explaining
“How poverty is measured” has been cited
as “the best original article in labor economics
or related subjects appearing in the Monthly
Labor Review during 1969.”
The selection, by the trustees of the Law­
rence R. Klein Fund, is the first since the
Fund was established by friends of Lawrence
R. Klein, editor-in-chief of the Review from
1946 until his retirement in 1968. The award
carries a $100 prize and will be made annually.
Miss Orshansky is a social insurance re­
search analyst in the Office of Research and
Statistics, Social Security Administration,
and a frequent contributor to the Review and
other publications. “How poverty is meas­
ured” appeared in the February 1969 issue
of the Review, as one of five articles under the
heading, “Perspectives on poverty.” Reprints

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

of the “Perspectives on poverty” articles are
available, in limited supply, from bls regional
offices.
In addition to citing Miss Orshansky’s
article, the Lawrence R. Klein Fund trustees
made honorable mention of two other Review
articles: “Bargaining in major symphony
orchestras,” by Leon Lunden of the bls
Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, in
the July 1969 Review, and “Fiscal policy from
Hoover to Heller,” by Dudley Dillard, chair­
man of the Department of Economics, Uni­
versity of Maryland, in the August 1969
Review.
According to the Lawrence R. Klein Fund
trustees, awards are based on the following
criteria: Originality of idea or method of
analysis, adherence to principles of scientific
inquiry, and adherence to the principles of
good writing.

4

increasingly aware and restive over the denial of
equal opportunity, equal responsibility, even equal
protection of the law. An abiding concern for home
and children should not, in their view, cut them
off from the freedom to choose the role in society
to which their interest, education, and training
entitle them.”
The task force pointed to the close link between
the struggle for equality for women and the past
“decade of rebellion during which black Americans
fought for true equality.” That battle still rages,
the report emphasized. “Nothing could more dra­
matically demonstrate the explosive potential of
denying fulfillment to any segment of our society.”
Noting that “sex bias takes a greater economic
toll than racial bias,” the task force urged the Gov­
ernment to “be as seriously concerned with sex
discrimination as race discrimination and with
women in poverty as men in poverty.” Failure to
act, the report warned, will run the risk of “ac­
celerating militancy or the kind of deadening
apathy that stills progress and inhibits creativity.”
Actions proposed. The task force asked the
President to act in five broad areas:
• Establish an Office of Women’s Rights and
Responsibilities, whose director would serve as a
special assistant reporting directly to the
President.
• Call a White House Conference on women’s
rights and responsibilities in 1970, the 50th
anniversary of the ratification of the suffrage
amendment and establishment of the Women’s
Bureau.
• Send a message to Congress citing the
widespread discriminations against women and
proposing specific legislation to remedy these
inequities.
• Require Cabinet-level actions to implement
existing policies against sex discrimination.
• Appoint more women to positions of top
responsibility in all branches of the Federal
Government.
Leading the list of legislative goals proposed
by the task force is a controversial Constitutional
amendment that says: “Equality of rights under
the law shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of sex.”
The task force emphasized that adoption of the
amendment “would impose upon women as many
responsibilities as it would confer rights.” The
amendment is necessary, the report pointed out,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

because the Supreme Court “has upheld or
refused to review laws and practices making
discriminatory distinctions based on sex,” includ­
ing the practice of excluding women from State
universities, and a law requiring longer prison sen­
tences for women than for men for the same offense.
The task force also recommended that civil
rights laws be amended specifically to include
women in their protection, that the Equal Em­
ployment Opportunity Commission be empowered
to enforce the law, and that Social Security, Fair
Labor Standards, and tax laws be amended to
ensure full equality for women.
Finally, the report urged Government agencies
to collect, tabulate, and publish economic and
social data by sex as well as by race so as not to
“obscure the degree of economic handicap women
suffer.”
Guidelines. As the White House released the Task

Force report, the Department of Labor acted to
implement one of the group’s recommendations.
The Department issued guidelines to assure equal
opportunity for women on work paid for by Fed­
eral funds. The guidelines forbid Federal con­
tractors to: Use newspaper ads labeled “male”
and “female” unless sex is “a bona fide occupa­
tional qualification;” penalize women employees
for taking time off to have children ; deny employ­
ment to women with young children unless the
same policy applies to men; base seniority solely
on sex; restrict one sex to certain job classifications
and departments; maintain different retirement
ages for male and female employees; refuse a
woman a job she is qualified to perform because
of a State’s “protective” labor law. The Depart­
ment of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract
Compliance will enforce the new prohibitions
and may withhold contracts from contractors
who fail to comply.

‘Review’ wins Editors Award
The Federal Editors Association has pre­
sented one of its Blue Pencil Awards “for
outstanding Government publications pro­
duced in 1969” to the Monthly Labor Review.
The Review was one of 232 publications
entered in 20 categories and won second
prize in its field.

One task force report
supports
“ meet and confer" statutes;
another, advocates
collective negotiations
JOSEPH P. GOLDBERG

decade has resulted
in reexamination and revision of established
policies in public labor-management relations and
the establishment of new policies. The Federal
Government, through its innovative Executive
Order in 1962, further study of the issues, and a
resultant revised Executive Order in 1969, has
contributed much to this new spirit, as well as
providing possible guides to policy. The agreement
recently negotiated following the strike in the
U.S. Post Office Department adds new facets to
Federal policy.
The huge growth in State and local government
employment has made these equally important
foci for public employee policies, as Federal labor
law specifically excludes these employees. The
States have become important sources of experi­
ence as well, particularly in the variety of legis­
lative policies and proposals among them. Although
most recent State enactments have authorized
collective negotiations (with attendant rights
and machinery) and avoided explicit sanctions in
the event of strikes, these are effective in only a
minority of the States. (See table 1, pp. 8-10.)
A few have only “meet and confer" rather than
negotiation statutes. Others have legislation only
for specific occupational groups. The majority of
States do not have statutes encouraging employee
organization or providing machinery for re­
gularizing public labor-management relationships.
E x p e r ie n c e during the past

The setting

The growth of public employee organizations,
and increased negotiations and strikes in the
public sector, have been subject to continuing and
widening exploration of public employee policies
at Federal, State, and local levels. The spirit of
Joseph P. Goldberg is special assistant to the Commis­
sioner of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Changing
policies in
public employee
labor relations
such scrutiny has generally been one of accepting
the rights of public employees, of providing them
with a status consistent with that of private
employees, and accommodating the special
circumstances of public employment. The public
sector’s particular requirements, such as the need
to continue public services, the absence of market
factors permitting tests of strength through
strikes and lockouts, and the traditional view of
the sovereignty of the State, have served to
restrain the full applicability of labor policies
taken over from the private sector—-but have not
restrained the basic trend. Even the long-held
view of government sovereignty vis-a-vis negotia­
tions and agreements with government employees
and their organizations is being reevalued. Strikes
and strike sanctions continue to be an integral
subject of debate, but generally these are viewed
as symptoms of conditions requiring for their
resolution avenues to regularizing the rights of
public employee organizations and systematizing
the arrangements for making these effective in
dealing with public employees. It is the wide­
spread view that such arrangements will work
toward the elimination of the instability which
has produced wide strike activity.
There has been a significant trend in the past
decade in the States toward accepting employee
organizations, collective negotiations, representa­
tion machinery, and provisions for meeting strike
impasses but some observers view divergent and
lagging developments as making for an intensifi­
cation of strike activity. The different positions
of the employee organizations is a recognizable
factor in the diversity. However, all such organiza­
tions may be said to support the need for requiring
collective negotiations and exclusive recognition,
with civil service employee associations competing
with labor unions for representation rights. The
divergences among employee organizations are
reflected in the evolution of union and some
5

6

employee association support for national legisla­
tion establishing national machinery and national
minimum standards, albeit authorizing State and
local arrangements meeting or exceeding these.
Recent studies and membership trends

Additional ingredients in this stimulating mix
of policy have been provided by a number of public
commissions. Continuing exploration by commis­
sions in various States has resulted in recommen­
dations for statutory terms for public employee
labor-management relations, most recently in
Colorado, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.1 The Na­
tional Governor’s Conference has issued annual
supplements to its initial Report of the Task
Force on State and Local Government Labor
Relations, which endorsed statutes requiring
collective negotiations.2The report of the Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
(acir ) is a more recent national expression of
such recommendations, along with a substantial
review of State and local labor-management poli­
cies. A majority of its 27 participants—including
private citizens, U.S. Senators and Congressmen,
Federal Government officials, Governors, Mayors,
State legislators, and elected county officials—
have stated that “it tends to view the meet and
confer in good faith approach as being the most
appropriate in a majority of situations in the light
of present and evolving conditions in State and
local employment.” This view evoked a substan­
tial and forceful dissent from a varied composition
of its members, who support the requirement of
collective negotiations.3 Spokesmen for afl - cio
unions in the public employee field have criticized
the recommendation as a “backward” step.4
A new overview of the problem has been con­
tributed through the privately endowed Twentieth
Century Fund, a long-time contributor to policy
development in the private sector, through its Task
Force on Labor Disputes in Public Employment.
The latter consisted of experts and practitioners
in both the public and private labor-manage­
ment sectors. Among other recommendations,
the report endorses the statutory requirement
that “the public employer has the duty to meet
and negotiate with the union” and “that agree­
ments be reduced to writing.” There was a
split on the breadth of the recommended ban on
public employee strikes.5
In the following summary discussion, varied

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

practice and recommendations are summarized
along with the considerations which are deemed
characteristic of the public sector.
Public employee organization has grown at a
rapid rate over the past decade, as total public
employment increased by 45 percent (from 8.4
million in 1960 to 12.2 millicn in 1969) with a
rise of 22 percent in Federal employment (from
2.3 million to 2.8 million) and of about 56 percent
in State and local employment (from 6.1 million
to 9.5 million). The membership of government
employees is divided among labor unions and
employee associations. Union membership of
government employees doubled between 1960 and
1968, from 1.1 to 2.2 million. Approximately 50
percent of Federal employees are members, while
about 8.5 percent of State and county employees
are represented by the 804,000 union members
at that level.
Substantial membership of State and county
employees in employee associations, together with
union membership, account for about 25 percent
of all State and county employees. The National
Education Association with its 1.1 million members
supports affiliates which resort to strikes as a
last resort and has acknowledged the possibility
of a future closer relationship with the American
Federation of Teachers.6 The Assembly of Gov­
ernmental Employees, a loosely confederated
organization of mainly State associations of public
employees, stresses philosophical differences with
the unions over the merit system and strike
prohibition, but acknowledges that it engages in
substantially the same techniques as unions in
competing with them for exclusive representation.
It reported a membership of over 500,000 in 1969.7
A recent bls study reports a membership of about
265,000 members of local associations of public
employees in 438 cities, competing with national
unions for representation rights.8

Present policies

The issues involved in the growing number of
public employee strikes reflect the changed state
of public employee labor relations. Next to efforts
to bring wages and fringe benefits into line with
private sector earnings, strikes over union repre­
sentation and union security issues were most
prominent, reflecting both the frequent absence
in the public sector compared with the private

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR RELATIONS

sector of statutory machinery for representation
arrangements and efforts to obtain initial
agreements.9
Federal labor-management policies are currently
governed by Executive Order 11491, Labor-Man­
agement Relations in the Federal Service, issued
in October 1969, revoking Executive Order 10988,
Employee-Management Cooperation in the Fed­
eral Service. The revisions in the new Order are
based on a review of experience and proposals
made by labor organizations, agency officials, and
nongovernmental experts.10
Under the new order, the term “labor organi­
zation” replaces “employee organization.” Em­
ployees continue to have a free and protected
right to join or not join labor organizations.
Organizations of supervisors and managers are
excluded from the term “labor organization.”
Exclusive recognition is now the sole form of
recognition, to be accorded to an organization
receiving the majority of votes cast in a secret
ballot election conducted in an appropriate unit.
Agencies and labor organizations are required
to meet and confer in good faith on personnel
policies and practices and working conditions,
subject to applicable law and regulations, and
execute written agreements or memoranda of
understanding. Excluded from the requirement to
meet and confer are the mission of the agency;
its budget (including wages and fringe benefits),
organizational setup, number of employees, and
the grades and numbers of employees assigned;
the technology of its work; and its internal secur­
ity practices. The parties may, however, nego­
tiate agreements on arrangements for employees
adversely affected by the realignment of work
forces or technological change. Management rights,
in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,
are specified and reserved. While no agreement may
require an employee to join or remain a member
of a labor organization, dues check-off is author­
ized on the basis of voluntary, written authoriza­
tion. Grievance procedures may be negotiated
which meet the requirements set by the Civil
Service Commission, and may include arbitration
of employee grievances and of disputes over the
interpretation of existing agreements. Agreements
must be approved by the agency head if they
conform to applicable laws and regulations.
Consultation rights may be accorded by an
agency on a national basis only to a labor organi­
zation that qualifies under criteria established by

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

7

the Federal Labor Relations Council. The labor
organization must be provided an opportunity to
comment on proposed personnel changes, and its
views will be carefully considered. Supervisors or
associations of supervisors will be provided a
system for intramanagement communication and
consultation within an agency. However, provision
is made for continued or initial recognition of units
for management officials or supervisors repre­
sented by labor organizations which traditionally
or historically have represented such groups in
private industry and which already hold exclusive
representation for such units in any Government
agency.
Standards of conduct for labor organizations
and management are extended, making them
comparable to those for private sector unions.
Recognition may only be accorded to a labor
organization free of corrupt influences and of
influences opposed to basic democratic principles.
They must file financial and other reports, pro­
vide for bonding of officials and employees of the
organization, and meet trusteeship and election
standards. Certain unfair labor practices by
management and labor organizations are pro­
hibited. Strike action or picketing in a labor
dispute by a labor organization is an unfair labor
practice. Strikes continue to be banned by Federal
statute.
Major innovations in the new Executive Order
include the centralization of basic aspects of the
administration of the Federal labor-management
relations policy. A Federal Labor Relations
Council consisting of the Chairman of the Civil
Service Commission, the Secretary of Labor, and
other officials of the executive branch is to decide
major policy questions, develop regulations, and
handle appeals from actions of the Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Rela­
tions. The latter will decide appropriate unit
questions, supervise representation elections, pre­
scribe regulations to effectuate the provisions on
the conduct of labor organizations and manage­
ment, and decide complaints of violations of
these. In negotiations disputes, the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service will provide
assistance. In negotiation impasses, a Federal
Service Impasses Panel is established as an agency
within the Federal Labor Relations Council, with
discretion to consider impasses on the request of
either party, following failure of voluntary ar­
rangements. The parties may only use arbitration

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

8
Table 1.

State
California___

Key provisions of selected State public employee laws, including enactments as of Spring 1970

Employees covered Administrative machinery
State and local
employees (1968
amendments do
not apply to
state employees).

Governmental subdivisions.

Teachers ______ School district, county
board of education,
etc.
Connecticut__ Local. ___
State Labor Relations
Board(SLRB).
Board of Mediation and
Arbitration(BMA).
Education.
State Board of
Education(SBE).
Delaware..... . State and local
State Department of
Laborand Industrial
Relations (SDLIR).
State Mediation Service
(SMS).
Teachers. ___ .. Local Boards of
Education.
State Boardof Education
(SBE).
Maine_____

Bargaining
Required “to meet and
confer in good faith”
(1968 amendments
authorized non­
binding memoranda
of agreement with
"determination” by
governing body.)
Required to “meet and
confer.”
Duty to negotiate,
including written
agreement.
Duty to negotiate,
including written
agreement.

Representation
Subdivisions may adopt
procedures after
consultation with
employee organiza­
tions; guides
suggested for
recognizing employee
organizations.
Negotiating councils
with proportional
representation.
SLRBdetermines
representative.
Exclusive representa­
tion.
Exclusive representa­
tion.

SDLIRdetermines.
State and countyExclusive representa­
duty to negotiate.
tion.
Municipalities—inde­
pendent decision.
Includes written
agreement.
Procedural guides for
Duty to negotiate.
exclusive representa­
Authorizes agreement.
tion but administered
by local boards.
Appeal to SBE.

Dispute provisions
Authorized agreement
on third party in
local negotiations.

None specified______
BMAmediates, and
factfinding.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Prohibited.

SBEmediates............. Prohibited.
SMS mediates______

Prohibited.

Authorizes local
mediation and fact­
finding but bans
arbitration.

Prohibited. Exclusive
representative loss of
representation rights
for 2years; loss of
dues check-off for
1year.
Prohibited and may be
enjoined. Strikes are
unfair labor practice.

May call on BACfor
Commissioner, Depart­ Duty to negotiate,
Exclusive recognition.
factfinding. Permits
ment of Labor and
including written
Subdivisions may
binding arbitration,
Industry (CDLI).
agreement.
accord representa­
Public Employees Labor
but advisory only on
tion. Elections, if
Relations Appeals
required, conducted
wages.
Board (PELRAB).
by CDLI. Appeal to
Boardof Arbitration and
PELRAB.
Conciliation(BAC).
Maryland____
Required to meet and
Procedures established; SBEassistance; report
local board may
and recommendations.
negotiate. Negotiation
Education.
includes the duty to
designate majority
State Board of Educa­
tion(SBE).
organization as
"confer in good
faith” and “reduce
exclusive representa­
to writing” agreed
tive;
upon matters.
SSBEestablishes rules
for elections and
supervises.
Massachusetts.. All local, including State Labor Relations
Duty to negotiate
SBCAfactfinding____
teachers.
Commission(SLRC).
including written
Exclusive representa­
State Board of Concil­
tion.
agreement.
iation and Arbitration
(SBCA).
State_________ State Director of
Duty to negotiate,
Personnel (SDP).
includingwritten
by SDP. Exclusive
agreement.
representation.
Michigan__
All local, includ­
State Labor Mediation
Duty to negotiate, in­
SLMBdetermines.
SLMBmediates
ingteachers.
Board(SLMB) (sepa­
cluding written agree­
Exclusive repre­
grievance.
rate administration
ment.
sentation.
of the labor relations
and mediationfunction).
Minnesota___ State and local...... Division of Labor Con­
Required to "meet and D1Cdetermines.
DLCmediates.
ciliation (DLC).
confer.”
Formal recogni­
Then adjust­
tion to majority
ment panel
for findings.
organizations; in­
formal to others.
Teachers______ School boards.
Required to “meet
Recognition to
Adjustment panel
and confer.”
single organiza­
for findings.
tion. Where more
than one, propor­
tional representation
on teachers'
council.
Missouri......... State and local
State Board of
Required to “meet,
except teachers,
Mediation (SBM).
confer and discuss,"
Exclusive represen­
police, State
results “reduced to
tation.
police.
writing.”
Nebraska___
Local jurisdictions.
Authorizes recognition, Jurisdictions may
SCIRjurisdiction
State Court of Indus­
negotiation and
grant exclusive
may be invoked
trial Relations
written agreement by
recognition or
to determine
(SCIR).
public employers.
conduct elections.
terms.
SCIRcertifies.
Local, including
teachers.

Strike provisions

Prohibited; penalties:
revocation of exclusive
bargaining representa­
tion for 2 years
and loss of dues
check-off for 1
year.
Prohibited.

Strikes are unfair
labor practice.
Prohibited; sanctions
against strikes
subject to appeal and
court review.
Prohibited.
Continues
earlier penalties
against individuals,
with right to review.

Prohibited.
Prohibited.
Continues earlier
penalties against
individual.

9

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR RELATIONS
Table 1.

State

Key provisions of selected State public employee laws, including enactments as of Spring 1970—Continued

Employees covered Administrative machinery

Nebraska—Con. Teachers_____

Nevada____

Local including
teachers.

Court of Industrial
Relations (SCIR).

Bargaining
"To meet and confer”
is authorized on vote
of majority of school
board.

Local jurisdictions;
Duty to negotiate____
State Local Govern­
ment Employee
Management Relations
Board (SlGB).

NewHampshire. State____ ____

established.

Division of Public
Required to bargain,
Employment Relations
including written
(PERI) autonomous
agreement.
tripartite unit in
Department of Labor
and Industry. Public
Employment Relation
Commission (PERC) in
PERDfor policy and
rule making.
NewYork___ All State and local... Public Employment Re­ Required to bargain,
lations Board(PERB)
including written
(autonomous inState
agreement.
Department of Civil
Service).

Oregon_____

. . Education Fact Finding
Commission (EFFC).

Required to negotiate,
and written
agreement.

Public Employee Re­
Required to negotiate
lations Board (PERB).
and enter agreement.
State Conciliation
Service (SCS).
(PERB may assign duties
to SCS).
Teachers_______ School boards______ Required to "confer,
consult and discuss
ingood faith.”

Rhode Island. .. Local______ ...


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Board(SLRB).

Authorizes exclusive
representation.

No strike pledge as
condition for recogni­
tion; exclusive
representation
accorded by local
jurisdiction; appeals
available to S<_GB.

Dispute provisions
Authorized parties to
establish procedures
for factfinding;
decisionmaking
authority of SCIR
may be invoked.
SLGnotified, and may
appoint mediator;
factfinding if impasse
persists.

Obligation to negotiate
State Commission con­
for purpose of reaching ducts election and
agreement.
certifies results;
exclusive representa­
tion.

NewJersey__ State and local,
including
teachers.

North Dakota... Teachers___

Representation

Strike provisions
Prohibited.

Prohibited; public
employers may seek
enjoinment; penalties
for violation of enjoin­
ment set out; by
court, against employee
organization (maxi­
mumfine), individual
officers (maximumtime
on imprisonment);
individual employees
(dismissal or suspen­
sion); by public
employers against
individual or dis­
missal, demotion or
suspension; withhold
salaries, cancel
contracts.
Prohibited, every
agreement to contain
no strike clause;
employees subject to
disciplinary penalties
provided by lawand
personnel regulations
for serious misconduct.
States that the Act of
1968 is not to be con­
strued to "diminish
inany way the right
of private employees
to strike.”

Majority organization
is exclusive repre­
sentative. Deter­
mined by employee
designation or by
election. Elections
conducted by and
rules determined by
PERC.

PERCto aid in
mediation; may
recommend or invoke
factfinding.

Procedures for recog­
nition by local
authorities, subject
to "affirmation by
such organization
that it does not
assert the right to
strike against any
government...”
To PERBfor resolu­
tion if no local
procedures, and for
State employees.

a) Parties establish own Prohibited; organizations
may be fined and
procedures,
chief executive of
b) or recourse to
government involved
mediation and fact­
required to notify
finding through PERB.
PERB. For violation,
c) Recommendations
PERBto order for­
not accepted, legisla­
feiture of representa­
tive body or
tion rights and dues
committee conducts
checkoff for such
hearing and takes
period as PERB
action.
determines. Chief
executive required to
deduct 2 days pay
for each day employee
on strike. On probation
without tenure for a
year. Right to review.
Determined by parties; Prohibited; individual
teacher may be denied
or call on EFFCfor
full salary during
factfinding.
period of violation.

Local board accepts
majority organization,
or conducts election.
If disagreement,
EFFCrules govern
election.
Exclusive representation; Local jurisdictions may
local jurisdictions
determine or call on
PERBfor mediation
may determine or
calf on PERB.
and factfinding.

Prohibited.

Local election to
determine whether an
employee organization
or a committee repre­
senting teachers is
to be exclusive repre­
sentative.
Required to bargain___ SLRBdetermines. Ex­
Mediation by SDLwith Prohibited.
arbitration on request
clusive representation.
of either party (but
decisions involving ex­
penditures are
advisory).

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

10
Table 1.

State
Rhode IslandContinued

Key provisions of selected State public employee laws, including enactments as of Spring 1970—Continued

Employees covered Administrative machinery
State__
Teachers.

State agencies.
School boards. State
Labor Relations
Board(SLRB). State
Department of
Education (SDE).

South Dakota,.. State, local,
Individual jurisdictions.
including teachers. State Labor Commission
(S.C).

Vermont.

Wisconsin.

Required to bargain.
Required to bargain.

Required to meet and
negotiate with ma­
jority representative.
Settlements to be
implemented by or­
dinance, resolution,
or memorandumof
understanding as may
be appropriate.

Dispute provisions

Represents members__
SDEmediation; either
SLRBdetermines. Ex­
party may request
clusive representation.
arbitration but de­
cisions involving ex­
penditures are
advisory.
Parties may call on SLC
Formal recognition to
incase of impasse.
majority organization
only for members;
informal recognition
to any organization.

Mediation by DIRand
governor, effort to
have parties agree to
arbitration, otherwise,
factfinding by labor
emergency board.
SELRBmay authorize
SELRBcertifies; ex­
factfinding.
clusive representa­
tion.
School board may waive Parties may use media­
tion orfactfinding.
elections for exclusive
representation; or
followprocedures in
statute.

Strike provisions
Prohibited.
Prohibited.

Prohibited. State and
local governments re­
quired to apply to
courts for immediate
relief. Penalties
against organization by
courts set at maximum
of $50,000 and/or
imprisonment of
officials for 1year.
Employees, right to
appeal andcourt
review, subject to a
fine of $1,000 and 1
year imprisonment.
Prohibited; right of pub­
lic employer to petition
for injunction.

Local employees,
excludes ^'professionai em­
ployees”.

State Labor Relations
Board(SLRB). De­
partment of Indus­
trial Relations (DIR).

Authorized to bargain... SLRBdetermines.
Exclusive representa­
tion.

State__

State Employée Labor
Relations Board
(SELRB).
Local boards of éduca­
tion.

Required to bargain;
written agreement.
Required to negotiate,
and written agree­
ment.

Local.

Department of Labor
and Industries (DLI).

Teachers..

School Districts.
State Superintendent of
Public Instruction
(SSPI).
Wisconsin Employment
Relations Board
(WERB).
WERB__ _______

Required to bargain and Exclusive representation. Mediation.
Parties may decide;
written agreement.
or invite DLI to de­
cide and conduct
election if necessary.
Assistance of committees
Required to meet and
Procedures adopted
of educators and
locally;
exclusive
negotiate.
school directors
representation.
appointed by SSPI.
W
E
RBfactfinding; unless Prohibited.
W
E
R
B
determ
ines,
ex­
Required to bargain.
local authorities
clusive representa­
have
established
tion.
comparable procedures.
Prohibited.
WERBfactfinding......
WERBdetermines, ex­
Required to bargain.
clusive representation.

Teachers.

Washington.

Representation

Bargaining

Local.
State.

or third party factfinding with recommendations
to resolve an impasse on the authorization or
direction of the Panel.
P ostal a g reem ent . New facets to Federal em­
ployee policies have been provided by the recent
agreement negotiated with the afl - cio , which
includes joint sponsorship of a bill establishing
the United States Postal Service as an independent
government establishment, proposed pay raises,
and collective bargaining over wages, hours, and
working conditions generally subject to private
sector collective bargaining. The coverage of
wages and working conditions in bargaining in the
Postal Service is a major change.
In addition, jurisdiction over unit determina­
tions, union recognition, and adjudication of

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Prohibited. Strikes are
unfair labor practice.
Injunctions bycourt
only after due hearing
that action “poses
clear and present
danger to sound pro­
gramof school educa­
tion . . . is in best
public interest to pre­
vent."
Prohibited.

unfair labor practice charges is assigned to the
National Labor Relations Board under procedures
comparable to those in the private sector. The
strike impasse question, in recognition of the
Federal ban on government worker strikes, is
met by the provision of mediation, a 90-day
cooling off period with factfinding, with final and
binding third party arbitration, if the impasse
persists.
State and local developments

The acir report analyzed existing State statutes
relating to public employees, and found 21 had
comprehensive statutes, that is, statutes conferring
organizational and representation rights on broad
groups of State or local employees or both. Of

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR RELATIONS

these, 19 required public employers to deal with
employee organizations but only 14 required
mandatory collective bargaining. All required the
execution of binding written agreements (one on
the request of either party). “Meet and confer”
provisions were effective in five States, with only
one requiring written agreement. Exclusive recog­
nition was accorded the majority representative
in all of the 14 States requiring mandatory bar­
gaining, but was required in only two of the “meet
and confer” States. Detailed unfair labor practice
provisions for both employer and employee
organizations were set forth in the statutes of
eight States providing mandatory bargaining. These
States generally had provisions for mediation of
unresolved negotiations, with 11 also providing
factfinding procedures. Two “meet and confer”
States had specific provisions for mediation only
of representation and recognition disputes, and
none provided for factfinding.
A number of the States dealt with above had
special statutes covering such occupational groups
as teachers, fire fighters, employees of publicly
owned utilities, and nurses. Several of the 29 States
lacking legislation covering State or local em­
ployees on a broad basis do have statutes relating
to organization, representation rights, or impasse
settlement for special occupational groups. Some
authorized organization of employees either by
statute, attorney-general opinions, or court de­
cision. (See table 1.)
This diversity, including complete or partial
statutory voids in some States, and some persist­
ent tendencies—substantially overshadowed now­
adays—to stress strike prevention and sanctions,
have produced a new orientation on the part of
some employee organizations. Whether this orien­
tation toward the enactment of national legisla­
tion establishing national minimum standards for
representation and bargaining rights for public
employees will be actively pressed remains to be
seen. It is significant, however, that this is now one
of the elements in the total evolutionary pattern
of the law of public employment. As one union
group expressed it recently:
At the State and local level the cause of collective
bargaining has met with despair and prejudice. It is
this sense of hopelessness, coupled with the urgent
need of a program to give every public employee the
dignity and decency which derive from the justice and
equity embodied in collective bargaining which leads
to the call for a Federal minimum standard bargain­
ing law—a Federal labor law for public employees.11

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

11
Legal proposal

The State, County and Municipal Workers
union has been in the process of developing a
model Federal statute proposal. Still in a develop­
mental stage, provisions may include guarantees
for State and public employee organization,
representation and collective bargaining like those
for private industry employees under the Labor
Management Relations Act. It would provide for a
5-member Public Employees Relation Com­
mission. Election rules would be like those in the
private sector. All State and local employees
would be covered, except elected officials, with
supervisors placed in separate units. Unfair labor
practices would be specified, with procedures for
complaints and hearings. Written agreements
would be required, with the settlement going into
effect automatically if the legislature takes no
adverse action within 30 days. Dues check-off
would be required on voluntary written authoriza­
tion, limited to the exclusive representative
where one has been certified. The Federal Media­
tion and Conciliation Service would mediate
contract negotiations at the request of either party,
or on its own. If factfinding is necessary, the
Service would provide the parties with a slate of
factfinders, who would make recommendations
for settlement, with public disclosure mandatory
15 days after the recommendations are submitted.
The parties could agree to use other procedures and
other agencies, or to agree to final and binding
arbitration. As in the private sector, strikes would
not be banned. Any State or political subdivision
which enacts a law which substantially meets the
provisions of the National Act could apply to the
Commission for exemption from the National
Act.12
A bill drafted by the National Education
Association and introduced in the current Congress
is entitled the “Professional Negotiations Act for
Public Education 1969.” It would cover the
“professional employees of boards of education,”
excluding superintendents of schools. Professional
negotiation, or “meeting, conferring, consulting,
or discussing in good faith” terms and conditions
of professional service would be required with
execution of a written agreement if either party
so requests. A Professional Education Employee
Commission would be established in the Depart­
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare to
administer the Act. Organization rights, recog­
nition rights, exclusive representation to majority

12

representatives, and voluntary dues check-off are
provided for. The National Commission would
conduct hearings in contested recognition situa­
tions and order elections if necessary. Either
party could call on the Commission for mediation
in impasse situations, or the Commission could
itself declare an impasse. If mediation were un­
successful, either party could request submission
of the issues to advisory arbitration, with the
arbitrators’s recommendations binding only if the
parties had so agreed. Strikes would be specifically
permitted, with temporary or permanent injunc­
tions being issued only where findings of fact
determine that the start or continuance of a strike
would pose a clear and present danger to the
public health and safety, or where the employee
representative has failed to make a reasonable
effort to utilize the mediation, factfinding, and
voluntary arbitration machinery of the act. Un­
fair labor practices are set out, and the Com­
mission is authorized to issue complaints, hold
hearings, and issue orders. Here again, States
which establish systems equivalent to the national
system could apply for exemption.13
Other views

The reports of the Advisory Committee on
Intergovernmental Relations (acir ) and the
Twentieth Century Task Force (tctf ) provide
additional insights into the nature of policy views
which are percolating in the development of law
and practice in the public employee field. The
acir may be said to reflect views by public
managers and elected officials; the tctf , the views
of prominent impartial practitioners and legal
experts. They do not necessarily encompass all
of the views held by knowledgeable people.
The two reports diverge in one important re­
spect. The tctf report endorses collective nego­
tiations, with one recommended principle stating
that “the public employer has the duty to meet
and negotiate with the union” in good faith, as
is the statutory requirement in the private sector.
To justify this stand, the report states: “In this
matter, as in representative rights and in recog­
nition, differences in the public and the private
sectors are not such as to make inapplicable the
rules of conduct legislated for private employ­
ment. As strike issues, these matters have been
largely eliminated in industry. The extension of

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

these rules to government labor relations can be
a major contribution to stability.”
The acir also recommended the enactment of
State statutes “establishing the basic relationship
between public employers and their organizations
in arriving at the terms and conditions of employ­
ment; absence of such legislation tends to encour­
age chaotic labor-management relations, especially
in local governments where the evolution of these
relationships is left to chance and to the ebb and
flow of political power and influence of employees
and their organization and to widely varying
administrative and judicial interpretations.” The
report stated that two routes were available for
implementation, either collective negotiation or
meet and confer provisions. The following are
partial characterizations of these presented in this
report: “While both systems involve continuing
communication between the employer and em­
ployee representatives, under collective negotia­
tions both parties meet more as equals. . . .
Under a meet and confer system, the outcome of
public employer-employee discussions depends
more on management’s determination than on
bilateral decisions as 'equals.’ ”
“Given contemporary and evolving conditions
in State and local employment,” the majority
acir view was to endorse the meet and confer in
good faith approach. Stating that its recommenda­
tion was directed to those government seats which
lack laws or formal policies on the subject—29
States, two-thirds of the municipalities with popu­
lations over 100,000, and half of the urban counties
surveyed—the report stated: “these jurisdictions
not only have failed to come to grips with a
pressing intergovernmental issue, they have for­
feited their basic responsibilities over to the courts,
to the bureaucracy, and to the unpredictable play
of political forces and the influence of employee
groups.” In the view of the majority, the obligation
to “meet and confer in good faith” converts “the
system into something broader and more balanced
than the ‘meet and confer’ setup, but still some­
thing less than the glittering and often unfulfilled
promises of a collective bargaining statute.”
Express support for collective negotiations came
from 7 of the 26 acir members.14 Several of their
views pointed to the prevailing trend in the
State legislation enacted during the past decade
toward requiring collective negotiations. All
preferred collective negotiations, but some would
have left “meet and confer” as at most a transi-

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR RELATIONS

tional alternative leading soon to negotiations.
The question of the right of public employees
to strike continues to be a major issue in the
consideration of appropriate legislation. Equally
prominent in the deliberations are considerations
of machinery to avoid strikes. The predominant
view has been that statutory provisions assuring
the right to organize, bargain collectively, together
with the provision of machinery to deal with
grievances, representation rights, and unfair labor
practice charges would have as stabilizing an
effect on public employee relations as they have
had in the private sector. That this has not been
so in some instances has resulted in emphasis
also being placed on machinery to deal with
bargaining impasses to avoid strike situations.
The acir report and a majority of the tctf
supported continuance of the prevailing ban on
public employee strikes, under all circumstances.
Within the task force, however, a minority went
along with a universal strike ban only for firemen
and policemen; for other public employees, only
if the terms and machinery established by agree­
ment had not been exhausted or when the public
health and safety were truly imperiled as estab­
lished by court findings. It may also be noted
that two State commissions, those of Colorado
and Pennsylvania, recommended a limited right
to strike for public employees, where these did
not contravene, contract terms and procedures,
and where the public health and safety were not
affected. These recommendations have not been
incorporated in statutes, however. (See Vermont
statute relating to teachers in table 1.)
Views on banning strikes give great emphasis
to the provision of alternatives to strikes. The
tctf states that: “Threatening disputes should be
subject to intense and continuing negotiations
between the parties until all hope of agreement in
that forum is exhausted. Then the techniques of
mediation should be applied, and if that fails it
should be followed by factfinding that will recom­
mend the terms on Avhich the disagreeing parties
should end their disputes.” The acir also stresses
the need for avenues for eliminating impasses in
two recommendations. States should “mandate
the use of specific procedures (for example, fact­
finding, mediation, and advisory arbitration)”
to resolve impasses under one recommendation.
Under another recommendation, only mediation
would be mandated, with the suggestion of State
legislative authorization of additional steps.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

13

Both the acir and the task force stress the
need for the States to enact legislation to regular­
ize labor-management relationships, including the
establishment of independent agencies to ad­
minister the statutes. The acir recommendations
are, of course, geared to the “meet and confer in
good faith approach” and the task force to the
more evident trend to collective negotiations.
Additional matters are covered in the reports,
indicative of the efforts to meet significant issues
which arise in employee relationships. The acir
would require that State laws treat both State
and local employees uniformly; the task force
lays down general principles which are intended
for uniform application. The acir would accord
full “meet and confer” rights to the majority
representative, but would not preclude informal
recognition of minority group representatives.
The tctf stressed exclusive representation of the
majority unions selected by employees as pro­
viding “the basis for a genuine bilateral unionmanagement relationship.” The acir does not
deal directly with appropriate bargaining units
in its recommendation, but would exclude super­
visors from the grant of employee rights and
privileges, while permitting them to join and be
represented by organizations restricted to super­
visors through which they could consult with
employers on an informal basis. The tctf stressed
the practical need in public service for the largest
possible unit for recognition, to avoid distortion
resulting from fractionalized negotiations on cost
items among agencies. The task force noted the
provisions for separate units for employees and
their supervisors in the Federal law for private
employees and recommended that the independent
labor relations agency adjudicate representation
questions among its functions.
In line with its “meet and confer in good faith”
recommendations, the acir proposed “joint effort
in drafting a nonbinding memorandum of under­
standing setting forth all the agreed upon recom­
mendations for submission to the jurisdiction’s
governing officials.” The tctf stressed that:
“when an agreement between the public em­
ployer and a union has been reached, it should
be reduced to writing with both affixing their
signatures to it,” as involving more than a sym­
bolic gesture, in providing a documentary refer­
ence if future questions arise over the agreement.
On subjects which may be covered by memoran­
dums of understanding, the acir would include

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

14

‘'wages, hours, and other conditions of employ­
ment as fall within the statutorily defined scope
of the discussions,” with State statutes explicitly
setting forth detailed management rights. The
tctf also recognized that some matters are
covered by legislation and constitutional pro­
visions in some States, thus limiting the authority
of an administrator in an organized agency.
The tctf further noted that labor agreements
in the private sector and in State and local
contracts contain management rights provisions,
as well as in Federal Executive Order 11491. To
cover the variety of discretionary authority
possessed by public authorities, it stressed the
need for “viable negotiations,” which would not
extend beyond the employer-agency’s authority
to make binding commitments. It emphasizes,
however, that “no subject should be barred from
consultations and discussion—in contrast to nego­
tiations—however restricted the autonomous
powers of the employer agency.” Such limitations
“may appear unduly restrictive to a healthy
labor-management relationship,” in the light of
private experience. The task force goes on to
state, “However, the government employee orga­
nization has a recourse not available to the union
1 For analysis of earlier reports of State commissions,
see J. P. Goldberg, “Labor-Management Relations Laws
in Public Service,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , June 1968, pp.
48-55; Russell A. Smith, “State and Local Advisory
Reports on Public Employment Labor Legislation,”
M i c h i g a n L a w R e v ie w , March 1969, pp. 891-918.
2 Supplement to

R e p o r t o f T a s k F o r c e o n S ta te a n d L o c a l

Committee on Executive Man­
agement and Fiscal Offices, National Governor’s Con­
ference (Chicago, Public Personnel Association, 1969).
G o v e r n m e n t L a b o r R e la tio n s ,

3 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
L a b o r - M a n a g e m e n t P o li c i e s f o r S ta te a n d L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t,
1 9 6 9 , p. 99. The a c i r was established by Public Law 380,
86th Cong., 1st Session, 1959. The Commission includes 3
private citizens, 3 members of the U.S. Senate, 3 members
of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3 officers of the
Executive Branch, U.S. Government, 4 Governors, 4
Mayors, 3 State legislators, and 3 elected county officials.

4A F L -C I O
5 R e p o rt

N ew s,

April 4, 1970, p. 6.

a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n s o f th e T w e n tie th C e n tu r y

F u n d T a s k F o r c e o n L a b o r D i s p u t e s i n P u b l i c E m p lo y m e n t,

Members participating as individuals were: Archibald
Cox, Harvard University; Charles C. Killingsworth,
Michigan State University; Joseph H. Loftus, U.S. De­
partment of Labor; John W. Macy, Jr., Former Chairman,
U.S. Civil Service Commission; Walter E. Obérer, Cornell
University; William Simkin, Former Director, Federal
1970.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

in private industry: it may take what it can get
in limited negotiations, then lobby the legislature
for nonnegotiable items.”
H ighlights of the mix of thinking now evident
in the field of State and local employee-manage­
ment relations indicate the complexities of the
subject. To date, the recent trend in State legisla­
tion has been to comprehensive statutes providing
for collective negotiations, with machinery com­
parable to that in the private sector. The absence
of such action in the majority of States has pro­
duced the cross-currents already described: Em­
ployee organization proposals for national legisla­
tion establishing minimum standards; the acir
majority recommendations for “meet and confer
in good faith” State statutes as an acceptable
approach for States which have otherwise failed
to act; and the tctf proposals for further extension
by States of the collective negotiations legislation
that has emerged as the prevailing approach in
States which have acted. In the meantime, the
pressures of employee unions and associations for
representation rights and improved conditions
are having their own impact on the developing
trends.
□

Mediation and Conciliation Service; George W. Taylor,
University of Pennsylvania; Saul Wallen (deceased); and
Edwin E. Young, University of Wisconsin.
6 National Education Association, press release,
January 25, 1970
7 ACIR report cited, pp. 123-124.
8 BLS Summary Report, Municipal Public Employee
Associations, January 1970.
9 Sheila C. White, “Work Stoppages of Government
Employees,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1969, pp.
29-34.
10 Presidential Review Committee on Employee Manage­
ment Relations in the Federal Service, 1968; Study Com­
mittee on Labor Management Relations in the Public
Service, Report and Recommendations, 1969.
11 AFL-CIOMaritime Trades Department,

F i n a l R e p o r t:

C o lle c tiv e B a r g a i n i n g i n th e P u b l i c S e c to r , 1 9 6 9 ,

12 T h e

P u b l i c E m p lo y e e ,

pp. 35-36.

January 1970, p. 12.

13 91st Congress, 1st Session, S. 1951.
14 Dissenting or excepting views were submitted by
Robert P. Knowles, State Senator, Wisconsin; Edwin G.
Michaelian, elected County official, Westchester County,
New York; Raymond P. Shafer, Governor, Pennsylvania;
Edmund S. Muskie, U.S. Senator, Maine; Robert P. Mayo,
Director of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget; and Nelson A.
Rockefeller, Governor, New York.

Personnel, budget
and other policies
of all levels of government
will be affected
by union advances
HARRY P. COHANY AND LUCRETIA M. DEWEY

T he u psu r g e in the past decade in union mem­
bership at all levels of government, Federal, State
and local, surprised not only public officials, but
also those considered knowledgeable in labor mat­
ters. Membership growth—after dramatic gains
before and during the World War II period—had
reached a plateau during most of the 1950’s and
the outlook for further advances appeared dim.
Blue-collar workers, the traditional mainstay of
the labor movement, were already organized in
most manufacturing and nonmanufacturing indus­
tries, while white-collar workers had repeatedly
spurned offers to sign up.
White-collar workers were the fastest growing
sector of the labor force and the proportion of
manual workers was expected to decline because
of automation, leading to widespread speculation
about the “stagnation” and even the “crisis” of
the labor movement.
A number of obstacles to union growth were
held to exist in the public sector. It was asserted
frequently that government as an employer could
not legally engage in collective bargaining, since
this would violate the concept of sovereignty and
lead to an illegal delegation of powers. Further­
more, it was held that government operations and
conditions of employment differed so markedly from
those in private industry that practices and ap­
proaches developed in the latter were wholly in­
applicable to the public sector. Wages and terms
of employment generally were set by legislation
and subsequently implemented by Civil Service
Commission directives, agency regulations, and so
on, thereby removing these issues from bargaining
or any other form of joint decisionmaking between
managers and employees. These views, it should

Harry P. Cohany is chief of the Division of Industrial
Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Lucretia M.
Dewey is an economist in the same division.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Union membership
among
government
employees
be noted, were held not only by agency heads
and large sections of the public but by government
employees as well. Perhaps, because of the largely
unquestioned acceptance of the “conventional
wisdom’’ in this area, union growth in the public
sector was insignificant until the start of the 1960’s,
although unions made up in whole or in part
of government employees go back to World War I
and earlier.
For reasons not fully understood even now,
things changed unexpectedly and rapidly during
the 1960’s. A number of explanations for this
development have been put forth and these will
be discussed later in the article. For the sake of
perspective, however, it is necessary to look first
at union gains in absolute and relative terms.
Dimensions of growth

In 1956, the year the Bureau of Labor Statistics
started collecting data on union membership by
industry, 915,000, or 5.1 percent of a total mem­
bership of 18.1 million were in government
(table 1). In 1962, the number had grown to 1.2
million, or 7 percent of total membership, and by
1968, union membership among government em­
ployees had climbed to 2.2 million, 10.7 percent
of total membership. During the period 1956-68,
membership in all unions increased by 2.1 million
of whom more than 1.2 million were in govern­
ment. At the same time, gains in manufacturing
and nonmanufacturing industries were only
379,000 and 487,000, respectively. While govern­
ment unions scored gains of 135.5 percent, those
in private industry were held to about 5 percent.
All indications point to further advances in the
public sector in 1969 and 1970 so that union
membership as of mid-1970 is likely to exceed 2.6
million.
Not all elements of the labor movement shared
in these gains. The major beneficiaries were unions
15

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

16

affiliated with the afl - cio , which enrolled more
than 1 million public servants during 1956-68,
compared with 226,000 for those outside the
Federation. In 1968, the last year for which data
are presently available, 78 percent of the 2.2
million members in government were in afl - cio
unions :
Membership (in thousands):
1956________________
1960________________
1964________________
1968________________
Percent change:
1956-60______________
1960-64_________ ___ _
1964-68______________

T o ta l

________
________
________
________

915
1,070
1,453
2,155

________
________
________

16.9
35.8
48.3

A F L
C IO

-

In de­
pendent

669
824
1,116
1,682

247
247
337
473

23.2 .
35.4
50.7

36.4
40.4

These changes also are reflected in the growth
figures for particular unions. Prior to 1960, only
three government unions had 100,000 members
or more; by 1968, there were six well above this
size (table 2). Between 1956-68, unions in govern­
ment did better than the average growth in mem­
bership. The American Federation of Government
Employees (afl - cio ) grew by 360 percent; the
American Federation of Teachers (afl - cio) by
230 percent; and the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (afl - cio ) by
143 percent. Since 1968, the afge has reported a
further increase of 30,000 members, reaching a
total of 325,000, the aft now claims 190,000, a
gain of 25,000, and afscme rolls are up by 76,000
to a total of 440,000. In addition to those unions
whose jurisdiction was confined to the public
sector, significant breakthroughs among governTable 1.

Union membership by sector, 1956-68

[Numbers inthousands)
Year

Manufacturing

Total i

Nonmanufactur­
ing

Government

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1956_______
1958_______
1960_______
1962_______
1964_______
1966_______
1968_______
ABSOLUTE
CHANGE
1956-60..........
1960-68_____
1956-68_____
PERCENTAGE
CHANGE
1956-60_____
1960-68..........
1956-68_____

18,104
17,968
18,036
17,564
17,920
19,126
20,210

8,839
8,359
8,591
8,050
8,342
8, 769
9,218

-68
2,174
2,106

-248
627
379

-.4
12.1
11.6

48.8
46.5
47.6
45.8
46.6
45.8
45.6

8,350
8, 574
8,375
8,289
8,125
8,640
8,837
-25
462
487

-2.8
7.4
4.3

i Includes membership outside the United States.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

46.1
47.7
46.4
47.2
45.3
45.2
43.7

915
1,035
1,070
1,225
1,453
1,717
2,155

5.1
5.8
5.9
7.0
8.1
9.0
10.7

155
1,085
1,240

_4
5.5
5.8

16.9
101.4
135.5

ment employees were also scored by unions pri­
marily active in private industry, such as the
Service Employees (afl - cio ), Machinists (afl cio ), Laborers ( afl - cio ), and a number of craft
unions.
Comparison of membership at the various levels
of government for 1968 show almost 1.4 million in
Federal service (63 percent of the total), and
800,000 in State and local jurisdictions. During
1966-68, the rate of expansion in both major levels
was about 25 percent.
In terms of union penetration, unions in the
Federal service have fared far better than those in
other jurisdictions. In 1968, one-half of all Federal
employees were union members (table 3)—a sur­
prising statistic when compared with the situation
in 1960. Although a large proportion of the mem­
bership was in a single department (the Post
Office, which was better than 80 percent orga­
nized), major clusters were also found in a host of
other agencies and installations covering profes­
sional, clerical, and blue-collar workers. Less than
10 percent of State and local employees was or­
ganized, although the number of those represented
by associations or “near-unions” should be added
to this figure to arrive at an overall assessment.
For all of government, about one out of every five
employees was a union member in 1968, a rate
that has moved upward steadily throughout the
last decade.
By State, government union membership varied
greatly in 1968 from a low of 2,000 in Wyoming to
a high of 309,000 in New York (table 4). However,
union membership was concentrated in a few
States. Of the total of 2.2 million, three States—
California, New York, and Illinois—together
accounted for about 1 out of 3 members. These
three States, and Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio,
Massachusetts, and the Maryland-D.C. area
had over one-half of the total.
The States with the largest number of govern­
ment union members are not always those in
which unions have scored their greatest organizing
successes. New York, California, and Illinois,
which have the largest number of members,
ranked 3rd, 34th, and 8th in terms of the propor­
tion of government employees organized. Simi­
larly, no strong relationship exists between the
extent of organization among government em­
ployees and that among employees in nonagricultural establishments generally. West Virginia,

17

UNION MEMBERSHIP AMONG GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

for example, ranked first in terms of union mem­
bership in nonagricultural establishments, but
only 45th in the extent of union membership
among government workers. Ranked first among
government employees, Rhode Island is only 22d
in rank in terms of total membership of nonfarm
workers. One-fifth of the States rank in roughly
the same positions in both categories. Thus, a
relatively high degree of organization in private
industry is not necessarily associated with similar
gains in the public sector.
Of more than ordinary interest in looking at
these figures are union successes in organizing
white-collar workers, an area where only meager
gains have been recorded in the past. The last
bls survey estimated 900,000 white-collar members
in government unions, or 42 percent of total
government enrollment. This figure has more
than doubled since 1960 when it was estimated
at 409,000. Between 1964 and 1968, white-collar
membership in all unions increased by 590,000,
of which 262,000 was accounted for by those in
government. Massive additions to union ranks of

professional and clerical employees in the public
sector may well presage similar breakthroughs in
private industry. At present, however, whitecollar members constitute a greater proportion
of all union members in government than they
do in the private sector—nearly 42 percent in the
former compared with 4 percent in manufacturing
and 21 percent in nonmanufacturing.
I9 6 0

1964

1968

Total white-collar membership (in thousands)_____2,192 2,585 3,176
Estimated number in government unions (in thousands). 409 636
898
Percent in government unions.................................................. 18.7 24.6 28.3
White-collar membership as a proportion of all members
ingovernm ent......... ............ .............. ...................................... 38.2 43.8 41.7

It should be emphasized that all of the figures
discussed refer to union members only. Not in­
frequently, the number of workers represented by
unions far exceeds those on their books. Thus,
union bargaining strength is in many jurisdictions
far greater than is apparent from membership
figures alone.
As noted, a complete evaluation of union gains
would also have to take account of those organ-

Table 2. Total membership of selected unions with the major proportion of their membership in the public service,
1952-68 i

Union

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

UNIONS OFFEDERALEMPLOYEES
Total__________________________________ 452,242 526,033 533,433 545,709 535,277 667, 021
12, 888
Federal Employees Association(Ind.)___________________ 9Ö,ÖÖÖ 99, 000 98, 000 90, 000 53, 000 49, 500
Government Employees, American Federation of------------------- 48, 000 62, 000 64, 000 60, 000 70,322 106,042
27,125
Letter Carriers, National Association of_________________ 95, 000 103,000 108,000 110, 000 138, 000 150,114
Letter Carriers, National Rural Association of (Ind.)__________ 34, 570 36,355 35,900 36,723 38,321 35, 852
Messengers, National Association of Special Delivery................... 2, 000 2,000 2,000 1,987 2, 000 1,500
Post Office Clerks3__________________________ ___ 95, 000 101,576 97, 052 100, 000 135,000 145,000
40, 000 40,100 38, 500
Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees (Ind.)----- 10, 000 7, 549 7,700 7,700 7,400 8, 000
Post Office Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers, and Leaders;
National Association of4----- --------------------------------- 2,000 6, 000 9,000 5, 500 4.000 14.000
Post Office MotorVehicle Employees, National Federation of------- 6,172 6,274 6,958 5,000 5.000 5, 000
19,000 18, 000 18, 000 18, 000 25.000
Postal and Federal Employees, National Alliance of (Ind.)---------Postal Supervisors, National Association of (Ind.)----- ------------ 16, 500 19,479 19,923 21,808 19,250 26, 000
27, 000 23, 800 26, 800 25,491
25, 000 32, 000 43, 000
12,984 14,4ÖÖ
26, 000
UNIONS OFSTATEANDLOCALGOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES
Total__________________________________ 211,000 226,468 285,000 343,772 361,156 399, 856
76,000 85, 000 85,000 93, 000 95, 000 109,035
Firefighters, International Association of-----------------------State, County, and Municipal Employees; American Federation of..... 85, 000 96,328 150, 000 200, 000 210,000 220, 000
Teachers, American Federation of-------------------------------- 50, 000 45,140 50, 000 50, 772 56,156 70, 821
t Unions listed below have at least 50 percent of their membership in Government
service.
2W
here 1956 figures are not shown, the base period is the first subsequent year for
which figures are shown.
3Post Office Clerks and Post Office Craftsmen merged to formUnited Federation of
Postal Clerks (AFL-CI0) on July 1,1961.
386-027 0 -7 0 - - 2,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Percent
change,
1956-682

1964

1966

1968

793,458
14,098
40, 000
138,642
15, 000
27,000
167,913
42,300
1,500
139, 000

933,035
14,300
80, 000
199, 823
24,130
189, 628
40, 340
2,073
143,146

1,100,087
14,130
95,000
294,725
26,360
210, 000
41,192
2,605
166,000

106.2
8.6
-3.1
360.5
-2.8
94.4
14.7
30.3
71.0

8,424
29,000
6,200
26, 000
28, 000
62,000
33, 881
14, 500

9,237
32, 000
8,141
37, 000
31,700
70, 000
32,717
18, 000

13,175
24.000
8,000
45.000
33.000
80, 000
28,900
18, 000

71.1
166.7
15.0
250.0
65.6
220.0
-14.7
38.6

450,197
115,358
234,839
100, 000

521,277
115.000
281,277
125.000

662,120
132,634
364,486
165, 000

132.3
56.0
143.0
230.0

4Post Office Mail Handlers merged with Laborers’ International Union of North
America (AFL-CI0) on April 20, 1968.
3Postal Transport Association merged withUnited Federationof Postal Clerks(AFLCIO)on July 1,1961.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

18

izations which are commonly referred to as
“associations” or “near-unions.” At the present
time, however, no comprehensive figures for these
groups exist. Various estimates place the total
at between 2 and 2.5 million. The National
Education Association, with more than 1 million
classroom teachers, and the American Nurses
Association, with 204,000 members, have been
actively seeking recognition and engaging in
collective bargaining, as have organizations of
policemen, social workers, playground supervisors,
university teaching assistants, and many other
categories of State and local employees. A recent
bls survey of municipal public employee associ­
ations yielded 662 associations with about 265,000
members in 438 cities.1 The Assembly of Govern­
ment Employees, an association of State employee
groups, claims that its affiliates represent more than
500,000 employees.2 Recent contests between
unions and associations leave no doubt that the
latter groups are determined to stay. In a number
of encounters in New York, California, and
Oregon, among others, they decisively turned
back union attempts to replace them.
Factors underlying growth

What lies behind this unexpected thrust for
public sector bargaining? It is a matter of profound
interest to bewildered administrators and to the
public at large. Unlike the depression in the
1930’s and the subsequent breakthrough in union
membership in mass production industries, no
single factor can be offered to explain the recent
growth.
Clearly, unions of government employees are
not of recent origin, although organizing efforts
by these unions have been markedly stepped up
since 1960, perhaps because of sheer persistence or
Table 3.

Proportion of government employees organized

[Numbers inthousands]
Government
Year

1956_____
1960_____
1964_____
1966_____
1968_____

Federal Government

State and local
government

Total
Total
Percent
Percent
Total
Percent
employ­ organized employ­ organized employ­ organized
ment
ment
ment
7,277
8,353
9,596
10,792
11,846

12.6
12.8
15.1
15.9
18.2

2,209
2,270
2,348
2,564
2, 737

NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

38.2
41.8
49.4

5, 069
6| 083
7; 248
8,227
9,109

7.7
7.8
8.8

a feeling that a turning point was near. Wage and
fringe benefit gains by unions in private industry,
widely reported in the press, found a receptive
audience among government workers; at the same
time, the traditional “security” of government
employment looked less and less appealing in a
progressively inflationary economy characterized
by tight labor markets. This was particularly the
case with the steadily growing number who
entered government service in recent years.
Long-standing local wage relationships between
private and public employees were upset to the
all too apparent disadvantage of the latter. The
usual methods by which public servants received
wage increases were too cumbersome and uncertain,
pointing up that new approaches were called for.
It should be added that sophisticated techniques
(“human relations”, and so forth) used by private
employers to thwart union organization had made
little headway among public managers.
The rise in militancy among public employees
can also be traced in some measure to the growing
acquiescence in such actions by our society
generally. The example of the civil rights move­
ment, students, war protesters, and so on left
its mark on teachers, hospital attendants, firemen,
and others. Conduct of perhaps questionable
legality had become accepted and, above all,
had achieved results where more conventional
means had failed. In addition to material benefits,
public employees, particularly professionals, were
seeking a vehicle to participate in decisionmaking,
from which they had previously been excluded.
A key turning point occurred in early 1962 with
the issuance of President Kennedy’s Executive
Order 10988, which sanctioned union organization
and had wide repercussions at non-Federal levels
as well. After a string of union victories in several
major cities, the momentum generated proved
irresistible in jurisdictions in most parts of the
country. Dramatic stoppages, such as the sanita­
tion workers’ walkout in Memphis, added impetus
to union efforts. Legislative reapportionment,
which entailed a shift from rural to urban repre­
sentatives, may also have helped matters along
in some situations.
In any case, the upsurge in union activity has
brought in its wake a host of problems, some re­
lating to interunion relationships. But its greatest
impact has been on the public service and conconsequently on public policy.

19

UNION MEMBERSHIP AMONG GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Effects on policy

As unions in the public sector have grown, they
have increasingly come into competition with
those in the private sector which in the past have
been unopposed in their role of union spokesman
in the community. Those who seek labor’s en­
dorsement must now turn to several power centers,
while those in these centers are carefully deline­
ating their roles. This new state of affairs was
recognized at the afl - cio ’s 1969 convention, when
the federation added two presidents of government
unions to its Executive Council. 3
The prospect of further gains has also intensi­
fied rivalries among unions and between unions
and associations in organizing campaigns. This
competition for new members is likely to lead to
jurisdictional conflicts between unions whose
membership encompasses white-collar and bluecollar workers and those made up of a particular
craft. Such conflicts often underlie the question
of “unit determination” since depending on the
expected election outcome, one group may opt
for a smaller (craft) as against a broader (instal­
lationwide) unit in one situation while taking
the opposite position in another. Even within
national unions, sudden membership successes
have exacerbated long-smouldering conflicts, fre­
quently resulting in changes in top officers. Such
unsettled internal affairs are likely to have reper­
cussions in dealings with departments and agencies,
at times in displays of militancy and escalation of
bargaining demands.
Work stoppages and the attendant issue of dis­
pute settlement are probably the most widely
discussed issues in assessing union impact on the
public service.4Since this issue has been the subject
of a number of extensive investigations, attention
should now shift to how to develop a workable
labor relations system to insure industrial peace.
Civil service commissions and the merit system
are bound to come in for a drastic overhaul as the
influence of unions expands. The functions of such
commissions are likely to be confined to setting
hiring standards, administering entrance and
promotion examinations where stipulated, and
protecting the merit system generally. Its custo­
mary role as the personnel arm of the government
may be circumscribed if labor relations duties
are assumed by new agencies specifically estab­
lished for this purpose.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 4. Estimated union membership of government
employees by State and as a proportion of total government
employment, 1968 1

[Numbers in thousands]
State

Estimated
member­
ship in
govern­
ment 2

Government
employment
Total3

Percent
organized

Total__ _____

2,155

11,846

18.2

Alabama__________
Alaska.__________
Arizona__________
Arkansas________ .
California__ ______
Colorado_________
Connecticut________
Delaware_________
Florida__________
Georgia.....................
Hawaii........... ..........
Idaho___________
Illinois___________
Indiana..................
Iowa____________
Kansas__________
Kentucky_________
Louisiana_________
Maine___________
Maryland-D.C.r______
Massachusetts______
Michigan_________
Minnesota_________
Mississippi________
Missouri__________
Montana__________
Nebraska_________
Nevada.. ________
NewHampshire_____
NewJersey________
NewMexico________
NewYork_________
North Carolina______
North Dakota_______
Ohio........................
Oklahoma_________
Oregon___________
Pennsylvania_______
Rhode Island_______
South Carolina______
South Dakota_______
Tennessee________
Texas___________
Utah____________
Vermont__________
Virginia__________
Washington________
West Virginia_______
Wisconsin_________
Wyoming_________
Membership not

29
5
14
11
170
21
36
8
56
42
6
4
128
53
19
18
18
27
9
91
90
117
54
12
52
7
13
5
6
61
6
309
24
6
91
30
16
119
17
13
6
27
85
14
4
38
41
9
51
2

194
32
109
96
1,334
166
140
29
372
269
69
45
599
285
163
158
160
207
62
589
290
484
216
127
270
54
97
34
31
343
85
1,116
227
46
531
180
136
586
52
134
50
217
636
99
23
283
230
95
243
29

14.9
15.6
12.8
11.5
12.7
12.7
25.7
27.6
15.1
15.6
8.8
8.9
21.4
18.9
11.7
11.4
11.3
13.0
14.5
15.4
31.0
24.2
25.0
9.4
19.3
13.0
13.4
14.7
19.4
17.8
7.1
27.7
10.6
13.0
17.1
16.7
11.8
20.3
32.9
9.7
12.0
12.4
13.4
14.1
17.4
13.4
17.8
9.5
21.0
7.2

Ranking by extent
of organization
Govern­
ment All unions
unions

23
19
33
40
34
35
5
4
22
20
48
47
8
13
39
41
42
30
25
21
2
7
6
46
12
31
27
14
11
14
50
3
43
32
17
18
38
10
1
44
37
36
28
26
16
29
15
45
9
49

28
10
33
32
12
24
23
20
44
43
19
30
8
6
25
26
18
37
38
26
21
5
15
47
7
14
40
17
39
16
48
4
50
34
9
41
13
3
22
49
45
29
26
35
27
42
2
1
11
31

65

1Atotal of 59 unions represent employees in government, 57 unions in the Federal
government, and 18 unions in State and local government.
2 A total of 2,155,000 members in government included 1,351,000 in Federal and
804,000 inState and local;65,000 members were outside the UnitedStates or not classi­
fiable byState.
3Source, Employment and Earnings, States and Areas, 1939-1968 (BLS Bulletin 1370-6,
1969).
4Federal employment inthe Maryland and Virginia sectors of the Washington Stand­
ard Metropolitan Statistical Area is included inthe data for the District of Columbia.

20

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Personnel policies and their implementation,
presently decreed unilaterally by agency heads,
will increasingly become the subject matter of
collective bargaining. The number of provisions
included in agreements will grow in the years
ahead as will the degree of detail describing specific
working arrangements. In this context it is well
to cite the clause in the Post Office agreement
which reads: “. . . To the extent provisions of the
Postal Manual which are in effect on the effective
or renewal date of the agreement are in conflict
with this agreement the provisions of this agree­
ment will govern.” 5
The pressure of union wage demands will require
a new look at present budget-making processes.
It is clear that negotiated increases will have to be
included in budget submittals lest agency heads
find themselves unable to pay salaries which they
have agreed to previously, or which will be agreed
to during the budget year. This, of course, will
also necessitate changes in existing ways of moving
the budget through legislative bodies.
Public administration in the United States is
presently in a period of transition. Basic philoso­
phies will have to be reexamined and new ways of
conducting the public’s business will have to be

found. While the precise nature of the changes
likely to occur cannot be predicted, it may be
appropriate to keep the following statement from
the 1967 National Governors’ Conference report
in mind: “Neither the pillars of city halls nor the
foundations of the civil service crumbled when
conditions of employment were negotiated instead
of being fixed unilaterally.” 6
□
--------- F O O

T N O T E S ---------

1 Teachers were not included in the survey.
2 This figure, however, may also include employees repre­
sented by city or county associations affiliated with State­
wide organizations.
3 It was reliably reported that a third president of a
government union would have been added to the Council
had the postal unions been able to agree on a single
candidate.
4 For the incidence of such strikes, see “Work Stoppages
in Government, 1958-68” (BLS Report 348). On this
subject also see Anne M. Ross, “Public Employee Unions
and the Right to Strike,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , March
1969, pp. 14-18.
5 U.S. Post Office agreement, February 9, 1968, p. 132,
Article XXVI.
6 See R e p o r t o f T a s k F o r c e o n S ta te a n d L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t
L a b o r R e la tio n s (Chicago, 111., Public Personnel Association
for the Executive Committee of the 1967 National Gover­
nors’ Conference).

Union effect on civil service

The major and most distinct effect of union
activity [in the public sector] is a weakening
of what might be called management-by-itself.
The era of unilateralism, of unquestioned
sovereignty, is about over. The age of bi­
lateralism—consultation, negotiation, and bar­
gaining—is already here. The ‘'independent”
civil service commission, responsible over the
years for rule-making, for protection of career
employees from arbitrary personnel changes,
for adjudication of appeals from employees,
still exists but is losing functions. Civil service
commissions may not go out of business, but


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

more and more of their vital organs will be
removed by the bargaining process until,
whether officially in existence or not, they are
husks of their former selves. This change is
occurring not because employees are clearly
dissatisfied with existing merit systems but
because they feel that unions will get more for
them—more pay, more benefits, more aggressive
protection against possible arbitrary manage­
ment actions.
—D avid T. S tanley,
“What are Unions Doing to Merit Systems?”
P u b l i c P e r s o n n e l R e v ie w , April 1970.

Rapid growth in unionism,
rising militancy
head list of developments
shaping employment
relations in government
E. WIGHT BAKKE

T he appropriateness of collective bargaining
in the public sector of the sort and style developed
in the private sector has been both asserted and
denied thoughtfully, eloquently, and even passion­
ately by knowledgeable partisans and presumably
unbiased neutrals.

Today, as a result, it can be said that the basis
for the right of public employees to negotiate
collectively their terms of work through represent­
atives of their own choosing has been thoroughly
explored, and on the whole that right has been
accepted although not by all public employers
and even some public employees.
But we are a long way from being certain about
how to handle the following problems in the public
sector: The appropriate bargaining unit; the
practicality of exclusive bargaining representation;
compulsory union membership; the need for a
Public Employee Relations Board to judge and
enforce sanctions on either public employers or
unions which refuse to bargain in good faith or
commit unfair labor practices; the specification
of what constitutes refusal to bargain and unfair
labor practices; the determination of the scope of
bargainable, in relation to mandated, issues; the
integration of the use and applicability of political
and economic power simultaneously; the relation
of the bargaining timetable to budget submission
dates; the kinds of impasse-breaking procedures
that have a chance to succeed; the right of public
employees to strike; the rights of the public to
uninterrupted essential services; and the possibility
of coupling coercive practices with professional
ethics. All these have been subject to research and
lively debate.
Based upon the consensus that is developing
E. Wight Bakke is Sterling Professor of Economics,
Yale University. This article is adapted from a paper
presented at the 25th anniversary program of the Uni­
versity of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center in May 1970.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Reflections
on the future
of bargaining in
the public sector
in some areas and the uncertainties remaining in
others, it seems to me that seven trends can be
identified in the evolution of collective bargaining
in the public sector. In brief, here is what appears
to lie ahead.
Unionization in the public sector is going to
increase rapidly and extensively.
Union action in the foreseeable future is going
to be militant.
The achievement of collective power is going
to become the major objective of union leaders
for a considerable period.
The combination of political and economic
bargaining strategies and tactics will disturb for
some time the pattern of collective bargaining
between public management and public employee
unions and associations.
The civil service concept of personnel policy
and arrangements is going to suffer and be
severely modified.
The public is going to pay a big price for what
public employees gain.
Despite this, nothing is going to stop the intro­
duction of and spread of collective bargaining in
the public sector.
Growth of unionism

The first prediction is probably the least con­
troversial: Unionization in the public sector will
increase rapidly and extensively.
All the conditions and circumstances that have
made employees ready for collective bargaining in
sectors where it has been established are present
in the employment relations of a critical mass of
public employees. The predisposition to organiza­
tion and collective bargaining becomes manifest
under the following conditions:
standards. When a group of individual
employees work under, and must be provided with,

C ommon

21

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

22

approximately the same pay, benefits, hours, and
conditions of work, it is impossible for the indi­
vidual employee, or employer for that matter, to
make any substantial modification for individuals
which departs from the common rule. This is not
the result of a demand for equality or of bureau­
cratic rigidity, but of operating necessity. The
implication is that standards and rules applicable
to the whole group should be negotiated by the
group rather than by the individual.

human and professional interests shared by the
whole group some person has to speak up. Lacking
the support of the united front of an organized
group, that person is likely to be labeled a trouble­
maker, an agitator, disloyal, and other terms
scarcely designed to increase that person’s job
security. The implication is that organized group
support for a group spokesman is essential to
provide that spokesman with a regularized role
that does not damage his personal security.

A bsence

P erformance results dependent on manage­
ment. When the product of the individuals in the

of

individual

bargaining

power.

Where an individual’s unique or outstanding skill
or individual worth to the employer is difficult for
the employer to replace, that individual normally
will rely on his own personal bargaining power.
Where the group of employees have (or have the
opportunity to demonstrate) few unique qualities,
where within reasonable limits one is replaceable
by others, this individual bargaining power does
not exist to the same degree. The implication is
that a lack of individual bargaining power can be
compensated for by group bargaining power main­
taining a solid and united front.
S ocial products. Where the goods or service
produced are social products in the sense that no
one employee’s contribution produces the whole, it
is difficult to disentangle for personal evaluation the
value of any employees’ contribution to the total
process.
I mpersonality of relations. When the organi­
zation is large enough so that there are several
strata of supervision between the employee and
the decision-making employer, the problem is to
find and get to the employer. The implication is
that many persons cannot do this individually, but
it can be done by collectively focusing their search
and dealings in an organizational representative.
as an organized group. When the
“employer” is in reality another group of organized
employees (or agents) called “management,” the
implication is that an organized group is needed to
deal with them. In the case of a school system, the
school superintendent and the school board consti­
tute an organized group of employees of the public.

E mployers

G roup

concerns

and

personal

complaints.

When an effort is made to present effectively the

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

group is greatly dependent on the policies,
decisions, resource supplies, and so on, controlled
by management, such common dependency can
best be dealt with through collective representa­
tion designed to make managerial action ad­
vantageous to good performance results by the
group.
C ommunity of interest. There is a basis for a
community of interest among teachers and many
other public employees. Identification arises
through common skills and standards of perform­
ance, similarity in type and extent of training and
in status in the eyes of the community, and the
dependence of individual status on the status of
the group as a whole. When there is this com­
munity of interest, the other bases for collective
organized representation are reinforced. If that
community of interest is exaggerated by the com­
monly experienced sense of being left behind by
more privileged groups, or being as a group taken
for granted, the predisposition is increased.
All of these factors apply to large numbers of
public employees; not all of them, but enough to
provide large numbers who are ready to listen to
the appeal of the union organizer.
Increased militancy

My second prediction, that unionism in the
public sector in the foreseeable future is going to be
militant, is based on the following observations:
1.
In spite of the spread of Federal and State
executive orders and laws nominally giving the
right to organize and bargain and providing
mechanisms for recognition, half of the States
have not taken that step and three absolutely
forbid it. Even where the right to bargain is
recognized, many public managers have not

BARGAINING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

wholeheartedly accepted their responsibility to
recognize those rights and engage in realistic
collective bargaining leading to mutual consent.
Even where they have done so, they are often
babes in the woods when it comes to dealing with
unions and sharing their decisionmaking power
with union leaders supported by mass solidarity.
Union leaders are also going to be inept for some
time in adapting the only pattern of bargaining
they are familiar with—that which has been
developed in the private sector—to the peculi­
arities and necessities of industrial relations in the
public sector. Ineptness and inexperience are
certain to produce militant attitudes on both
sides. Even as they gain experience, the confusion
over how far public employers can go and still
meet their governing obligations and their ultimate
responsibilities to the public is going to produce
puzzling uncertainties. Union leaders may perceive
hesitation rooted in those uncertainties as stub­
bornness, arbitrariness, and buckpassing, that can
only be met by a show of strength.
2. Added to these volatile factors is the situa­
tion of jurisdictional conflict between different
unions, and between the traditional trade unions
and so-called professional associations, particularly
in the educational field where nearly one-half of
the public employees are concentrated. The
impact of this factor will be less if election proce­
dures are quickly established. Even so, the
competition for acceptance of one union or associa­
tion over another is likely to cause the leaders of
those organizations to demonstrate their militancy
as proof to prospective members that they have
most to gain by expressing their preference for the
union that will really stand up to management.
Associations like the National Education Associa­
tion and civil service associations have already
begun to adopt coercive tactics to prove themselves
as they compete for members with the more tradi­
tional type of unions.
3. Direct action and coercive mass pressure,
once thought to be a tactic used only by laboring
people and communists, is becoming an acceptable
approach to upper middle-class people who can­
not realize their desires by the use of orthodox
methods. Following the civil rights movement and
welfare clients, taxpayers, landlords, students,
teachers, and even priests are learning the utility
of mass pressure as a way of getting action on de­
mands that formerly got lost in bureaucratic buck­


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

23

passing and red tape. The social atmosphere is
charged with militancy. If the revolt of women
gains momentum, it will be another important
factor. Over half of public servants are women.
4.
The use of the strike by public servants is
not going to be legitimized, but the strike or some
other form of reduction or withdrawal of services
having the same impact is going to be used
extensively nevertheless. Declarations of union
leaders equating collective bargaining with nego­
tiations against a strike deadline make that clear.
The record of successes by public employees who
have resorted to strikes encourages confidence
that, notwithstanding its illegality, it is a method
that gets results.
I happen to believe that impasse procedures
and mechanisms, once they are perfected and
generally available, will reduce that development.
The adoption by all states of a guarantee of the
right to organize and provisions for employee
participation through collective bargaining in
setting the terms of public employment will
reduce the chances of strikes. If we were to have
public enforcement on both public employee
unions and public employers of a duty to bargain
in good faith on a mutually predetermined set of
bargainable issues, there would be fewer occasions
when public employees would have some justifica­
tion for their perception that strikes are the only
way to get action.
Achieving collective power

The third prediction is that the dominant
objective of union leaders for some time will be
the achievement of collective power. That objec­
tive will compete successfully with their efforts
to adapt the private sector pattern of union
activities to the requirements of effective public
administration, and to improve the professional
status of their members. For example, union
leaders’ proposals for the determination of the
appropriate unit for collective bargaining will be
the one that is most strategically favorable to the
immediate opportunity to organize rather than
one that is geared to meeting the requirements of
effective public administration. Groups of em­
ployees that appear ready for organization will
be defended as an appropriate unit. The result
may well be a fractionalization of bargaining units
without reference to their community of interest

24

with other public employees or without reference
to the obstacles raised to efficient administration
of public services and equitable allocation of
public resources.
The definition of the appropriate bargaining
unit of employees with respect to whose terms of
employment a government executive is expected
to negotiate affects his administrative tasks in
many ways: The number of employee organiza­
tions with which he must deal; the problem of
giving equitable treatment to all the employees
under his management; and the variety of nego­
tiating results that must be integrated into a
pattern of employment terms so that they make
budgetary sense for the whole unit of government.
It also affects the scope of bargainable issues, for
some of the terms of employment must necessarily
be the same for all employees in the political unit
rather than peculiar to a particular group. It
contributes to chances that negotiated terms for
one group will result in a sense of injustice or
inequity in another.
This is not to criticize unions for pushing for a
definition of the appropriate unit that is most
likely to facilitate organizing. I am only indicating
that the immediate problem in accumulating
power for public employee unions is to increase
the number of groups they can get organized;
that this power objective at this time, and for
some time in the future, is going to be most
immediately satisfied by the defining as an appro­
priate unit any group apparently amenable to
organization, regardless of whether the resulting
pattern of bargaining units makes sense in
the effective administration of public industrial
relations.
One strategy for the accumulation of union
power is the development of group solidarity by
means of substituting the common rule for the
merit system of rewards. The merit system is
intended to result in the professional advancement
and transfer and the maintenance of professional
standards among those public employees to which
the term professional accurately applies. This
expected result may be more fancy than fact, and
the system may not be perceived by employees as
worthy of preservation or even improvement so
as to achieve the result. Public employment
unions to date have shown very little inclination
to modify their approach to solidarity via the
common rule approach so that an improved merit
system would have a chance of success.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Another example is rooted in the previous pre­
diction that militant direct action including the
strike will be a continuing instrument of power
for public employee unions. Those who participate
in such direct action are not going to improve
their public image as dedicated professionals.
Their experience and perception of the degree to
which their public employers accord them that
status now may be such that this result may
appear to be no loss. Unions’ efforts to improve
professional status will have to be great to over­
come the loss of status in the public mind by those
who gain personally by withholding essential
services from the public.
Combined strategies

The fourth prediction was that the combination
of political and economic bargaining strategies by
unions in the public sector will produce a con­
fusing pattern of collective bargaining interactions.
It will be similar to a situation in private industry
in which the union could go around management
and make deals with the board of directors repre­
senting the stockholders, and union members had
an important voice in electing the board of
directors.
There will be an uneasy relationship between the
administrative managers of public agencies and
the elected legislative and executive officials to
whom they are responsible and upon whom they
depend for support in the pursuit of their pro­
fessional interests. The labor movement, particu­
larly in local and State situations, can and often
does play a very important part in the electoral
process. The working class vote can make the
difference in elections. When the union, which is
ostensibly bargaining with the management ad­
ministrators, bypasses them in the hope of getting
a better deal directly with city hall or the state
house, a serious modification of collective bargain­
ing as developed in the private sector occurs. The
management administrators can find their efforts
at reaching a settlement shortcircuited.
Collective bargaining as it is defined by practice
in the private sector does not involve back-door
deals with the board of directors, and directors
are not elected either by the union members and
their allies in the labor movement or by the ulti­
mate consumers of their services or goods. Collec­
tive bargaining in the private sector assumes the
existence of two relatively independent parties,

BARGAINING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

the management and workers represented by their
union, trying to accommodate their differences
and satisfy their respective interests through
negotiation and administration of a contract.
Civil service changes

The fifth prediction dealt with modification of
the civil service concept. It may be adjustable
to collective bargaining, but it could also be
destroyed. The question of what will happen to
the civil service system is a serious one. The
divergence between ordering industrial relations
by a civil service commission administering
legislative mandates and by collective bargaining
is clear. We are already seeing signs of incom­
patibility. The civil service approach assumes a
uniform set of terms of employment for a large
number of functional groups of classified em­
ployees. Selection, performance standards, salary
grades, tenure, promotion and transfer arrange­
ments, grievance procedures, and so on, now
apply across the board to employees of numerous
agencies. Under collective bargaining, each or­
ganized group bargains for and in the interest of
its own members. It cannot be expected that
any uniformity in terms will be achieved. Leap­
frogging would become a serious possibility.
The civil service approach, however, has been
unilaterally determined ultimately by legislative
mandates and detailed commission regulations.
It conflicts, therefore, with the principle repre­
sented by collective bargaining, involving au­
thoritative participation by employees in de­
termining the conditions of and payment for
their work. There will be an uneasy effort to
maintain both approaches for a time by elimi­
nating mandated items from bargaining, and by
making the bargaining units as comprehensive
as possible.
The price to pay

The sixth prediction is that the public will
pay a big price for what the public employees
gain through collective bargaining. This is not to
say that the price is unjust or that the results are
not worth it. But the public interest is going to
play second fiddle for a time to serving partisan
and sectoral interests.
The most obvious price is that tax burdens
will increase. No one is going to be able to argue,
as some economists have concerning unionism in

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

25

the private sector, that the unions only negotiate
costly improvements in the economic welfare of
their members, which workers would have received
anyway due to increasing productivity and com­
petition for workers in a free market. And the
price for administering a system of industrial
relations that includes collective bargaining is not
likely to decrease government costs per unit of
service unless unions promote some form of unionmanagement cooperation which does not yet
appear on the horizon.
Another cost is rooted in the predisposition to
militancy. The interruption in the flow of public
services and goods is going to be costly not only
in public inconvenience, but in the cost of sub­
stitute services and goods. When the latter cannot
be had, as will usually be the case, the disturbance
to the normal operations of income-producing
enterprise for individuals and organizations will
add costs that are far from hidden.
Collective bargaining is coming into the public
sector before it has developed an adequate
concern for the public interest in the private
sector, save as that interest is served by improve­
ment in the conditions of life and work of union
members directly and all workers indirectly.
My seventh prediction is an outgrowth of the
others. Nothing is likely to be able to stop the
spread of collective bargaining in the public
sector. There can be no doubt that, should the
foregoing predictions materialize, the task of
devising a bargaining system which both protects
and advances the interests of public employees
and makes possible the effective administration of
public services will be difficult. It will challenge
the best efforts of the leaders of employee organ­
izations, of public employers, of legislators, of
judges, and of those who from time to time are
called on to serve as mediators, factfinders, and
arbitrators. But individually or collectively, the
developments named cannot prevent the extension
of employee organization in the public sector to
the point where collective bargaining replaces
unilateralism as the pattern of industrial relations.
It is always possible that in the light of the
obvious and inescapable impact of industrial
relations in public employment on the whole
public that a pattern of collective bargaining in
the public sector will be developed by public
employers, public union leaders, and public
employees which reveals a higher standard of
public responsibility than that previously attained
by any section of the labor movement.
□

Trends in
homeownership
and rental
costs
T he cost of shelter has increased rapidly in recent
years in sharp contrast to its slow rise in the 10
years between 1955 and 1965. The rate of advance
in the shelter component of the Consumer Price
Index reached a high of 8.5 percent in 1969.1
This increase accounted for almost 30 percent of
the 6.1-percent rise in the cpi for all items between
December 1968 and December 1969.2 (See table 1.)
The more rapid increase in shelter costs was
primarily in homeownership, which includes the
following subcomponents: Home purchase price,
mortgage interest, property taxes, home insurance,
and maintenance and repairs. Rental prices also
increased more rapidly after 1965; however, the
rate of increase was considerably below the rate
for homeownership. (See chart 1.) A significant
factor in the rise in the homeownership index in
1968 and 1969 was the influence of monetary
policy on home purchase prices and mortgage
interest costs.
This article discusses the behavior of factors
affecting homeownership and rental costs during
the 1955-69 period, with particular emphasis on
the impact of construction costs, site values, and
mortgage interest rates. Developments in the
rental market and the housing outlook are also
discussed.

Rapid advance
in costs of shelter
accounts for almost a third
of the 1969 rise
in the Consumer Price Index
ROBERT

c.

JOINER

lished, it is possible to discuss some of the factors
influencing their behavior.
The home purchase component of the cpi is
based on transaction prices of privately owned
single-family nonfarm homes sold under mortgages
insured by fha . (fha data are used for the home
purchase component because data on the prices of
conventionally financed and VA-guaranteed homes
are not available.) Prices of new and existing
homes are weighted together to obtain an overall
change. Transaction prices are converted to price
per square foot and are reflected in the index by
3-month moving averages.

H ome

In 1955, the fha estimate of the average value
of homes was about the same—$12,118 for new
homes and $12,047 for existing homes. Since then,
the rates of increase in prices of new and existing
homes have diverged: the average annual rate of
increase for new homes was 5 percent and for
existing homes 3 percent.4
Part of the increase in fha values reflects
changes in quality. New homes are larger, with
more bathrooms and more bedrooms. (See table
2.) In addition, for many more homes the purchase
price includes equipment such as ranges, refrigera­
tors, dishwashers, and air conditioning. Changes in
the characteristics of a house inhibit price com­
parisons from one period to the next because that
part of the change in price due to changes in
characteristics cannot be identified and separated
from the price increase of a house.5

Robert C. Joiner is an economist in the Office of Prices
and Living Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Many variables must be considered in evaluating
prices of houses, though their influence may not
readily be known. Prices of construction materials,
wages, and value of building sites are all important
cost components. Construction costs, based on
the Boeckh index of residential construction costs,
increased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent

Homeownership
purchase. The two most important parts
of the homeownership component of the cpi are
home purchase and mortgage interest costs.
Together they account for almost 9 percent of the
cpi and over 60 percent of the homeownership
index .3 Although the home purchase and mortgage
interest cost components of the cpi are not pub-

26

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

C onstruction C osts

of

Single-F amily H omes.

27

HOMEOWNERSHIP AND RENTAL COSTS
Table 1. Annual rates of change in housing costs, 1955-69

Period (December to December)

Item

1955-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69
CPI, all items_____________
Shelter______________
Rent_____________
Homeownership_______

1.9
1.7
1.4
1.9

3.3
4.1
1.6
5.0

3.1
3.0
2.0
3.4

4.7
6.4
2.8
7.7

6.1
8.5
3.7
10.2

between 1955 and 1965 and 6.5 percent between
1965 and 1969.6
The distribution of construction cost has also
changed during the past 20 years. In November
1969, the National Association of Home Builders
published the following breakdown, contrasting
construction costs of a “typical” single-family
house in 1949 and 1969:7
P e r c e n t o f c o st
I te m

1 949

1969

Onsite labor.............................
Materials................................................................
L a n d .................................
Overhead and profit...........................................
F in a n c in g ........................................

33
36
11
15
5

18
38
21
13
10

Average price.......................................................

$9,780

$20,534

A similar but not completely comparable study
was published by the Labor Department in 1964.8
This study reported that in 1962 onsite wages
constituted 22 percent of the total construction
cost of an average single-family house. Materials
accounted for 48 percent, while overhead costs,
sales expense, insurance, taxes, profit and other
expenses made up the remaining 30 percent.
Based on this information, it appears that the
decline in ratio of structure to total cost occurred
after 1962.
A salient feature of the changing cost pattern
cited by the n a h b study was a reduction in the
share of labor cost in total construction cost.
Although wage rates have increased significantly,
the relative cost share attributed to onsite labor
has declined. The Labor Department index of
union average hourly wage rates for building
trades workers increased at an average annual
rate of 4.3 percent between 1955 and 1965 and
6.2 percent between 1965 and 1969. Increased
productivity as well as the shift from onsite to
offsite labor must, of course, be considered in a
balanced observation of wage increases and could
account, at least in part, for the decline in the
share of labor cost in the total cost of construction.
The availability of a sufficiently large force of

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

trained workers to meet anticipated needs is a
serious concern among housing specialists. Al­
though the jobless rate for workers in the con­
struction industry as a whole reached a 16-year
low of 5.1 percent in June 1969, the relative
instability of the homebuilding industry in recent
years has led many workers to seek jobs elsewhere.
As building slowed in 1969, the jobless rate in
the construction industry advanced to 6.0 percent
in December.
Fluctuating within a relatively narrow range,
the Wholesale Price Index of all construction
materials increased only 4.2 percent between
December 1955 and December 1965. From De­
cember 1965 to December 1969, the index ad­
vanced over 15 percent, most of the rise occurring
in 1968. The w p i construction materials index
includes items used in commercial, industrial,
and residential construction. This index is influ­
enced greatly by changes in lumber prices: lumber
and millwork together have a weight of about
25 percent in the w p i .
Prices of two principal materials used in resi­
dential construction—Douglas fir and softwood
plywood—declined through most of the period
from 1955 to 1965, except for a sharp rise in 1959.
These prices turned upward in 1965 and rose
markedly in 1968—29 percent for Douglas fir
and 77 percent for softwood plywood. The in­
creases resulted from a combination of factors
such as expanded exports, severe snowstorms
which retarded logging operations, and especially
a rise in housing construction.
In 1969, as supplies improved and demand
decreased—as evidenced by the downturn in
housing starts, Douglas fir prices declined 14
percent and softwood plywood prices 39 percent.
Prices of building paper and board also declined
in 1969. Prices of concrete products continued
their long-term steady rise. Metal products prices,
such as plumbing fixtures and heating equipment,
increased significantly in 1969. These prices reflect
price trends of primary metals.
Site V alue . Increased land values in metropolitan
areas contributed much to the rising cost of both
private homes and apartments in recent years, as
available land was virtually exhausted in some
cities and suburbs. The steady suburbanization
of American society was demonstrated by an es­
timated 28.2-percent increase in the population
of suburban areas between 1960 and 1969, com-

28
Chart 1. Consumer Price Index, all items, rent, and
home ownership, December 1955 to December 1964 and
monthly January 1965-December 1969

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

The lot size of new FHA-insured homes decreased
from an average of 10,709 square feet in 1965 to
9,299 in 1969. Such differences in size of lot limit
fha comparisons over time in the same manner as
changes in structural characteristics mentioned
above.
M ortgage I nterest. The mortgage interest
concept in the cpi represents the average amount
of interest incurred in new mortgage contracts by
wage earner and clerical consumer units during
the 1960-61 survey year. It refers only to interest
on mortgages currently contracted for and does
not represent interest for commitments entered
into during past periods. Changes in mortgage
interest are based upon conventional, fha, and
va mortgage interest rates. Rates on conventional
loans are obtained from data collected by the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board and represent
all types of lending institutions, including savings
and loan associations, life insurance companies,
mutual savings banks, and commercial banks. The
rates for conventional loans for mortgages on new
and existing houses are then combined with fha
and va rates, using weights which reflect the
relative importance of each type of loan. Mortgage
interest rates and home purchase prices9 have a
direct impact on the mortgage interest component
of the cpi and have played a significant role in the
cpi rise during the past few years.

pared with an 8.5-percent increase in the nonmet­
ropolitan population and a 1.3-percent increase in
the central cities.

The growing importance of land in metropolitan
areas is amply demonstrated by fha data showing
that the estimated market value of new home
sites, which averaged $1,626 in 1955, increased to
$3,427 in 1965 and to $4,277 in 1969. Site value of
existing homes increased from $1,707 in 1955 to
$3,219 in 1965 and to $3,717 in 1969.
The ratio of site value to FHA-estimated total
value affords perspective on the relative impor­
tance of land through the years. The ratio of site
to total value of new homes advanced from an
average of 13.4 percent in 1955 to 19.9 percent in
1965 and to 20.3 percent in 1969. The ratio for
existing homes advanced from 14.2 percent in 1955
to 20.9 percent in 1965 and 21.7 percent in 1969.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Availability and cost of mortgage credit has
been the most serious concern of builders, as well
as home purchasers, in recent years. During 1969,
average contract interest rates for conventional
loans published by fhlbb were exceptionally
high (almost 7% percent for both new and existing
homes). In 1965 these rates were 5.74 percent for
new homes and 5.87 percent for existing homes. As
a result, the Congress suspended the 6-percent
ceiling on the contractual rate for FHA-insured and
VA-guaranteed loans to make them more attractive
to lenders. The fha and va rates were increased
to 6% percent in May of 1968 and to 7.5 percent
in January of 1969. An additional rise in fha and
va rates to 8.5 percent effective January 5, 1970,
was announced on December 30, 1969 (the fha
rates quoted exclude the 0.5 percent for insurance).
Despite these increases, FHA-insured mortgages
remained in a relatively poor competitive position,
as lenders sought the much higher rate of return
obtainable from conventional loans.

The money market is one of the factors affecting

HOMEOWNERSHIP AND RENTAL COSTS

29

the housing maiket. Interest rates are, of course,
dependent on the level of funds available for
lending, and this level depends in large part on the
flow of funds into savings institutions. Activity in
the housing field is particularly responsive to
periods of decline and recovery at savings institu­
tions. While most permanent financing comes from
savings and loan associations and most construc­
tion financing comes from commercial banks,
additional funds come from mutual savings banks,
life insurance companies, pension funds and other
sources.

A substantial decline in the net inflow of money
to savings institutions in 1966 was accompanied
by a 12.4-percent increase in the index of moitgage
interest rates in the cpi . A strong recovery in
savings in 1967, at least up to the fourth quarter,
corresponded to only a slight decrease in the index
of mortgage interest rates (0.9 percent). As savings
dropped again in 1968 and 1969, mortgage interest
rates again advanced, with a rise of 11.7 percent
in 1968 and an additional 11.4 percent in 1969.
Changes in interest rates and the supply of
mortgage money have influenced the volume of
residential construction. Following a peak year in
1963, residential construction began a decline
which lasted through 1966, when the volume
reached its lowest level in 20 years. The recovery
that ensued in 1967 and expanded in 1968 was
foreshortened in 1969, principally by a tight money
market. However, Government-aided housing,
Table 2.
years

Characteristics of FHA-insured homes, selected

Characteristic

1955

1965

Average calculated-area (square feet)___________ 1,049
Average number of rooms ' _______________
5.1
Average number of bedrooms_____ __ _ _ ___ __ 2.9

1,228
5.7
3.2

1969
5.9
3.2

Percent
Number of stories:
One____________________________
Two or more______________________
Split leveL-___
Full basement_________________ ______
Building type:
Frame__________________________
Combination_____ ________________
Bathrooms:
1________________________ ____
or 2. _______________________
Garage facility:
Garage__________________________
Carport__________________________

69.8

84.2
10.7
5.1
20.8

85.6
9.4
5.0
15.2

89.2
10.5
0.3

75.3
24.3
0.4

34.2
60.3
5.5

28.1
65.5
6.4

55.8
26. 5
17.7

56.7
28.7
14.6

NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available.
SOURCE: FHATrends of Home Mortgage Characteristics (Department of Housing
and Urban Development).

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

unlike the rest of the industry, did not register a
decline in starts in 1969, partly because of the
number of low-income units begun.
The rental market

The rent index is a measure of rents actually
paid by consumers and is based on changes in the
contract rent charged for samples of rental
dwellings in the c pi .10 The rent sample is designed
to provide a measure of price change and not a
measure of rent level. It is intended to measure
rent changes over time for the same dwelling
units. Where values are available for making the
adjustments, price differences resulting from
changes in the facilities and services included in
contract rent between two consecutive pricings
are excluded.
Although during the entire period analyzed,
rent increased at a slower rate than home owner­
ship costs, an acceleration developed in 1966.
When questioned by bls pricing agents about the
reasons for rent changes in recent years, tenants
and landlords most often cited increased operat­
ing costs, including property taxes, labor, main­
tenance, repairs, and the addition of new equip­
ment such as air conditioning. Rents are often
raised to cover anticipated as well as past increases
in operating costs.
Another important factor in the faster rise
in prices of rental units has been the increase in
demand for apartments. The growing cost dif­
ferential after 1966 between owning and renting
forced many prospective buyers to defer purchase
and led builders to concentrate increasingly on
satisfying new demand for apartments. Although
a steady trend toward home ownership and
single-family homes has long characterized Amer­
ican life, the new emphasis on the rental market
after 1966 so altered the residential construction
pattern that growth in the number of apartments
exceeded the growth of single-family home con­
struction. Single-family homes constituted over
81 percent of total private, nopfarm housing
starts in 1959 but dropped to 65 percent in 1965
and to 55 percent in 1969. More apartment units
were started in 1969 than in any previous year.
Plummeting consumer hopes for buying a home
were illustrated by a decline in the Commerce
Department’s index of expected house purchases
from 105.7 in January 1968 to 94.1 in October 1969.
Cost factors such as labor, materials, interest

30

rates, and building sites increased the construction
cost of new rental units much as they affected
construction of single-family homes, though per
unit costs for apartments are, of course, lower.
Further, big lenders frequently consider apart­
ments better investments because of the potenti­
ally greater return.
The physical design of apartments, like that of
homes, changed to meet new market requirements.
In response to renters’ demands for more space,
some builders shifted from construction of efficien­
cies and one-bedroom apartments to two-bedroom
units. In addition, builders concentrated more on
construction of units in smaller apartment build­
ings containing 5 to 9 units or large buildings
containing 50 units or more, as opposed to the
medium-sized structures favored in past years.
In addition to increases in the volume of apart­
ment construction, the new demand for apartments
was illustrated by a steady decline in the number
of units available for rent in relation to the total
supply. The average rental vacancy rate declined
from 7.7 in the fourth quarter of 1965 to 4.7 in
the fourth quarter of 1969. Concessions such as a
free-rent period and allowances for moving costs,
once employed to attract new tenants, were no
longer needed. A Census-HUD survey released in
January 1970 reported that new apartments are
nearly all rented within 9 months of completion.

Although the new demand for apartments by
no means signaled the end of the long-term trend
toward homeownership, it did reflect several
changes in the makeup of the American popula­
tion. Perhaps the principal demographic change
favoring the rental market was the shift in the
age distribution.
The Census Bureau has estimated that the
age groups in metropolitan areas that increased
most in number between 1960 and 1969 were
young adults and the elderly. There was a 49.7percent increase in the number of Americans aged
20 to 24, and a 22.5-percent increase in those age
65 and over. Because of financial considerations
and reasons of convenience, rental holds special
appeal for these age groups.
The housing outlook
Over 14 million nonfarm housing units were
started in the 1960’s; however, this constituted 6
percent less than the number started in the


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

previous decade. Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development George Romney stated on March
11, 1970, that “Meeting the housing goals and
needs will require an increased annual investment
of at least $30 billion in housing, and ways must be
found to secure this from private sources.”
Availability of mortgage money is considered by
many experts to be the greatest problem in the
development of a housing boom. Means of
stimulating the growth of savings and loans
institutions are of particular interest. For example,
an expanded, flexible role for the Federal Home
Loan Bank System may make it more responsive
to credit demand. A new data collection system
introduced in 1969 will provide much needed
information on the flow of mortgage money. A
goal of the 1968 Housing Act and the creation of
the Government National Mortgage Association
was the channeling of new sources of mortgage
money, such as pension and trust funds, to the
housing industry. Better flow of mortgage money
across regional areas could be beneficial, since
interest rates vary a great deal according to
geographic location.
The need for low-income housing, particularly
in the inner cities, dominated the housing picture
at the end of the 1960’s. The Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968 reaffirmed the national
goal of the 1949 Housing Act—“A decent home
and suitable living environment for every Ameri­
can family”—and called for the construction or
rehabilitation of 26 million housing units within
the next decade, including 6 million for low and
moderate income families. Various forms of
government incentives were suggested to stimu­
late builders’ interest in such construction. The
1969 Housing Act extended all major housing
programs for a year and added several new pro­
visions, including a new subsidy to limit the rent
paid by a public housing tenant to 25 percent of
his or her income. Also included were liberalized
provisions for acceptance of poor families in
low-rent housing.
In addition, demand for less costly housing is
ideally illustrated by the increase in manufac­
turers’ shipments of mobile homes—at an annual
rate of 6% percent between 1956 and 1965 and 16
percent between 1965 and 1969.11 Its growing
importance was recognized by a new fha program
for mobile home mortgage insurance.
Finally, there is growing demand for develop-

HOMEOWNERSHIP AND RENTAL COSTS

31

ment of new methods of production. Toward this
end, hud ’s Operation Breakthrough was created,
and by the end of 1969 plans were underway to
build prototype housing models in 10 States. The
objectives of this program include improved meth­
ods of management, financing, land planning and
development, and housing systems technology.
Despite the upward pressure on rents at the

end of 1969, there was no sign of change in the
trend toward rental unit demand and construction
as opposed to home purchase. The demographic
factors favoring rental can be expected to con­
tinue, but, most important, the more rapidly
ascending costs of purchase will simply preclude
homeownership for many in the immediate future.

1 The empirical results in this stu/dy are based primarily
on the “shelter,” “rent,” and “homeownership” compo­
nents of the Consumer Price Index. Implications from these
results are, therefore, to be made subject to any definitional
constraints imposed by these concepts.

ness and Defense Services Administration, U.S. Depart­
ment of Commerce, in C o n s tr u c tio n R e v ie w .

2 An historical summary of the scope and methods used
to compile the Consumer Price Index since its inception
and an explanation of present techniques applied can be
found in T h e C o n s u m e r P r i c e I n d e x : H i s t o r y a n d T e c h ­
n iq u e s (BLS Bulletin 1517, 1966).
3 Relative importance as of December 1969.
4 Nationwide FHA characteristics are published quar­
terly by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop­
ment in F H A T r e n d s o f H o m e M o r tg a g e C h a r a c te r is tic s .
5 Use of a regression technique for making adjustments
for changes in the characteristics of houses sold would
require both a broader sample of houses sold and more
detail on characteristics than is currently available.
6 The Boeckh Index is published monthly by the Busi­

□

7 See the National Association of Home Builders’ E c o ­
November 1969, p. 3. For a discussion
of the implications of the NAHB analysis, see Nat Goldfinger, “Labor costs and the rise in housing prices,”
M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , May 1970, pp. 60-61.

n o m ic N e w s N o te s ,

8 See
F a m ily

L a b o r a n d M a t e r i a l R e q u ir e m e n ts f o r P r i v a t e O n e H o u se

C o n s tr u c tio n

(BLS Bulletin 1404, 1964).

9 Increased house prices imply larger mortgage and
interest payments.
10 Rent quotations are obtained by BLS agents, who
contact the landlord or tenant of each unit semiannually.
Units in 1 of 3 subsamples in each of the 5 largest cities
are priced bimonthly. Similarly, units in 1 of 2 sub­
samples in each of the other cities are priced quarterly.
11 Based on data compiled by the Mobile Home Man­
ufacturers Association.

Union membership among construction workers

Total union membership as a percentage of
all construction workers on payrolls in contract
construction increased from 68.3 percent in
1956 to 75.0 percent in 1966. This is in contrast
to the general trend of unionism in the rest of
the economy, where union strength has actually
declined in relative terms. . . .
In general, it would seem that, judging by
wage rates and fringe benefits, the degree of
unionization is highly correlated to the size
of construction projects. In other words, union


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

strength declines as the type of construction
becomes lighter, from heavy construction
(highest degree of unionization) to industrial
and commercial work (high degree) to public
and private building (relatively high) to hous­
ing developments (moderate) to home building
(relatively low).
—P eter J. Cassimatis,
E c o n o m ic s o f th e C o n s tr u c tio n I n d u s t r y ,

(New York, National Industrial
Conference Board, 1969).

Trends in output
per man-hour
in the
sugar industry
O v e r t h e last two decades, output per man-hour
in the sugar industry1 went up at an average
rate of about 43^ percent a year.2 Output per
man-hour more than doubled between 1947 and
1968, rising more than in manufacturing, where
the rate of increase over the corresponding period
was little more than 3 percent a year.3 The aboveaverage increase in sugar productivity reflects an
average increase in output of 3 percent a year
and an average decrease in man-hours of nearly
V /i percent a year.
The average gain of 4.4 percent a year was
produced by an increase in almost every year.
The only noteworthy decline occurred in 1951,
when industry output fell as an after effect of the
unusually large increase in output in 1950. That
increase was caused by consumer stockpiling
during the early stages of the Korean conflict in
anticipation of a sugar rationing that never
materialized.
Sugar productivity grew slightly faster in the
second part of the 22-year period than in the
first. The average rate of gain rose from 4.1
percent between 1947 and 1957 to 4.6 percent
between 1957 and 1968/! The entrance of Hawaii
as a State was one factor in the increase. Hawaiian
production and man-hours were included in the
sugar index starting in 1958.4 At that time,
Hawaii accounted for about 13.1 percent of U.S.
sugar employment. Even more important was the
elimination of Cuba as the major supplier of
sugar to the United States.
The United States has never produced enough
sugar to meet its needs, and consequently imports

John W. Ferris, Jr., is a statistician and Hazen Gale is
an economist in the Division of Industry Productivity
Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mable A. Elliott of
the Bureau’s Division of Technological Studies provided
the information on technological developments.
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Average gain of 4.4 percent a year
in output per man-hour
marks above-average increase
in productivity
since World War II
JOHN W. FERRIS, JR., AND HAZEN GALE

a large proportion of its total sugar supply.
Congress regulates sugar imports by establishing
quotas for each supplier country. These quotas
protect U.S. growers, since the prices established
to encourage domestic production exceed the
world market price. Before 1961, Cuba supplied
over one-third of the sugar consumed in the
United States. When the Cuban quota was
eliminated in 1961, it was reallocated to Hawaii,
to other domestic cane and beet sugar production
areas, and to other foreign countries—mainly to
the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Brazil,
and Mexico. The reallocation spurred domestic
production of beet and cane sugar. By 1968,
domestic sugar accounted for about 53 percent
of the sugar consumed in the United States,
whereas up to 1961 the domestic share was about
45 percent.
Output

Output growth contributed to the aboveaverage rate of productivity increase. The value
of the industry’s shipments, adjusted for price
changes, went up 50 percent over the period.
During the first half of the period, output in­
creased at about the same rate as population.
(Population growth accounts for most of the
increase in demand for sugar, as per capita
consumption has not changed significantly since
1947.) After 1957, output increased much faster
than consumption, because of a sharp increase in
Hawaiian production and the shift from foreign
to domestic suppliers.
During the postwar period there was also a
shift in the composition of the industry’s output.
Sugar packaged for home consumption became
relatively less important; bulk and liquid sugar
became relatively more so. The major reason
behind the shift to bulk sugar was the rise in
commercially prepared foods. In addition, a

33

MAN-HOUR OUTPUT TRENDS IN SUGAR INDUSTRY

steady increase in soft drink consumption added
to the demand for liquid sugar, despite dramatic
growth in the use of noncaloric sweeteners.

[Indexes (1957-59=100)]
Unit labor
requirements in
terms of—

Output

Employment

Year

Employment and man-hours in the sugar
industry each declined about 25 percent between
1947 and 1968, reflecting a greater rate of increase
in productivity than in output. Industry em­
ployment dropped from 35,000 in 1947 to 28,500
in 1958. Adding Hawaiian employment revised
the 1958 total to 32,800. Since then employment
has remained relatively stable.
Employment in this industry is concentrated
in States and cities where raw materials are avail­
able. Since most domestic cane is grown in Flori­
da, Louisiana, and Hawaii, all the raw cane sugar
mills are located in these states. Cane sugar re­
fineries are located in ports that can accommodate
ocean-going ships, since imports are the main raw
material. As a result, New York, Philadelphia,
New Orleans, and San Francisco have long been
the most important areas for the refining industry.
Beet sugar factories are located in areas where
sugar beets are grown. California and Colorado
Chart 1. Output, all employee man-hours, and output per
all employee man-hour in the sugar industry, 1947-68

Related data

Perem­
Em­
Em­
Per em­ ployee Em­ ployee
Em­ ployee
ployee man­ ployees man­ Output ployees man­
hour
hour
hours
1947_______
1948_______
1949_______
1950_______
1951_______
1952_______
1953_______
1954_______
1955_______
1956_______
1957_______
1958_______
1959_______
1960_______
1961__ ___
1962_______
1963_______
1964_______
1965_______
1966_______
1967_______
19682______

67.9
(')
72.5
76.3
69.2
77.3
80.7
87.0
89.6
97.8
95.4
100.4
103.9
110.9
118.1
129.7
131.0
139.9
139.7
143.7
151.2
147.3

65.7
(l)
72.4
77.7
72.5
78.2
81.0
89.1
92.3
97.1
95.9
99.0
104.8
110.6
118.6
130.3
132.0
139.9
144.8
149.8
152.7
147.3

147.3
<l)
138.0
131.1
144.4
129.3
124.0
115.0
111.6
102.2
104.8
99.6
96.2
90.1
84.6
77.1
76.3
71.5
71.6
69.6
66.2
67.9

152.3
0)
138.1
128.8
137.9
127.9
123.4
112.2
108.4
102.9
104.2
101.0
95.5
90.4
84.3
76.8
75.8
71.5
69.0
66.8
65.5
67.9

84.0
76.5
81.9
92.1
79.9
85.0
90.6
91.6
90.8
95.2
94.3
100.1
105.5
108.6
115.3
120.5
127.2
138.5
133.4
134.2
136.5
141.1

123.7
0)
113.0
120.7
115.4
109.9
112.3
105.3
101.3
97.3
98.8
99.7
101.5
97.9
97.6
92.9
97.1
99.0
95.5
93.4
90.3
95.8

127.9
(')
113.1
118.6
110.2
108.7
111.8
102.8
98.4
98.0
98.3
101.'
100.7
98.2
97.2
92.5
96.4
99.0
92.1
89.6
89.4
95.8

-1.3
-0.6

-1.3
-0.8

Average annual rates of change
1947-68_____
1957-68_____

4.3
4.4

4.4
4.6

-4.1
-4.2

-4.2
-4.4

3.0
3.8

1Not available.
2 Preliminary.
SOURCE: Output based on data fromthe U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Employment and hours based on
data fromthe Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

accounted for more than two-fifths of total em­
ployment in that industry.

Index 1957 - 59 = 100

200

Table 1. Sugar industry: output per man-hour, unit labor
requirements, and related data, all employees, 1947-68

Ratio scale

Technological change

50
1947

50


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
3 8 6 -0 2 7 O— 70Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

55

60

65

1968

An accumulation of minor technological im­
provements—primarily in materials h an d lin g contributed to the decline in man-hours. One of
these innovations was an improvement in the
handling of raw sugar. Whereas sugar had formerly
been shipped in 50- and 100-pound bags, which
had to be opened and dumped into the receiving
warehouse by hand, raw sugar is now shipped in
bulk and is taken from dock to warehouse by
means of power shovels, scoops, and conveyers.
Because of the introduction of this mass handling
equipment, the man-hours required have been
drastically reduced in both the unloading5 and
warehousing operations.

34

A related change has occurred in handling
refined sugar. Machines now place the packaged
sugar on pallets which go by conveyers to eleva­
tors. Forklift trucks then transfer the pallets
to shipping or storage areas. Refined sugar also
is being shipped in bulk to a growing extent,
either in granule or liquid form. Improvements
in bulk sugar handling, where trucks and railroad
cars are filled directly from the refining process
using gravity flow and metered pumps, have also
resulted in large reductions in labor requirements.
There have been technological improvements
in the beet sugar component of the industry too.
A continuous diffuser, which separates raw sugar
juice from beet pulp, eliminates as many as 15
men per shift. In addition, automatic control
equipment has been introduced for many opera­
tions. A further innovation permits a longer
season—storing a portion of the “thick juice/’
the sugar juice from which most of the moisture
has been evaporated, and processing it into sugar
long after the slicing season is over.
Capital expenditures

The above-average rate of productivity in­
crease in the sugar industry was associated with
large increases in capital expenditures. Between
1947 and 1967, capital expenditures per employee
rose at an average annual rate of 8.9 percent,
nearly double the rate for all manufacturing.
According to the Census of Manufactures, the 1967
investment per employee in new plant and equip­
ment was $2,600, about 2% times that of manu­
facturing as a whole. Although large capital
expenditures are a characteristic of the sugar
industry, the faster rate of growth indicates that
plant expansion and modernization have been
relatively important. The capacity increases have
been accomplished largely through expansion of


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

existing facilities, since the number of establish­
ments declined.
There was a wide disparity in the pattern of
expenditures for the two subperiods covered by
this study. The sluggish rate of output growth
between 1947 and 1957 was associated with a
similarly slow rate of increase in capital
expenditures per employee (2.0 percent annually).
The 1957 to 1967 period told a completely
different story as the rate of advance in expendi­
tures rose to 9.7 percent. Increases were most
pronounced between 1957 and 1964, when ex­
penditures went up 14.7 percent a year. Capital
expenditures in the beet sugar component of the
industry accounted for much of this growth. At
least part of it was related to expansion of capacity
to handle the increased production after quotas
were reallocated.
□
--------- F 0 0

T N O T E S ---------

1 The sugar industry includes raw cane sugar, cane sugar
refining (including imported raw sugar), and beet sugar,
which is manufactured from sugar beets in one continuous
process. In 1967, the industry’s 160 establishments em­
ployed 30,000 workers.
2 Average annual rates in this report are based on the
linear least squares trend line fitted to the logarithms of
the index numbers.
3 This index supersedes the index previously published
for the beet sugar segment of the industry. An explanation
of the methods used to derive the index can be obtained
by writing the Division of Industry Productivity Studies.
Extensions of the index will appear hereafter in the annual
BLS Bulletin, I n d e x e s o f O u tp u t P e r M a n - H o u r , S e le c te d
I n d u s tr ie s .
4 Hawaiian production and man-hours were linked to
continental production and man-hours in 1958; con­
sequently, there is no discontinuity in the total index.

5 Not all unloading operations are performed by sugar
industry personnel. Certain companies buy this service
on contract.

More than 5 million
production workers won wage raises;
an additional 6 million
received deferred or
cost-of-living increases

Wage
developments
in manufacturing,

1969

JOHN KINYON

I n 1969,

workers in m anufacturing industries
received wage increases higher than ever before
recorded. The 6.1-percent rise in the Consumer
Price Index and a tight labor market (reflected in
the 3.5-percent unemployment rate for the year)
caused high wage demands. The median adjust­
ment for wage decisions during 1969 was 6.0 per­
cent, up from 5.7 percent a year earlier. The
median adjustment actually going into effect,
including deferred and cost-of-living escalator in­
creases plus current wage decisions, was 5.0 per­
cent, the same as in 1968. (See tables 1 and 2.)
Nearly 9 out of 10 workers in establishments
which usually make general wage rate changes re­
ceived these adjustments in 1969. About 5.4 mil­
lion workers were affected by decisions to raise
pay; the balance of the 11.6 million employed
where wages were raised received deferred and/or
escalator increases.

Wage decisions

As noted, the median adjustment in 1969 wage
decisions was 6.0 percent, or 15 cents an hour, as
shown in table 3. The median increase, which ex­
cludes decisions not to change wages, was 6.2 per­
cent, or 16.9 cents.
Considering only union establishments, the
median adjustment and median increase were the
same—6.9 percent—since nearly all workers cov­
ered by collective bargaining negotiations received
wage raises. This compares with a 6.5-percent
median increase .and a 6.4-percent adjustment in
1968. In a year of relatively light collective bar­
gaining activity, key settlements were reached in
the oil refining, shipbuilding, women’s and chil­
dren’s apparel (under wage reopeners), and
John Kinyon 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

the men’s shirts, pajamas, outerwear, and pants
industries.
The median adjustment for nonunion establish­
ments was 5.1 percent, or 12.5 cents, and the
median increase was 6.0 percent, or 14 cents. The
largest block of nonunion workers to receive wage
increases was in the southern textile industry. This
increase, which averaged between 6 and 7 percent,
was the eighth in the last 7 years.
Effective wage changes

The median adjustment going into effect during
1969 was 5.0 percent, or 15 cents, compared with
5.0 percent and 13.7 cents in 1968 (table 4). The
Table 1. Factory production workers affected by wage
decisions and median changes, 1965-69
Item

196 5

1966

1967

1968

A ll w o r k e r s in e s t a b l is h m e n t s m a k i n g d ecisions
( i n t h o u s a n d s ) ........................................ ....................................- ...................... 6 , 7 4 5

5,889

6 ,74 8

7 , 292

8 7.9
9 6.1
9 9.3
77.8

9 0 .1
9 8 .4
99.3
8 0.8

9 4 .0
99.3
9 9.8
8 7.0

8 7.4
9 8 .9
9 9.8
7 5 .8

P e rc e n t o f w o r k e r s rec eiv in g in cr ea ses :
A l l m a n u f a c t u r i n g , . . ______ __________ ______
A l l u n i o n . . __________ _____________ ____ _
M a j o r u n i o n ________________________
N o n u n i o n _______________________ ______

8 6 .1
9 2.5
9 4 .2
7 5 .3

1969

6 ,19 3

Percent >

M edian adjus tm en t:
A l l m a n u f a c t u r i n g ___________________________
A l l u n i o n . _____ _________________________
M a j o r u n i o n ________________________
N o n u n i o n ___________________ ____________
M e d i a n i ncre a se:
A l l m a n u f a c t u r i n g ......................... .........................................................
A l l u n i o n ________________________________
M a j o r u n i o n . .................................... .................................
N o n u n i o n . .............................................................................................

3 .3
3 .4
4 .0
3 .2

4 .0
4 .0
4 .2
3 .7

5 .0
5.5
6 .4
4 .4

5 .7
6 .4
6 .9
5 .0

6 .0
6 .9
7.0
5 .1

3 .7
3 .6
4 .1
4 .0

4 .2
4. 1
4 .2
4 .4

5 .3
5 .5
6 .4
5 .0

6 .0
6 .5
6 .9
5 .0

6 .2
6 .9
7.0
6 .0

Cents per hour

M edian adjus tm en t:
A l l m a n u f a c t u r i n g ___________________________
A l l u n i o n ...................................................................................................
M a j o r u n i o n ________________________
N o n u n i o n _______________________________
M e d i a n in cre a se :
A l l m a n u f a c t u r i n g ___________________________
A l l u n i o n ________________________________
M a j o r u n i o n ________________________
N o n u n i o n ________ _____________________

8 .0
9 .0
10 .0
6 .3

9 .7
10 .0
10 .2
8 .0

1 1 .7
15 .4
1 7 .5
1 0 .0

1 5 .0
2 0 .0
2 3.5
11 .6

15 .0
19 .6
2 1.4
12 .5

8.8
9 .5
1 0 .0
8 .0

1 0 .0
1 0 .0
1 0 .3
9 .3

12 .4
15 .4
18 .0
10 .6

1 5 .5
20 .0
2 3 .5
12 .3

16 .9
20 .0
2 1.5
14 .0

i Percent of average hourly earnings, excluding overtime.

35

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

36

1969 increases were moderated by the relatively
large number of deferred increases in unionized
establishments, since deferred adjustments tend to
be smaller than immediate changes agreed upon in
collective bargaining. Median adjustments in
union and nonunion establishments separately
were 5.0 and 5.1 percent, respectively.
Deferred increases affected workers in the auto­
mobile, steel, and farm and construction equip­
ment industries. The 650,000 workers in the auto­
mobile industry received 3 percent, or a range of
10 to 17 cents; and 400,000 workers in the steel
industry received 12 to 21.3 cents. Farm and
construction equipment workers benefited from a
3-percent increase.
Cost-of-living provisions

The rise in the Consumer Price Index directly
affected wages of 2.5 million manufacturing
industry workers covered by cost-of-living escala­
tor provisions, about the same number as in 1968.
This compares with 2.2 million in 1967, 2.1 million
in 1966, and 1.7 to 1.9 million in 1962-65.
Table 2. Factory production workers in establishments
where wage changes were effective and median changes,
1965-69
1965

Item

1 1 ,4 2 2

A l l w o r k e r s ( i n t h o u s a n d s ) ______

19 6 6

1967

1968

1969

12 , 016 1 2 ,4 9 3 1 3 ,0 2 8 1 3 ,0 3 5

P e r c e n t In e s t a b l i s h m e n t s w h e r e g e n e r a l c h a n g e s
w e re effective:
A l l m a n u f a c t u r i n g _____
A ll u n io n .
_________
M a j o r u n i o n ................ ........

............................

N o n u n i o n ___________

____

8 4 .6
8 7 .3

8 0 .2
8 0 .9

8 8 .1
9 0 .6

9 2 .2
9 3 .7

8 9 .8
7 5 .4

7 5 .5
7 7 .8

8 4 .5

9 4 .0
8 7 .6

8 1 .1

8 8 .9
9 3 .2
9 4 .0
7 5 .5

Percent i

M e dian a d ju s tm e n t:
A l l m a n u f a c t u r i n g ______________________________
A ll u n io n .
. .
N o n u n i o n ________

.

_

3 .3

4 .0

3 .4

3 .2
3 .3

4 .0
4 .0

5 .0
5 .0
5 .2

3 .2

3 .9

4 .6

5 .0

5 .1

3 .3
3 .2

3
3
4
4

4 .3
3 .9
4 .4
4 .8

5 .1
5 .1
5 .4

5 .1
5 .0

3 .0
2 .9

M a j o r u n i o n ___________________________
______

M e d ia n increa se:
A l l m a n u f a c t u r i n g ______________________________
A l l u n i o n ________
______ . . .
________
M a j o r u n i o n ___________________________
N o n u n i o n . ______ ________________________

3 .7
4 .0

.9
.8
.2
.5

5 .0

5 .0
5 .0
5 .0

5 .0
6 .0

C ents per hour

M edian a d ju s tm e n t:
A ll m a n u f a c t u r i n g ...

.

7.5

8 .5

_______________
__ . . .

8 .0
1 0 .0

8 .7

_ _ _ _

A ll u n io n .
. .
M a j o r u n i o n _____ __
N o n u n i o n ___________
_

.

.

M e d ian increase:
A l l m a n u f a c t u r i n g ______________________________
A ll u n io n .

_________________________________

M a j o r u n i o n _____ ________

. . .

.

N o n u n i o n ___________________________________

*Percent of average hourly earnings,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1 0 .0
1 0 .0
12 .0

1 3 .7

1 5 .0

1 4 .7
18 .2

1 5 .0
1 7 .5

1 0 .0

1 1 .7

12 .6

1 0 .6

14 .6

6 .3

9 .9
8 .0

8 .4
8 .7

1 0 .0
1 0 .0

1 5 .3
1 6 .0

12 .0

1 0 .8
12 .0

1 5 .0

10. U

19 .0

18 .0

8 .0

9 .6

1 0 .3

12 .3

14 .3

Scope of study
This article discusses wage developments in
union and nonunion establishments in the manu­
facturing sector. (A more detailed report on this
subject appears in the Bureau’s C u r r e n t W a g e
D e v e lo p m e n ts , May 1, 1970.) An article on 1969
wage developments in major union situations in
both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing ap­
peared in the June 1970 M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
pp. 45-50.
This summary covers only the 13.035 million
union and nonunion production and related workers
employed by manufacturing firms that make
general wage changes. It excludes 1.6 million em­
ployees of firms that change wages only on an
individual worker basis, as well as 77,000 workers
in establishments in which action on wages in 1969
was not known. The information presented is
derived from the summaries of collective bargain­
ing settlements listed in C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts
and from a quarterly survey of union and nonunion
establishments.
Tables on wage decisions are limited to wage
increases decided on during 1969 and, for unionized
employees, scheduled to become effective within
the first 12 months of the new agreement or, for
nonunion workers, within 12 months after the
management decision. Except for guaranteed mini­
mum increases, automatic cost-of-living escalator
wage changes resulting from movements in price
indexes are excluded, as are deferred wage changes
resulting from earlier decisions. It has been assumed
that nearly all nonunion establishments make
annual wage decisions, since in the absence of
reports of wage changes there is no objective way
of determining if a change in wages was considered.
Instances where nonunion employees received
deferred increases constitute the primary exception.
Tables on effective changes cover all wage changes
effective during 1969, regardless of whether the
changes resulted from a current decision, an earlier
decision, cost-of-living adjustments, or any combi­
nation of the three types.
Averages are worker-weighted and are computed
from frequency distributions in which all workers
affected by an action are entered at the average
for the group.
Union establishments are those in which a major­
ity of the production and related workers are
covered by union agreements. Major union situa­
tions are those affecting 1,000 workers or more.
Measures of average wage adjustments include
employees in establishments in which wage rates
were not changed or were reduced, as well as in­
creased, while measures of average wage increases
are limited to employees in establishments in
which wage rates were increased.

DEVELOPMENTS IN MANUFACTURING
Table 3.

37

Wage decisions reached in 1969, by type of establishment

Production and related workers
Type and amount of
wage-rate action

All wage actions___ _____________________
No wage changes.......... ................................... ..........
Decreases inwages____________ ______________
Increases in wages__ ________ ________________
INCENTS PERHOUR
Under 5„_...............................................................
5and under 7....... ...... .............................................
7 and under 9______________________________
9 and under 11____________________________ .
11 and under 13..._________________ _________
13 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 27........................ ........... ............ ..
27 and over_________ ____ _____
Not specified or not computed >__________ _____ _____
INPERCENT2
Under 1.......... ...........................................
1and under 2............... .........................................
2 and under 3.................. ................... ................
3 and under 4___________
4 and under 5...... .......... ....... .......... ...........
5 and under6_______________________
6 and under 7..............................................
7 and under 8___________ _ ............ . _
8 and under 9_______________________ .
9 and under 10..............
10 and over___________ _____________
Not specified or not computed i_____________ _____
Median adjustment:
Percent_________ ______
Cents......... ............................. .................
Median increase:
Percent____________ ___________
Cents____ _____ ____________ _________
Mean adjustment:
Percent______ ________ _______
Cents_____ __________________________
Mean increase:
Percent______________________ ________
Cents____ __________ ________ _________

All

Nonunion

Number (in
thousands)

Percent

Number(in
thousands)

Percent

Number(in
thousands)

Percent

6,193
782
5,411

100.0
12.6
87.4

3,112
36
3,077

100.0
1.1
98.9

3,081
746
2,335

100.0
24.2
75.8

88
101
132
452
467
679
739
491
505
412
224
251
747
123

1.4
1.6
2.1
7.3
7.5
11.0
11.9
7.9
8.2
6.7
3.6
4.1
12.1
2.0

11
34
69
134
163
249
413
347
269
303
193
216
601
76

.4
1.1
2.2
4.3
5.2
8.0
13.3
11.2
8.7
9.7
6.2
6.9
19.3
2.5

77
68
63
318
304
431
326
144
235
109
31
36
146
47

2.5
2.2
2.1
10.3
9.9
14.0
10.6
4.7
7.6
3.5
1.0
1.2
4.7
1.5

32
42
163
289
539
920
1,337
671
349
286
660
122

.5
.7
2.6
4.7
8.7
14.9
21.6
10.8
5.6
4.6
10.7
2.0

17
75
119
238
499
584
495
262
182
530
75

.5
2.4
3.8
7.7
16.0
18.8
15.9
8.4
5.8
17.0
2.4

32
26
88
170
301
422
753
176
87
104
130
47

1.0
.8
2.8
5.5
9.8
13.7
24.4
5.7
2.8
3.4
4.2
1.5

6.0
15.0

6.9
19.6

5. 1
12.5

6.2
16.9

6.9
20.0

6.0
14.0

5.9
16.4

7.3
21.2

4.6
11.7

6.8
18.8

7.4
21.4

6.1
15.5

1 Insufficient information to compute amount of increase.
2 Percent of average hourlyearnings, excludingovertime.

Typical escalator increases under major collec­
tive bargaining agreements in selected industries
are shown in table 5. The substantially larger
increases in meatpacking reflect the absence in
that industry of a ceiling on escalator adjustments.
Maximum limits on adjustments restricted the size
of increases in the automobile, farm and construc­
tion equipment, and aerospace industries. For
about three-fifths of the workers under escalator
provisions, the amount of adjustment was limited.
(The size of increases shown in table 5 is also
affected by the exclusion of guaranteed minimum
increases under escalator clauses, since such
increases were not dependent upon movements in


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Union

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

the Consumer Price Index.)
Quarterly escalator reviews continued to de­
cline in popularity. In 1969, pay of only about 1
in every 6 workers covered by escalator provisions
was subject to quarterly review, compared with
1 in 5 during 1968, 2 out of 5 in 1967, and 4 out
of 5 in 1966. Annual review was the most popular
approach in 1969, affecting three-fifths of the
workers.
Supplementary benefits

Of the 6.2 million workers affected by 1969
wage decisions, about 60 percent also benefited

38

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Chart 1. Percent of workers covered by wage decisions who were affected by establishment or liberalization of supple­
mentary practices, 1969.

0

10

20

Percent
30

40

50

60

Improvement in one practice
or more 1
Health and welfare plans 2
Paid holidays
Pensions2
Paid vacations
Shift differential
Premium pay
Paid funeral leave
Jury duty
Severance pay
Paid sick leave
Supplemental unemployment
benefits 2

2.6

|

□ l.8

Other practices
No improvement in
supplementary practices

i The total percentage in this column is smaller than the sum
of the individual items, since some actions affected more than
one item.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

40.2 |

2 Includes actions in which contributions were increased to
maintain existing benefits. Excludes actions increasing benefits
without increased employer contributions.

39

DEVELOPMENTS IN MANUFACTURING

from the establishment or liberalization of one
or more supplementary practices. (See chart 1.)
This compares with 71 percent in 1968 and 70
percent in 1967. In some apparel industries, con­
tract reopening provisions limited bargaining to
wages; this was a factor in the decline in supple­
mentary benefit changes.
As in the past 2 years, health and welfare bene­
fits were the most frequently improved or estab­
lished; 2.8 million workers (45.3 percent of the
total) were affected by these changes. Other
supplementary benefits often changed in order
Table 4. Total effective general wage changes in 1969,
by type of establishment

Type and amount of wage action
Manufacturing establishments withgeneral
wage change policies.......................

Production and related workers
(in percent)
All

Union

Nonunion

100.0

100.0

100.0

6.8
93.2

24.5
75.5

No wage changes________ ________ _ 11.1
Decreases inwages... ...............................
88.9
Increases inwages___ _____ ___ _____
IN CENTS PER HOUR
1.0
Under 5................................................
2.3
5and under 7_____________________
3.3
7 and under 9________________ ____
9 and under 11____________________
9.0
8.1
11 and under 13______________ _____
13.9
13 and under 15.___________ _______
10.5
15 and under 17___________________
7.8
17 and under 19.____ ______________
13.6
19 and under 21........... ........... ...... ...... .
4.6
21 and under 23___________ _____ ...
2.3
23 and under 25............ ....... ......... .......
2.5
25 and under 27________________ ___
8.3
27 and over___________ ___ ______
1.6
Not specified or not computed 1__________
IN PERCENT2
.3
Under 1............................. ..................
1.0
1and under 2_________ ___________
3.6
2 and under 3 ___________________________
12.7
3 and under 4____________________
4 and under 5___________ ________
16.3
20.2
5 and under 6_________ ___________
14.1
6 and under 7_____________ ______
7 and under 8____________________
7.0
3.4
8 and under 9.... ....................................
9 and under 10____________________
2.6
10 and over............ ....... ........... ...........
6.2
Not specified or not computed 1. . ........ ..........
1.6
Total number of workers (in thousands)........... 13, 035
Median adjustment:
5.0
Percent................................... .......
15.0
Cents________ ___ ___________
Median increase:
5.1
Percent..... ........... . ....................
15.3
Cents...... ......................... .............
Mean adjustment:
5.1
Percent___________ ___ _______
15.3
Cents__________________ _ . ...
Mean increase:
5.8
Percent............. ............... ............ .
17.2
Cents.......................................... .

.5
2.4
3.5
8.7
7.9
13.8
10.6
8.8
15.3
4.9
2.7
3.0
9.5
1.6

2.2
2.1
2.4
10.0
8.9
14.1
10.3
4.8
8.6
3.5
1.1
1.0
4.9
1.5

.1
1.2
4.0
14.8
18.4
22.1
11.0
7.2
3.5
2.4
6.9
1.6
9,862

1.0
.6
2.1
5.9
9.6
14.5
23.8
6.2
3.0
3.2
4. 1
1.5
3,173

5.0
15.0

5.1
12.6

5.0
16.0

6.0
14.3

5.3
16.4

4.6
11.8

5.7
17.7

6.1
15.7

1Insufficient information to compute amount of increase.
2Percent of average hourly earnings, excluding overtime.
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 5. Typical cost-of-living escalator increases in
selected manufacturing industries, 1957—69

[Incents per hour]
Date

Auto­
mobile

Farmand construction
equipment

Aerospace

Meat­
packing

1957............
1958______
1959______
1960............
1961______
1962______
1963__ ___
1964______
1965............
1966............
1967______
1968______
1969............

6
6
3
4
32
3
3
3
4
11
42 or 5
*5
*5

6
6
3
4
21or 2
3
23 or 4
3
4
11
55
55

»8 or 9
24 or 5
22 or 3
21or 2
3
3
23 or 4
4
4
25-10
23-8
73-13
75-17

5
8
3
3
2
2
3
4
4
8
«5
12
16

55

1The 1957 changes apply to employees of only a few firms; 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.
2Varying by company.
3Includes 1cent diverted for pension improvements.
* Three quarterly escalator reviews of the cost-of-living allowance at Am
erican
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 MotorCo., andChrysler Corp. changed
escalator reviews to annual fromquarterly with a minimumof 3 cents and a maximum
of 8 cents in both 1968 and 1969. In 1967 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-cent-an-hour cost-of-living adjustment.
sThree 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 fromquarterly with a minimumof 3 cents and a maximumof 8cents
in both 1968 and 1969.
6Resultingfromone semiannual reviewpriortocontract expirations; newagreements
negotiated during the year deferred the first semiannual reviewuntil 1968.
7Resulting from 2, 3, or 4 reviews of cost-of-living allowances prior to contract
expirations during 1968 at most companies. Most agreements negotiated in 1968
changed escalator reviews to annual from quarterly, with the first review in 1969,
and established minimumannual increases of 3 cents and maximums of 8 cents.
NOTE: Guaranteed minimumincreases under escalator clauses are excluded.

of frequency, were paid holidays, pensions, and
paid vacations. In each of these three cases,
about one-quarter of the workers were affected.
Details of changes are available for 1.5 million
workers affected by major collective bargaining
decisions. In the health and welfare field, improve­
ment in hospital and/or medical and surgical
benefits affected 437,000 workers; life insurance
improvements covered 390,000 workers. Addi­
tion of a tenth paid holiday affected 156,000
workers, with adoption of eighth and ninth paid
holidays following closely in terms of workers
affected. The most frequent pension change was
an increase in normal retirement benefits, affecting
470.000 workers. Company payments into pension
funds to finance unspecified changes increased for
118.000 workers, and early retirement and dis­
ability provisions were improved for 112,000
workers. Changes in vesting provisions affected
some 70,000 workers. The years of service re­
quired for 2 or 3 weeks of vacation were reduced
for 207,000 workers.
□

More than adequate supplies
of teachers in the 1970’s
may help meet
the increasing demand
for very early schooling
JANICE NEIPERT HEDGES

U ntil the early 1960’s, kindergartens and
nursery schools were widely viewed as an advan­
tage to a child rather than an integral part of his
education. New findings, however, have disclosed
the importance of the preprimary years to educa­
tional development. Very early schooling has been
found to be particularly critical for disadvantaged
children, since relatively few of these youngsters
acquire at home the experiences and language
skills that are necessary if they are to benefit fully
from primary schooling.
Attention is focusing on the value of schooling
prior to the first grade as we approach a period
in which slowing growth in school enrollments and
record numbers of new college graduates prepared
to teach will make it possible to staff new or
expanded educational programs. Prospects are
that by the early 1970’s the longterm shortage
of teachers will be coming to an end. For the
1968-80 period, the projected additional supply
of over 2 million elementary school teachers is
almost twice the number required to meet expected
demands, based on estimates of population
growth,1 continuation of past trends in pupilteacher ratios, and replacement demands for
teachers who retire, die, or leave teaching for
other reasons.
The combination of these factors—a growing
appreciation of the value of preprimary education
and a period when teacher shortages are giving
way to abundant supplies—may encourage the
establishment of universal kindergartens for all
5-year-olds and nursery schools for large propor­
tions of the 4-year-old and 3-year-old population.

Janice Hedges, labor economist, prepared this article
as a staff member of the Division of Manpower and
Occupational Outlook. She is now in the Office of Eco­
nomic and Social Research, Division of Economic Studies.

40


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Prospects
for growth
in preprimary
education
The supply of teachers also will be adequate to
improve the quality of preprimary education by
lowering the number of pupils among whom a
teacher must divide her attention. Provided that
funds are made available and that sufficient
numbers of teachers are trained for this level of
teaching, education for children aged 3 to 5
could be expanded substantially in the years
ahead.
The current situation

In October 1968, kindergartens and nursery
schools in the United States enrolled about 3.9
million children aged 3, 4, and 5 years.2 Pre­
primary enrollments in that year were about
740,000 higher than in 1964, despite a decline of
about 590,000 during the 5-year period in the
number of 3- to 5-year-olds.
School enrollment rates for 5-year-old children
were far higher than for 3- and 4-year-olds in
1968. More than three-fourths of the children
aged 5 years were enrolled,3 but less than onefourth of those aged 4 and less than one-tenth of
the 3-year-olds were in school.
However, enrollment rates of younger children
had been rising rapidly during the mid-1960’s,
due to such factors as growing awareness of the
importance of early education and increasing
employment among mothers of young children.
From 1964 to 1968, the proportion of 4-year-olds
enrolled in school increased by one-half and the
proportion of 3-year-olds doubled, whereas school
enrollment rates of 5-year-olds increased by only
one-tenth (from 69 percent in 1964).
Kindergartens enrolled about 3.1 million chil­
dren in 1968; nursery schools, about 800,000.
Nursery schools, however, accounted for an in­
creasing proportion of preprimary enrollments,

41

PROSPECTS FOR GROWTH IN PREPRIMARY EDUCATION

rising from 15 per 100 preprimary enrollments in
1964 to 21 per 100 in 1968.
W hite and N egro . White children and children
of other races4 had nearly identical enrollment
rates in 1968. Enrollment rates by specific age,
however, showed striking differences:
A g e in y e a rs

W h ite

N egro

Total, 3- to 5-year-olds.

37

36

5-year-olds........... ...................................
4-year-olds...............
3-year-olds....... .........

78
22
8

70
29
10

Among the 5-year-olds, white children were more
likely to be enrolled, while among the 3- and 4year-olds Negro children had a higher enrollment
rate. Higher enrollment rates for Negro children
under the age of 5 may be attributed in large part
to the fact that Negro mothers with young chil­
dren are mope likely to work than white mothers.
Also, Negro children are more frequently eligible
for Head Start and other educational programs
designed to benefit children of low income families.
Differences in enrollment patterns of the 4year-olds were even more pronounced in 1968
than in 1964, with the differential increasing from
about 2 percentage points in 1964 to 7 percentage
points in 1968. Among 5-year-olds, on the other
hand, the 8-percentage point differential of white
children in 1964 still held in 1968. (See chart 1.)
U r ba n and r u ral . Enrollment rates differ
greatly between urban and rural areas. The
proportions of 5-year-olds enrolled in school in
1968 were much higher in central cities and
suburban areas than in rural areas, and relative
differences in enrollment rates were even greater
for the 3- and 4-year-olds.
Among 5-year-olds in each place of residence—
central city, suburban, or rural—white children
had higher enrollment rates than children of other
races, but differences were greatest in rural areas.
For the 3- and 4-year-olds in rural areas, enroll­
ments were about the same for both groups.
However, in the suburbs the proportion of 3- and
4-year-old Negro children enrolled was about
one-fifth larger than the proportion of white
youngsters, and in the central cities was half
again as large.
In each place of residence, significant increases
occurred during the 1964-68 period in enrollment
rates for 5-year-olds, but rates of Negro 5-year-olds

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

in central cities and suburban areas showed little
or no improvement. During the same period,
enrollment rates of 4-year-olds increased in all
areas, with greater increases for Negroes than for
whites.
F amily incom e . Higher income and higher en­
rollment rates seem to go together. In all age
groups, children in high income families had
significantly higher enrollment rates than those in
low income families. To illustrate, enrollment
rates of 5-year-olds were more than half again as
high for children in families having incomes of
$10,000 or more than in families having incomes
under $3,000, while the enrollment rate of 3- and
4- year-olds in the higher income families was more
than double the rate for children in the lower
income families.
Enrollments of children in low income families,
however, have increased significantly in recent
years. In families having incomes under $3,000,
enrollment rates of the 3- to 5-year-olds increased
by one-half from 1964 to 1968, compared with an
increase of less than one-tenth for children in
families having incomes of $7,500 or more.

As the data on
enrollments by family income suggest, the propor­
tion of children enrolled in families headed by
white-collar workers, who generally have higher
incomes than other families, is greater than in
other families.
In Negro families headed either by a whitecollar worker or by a manual or service worker,
the proportions of 3- to 5-year-olds enrolled were
higher than in white families headed by workers
in those occupations. However, in families headed
by a farm worker, rates were higher for white
children than for those of other races. In families
whose head was either unemployed or not in the
labor force, rates for the two groups were similar.
The importance of the occupational factor in
determining enrollment rates is illustrated by the
fact that although in general white 5-year-olds
were much more likely than those of other races to
be enrolled in school in 1968, in families headed
by white-collar workers Negro 5-year-olds were
slightly more likely to be enrolled than white
5- year-olds. Among 4-year-olds, the likelihood
that a nonwhite child would be enrolled was
increased by almost three-fifths if he came from a
O ccupation of the family h e a d .

42

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Chart 1. School enrollment of children aged 3 to 5 years,
by selected characteristics

By color, 1964-68

Percent

100

5-YEAR-OLDS

80

White
Other

60
40

Other

4-YEAR-OLDS

20

White

0
1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

By residence, 1968

Percent

5-year-olds

4-year-olds

family headed by a white-collar worker. Higher
enrollment rates for children in white-collar
Negro families may reflect the special importance
attached in these families to education.
Children aged 4 living in families headed by
white-collar workers had the largest increase in
enrollment rates in the 5 years from 1964 to
1968. The smallest increase also was among 4year-olds, those living in families headed by
manual or service workers.
R e g io n . Another factor in attendance rates for
children aged 3 to 5 years is the region in which
they live. In the Northeastern, North Central,
and Western States, nearly 9 out of 10 children
aged 5 were enrolled in 1968; in the South, about
1 in 2 children. The Western States led in the
proportion of 4- and 3-year-olds enrolled, 28 and
13 percent, respectively. The North Central
region enrolled the smallest proportion of both
4-year-olds (18 percent) and 3-year-olds (6
percent).
The greatest percentage point growth from 1964
to 1968 in enrollments of 5-year-olds took place
in the South, but 1968 enrollments in that region
were still much lower than those in any other
region. Of 17 States that reported providing
no State aid for public kindergartens in 1968,
10 were in the Southern region. For the 4-yearolds and 3-year-olds, the greatest percentage
point increases in the 5-year period were in the
West and South.

3-year-olds

The outlook
By occupation of family head, 1968

Percent
100
80
60
40

20
0


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

If the 1964-68 trend in preprimary enrollment
rates were to continue, by 1980 about 90 percent
of all 5-year-olds, 40 percent of all 4-year-olds,
and 20 percent of all 3-year-olds would be enrolled
in school. On this basis, kindergarten and nursery
school enrollments would increase from 3.9 million
children in 1968 to about 6.3 million in 1980.
Past trends, however, may not adequately
measure growth when new elements come into
play. As teacher shortages disappear and growing
interest in preprimary education finds expression
in such directions as expanded programs for dis­
advantaged children or public education for 4year-olds—as recommended by the National Ed-

43

PROSPECTS FOR GROWTH IN PREPRIMARY EDUCATION

ucation Association and other educational
groups—enrollments of 3- to 5-year-olds may
rise well above the levels that have been projected
on the basis of past trends. By 1980, approxi­
mately 100 percent enrollment of 5-year-olds
seems within reasonable reach. Enrollment rates
of 50 percent for 4-year-olds and 30 percent for
3-year-olds, in each case a 10 percentage point
increase over trend projections, also seem quite
possible. These assumed rates would yield total
preprimary enrollments of 7.6 million in 1980, or
about 1.3 million more than projected on the
basis of past trends.
If recent trends in enrollment rates and in
pupil-teacher ratios should continue, demands for
preprimary teachers would reach nearly 120,000
full-time equivalents in 1980, about 50,000 over
the number employed in 1968.5 At this level,
manpower requirements for growth and replace­
ment from 1968 to 1980 would total 120,000.
However, the higher enrollment rates discussed
above would increase demands well above this
level. In addition, a substantial lowering in the
pupil-teacher ratio may be expected. A ratio of
one teacher (plus two auxiliary workers) to every
20 children is often recommended in preprimary

Table 1. Percent of children enrolled and number not
enrolled, by age and other characteristics, 1968

[Numbers inthousands]
3- and 4-year-olds
Characteristic

Region:
Northeast.......
North Central_
South.. ___
West______
Residence:
Central cities..Suburbs____
Rural______
Family income:
Under $3,000..$3,000-$4,999__
$5,000—
$7,499..
$7,500andover.
Occupation of head
of household:
White-collar__
Manual or
service___
Farm______
Unemployed or
not in labor
force____
Color:
White_____
Other.........

5-year-olds

Percent Percent Number Percent Percent Number
not enrolled, point
enrolled, point
not
1968 increase, enrolled, 1968 increase, enrolled,
1964-68 1968
1964-68 1968
17.2
11.9
15.1
20.9
18.3
18.5
10.9
12.6
12.1
11.8
20.0

4.9
5.0
7.1
8.1
6.6
5.9
5.6
8.0
5.9
3.6
3.6

1,525
1,943
2, 044
1,071
1,803
2,267
2, 508
658
1,100
1,729
2,688

89.0
87.3
51.9
88.8
94.0
97.5
72.4
55.2
63.8
73.5
86.8

3.4
7.9
12.2
6.9
15.0
19.3
20.1
7.6
5.9
0.2
-2.7

107
146
622
76
71
36
400
178
220
259
251

23.6
11.1
3.1

8.7
4.0
2.2

2, 053
3,464
281

86.1
73.6
60.5

6.8
7.2
16.8

199
521
70

16.0
15.0
19.4

9.6
5.7
8.9

609
5, 549
1,034

66.5
78.2
69.6

2.4
7.8
7.2

143
751
199


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

education. Achievement of this ratio, together
with the accelerated growth in enrollment rates
outlined above, would result in demands for
220.000 preprimary teachers in 1980. These re­
quirement projections are about 100,000 higher
for 1980, or nearly double those based on a
continuation of past trends in enrollment rates
and pupil-teacher ratios. These higher projections
would indicate total manpower needs of 280,000
over the 1968-80 period, 150,000 for growth and
130.000 for replacement.
Implications

Supplies of teachers will be available by the
early 1970’s to afford all children—rural as well
as urban, from families headed by blue-collar as
well as by white-collar workers, from low-income
as well as high-income families—the opportunity
to attend nursery school and kindergarten.
Teacher supplies also will be adequate to lower
pupil-teacher ratios.
Department of Labor projections for elementary
school teachers, based on the continuation of
recent trends in both enrollment rates of the school
age population and pupil-teacher ratios, indicate
that manpower needs for growth and replacement
will total 1.2 million (including 120,000 preprimary
teachers) over the 1968-80 period. If past patterns
of entry to the profession continue, the potential
supply will be almost 2 million, or about 800,000
greater than demand, The accelerated growth in
kindergarten and nursery school enrollments and
the reduction in preprimary pupil-teacher ratios
assumed in this article could absorb about 160,000
of the potential overflow of elementary school
teachers. Further reduction in the gap may be ex­
pected from the expansion of specialized education
for handicapped children and other programs to
meet educational needs.
In 1968, only 4,400 degrees were granted in
early childhood education. To fill manpower de­
mands in preprimary education based on past
trends, an annual average of almost 10,000 new
teachers in this field would be required between
1968 and 1980. To meet the higher requirements
resulting from accelerated enrollment growth in
preprimary education and recommended pupilteacher ratios, an average of about 23,000 new

44

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

teachers trained in early childhood education
would be needed each year. The urgency of pro­
viding adequate supplies of teachers trained in the
education of young children is indicated by a
statement in the first report on the state of the
education professions: “It may well turn out that
those [teachers] dealing with very young children
require the most sophisticated training.” 6
An accelerated growth in kindergarten and nurs­
ery school enrollments during the period 1968-80
may be expected to increase requirements for
paid nonprofessional workers. If the recommended
staff ratio of two paid nonprofessionals to one
teacher prevails, demand for nonprofessionals
may exceed the additional demand for teachers
and may require large-scale expansion in training
programs for teacher aides and assistants.
A suggestion as to the location of the additional
teaching jobs that may be created and the need
for special preparation in teaching disadvantaged
children is indicated by a comparison of 1964-68
increases in enrollment rates among groups of
3- to 5-year-olds having different characteristics,
and the number of children in the various groups
who were not enrolled in 1968. (See table 1.) □

--------- F O O T N O

T E S ---------

1 Bureau of the Census population projections Series C
are used throughout this article.
2 Data on enrollments from 1964 to 1968 were collected
by the Bureau of the Census for the National Center for
Educational Statistics ( n c e s ) , Office of Education, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. These
data are published annually in P r e p r i m a r y E n r o llm e n t o f
C h ild r e n U n d e r S i x ,

n ces

.

3 An additional 444,000 5-year-olds were in programs
above the kindergarten level. Throughout the article,
school enrollment rates for 5-year-olds include those in
elementary school—about 14 percent of total enrollments
of 5-year-olds in 1968. (This group was excluded, however,
in calculating teacher requirements for preprimary grades.)
4 “Other races” includes Negroes, American Indians,
Chinese, Japanese, and other Oriental Americans. How­
ever, the data basically reflect the situation of Negroes,
who make up more than nine-tenths of the “other races”
category.
5 Requirements are expressed in full-time equivalents
since teachers may teach either full- or part-time in fullor half-day programs.
6 The

E d u c a tio n P r o f e s s io n s , 1 9 6 8 : A R e p o r t o n th e P e o p le

(U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education),
p. 5.
W h o S e r v e O u r S c h o o ls a n d C o lle g e s

Early childhood education

Why nursery schools and kindergartens? Too
quickly the answer comes: “To prepare children
for the first grade.” But if the children are in
nursery schools or kindergartens, nursery school
or kindergarten is the first grade. And the
fourth or fifth year of life is as worthy as the
sixth year of life. There is no need for “prep”
schools, no need for boot camps, certainly no
need at this early stage in life to give up today
for the sake of tomorrow.
“Preparing children for the first grade” is not
a reason. First grade teachers have the same
job every teacher faces: to work with the
children who come, to work with them as they
are. Each grouping has its children and each,
its job to do. But preparation—breaking them
in, getting them ready, softening them up—is
not the job of any one grade. I t’s not the job of
first grade to get them ready for second grade,
not the job of kindergarten to get them ready
for the first, not the job of nursery school to

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

get them ready for kindergarten. This is a
needless, dead-end, and even an indecent way
of thinking about any year of life. . . .
A good nursery or kindergarten is a school.
Because it seeks to promote the child’s maxi­
mum total development through the school’s
special province—learning—its job is the same
as the job of all schools: to teach.
A nursery or kindergarten is a child’s little
world, his first step out into the wider world.
It is a school of general education where
children learn their year’s worth of all the
forms of human knowledge, but they learn it in
a setting and in a way and through relationships
and to the end that they are moved a little
toward those qualities of the human on which
the good life itself depends.
—J ames L. H ymes, Jr.,
“Why Programs for Young Children?”
Today's Education, April 1970.

Coverage
during the 1960’s
remained relatively stable
while benefits
were liberalized
HARRY E. DAVIS AND ARNOLD STRASSER

P rivate pension plan coverage grew from about
15 million workers in 1960 to about 21 million
by the end of 1969, an average rate of about
3.6 percent a year.1

This pace was slower than that recorded
during the previous decade, when plan coverage
more than doubled. Moreover, growth during
the 1960’s was primarily attributable to increased
employment in firms that already had private
pension plans; during the 1950’s, growth resulted
largely from the introduction of new plans.
Because of these different patterns, worker cover­
age during the 1960’s remained relatively stable
at about one-third of average annual employment
in the private nonagricultural sector of the
economy, a ratio more than twice that of the
early 1950’s when plan coverage began to burgeon,
largely because the Inland Steel Case of 1949
made pension plans legally subject to collective
bargaining.2
The growth rate for total private pension plans
tends to obscure the fact that multiemployer
plans expanded greatly during the 1960’s—at
an annual average rate of 5.7 percent, compared
with 2.7 percent for single-employer plans. Multi­
employer plans are now estimated to cover more
than 6 million workers, approximately 30 percent
of all workers under private pension plans, com­
pared with fewer than 4 million at the beginning
of the decade, about 25 percent of all workers
then participating in such plans.
Most of the added coverage under both multi­
employer and -single-employer plans resulted
Harry E. Davis is an economist and Arnold Strasser
a project director in the Division of General Compen­
sation Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The authors
wish to acknowledge the contribution that Majella A.
Leary of the same office made in the early stages of this
study.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Private
pension plans,
19 6 0 to 1 9 6 9 —
an overview
from increased employment in firms already
having plans and, to a lesser extent, to the estab­
lishment of new plans covering workers who had
previously been without private pension coverage.
However, some of the new multiemployer coverage
resulted from the merger of single-employer
plans into multiemployer ones.
Notwithstanding the relatively static overall
growth pattern during the 1960’s, private pension
plans underwent a radical transformation during
the period. Some of the sharpest changes occurred
during the last third of the decade. Benefit for­
mulas were substantially liberalized, and early
retirement and vesting provisions were intro­
duced or liberalized. By the end of the decade,
more than three-fourths of the workers were in
plans that had a vesting provision and more than
nine-tenths in plans with vesting, early retirement,
or both.3 (See table 1.) Consequently, at the end
of the decade, workers were much more likely to
have nonforfeitable pension rights if they left the
scope of a plan.
To gain these rights, however, workers had to
meet an age, service, or more often, as shown in
table 2, a combination of age and service require­
ments. The requirements of the plan provisions
prevailing in 1969 can be generally illustrated by
considering 100 workers who entered covered
employment at age 25. Under the 1969 provisions,
if these workers, who represent all covered workers,
remain with their plan for 10 years, only 31 of
them will have gained a nonforfeitable right to a
pension benefit; if they remain for 15 years, 51 of
them will have achieved such a right, and after
20 years only 57 of them would attain a nonfor­
feitable right to a pension benefit. At any of these
service—ages, virtually all 57 would have gained
then benefit right under the vesting provisions of
their plan. This is so, because the early retirement
45

46

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

provisions do not usually become operative until
the worker becomes 55 and normal retirement
rarely occurs before age 60. Should the 100 workers
have entered into their covered employment at
age 30 instead of 25, however, more than threefourths of them would have gained a nonforfeitable
right after 20 years of service. Some of these
would become eligible for early retirement after
20 years of service, and by age 55 about threefourths of them would have qualified for early
retirement.
Moreover, these changes in the prevalence of
vesting and early retirement provisions occurred
at the same time that employers were increasing
their contributions toward the cost of their em­
ployees’ pension. Some assumed a greater share
of the cost, others assumed the entire cost. As a
result of these changes, by the end of the decade
only about one-fifth of the covered workers were
required to contribute toward the cost of their
pension benefit; more than one-fourth of the
covered workers had done so at the beginning of
the period.
Plans with vesting provisions (as distinguished
from those with early retirement provisions)
covered more than three-fourths of all participaTable 1. Selected characteristics of private pension plans,
1969, 1967,and 1962-63

Characteristic

1969

Number of plans1.
Number of active covered workers (in thousands)1.
Single-employer plans................ __......_.
Multiemployer plans___________ ___
Noncontributory plans............. ..............
Contributory plans...______________
Percent of active covered workers:
In plans with either vesting or early retirement
provisions____ ____ ________________
Single-employer plans................. ...............
Multiemployer plans................................. .
Noncontributory plans..____ ______ ___
Contributory plans....... ............... ...............
In plans with vesting provisions
Single-employer plans___
Multiemployer plans____
Noncontributory plans......
Contributory plans_____
In plans with early retirement provisions.
Single-employer plans.............
Multiemployer plans_________
Noncontributory plans________
Contributory plans__________

17,403
19,511
13,869
5, 550
15,368
4, 051
91
96
78
89
96
77
87
51
74
89
87
93
74
88
87

1967 1962-63
17,091
17,485
12,555
4, 929
13,351
4,134

16,031
15,787
11,802
3,985
11,784
4, 003
82
95
41

63
77
26
57
80

59
71
23
51
78
75
91
29
74
81

1Data relate only to those private pension plans covering more than 25 participants
for which the plan administrator filed a report with the Department of Labor’s LaborManagement Services Administration. Plans providing noncomputable retirement
benefits (suchas profitsharingplans) were excluded fromall studies. The active worker
count in each study is for a period about 2 years earlier than inthe study's reference
date. The totals presented here for 1969 include 529 plans covering 92,332 workers, for
which complete information was not available inthe Department's files at the time the
study was conducted; all subsequent data for 1969 exclude these plans.
NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ting workers in 1969, compared with about
three-fifths during the earlier part of the decade.
The prevalence of vesting increased at a faster
pace over the period in multiemployer plans and
in noncontributory plans than in either single­
employer or contributory plans. The greatest
growth was in the multiemployer type, where the
proportion of workers in plans with vesting
increased only slightly during the first two-thirds
of the decade but nearly doubled between 1967
and 1969. In spite of this dramatic growth,
vesting is still far more prevalent in single­
employer plans. In 1969, 87 percent of the workers
covered by single-employer plans were in those
with some form of vesting, compared with 51
percent of the workers covered by multiemployer
plans; 89 percent of the workers under contribu­
tory plans and 74 percent of the workers covered
by noncontributory plans were in plans with some
form of vesting.
Plans with early retirement provisions, either
separately or in conjunction with a vesting pro­
vision, covered about nine-tenths of all partici­
pating workers in 1969, compared with about
three-fourths during the early 1960’s. The preva­
lance of early retirement provisions in multi­
employer plans and in noncontributory plans
increased at a faster pace over the period than
in either single employer or contributory plans.
The greatest growth was in multiemployer plans.
In 1969, about three-fourths of the workers
participating in multiemployer plans were covered
by early retirement provisions; at the beginning
of the decade, only about one-fourth. The preva­
lance of early retirement provisions, like vesting
provisions, is still, however, greatest in single­
employer plans.
The rest of this article describes the coverage of
private pension plans as of the end of 1969 and
their provisions relating to plan participation and
to the attainment of a nonforfeitable right to a
pension benefit under the normal retirement, early
retirement, and vesting provisions. Although these
provisions are designed to serve different pur­
poses, all of them generally assure the payment of
benefits to workers meeting their requirements.
Pension plans in 1969

Most private pension plans are small scale
undertakings but a majority of the covered workers

47

PRIVATE PENSION PLANS

participate in a few relatively large plans. (See
chart 1.) More than half the covered workers
included in this study were in plans covering
10.000 workers or more. Such plans, however,
account for less than 2 percent of all private
pension plans, and only about 2 percent of those
with 26 or more active and retired participants on
which this study is based. The 17 largest plans
covered about 20 percent of all active workers in
private pension plans. On the other hand, more
than 14,000 plans, each with 26 but fewer than
1.000 participants, accounted for about 84 percent
of the plans included in this study but only about
14 percent of the participants. The addition to
the count of plans with fewer than 26 participants
including those currently employed (active
workers) and those who have retired, if the data
were available, would substantially increase the
number of small plans but, as suggested above,
would have considerably less effect on the
coverage statistics.

Although private pension plans cover workers in
all segments of the economy, the extent of coverage
varies widely from industry to industry. In 1969,
about 60 percent of the active workers participat­
ing in private pension plans were employed by
manufacturing firms and about three-fifths of
these were employed by durable goods manufac­
turers. In the nonmanufacturing industries,
coverage is especially widespread in the construc­
tion, transportation, communication, and public
utility industries, where more than five-eighths of
all nonmanufacturing coverage is concentrated.
Multiemployer plans, which in the aggregate are
estimated to cover only about 30 percent of
all active workers under pension plans, are
particularly important in mining, construction,
wholesale and retail trade, transportation, and
service. In these industries, multiemployer plans
cover substantially more than half of all active
workers participating in pension plans. In manu­
facturing, multiemployer plans account for only

Chart 1. Private pension plans and covered workers, 1969

i0 .1 percent.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2

See footnote 1, table 1.

48

about 1 of 8 active participants and are most
important in the nondurable goods industries—
principally in apparel manufacturing—where they
cover about 1 of 3 workers under private pension
plans.
Almost half the private pension plans in the
scope of this study covered both salaried and
production workers; about one-third limited
participation to production workers; the others
were limited to salaried workers. Plans covering
both production and salaried workers, however,
accounted for only two-fifths of the total coverage
of large private pension plans. About 46 percent
of the active worker coverage was in plans
limited to production workers, and about 14
percent in plans restricted to salaried workers.
Participation requirements

In the majority of private pension plans, new
employees either become members of the plan
as soon as they achieve regular full-time status or
in contributory plans, when they agree to con­
tribute. Some plans, however, require the attain­
ment of a specified age or length of service, or both,
before a new employee is eligible to participate.
These requirements are usually justified on the
basis of administrative cost and the uncertain ten­
ure of new employees. However, the adoption of a
participation requirement signifies more than
administrative convenience, since three-fourths
of the plans with participation requirements do
not give credit for employment served before
joining the plan, either in qualifying for a pension
or in computing the pension benefit. These plans
covered about three-fourths of the workers in
plans with participation requirements.
In 1969, participation requirements were speci­
fied in 45 percent of the plans covering 22 percent
of the workers. Almost half of the single-employer
plans, covering fewer than a third of the workers,
and about 6 percent of the multiemployer plans,
with 3 percent of all covered workers, had partici­
pation requirements.
Contributory plans were far more likely than
the noncontributory type to have participation
requirements. Almost 70 percent of the con­
tributory plans, with 58 percent of the covered
workers, but only 36 percent of the noncon­
tributory plans, with 12 percent of the workers,
had some type of participation requirement.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Slightly more than half of the plans with partici­
pation requirements called for some minimum age
and service combination; 2 out of 5 had a service
requirement alone and the others had only a
minimum age requirement.
In terms of the number of workers covered,
the most frequent age and service combinations
were age 25 with 1 year of service and age 30 with
1, 3, and 5 years of service. In plans with only a
service requirement, the qualifying period ranged
from 1 to 5 years, with the most common being 1
year and 5 years. Age requirements varied from
under 20 to 40, 25 and 30 being the most common.
Benefit guarantees
W o rk ers who attain the minimum age, service,
or combination of age and service as required by
their plan are guaranteed a right to a pension
benefit commencing either immediately or at some
future date. Such guarantees, which substantially
differ in degree, are offered under the normal re­
tirement, early retirement, and vesting provisions
of pension plans.
Normal retirement provisions pledge eligible
workers lifetime retirement benefits and lay the
foundation on which other benefits, such as early
retirement, are based. Under the normal retire­
ment provisions, workers who continue to work
after meeting the retirement criteria—usually age
65 and 10 to 15 years of service—attain a non­
forfeitable right to a pension benefit. Occasionally,
however, this may occur as early as age 55 after
15 years of service or, in a few plans, at any age
after 20 years of service.
Early retirement provisions allow workers to
retire before normal retirement age and receive
an immediate, reduced lifetime benefit computed
on the basis of the normal retirement formula.
Once a worker meets the age and service of such a
provision, he has a nonforfeitable or vested right
to a pension benefit. In general, workers may
exercise their vested rights under the normal
retirement or early retirement provisions of their
plan when they receive such rights or at any time
thereafter. Moreover, some plans permit a worker
retiring under the early retirement provision to
defer receipt of the benefit until his normal retire­
ment age and then receive the unreduced normal
retirement benefit, rather than the reduced early
retirement benefit.
Under the vesting provision of a pension plan,

49

PRIVATE PENSION PLANS

of choice. However, their exercise of any option
other than the option to continue to work under
the plan results in forfeiture of their rights to any
benefit from that plan.4
Workers eligible for normal retirement can
retire immediately on full pension for life. Workers
eligible for early retirement may retire and receive
a reduced pension benefit for life, or continue to
work and accumulate pension credits, thus boost­
ing their final pension. In some cases, workers
whose employment has been severed can elect to
defer receipt of their “vested” early retirement
benefit until they attain the normal retirement
age. Workers who have vested rights and con-

workers who meet the plan requirements, often
specified only in terms of years of service, are
entitled to a retirement benefit when they reach
retirement age—usually the age specified for nor­
mal retirement but sometimes early retirement age.
Under each of these provisions, the worker who
meets his plan’s requirements can exercise a
freedom of choice by continuing to work in employ­
ment covered by the plan, changing employment,
or leaving the work force entirely. Those who have
gained a nonforfeitable right to a pension benefit
may exercise either of the two latter options with­
out losing their benefit rights. Those who do not
meet the plan requirements also have a freedom

Table 2. Earliest age and associated service at which workers can acquire a nonforfeitable benefit right under the normal
early, or vesting provisions of private pension plans, 1969

Percent of active workers in plans with—
Plan provision and minimumservice requirement1

Normal retirement, earlyretirement, and vesting _______
Less than 5years......... ......... ........... ....... ........
5to io..._:__________________________
11 to 15_________________________ ____
16to 20_________ ______ _________ ____
More than 20 years......... ................................. .
Normal retirement............ ...... .............................
Less than 5years________________ ________
5 to 10___ _________________________
11 to 15.........................................................
16 to 20_ . ____ _______ _______ _______
More than 20 years. _____________ ____ __
Early retirement and vesting___ ___ ____________
Lessthan 5years______________________ _.
5to 10_____ __________________ ___
11 to 15.............................
16to 20...... .....................................
.......
More than 20 years_________ _____________
Early retirement ____ _________________ ...
Less than 5years______ _____ ______ ______
5to 10__ ___ ___ ______ _____________
11 to 15_________________ _________ _
16to 20_____________ __ ____ _____ ___
Morethan 20 years...... .......................... ..........
Vesting____ ______________ _____________
Less than 5years............ ....... .................. .......
5to 10...... ................................................... .
11 to 15____________ ___
16to 20..................................................... .
Morethan 20 years........ .............. .....................
Deferredfull vesting.. _____ _______________
Lessthan 5years_____________________
5to 10.....................................................
11 to 15.................................... ....... .......
16to 20______________ __________ _
Morethan 20 years. __________ ___ _____
Deferred graded vesting........ ................ ...... .
Lessthan 5years................................... .
5to 10__________________________
11 to 15__________ ___
16to 20....... ..........
Morethan 20 years........

Percent
distri­
bution Total

100
2
37
36
17
8
100
21
35
16
18
11
91
1
36
34
11
7
87
9
25
23
12
18
77
1
34
30
9
2
67
(2)
29
26
9
2
10
(2)
^ 5
4
(2)

Age requirement
Noage
requirement

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

1 T h e t e r m s e r v ic e a s u s e d in th is t a b le is d e fin e d to in c lu d e p r e p a r t ic ip a tio n s e r v ic e .
T h e d is t r i b u t i o n i n c lu d e s 1 ,0 1 0 p l a n s , w ith 2 .3 m illio n w o r k e r s , t h a t p r o v i d e v e s te d
r i g h ts a s s h o w n in th e t a b l e o n l y in th e e v e n t o f i n v o l u n t a r y s e p a r a tio n ( i n c l u d i n g
c o n t i n u o u s l a y o f f ) ; a | m o s t a ll o f th e s e p la n s a ls o p r o v id e f o r th e a t t a in m e n t o f n o n ­
f o r f e i t a b l e r i g h t s , p r i o r to n o r m a l r e t ir e m e n t , in th e e v e n t o f v o l u n t a r y s e p a r a t i o n .
I n s u c h c a s e s , th e e lig ib ilit y r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e t y p i c a l ly m o r e s t r i n g e n t t h a n th o s e f o r

386- 02,7 0 — 70-


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4

42
38
67
20
28
52
6

(2)

1
50
46
43
68
21
43
61
9
1

(2)
U 1
43
51
82
74
26
43
66
50
93
73
24
43
66
62
67
77
40
69

40 or
less

Total
58
62
33
80
62
48
94
100
100
100
99
50
54
57
32
79
57
37
91
99
100
100
99
57
49
18
26
74
57
34
50
7
27
76
57
34
38
33
23
60
31

19
5
15
36
1
(2)

Over 40
and
under 50

(2)

4
4
5
5

50and 55and 60 and 62 and 65 and
under under under under over
55
60
62
65
9
3
3
15
10
7

10
32
5
12
16
9
3
(2)

21
5
16
38
2
(2)

5
4
5
8
1

(2)
(2)

2
1

25
12
17
44
2
1
27
7
17
50
2
1
9
19
15
1

5
5
5
9
2
6
5
6
9
2
3
2
3
31

10
4
3
16
15
8
3
4
1
2
3
7
8
6
3
19
16
13
9
7

13
16
13
4
13
6
1

12
7
11
36
5
12
20
10
63
71
69
73
64
37
10
2
6
29
19
9
3
7
30
19
22

5
11
3
3
8
17
8
3
1
3
30
16
5
11
3
3
9
17
20
22
27
17
19
11

2
1
3
3
2
14
2
33
5
2
10
2
1
3
3
2
4
2
7
13
1

9
11
2
5
30
13
69
95
66
92
55
18

54

i n v o l u n t a r y s e p a r a t i o n . P l a n s w h ic h p r o v i d e f o r s p e c ia l e a r ly r e t ir e m e n t — e s s e n ti a l l y
th o s e p r o v i d in g f o r e a r ly r e t ir e m e n t a t th e e m p l o y e r ’ s r e q u e s t w ith a n u n r e d u c e d o r
h i g h e r th a n n o r m a l r e t ir e m e n t b e n e fit a r e e x c lu d e d f r o m th is t a b le .
2 L e s s t h a n 0 .5 p e r c e n t.
N OTE:

B e c a u s e o f r o u n d i n g , s u m s o f i n d i v i d u a l i te m s m a y n o t e q u a l t o t a l s .

50

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

tinue to work, of course, accumulate additional
pension credits and thus boost their final pension.
About 84 percent of all covered workers parti­
cipate in plans that grant a benefit right by age
55 under either the normal, early, or vesting
provision of the plan to members who have the
requisite service. Almost three-fifths can gain
such a right by age 40, and about two-thirds by
age 45, if they also meet the service requirements.
In general, most workers participate in plans that
require not more than 15 years of service, and
almost two-fifths of them in plans that require
10 or fewer years to qualify for a nonforfeitable
benefit right. (See table 2.)
However, virtually all the workers who acquire
a nonforfeitable right to a pension benefit prior
to age 55 gain the right under either the early
retirement or the vesting provision of their plan.
Normal retirement

In 1969, more than two-thirds of the active
workers participating in private pension plans
were in plans that provided for normal retirement
at age 65. About 25 percent were in plans that
provided for normal retirement before age 65,
and another 6 percent in plans that had no age
requirement. A handful of plans, covering about
12,000 workers, provided for normal retirement
at age 68 and a few, with about 17,000 workers,
provided for normal retirement at age 70.
Of the workers in plans that had a normal
retirement age of less than 65, most—about 22
percent of all covered workers—could retire
Table 3.

under the normal retirement provisions at age
60 or 62, a few at age 55, and some at age 57
after attaining the requisite amount of service.
About 94 percent of the covered workers were
in plans that had an age requirement for normal
retirement. Approximately 80 percent were cov­
ered by plans that had a participatory service
requirement in addition to age. Another 8 percent
were covered by plans that had an age require­
ment and a preparticipation requirement but no
requirement for additional participatory service.
Needless to say, workers under these plans had
to have some participatory service in order to
accrue a retirement benefit.
An estimated 72 percent of all active workers
under private pension plans during 1969 were in
plans that permitted participants to retire after
15 years of service, provided that they also met
the age test—usually 65 but in a few cases as
early as 55. More than 60 percent of these workers
could retire with 10 years of service, and about
25 percent with fewer than 5 years of total service
(including preparticipation service). In other
plans, workers had to satisfy more stringent
service requirements.
Plans requiring more than 15 years of service
to qualify for normal retirement generally had
substantially less stringent age requirements than
other plans, and some requiring more than 15
years of service for normal retirement had no age
requirement. The absence of an age requirement
was particularly prevalent among plans that
required more than 20 years of service. Half the
workers covered by such plans could retire as soon

Type of benefit formula in private pension plans by type of plan, 1969

Percent of active covered workers in plans whose benefit formulas are—

Type of plan

All plans............................................
Single employer plans............ ...................... .
Contributory plans_____ ___ ... _________
Noncontributory plans............................ ........
Plans covering:
Salaried employees only______ ______ .
Salaried and hourly employees........... ...... .
Hourly employees only._______________

Percent
distri­ Total
bution

100
71
29
21
79
14
39
47

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Based on earnings
Not based
on earnings 1

52
37
92
22
61
16
25
87

1 In c lu d e s p la n s t h a t p r o v i d e a u n i fo r m b e n e fit to a ll r e t ir in g w o r k e r s w h o m e e t th e
p la n s a g e a n d s e r v ic e r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d p la n s t h a t p a y a b e n e fit b a s e d o n a u n i f o r m
a m o u n t f o r e a c h y e a r o f s e r v ic e .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Terminal earnings

Total

Career
earn­
ings

Totai

Last year before
retirement

Last 5 or
high 5years

Last 10or
high 10years

48
63
8
78
39
84
75
14

21
27
5
50
13
33
35
6

27
36
3
28
26
51
40
8

1
2
1
1
2
1
1

22
29
3
21
22
43
32
7

4
5
(2)
6
3
6
7
<2>

2 L e s s t h a n 0 . 5 p e r c e n t.
N O T E :

B e c a u s e o f r o u n d in g , s u m s o f in d iv id u a l ite m s m a y n o t e q u a l to t a ls .

PRIVATE PENSION PLANS

as they achieved the requisite years of service—
usually 30—and receive a normal pension benefit
each month for the rest of their life.
Normal retirement benefit formulas

The importance of normal retirement benefit
formulas in private pension plans is twofold.
First, they provide the basis for determining the
monthly benefit to be paid plan members who
retire under the normal retirement provisions of
their plan, and second, they provide the basis from
which all other benefits, such as early retirement
benefits, are computed.
The formula, like other plan provisions, is
usually specially designed to meet the needs of
the plan members, taking into consideration the
economics of their industry and the firms for which
they work. Nevertheless, most formulas used to
compute normal retirement benefits can be
classified into one of three broad categories:
(1) Formulas that either provide the same benefit
to all eligible retirees or vary the benefit only by
years of service; (2) formulas in which career
earnings are used as the basis for computing
the retirement benefit; and (3) formulas in which
terminal earnings are used as the basis for com­
puting the retirement benefit. The typical plan
under both the career and the terminal earnings
categories varies benefits on the basis of service.
Benefit formulas in single employer plans are
principally based on an earnings concept. Thus,
for more than three-fifths of those covered by
single-employer plans, the final pension benefit is
directly tied to their earnings. More than half of
these workers are in plans that use terminal
earnings in computing benefits. In contrast,
multiemployer plans predominantly use a formula
that either provides the same benefit to all retirees
or varies the benefit solely on the basis of service.
Only 8 percent of workers under multiemployer
plans participated in plans that used an earningsbased formula, and for more than half of these,
the final benefit was based on career rather than
terminal earnings.
Plans that covered only salaried workers and
plans that covered both salaried and hourly paid
workers generally related benefits to the worker’s
earnings. Those plans that covered only hourly
paid workers, however, predominantly used benefit
formulas that did not take the worker’s earnings

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

51

into consideration. Plans limited to hourly workers
are estimated to cover slightly less than half those
employed by firms with pension plans, and some of
these plans—with about 14 percent of the active
worker membership of this group—have formulas
relating benefits to earnings.
The majority of workers participating in plans
that base benefits on earnings were in plans that
used terminal earnings in the computational proce­
dure, preponderantly, as shown in table 3, in plans
that based benefits on earnings in the last 5 or in
the 5 highest earnings years.
The effect of the formulas on the normal pension
benefits of >workers—other than those formulas
which provide for identically the same benefit to
all current retirees—varies according to the
worker’s age, service, and earnings experience
under the plan. The two latter considerations are
defined in each plan to meet a specific set of
circumstances and conditions. The definition of
earnings varies substantially among the plans, and
the definition of the period over which the earnings
are to be averaged also varies. Some plans that
base benefits, on career earnings, for example,
include preparticipation service; others exclude
such service. Some plans include premium pay and
bonuses, among other forms of pay not directly
related to an actual unit of time worked, as part
of credited earnings; some do not. In counting
service time, some plans include time out on layoff,
disability, and during leaves of absence, while
others exclude these periods. In addition, a few
plans do not give workers either service or earnings
credits for work performed after the worker has
reached the plan’s normal retirement age.
A few generalizations may be made about the
effects of different types of benefit formulas—
notwithstanding differences in the individual
plan’s definitions of earnings and service.5
1. Uniform benefit formulas provide propor­
tionately higher benefits to workers with lower
earnings than to workers whose earnings are at
the upper end of the earnings distribution. Those
that vary benefits solely on the basis of service
also provide proportionately higher benefits to
lower earners than to high earners with the same
amount of service.
2. Formulas based on earnings and service pay
greater benefits to the long-service high earnings
worker than to the worker with less service and
lower earnings. However, a worker with relatively
low earnings can attain a benefit substantially

52

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

higher than indicated by his earnings level by
continuing to work for a long period of time.
Conversely, a worker with high earnings but with
relatively short service will receive a propor­
tionately reduced benefit.
3.
Formulas that take earnings into account
tend to produce higher benefits (for the same
length of service and overall average career
earnings) when terminal earnings are used in the
computation than when average career earnings
are used. Nevertheless, some plans using the
career average may produce a higher level benefit
for workers with identical earnings and service
records because of a difference in the percentage
applied to the earnings or the earnings level at
which the plans are integrated with the Social
Security system.
Early retirement

Early retirement provisions allow eligible
workers to retire before the normal retirement age
and receive an immediate, reduced lifetime bene­
fit. (See table 4.) Some plans permit the worker
to defer receipt of his benefit until his normal
retirement age when unreduced benefits are pay­
able.
M inim um req uirem ents for early r etir e m e n t .

A worker must meet an age requirement, a service
requirement, or both to retire under an early
retirement provision. In addition, under many
plans early retirement depends on the employer’s
Table 4. Selected characteristics of private pension plans
with early retirement provisions,1 1969

Percent of workers
Characteristic
All plans_
Plans with early retirement provisions___
Single-employer plans...... .
__
Noncontributory.
_ _ __
Contributory...
. ..
Permitting early retirement:
Solely at employee's option..
Withemployer's consent___
Multiemployer plans___
Noncontributory.___
Contributory . .
__
Permitting early retirement:
Solely at employee's option____
With employer’s consent___
Plans without early retirement provisions. . _

Inall
plans

In plans with early
retirement provisions

100
87
66
49
17
47
19
21
20
1
20
1
13

100
76
56
20
54
22
24
23
1
23
1

1Characteristics relate to regular early retirement provisions.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

approval. In some cases, the worker can be in­
voluntarily retired. All plans examined in this
study that had such special early retirement clauses
also had regular early retirement provisions.
Unless otherwise noted, all further discussion of
early retirement excludes retirement under the
special early clauses.
The most frequent service requirement for early
retirement was 10 years, with 15 years almost as
common. Overall, two-thirds of the workers
covered by plans with early retirement could
qualify with 15 or fewer years of service, and
almost three-fourths of these after 10 years of
service.
B e n e f it s payable u n d e r early r e t ir e m e n t .

Reduced early retirement benefits were invari­
ably payable immediately. However, under about
two-thirds of the plans, covering about the same
proportion of employees, the employee could elect
to defer receipt of the benefit until normal retire­
ment age. The following tabulation shows the
percent of workers in plans with early retirement
provisions and the distribution of workers in these
plans according to the time at which benefits are
payable:
T i m e a t w h ic h

Plans w ith early retirement_______
Immediately on ly_____ ____
Immediately or at age 65______
Immediately or at any time up
to age 65..........
Plans w ithout early retirement____

Benefit provision

benefit is payable

87
32
22

100

33
13

37

37
26

The worker who chooses to retire early will re­
ceive a smaller benefit than if he remained in
employment under the plan until the normal
retirement age. For early retirement, the actuarial
equivalent of accrued benefits was payable by
about three-fourths of the plans, with slightly
less than half the workers. Practically all the re­
maining plans approximated the actuarial equiva­
lent by reducing benefits by a uniform percent for
each month prior to the normal retirement age. A
few large plans, chiefly in the communications and
public utilities industry, provided an unreduced
early retirement benefit. These plans, however,
required long service—usually 30 years—and the
employer’s consent for such a benefit.
Under this
option, the worker’s early retirement benefit is
adjusted so that he receives a larger than com-

S ocial security adjustm ent o ptio n .

53

PRIVATE PENSION PLANS

puted benefit before the receipt of social security
payments, which he pays for by getting smaller
benefits afterward. The private plan benefits are
in amounts that, when added to the social security
benefit, will constitute a uniform combined benefit
throughout the pensioner’s life.
A social security option was available in early
retirement plans covering about one-third of the
workers. Single-employer plans were somewhat
more likely to offer this option than multi­
employer plans, and social security options were
considerably more prevalent in contributory than
noncontributory plans. The following tabulation
shows (1) the percent of workers in plans having
early retirement provisions, and (2) within these
early retirement plans, the percent of workers in
plans which do or do not have social security
options:
Early
retiremerit
provi­
sions

Total

With
option

Without
option

All plans......................................

87

100

32

68

Single-employer.....................................
Multiemployer.......................................

66
21

100
100

32
30

68
70

Noncontributory..................................
Contributory.........................................

69
18

100
100

29
40

71
60

.
Special early re­
tirement provisions are found in approximately
6 percent of the plans, covering about 17 percent
of the workers, and concentrated in single-em­
ployer, noncontributory plans in the manufac­
turing industries. They were most common in
plans negotiated by the Auto Workers, Steel­
workers, and Meat Cutters Unions. Under these
S p e c i a l

e a

r

l y

r

e t

i r

e m

e n

t

plans an employee may be retired early at the
employer’s request or under “mutually satis­
factory conditions.” 6 In other plans, workers
whose employment is terminated because of the
closing of a department or plant or who have
been on long layoff may be eligible for special
early retirement. The first of these circumstances
apply particularly to plans in the transportation
equipment manufacturing industry; the second is
most prevalent in the primary metals and the
food processing industries.
The minimum age and service requirements
most frequently specified were age 55 and 10,
15, or 20 years of service. In the primary and
fabricated metals industries most plans provide
special early retirement if the combination of age
(55 or older) plus service equals 70, or if age (under
55) plus service equals 80.
The majority of the employees were in plans
providing double normal benefits until normal
retirement age or until they were eligible for an
unreduced social security benefit. Most of the
remainder were in plans that provided the same
benefit as for normal retirement, plus a supple­
mental amount that would be paid until they were
eligible for an unreduced social security benefit.
These supplemental amounts ranged form $75 to
$130. A few plans provided either the same benefit
as for normal retirement or slightly in excess of
normal.
Vesting

Once a worker attains a vested right to a retire­
ment benefit he has a nonforfeitable right to a

Table 5. Provisions for vesting and early retirement in private pension plans by type of employer unit, type of vesting,
and conditions for vesting, 1969

Percent of workers
Type of vesting and conditions for vesting

Insingle-employer plans
Total

All plans.............. ......................................... ................
Percent distribution____ ___ .. __________ ________
With vesting----------------------------------------------------------Deferred full.... .......... ...... ....................... ....... ..................
Any separation___ ___ _ ___ ___ ____________ .
Involuntary separations »_____ _____________________
Deferred graded__________________________________
Any separation.......................... ......................... ...... .
Involuntary separation *......... .................... ......................
Without vesting______ ______ _______________________
1 U n d e r t h e r e g u la r v e s t i n g p r o v i s i o n s .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

100
100
77
67
57
10
10
8
2
23

All
71
100
87
79
67
12
8
6
2
13

In multiemployer plans

Withearly Without early
retirement retirement
66
100
90
82
69
13
8
6
2
10

5
100
43
39
38
2
3
3
57

All
29
100
51
37
32
5
13
12
10
49

Withearly Without early
retirement retirement
21
100
64
47
41
7
16
16
1
36

8
100
15
9
8
1
6
4
2
85

54

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

benefit when he reaches retirement age, regardless
of where he may be at that time. The amount of
the benefit to be paid at that time, however,
usually depends on the terms and conditions of
the plan existing at the time the benefit right was
acquired. Rarely, if ever, are vested benefit
rights adjusted upward as changes are made in
the years between the acquiring and the exercise
of the right. Benefits paid workers who attained
a vested right but who elected to continue to
work under the plan, however, are paid in ac­
cordance with the plan provisions in effect at the
time they actually retire.
Vesting provisions are most prevalent in the
manufacturing, communication and public utili­
ties, and the finance, insurance, and real estate
industries where about four-fifths of the covered
workers are in plans with such provisions. Vesting
is least common in the mining, transportation,
and service industries where, respectively, only
about 34 percent, 46 percent, and 53 percent of
the covered workers can ever obtain a nonforfeit­
able right under the vesting provision of their
present plans. Among manufacturing industries,
more than 90 percent of covered workers in the
durable goods sector, but only about 73 percent
of participants in the nondurable goods sector
have vesting provisions in their pension plans.
N
. Three types of vesting pro­
visions are found in pension plans: (1) Immedi­
ate full vesting; (2) deferred full vesting; and (3)
deferred graded vesting. (See table 5.) Immediate
full vesting, under which benefits are vested as
soon as they are earned, covers less than 1 percent
of all active workers under private pension plans.
a

t u

r

e

o

f

v

e s

t i n

g

For purposes of this article, such plans have been
grouped with those providing deferred full vesting.
Deferred full vesting provisions postpone all
vesting until specified age and service requirements
are met. They then provide eligible workers with
a nonforfeitable right to all benefits then accrued
and an immediate right to all benefit rights in
the future as soon as they accrue. Deferred full
vesting is provided by plans covering 9 out of 10
of the workers in plans with a vesting provision.
The other tenth of the workers participated in
plans that had deferred graded vesting provisions.
Under these provisions a participant acquires the
right to a specified percentage of his accrued
benefits when he satisfies the minimum age and
service requirements. The percentage vested under
these plans continues to increase as additional
service requirements are met until finally all
accrued benefits are vested; then all benefits
become vested as they accrue.
R
. Minimum
age or
service requirements, or both, must be met by
the worker to qualify for vesting and, in some
plans, vesting may be conditioned upon the type
of termination—whether the worker was laid off
or quit. In particular, some plans in the primary
and fabricated metals industries grant nonfor­
feitable benefits rights under the vesting provisions
only to those workers whose employment was
severed because of layoff or other factors beyond
the employee’s control. In addition, workers un­
der such plans typically receive vested rights only
if they remain available for recall for 2 years.
Overall, involuntary termination is requisite to
e q

u

i r

e m

e n

t s

f o

r

v

e s

t i n

g

Table 6. Earliest age and associated service at which workers under full vesting and workers under graded vesting acquire
a nonforfeitable right to all accrued benefits, private pension plans, 1969

Percent of active workers in plans with—
Minimum service requirement*

All plans with vesting_____________________
Less than 5years...... ............... ....................... .......
5to 10years........... ........................ ........... ...........
11 to 15years_____ _________________ ______
16 to 20 years____ _____ __________________
More than 20 years_______ ____ _________

Percent
distribution

100
1
45
39
12
3

Total

100
100
100
100
100
100

i The termservice as used inthis table is defined to include preparticipation service.
The distribution includes 1,010 plans with 2.3 million workers that provide vested
rights as shown in the table only in the event of involuntary separation (including
continuous layoffs); almost all of these plans also provide for the attainment of non­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

No age
requirement
51
82
74
26
43
66

Age requirement
Total
49
18
26
74
57
34

40 or less Over40 and
under 50
25
12
17
44
2
1

5
5
5
9
2

50 and
under 55

55 and
over

11
g
3
19
16
13

8
2
7
29
19

forfeitable rights, prior to normal retirement, inthe event of voluntary separation. In
such cases, the eligibility requirements are typically more stringent than those for
involuntary separation.
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

55

PRIVATE PENSION PLANS

Table. 7. Earliest age and associated service for full vesting in private pension plans that have deferred graded vesting,
1969

Percent of active workers in plans with—
Minimumservice requirement!

All plans with deferred graded vesting................ .

Percent
distri­
bution

100
«i
54
25
16

Total
100
100
100
100
100
100

i The termservice as used inthis table is defined to include preparticipationservice.
3Less than 0.5 percent.

the attainment of a vested benefit right under the
vesting provision in plans with about 16 percent of
all covered workers under private pension plans.
In general, plans providing for deferred full
vesting have less stringent requirements for full
vesting than do plans that provide for the gradual
attainment of nonforfeitable rights to all accrued
benefits. However, graded vesting plans often
permit the attainment of some right to part of the
accrued benefit at a much earlier point in the
worker’s career than is usually the case in plans
providing for deferred full vesting.
About 44 percent of the workers were in plans
that required 10 years of service to qualify for
deferred full vesting. Four out of 5 workers, in
plans with such vesting provisions, would qualify
for deferred full vesting after 15 years of service
or less. The heavy concentrations of workers in
plans that required 10 or 15 years of service to
qualify reflect the vesting provisions in the trans­
portation equipment, primary metal and fabri­
cated metal manufacturing industries plans.
In plans with about half the workers covered
by deferred full vesting provisions, there was
no age requirement. Under these plans all accrued
benefits were vested when the worker met the
plan’s service qualification—usually 10 years. In
plans covering about one-sixth of the participants,
the service requirement for vesting, without
regard to age, was 15 years.
Minimum age requirements ranging from 40 to
55 were specified in the remaining plans with de­
ferred full vesting. A minimum age of 40, with 15
years of service, was the requirement most fre­
quently stipulated. (See table 6.) An age require­
ment of 55 or over was stipulated in plans covering
about 9 percent of the workers; however, these
high age plans almost invariably provide for early

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

No
age
require­
ment
63
86
46
77
92

Age requirement
Total
37
100
14
54
23
8

40 or less Over40 and
under 50
2
14
3
2

50 and
under 55

55 and
over

5

5

7
2
2

3
10
6

25
100
42
9
1

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

retirement, with the employer’s consent, at the
same age. Such plans probably reflect the impact
of the 1957 Internal Revenue Service regulations
(57-163 and 58-151) which in essence require, for
purposes of tax qualification, that plans requiring
employer consent for early retirement also had to
provide for deferred full vesting of all accrued
benefits at the earliest point where employer dis­
cretion could affect the worker’s retirement rights.
Age and service requirements for the attain­
ment of any right under deferred graded vesting
(table 7) are typically more liberal than for de­
ferred full vesting, but under these plans, as pre­
viously noted, only part of the worker’s equity is
initially vested. In plans covering almost threefourths of the workers whose pension plan provided
for graded vesting, half of the accrued benefit or
more is initially vested. Moreover, about 30 per­
cent of the workers in plans with grading could
obtain vested rights to all accrued benefits by age
40 with 15 years of service. In contrast, almost 70
percent of the workers covered by plans providing
for deferred full vesting would have earned a non­
forfeitable pension right under the vesting provi­
sion of their plan if they had 15 years of service
by age 40.
The percent of accrued benefit initially vested
under graded plans varied from 5 percent to 75
percent. The most frequent amount vested was
either 25 percent or 50 percent of the accrued
benefit. To become fully vested under graded
plans usually required longer service than under
deferred full vesting, often as much as 20 or 25
years of service.
Receipt of the vested benefit was delayed in
two-thirds of the plans with over half the workers
until normal retirement age. However, in plans
with 43 percent of the workers, employees had the

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

56

option of receiving their vested benefit at either
the early retirement age in a reduced amount or at
the normal retirement age in full. Employees in

the remaining plans could elect to receive an un­
reduced benefit anytime after the early retirement
age.
□

FOOTNOTES

1
For purposes of this study, pension plans are defined
as those plans that provide cash income to qualified
retired workers for life. The periodic amount to be paid,
by plans that qualify under this definition, can be cal­
culated in advance. However, the calculation may be
subject to change because of changes in either or both
the plan and the individual’s earnings or service.
Profitsharing, stock bonus, vacation and savings, and
other plans that make lump-sum payments to retiring
workers and other plans that do not provide for the
periodic payment of a sum ascertainable prior to retire­
ment for the balance of the worker’s life were not consid­
ered to be pension plans and were therefore excluded
from the study. Also excluded were all plans covering
fewer than 26 workers and plans of government agencies
and nonprofit organizations (other than labor unions,
which were included).
The study is based on the reports and documents filed
with the U.S. Department of Labor pursuant to the
Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act ( w p p d a ) by the
administrators of private pension plans covering 26
active and retired participants or more. Two systemat­
ically stratified probability samples of these plans were
drawn. One sample, stratified by industry division and
size of plan, by number of active and retired participants,
was drawn from a list of all retirement plans that had
filed financial reports (form D -2) in 1964. A second
sample was drawn from the retirement plans that had
filed plan descriptions (form D -l) by December 1967,
but had not filed a financial report in 1964.
All known multiemployer plans not included in the
first sample were extracted from the second stage listing
and separately sampled. These plans were stratified on
the basis of the latest available coverage statistics, and
the sample was selected with probability proportion
to size.
In all, some 1,433 plans were studied. Data for each
sample plan were appropriately weighted in accordance
with the plan’s probability of selection. The data presented
are, therefore, estimates for all private pension plans with
descriptions ( D - l reports) on file in December 1967.
Data on plan coverage were obtained from the 1967
(D-2) financial reports. These reports were the most
current consistently available in mid-1969 when the file
was examined. The plan provisions analyzed were those
in the Department of Labor’s files during mid-1969.
There is a 160-day time lag between the date that a plan
change is introduced and the required date of filing.
As a result, in order to reflect the current provisions, some


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

supplementary sources were also utilized. In all the larger
situations, as well as in others where plan changes were
known to have occurred since the date the last D - l form
containing plan descriptions was filed, the latest plans
were obtained from the parties. These up-to-date versions
were then used in this study in place of those in the
disclosure file.
2 Estimates based on the sample of plans studied in 1969
indicated that slightly more than 19.5 million active
workers were covered by pension plans in scope of this
study during 1967, the latest year for which actual cover­
age statistics were available when this study was conducted.
Coverage estimates as of the end of 1969 were projected
from 1967 on the basis of the average rate of growth
during the 1961-67 period. Estimates for the beginning of
the decade were developed by negatively applying the
same factors to the 15.8 million coverage statistic for
1961, the earliest data pertaining to only those plans
meeting the definitions used in this study.
3 L a b o r M o b ility
Bulletin 1407, 1964).

and

P r iv a te

P e n s io n

P la n s

(BLS

4 Those whose pension rights are forfeited because they
severed their employment, and those whose employment
is involuntarily terminated, prior to the attainment of a
nonforfeitable right do, however, have a right to the
return of their contributions, if any, to the pension fund.
Retirement at specified ages is mandatory in some plans.
In early 1965, plans covering about two-thirds of the
active covered workers had a mandatory retirement
provision. About two-thirds of these workers were in plans
that compelled retirement at age 65, the others were in
plans specifying an older mandatory retirement age. For
detail, see T h e O ld e r A m e r ic a n W o r k e r : A g e D i s c r i m i n a t io n
i n E m p lo y m e n t— R e s e a r c h M a t e r i a l s . Report of the Secre­
tary of Labor to the Congress under Section 715 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Washington, 1965).

5 These and other relationships between pension plan
benefit formulas can be examined by applying each plan’s
formula to a standard set of earnings and service assump­
tions. This arithmetic technique, which places all plans
on a common footing so that prevailing differences and
central tendencies are revealed, is being used to compare
the plans included in this study. The results of this com­
parison will be presented in the detailed bulletin contain­
ing all of the data resulting from this study.
6 In such cases, the employer’s and the employee’s
consent is required.

Since 1936, the
National Mediation Board’s
1,465 airline mediation cases
have required only 33
presidential emergency boards
MICHAEL H. C IM IN I

1926, with the active support of
both management and labor,, the Railway Labor
Act was designed to prevent work stoppages by
encouraging the parties to conclude and maintain
agreements through collective bargaining. The
effectiveness of the act in the majority of airline
and railroad industrial relations disputes was
demonstrated in the years before World War II.
In recent years, however, the law’s procedures
have been criticized by practitioners and students
of collective bargaining. It has been argued that
the Railway Labor Act, as implemented by the
National Mediation Board—the agency charged
with its administration—has encouraged labor
and management to bargain in a perfunctory
manner, to relinquish their rights and duties to
resolve disputes on their own, and to depend on
Government intervention for the solution of
their disputes. It has been alleged that the
Executive Branch, acting under political pressures,
has, at times, intervened needlessly in airline and
railroad disputes.
To assess the impact of the act upon industrial
relations in the airline industry, the author
examined and analyzed both published and
unpublished records of the National Mediation
Board. This article summarizes the airline in­
dustry’s experience under the Railway Labor
Act’s emergency dispute procedures between 1936
and 1969, with special emphasis on emergency
boards, as a means of evaluating the repeated
criticisms of the act.
E

n

a

c

t e d

i n

Procedural aspects of the act

The Railway Labor Act requires the parties to
follow step-by-step procedures, from the initial

Michael H. Cimini is an economist in the Division of
Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Emergency boards
in the
airline industry,

1 93 6-69
notice of intention to change the terms of an agree­
ment to the last step, which leaves the union
free to strike or the employer free to lock out his
workers. (See chart 1.) The procedure is set in
motion when a “Section 6” notice—a declaration
of intention to change the collective bargaining
agreement—is served. A status quo period pro­
hibits changes in the terms and conditions of em­
ployment until the parties reach agreement, or
all the required procedures of the act have been
exhausted, or a period of 10 days has passed after
the termination of discussions without a request
for or an offer of the Board’s assistance. The
parties are expected to negotiate until an agree­
ment is reached or an impasse develops. If the
parties can not reach agreement in direct negotia­
tions, one or both of the parties may request the
mediatory assistance of the Board; or, should the
facts warrant it, the National Mediation Board
may offer its assistance.
As one of its last formal obligations, the Board
may request the parties to submit their dispute
to binding arbitration, when mediation is un­
successful. If arbitration is refused, the Board is
required to formally notify both parties of its
failure to reconcile their differences. Again, a
status quo period is instituted, and neither party
can make an alteration in the terms of the col­
lective bargaining agreement for 30 days from the
date of notice unless, in the interim, arbitration is
agreed upon or an agreement is reached by the par­
ties. If these measures fail, an emergency board
may be established under Section 10 of the act.
Action under this section is taken if, in the opinion
of the Board, an actual or imminent strike arising
out of an unresolved dispute “threatens to sub­
stantially interrupt interstate commerce.” The
Board so notifies the President, who may, as a
last resort under the act, establish an emergency
board to examine the nature of the issues and to
make recommendations concerning the dispute.
57

58

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Chart 1. Collective bargaining procedures, and “ status quo” periods, under the Railway Labor Act
PROCEDURES
DISPOSITION
GOVERNMENT

CARRIER(S) A N D U N IO N (S )
3 0 DAYS' NOTICE OF
INTENDED C HANG E IN
AGREEMENT AFFECTING
RATES OF PAY, RULES.
OR WORKING C O N D IT IO N S

"STATUS Q U O "
(IN ABSENCE OF
AGREEMENT)

FROM
NOTICE

+
AGREEMENT ON TIME
A N D PLACE FOR BEG INNING
CONFERENCES (W ITHIN 10
DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE)

AGREEMENT

CONFERENCES
(BEGIN W ITHIN THE 3 0 DAYS
PROVIDED IN NOTICE)

— ■

r

REQUEST BY EITHER PARTY
(OR BOTH)
FOR M E D IA T IO N ,
OR ITS PROFFER BY NMB

N A TIO N A L
M EDIATION
BOARD

L

f

M EDIATIO N
AS ITS FIN AL
REQUIRED
MEDIATORY A C T IO N .
NMB PROFFERS
ARBITRATION

-►

AGREEMENT

.

AGREEMENT
TO ARBITRATE

UNLESS 10
DAYS ELAPSE
FOLLOWING
TERMINATION
OF
CONFERENCES
W ITHOUT
REQUEST FOR
OR PROFFER
OF
M EDIATION

TO

I.

BOARD OF
ARBITRATION

ARBITRATION
HEARINGS

I____

I
*

B IN D IN G
AWARD

IF, IN ITS JUDGM ENT
DISPUTE THREATENS
SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE
WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE
NMB SO NOTIFIES PRESIDENT

30 DAYS
FOLLOWING
NMB
NOTICE TO
PARTIES THAT
M EDIATION
HAS
FAILED A N D
ARBITRATION
WAS REFUSED

I
I
PRESIDENT, IN HIS DISCRETION
ESTABLISHES EMERGENCY BOARD
----------------------------- ! —

THE PRESIDENT

EMERGENCY
BOARD

FROM
CREATION
OF BOARD

EMERGENCY
BOARD IN V E S T I­
GATES DISPUTE

TO
30 DAYS
FOLLOWING
EMERGENCY
BOARD
REPORT

IA ction w h ich is required
when preced en t action
has been ta k e n .
P o s s ib ilitie s for reaching
agreem ent and a c tio n s
w h ich are d is c re tio n a ry .

NOTE: All time periods may be extended by agreement.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

REPORT TO PRESIDENT, WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS (W ITHIN
30 DAYS OF CREATION OF BOARD)
AGREEMENT
PARTIES FREE
OF LEGAL RESTRAINT

AIRLINE EMERGENCY BOARDS

59

Airline emergency boards

disputes “in order to avoid any interruption to
commerce or to the operation of any carrier. . . .”
Considering the size of some of the smaller airline
carriers and the Civil Aeronautics Board practice
of awarding two carriers or more access to major
routes, as well as the existence of other means of
transportation, a strict interpretation of Section
2, 1st, may not have been necessary to protect the
public interest.
In 1966, former Secretary of Labor W. Willard
Wirtz refused to classify as a national emergency
the labor-management controversy which inter­
rupted about 50 percent of domestic trunkline
air service and which caused the creation of
Emergency Board 166. This particular contro­
versy probably had the greatest economic impact
of any airline emergency board dispute, and it
may serve as a measure of the economic impact
of the other 32 cases.
Most emergency boards involving a single
carrier and a single union (especially those in the
late 1940’s and early 1950’s) were created to
resolve controversies which may not have fulfilled
the conditions of threatening to substantially
deprive a section of the country of essential
transportation services, except in the narrowest
sense. For instance, it would seem that when
the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks struck Braniff
(a domestic trunkline carrier) in late 1951, the
dispute did not threaten to substantially interrupt
interstate commerce or deprive a section of the
country of essential transportation services for
the following reasons: The clerks are not essential
personnel in the same sense that mechanics and
flight deck personnel are; the major airline routes
assigned to Braniff were also flown by other
carriers; and other forms of transportation were
available to provide essential services to the
affected areas. The Mediation Board’s hesitancy,
apparent since the mid-1960’s, to recommend the
appointment of emergency boards for some single
carrier disputes was probably a recognition of the
need to reverse this policy.

Since 1936, the Board has dealt with 1,465 air­
line mediation cases; and only 63 required this final
step of the procedure.1 In total, 33 boards were
created, two-thirds between 1955 and 1969 but
none during the last 3 years. (See table 1.) The
incidence of airline emergency boards over time
was irregular, most occurring in scattered clusters.
Between May 1946 and November 1954, 13
emergency boards were established. Fourteen
boards, created between January 1958 and March
1962, coincided with the introduction of the jet
plane and centered on work rules for ground em­
ployees and manning issues for flight deck person­
nel as the principal subjects in dispute. In the
last seven airline emergency boards, which were
confined to ground crafts, wages was the prime
issue.
The use of emergency boards in the past 20
years has been depicted as a “proliferation” of such
procedures and a domination of labor-manage­
ment negotiations in the industry by the Govern­
ment, contrary to the original intent of the act.
Critics have frequently charged that the Board
has pursued a policy of automatically notifying
the President of almost any dispute which was
unsettled after it had intervened, the only crite­
rion being whether a work stoppage was imminent.
Since the airline unions routinely set a strike date
when an impasse is reached in negotiations or in
mediation conducted by the Board, the occurrence
of “imminent work stoppages” has been extremely
high. Consequently, it appears that the effective­
ness of the emergency board procedures as a last
resort has been reduced and the parties have inte­
grated this procedure into their collective bargain­
ing strategy.
If this lessening of effectiveness has occurred,
its cause lies, perhaps, in the evolution of the act.
Originally, the act was limited exclusively to rail­
roads, an industry in which collective bargaining
relationships were well-structured and one in
which a work stoppage, even on smaller lines,
could entail a substantial impact on an area. The
law was phrased to reflect the nature of the indus­
try and its relative importance vis-à-vis the na­
tional economy as it existed at the time of passage
in 1926. Thus, Section 10, 1st, and Section 2, 1st,
referred to disputes which “threaten substantially
to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such
as to deprive a section of the country of essential
transportation service” and to the settlement of all


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Unions and carriers involved

The requirement that boards be appointed to
consider disputes that may substantially interrupt
interstate commerce has limited to a small pro­
portion the U.S. scheduled air carriers and major
airline unions involved in emergency procedures.
In most cases, emergency boards were appointed
by the President to aid in disputes between one

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

60
Table 1. Airline emergency, boards, 1936-69

Major issues

Majorcraft involved
Emer­
gency
board
number

Carrier(s)

Union(s)

Flight

168
167

TWU
TWU

166

IAM

158

IAM

156
152
149
146
144
143
142
140
136
135
128
125
124
123

IAM
TWU
TWU
FEIA
FEIA
ALPA
ALPA
TWU
IAM
FEIA
BRC
TWU
ALPA
FEIA

122

IAM

121
120

ALPA
FEIA

108

IAM

103
102
101
100
99
94
90
67
62
38
36

FEIA
IAM
FEIA
IAM
TWU
ALPA
BRC
IAM
(ALPA
(IAM
IAM
ALPA

Ground

Pan American_________
fEastern___ ____ _____
INational____________
TWA_______ ______ _
(.United. ........ .............
Braniff...........................
Continental___ ______
Eastern___ _________
Northwest____ _______
TWA__________„___
United_____________
TWA____________
Pan American_____ ...
TWA... .
TWA
Pan American...
Pan American_________
TWA______________
/Eastern_____________
TWA______________
United_____________
(Northwest__
Northeast___________
Capital__________ ...
National____________
Eastern_____ _ ... ... .
[Capital_____________
National____ _______
Northwest___________
United_____________
Eastern_____________
United_____________
Northwest__________ .
TWA______________
Northwest______ ... ...
Pan American_____ ... .
American.............. .........
Braniff_____________
Northwest___________
National____________
National________ _ ...
Northwest___________
TWA«_____________

Mechanics and related...........

New
agree­
ments

Wages

Rules

X____
X....... .

"Section 6”
notice date

May 31,1966
Mar. 1,1966

L...
1

joct. 1,1965

Mechanics and related_____

X...... .

Oct. 31,1962

Mechanics and related

X.........
X____
X____
X..... .
X____
X____
X____
X____
X____
X____
X........X____
X____
X..... .

Pilots__ . .

Service__ ... _.

X..... .
X.........
X____
Mechanics and related_____
Engineers______
Engineers ___
Engineers ......
Pilots______ ...
Pilots______
Pilots___

Other

..

May 1,1962
(Aug. 10,19613
(Feb. 28,1962
Oct. 26,1960
Feb. 8,1960
Jan. 2,1960
Aug. 30,1960
May 31,1961
(Feb. 9,19603
(May 31,1960
Mar. 8,1960
Oct. 9,1959
Oct. 30,1958
Jun. 21,1957
Sep. 23,1957
Aug. 1,1957
Aug. 1,1957
Aug. 30,1957
<X____ Aug. 30,1957
Jul. 30,1957
Aug. 30,1957
Aug. 29,1957
Mar. 27,1967
Feb. 26,1957

X____ X____

May 26,1954

X____
X____
X____
X____
X____
X.........
X.........
X____
X____
X...... ..
X____
X...... .
X...... . X____

Dec. 26,1951
Sep. 21,1951
Mar. 28,1952
Mar. 11,1950
Oct. 31,1951
May 31,1949
Apr. 10,1949
May 28,1948
May ^6,1947
Mar. 1,1946
<<>

* I n c lu d e s m a n n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s , w o r k r u l e s , a n d te c h n o lo g ic a l i n n o v a t io n is s u e s .
2 D i d n o t r e s p o n d to r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .
3 N o f o r m a l e m e r g e n c y b o a r d r e p o r t , s e t tle d d ir e c t ly b y t h e p a r t ie s .
4 " S e c t i o n 6 ” f ilin g d a t e n o t a v a i la b l e .
3 D is p u t e in w h ic h 2 m e d i a t io n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g t h e s a m e p a r t ie s w e r e c o n s id e r e d jo i n t l y .
6 N o s p e c ific r e c o m m e n d a ti o n s o n e c o n o m ic is s u e s .
7 N o s e ttle m e n t; b a rg a in in g a g e n t c h a n g e d .
8 B o a r d r e c o m m e n d e d r e s u m i n g n e u t r a l fa c t f i n d i n g , w i t h n o r e c o m m e n d a tio n s o n s p e c ific is s u e s , e x c e p t t h a t s e t t l e m e n t s h o u ld n o t c o n fli c t w i t h F e in s i n g e r C o m m is s i o n ’ s
r e c o m m e n d a ti o n s .
8 P a r ti a l a c c e p ta n c e ( r e j e c t i o n ) .

carrier and one union, usually a major airline
union and a domestic carrier. With the exception
of one emergency dispute, none involved more than
one union ; and only five were concerned with more
than one carrier—four of which involved the
International Association of Machinists and Aero­
space Workers.
Another prominent structural characteristic of
emergency board participation was its concen­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

tration by economic size. All the airlines involved
in these disputes were either domestic (trunk and
local) or international carriers. Of the 21 major
domestic and international airlines, American,
Eastern, United, and TWA constituted slightly
under one-half of carrier participation in such
disputes. When Pan American and Northwest
are added, these six airlines accounted for approx­
imately three-fourths of the carriers involved in

AIRLINE EMERGENCY BOARDS

61

Workstoppages
Duration
under act
(calendar
days)

Number of
workers
involved
(thousands)

Mar.-days
idle
(thousands)

Emergency board recommendations

Before
emergency
board
created

After
emergency
board
created

182
179
277

\

Response of parties

Occurred

Rejected by
Union

-

1

|

1,922

Accepted
by both
parties

Carrier

X ....................
X ...................

Settlement deviated from
recommendations on:-

166
1

231
163
225
582
842
586
502
186
444
499
266
258
469
335

17

(?)

( 3)
( 3)

(3
) '
( )
<0

912

X _____ ______

4
20

210
100

21
14
14

118
■2371
141

X ................ ..
X ....................

7

185

X ...................

14

>2371

X
X
X
X ......................

X

( 9)
( 9)
( 9)

(8
)
( )
(»)

(1°)
<9)

(1°)
<9)

X ..........
X
X
X . . ............

9

.
X
X

00
X

(3)
1

( 13)

X
X
X

4

8

X

<3)

X ................... .

( 3)
( 9)

X ____________

X ......................
X ......................
X.

<3)

X

X . . . .................
X .....................

121
120

<3)

108

(3)

X.
x

( 13)

1
2
13

30 X ..................
83 X_______
3 X ................
244

0)

X ......................
X ____
X ____ _______

( 1°)
( 15)

(3)
X

156
152
149
146
144
143
142
140
136
135
128
125
124
123
122

X . . . ...............

204

158

1

X
X ................

(3)
(3)
(7)

3

26 X
X ..................
«X

X .....................
X . . . _ ...............

<*>

X

511
359

00

( 3)

X

434

402
372
184
802
139
754
538
316
439
189
252

168
167

j x ____________ j x ____________

436

<

Job security
issues i

X
X

(0

t

1

Economic
issues

Emer­
gency
board
number

( 10)
( 15)

X.

( 10)

(3)
X .....................

X
X .............. .

103
102
101
100
99
94
90
67
62
38
36

i ° N o r e c o m m e n d a ti o n s o n s p e c ific is s u e s .
»1 E m e r g e n c y b o a r d r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h e p a r t ie s b a r g a in in g o o d f a i t h , b u t a s t r i k e o c c u rre d s h o r t l y th e r e a f t e r
I 2 N u m b e r o f w o r k e r s in v o l v e d a n d m a n - d a y s lo s t i n c lu d e 1 A M a n d F E I A s t r i k e s a t E a s t e r n . B L S c o u n te d i t a s o n e s t r i k e
Le s s th a n 500.
14 N o fig u r e g iv e n b e c a u s e m a j o r is s u e w a s a g r i e v a n c e ; in c lu s io n w o u l d b ia s r e s u lt s b e c a u s e r e g u l a r p r o c e d u r e s , i n c l u d in g a " S e c t i o n 6 " n o tic e , w e r e n o t r e q u i r e d ,
is I n f o r m a t i o n n o t a v a ila b le .
1® I n c lu d e s 1 2 o t h e r c a r r i e r s ; T W A w a s t h e m a j o r c a s e .
S O U R C E S : N a t io n a l M e d i a t io n B o a r d , B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t i c s , C iv il A e r o n a u t ic s B o a r d , a n d p r e s i d e n t i a l e m e r g e n c y b o a r d r e p o r t s .

the disputes. Only 5 of the 14 unions that represent
a significant number of airline employees were
involved in the emergency board procedures: the
Machinists on 11 occasions; Air Line Pilots Associ­
ation, Flight Engineers International Association,
and Transport Workers Union of America, 7 times
each; and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steam­
ship Clerks, Freight Handler, Express and Station
Employees, twice.
The ability of flight personnel to close down a
carrier’s operations (because of the essential nature


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

of the occupation and the economic regulations of
the Civil Aeronautics Board) is reflected in the
number of emergency cases in which they partici­
pated. Eighteen of the 33 emergency boards
involved flight crafts only, a disproportionate
participation, considering their relative numerical
importance in the industry. Another 10 dealt
exclusively with ground crafts, and five included
both of these groups. Three occupational groups
participated in the majority of the boards: the
pilots, the flight engineers, and the mechanics.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

62

Since 1955, these three groups increasingly came
before emergency boards, as shown below:
M ajor g ro u p involved in em ergency board

Flight personnel:
P ilo ts.._______ ______________________
Flight engineers______________________
Other flight personnel___ _____ ________
Ground personnel:
Mechanics__________ _________________
Other ground personnel_____ _________

1936-69 i

1955-69 i

7
10
2

12
3

4
6
2

9
1

1936-54

3
4
0

3
2

1 Fiscal year, based on date emergency board was created.
Source: National Mediation Board.

Except for four emergency boards, the involve­
ment of other ground crafts—stock and stores and
clerical and related—in this procedure was inci­
dental to their representation by the Transport
Workers and the Machinists and to the unions’
practice of negotiating concurrently for the various
classes represented by them. Similarly, in only two
cases were flight personnel other than pilots or
flight engineers directly involved in national
emergency disputes; and both crafts (flight navi­
gators in Emergency Board 140 and flight service
employees in Emergency Board 125) were orga­
nized by the Transport Workers. In four other
instances of participation, these flight service
personnel were involved because of their organiza­
tion by the two unions and their common negotia­
tions for the various crafts represented.
Issues

A distinct pattern of major issues has precipi­
tated emergency disputes. Major issues were
fairly evenly divided between wages (16 cases)
and rules (13). Both issues came before emergency
boards twice. Of the two remaining disputes, one
involved the revision of the entire agreement, and
one dealt with the negotiation of an initial agree­
ment and miscellaneous issues. In the late 1940’s
to early 1950’s, which were characterized by a
rapidly rising cost of living and continuous air­
craft technological change, wages predominated in
emergency board disputes. With the advent of the
jet plane, during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s,
rules became the prime issue between the parties,
especially for flight personnel. By the mid-1960’s,
the emphasis reverted to economic issues, which
generated several conflicts involving ground em­
ployees. Flight deck personnel (pilots and flight
engineers) tended to participate in emergency
boards dealing primarily with demands for rule
changes. As the following tabulation shows,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ground employees were involved in a majority of
boards facing demands for changes in pay.
N ew agreement:
Flight........ .
Ground____
Wages:
Flight_____
Ground____
Rules:
Flight.......... .
Ground____
Miscellaneous:1
Flight_____
Ground____

1936-69

1955-69

1936-51,

0
1

0
0

0
1

0

6

6
13

10

3

12

11

3

2

1
1

1

0
1

1
1

2

* Apparent discrepancies are explanied by multiple issues and crafts in­
volved in Emergency Boards 36, 38, 62, 67, 99, 108, and 122.
Source: National Mediation Board.

Another important characteristic of the dis­
putes was the disparity in duration,2 from the
Section 6 notice to 30 days after the emergency
board report, by major issue. Cases involving rule
issues were on the average longer in duration than
those dealing with rates of pay, 471 days compar­
ed to 269 days.
For all emergency boards, from the date of the
“Section 6” notice to 30 days after the issuance
of the emergency board report,3 the average dura­
tion was 381 days, with an array ranging from 109
days in Emergency Board 99, which dealt with
adjusting wages, to 812 days in Emergency Board
144, which involved rule changes. This long dura­
tion was primarily the result of three factors:
First, under the provisions of the act, no time
limitations were placed on mediation. Defined as
the time span between the initiation of the medi­
ation sessions by the Board and the offer of
arbitration, the average duration of mediation
activities was 74 days, the longest period covering
338 calendar days.4 Second, although Section 10
of the act established a time limit for the emer­
gency board procedure (30 days from the date of
the Board’s creation to the date of its report),
with the consent of both parties, the Board can
notify the President that an extension is necessary
which he, in turn, is authorized to grant.
As measured by the time span between the
establishment of the emergency board and its re­
port, the average duration of an airline emergency
board hearing was 75 days, the longest 200 days.5
Of the 12 prolonged emergency board hearings
(those requiring more than 60 days), the majority
were concerned with flight personnel groups asking
for rule changes. Third, too often the parties

AIRLINE EMERGENCY BOARDS

contributed to the duration by bringing issues
before the Board on which they had spent little
time bargaining, as demonstrated by this state­
ment of the National Mediation Board:
In the handling of mediation cases the following situa­
tions constantly occur: One is the lack of sufficient and
proper negotiations between the parties prior to invok­
ing mediation . . . in other instances prior to invoking
the services of the Board, the parties have only met in
brief session without a real effort to resolve the dispute
or consideration of alternative approaches to the issues
in dispute . . . Frequent recesses of this nature (due to
the two above problems) do not permit a prompt dis­
position of the dispute as anticipated by the a c t . . . In
other instances mediation proceeds for only a short
time before it becomes apparent that the designated
representative of one or both sides lacks the authority
to negotiate the dispute to a conclusion . . . Another
facet of this problem is the requirement that an agree­
ment which has been negotiated by the designated
representatives must be ratified by the membership of
the organization. Failure of the employees, in some
instances, to ratify the actions of their designated
representatives casts a doubt on the authority of these
leaders and a question as to the extent to which they
can negotiate settlements of disputes. . . .6

Refusals to arbitrate

As noted earlier, the Board has the option under
the law to suggest that the parties submit the dis­
pute to arbitration. Mediation cases culminating
in emergency boards were closed when carriers
rejected arbitration in five cases (15 percent of the
total), unions on 22 occasions (67 percent), and
both parties in six instances (18 percent). In no
case did both parties agree to submit the dispute
to arbitration.
As early as 1941, a formal censure of the parties’
tendency to decline arbitration, the next to last
step left to the parties to agree on a method of
settlement, was recorded by the Board and was
reiterated almost every year since then in the
Board’s Annual Report: “The Board has always
felt that arbitration should be used by the parties
more frequently in disposing of disputes which
have not been settled in mediation . . .” 7 Up until
the 1950’s, the carriers were inclined to reject the
offer of arbitration; but since then, the unions
have usually refused the offer.
Emergency board recommendations

The Railway Labor Act does not compel the
parties to reach an accord; rather the act places
maximum reliance on self-determination by labor

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

63

and management. While the right to strike is an
integral part of this public policy, the parties are
required to adhere to a step-by-step process during
which the nature of the dispute and the merits of
the opposing claims would be made public. The
assumption in the law was that this type of dis­
closure would generate public pressures that con­
tribute to a “just” and “equitable settlement.”
Of the 23 substantive and 3 less detailed emer­
gency board recommendations that were pro­
duced, the vast majority were rejected by one or
both parties.8 In fact, labor and management
accepted the boards’ specific recommendations
only twice: the reduction to a three-man crew
in the Air Line Pilots Association-Eastern dispute
in 1958 (Emergency Board 121) and the pay
increase and retroactive decisions in the Flight
Engineers International Association-United con­
troversy in 1953 (Emergency Board 103).9 Na­
tional Mediation Board, Civil Aeronautics Board,
and other government records indicate that on
16 occasions airline unions rejected the boards’
recommendations; and, in two instances, airline
carriers acted similarly. Unions’ responses were
partially negative on five other occasions, and
managements’ on four occasions.10 Flight groups
accounted for 13 rejections (including four partial
rejections), and ground personnel, for eight re­
jections (including one partial rejection).
Thus, the pressure of public opinion was not
adequate to force the parties to accept a board’s
recommendations, nor was voluntary compliance
common. As early as 1951, the Board recognized
the increasing predisposition of the unions to
reject emergency board recommendations, an
action contrary to the anticipated operation of
the act. To explain this tendency, the Board
argued that the complicated and technical issues
precipitating these disputes were given little
publicity and beyond that they were somewhat
incomprehensible to the public.11
In no case did the parties completely repudiate
the emergency boards’ recommendations or reach
a settlement entirely outside of those suggestions.
At various times, the boards’ recommendations
served as a basis for eventual agreements without
interruption of service. For example, in Emer­
gency Board 123, the parties (fe ia and twa )
implemented the recommendation of a reduction
to a three-man jet crew, with flight engineers
having prior rights to the 3d seat and eligibility
for training at company time and expense.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

64

At other times, the parties materially changed
the recommendations in their final agreements,
such as, in the settlement between the Machinists’
flight engineers and Northwest (Emergency Board
102) in which the parties substituted a monthly
base pay with additional compensation based on
hours, miles, and gross weight for the board
recommendation of an increase in the existing
flat monthly salary based on longevity.
Even when the boards were unsuccessful in
reconciling the parties’ differences, they did narrow
the scope of the dispute so that the parties were
able to effect a settlement in less time and with
less interruption of airline services. For instance,
in Emergency Board 90 some rule proposals were
withdrawn or agreed upon during the hearings.
Except for Emergency Board 124, in which
recommendations on specific issues were not
issued, all post-emergency board strikes were
disputes in which one party rejected the recom­
mendations entirely. No post-emergency board
strikes occurred in situations in which partial
rejections were registered.
Methods of settlement

Over the 34-year period, few emergency board
reports have served as a basis for quick settlement12
of airline disputes. Even after the emergency
boards’ appointments and the issuance of their
reports, the National Mediation Board generally
reentered the case, offering its mediatory assistance
and the use of arbitration, as evidenced by the
number of mediation and arbitration agreements
consummated by the parties. The principal
method of settlement was ascertainable for 31
emergency cases. Of these, 10 accords were reached
by mediation, 6 by arbitration, and 14 by the
parties directly.13 Flight groups accounted for
five of the arbitration agreements, four of which
concerned rules and the fifth, rules and wages. Of
the 15 party agreements, 8 were signed by flight
personnel, 5 by ground classes, and 2 by both.
All 5 party agreements dealing with rules were
consummated by flight personnel. Ground em­
ployee groups were involved in seven wage settle­
ments, including one signed by both flight and
ground crafts. One-half of the mediation agree­
ments, the majority dealing with wages, were
secured by flight personnel.
During the 1936-69 period, as the following
tabulation indicates, labor and management were

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

more inclined to dispose of emergency board
disputes by negotiated agreements than the other
two methods of settlement. During the 1955-69
period, the parties increased their reliance on
arbitration agreements rather than on direct
n e g o tia tio n s .
1956-69

1956-69

1 936-Si

Number, total-----------__________

30

21

9

Arbitration agreements____ __________
Mediation agreements________________
Party agreements_________ ............... .

6
10
14

5
7
9

1
3
5

Percent, total________ __________

100.0

100.0

100.0

Arbitration agreements........ ________ _
Mediation agreements_____ _________
Party agreements--------------- _________

20.0
33.3
46.7

23.8
33.3
42.9

11.1
33.3
55.6

Disposition

Of the 33 emergency boards, six were disposed of
by the parties, with or without the aid of the
Board, either before board members were ap­
pointed or before a formal report was issued. All
six were settled without a strike, three with the
mediatory assistance of the Board. Except for
one (Emergency Board 100), these boards in­
volved ground employee groups, organized by
the Machinists and Transport Workers, with
rates of pay as the principal subject in dispute.
The remaining 27 emergency board disputes,
17 of which involved flight employees, were
settled after a formal emergency board report.
Of these 27 boards, approximately one-half were
concerned with wages and one-half w ith rules.
Following the boards’ reports, eight of the above
27 post-emergency settlements were preceded by
a work stoppage. Seven of these were primarily
concerned with the actual or anticipated effects
of technological changes on wages and work rules.
Ten strikes were called by airline employees
participating in these eight emergency boards
(two in Emergency Board 62 and three in Emer­
gency Board 122, one of which also involved the
parties in Emergency Board 120). Moreover, six
work stoppages occurred prior to the creation of
an emergency board,14 a legal course of action
once a 30-day status quo period has been observed.
In total, then, 14 disruptions of airline services
were evident in 12 emergency boards. Only one
was an illegal work stoppage called in defiance
of the Railway Labor Act emergency procedures.
Even though Emergency Board 135 was created
to hear the job security dispute between the

AIRLINE EMERGENCY BOARDS

65

Flight Engineers ( f e i a ) and Pan American, those
employees refused flight assignments for 7 days,
an action which resulted in 100,000 man-days of
idleness for 20,000 workers.
Combined, the 14 work stoppages entailed
4,326,911 man-days lost by 187,953 airline em­
ployees. This represented 72.1 percent of all
airline man-days idle during 1936-69 and 46.8
percent of all airline workers involved in strikes
during the same period. As the following tabulation
indicates, ground crafts accounted for a substantial
share of these losses, largely because of six machin­
ists’ strikes, such as, a 43-day stoppage in 1966
which involved 70,858 workers and 1,922,031
man-days idle and one extending for 37 days in
1958 at Capital, which involved 6,838 workers
and 184,626 man-days lost.
W o r k er s in v o lv e d
N u m ber

P ercen t

M a n - d a y s id le
N um ber

P ercen t

Total, all airline work stoppages_____ ______ _____

401,862

Total, emergency disputes___

187,953

100.0

4,326,911

100.0

Flight___________________________
Ground.............. ............ .......................
B oth___________ ______ __________

75,493
94,353
18,107

40.2
50.2
9.6

1, 615,202
2,333,447
378,262

37.3
53.9
8.7

5,988,345

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Further study

This article is a section of a larger study of the
airline industry and its experience under the pro­
visions of the Railway Labor Act. The study in­
cludes the economic nature of the industry; the
history and characteristics of airline collective
bargaining; the objectives of the Railway Labor
Act and the functions of the National Mediation
Board ; and statistical analyses of mediation cases,
work stoppages, and emergency boards in the
airline industry during the 1936-69 period. Pri­
mary sources of information for this report are
published and unpublished records of the National
Mediation Board and unpublished Bureau of
Labor Statistics work stoppage reports. The results
of this study will be published as a b l s bulletin
in 1970 or 1971.
□

3,86- 02/7 0 — 70-------5


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

FOOTNOTES

1 Some of the 63 mediation cases were combined into pne
emergency board case; others were considered separately.
2 Average duration refers to the mean duration of the
emergency boards, defined as the time span between the
issuance of the “Section 6” notice and 30 days after the
emergency board report.
3 The act permits no unilateral change in the terms and
conditions of employment for a 30-day period following
the emergency board report.
4 This is a somewhat arbitrary definition since hearings
are often intermittently held, sometimes informal in
nature (for example, over the telephone) and often extend
beyond the formal period as defined by the act.
5 Four Emergency Boards— 158, 152, 149, and 100—
were not included because no emergency board reports
were issued.
6 T h ir ty - F o u r th A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e N a t i o n a l M e d i a ti o n
B o a r d (for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1968), pp. 23-24.
7 Ibid., p. 6.
8 Substantive recommendations were issued in Emer­
gency Boards 36, 38, 90, 94, 99, 101-03, 120-23, 125, 128,
136, 140, 142, 144, 146, 156, 166-68; less detailed recom­
mendations, in Emergency Boards 62, 135, and 143. No
formal emergency board reports or recommendations were
promulgated by Emergency Boards 67, 100, 108, 124,
149, 152, and 158.
9 Although the parties, initial response was favorable,
the parties deviated from the recommendations in sub­
sequent negotiations.
10 Lack of available information made it impossible to
include the response of the parties involved in Emergency
Board 38.
11 S e v e n te e n th A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e N a t i o n a l M e d i a ti o n
B o a r d (for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1951), p. 33.
12 It is assumed that a negotiated agreement was the
principal method of settlement when there was no indica­
tion that either a mediation agreement or an arbitration
agreement was consummated. In boards involving more
than one carrier or union, the method of disposition was
determined by the author’s knowledge of the prevalent
means of settlement used by the parties.
13 The principal method of settlement in Emergency
Board 122 in which one party agreement and one mediation
agreement was consummated was not included. In the
immediate discussion dealing with the number of each type
of settlement, the two agreements were included.
14 Two of these strikes (Emergency Board 62) extended
both prior to and after the creation of the board.

USING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
WAGE REPORTS AS A DATA SOURCE
MICHAEL E. BORUS
are probably the most important out­
put measure of the effects of manpower programs.
Moreover, they are a key independent variable in
most studies of economic, social, and political be­
havior. Yet personal interviews—the technique
most often used for gathering this essential data
input—is a costly, usually difficult process and
involves systematic response errors.1 Conse­
quently, knowledge of other sources of earnings
data could be extremely useful. The purpose of this
communication is to describe one source of earn­
ings information which has not been used ex­
tensively but which is inexpensive, easy to use,
and accurate for certain purposes: the wage reports
collected by the State employment security
agencies under provisions of their unemployment
insurance laws.
Thirty-seven States presently collect this infor­
mation.2 In these States, all employers covered by
the unemployment insurance laws must report the
quarterly earnings of each of their employees. In
all of the States, employers with four employees
or more are required to report, and in 21 States
employers of one employee or more. Some workers
are excluded, however. These are the self-em­
ployed, employees of nonprofit organizations or of
immediate relatives, domestics, farm and railroad
workers, and most government employees. Federal
civilian employees and exservicemen are covered
under a separate program financed through Fed­
eral funds but administered by the States. Rail-

E arnings

Michael E. Borus is associate professor of labor and
industrial relations at Michigan State University. This
note arises from research supported by Grant No. 91-24-6630 from the Office of Manpower Research, Manpower
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
66

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

road workers are covered by a separate program
administered by the U.S. Railroad Retirement
Board.
On November 13, 1969, the Employment Se­
curity Amendments bill (H.R. 14705) to widen
State unemployment insurance coverage by ap­
proximately 4.4 million was passed by the House
of Representatives. Coverage would include
workers in firms employing one worker or more,
miscellaneous service occupations, and employees
of nonprofit organizations, State hospitals and
universities, and agricultural p ro c e sso rs. An
amended version of the bill was passed by the
Senate on April 7, 1970. The Senate version did
not cover small employers but added coverage
for large employers of farm workers, extending
coverage to approximately 4.5 million workers.
A conference committee is considering the
differences.
Advantages of wage reports

When compared with personal interviews, wage
report earnings data have three distinct advan­
tages. First, the data are reliable: They are sup­
plied directly from payroll records by employers,
as a legal obligation. Consequently, there are no
problems of faulty recall, interviewer biases, or
other factors leading to response errors. Second,
the data are quickly and readily available. Earn­
ings are usually posted within 3 months of the
end of each quarter. Moreover, since they are used
daily for verifying unemployment insurance
claims, the reports are filed by social security
numbers on punch cards or magnetic tape for
easy access. This contrasts sharply with the diffi­
cult and time-consuming process of locating indi­
viduals for personal interviews. Finally, because
the reports are employer-provided and filed for
quick recovery, the costs of finding the wage
reports of any individual are extremely low, usu­
ally 10 cents an individual or less—considerably
lower than the cost for personal interviews.

COMMUNICATIONS

Wage report data also are preferable, in some
respects, to Social Security A d m in is tra tio n
records, the other source of government collected
earnings information. Unlike reports to the Social
Security Administration, the employer’s wage
reports must include all wages paid to each
employee. There is no limit to the amount which
is required (now $7,800 for social security).
Thus, for some types of individuals, wage report
data will be more complete.
In addition, the unemployment insurance wage
reporting data will usually be available at least 6
months earlier than the Social Security data. While
the wage reports are usually available within 3
months of the end of each quarter, the Social
Security Administration’s nonfarm wage earnings
data are not nearly complete until about 10 months
after the end of the year in which they are paid.3
Finally, the wage reports may provide other
useful information. In addition to the earnings
information, the States also collect the employer’s
name and Standard Industrial Classification code.
These data can be used to determine industrial
and job mobility of the workers. The wage reports
may also be useful for longitudinal studies of
earnings. 4
Limitations on the uses of wage reports

The major limitation of the wage reports is their
restricted coverage. The 13 States which do not
collect these data include many of the major in­
dustrial centers. And, even in the States collecting
the information, important groups of workers are
excluded from coverage. Nationally, about 50.5
million workers, or 61.7 percent of the work force
in the 50 States, were covered by the State un­
employment insurance program in 1967. The in­
crease in coverage proposed in H.R. 14705 would
mean that approximately 68 percent of the work
force would be covered by State programs. Within
the wage reporting States with coverage of four
employees or more, coverage ranged from 32.9
to 65.7 percent and from 45.0 to 73.3 percent in the
States which covered employers of less than four
employees.5 For the particular segments of the
population who are participants in social and
manpower programs, however, the percentages of


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

67

covered employment may be higher since most
programs provide for nonagricultural employment.
Approximately 75 percent of nonagricultural
establishment employees were covered in 1967.6
Another problem is that the data are collected
only for employers in a particular State. Individuals
who leave a State will have no reported wages in
that State and will be indistinguishable from per­
sons who are unemployed or not in the labor force
for the given period. This will be a particularly
important factor for those programs which affect
the geographic mobility of their participants or
for longitudinal investigations. A search of the
files of other wage-reporting States would amelior­
ate this problem but would be more costly.
Finally, the States usually include no more than
eight quarters of earnings data in their files. Thus,
for longitudinal studies the files will have to be
searched repeatedly.
In all three of these respects the Social Security
Administration information is preferable. These
data cover about 90 percent of persons in paid
employment, coverage is national, and records
are not discarded.
On balance, wage report data have definite
limitations which restrict their use for certain
purposes. They can, however, be an extremely
valuable source of data. In those situations where
programs need early evaluation, wage reports are
the only available source of information on earn­
ings.7 They also will be helpful for research pur­
poses, such as data checks, methodological studies,
or the design of stratified samples, where ready
accessibility and low cost are more important than
completeness of response.8
For long-term studies, Social Security Ad­
ministration records appear preferable as the basic
data source. Even in these cases, however, wage
report data will be useful. They can be used to
supplement the coverage of the Social Security
records, particularly for those individuals whose
earnings exceed the social security reporting limit.
Thus, unemployment insurance wage reports offer
an inexpensive and easily accessible source of data
which may serve several important functions in
research and evaluations dealing with manpower
and social programs.9
□

68

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

■FOOTNOTES

1 See Michael E. Borus, “Response Error in Survey
Reports of Earnings Information,” J o u r n a l o f th e A m e r ic a n
S t a t i s t i c a l A s s o c ia tio n , September 1966.
2 The data are also collected in the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico. The States which do not collect the
information are Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, Min­
nesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode
Island, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. C o m ­
p a r i s o n o f S ta te U n e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r a n c e L a w s , Revised
August 31, 1966, January 1, 1967, August 31, 1967,
January 1, 1968, and August 31, 1968 (U.S. Department
of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Service) p. BT -1.
3 Moreover, less than 90 percent of self-employment
earnings are posted until 16 months after the end of the
calendar year. See S o m e S t a t i s t i c a l R e s e a r c h R e s o u r c e s
A v a ila b le a t th e S o c ia l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (Office of
Research and Statistics, undated), p. 3.
4 This was proposed to the State employment security
agencies in G u id e f o r a C o n tin u o u s W a g e a n d B e n e fit
H i s t o r y P r o g r a m (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Employment Security, 1966), BES U-251. The Continu­
ous Wage and Benefit History Program may also offer a
comparison group for evaluating the changes in the
earnings of program participants.
5 These percentages were calculated from annual avage insured employment and unemployment provided by
the U.S. Unemployment Insurance Service and from work
force data presented in A r e a T r e n d s i n E m p lo y m e n t a n d
U n e m p lo y m e n t, (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of

Employment Security, July 1968), p. 43.
6 Coverage of program participants will not necessarily
be higher, however, especially prior to the program. A
survey of low income areas in Fort Wayne, Ind., included
194 persons who reported at least one job. Only 67.6
percent of the 367 jobs they reported in 1967 were included
in the wage reports. Some of the remaining jobs might
have been inaccurately recorded in the interview, but the
present figure is almost the same as the 65.7 percent of
jobs covered by the law in Indiana.
7 For example, see Michael E. Borus, John P. Brennan,
and Sidney Rosen, “A Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Neigh­
borhood Youth Corps: The Out-of-School Program in
Indiana,” J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R e s o u r c e s , Spring 1970;
Michael E. Borus, T h e E c o n o m ic E f f e c tiv e n e s s o f R e tr a i n ­
in g th e U n e m p lo y e d (Boston, Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston, 1966).
8 For example, see Michael E. Borus, “Response Error
and Questioning Technique in Surveys of Earnings Infor­
mation,” J o u r n a l o f th e A m e r ic a n S t a t i s t i c a l A s s o c ia tio n ,
June 1970.
9 For specific limitations of the data in a particular State
and to arrange permission for use of wage reports, the
researcher should contact the Director of Research and
Statistics of the State employment security agency with
which he is interested in working. The addresses of these
agencies can be found in any issue of A r e a T r e n d s i n
E m p lo y m e n t a n d

U n e m p lo y m e n t.

Arbitration

. . . Arbitration is not an ultimate weapon.
It never has been, and it never can be, absent
compulsion beyond that which we are yet ready
to accept. Even in those foreign countries and
states where arbitration is “compulsory” for
certain kinds of disputes, the results concerning
strike-prevention have been far from absolute.
The very final-sounding connotation of the
word arbitration has conjured promises that
cannot be fulfilled and, in large measure because
of this semantic pitfall, the creative develop­
ment of arbitration has been hindered from
developing its full potential as one of several
impasse-resolving techniques. . . . If we can


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

get over the notion that arbitration is “the
ultimate weapon,” and instead regard it as a
very flexible tool to be part of the collective
bargaining process, then perhaps we can begin
to maximize its potential. Used creatively,
it can be a valuable device to forestall the real
ultimate weapon against strikes: governmental
decrees backed up by totalitarian measures—
in other words, the end of free collective
bargaining.
— J

o s e p h

S . M

u r p h y

“The Potential and Limitations of Arbitration as an
Impasse-resolving Technique,” in C o lle c tiv e B a r g a i n i n g
T o d a y (Washington, Bureau of National Affairs, 1970).

WAGES IN MEAT
PRODUCTS PU N TS
JOSEPH

C.

BUSH

S t r a ig h t -t im e e a r n in g s
of production and re­
lated workers in meatpacking plants averaged
$3.30 an hour in January 1969, compared with
$3.08 for those in prepared meat products plants,
according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey.1
As in an earlier survey taken in November
1963,2plants with collective bargaining agreements
employed slightly more than four-fifths of the
workers in the two industries. Three-fourths or
more of the workers in each industry were men
and were paid time rates. Multiplant companies 3
employed three-fifths of the 128,645 production
workers in the meatpacking plants and slightly
more than one-third of the 44,003 workers in
prepared meat products plants. The average em­
ployment size of meatpacking plants (168 workers)
was more than twice the average for prepared
meat products plants (68 workers). The Great
Lakes and Middle West regions accounted for
nearly 60 percent of the workers in meatpacking
plants, whereas plants in the Middle Atlantic,
Great Lakes, and Pacific regions employed about
70 percent of the workers in the prepared meat
products industry. (See table 1.)

Meatpacking

The level of production worker earnings in
meatpacking plants in January 1969 ($3.30 an
hour) was 23 percent above the average recorded
in November 1963 ($2.69), the date of a similar
Bureau survey. During the 1963-69 period, the
annual rate of increase in average earnings was
4.1 percent. It ranged from approximately 6 perJoseph C. Bush is an economist in the Division of Occu­
pational Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

cent in three southern regions, including Border
States, Southeast, and Southwest, to about 3.5
percent in the Middle Atlantic, Mountain, and
Pacific regions.
Workers in the Great Lakes and Middle West
regions averaged $3.49 and $3.76 an hour, re­
spectively, in January 1969. Averages in the other
regions ranged from $2.24 in the Southeast to
$3.80 in the Pacific region. Within regions, earn­
ings varied by type of company (multiplant and
single-plant companies), community size, estab­
lishment employment size, collective bargaining
agreement status, and occupation.
Average hourly earnings for the occupations
selected for separate study ranged from $4.79
an hour for boners of beef, loins, ribs, or rounds
to $2.57 for smokers (combination of sausages
and other products). Also averaging more than
$4.50 an hour were beef chuck boners ($4.72) and
ham chisel boners ($4.71). Maintenance elec­
tricians, machinists, millwrights, hand welders,
and stationary engineers had averages ranging
from $4.02 to $4.37 an hour. Numerically impor­
tant jobs near the lower end of the wage structure
included casing-peeler operators ($2.72 an hour),
janitors ($2.91), and shipping packers ($2.99).
Nearly all production workers were in plants
providing paid holidays, usually 8 days a year,
and paid vacations. Typically, workers received
1 week of vacation pay after 1 year of service, 2
weeks after 3 years, 3 weeks after 10 years, at
least 4 weeks after 15 years, and 5 weeks or more
after 20 years. Establishments paid at least part
of the cost of life, hospitalization, surgical, medical,
and catastrophe (major medical) insurance, as well
as retirement pension benefits, to most workers in
the industry.
Prepared meat products

The average hourly earnings of $3.08 for pro­
duction workers in prepared meat products plants
in January 1969 was 23 percent above the Novem69

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

70

ber 1963 average of $2.50. The annual rate of
increase in average earnings was 4.2 percent. It
varied by region: 3.5 percent in the Pacific, 3.9
percent in the Middle Atlantic, and approximately
5 percent in New England, Southeast, and Great
Lakes. In January 1969 regional averages for
production workers ranged from $2.25 an hour
in the Southeast to $3.60 in the Pacific. As in the
meatpacking industry, earnings varied by type of
company, community and establishment size,
collective bargaining agreement status, and
occupation.
Averages for the occupations studied separately
ranged from $4.30 for stationary engineers to
Table 1. Average straight-time hourly earnings1 of pro­
duction and related workers in meat products industries,
United States and regions, January 1969

Prepared meat products

Meatpacking
Region

United States_____
New England_____ ___
Middle Atlantic_______
Southeast___________
Great Lakes_________
Middle West .....
Mountain. ___ ___ _
Pacific______ ______

Number
of
workers
128,645
6, 792
8,080
16,398
11,060
24, 968
48,416
5, 461
7,184

Average
hourly
earnings
$3.30
3.20
2.73
2. 24
2. 59
3.49
3. 76
3. 27
3.80

Number
of
workers

Average
hourly
earnings

44, 003
3, 329
11,036
2,393
13,126

$3.08
3.03
3.06
2. 25
3.25

6,306

3.60

i Excludes premiumpay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late
shifts.
NOTE: Dashes indicate data which do not meet publication criteria.

$2.77 for janitors. Pork trimmers, casing-peeler
operators, labeling-machine operators, shipping
packers, night cleaners, and forklift operators,
averaging from $2.86 to $2.99 an hour, were the
only jobs other than janitors with averages below
$3.
Proportions of production workers in prepared
meat products plants receiving paid holidays,
paid vacations, and various types of health, in­
surance, and retirement pension benefits were
about the same as in meatpacking plants. The
5-week paid vacation for long-service employees
was more prevalent, however, in meatpacking
plants than in prepared meat products plants. □
--------- F O O T N O

T E S ---------

1 The survey covered: Meatpacking establishments
with 20 workers or more primarily engaged in slaughtering
cattle, hogs, sheep, and other animals other than poultry
and small game for meat to be sold or used on the premises
in canning and curing, and in making sausage, lard, or
other products; and prepared meat products, establish­
ments with 10 workers or more primarily engaged in manu­
facturing sausages and other prepared meats from pur­
chased carcasses and other materials. A more compre­
hensive account of the survey will appear in a BLS bulletin
scheduled for Fall 1970 publication.
2 See L. Earl Lewis, “Wages in Meat Products Plants,
November 1963,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , July 1964, pp.
801-807.
3 Includes those operating 2 establishments or more in
the meatpacking or prepared meat products industries.

Effect of high wages in meatpacking plants

It is clear that earnings in the meat industry,
as a whole, are close to those received in other
manufacturing industries. The meat industry,
moreover, pays substantially higher wages than
other nondurable goods manufacturing. . . .
The high wages in the meatpacking plants are
undoubtedly the twin function of the disagree­
ableness of the work and the consequent need
to pay considerably more for work in order to
attract labor, and the power and pressures of
strong trade unionism. Over the years, this
has meant high wages for work not highly rated


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

as to skill. But this, in turn, has probably placed
additional pressures on the industry’s low profit
margins and has accelerated automation, the
substitution of equipment for labor, and the
dispersal of the older center city facilities to
smaller, more efficient plants near the sources of
supply.
— W

a l t e r

A.

F

o g e l

,

T h e N e g r o i n th e M e a t I n d u s t r y

(Philadelphia, Wharton School of Finance and
Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, 1970).

Significant
Decisions
in
Labor Cases

Assessing contract terms

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled,
in H. K. Porter, x that the National Labor Relations
Board has no authority to compel agreement on
substantive matters in contract negotiations.
The issue of dictated agreement subsequently
emerged before a Federal court of appeals (in
Tiidee Products, Inc.2) in a different context;
and this time received a different treatment.
The question this time was whether the n l r b
can compel an employer who unlawfully refuses
to bargain to pay the resultant damages to his
employees and their union based on an assessment
of contract terms that would have been agreed
upon had he bargained. The court said that the
Board can do so without the fear of violating the
H. K. Porter principle of noninterference in
substantive bargaining.
The problem reached the court when the Board
asked for the enforcement of a cease-and-desist
order it had issued to an employer who had
flagrantly—“brazenly”—violated the law in
connection with the union’s efforts to organize
its employees, and who refused to bargain after
the union had won the representation election.
In a concurrent action, the union challenged the
traditional remedy of the Board as inadequate,
claiming that a mere cease-and-desist order “for
a case of such intransigence bountifully and
improperly rewards the company for its trans­
gression, and cannot be maintained as a faithful
performance of the Board’s task [of effectuating
the National Labor Relations Act].” (Court’s
language.) It demanded damages—pay increases
for employees and membership dues and fees for
itself—based on estimated terms and dates of the
contract that might have been reached but for
Prepared by Eugene Skotzko of the Office of Publica­
tions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with the
Office of the Solicitor of Labor.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the employer’s violations.3 Enforcing the order,
the court nevertheless agreed with the union.
In a lengthy discourse, the court took the Board
to task for the “inadequacies” of its remedies in
some instances of gross violations of the law. It
was particularly concerned about the Board’s
“prospective-only doctrine” inherent in ordering
the violators to cease their unlawful conduct but
overlooking the violations already committed.
And it was displeased with the Board’s tendency
to limit itself to “only doing the same as it has
done before” and considering it proper and
adequate since it is consistent with past remedies.
The court stressed that section 10(c) of the
n l r a requires the Board “to take such affirmative
action [against the violator] as will effectuate the
policies of this act.” And it added, “The ‘affirma­
tive action’ clause . . . is not a mere charter of
authority that the Board has option to exercise
or ignore. It is, as the [Supreme] Court has re­
cently stated, a ‘broad command.’ ” 4
In favoring a retrospective assessment of con­
tract terms for the purposes of estimating damages,
the court relied primarily on decisions in Fibreboard 5 and Mooney Aircraft,6 in which such retro­
spective estimation had been made. In Fibreboard,
the court recalled, the Supreme Court approved a
rather drastic remedy of the Board as one neces­
sary “to insure meaningful bargaining.” But a
cease-and-desist admonition can hardly insure a
meaningful bargaining in a situation similar to
that involved here. Citing other rulings,7 the
court said, “ [A] prospective-only doctrine means
that an employer reaps from his violation of the
law an avoidance of bargaining which he considers
an economic benefit. Effective redress for a
statutory wrong should both compensate the
party wronged and withhold from the wrongdoer
the ‘fruits of its violation.’ ”
Regarding the question of whether the Board
has the power to grant the kind of remedy the
union requested, the court said,
71

72
The power to accord some meaningful make-whole
relief is not necessarily undercut by the provision
in section 8(d) of the act that the obligation to
bargain collectively ‘does not compel either party to
agree to a proposal or require the making of a con­
cession.’ In this case the refusal to bargain is clear
and unmistakable, and there is not the slightest
suggestion that the refusal to make a concession might
be identified as a refusal to bargain collectively. The
Board cannot be faulted on the ground that it is
imposing contract terms upon an unwilling employer
when it is engaged only in a determination of a means
of calculating a remedy to compensate for injury
sustained from an unfair (and unlawful) labor
practice.

After giving a “careful consideration’’ to the
Supreme Court’s ruling in H. K. Porter, the
appeals court decided there was no inconsistency
between that pronouncement and its own position:
. . . We in no way suggest . . . that the Board can
compel agreement or that the make-whole remedy is
appropriate under circumstances in which the parties
would have been unable to reach agreement by them­
selves. Quite the contrary, we have specifically limited
the scope of our remand first, to consideration of
past damages, not to compulsion of a future contract
term, and second, to [estimation of] damages based
upon a determination of what the parties themselves
would have agreed to if they had engaged in the
kind of bargaining process required by the act.

The case was remanded to the Board with in­
structions to make other findings—such as pay­
ment of unnecessary costs sustained by the union
during the dispute—if it determined that the kind
of relief asked by the union cannot be granted.
One member of the court (Judge MacKinnon)
concurred in the majority decision to uphold the
order, but disagreed with the disposition of the
make-whole claim. He deferred to the H. K. Porter
principle of noninterference in substantive con­
tractual provisions, and said that in the present
case the “fundamental error” of the majority opin­
ion was that it authorized an assessment of contract
terms on the assumption that, had they negotiated,
the parties would have reached certain results. Yet,
although the law demands bargaining, “there is no
legal duty upon either party to agree upon a con­
tract.”
Here the Board was expected to assess alleged
damages by estimating the terms the parties would
have agreed to. “However, if any prediction were
to be made, the history of this case seems to make
it clear that the most realistic prediction would be
that the parties would not have agreed to any­
thing.” In effect, “the Board is thus necessarily

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

relegated to a determination of what the parties
should have agreed to had they bargained. In short,
the damages here are [authorized to be assessed]
upon a failure to agree, which is not the duty im­
posed on either party, and a failure to agree upon a
specific result, which is entirely speculative.”
The dissenting judge dismissed the majority’s
reliance on Fibreboard and Mooney Aircraft as
erroneous because, he said, these decisions are
“scarcely authority for the proposition that the
Board may in effect write a contract where one did
not exist before, and then base its remedy on the
contract it has written.” The two cases involved
preexisting contracts, and the remedies provided
there were based on those contracts; in the present
situation there was no contract.
Wage deductions for debts

In a decision reported here some time ago,8 a
Federal district court faced the question of whether
a referee in bankruptcy can prevent an employer
from firing a worker whose wages have been
attached to satisfy his debt. A collective bargain­
ing agreement authorized dismissal for a “demand
against wages,” yet the court directed the em­
ployer to obey a referee’s order not to dismiss a
debtor employee.
The employer’s contract right was recently
vindicated—at least for the time being, it seems—
when the case reached the court of appeals (in re:
Jackson9). The court said the employer’s in­
sistence on enforcing the agreement was sanctioned
by the Labor Management Relations Act.
The agreement in question required that “when
[a] demand against wages of an employee is
received by the company, the employee will be
allowed 7 calendar days [to obtain] a release from
all obligations under the law incurred by reason of
[the] demand. . . . To fail to present such re­
lease . . . within [a] 60-day period will result in
the employee’s termination. . . .” (Language of
the contract.) The employer (International
Harvester Co.) was not consistent in enforcing the
provision, and wage deductions were made to
satisfy legal financial obligations of many em­
ployees. But when the plaintiff in this case was
unable to make monthly payments under an
arrangement of the referee in bankruptcy, the
referee ordered the company to make regular
deductions from the employee’s wages. The
company obeyed, but told the employee that he

73

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES

would be fired under the provision of the contract
if he did not obtain an early release from the
order. The employee complained to the bankruptcy
court, and the referee enjoined the company from
dismissing the worker.
A Federal district court upheld the order. In its
opinion, the contract merely authorized but did
not require dismissal of a debtor employee.
More important, “nothing in the l m r a , or any
decision of court in relation thereto, means that by
collective bargaining agreement an employer can
create for himself the authority to decide whether
a valid wage deduction order of a court of bank­
ruptcy shall be effective or not.”
The court of appeals noted that, first of all, the
referee in bankruptcy had no authority to enjoin
the employer from dismissing the debtor. The
Bankruptcy Act authorizes issuance of wage
deduction orders enforceable in courts, but
“[n]owhere in the act is there any authority to a
court to continue a debtor’s employment against
his employer’s will.”
Second, “The right which [the company] seeks
to enforce is not against [the] policy of the United
States,” the court said, citing the declaration of
section 1 0 1 of the l e m a that it is the policy of
the United States to encourage “the practice and
procedure of collective bargaining [on] terms and
conditions of . . . employment. . . .” Dismissal
for unreleased wage demands was a condition of
employment agreed upon by the employer and
the employee’s chosen representative, the union,
and the employer was dutybound to observe the
agreement.
Third, the court pointed to the rule followed by
courts that “when a dispute arises within the
scope of a collective bargaining agreement, the
parties are relegated to the remedies which are
provided in such agreement.” 10 “The [present]
case is clearly one which involves application and
interpretation of the collective bargaining agree­
ment. It involves a dispute arising under a labor
contract.”
As an alternative remedy for the claimant, the
appeals court suggested that the referee in bank­
ruptcy, instead of trying to enjoin the company,
could have issued a “turn over” order, under the
Krakover rule,11 compelling the employee to
endorse his pay checks for the purpose of deduc­
tions to satisfy his debt. Issuance of a wage deduc­
tion order would thus be avoided, and the company
would not face the necessity under the contract to

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

discharge the worker for an unreleased wage
demand.
The lower court had rejected this solution,
holding that it was “second best” where the
Government’s sovereignty was concerned (in de­
ductions from a Federal employee’s pay) but
that here it would amount to absolving the em­
ployer from complying with a statutory provi­
sion. “. . . Congress did not intend to grant the
employers in any event the right to choose be­
tween compliance with such [deduction] order
and discharge of the employees solely because of
it.”
Pseudotraining and equal pay

A Federal court of appeals has recently re­
affirmed that differences in pay must be based
on bona fide differences in jobs. In Shultz v.
American Can Co.12 it held that maintenance of
certain allegedly justified pay differentials was,
in effect, a thinly disguised effort to discriminate
against women employees.
A container and cup manufacturing plant
maintained three shifts of machine operators—
the AM and PM shifts (hereafter also referred to
as “day shifts”), consisting predominantly of
women, and the night shift filled by men only.
The tasks and responsibilities of the workers on
all shifts were the same, except that night-shift
workers had to fill their machines with heavy
rolls of paper largely by using certain mechanical
devices, a function that was performed during
the day by special workers (“roll boys”). Another
distinction of the night workers was that plant
maintenance personnel were drawn from their
ranks.
The operators on the day shifts were paid 20
cents less per hour than the night operators. This
differential, which was in addition to the legitimate
“night-shift premium” paid to all employees on the
PM and night shifts, had been maintained since
the time the plant was opened.
At one time the day shifts were specifically
limited to women, the night shift to men. But
shortly after the Equal Pay Act of 1963 went into
effect (June 11, 1965), the company and the
employees’ union reached an agreement which
“purported” to abolish the wage differential based
on sex for all jobs in the plant, and opened the
night shift to women and day shifts to men. The
pay differential between day and night operators

74

was retained, and so was the established practice
of promoting night workers to maintenance posi­
tions. Several men transferred to the day shifts but
no women were assigned to night work. Subse­
quently men were permitted to “bump” AM-PM
workers with lesser seniority in case of a reduction
in force, and a similar privilege was given to the
employees on the two shifts.
The court of appeals disagreed with the lower
court that a night differential (as distinguished
from the night-shift premium) was justified here.
And the opening of shifts to workers of the opposite
sex, the court said, was no antidiscrimination
measure that would satisfy the requirements of the
act, for it did not do away with the differential for
which no valid reason existed. In fact, the law was
additionally violated, the court said, when men
were transferred to the lower-paying day shifts,
since the statute prohibits equalization of rates
through a wage decrease.
Neither of the claimed distinctions between the
day and night shifts was validated by the appellate
court’s findings. The Secretary of Labor had
proved that the primary duties (except the
paper loading) of the workers on all shifts were the
same and, therefore, “equal” within the meaning
of the law as interpreted by courts, that is, “they
require[d] the same effort, skill, and responsibility.”
(The present court’s language.) The loading of
paper into the machines at night required very
little extra effort and no special training, and
women could easily do it.
Thus, as regards equality of work, the situation
here, the court stressed, was “factually similar”
to that in Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co.13 and was
governed by the decisions in that case: Wheaton “is
precedent for the result reached by this court” in
the present case.
The present case, however, differed from Wheaton
in one respect: the employer here maintained that

1 H . K . P o r te r C o ., I n c . v. N L R B (U.S. Sup. Ct., March
2, 1970); see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , May 1970, pp. 71-72.
2 N L R B v, T iid e e P r o d u c ts , I n c .; I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n io n o f
E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s v. N L R B (C.A.-D.C., April 3, 1970).
3 The union estimated that the contract would have
been concluded within 75 to 100 days after its certification
and claimed damages from that date. For the employees,
it claimed a wage increase of at least 15 cents an hour
from the assumed day of agreement plus cost-of-living
increases calculated according to the movement of the

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

night work provided the workers with experience
which qualified them for advancement to plant
maintenance jobs, and this fact accounted for the
traditional practice of selecting maintenance
workers from the night shift. In short, the night
shift combined regular work plus training and,
therefore, deserved a wage differential.
The court answered:
While the evidence does indicate that most of the
employees in the maintenance classification progress
to that position through the night-shift operator clas­
sification, there is no showing that the night-shift
operators are required to perform any maintenance
task not required of the AM -PM shift operators. In
fact, neither male nor female operators perform main­
tenance work on the machines operated by them. They
are simply too busy to do so. The company has no
bona fide “training program” [as defined by law— 29
C.F.R. section 800.148] to train night shift operators,
whether male or female, for maintenance responsi­
bility. All operators have an equal opportunity to
gain an understanding of the maintenance problems
by operating their machines. Furthermore, men hired
as operators are not required to demonstrate greater
mechanical ability than women hired for the same
positions. Finally, all maintenance men go through the
same training program, whether promoted or hired
off the street.

A pretended training program had been the
issue in First Victoria National Banks,14 decided
last year, and the court here found the present
situation “to be controlled by the same opinion.”
The court concluded its discourse with the folowing citation from that opinion:
Moreover, such imprecise programs are outside the
scope of the broad statutory exception—‘a factor other
than sex’. . . . because they are not in harmony with
the congressional purpose: the elimination of those
subjective assumptions and traditional stereotyped
misconceptions regarding the value of women’s work.
These programs are inconsistent since in actual opera­
tion the work and role of the male employees—
‘trainees’—cannot be distinguished from the female
workers. . . .
□

U.S. Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index from
that date. The union also assumed that the contract
would have contained a union security clause, under which
it would have received dues and initiation fees from at
least those who had voted for it in the election. It claimed
reimbursement for the alleged loss of these membership
payments from the estimated date when the security
clause would have gone into effect.
4
N L R B v. R u tte r - R e x
Ct., December 15, 1969).

M a n u fa c tu r in g

C o.

(U.S. Sup.

75

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES

BF ib r e b o a r d P a p e r P r o d u c ts C o r p . v. N L R B , 379 U.S.
203 (1964); see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1965,
p. 165. In that situation, the company had contracted out,
for valid business reasons, some of its operations without
bargaining with the union of the employees involved.
The action merely replaced the old employees with those
of an independent contractor. It was taken after the
expiration of the old contract and without regard to the
union’s proposals fo»- a new one. The Board ordered the
company to resume operations and to reinstate the dis­
placed employees with backpay.
6 N L R B v. M o o n e y A i r c r a f t , I n c ., 375 F. 2d 402 (C.A. 5);
review denied 389 U.S. 859 (1987). Here the Board
awarded backpay to an unlawfully discharged employee
at a rate higher than that he had received before the
discharge, on the assumption that he would have been
promoted.
7 N L R B v. A m e r ic a n N a t i o n a l I n s u r a n c e C o ., 343 U.S.
395, 404 (1952)—see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , July 1952,
p. 63; M o n tg o m e r y W a r d & C o . v. N L R B , 330 F. 2d 889,
894 (C.A. 6, 1965)—see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , March
1965, p. 316; and W i n n - D i x i e S to r e s , I n c ., 147 NLRB 788,
782 (1964), affirmed in part by C.A. 5 (1966), 361 F. 2d
512.
8 I n re : J a c k s o n (D.C., S.D.-I11., October 18, 1968);
see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1969, pp. 71-72.
9 C.A. 7, March 26, 1970.
10 The court’s paraphrase of the appellate decision in
v. U n ite d S ta te s P i p e & F o u n d r y C o . (C.A. 5,

H aynes

1966) . The court also cited U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings
to this effect in U n ite d S te e lw o r k e r s v. E n t e r p r i s e W h e e l a n d
C a r C o r p ., 363 U.S. 593; and R e p u b lic S te e l C o r p . v.
M a d d o x , 379 U.S. 650, 652-3 (1964)—see M o n t h l y L a b o r
R e v ie w , May 1965, pp. 566-567.
11 U n ite d S ta te s v. K r a k o v e r , 377 F. 2d 104 (C.A. 10,
1967) . In that case, the wage deduction order could not
be issued against the Federal Government because of its
sovereignty, and the court, instead, ordered the debtor
employee to sign his pay checks from which the deductions
were to be made. The Government thus was able to
make the collections without being “ordered” by the court.
12 S h u ltz v.

A m e r ic a n C a n C o ,

(C.A. 8, March 30, 1970).

13 C.A. 3, January 13, 1970; see M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w ,
April 1970, pp. 74-75. Here the court said, “Congress, in
prescribing ‘equal’ work did not require that the jobs be
identical, but only that they must be substantially equal.”
14 S h u ltz v. F i r s t V i c to r ia N a t i o n a l B a n k (C.A. 5, Novem­
ber 28, 1969). In that case, to use the present court’s
language, “[t]he alleged justification for the differential
was an informal, unwritten bank officer training program
which provided rotation for the trainee through the
various departments of the banks. The court found the
rotation of the male ‘trainees’ to be indistinguishable from
the normal course of employment for the female employees.
Answering the defendants’ contention that this arrange­
ment provided justification for the pay differences, the
court stated: '. . . In this sense every job in every type
of business would be training. . . .’ ”

The ‘co-determination' charge

It has been asserted by some that the Board,
by its Fibreboard decision, has by administrative
fiat “legislated” into the statute the German
and European doctrine of “co-determination.”
This is a statutory system under which specific
industrial policies of broad application are com­
mitted to management-employee councils and
are resolved under a system approaching com­
pulsory arbitration. . . .
The Fibreboard principle is quite different.
The Fibreboard principle is based entirely on
voluntary agreement between management and
labor, not compulsion. The Fibreboard principle
does not involve labor in the general or the
daily management of a business; it merely
requires that unions be permitted to know and


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

bargain about decisions which significantly
affect employee job interests. Moreover, the
bargaining obligation under our Labor Act was
created by Congress in 1935, long before the
German laws were enacted. . . . Suffice it to
say, the suggestion . . . that the NLRB has
“imposed on American industry” the system
of “co-determination,” which “reflects the
strong socialistic influence of the countries which
practice it,” is simply inaccurate in law, fact,
and history. . . .
— Supplemental Memorandum of the National
Labor Relations Board delivered to the Subcommittee
on the Separation of Powers, Committee on the Judi­
ciary, U.S. Senate on August 9, 1968.

This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in August 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

Acme Markets Inc., BuffaloDivision(NewYorkandPennsylvania)__ ___
Alabama Power Co. (Alabama)................................... ..............
American Airlines, Inc., Stewardesses (Interstate)_____ ___ _____
American Standard, Inc., ConstructionEquipment Division(Peoria, III.)___
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Highway Construction
Division, Alabama Branch.
Northern and Central California Chapter, Building, Heavy, Highway and
Engineering Construction, and 8 other Associations.
Associated Underground Contractors, Inc. (Michigan).........................
Bowman Transportation Inc. (Atlanta, Ga.)........ .............................
Bucyrus-Erie Co. (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Indiana)..___ ______
ChicagoLightingEquipment Manufacturers’Association(Chicago, III.)___
Chicago UnionRestaurant EmployersCouncil (Chicago, III.)______ ____
Commercial Job Printing Employers of Los Angeles 2_____ _______
Crane Co. (Chicago, III.)........ ................................... ....... ......
Cudahy Co., Master Agreement (Interstate)____ ____ ____ ____ _
E.l. duPont de Nemours &Co., Photo Products Department (Parlin, N.J.)__
Dubuque Packing Co. (Dubuque, Iowa).......... ............... .......... .....
Electric Hose &Rubber Co. (Wilmington, Del.).................................
Fluid Milkand Ice Cream Agreement2(Sacramento, Calif.)..................
Gates Rubber Co. (Denver, Colo.)...... .................................... .....
Goodyear Aerospace Corp. (Akron, Ohio)...................... ............... .
Graphic Arts Assn, of Michigan, Inc. (Detroit, Mich.)...........................
Harnischfeger Corp. (Milwaukee, Wis.)...........................................
IndependentSuper Market Operators(Detroit, Mich.).................. .......
Master Plumbers’ Association of Boston and Vicinity, Inc.....................
Mayer, Oscar &Co. (Davenport, Iowa)..........................................
Mayer, Oscar &Co. (Madison, Wis.)..___ _____________ ___ _
McGraw-EdisonCo., Bussman ManufacturingDivision(St. Louis, Mo.)........
Mechanical ContractorsAssociation of Boston, Inc....... ................... .
Men’s NeckwearAssociationof NewYork, Inc..................................
Michigan RoadBuildersAssociation, LaborRelationsDivision_____ ___
Michigan RoadBuildersAssociation, LaborRelations Division_________
MichiganRoadBuildersAssociation, LaborRelations Division..................
Minnesota Mining &Manufacturing Co. (St. Paul, Minn.)___________
Morrell, John&Co(Interstate)...____ ____________ ___ ____
Morrell, John&Co.(SouthDakotaandIllinois).................. ...... .........
Paper BoxManufacturers2(Philadelphia, Pa.)................................
Plastic Products ManufacturersAssociation, Inc. (NewYork, N.Y.)............
PrintingIndustriesAssociation(LosAngeles, Calif.).............................
Sportswear Industry Agreement2(San Francisco,Calif.).......................
SymingtonWayneCorp. SymingtonDivision(Depew, N.Y.).....................
Trane Co. (La Crosse, Wis.)...... ................................................
Upholstered Furniture Manufacturers’ Association(NewYork, N.Y.)..........
Wallace-MurrayCorp.,SchwitzerDivision(Indianapolis, Ind.).................
WarwickElectronics Inc.(ForrestCity, Ark.).....................................

1Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as I ndependent (Ind.).
2Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).

76

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Industry

Number

U nion >

R e t a il t r a d e . . _____________________ ___________
U t i l i t i e s _________________________ _____________
A i r t r a n s p o r t a t io n ___________________________
M a c h i n e r y __________________ _________________
C o n s t r u c t i o n _________________________________

C o n s t r u c t i o n .................................................................................

...

of
workers

1,100

M e a t C u t t e r s ________________
E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s ( I B E W )
T r a n s p o r t W o r k e r s ..
B o il e r m a k e r s ________
O p e ra tin g E n g in e e r s ; C a r p e n t e r s ; L a b o r e r s ;
T e a m s t e r s ( I n d . ) ; P l a s te r e r s a n d C e m e n t
M asons.
I r o n W o r k e r s .............................................

2 ,4 0 0
4 ,1 0 0

1,000
4 ,2 0 0

5 .0 0 0

C o n s t r u c t i o n ._________________ ______________

O p e r a t i n g E n g i n e e r s ............................................

T r u c k i n g . ________ ___________________________
M a c h i n e r y _____ ________ ____ _____ _ . . .

D is t r i c t 5 0 , A l l i e d a n d T e c h n ic a l ( I n d . ) . .
S t e e l w o r k e r s .............................................

E le c tr ic a l p r o d u c t s ___ _____________________
R e s t a u r a n t s .. ____________ ___________
P r i n t in g a n d p u b l i s h i n g _____________ .
F a b r i c a t e d m é t a l p r o d u c t s .........................................................
F o o d p r o d u c t s . . . . ! - - - ...............................

T y p o g r a p h ic a l U n i o n . .
. . . .
S t e e l w o r k e r s ............... .............................
...........................................
M e a t C u t t e r s . ...................................... ...

I n s t r u m e n t s ________________________________
F o o d p r o d u c t s .................................................................................................

C h e m ic a l W o r k e r s ( I n d . ) ____________________
M e a t C u t t e r s .................................................................................................

E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s ( I B E W ) . . .

1 ,8 0 0

.

1 .3 5 0
3 , 000

1.000

.

2,000
1.9 0 0
1.5 5 0
1.5 0 0
2 .5 0 0

R u b b e r ...................................................................................

R u b b e r W o r k e r s . . .............................................................

F o o d p r o d u c t s ................................................................................................

T e a m s t e r s ( I n d . ) . . ................................................................................

2 .5 0 0

R u b b e r .. . . .
. . . . ..........................................
T r a n s p o r t a t io n e q u i p m e n t . ...............................
P r i n t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g ................. ...................................

R u b b e r W o r k e r s ...........................................................................................
A u t o W o r k e r s ( I n d . ) .........................................................................
B o o k b in d e r s _ - - - - - .........................................................

3 .7 5 0
3 .1 0 0

M a c h i n e r y .. .

____

S t e e l w o r k e r s ....................................................................................................

2 .3 0 0

R e t a il t r a d e . . .

_.

C o n s t r u c t i o n ....................
F o o d p r o d u c t s .. ._

.

...................................

.

1,100

1.3 0 0

1,2 00

1,200

...............................
P l u m b e r s a n d P i p e f it t e r s ..............................................................
M e a t C u t t e r s ___ ______
_ .......................................

_ ...........................................

1,000
1 .5 5 0
2 ,6 5 0

E le c tr ic a l p r o d u c t s ______

__

________ .

I n d e p e n d e n t F u s e W o r k e r s U n i o n . ( I n d . ) ____

A p p a r e l _________
______ _____ . .
C o n s t r u c t i o n . . . ...................................... _ __ _ ....................
C o n s t r u c t i o n _________ . . . _____

C lo t h i n g W o r k e r s . .
_ ____
O p e r a t i n g E n g i n e e r s __________

S t o n e , c l a y , a n d g la s s p r o d u c t s ..

O i l , C h e m ic a l a n d A t o m i c W o r k e r s __________
M e a t C u t t e r s _______________ . . . _________
M e a t C u t t e r s ______ ._ .............................................................

P a p e r _________

__ ____

_

______

____________

..

_ __
____
_____________

P u l p a n d S u lp h i t e W o r k e r s .........................................................

2.100
1.75 0
1 ,1 5 0
3 .0 0 0
1 .5 0 0
4 .5 0 0
2 , 500
2 ,8 5 0
3 .3 5 0

1.000
4 .5 0 0
1.3 0 0

A p p a r e l ..............................................................................................................
P r i m a r y m e t a ls ._ __________________
.

L a d i e s ’ G a r m e n t W o r k e r s .............................................................
S t e e l w o r k e r s .....................................................................................................

1,4 0 0
1 ,0 5 0
1.9 0 0

F u rn itu re .

__________

_______________

.

.

T r a n s p o r t a t io n e q u i p m e n t ................................ .........................
E le c tr ic a l p r o d u c t s . ! ..........................................................

2,0 0 0

1,200
1,100

Developments
in
Industrial
Relations
Transportation and utilities

A key development in the tumultuous trucking
industry negotiations came May 18, when the
Teamsters union members approved, by a 7-to-5
margin, the April 2 national agreement for 450,000
drivers and related workers.1The ratification vote,
which was supervised by the Department of
Labor, at the union's request, was delayed by
negotiations over local issues. In Chicago, where
several Teamster locals and the independent
Chicago Truck Drivers Union bargain locally for
50,000 employees, local leaders said that they
would continue the selective strikes that began in
mid-April to obtain a better settlement. The 39month national contract was valued at $1.10 an
hour or 2% cents a mile in wage increases, plus
benefit improvements. The Chicago locals had
negotiated pacts with some local cartage firms
that provided about $1.65 in wage increases, plus
benefit improvements. This could affect the
national agreement, since it is subject to reopening
if the Chicago locals obtain better terms from
intercity haulers.
Another dissident group, the steel haulers,
vowed to continue their walkout, even though they
had approved the agreement by a 3-to-l margin,
contending that many drivers had not received
ballots. (Later in the month, steel haulers in the
Pittsburgh area voted to end the strike, completing
a back-to-work movement that started in Indiana
and Ohio.) The Teamsters allowed the 15,000 steel
haulers to vote separately on the agreement after
they complained that the union had not adequately
represented them in the bargaining. On April 8,
the National Labor Relations Board had opened
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 secondary sources available in May.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

hearings on a petition by the Fraternal Associa­
tion of Steel Haulers for disaffiliation from the
Teamsters.
Under the national contract, hourly wage rates
were increased by 35 cents on April 1, 1970, 15
cents on July 1, 1970, 25 cents on July 1, 1971, and
35 cents on July 1, 1972, and mileage rates were
increased by 1 cent (a mile) on April 1, 1970, 0.5
cent on July 1, 1971, and 0.75 cent on July 1, 1972.
The cost-of-living escalator clause provides in­
creases of up to 8 cents an hour (or 2 mills per mile)
on July 1, 1971, and July 1, 1972, compared with
the 4-cent limits on the April 1968 and April 1969
increases. (The truckers actually received 3 cents
in April 1968 and 4 cents in April 1969.) Benefit
changes included an additional paid holiday (the
truckers previously had between 7 and 12, varying
by area); a $4-a-week total increase in employer
payments to the health and welfare and pension
funds; and 2 weeks of vacation after 2 years of
service, instead of 3 years and (for local cartage
only) 45 hours of pay for each week of vacation,
instead of 40 hours.
The Railway Carmen negotiated a contract
with the Nation's railroads that was nearly the
same as the 2-year pact that was imposed on four
other shopcraft unions by Congress.2 The Carmen
received a 4-cent wage increase retroactive to
January 1, 1969, in addition to the 2-percent
wage increase that the other shopcraft workers
received on that date. The 7-cent increase for
journeymen was effective April 24, 1970, rather
than February 19, 1970. The 4-cent additional
increase actually resulted from a limited 1969
settlement, which provided that the increase
would not become effective until an overall accord
was reached. The increase was granted to equalize
Carmen's rates with those for the other shopcraft
unions, which gained a 4-cent larger increase in a
1964 settlement. Negotiations were continuing
with the sixth shopcraft union, the Firemen and
77

78

Oilers, which represents 18,000 workers.
Negotiating under a wage reopening provision,
Western Electric Co. and the Communications
Workers agreed on a September 1 wage increase
of from 10 to 20 cents an hour for 10,500 senior
installers across the country. Earlier in May, to
aid in recruiting, the company had granted pay
raises of from 6 to 39 cents an hour for 12,225
installers with less than 72 months of experience.
This led to protests from the senior employees and
2,000 installers went on strike in Florida, Georgia,
and Alabama. The agreement eliminated the
company’s practice of granting merit increases to
some employees at the end of their first 72 months.
About 5 percent of the 24,000 installers did not
receive increases either because they were already
over the new scales, or because they belonged to
one of the two classes of senior installers not
affected by the settlement.
Printing

The New York Times and the Typographers
reached agreement on May 25, averting a possible
shutdown by the Times and a sympathy shut­
down by three other major dailies.3 (On May 26,
one of the papers, the New York News, reached
tentative agreement with the Typographers on a
similar contract.) The Times had threatened to
suspend publication because the union had been
holding on-the-job chapel meetings during which
no work was performed, severely hampering
publication. In March, when the union started
the meetings, they lasted 6 hours a day but the
duration was periodically increased, reaching 19
hours a day at the time of settlement.
The tentative 3-year pact, expected to set a
pattern for nine other unions in negotiations with
four papers, provided wage increases of 15 percent
effective immediately and 11 percent in both the
second and third years. The increases totaled
$76.89 a week for day work, $80.49 for night
work, and $84.09 for the early morning (lobster)
shift. Under the contract, which expired March 31,
the 900 Typographers made $184.27 for 35 hours
of day work, $192.89 for 34% hours of night work,
and $201.50 for 33% hours of early morning work.
The Times also agreed to reduce the work-week
to 34% hours for the day shift.
Other terms included revising the cost-of-living
escalator clause to provide 1971 and 1972 adjust­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

ments equal to the increase in the New York City
area Consumer Price Index in excess of 6 percent
during the preceding 12 months. Under the old
clause, the workers received March 1968 and
March 1969 adjustments equal to any increase
in excess of 4 percent. Pensions were increased by
$40 a month as a result of the elimination of a
clause requiring reductions in companywide pen­
sion benefits equal to any increases in the separate
plan negotiated between the Typographers and
the Times. Pension and welfare contributions
remained at 9.304 percent of weekly earnings, but
the dollar amounts increased as a result of the
higher wage scales, permitting the future adoption
of a dental plan.
The parties agreed not to initiate lawsuits over
the chapel meetings (which cost the Times about
$600,000 pay for unworked hours and about $5
million in lost advertising revenue because of
reduced editions) and to resume bargaining if
future Government controls on prices and wages
nullify a contractual wage increase.
Apparel

Representatives of the Ladies Garment
Workers’ Union approved a 3-year contract for
42,000 coat and suit workers in the New York
City area on May 26. The pact was negotiated
with three employer associations4 which the
union said account for about 70 percent of women’s
coat and suit production in the United States.
Terms included wage hikes of 10 percent on
June 1, 1970, and 5 percent in June of both 1971
and 1972. For time workers, the union said that
the total increase will range from 51 cents an
hour for the lowest rated jobs up to $1 for cutters.
Benefit changes included adoption of a dental
plan.
In a move that could have an indirect effect
on wages in the southern textile industry, an
apparel firm, Blue Bell, Inc., of Greensboro, N.C.,
has granted a wage increase of about 5 percent
to 16,000 production workers. A company spokes­
man said that the increase will average “about
10 cents an hour with slight variations in some
areas due to local conditions.” This was the first
increase for Blue Bell employees since 1968.
Southern textiles have granted eight wage in­
creases in the last 7 years, the last coming in
mid-1969.5

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

79

Steel incentive pay

Inland Steel Co. was the first of 11 major steel
companies to agree with the Steelworkers on
extension of incentive pay to additional jobs. The
resulting conversion of 1,346 jobs from nonincen­
tive to incentive pay was expected to lead to
settlements at some of the other firms, although
talks were reportedly stalemated at U.S. Steel
Corp. The negotiations resulted from an August 1,
1969, arbitration award which provided that at
least 85 percent of the workers in each company
and at least 65 percent in each plant with at least
100 workers must be on incentive pay.6 The
parties resorted to arbitration after a joint com­
mittee was unable to reach agreement on imple­
mentation of the 1968 collective bargaining settle­
ment provision regarding extension of incentive
coverage. At that time, about 70 percent of the
workers engaged in steel production at the 11
firms were on incentive pay. As provided in the
1968 settlement, workers in jobs selected for
conversion will receive 10 cents for each hour

Earnings index
The Bureau’s index of manufacturing production
workers average hourly earnings (excluding overtime
premium pay and the effects of interindustry
employment shifts) rose 0.5 in February, to 153.4.
Data for prior periods are shown below.
Index

(1 9 6 7 - 6 9 = 1 0 0 )

1969

February _____
March__ __ __
April___________
May _ _ ___
June
_____
July-------- --------August. .
__
September______
October____ ____
November- _
December______

14 4 . 9
14 5 . 2

Index

(1 9 6 7 - 6 9 = 1 0 0 )

1 970

January
February

______1 5 2 . 9
______ 1 5 3 . 4

146 . 0
146 . 6
146 . 9
147. 8
14 8 . 4
149 . 5
150. 2
15 1. 0
15 2 . 0

worked from August 1, 1968, until they begin
incentive work.
Grape pickers

The United Farm Workers Organizing Com­
mittee ( ufwoc ) began the 1970 round of bargain­
ing with wine grape growers by negotiating a
3-year agreement with the E. & J. Gallo Winery
of Modesto, Calif. The company, whose vineyards
are concentrated in Merced, Fresno, and Stanislaus
Counties in California, agreed to wage hikes of
25 cents an hour the first year for the general
labor group, and 10-cent increases in both the
second and third years. Grape pickers received 35
cents the first year, and 10 percent hikes in the
second and third years. As a result, grape pickers
reportedly would be earning $4.53 an hour by
1972, up from the present $3.40. The minimum
rate for newly hired workers was raised to $2.20
an hour, from $2.
Other terms included 2 additional paid holidays,
improved vacation pay, and a company contribu­
tion of $20,000 a year for the union’s Economic
Development Fund. Gallo regularly employs
about 135 full-time workers, but expands to some
250 workers during harvest season. The firm was
one of a dozen vintners to recognize and negotiate
agreements with ufwoc after it won representation
election in 1967. The union has indicated that the
winemaking facilities of Schenley Industries,
Almaden Vineyards, and Christian Brothers were
the next negotiating targets, ufwoc had negotiated
initial collective bargaining agreements with these
vintners in 1966 and 1967. The pact with the wine
grower came on the heels of the union’s April
breakthrough in reaching agreements with five
growers of table grapes, after a nearly 5-year
effort.7 On May 21, ufwoc announced that the
number of table grape growers accepting the
terms had grown to seven, as two large San
Joaquin Valley growers—Bruno Dispoto Co. and
the Bianco Fruit Corp.—signed.

Annual averages:
1 9 6 8 _________

______1 3 9 . 5

1 9 6 9 _________

Monthly data from
periods from 1 9 3 9 to
of

M a n u fa c tu r in g

S e r ie s ,

______

and data for selected
are contained in S u m m a r y

1 9 4 7 -6 8
19 47

P r o d u c tio n

W orkers

1939-68 (BLS Bulletin 1616, 1969).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Construction

14 7. 7

E a r n in g s

A 15-month strike ended in 33 counties in
western Pennsylvania in April, when the Operating
Engineers ratified a 4-year contract with the
Constructors Association of Western Pennsyl­
vania. Wages were increased by $3.70 an hour

80

over the term with an initial increase of $1.15 an
hour. Previously, hourly wages ranged from $5.35
to $7.02.
The Associated General Contractors of America
and the Carpenters signed a 2-year contract in
April covering 1,500 construction carpenters in
the Orange-Beaumont-Port Arthur, Tex. area.
Wages were increased by $1.70 an hour over the
contract period. Under the old agreement the
hourly wage rate was $5.17^.
The Building Trades Employers Association and
Painters District Council No. 6 negotiated a
3-year contract for 2,200 painters in the Cleveland,
Ohio, area. The agreement,, which was effective
on May 1, provided a $3-an-hour wage increase
over the term. Under the old contract the hourly
rate for painters was $6.41. Earlier in May, the
Electrical Workers and the Iron Workers agreed
to similar contracts.
In Minnesota the Associated General Contrac­
tors Association and the Teamsters signed a
2-year contract providing wage increases of $1.90
an hour for urban workers and $1.70 an hour for
rural workers over the term.
In Baltimore, Md., the Associated General
Contractors of America and the Carpenters
settled on a 3-year contract covering 2,300
workers. The agreement provided increases total­
ing $4.25 and hour; the union has the option to
divert part of the increases to fringe benefits.
Under the old contract the hourly rate was $5.16
plus 27 cents in fringe benefits.
Public employees

Atlanta’s 37-day garbage strike ended on
April 22, following acceptance of a 1-year contract
covering 2,850 members of State, County and
Municipal Employees Local 1644. The pact pro­
vided a 10-cent-an-hour ($4-a-week) wage hike
for 2,300 workers effective May 1. The re­
maining 550 employees benefited from job re­
classification resulting in pay hikes effective
May 4.
The walkout, which affected the city’s sanita­
tion, construction, and parks departments, began
on March 17, when the union accused Mayor
Sam Massell of reneging on the payment of a
wage package that had previously been offered to
the union. (On January 1, 6,500 nonuniformed
workers—including the strikers—had received

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

an 8-percent wage increase.) During the course of
the walkout, the city fired some 1,600 strikers and
used prisoners and private haulers to collect
garbage. Other terms of the agreement included
overtime pay for workers collecting accumulated
rubbish. In addition, all dismissed strikers were
to be rehired “without prejudice,” and the city
agreed to drop charges against 130 workers jailed
for unlawful picketing.
A 1-year contract for 9,000 blue-collar employees
of Baltimore, Md., was approved by members of
the State, County and Municipal Employees
Union in April. The agreement, which is effective
July 1, provides for a wage increase of 5 percent
with a 15-cent-an-hour minimum, beginning
September 1. The city agreed to pay all of the
worker’s and 85 percent of his family’s medical
and hospital insurance premiums. Previously the
city paid 60 percent of the entire cost. The con­
tract also set a $2.10-an-hour minimum wage for
hospital workers, up from $1.86 an hour. Garbage
collectors, school cafeteria and hospital workers
and jail guards were among those covered by the
settlement.
A 12-day strike by public school teachers in
Minneapolis, Minn, ended in April, after the school
board negotiated an agreement with the Minnea­
polis Federation of Teachers, an affiliate of the
American Federation of Teachers. Effective in
September 1970, the salary for teachers with
bachelor’s degrees will be $7,500 a year, rising to
$11,900 in 11 annual steps. The current range is
from $6,950 to $10,810. Teachers with master’s
degrees will start at $8,170 a year, instead of the
present $7,570, and go to $15,000 a year in 13
annual steps instead of the present $13,325 in
12 steps. Teachers in the lowest experience steps
will receive an additional increase in January 1971.
The contract also provided for three half-hour
preparation periods a week for all elementary
school teachers, increasing to five such periods on
March 1, 1971, in inner-city elementary schools,
and a reduction in class size.
On May 14, striking school teachers in Los
Angeles, Calif., voted to return to work and to
forgo an offered 5-percent wage increase so the
money could be used to reduce class sizes and
improve reading programs. About half of the city’s
25,000 public school teachers began the strike in
mid-April when negotiations with the city on
salary increases and classroom conditions reached

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

a stalemate. Schools remained open during the
strike with student absenteeism estimated at 30
to 40 percent.
The teachers demanded a salary scale for the
1970-71 school year of from $10,000 to $20,000,

81

up from $7,250 to $13,500. In addition, they
wanted classes limited to 25 pupils in upper
grades, relief from all nonprofessional duties, and
the right to evaluate their own principals and
vice principals. A free breakfast and lunch

Convention of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Delegates to the 18th biennial convention of the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees ( a f l - c i o ) , meeting in Denver, May 4-8,
displayed a healthy optimism resulting largely from
reports of union progress in organization and recogni­
tion, but also from the changed status of the union in
the a f l - c i o and internally.
As factionalism diminished and eventually vanished,
the union grew from 234,840 members in 1964 to
440,994 in February 1970. The number of negotiated
contracts during the 1964-70 period doubled from 500
to 1,000 and the number of union security arrangements
tripled from 150 to 450. International President Jerry
Wurf claimed " . . . now we are the vitality—not the
stepchild—of the labor movement . . .”
This rapid absorption of new members called for a
number of structural changes in the union. One omnibus
constitutional amendment created: a 19th legislative
district—the Capitol District including Maryland,
Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia—
entitled to a vice-president; the provision of a second
vice-president to any district whose membership
exceeds 10 percent of a f s c m e total membership; and a
method of splitting existing districts if membership
exceeds 10 percent rather than having two vicepresidents in one district.
The union also plans to expand the number of field
offices from 8 to 14, tie them to Washington head­
quarters through electronic photocopying equipment,
and thus provide a rapid information exchange. In a
parallel move, the research and education departments
announced new and expanded services, including an
a f s c m e Computer Wage Information System.
These actions were partly responsible for the need to
increase per capita taxes. In contrast to earlier con­
ventions, the proposal generated little debate and was
handily passed with a 25-cent increase July 1, 1970,
and a second 25-cent increase in January 1971, raising
total monthly payments to $1.50 per member.
Because of the lack of uniformity in State laws
concerning public employee labor-management relations,
the union developed its own Federal legislation. Shortly
before the convention, Representative Jacob Gilbert of
New York introduced the bill (H.R. 17383), and the
convention made its passage a major goal of the union.
It provides for exclusive recognition and dues checkoff,
defines unfair labor practices, establishes a National
Public Employee Relations Commission to administer

3 S 6 -0 2 7 0 — 70


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

<6

the law, and an elections procedure. Written agree­
ments, as well as binding arbitration of disputes over the
meaning of the agreement, are authorized. In negotia­
tion impasses, the parties may agree to use mediation,
factfinding, and binding arbitration. The bill is silent on
the right to strike.
The convention itself, however, was not so silent on
the issue of public employee work stoppages. Several
invited guests supported the right to strike in the public
sector and President Wurf said in his keynote address:
Most of America now accepts the right of public
workers to organize and bargain collectively— and
some people admit we might even have the right
to strike. . . . I suggest that the postal strike
was an event in the history of trade unionism
as important as Executive Order 49 in New York
City, that great and pioneer contract in the city of
Philadelphia, the Kennedy Executive Order
giving organizing rights in the Federal sector, or
the Wisconsin Public Employee Relations Act . . .
and that this strike of the postal workers tore
down the last bastion of collective begging for
public employees.
President Wurf then submitted a constitutional amend­
ment which removed all a f s c m e restrictions to the
right of law enforcement officers to strike. The amend­
ment passed unanimously and without debate. (The
union represents about 9,000 policemen.)
The union’s move toward a coalition of public
employee unions also stemmed from a f s c m e ’ s frustra­
tions at the bargaining table. The proposed coalition
would not infringe upon the autonomy of participating
labor organizations, but would concentrate its combined
political power at all levels of government, a necessity
for public employee unions. Invited to join were
a f l - c i o affiliates, postal unions, and unaffiliated labor
organizations. Wurf expressed the hope that some
organic mergers may develop from these joint efforts.
President Wurf, International Secretary-Treasurer
Joseph L. Ames, and most vice-presidents were elected
unanimously. Contested elections were held for 10 vice­
presidencies in 9 legislative districts, two of which
entailed runoff elections.
— L

e o n

E.

L

u n d e n

Division of Industrial Relations
Bureau of Labor Statistics

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

82

program for children from poverty areas was also
among the proposals. A $42-million deficit in the
1970 budget, however, forced the school board to
announce cutbacks in school programs and that it
could grant the 5-percent pay raise but not the
improvements in working conditions. The teachers
then voted to forgo the wage increase in favor of
the improved classroom conditions with the
stipulation that if the State gives the school
district additional money, the union will have a
voice in how it is spent. About 88 percent of the
city’s school teachers are members of the United
Teachers of Los Angeles, which is affiliated with
both the American Federation of Teachers and the
National Education Association.8
In mid-May, Hawaii’s legislature passed a bill
Table 1. Indexes of basic salary scales, average salary
rates, and average salaries 1 of Federal classified em­
ployees in the United States covered by the General
Schedule, 1939 * and 1945-70

permitting State and local government employees
to strike—except where the public health is
endangered—if efforts to reach an agreement fail.
The bill set up 13 basic bargaining units, gave
exclusive bargaining rights to unions representing
the employees, allowed negotiations for an agency
shop, and set up a five-member Hawaii Public
Employment Relations Board. The board, made
up of two labor and two management representa­
tives with an impartial chairman, will enforce a
code of unfair practices, establish procedures for
representation elections, seek to resolve disputes,
and determine when a strike will be detrimental
to the public health. Procedures provided to
avert strikes were mediation, factfinding with
recommendations, and voluntary arbitration if
both parties agree. The law also required a 60-day
negotiation and “cooling-off” period after a fact­
finding panel reports and a 10-day notice of
intention to strike. If signed by the governor, the
law takes effect on July 1, 1970.

[October 1967=100]

D a te

1939__ ___________
30,1945_____ _______
1,1946 __________ ___
1, 1947........................
15, 1948________ _____
1,1949........ „...... ...........
1,1950......................... .
8,1951.............. ........... .
1,1952_____________
1,1953...........................
1,1954......... .................
1, 19552_____________
1,1956 _____________
1,1957............................
1, 1958............................
1,1959...........................
1,196025................ .......
1,1961................. ..........
1,1962....................... ...
1,1963 ...........................
1,1964«..........................
1,1965............. ..............
1,19663...........................
1,1967«...... ...... .........
1, 19685......... ..............
1,1969«_____________
1,1970..____ ________

August
Ju n e
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
Ju ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
J u ly
O c to b e r
Ju ly
J u ly
J u ly

B a s ic
s a la r y
s c a le s

36.8
36.9
48.6
48.6
53.7
53.7
55.8
61.3
61.3
61.3
61.3
66.0
66.0
66.0
72.7
72.7
78.2
78.2
78.2
82.6
89.8
89.8
95.7
100.0
104.9
114.4
«121.3

A ve ra g e
s a la r y
r a te s

A ve ra g e
s a la r ie s

34.5
334. 5
45.2
46.0
51.5
51.7
54.5
59.1
59.2
59.8
60.3
65.0
64.9
65.0
72.2
72.2
77.4
77.3
77.2
81.6
89.3
89.8
95.8
100.0
104.9
114.9

25.4
(*)
34.5
36.5
40.7
41.2
44.3
47.6
48.6
49.8
50.8
55.4
56.0
57.2
65.0
66.2
72.4
73.3
74.2
80.2
89.5
90.7
95.7
100.0
106.5
120.0

> B a s ic s a la r y s c a le s r e f l e c t o n l y s t a t u t o r y c h a n g e s in s a la r ie s . A v e r a g e s a la r y r a te s
s h o w s t a t u to r y c h a n g e s a n d t h e e ffe c t o f m e r it o r in -g r a d e s a la r y in c r e a s e s . A v e r a g e
s a la r ie s m e a s u r e t h e e ffe c t n o t o n l y o f s t a t u t o r y c h a n g e s in b a s ic p a y s c a le s a n d i n g r a d e s a la r y in c r e a s e s b u t c h a n g e s in t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f w o r k e r s in t h e v a r i o u s g r a d e s .
2 T h e in d e x c o v e rs w o r k e r s n o w u n d e r th e G e n e ra l S c h e d u le . P r io r to 19 5 5 i t in c lu d e d
n o t o n ly w o r k e r s u n d e r th e G e n e ra l S c h e d u le b u t th o s e c o v e re d b y th e C r a fts , P r o te c ­
t i v e , a n d C u s to d ia l S c h e d u le . ( A s o f J u ly 1 , 1 9 5 5 , a b o u t a th ir d o f th e a p p r o x im a t e ly
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 e m p l o y e e s u n d e r t h e C r a f t s , P r o t e c t i v e , a n d C u s t o d i a l S c h e d u l e w e r e t r a n s ­
fe r r e d to t h e G e n e r a l S c h e d u le . T h e r e m a in in g t w o - t h ir d s w e r e tr a n s fe r r e d to w a g e
b o a r d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , a l o n g w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 ,5 0 0 w o r k e r s f o r m e r l y u n d e r t h e
G e n e r a l S c h e d u l e .) B e f o r e 1 9 5 5 t h e r e w e r e o n l y m i n o r d if f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e i n d e x e s
f o r a ll w o r k e r s a n d f o r th o s e u n d e r t h e G e n e r a l S c h e d u l e .
B e g i n n i n g w i t h 1 9 6 0 , d a t a in c lu d e e m p lo y e e s in A la s k a a n d H a w a i i . T h e in c lu s io n
o f th e s e e m p lo y e e s d id n o t a ffe c t b a s ic s a la r y s c a l e s ; a v e r a g e s a la r y r a te s a n d a v e r a g e
s a la r ie s w e r e a ffe c te d b y n e g lig ib le a m o u n t s .
3 E s tim a te d b y a s s u m in g th e s a m e d is tr ib u tio n o f e m p lo y e e s a m o n g g ra d e s a n d s te p s
w i t h i n g r a d e s in 1 9 4 5 a s in 1 9 3 9 . S in c e t h e r e w a s l it t l e o r n o in c r e a s e in a v e r a g e s a la r y
r a te s b e c a u s e o f i n - g r a d e in c r e a s e s d u r i n g th is p e r i o d , it w a s a s s u m e d
in b a s ic s a la r y s c a le s w a s a l m o s t t h e s a m e a s in a v e r a g e s a la r y r a te s .

th a t th e c h a n g e

« N o t a v a ila b le .
3 In d e x e s in c lu d e in c re a s e s e ffe c tiv e t h e fir s t p a y p e r io d b e g in n in g in t h e m o n t h .
« P r e lim in a r y .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

New York minimum wape

The New York State minimum wage rose to
$1.85 an hour, from the current $1.60, on
July 1, 1970. The State’s Department of Labor
reports that the increase will affect 700,000
employees.
Salaries of Federal classified workers

Basic salary scales for Federal classified em­
ployees rose by 6 percent between July 1969 and
July 1970, because of the general increase under the
Federal Employees’ Salary Act of 1970, retroactive
to the first pay period beginning on or after
December 27, 1969. Indexes of changes in average
salaries and average salary rates as of July 1, 1970
have not been computed, because these indexes
are influenced by changes in the numbers of
employees in each grade and step, and employ­
ment statistics for 1970 are not yet available.
However, these measures are now available for
1969, as indicated in table 1. Between July 1968
and July 1969, basic salaries increased 9.1 percent,
the average salary rate rose 9.5 percent, and the
average salary increased 12.7 percent. Comparison
of the three measures indicates a continuation
between 1968 and 1969 in the growth of the
proportion of workers in higher steps and grades.9

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Disneyland

About 2,000 full-time employees of Disneyland
in Anaheim, Calif., were affected by a settlement
between Walt Disney Productions, Inc., and
about 30 unions. More than 2,000 part-time
workers are also affected by the 3-year pact,
which was effective immediately, superseding the
remaining 2 years of a 5-year contract. The full­
time employees gained a total of $1.05 in wage
increases (35 cents each year) an additional paid
holiday, a reduction in the years of service re­
quired for 3 weeks of vacation, and $50,000 major
medical coverage (up from $20,000), and improve­
ments in pension and dental benefits.
UAW election

On May 25, Leonard Woodcock, 59, was elected
president of the 1.6-million member United Auto
Workers Union, succeeding Walter Reuther who
died in a plane crash on May 9.10 Mr. Woodcock
was elected unanimously by the union’s 25-man
executive board, after Douglas Fraser announced
that he had decided to withdraw as a candidate
and support Mr. Woodcock. Mr. Fraser said that
his action was based on a poll of the executive
board, which indicated that 13 members favored
the new president, while 12 favored Mr. Fraser.
Both uaw executives were among the union’s
seven vice presidents. Mr. Woodcock headed its
gm and aerospace departments; Mr. Fraser heads
the Chrysler Department and the uaw ’s skilled
tradesmen.
The election of Mr. Woodcock lent some sup­
port to speculation that the uaw would choose
General Motors Corp. as its prime target for the
first time since 1945-46 in the auto negotiations
scheduled for the fall. Referring to the coming
bargaining with the “Big 3” auto makers, Mr.
Woodcock said that the uaw “is determined to
win a settlement that will get equity for our
members and that Walter Reuther would have
been proud of.” He also indicated that the uaw ’s
concern for social causes would not change.
Shortly after his election, he spoke at the General
Motors Corp.’s annual meeting in support of a
proposal to create a committee for corporate
responsibility at gm, called for a full-scale Con­
gressional investigation of “senseless killings of
American citizens by American military and police”

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

83

at Kent State University, Jackson State College,
and Augusta, Ga., and repudiated his earlier sup­
port of the Viet Nam war by calling on the United
States “to disentangle itself from the morass
of Indochina.”
AFL-CIO Executive Council

At its quarterly session, held in Washington,
D.C., the afl - cio Executive Council issued a
statement citing the “complete failure” of the
Administration’s economic policies and outlining
a 4-point program to “take America out of re­
cession and end inflation.” The Council statement
was handed to President Nixon when he visited
the Council to explain his decision to use U.S.
forces against Communist sanctuaries in Cam­
bodia. Following a briefing by the President on
the Cambodian situation, the Council voted to
support afl - cio President George Meany’s May 1
endorsement of the President’s decision.
In its 4-point economic program, the Council
called for Congressional action directing the
Federal Reserve System to establish selective
credit controls and maximum interest rates on
specific types of loans; action requiring that a
portion of tax-exempt funds such as pension, col­
lege endowment, and bank reserves, be invested
in government-guaranteed mortgages to meet a
10-year housing goal of 26 million new and rehabil­
itated units; action to curtail the “high rate” of
business mergers, cited as a major factor in price
rises; and an analysis of the reasons for rising
prices, particularly in housing and medical care.
The Council passed a resolution mourning the
death of Walter Reuther and voted $5,000 for
the memorial fund set up in memory of Mr.
Reuther and his wife.
Opportunity line

The attempt to match applicants to job open­
ings has been growing in recent years, and com­
puterized job banks have supplemented public
and private employment agencies. A different
approach, “Opportunity Line,” a 3-year-old
Chicago TV show, has helped some 140,000 men
and women find jobs. The show, started on an
experimental basis in June 1967, has become a
regular feature aimed primarily at minority
audiences. By late 1968, the National Association

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

84

of Broadcasters estimated that there were some
75 shows of the type nationally and the number
has grown “substantially” since.
In May, the Chicago station placed the show
on prime time for a half-hour special aimed at
tapping the summer work force market and prod­
ding more employers to make jobs available. The
featured guest was Thomas Caulter of the Chicago
Association of Commerce and Industry and the
show tried to attract “viewers who are employers
or personnel mangers,” asking them to phone in
their job openings. The special resulted in 12,000
calls, an increase over the 9,000 resulting from a
special show aired last year. The show is normally
viewed on Saturdays and draws 2,000 calls. In
its normal format, Bill Lowry, a black assistant
personnel manager at Inland Steel Co., hosts the
show and describes about 15 jobs ranging from
low-skill to professional positions. For instance,
in recent weeks the show has fielded calls for air
traffic controllers, certified public accountants,
waitresses, radiologists, and guards. During the
show, Mr. Lowry interviews applicants, and
employment service officers advise them on
job hunting.
Mother’s Day

On May 10, a 1-day work stoppage was staged
by local and long distance operators of the New
York Telephone Co. over a wage dispute. The
union selected Mother’s Day for the stoppage
because the number of phone calls on that day
is much greater than on a normal Sunday. A
company spokesman said that although there were


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

some delays, supervisory personnel handled calls
requiring operators and dial service was not
affected.
Strike idleness

Idleness caused by strikes in April totaled 4.2
million man-days or .26 percent of the estimated
total working time. This compared to .18 percent
in April 1969 11 and .38 percent in April 1968. The
wildcat trucking strike, a walkout by Rubber
Workers against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.,
and numerous construction strikes accounted
for a significant portion of the idleness.
--------- F O O T N O T E S --------1 See

M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w ,

June 1970, p. 77.

2 See

M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w ,

June 1970, p. 79.

3 The New York News, the New York Post, and the
Long Island Press.
4 New York Coat and Suit Association, the Infants’
and Children’s Coat Association, and the American Cloak
and Suit Manufacturers Association.
5 See

M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w ,

August 1969, p. 73.

6 See

M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w ,

October 1969, p. 60.

7 See

M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w ,

June 1970, p. 80.

8 See M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1970, p. 68, for
details of the merger of the two affiliates in Los Angeles.
9 A more detailed analysis appears in
July 1, 1970.

C u rren t

W age

D e v e lo p m e n ts ,

10 See M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , June 1970, p. 76, for an
account of Mr. Reuther’s death.
11 Data for 1970 and 1969 are preliminary.

Book
Reviews
and
Notes
Power to the corporation

The American Corporation: Its Power, Its Money,
Its Politics. By Richard J. Barber. New York,
E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1970. 308 pp. $7.95.
In brief summary, Mr. Barber notes that fastpaced and extremely important changes are
sweeping across the business world, creating
radical transformations in the nature and func­
tions of the modern large corporation. As a result,
current public policies relating to business are
almost totally obsolete. Social critics and legis­
lators have paid very little attention to what is
happening and many corporate executives, partic­
ularly those over 40, are failing to understand
and adapt themselves to the new ways. If public
neglect continues, or if the response of the govern­
ment is inadequate, “big corporations are going
to pretty much shape the future of our world.”
Mr. Barber fears a social polarization in the United
States, with the highly educated and technically
skilled who have been assimilated into the new
business world and who can make it work in one
group, and with a mixed collection of small
businessmen, legislators unable to control or
even communicate with the new centers of private
economic power, the poor, the undereducated, and
“ideologically rigid liberals” in a second group.
The tensions and frustrations generated by such
polarization could very well destroy the Nation’s
present political system, according to the author.
Mr. Barber overstates his case when he asserts,
“In considering this central issue of public policy,
social critics have offered little of help in dealing
with the changing worlds of business, generally tak­
ing refuge in the myth and folklore of an earlier day.
Whatever the reason, there has been no systematic
continuing attention paid to the business sector
and to the way it affects all segments of the public.”
Nearly 15 years ago, A. A. Berle called attention
to the arrival of the “paraproprietal” society in
which the very concept of private ownership
was being distorted beyond any meaning by

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

! .-lllp lllF ;

I

I IC Z ^ i
institutional holdings of equity securities. Father
P. P. Harbrecht pointed to the movement of
pension funds and other financial institutions
towards positions of control in many corporations.
J. K. Galbraith added the word “technostructure”
to our vocabulary in reference to the new breed
of managers and technicians. There are substan­
tial bodies of literature dealing with corporate
diversification and the conglomerate merger move­
ment, increasing overall concentration of business,
the growing role of research and development in
corporate survival, the rise of computer-based
managerial sciences, and the growth of the multi­
national corporation. In fact, much of the best
work on these topics has been done by congres­
sional committees and government agencies.
Further, there has been a great deal of concern,
both inside and outside of government, over the
special relationship that has arisen between the
Department of Defense and its large prime
contractors, and the blurring of the line between
public and private functions which has resulted.
Mr. Barber is probably quite correct in noting that
soon a crucial problem will be demarcation of
appropriate areas of public and private respon­
sibilities in fields such as education, urban re­
newal, and pollution abatement, since some of the
major corporations have recognized opportunities
for profit in these activities which traditionally
have been well within the public sector.
The primary contributions are the author’s
assembling of pertinent and sometimes alarming
materials on all of these developments within the
covers of one book and his presentation of these
materials in untechnical and dramatic language.
The book is not merely a popularization: Mr.
Barber supplies perceptive and imaginative in­
sights of his own.
However, the book is weakened by disregard
of the rudimentary conventions of literary scholar­
ship. Mr. Barber’s readers would have been better
served by references to earlier works and at least
a short bibliography of less technical studies than
85

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

86

they are by the author’s assertion that the subject
has been ignored or dealt with only in outmoded
ways. He uses statistics lavishly and very effec­
tively, often for their shock value; but sources
are not cited, and the critical or unconvinced
reader will find no guide to the reliability of some
rather surprising numbers. Mr. Barber predicts
the future in what I consider to be annoyingly
dogmatic terms and with evident aversion to use
of the subjunctive mood.
This is a significant book, in that it collects and
synthesizes a broad range of material in very well
organized and clearly written form. And, as he
reminds his readers frequently, the subject is of
crucial importance.
—W illiam

L. B aldw in

Visiting Professor of Economics
Thammasat University
Bangkok, Thailand

Health planning

Men, Money, and Medicine. By Eli Ginzberg with
Miriam Os tow. New York, Columbia Univer­
sity Press, 1969. 291 pp. $8.50.
The senior author, a wTell-known economist,
has collected in the present volume 19 of his
recent articles and addresses dealing with such
issues as the nationwide health programs, the
health services industry of the country, the
medical profession and allied health personnel,
psychiatry and mental health. The articles are
neither ponderous research reports nor glib
editorials (so common in the professional journals)
but highly readable essays which discuss their
topics in the light of economic knowledge and
common sense. The result is an interesting book
which explores that important but controversial
area of the national health policy where money
and medicine intersect.
The issue of medical care, which in the last
few years came to occupy a place of national
interest, has been surrounded by many stereo­
types which are widely repeated and just as
widely accepted. The present book systematically
reexamines the stereotypes and, quite often,
raises the voice of caution and criticism. Thus,
concerning the problem of medical services to
the poor it argues cogently that an increase
in the number of medical school graduates, or an

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

increase of the auxiliary health personnel, does
not automatically guarantee that more physicians
will be available to treat the ghetto population.
“It would be naive to assume,” it warns, “that
an increased output of the medical schools in
New Orleans or Birmingham would result in
more physicians practicing in the Delta.” In a
similar vein, it takes up the matter of “over­
treating” patients and raises the question whether
a study of treating a wide range of conditions
would not conclude that those patients who were
treated least made the best progress. As another
point it reviews the vague or elusive fields of ill
health (such as mental health) where additional
financial, and even therapeutic, input cannot be
expected to result in surprisingly great changes
of the existing situation.
It is refreshing to hear an economist arguing
that money alone cannot solve our national
health problems. The book advocates an overall,
nationwide planning for, and a thorough re­
organization of, the system of delivering health
care. Its content deserves the attention of all
concerned with our national health policy.
— J o h n K osa
Associate Professor of Sociology
Department of Pediatrics
Harvard Medical School

Towards institutional reform

The Politics of Schools: A Crisis in Self-Govern­
ment. By Robert Bendiner. New York, Harper
& Row, Publishers, Inc., 1969. 240 pp.,
bibliography. $6.95.
Now that education is the largest single “in­
dustry” in the economy, and the fulcrum of up­
ward mobility for millions of Americans, questions
are increasingly raised concerning the validity
of traditional educational institutions particu­
larly the utility of the local lay school board.
In his timely and informative book, Robert
Bendiner provides insight into the problems con­
fronting school boards, and, in so doing, sheds
light on their long-term survivability.
Bendiner describes in highly readable language
the actions of school boards in handling three
of the major issues confronting the American
educational system: racial integration, collective
negotiations with teachers, and the quest for
adequate funds. On the integration issue he

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

87

reports the experience of the “can’t do” board of
New Orleans, the “won’t do” boards of Malvern,
Long Island, and Boston, and the “did do”
boards of Berkeley and Evanston, 111. In a similar
fashion, he describes the problems which collective
negotiations posed for the Michigan cities of
Flint and Ecorse and financial burdens confronting
Baltimore and Buffalo. These descriptions provide
valuable information and insight into the events
surrounding several school board confrontations
and are the strongest features of the book.
The author’s descriptions lead inexorably to
the conclusion that the school board as an in­
stitution is bankrupt economically and politically.
Rather than recommending abandonment, how­
ever, he casts the plight of the school board against
the backdrop of a larger problem—that of the
cities. Citing the experience of Toronto and Nash­
ville he recommends metropolitanism as a possible
solution for both the cities and the school board.
By gathering together in one place the bits and
pieces of information concerning the actions of
a large number of school boards and reporting
them in easily digestible form, the book performs
a valuable service for the lay community. The
author’s compilation contains a decided call to
action—to “do something” about the problems
he lays bare with such clear and entertaining prose.
But, the reader is left in a quandary of just what
to do—and therein lies the rub. While the book
is long on journalistic reporting, it is short on
analysis. The incompleteness of the details sur­
rounding any given confrontation and the sparsity
of material devoted to analyzing why events oc­
curred rather than just reporting them, all leave
the reader with precious few guideposts for con­
structive action.
In short, the book is a useful first step. By
gathering and reporting information concerning
the viability of the local lay school board, the
book focuses public attention on the inadequacies
in this central educational institution. While
Bendiner does net provide useful guidelines for
public policy action, now that the issue is moved
to the center stage, it should produce the public
debate which is the necessary second stage towards
possible institutional reform.
—J ames A. B elasco
Associate Professor and Chairman
Department of Organization
State University of New York at Buffalo

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Understanding productivity

A Primer on Productivity. By Solomon Fabricant.
New York, Random House, Inc., 1969.
206 pp., bibliography. $4.95.
Strictly speaking, this book is not a primer. A
primer has been defined as a small book of ele­
mentary principles and this book, although small,
manages to go somewhat beyond what would
seem to be elementary principles. It covers much
of the findings of current productivity research
and the problems of measurement and analysis
involved in developing these findings.
Divided into five parts, the volume covers (a)
the basic facts on productivity (what it is, the
productivity record, national and industry meas­
ures), (b) the sources of higher productivity
(labor, capital, “efficiency”), (c) the relation of
productivity to other economic variables—wages
prices, employment business cycles, (d) the role of
economic policy and productivity, and finally (e)
productivity abroad. While comprehensive in
coverage, most of the subject areas are dealt with
rather briefly, with concentration on the salient
points.
The one conclusion that emerges from this little
book, as it has from many of Dr. Fabricant’s
other works on productivity, such as his n b e r
Occasional Paper, “Basic Facts on Productivity,”
is that there is no single concept of productivity.
Productivity stands for a family of concepts
dealing with the ratio of output to input. It is a
tool of analysis and the particular measure depends
on the question being examined. For example, as
Fabricant points out in the chapter on produc­
tivity and the rise in wages and salaries, the
relevant measure of productivity for an analysis
of hourly earnings and productivity is an output
per man-hour measure. On the other hand, when
examining the relationships between productivity
and prices he argues that the output per unit of
labor and capital is more useful. (In this connec­
tion it is unfortunate that as a short-hand the
author uses the term “total productivity” for this
latter measure. Because of data and other limita­
tions the measure is limited to tangible capital and
a labor input only partially adjusted for quality
change and does not include all factor inputs.)
The book is a useful one, particularly for the
general reader. It is written clearly and in non­
technical language, but it is not superficial. More­
over, the subject will always be relevant (to use a

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

88

word overworked these days) for, as Fabricant
points out, whatever the focal point of current
public interest in economic matters it is a sure bet
that productivity will be involved either directly
or indirectly. The book can enhance the general
understanding of this role. Unfortunately, how­
ever, for the general reader who is stimulated by
these ideas, there is no reference in the book to
where he can turn to obtain current information
on productivity movements such as the quarterly
and annual data published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and included in the Monthly
Labor Review.
— J e r o m e A. M a r k
Assistant Commissioner for
Productivity and Technology
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Approaches to equal employment

Programs to Employ the Disadvantaged. Edited by
Peter B. Doeringer. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. 261 pp.
These detailed narratives on nine private sector
efforts to train and employ the disadvantaged
dramatize the point that the success of these kinds
of projects is hampered by many of the same
characteristics of the labor market that gave rise
to such program development.
Persons are disadvantaged in the labor market
because employers and potential fellow employees
discriminate against them on racial and ethnic
grounds; because social forces have established
school systems which make them into unemploy­
ables and which are prevented from responding to
their needs; because they are still residentially
confined to areas where it is often uneconomical
for plants to locate; because the relative costs of
hiring them and raising their productivity are
often excessive, in view of the multitude of ways in
which they are disadvantaged; because mitigating
their disadvantage seems to run counter to the
short-term interests of those trade union members
who are but two steps ahead of them in the labor
market queue; and because certain government
agencies, presumably charged with the responsi­
bility of supplying services on an equitable basis to
all, remain at best indifferent to efforts to equalize
labor market opportunities.
The contributors to this book describe: the
efforts by the Western Electric and Westinghouse

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

corporations to establish vestibule plants to pro­
vide work habit and skill training to the disad­
vantaged in Newark and Pittsburgh, respectively;
ibm ’s “act of corporate citizenship”—the estab­
lishment of a manufacturing facility to employ
black people in the heart of Brooklyn’s BedfordStuyvesant area; the Equitable Life Assurance
Society program in New York to prepare high
school dropouts for white-collar jobs; the joint
union-management program in the steel industry
to upgrade employees who are kept from advanc­
ing by their basic educational deficiencies; the
attempt by the General Electric company, Cleve­
land school administrators, and various members
of its business community to establish a training
center which would train young persons for em­
ployment in a number of particular firms in that
city; the program of the Workers’ Defense League,
an organization launched by A. Phillip Randolph,
to aid black youth who want to enter the typically
segregated craft union apprenticeship programs;
and, last, The Defense Department’s Project
100.000, which was supposedly designed to en­
hance the future labor market prospects of dis­
advantaged youth by accepting them into the
military on an experimental basis.
The descriptions of the programs graphically
illustrate for those who will design or intend to
operate projects of this sort the obstacles placed
in their way by, for example in the case of Project
100.000, reluctant State employment services; or,
in the case of the Workers’ Defense League pro­
gram, union journeymen who are unwilling to
train black youth who want to learn something
during their apprenticeships.
Each of the program descriptions is followed by
terse discussions. One raises the questions of
whether vestibule plants will be treated by com­
panies and government as substitutes for nondiscriminatory employment policies at higher oc­
cupational levels; and of how managers strike a
balance between the need for some efficiency in
production and the degree of disadvantage which
potential trainees may evidence before they are
rejected. Doeringer ends the book with a short
piece which nicely highlights some major issues
in this area.
— L e o n a r d J. H a u s m a n
Assistant Professor of
Economics and Social Policy
The Heller Graduate School
Brandeis University

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

89

Meeting practical needs

are capable of providing quickly and at low cost
the training needed by the disadvantaged. Public
vocational schools are often seen as responding
less rapidly to changing demands of students and
employers and as being fettered by procrustean
format and power structure of public education.
Finally, Dr. Belitsky makes a convincing case
for improved counseling for vocational education
and increased aid to the potential vocational
student. Into this general case he weaves the
argument for increased recognition and use of
private vocational schools.
While the reviewer is probably more impressed
with some of the problems of the private vocational
schools than Dr. Belitsky appears to be, nonethe­
less, this book definitely fills a gap in our knowl­
edge of the labor market and presents a strong
case for increased recognition of these schools.
Labor economists, manpower specialists, voca­
tional counselors, personnel managers, and public
officials would profit by reading this book.

Private Vocational Schools and Their Students:
Limited Objectives and Unlimited Opportuni­
ties. By A. Harvey Belitsky. Cambridge,
Mass., Schenkman Publishing Co., Inc., 1969.
186 pp. $7.95.
With this short volume, Dr. Belitsky has sig­
nificantly added to our knowledge of private
vocational schools and their potential role in
implementing the Nation’s broad manpower goals.
This is a careful study, but not a dull one.
First, the author describes the 7,000 private
vocational schools with their 1.5 million students
as filling an important need for the many young
people who never complete high school or who
complete high school but desire additional prac­
tical training. These schools have a threefold
goal: to provide the student with immediate
practical tools of a particular occupation, to sup­
ply employers with employees who have the
required training, and to make a profit on this
activity. Dr. Belitsky shows the positive side of
this profit orientation by emphasizing the flexi­
bility of private vocational schools in meeting the
practical needs of employers and students.
One might fault the author by pointing out the
importance of broader, longer run orientations
in education. Here, Dr. Belitsky emphasizes that
this, more properly is the role of public schools.
To my mind, the case for private vocational
schools with their limited objectives is greatly
strengthened by the findings from a survey made
of recent students of private vocational schools.
According to the survey, a majority of these
former students rated their schools as above aver­
age or better. Since many of these students are
high school dropouts, it can be argued that the
limited practical objective of vocational schools
is an operationally correct and socially useful
activity. Other evidence presented in this book
supports that position.
Equally interesting are Dr. Belitsky’s efforts to
demonstrate how private vocational schools can
be used more extensively to train the disadvan­
taged. At present these schools have been involved
to some extent in a number of government-spon­
sored programs, including manpower training
and vocational rehabilitation. The basis for Dr.
Belitsky’s argument is that these private schools
are operating at only 60 percent of capacity and

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

— J ack W. S k e e l s
Professor of Economics
Northern Illinois University

Other recent publications
Economic development
Grampp, William D., “On Manufacturing and Develop­
ment,” E c o n o m ic D e v e lo p m e n t a n d C u ltr ir a l C h a n g e ,
University of Chicago, April 1970, pp. 451-463.
Rodriguez, Luis Alberto, “Alliance for Progress: An
Experience in International Cooperation and De­
velopment,” G r o w th a n d C h a n g e , University of Ken­
tucky, College of Business and Economics, April
1970, pp. 17-24.
Roussel, Louis, “ Measuring Rural-Urban Drift in De­
veloping Countries: A Suggested Method,” I n t e r ­
n a tio n a l L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1970, pp. 229-246.
van Nieuwenhuijze, C. A. O., D e v e lo p m e n t: A C h a lle n g e to
W h o m ? The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1969, 203 pp.
$8.25, Humanities Press, Inc., New York.
Young, Ruth C., “The Plantation Economy and In­
dustrial Development in Latin America,” E c o n o m ic
D e v e lo p m e n t a n d
C u ltu r a l C h a n g e ,
University of
Chicago, April 1970, pp. 342-361.

Education and training
Brameld, Theodore, T h e C lim a c tic D e c a d e s : M a n d a t e to
E d u c a tio n . New York, Praeger Publishers, 1970, 210
pp. $7.95.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

90
Clurman, Michael, “How Shall We Finance Higher Edu­
cation,” P u b l i c I n te r e s t, Spring 1970, pp. 98-110.
Drennan, William D., editor,

Staudohar, Paul D., “Voluntary Binding Arbitration in
Public Employment,” A r b i t r a t i o n J o u r n a l , 1970,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 30-39.

T h e F o u r th S t r i k e : H i r i n g

New York, American
Management Association, 1970, 154 pp. $5.

a n d T r a i n i n g th e D is a d v a n ta g e d .

Harwood, Alice, “Bridging the Gap Between High School
and a Job in Business,” T r a i n i n g a n d D e v e lo p m e n t
J o u r n a l , May 1970, pp. 26-29.

Ullman, Joseph C. and James P. Begin, “The Structure
and Scope of Appeals Procedures for Public Em­
ployees,” I n d u s t r i a l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R e v ie w , April
1970, pp. 323-334.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,

W o r k S to p p a g e s — E l e c tr i ­

ca l M a c h in e r y I n d u s tr y , 1 9 2 7 -6 8 .

National Education Association, “Facts on American Edu­
cation,” N E A R e s e a r c h B u l l e t i n , May 1970, pp. 35-41.
Rich, Elizabeth,

F l y i n g H ig h : W h a t I t ’s L ik e T o B e a n

S te w a r d e s s . New York,
Publishers, 1970, 189 pp. $5.95.

A ir lin e

--------- , W o r k S t o p p a g e s i n G o v e r n m e n t, 1 9 5 8 - 6 8 . Washing­
ton, 1970, 18 pp., bibliography. (Report 348.) Free.

Stein and Day,
Wedderburn K. W. and P. L. Davies,

S c h o o ls A g a i n s t C h ild r e n :

T h e C a s e f o r C o m m u n ity C o n tr o l. New York, Monthly
Review Press, 1970, 299 pp. $7.50.

Windham, Douglas M., E d u c a tio n , E q u a l i t y a n d I n c o m e
R e d is tr ib u tio n . Lexington, Mass., Heath Lexington
Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1970, 120 pp. $10.

Health and safety
Follmann, J. F., Jr., I n s u r a n c e C o v e ra g e f o r M e n t a l I ll n e s s .
New York, American Management Association, 1970.
135 pp. $5.

E m p lo y m e n t G r ie v ­

Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1970, 301 pp. $10.50.

a n ces a n d D is p u te s P ro c e d u re s in

Rubinstein, Annette T., editor,

Washington, 1970,

27 pp. (Report 374.) Free.

B r ita in .

Labor force
Adams, E. Sherman, “Coping With Ghetto Unemploy­
ment,” C o n fe r e n c e B o a r d R e c o r d , May 1970, pp.
41-45.
Barzelay, Ross, “Giving Summer Jobs a New Dimension,”
M a n p o w e r , U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower
Administration, May 1970, pp. 21-24.
Berkley, George E., T h e D e m o c r a tic P o lic e m a n . Boston,
Beacon Press, 1969, 232 pp., bibliography. $7.50.

Garfield, Sidney R., “The Delivery of Medical Care,”
S c ie n tif ic A m e r ic a n , April 1970, pp. 15-23.

Chatterjee, N. N., “Mahatma Gandhi and the Industrial
Worker,” I n t e r n a t i o n a l L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1970,
pp. 215-228.

Industrial relations

Cosgrove, David S., “The Temporary Help Boom,”
P e r s o n n e l,
American
Management Association,
March-April 1970, pp. 44-48.

Ash, Philip, “The Parties to the Grievance,”
P s y c h o lo g y :

A Jo u rn a l

o f A p p lie d

P erso n n el

R esea rch ,

Spring

1970, pp. 13-37.
Canada Department of Labor, “Strikes and the Public
Employee [in Canada],” L a b o r G a z e tte , April 1970,
pp. 279-281.
Dolnick, David, “The Settlement of Grievances and the
‘Job Conscious’ Theory,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l , April
1970, pp. 240-247.
Institute of Collective Bargaining and Group Relations,
C o lle c tiv e B a r g a i n i n g T o d a y . Proceedings of a Collec­
tive Bargaining Forum, May 12-13, 1969. Washington,
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1970, 503 pp. $15.

Fitzgerald, Paul, “Recruitment of Teachers— A Need for
Réévaluation,” P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l ,
April 1970,
pp. 312-314.
Gernstenfeld, Arthur and Gabriel Rosica, “Why Engineers
Transfer: Survey Pinpoints Reasons for Job
Changes,” B u s i n e s s H o r iz o n s , Indiana University,
Graduate School of Business, April 1970, pp. 43-48.
Morton, J. E., O n th e E v o lu tio n o f M a n p o w e r S t a t i s t i c s .
Kalamazoo, Mich., W. E. Upjohn Institute for Em­
ployment Research, 1969, 113 pp. Single copy free.
Olivero, James L. and Edward G. Buffie, editors,
tio n a l M a n p o w e r : F r o m

Moore, Joseph E., “The National Labor Relations Board
and Supervisors,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l , April 1970,
pp. 195-205.
Seidman, Joel,

“Nurses and

In d u s tr ia l a n d

Labor

pp. 335-351.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Collective Bargaining,”
R e la tio n s R e v ie w , April 1970,

E duca­

A i d e s to D if f e r e n tia te d S t a f f

Bloomington, Indiana University Press,
1970, 365 pp. (Bold New Venture Series.) $7.50.

P a tt e r n s .

Riley, Matilda White, John W. Riley, Jr., and Marilyn E.
Johnson, editors, A g i n g a n d S o c ie ty — V o lu m e T w o :
A g i n g a n d th e P r o f e s s io n s . New York, Russell Sage
Foundation, 1969, 410 pp. $9.50.

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

Sheppard, Harold L., editor,
to lo g y : A n

91

T o w a r d a n I n d u s tr ia l G eron ­

I n tr o d u c tio n

to a

N ew

F ie ld

o f A p p lie d

Cambridge, Mass., Schenkman
Publishing Co., 1970, 165 pp. $7.95.
R e s e a r c h a n d S e r v ic e .

Stark, Milton J., “Turnover: Pay Does Make a Dif­
ference,” C o n fe r e n c e B o a r d R e c o r d , April 1970, pp.
48-50.
U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, T e c h n ic ia n M a n ­
p o w e r , 1 9 6 6 - 8 0 . Washington, 1970, 28 pp. (Bulletin
1639.) 35 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.

Williams, Lawrence A., “City Jobs: Rich Potential for the
Poor,” M a n p o w e r , U.S. Department of Labor,
Manpower Administration, May 1970, pp. 12-15.

Steinmetz, Lawrence L.,

Epstein, Melech,

Wright, Robert, “Managing Man as a Capital Asset,”
P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l , April 1970, pp. 290-298.

Productivity and technological change
Braden, William,

T h e A g e o f A q u a r i u s : T e c h n o lo g y a n d th e

C u ltu r a l R e v o lu tio n .

Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1970,

306 pp. $7.95.
T e c h n o lo g ic a l C h a n g e a n d L a b o r i n th e R a i l ­

Lexington, Mass., Heath Lexington
Books, D. C. Heath and Co., 1970, 159 pp. $12.50.

ro a d

I n d u s tr y .

J e w is h L a b o r i n U . S . A . : A n I n d u s t r i a l ,

P o litic a l a n d

C u ltu r a l

H is to r y

o f th e

J e w is h

Labor

New York, KTAV
Publishing House, Inc., 1970, 922 pp. (2 vols.) 2d
ed. $22.50.
M o v e m e n t, 1 8 8 2 - 1 9 1 4 , 1 9 1 4 - 1 9 5 2 .

Krouner, Leonard, “Arbitration on a New Frontier: The
UAW’s Public Review Board,” A r b i t r a t i o n J o u r n a l,
1970, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 23-29.
Leab, Daniel J.,

P erfo rm er.

Widdop, F. R., “Why Performance Standards Don’t
Work,” P e r s o n n e l, American Management As­
sociation, March-April 1970, pp. 14-20.

Cottrell, Fred,

Labor organizations

M a n a g i n g th e M a r g i n a l a n d U n ­

Reading, Mass., AddisonWesley Publishing Co., 1969, 213 pp. $5.95.

s a t i s f a c to r y

A

Fellner, William, “Trends in the Activities Generating
Technological Progress,” A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w ,
March 1970, pp. 1-29.
White, Lee M., Jr., “The Electronic Explosion,”
F e d e r a tio n is t, April 1970, pp. 1-6.

A m e r ic a n

Social security

U n io n o f I n d i v i d u a l s : T h e F o r m a tio n

N e w s p a p e r G u ild , 1 9 3 3 - 1 9 3 6 . New
York, Columbia University Press, 1970, 362 pp.,
bibliography. $10.

Hapgood, David, “Beyond Welfare Reform: An End to
Demeaning Work,” W a s h in g to n M o n th ly , May 1970,
pp. 4-10.

Perline, Martin M. and M. W. Mosier, “Background of
American Labor Union Presidents: A Preliminary
Study,” P e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l , April 1970, pp. 329-331,
336.

Munts, Raymond, “Partial Benefit Schedules in Unem­
ployment Insurance: Their Effect on Work Incen­
tives,” J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R e s o u r c e s , University of
Wisconsin, Spring 1970, pp. 160-176.

Robinson, James W., “Bargaining Provisions in Inde­
pendent Union Constitutions,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l,
April 1970, pp. 214-221.

Papier,

o f th e A m e r ic a n

Seidman, Joel, editor,
tiv e

B a r g a in in g :

T r a d e U n io n G o v e r n m e n t a n d C o lle c ­
Som e

C r itic a l

Issu es.

New York,

L a b o r O r g a n iz a tio n s : A

M ic r o - S o c io lo g ic a l A n a l y s i s o n a

M e d ic a r e a n d th e A m e r ic a n

R h e to r ic

o f R e c o n c ilia tio n .
M a cro -

and

C o m p a r a tiv e B a s i s .

London, Cambridge University Press, 1970, 257 pp.,
bibliography. $9.50, Cambridge University Press,
New York.

Personnel management
Hampton, David R., “Contests as Misdirected Moti­
vators,” C o m p e n s a tio n R e v ie w , American Manage­
ment Association, Second Quarter 1970, pp. 32-38.
Roche, William L. and Neil L. MacKinnon, “Motivating
People with Meaningful Work,” H a r v a r d B u s in e s s
R e v ie w , May 1970, pp. 97-110.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Skidmore, Max J.,

University, University of Alabama
Press, 1970, 198 pp. $6.75.

Praeger Publishers, 1970, 304 pp. $15.
van de Vail, Mark,

William, W h a t ’s W r o n g W i t h U n e m p lo y m e n t
Columbus, Ohio Bureau of Employment
Services, 1970, 14 pp., bibliography. (Reprinted
from J o u r n a l o f R i s k a n d I n s u r a n c e , March 1970.)
In su ra n ce.

Wages and hours
Papola, T. S. and V. P. Bharadwaj, “Dynamics of Industrial
Wage Structure: An Inter-Country Analysis,” E c o ­
n o m ic J o u r n a l , Royal Economic Society, March 1970,
pp. 72-90.
Patton, Arch, “Executive Compensation Inequities:
Problems of Maintaining Motivation,” B u s i n e s s
H o r iz o n s , Indiana University, Graduate School of
Business, April 1970, pp. 73-84.
Porter, Allan A. and others,
U n ite d

S ta t e s :

An

W ages in

A n a ly tic a l

C a n a d a a n d th e

C o m p a r is o n .

Ottawa,

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

92
Canada Department of Labor, Economics and
Research Branch, 1969, 153 pp. (Occasional Paper 6.)
$1.75, Queen’s Printer, Ottawa.

Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1970, 187 pp.
$7.50.
International City Management Association,

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
M e m p h is ,

T e r m - A r k .,

A rea W age S u rvey: The

M e tr o p o lita n

A rea,

N ovem ber

Washington, 1970, 30 pp. (Bulletin 1660-31.)
40 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington.
Other recent bulletins in this series include the
metropolitan areas of Miami, Fla.; San FranciscoOakland, Calif.; Boise City, Idaho; Jacksonville,
Fla.; San Diego, Calif.; Dayton, Ohio; YoungstownWarren, Ohio; Jackson, Miss.; New Haven, Conn.;
Denver, Colo.; New Orleans, La.; San BernardinoRiverside-Ontario, Calif. (Bulletins 1660-32 through
1660-43.) Various pagings and prices.
1969.

The

M u­

n i c i p a l Y e a r B o o k , 1 9 7 0 : T h e A u th o r ita tiv e R ¿ s u m ¿ o f
A c ti v i t i e s

and

S ta tis tic a l

D a ta

of

A m e r ic a n

C itie s .

Washington, 1970, 653 pp.
Kuhn, W. E., T h e E v o lu tio n o f E c o n o m ic T h o u g h t. Cincin­
nati, Ohio, South-Western Publishing Co., 1970, 500
pp. 2d ed. $9.25.
Macarov, David, I n c e n tiv e s T o W o r k . San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass Inc., 1970, 253 pp. $8.75.
Miller, S. M. and Pamela A. Roby, T h e F u tu r e o f I n e q u a l i t y .
New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1970, 272 pp. $7.95.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Y o u th U n e m p lo y m e n t
a n d M i n i m u m W a g e s . Washington, 1970, 189 pp.
(Bulletin 1657.) $1.50, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington.

Nordlinger, Eric A., editor,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Eco­
nomics, “State Personal Income in 1969,” S u r v e y o f
C u r r e n t B u s i n e s s , April 1970, pp. 14-17.

Orr, John A. and Donald T. Savage, E c o n o m ic s i n A m e r ic a n
S o c ie ty . Belmont, Calif., Wadsworth Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1970, 395 pp.

Wheeler, Kenneth E., “Small Business Eyes the FourDay Workweek,” H a r v a r d B u s i n e s s R e v ie w , May
1970, pp. 142-147.

Sadofsky, Stanley, Michael Munk, Lita Paniagua,

Whittingham, Frank,
and

Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970, 351 pp. $6.95.

The

New
York, New York University, Center for Study of the
Unemployed, 1970, 96 pp.

I m p a c t o f P u b l i c P o li c i e s o n D e lin q u e n t Y o u th .

M i n i m u m W a g e s i n O n ta r io : A n a l y ­

P r o b le m s . Kingston, Ontario,
Queen’s University, Industrial Relations Center,
1970, 55 pp. (Research Series, 11.) $3.
s is

P o li t i c s a n d S o c ie ty : S t u d i e s i n
C o m p a r a tiv e P o l i t i c a l S o c io lo g y . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,

M e a su rem en t

Miscellaneous
Breckenridge, Adam Carlyle, T h e R ig h t to P r i v a c y . Lincoln,
University of Nebraska Press, 1970, 155 pp. $5.75.
Bureau of National Affairs, L a b o r R e la tio n s
1 9 6 9 . Washington, 1970, 853 pp. $12.

Y ea r B ook,

Sauvy, Alfred, G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f P o p u l a t i o n . Translated by
Christophe Campos. New York, Basic Books, Inc.,
1970, 551 pp. $12.50.
Sheppard, Harold L., editor, P o v e r ty a n d W e a lth i n A m e r i ­
c a . Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1970, 279 pp. (A New
York Times Book.) $2.45, paperback.
Silk, Leonard S., C o n te m p o r a r y E c o n o m ic s : P r i n c i p l e s a n d
I s s u e s . New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970, 407
pp. $8.95.

Burns, Tom, editor, I n d u s t r i a l M a n — S e le c te d R e a d in g s .
Baltimore, Md., Penguin Books, 1969, 414 pp.
(Penguin Modern Sociology Readings.) $2.25,
paperback.

Sirageldin, Ismail Abdel-Hamid, N o n - M a r k e t C o m p o n e n ts
o f N a t i o n a l I n c o m e . Ann Arbor, University of Mich­
igan, Institute for Social Research, 1969, 127 pp.,
bibliography. $3, paperback.

Gilbert, Neil,

Steiner, Stan, L a R a z a : T h e M e x i c a n A m e r ic a n s . New
York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970, 418 pp. $8.95.

C lie n ts o r C o n s titu e n ts : C o m m u n ity A c ti o n

San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Inc., 1970, 192 pp. $7.75.

in

th e W a r o n P o v e r ty .

U.S. Department of Labor,
Hailstones, Thomas J. and Michael J. Brennan,

E c o n o m ic s :

A n a l y s i s o f P r i n c i p l e s a n d P o li c i e s . Cincinnati,
Ohio, South-Western Publishing Co., 1970, 932 pp.
$10.25.

An

5 7 th A n n u a l R e p o r t o f th e
U n ite d S ta te s D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r , F i s c a l Y e a r 1 9 6 9 .

Washington, 1970, 62 pp. 35 cents, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.
Wilken, Folkert,

Harris, Richard,

T h e L ib e r a tio n o f W o r k : T h e E l i m i n a t i o n

T h e C r is is o f L a w , O rd er, a n d

o f S t r i k e s a n d S t r i f e i n I n d u s t r y T h r o u g h A s s o c ia tiv e

New York, E. P. Dutton & Co.,
Inc., 1970, 268 pp. $6.95.

O r g a n iz a tio n o f E n t e r p r i s e . New York, Roy Publishers,
Inc., 1970, 109 pp. $4.50.

J u s tic e :

F r e e d o m i n A m e r ic a .

Helfrich,

Harold W., Jr., editor,

C r is is :

M a r i ’s

S tr u g g le


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

to

L iv e

The
W ith

E n v ir o n m e n ta l
H im s e lf.

New

Winch, Donald, E c o n o m ic s a n d P o li c y : A H i s t o r i c a l S t u d y .
New York, Walker and Company, 1970, 366 pp. $10.

BUDGET
3 Budgets for a Retired Couple in Urban Areas of the United States, 1967-68. Bulletin 1570-6. 74 pp.
70 cents.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Major Collective Bargaining Agreements: Seniority in Promotion and Transfer Patterns. Bulletin 142511. 81 pp. 75 cents.
Work Stoppages—Electrical Machinery Industry, 1927-68. Report 374. 27 pp. Free from BLS regional
offices.
Work Stoppages in Government, 1958-68. Report 348. 18 pp. Free from BLS regional offices.
MANPOWER
Technician Manpower, 1966-80. Bulletin 1639. 28 pp. 35 cents.
PRODUCTIVITY
Productivity in the Railroad Industry. Report 377. 22 pp. Free from BLS regional offices.
WAGES
Youth Unemployment and Minimum Wages. Bulletin 1657. 189 pp. $1.50.
Area Wage Surveys (metropolitan areas):
Memphis, Tenn.-Ark., November 1969. Bulletin 1660-31. 30 pp. 40 cents.
Jackson, Miss., January 1970. Bulletin 1660-39. 15 pp. 30 cents.
New Haven, Conn., January 1970. Bulletin 1660-40. 28 pp. 35 cents.
Denver, Colo., December 1969. Bulletin 1660-41. 30 pp. 40 cents.
New Orleans, La., January 1970. Bulletin 1660-42. 18 pp. 30 cents.
San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, Calif., December 1969. Bulletin 1660-43. 19 pp. 30 cents.
Midland and Odessa, Tex., January 1970. Bulletin 1660-44. 22 pp. 35 cents.
Waterloo, Iowa, January 1970. Bulletin 1660-45. 13 pp. 30 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

94

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Introducing new benchmarks

In the following section, 11 tables based on
employment estimates from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics establishment payroll survey have been
adjusted to reflect complete employment counts
as of March 1969.
These adjustments, which affect most published
categories, mean that the employment series ap­
pearing in tables 11, 13, and 14 have been revised
back to March 1968. Data on hours, earnings, and
labor turnover (tables 15 through 22), which are
weighted by employment, may also have been re­
revised as a result of the changes in employment
levels.
New benchmarks are determined in March of
each year for the most detailed industrial classifi­
cations on which estimates are available. The
corresponding current estimates are adjusted to
the new levels which then are aggregated through
successively inclusive series to total nonagricultural employment. The March 1969 total bench­
mark count of 69 million workers on nonagricultural payrolls was higher than the original estimate
by 128,000 or 0.2 percent. Adjustments amounted
to less than 1 percent for all major divisions except
mining, which was revised by 1.5 percent.
About 30 percent of the nation’s nonagricultural wage and salaried workers are employed in
manufacturing industries. Of the 21 major groups
in this division, 19 were revised by less than 2
percent. Revisions were somewhat larger for some
of the 4-digit component industries, but two-thirds
of these differed by less than 3 percent and only 12
percent differed by 5 percent or more.
Differences between the benchmarks and esti­
mates result not only from sampling and response
errors, but also from changes in industrial classi­
fications of individual establishments which are
not reflected in the estimates level until the data
are adjusted to new benchmarks. At the more
detailed industry levels, particularly within manu­
facturing, changes in classification are the major
cause of benchmark adjustment. Another, gener­


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ally infrequent, cause of benchmark adjustment
is improvements in the quality of the benchmark
data.
The difference between estimates and bench­
marks is assumed to have accumulated in constant
increments over the previous 12 months. Most
series, therefore, are adjusted by wedging or
tapering out the difference over the period from
the new benchmark to the preceding one. Esti­
mates subsequent to the new benchmark are re­
vised by projecting the new level forward to the
current month, using the trend shown by the
reporting sample.
Benchmarks are not available for hours, earn­
ings, and labor turnover. The levels are derived
from the bls reporting sample only. For primary
estimating cells the series are computed directly
from reported figures. Series for more inclusive
categories, however, require a weighting mechan­
ism to yield meaningful averages. Generally
speaking, the introduction of new benchmarks
does not change average weekly hours, average
hourly earnings, and labor turnover rates for
broader groupings by more than one-tenth of an
hour, one cent, or one-tenth of one percentage
point, respectively.
Hours and earnings for workers in the trans­
portation and public utilities and services divi­
sions are also being introduced in tables 17-21 of
this issue. The addition of these two series means
that hours and earnings estimates are now being
published for all divisions in the private nonagricultural economy.
Revised seasonally adjusted series reflect ex­
perience through February 1970. Seasonal factors
for current use along with a detailed discussion
of the benchmark adjustment appear in the June
1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.
— G erald S torch
Division of Industry Employment Statistics

Current
Labor
Statistics

Employment and unemployment—household data
1.

Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1947 to date..................................................................................

2.

Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages.........................

96

3.
4.

Full- and part-time status of civilian labor force...............................................................................................................
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted, quarterly data............................................

97
97

5.

Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages.................

98

6.

Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment........................................................................................................

98

96

7.

Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted............................................................................................

99

8.

Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted................................................................................................................

100

9.

Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted..............................................................................................................

100

10.

Unemployment insurance and employment services......................................................................................................

101

Nonagricultural employment—payroll data
Employment by industry, 1947 to date...............................................................................................................................

102

12. Employment by State.............................................................................................................................................................
13. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group...............................................................................

11.

102
103

14.

104

Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted...........................................

Labor turnover rates
15.
16.

Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1959 to date................................................................................................................
Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group............................................................................................

105
106

Hours and earnings—private nonagricultural payrolls
17. Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1947 to date..................................................................................................
18. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group............................................................................

107
108

19. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted........................................

109

20.
21.

Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group.......................................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group........................................................................

110

22.

Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1957-59 dollars..........................................................................................

112

I l l

Prices
23. Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1949 to date...................................................................................................
24. Consumer Price Index, general summary and selected items........................................................................................

112
113

25.

Consumer Price index, selected areas...............................................................................................................................

119

26.

Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of commodities....................................................................................

120

27. Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity groupings..............................................................................................
28. Wholesale Price Index, by stage of processing.................................................................................................................
29. Wholesale Price Index, by durability of product...............................................................................................................

122
123
124

30.

124

Industry-sector price index for output of selected industries.........................................................................................

Labor-management disputes
31.

Work stoppages and time lost..............................................................................................................................................

126

Productivity
32.

Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unitlabor costs...............................................................

127

Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series...........................................................

127


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

95

96
1,

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

HOUSEHOLD DATA

Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947 to date

[Inthousands]
Civilian laborforce

Total labor force
Yaar

2.

Number

Total

Percent of
population

60,941
62,080
62,903
63,858
65,117
65,730
66, 560
66,993
68,072
69,409
69,729
70,275
70,921
72,142
73,031
73,442
74,571
75,830
77,178
78,893
80,793
82,272
84,239

103,418
104,527
105,611
106,645
107,721
108,823
110,601
111,671
112,732
113,811
115,065
116,363
117,881
119,759
121,343
122,981
125,154
127,224
129,236
131,180
133,319
135, 562
137,841

1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

Unemployed

Employed

Total non­
institutional
population

Total

Nonagricultural
industries

7,891
7,629
7,656
7,160
6,726
6,501
6,261
6,206
6,449
6,283
5,947
5,586
5,565
5,458
5,200
4,944
4,687
4,523
4,361
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606

49,148
50,713
49,990
51,760
53,239
53,753
54,922
53,903
55,724
57,517
58,123
57,450
59,065
60,318
60, 546
61,759
63,076
64,782
66,726
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296

57,039
58,344
57,649
58,920
59,962
60,254
61,181
60,110
62,171
63,802
64,071
63,036
64,630
65,778
65,746
66,702
67,762
69,305
71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902

59,350
60,621
61,286
62,208
62,017
62,138
63,015
63,643
65,023
66, 552
66,929
67,639
68,369
69,628
70,459
70,614
71,833
73,091
74,455
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,733

58.9
59. 4
59.6
59.9
60.4
60.4
60.2
60.0
60.4
61.0
60.6
60.4
60.2
60.2
60.2
59.7
59.6
59.6
59.7
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1

Agriculture

Number

Percent of
labor
force

Not in
labor force

3.9
3.8
5.9
5.3
3.3
3.0
2.9
5.5
4.4
4.1
4.3
6.8
5.5
5. 5
6.7
5. 5
5. 7
5.2
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5

2,311
2,276
3,637
3,288
2,055
1,883
1,834
3,532
2,852
2,750
2,859
4,602
3.740
3,852
4,714
3,911
4,070
3,786
3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,831

42,477
42,447
42,708
42,787
42,604
43,093
44,041
44,678
44,660
44,402
45,336
46,088
46,960
47,617
48,312
49, 539
50, 583
51,394
52,058
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602

Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted,i quarterly averages

[Inthousands]
Annual average

1967

1968

1969

1970
Characteristic

1968

1st

4th

3d

2d

1st

4th

3d

2d

1st

4th

3d

2d

1st

1959

73 316
42|245
24'513
6, 558
70, 527
41,180
23, 587
5;760
2,789
1,065
926
798
3.8
2.5
3.8
12.2

72,475
41,956
24,156
6,363
70, 096
41,091
23,327
5,678
2,379
865
829
685
3.3
2.1
3.4
10.8

71,942
41,842
23,949
6,151
69, 575
40,995
23,120
5,450
2,367
847
829
691
3.3
2.0
3.5
11.2

71,466
41,639
23,684
6,143
69,260
40, 871
22, 891
5,498
2,206
768
793
645
3.1
1.8
3.3
10.5

71,285
41,656
23,566
6,036
69,135
40,926
22,794
5,415
2,150
730
772
648
3.0
1.8
3.3
10.7

70,392
41,423
23,122
5,847
68, 267
40,677
22,372
5,218
2,125
746
750
629
3.0
1.8
3.2
10.8

70,045
41,373
22, 843
5,829
67,804
40, 553
22,066
5,185
2,241
820
777
644
3.2
2.0
3.4
11.0

69,851
41,235
22,741
5,875
67,617
40, 405
21,987
5,225
2,234
830
754
650
3.2
2.0
3.3
11.1

69, 587
41,230
22,565
5,792
67,311
40,376
21,777
5,158
2,276
854
788
634
3.3
2.1
3.5
10.9

69,440
41,175
22, 632
5,633
67, 032
40,300
21,766
4,966
2,408
875
866
667
3.5
2.1
3.8
11.8

68,944
40,972
22,276
5,696
66,576
40, 101
21,416
5,059
2,368
871
860
637
3.4
2.1
3.9
11.2

68,210
40, 673
21,775
5,762
65,888
39, 772
20,963
5,153
2,322
901
812
609
3.4
2.2
3.7
10.6

68,226
40,607
21,709
5,910
65,970
39,775
20,902
5,293
2,256
832
807
617
3.3
2.0
3.7
10.4

71,778
41,772
23,838
6,168
69,518
40,978
23,032
5, 508
2,260
794
806
660
3.1
1.9
3.4
10.7

69,975
41,317
22,820
b, 838
67,750
40, 503
22, 052
5,195
2,225
814
768
643
3.2
2.0
3.4
11.0

9, 224
4,700
3,682
842
8, 598
4,498
3,468
632
626
201
215
210
6.8
4.3
5.8
24.9

9,056
4,622
3,616
818
8,500
4,445
3,429
626
556
177
187
192
6.1
3.8
5.2
23.5

8,979
4,593
3,595
791
8,394
4,416
3,372
606
585
177
223
185
6.5
3.9
6.2
23.4

8,867
4,549
3,535
783
8,271
4,382
3,307
582
596
167
228
201
6.7
3.7
6.4
25.7

8,914
4,554
3,550
810
8,371
4,397
3,352
622
543
157
198
188
6.1
3.4
5.6
23.2

8,737
4, 513
3,468
756
8,164
4,335
3,264
565
573
178
204
191
6.6
3.9
5.9
25.3

8,700
4,517
3,414
769
8,132
4,349
3,205
578
568
168
209
191
6.5
3.7
6.1
24.8

8,828
4,562
3,467
799
8,233
4,388
3,246
599
595
174
221
200
6.7
3.8
6.4
25.0

8,762
4,543
3,433
786
8,147
4,351
3,200
596
615
192
233
190
7.0
4.2
6.8
24.2

8,733
4,496
3,444
793
8,073
4,305
3,191
577
660
191
253
216
7.6
4.2
7.3
27.2

8,632
4, 507
3,348
777
8,006
4,328
3,112
566
626
179
236
211
7.3
4.0
7.0
27.2

8,632
4, 505
3,347
780
7,986
4,303
3,115
568
646
202
232
212
7.5
4.5
6.9
27.2

8,599
4,500
3,362
737
7,974
4,299
3,118
557
625
201
244
180
7.3
4. 5
7.3
24.4

8,954
4,579
3,574
801
8,384
4,410
3, 365
609
570
169
209
192
6.4
3.7
5. 8
24.0

8,759
4, 535
3,446
778
8,169
4, 35b
3,229
584
590
179
217
194
6.7
3.9
6.3
24.9

W H IT E
Civilian labor force

........................................

Men, 20 years and over__
Women, 20 years and over_
Both sexes, 16-19 years__

Employed

..............................................................

Men, 20 years and over__
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

Unemployed..............................................................

Men, 20 years and over__
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years._.

Unemployment rate ........................................

Men, 20 years and over__
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...
N EG R O AND O TH ER

Civilian labor force

........................................

Men, 20 years and over_
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

Employed

..............................................................

Men, 20 years and over_
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

U nem p loye d..........................................................

Men, 20 years and over_
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

Unemployment rate ........................................

Men, 20 years and over...
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969. adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of EmploymentandEarnings.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
3.

HOUSEHOLD DATA

97

Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force

[In thousands—not seasonally adjusted]
1970

Employment status
May
FULLTIME
Civilianlaborforce_________
Employed:
Full-time schedules*____
Part-time for economic
reasons__________
Unemployed, looking for full­
time work......................
Unemployment rate..............
PARTTIME
Civilianlaborforce_________
Employed(voluntary parttime)............................
Unemployed, looking for parttime work___________
Unemployment rate_______

Apr.

Mar.

1969
Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Annual average

Aug.

July

June

May

1969

1968

69,383 69,255 69,116 69, 018 68,869 69,204 69,296 69,491 70,350 73,713 73,514 72,365 67,818 69,700

68,332

64,413 64,166 64,108 63,997 64,155 65, 302 65,517 65, 594 66,206 68,854 68,471 67,011 64,346 65, 503
2,128 2,301 2,139 2,117 2,135 1,998 1,916 1,955 2,069 2,607 2,456 2,522 1,672 2,055

64,225
1,970

2,842
4.1

2,787
4.0

2,869
4.2

2,904
4.2

2, 579
3.7

1,904
2.8

1,864
2.7

2,075
2.9

2,251
3.1

2,587
3.5

2,831
3.9

2,142
3.1

2,138
'3.1

12,358 12,706 12, 574 12,266 11,850 12,212 12,131 12,019 10,634

8,803

9,283

9,991 11,745 11,032

10,405

11,816 11,940 11,711 11,375 11,023 11,488 11,284 11,122

9,751

8,185

8,688

9,422 11,245 10,343

9,726

883
8.3

618
7.0

594
6.4

542
4.4

765
6.0

863
6.9

890
7.3

724
5.9

827
7.0

847
7.0

1,942
2.8

898
7.5

568
5.7

1,799
2.7

500
4.3

689
6.2

679
6.5

1Employed persons with a job but not at work are distributed proportionately amongthe full- and part-time employed categories.

4.

Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1

[Inthousands]
1970

Employment status
TOTAL
Totallaborforco___________
Civilianlaborforce_________
Employed.....................
Agriculture________
Nonagriculture______
Unemployed.................
MEN, 20 YEARS ANDOVER
Totallaborforce.............. ......
Civilianlaborforce_________
Employed___ ______
Agriculture................
Nonagriculture............
Unemployed.................
WOMEN, 20 YEARSANDOVER
Civilianlaborforce_________
Employed.....................
Agriculture________
Nonagriculture..... ......
Unemployed......... ......
BOTHSEXES, 16-19 YEARS
Civilianlaborforce..................
Employed.....................
Agriculture________
Nonagriculture______
Unemployed________

1969

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

1969

1968

85,783
82, 555
78, 449
3,613
74, 836
4,106

86,143
82, 872
78, 924
3, 586
75, 338
3, 948

86,087
82, 769
79,112
3, 550
75, 562
3,657

85,590
82,249
78,822
3, 499
75, 323
3,427

85,599
82,213
79,041
3,426
75,615
3,172

85,023
81,583
78, 737
3,435
75,302
2, 846

84,872
81,379
78, 528
3,434
75, 094
2,851

85, 051
81,523
78,445
3,446
74, 999
3,078

84,868
81,325
78,194
3,498
74,696
3,131

84,517
80,987
78,142
3,614
74, 528
2, 845

84,310
80, 789
77,931
3,561
74,370
2,858

84,028
80,504
77, 741
3,683
74, 058
2, 763

83,652
80,130
77,321
3,777
73, 544
2,809

84,239
80,733
77,902
3,606
74,296
2,831

82, 272
78, 737
75,920
3,817
72,103
2,817

50, 020
47, 226
45, 593
2,625
42, 968
1,633

50, 032
47,199
45,667
2,602
43, 065
1,532

49,920
47,060
45,709
2, 537
43,172
1,351

49,707
46,836
45, 534
2,479
43, 055
1,302

49, 736
46,826
45,674
2,473
43, 201
1,152

49,534
46,578
45,553
2,499
43, 054
1,025

49,544
46, 531
45, 533
2,482
43, 051
998

49, 642
46, 599
45,511
2,575
42, 936
1,088

49,642
46, 586
45,465
2, 593
42,872
1,121

49,488
46,443
45, 485
2,670
42,815
958

49,405
46,338
45,335
2, 646
42,689
1,003

49,334
46,236
45, 303
2 676
42,627
933

49,290
46,194
45,251
2,713
42, 538
943

49,406
46, 351
45,388
2, 636
42, 752
963

48,834
45,852
44,859
2,816
42, 043
993

27, 885 28,274 28, 295 28, 066 28, 073 27,875 27,671 27,767 27,634 27,664 27, 524 27,341 27,055 27,413
26,476 27, 022 27,016 26,925 27, 060 26, 897 26, 663 26,699 26, 543 26 626 26,512 26 322 26, 041 26, 397
567
571
583
630
586
585
555
554
535
582
610
547
622
593
25, 909 26,451 26,433 26,295 26,474 26,312 26,108 26,145 26, 008 26, 044 25,965 25,712 25,419 25,804
1,409 1,252 1,279 1,114 1,013
978 1,008 1,068 1,091 1,038 1,012 1,019 1,014 1,015

26,266
25,281
606
24,675
985

7,444
6,380
421
5, 959
1,064

7, 399
6,235
413
5,822
1,164

7,414
6, 387
430
5,957
1,027

7, 347
6, 363
390
5,973
984

7,314
6,307
367
5,940
1,007

7,130
6,287
351
5,936
843

1These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 19S9.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Annual average

7,177
6,332
397
5,935
845

7,157
6,235
317
5,918
922

7,105
6,186
370
5,816
919

6,880
6,031
362
5,669
849

6,927
6, 084
368
5,716
843

6,927
6,116
397
5,719
811

6,881
6,029
442
5,587
852

adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of EmploymentandEarnings.

6,970
6,117
377
5, 739
853

6,618
5,780
394
5,385
839

98
5.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

HOUSEHOLD DATA

Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages

1st
78,992
EMPLOYMENT(inthousands)
White-collar workers.............. ........ .......... 37,938
Professional and technical_______ ... 11,026
Managers, officials, and
8, 215
13,906
Clerical workers. .
Sales workers..----- ------------------ 4,791
Blue-collarworkers______ ___ ______ 28, 236
Craftsmen and foremen___ . . __ 10, 264
14,168
Nonfarmlaborers---- --------- ---- 3,804
Serviceworkers............ .......................... 9,673
Farmworkers......................................... 3,153
401
Unemploymentrate
White-collar workers............. ............. ...... 2.4
1.9
Professional and technical_________
Managers, officials, and
proprietors-------------------------- 1.0
Clerical workers..------ --------------- 3.3
Sales workers---- --------------------- 3.2
Blue-collarworkers................................... 4.9
Craftsmen and foremen............... . .. 2.6
5.7
Operatives _____ _______ ____
Nonfarmlaborers............................. 7.9
Serviceworkers........................................ 4.7
Farmworkers.......................................... 2.1

1968

1969

1970

Characteristic

Annual average

4th

3d

2d

1st

4th

3d

2d

1st

4th

3d

2d

1st

1969

1968

78,570
37,509
10,936
8,141
13,655
4,777
28, 389
10,265
14,412
3,712
9,589
3,089
3.6
2.2
1.5
.9
3.2
2.8
4.3
2.2
5.0
6.9
3.9
1.8

78, 090
36,923
10,764
7,970
13,478
4,711
28,425
10,174
14, 589
3,662
9,493
3,231
3.6
2.2
1.4
1.0
3.2
3.0
4.0
2.2
4.4
7.2
4.5
2.2

77, 550
36,677
10,740
7,993
13,281
4,663
27,931
10,044
14,208
3,679
9,467
3,417
3.5
2.0
1.3
.9
2.8
2.9
3.8
2.1
4.3
6.5
4.4
1.9

77,418
36,264
10,638
7,841
13,171
4,614
28,202
10,298
14,264
3,640
9,558
3,438
3.4
2.0
1.1
.9
2.9
2.9
3.7
2.1
4.1
6.4
4.0
1.6

76,409
35,906
10,473
7,897
12,876
4,660
27,774
10,147
14,051
3,576
9,411
3,346
3.4
1.9
1.2
1.0
2.8
2.8
3.8
2.2
4.3
6.7
4.3
1.6

76,017
35,732
10, 392
7,827
12,823
4,690
27,491
9,972
13,911
3,608
9,385
3,400
3.6
2.0
1.3
1.1
2.9
2.6
4.2
2.4
4.5
7.4
4.5
2.4

75,898
35,419
10,295
7,661
12,816
4,647
27,513
10,003
13,956
3,554
9,395
3,507
3.6
2.0
1.2
.9
3.0
2.7
4.0
2.4
4.3
7.0
4.6
2.3

75, 392
35,140
10,142
7,716
12,694
4, 588
27,297
9,936
13,896
3,465
9,337
3,649
3.7
2.0
1.2
.9
3.1
3.0
4.4
2.5
4.8
7.7
4.3
1.9

75,121
34,888
10,067
7,633
12, 624
4,564
27,279
9,827
13,918
3,534
9,330
3,654
3.9
2.2
1.3
1.0
3.4
3.2
4.5
2.5
5.1
7.8
4.9
2.3

74,630
34, 456
9,952
7,630
12,343
4,531
27, 343
9,790
13,999
3,554
9,277
3,556
3.9
2.2
1.3
.9
3.3
3.6
4.5
2.3
5.1
7.6
4.5
2.4

73,911
33,943
9,761
7,453
12,250
4,479
27,175
9,853
13,787
3,535
9,276
3,448
3.9
2.0
1.4
.9
2.8
2.9
4.6
2.8
5.0
8.0
4.2
2.4

73, 862
33,635
9,734
7,261
12,115
4,525
27,240
9,918
13,822
3,500
9,418
3,584
3.8
2.1
1.4
.9
3.0
3.2
4.2
2.3
4.7
7.2
4.5
2.2

77,902
36,845
10,769
7,987
13,397
4,692
28, 237
10,193
14,372
3,672
9,528
3,292
3.5
2.1
1.3
.9
3.0
2.9
3.9
2.2
4.4
6.7
4.2
1.9

75,92
35,55
10,32
7,77
12, 8C
4,64
27,52
10,01
13,95
3,55
9,38
3,46
3.
2
1.
1
3
2.
4
2
4
7.
4.
2.

i These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of a seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
6.

1967

adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment andEarnings.

Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment

[Inthousands—not seasonally adjusted]
Reason(or unemployment,
age, andsex
Total, 16yearsandover..............
Lost last job..................
Left last job___ ___
Reentered labor force.......
Never worked before.......
Male, 20yearsandover..............
Lost last job..................
Left last job____ ____
Reentered laborforce___
Never worked before.......
Female, 20yearsandover............
Lost last job.................
Left last job_________
Reentered labor force___
Never worked before___
Bothsexes, 16to19years........ .
Lost last job............ .....
Left last Job....... ..........
Reentered laborforce.......
Neverworked before___


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

May

Apr.

Mar.

Annual average

1969

1970
Feb.

3, 384 3,552 3,733 3,794
1,658 1,669 1,797 1,787
507
441
473
447
944 1,001 1,143 1,158
375
351
377
333
1,403 1,498 1,606 1,678
988 1,059 1,144
942
214
170
200
185
261
310
251
312
34
40
35
39
1,205 1,171 1,264 1,238
497
562
542
451
174
188
200
156
435
439
530
529
47
34
36
58
776
883
863
878
184
155
196
192
104
88
85
103
301
302
319
259
259
293
280
280

Jan.

Dec.

3,406 2,628
1,595 1,133
378
485
825
999
328
292
1,456 1,052
997
693
150
197
188
230
20
32
840
1,086
303
418
138
177
354
437
46
54
736
864
180
137
90
111
283
331
241
226

Nov.

Oct.

2,710 2,839
882
939
421
451
1,011 1,093
414
339
909
906
524
458
141
141
267
226
18
40
994 1,097
314
309
209
183
457
501
45
72
807
836
110
106
97
101
328
324
301
276

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

1969

1968

2,958
823
586
1,105
445
914
440
209
235
30
1,202
288
237
596
81
842
95
140
274
334

2,869
894
507
997
471
888
469
192
200
24
1,119
310
196
549
64
865
115
119
248
383

3,182
979
459
1,010
734
945
534
170
195
46
987
307
184
434
62
1,250
138
105
380
627

3,400
875
448
1,275
802
905
427
183
262
33
1,058
336
172
480
69
1,437
112
93
533
699

2,299
892
325
796
286
810
438
148
204
19
867
344
107
377
39
623
110
70
214
228

2,831
1,017
436
965
413
963
556
164
216
27
1,015
335
171
455
55
853
126
101
294
331

2,817
1,070
431
909
407
993
599
167
205
22
985
341
167
422
55
839
130
97
281
330

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
7.

HOUSEHOLD DATA

99

Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1

1970

1969

Age and sex

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

4.4
13.9
15.7
12.4

3.9
13.8
17.2

3.0
3.1
2.7

4.2
13.4
16.3
11.7
7.3
2.6
2.7
2.4

3.6
12.5
14.6

3.6
13.0
15.4

10.8

11.0

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

A n n u a l averag e

Aug.

July

June

May

1969

3.5

3.4
11.7
13.5

3.5
12.4
14 0
11.5
55
2 2
23
1.7

3.5
?
14 5
10.5
5. 7
??
? 3

11.2

2.0

2.2

1968

TOTAL
16 years and over________________

16 to 19 years...............
16 and 17 years____
18 and 19years____
20 to 24 years..............
25 years and over_____
25 to 54 years..........
55 years and over___

5.0
14.3
15.6
13.8
8 .1

3.3
3.4
3.3

4.8
15.7
18.7
13.8
7.7
3.1
3.2
2 .8

6.8

11.6

3.5
11.8

13.7

10 .2

2.4
2.5

5.8
2.2
2.3

2.0

2.1

6 .1

3.5
11.8

14.3
9.2
5.8
2.2
2.1

1.9

3.8
12.9
16.5
10.4
6.4
2.4
2.4
2.3

3.8
12.9
16.1
6.5
2.4
2.5

3.5
12.3
15.8
9.8
5.4
2.3
2.3

2.2

14.6
10.3
5.8
2.3
2.3

2.0

2.0

10.6

12.2

10.1

5.4
2.2
2. 3
2.0

l?

3 .6
12 7
14 7

fi fi

?
?

3

3

M ALE
16 years and over_____ __________

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___

4.4
15.0
16. 4
14.6
7 .7

2.9
2.8
3.1

4.2
15.2
17.2
13.9
7.9
2.6
2.6
2. 8

6.4
2.4
2.3

6.9
2.2
2.1

2.8

2.4

5.7
15.6
17.0
14.3
7.2
4.0
4.4
2.5

5.1
13.9
17.3
12.7
7.6
3.3
3.6
2.3

2.9

3 .3

12 . 6

14.9

10.8
6 .1
2.0
2.0
2.1

11.0

13.1
9.3
5.5
1.8
1.7
2.2

2.9
11.7
13.7
8.9
5.3
1.7
1.4
1.9

14.4
9.6
6.3
1.9

4.5
11.9
15.0
9.6
6.5
3.1
3.4

4.9
14.2
19.2
11.3
6.5
3.4
3.6
2.5

3.1

3.2

11.8

12.0

1. 8
2.2

15.0
9.4
6.4
1.8

2. 8

11.3
15.5
7.8
4.5
1. 7

2.9
11.8

1.6
2.0

14.4
9.7
5.3
17
17
1.9

5.0
14.2
17.7

4.8
13.6
16.2

12 . 0

4.6
12.7
14.8

12 . 0

11.0

6.6

6.3
3.3
3.6

1.8
2.0

2.7
10.7
13. 0
8.5
4.8
1 fi
15

2.7
11 1

13 9
9.2
48

2.8

11 4
1 V7
9.3

1. 6

4.7
13.0
14.3
11.9

4.8
14.0
14.2
14.1
6.4
3.1
3.4
1.9

13 Q
9 .6

fi 1

5 1

1.9

2.1

1 7
1 '7

1.8

2.9
11 6

1 7

FEM A LE
16 years and over..................................................

16to 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......

5 .9

5 .7

13.4
14.6
12.9
8.7
4.2
4.3
3.6

16.4
20.6
13.7
7.5
3.8
4.2
2.7

4.8
15.2
20.3
12.4

4.5
12 . 8

14.7
11.2

6 .2

3.0
3.3
1.7

1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

6 .1

3.0
3.3
1.9

2.0

3.4
3.7
2.5

2.1

6.3
3.2
3.5
2.3

6.0

3.3
3.6
2.3

adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.

4.7
13.3
15.5

4.8
14.0
15.9

11.8

12.8

6.3
3.2
3.5
2.2

6.7
3.2
3.4
2.3

100

8.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

HOUSEHOLD DATA

Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted 1

[In percent]

I
May
5.0
Total (all civilian workers)----3.5
Men, 20 years and over__
5.1
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years... 14.3
4.6
White.........................
8. 0
Negro and other.............
2. 6
Married men................
4.7
Full-time workers..........
.7
Unemployed 15 weeks and
over2......................
3.6
State insured2..............
5.4
Labor force time lost *......
OCCUPATION
White-collarworkers.................
2.8
Professional and mana­
gerial.... ..................
1.7
Clerical workers.............
3.9
Sales workers................
4.4
Blue-collarworkers..................
6.2
Craftsmen and foremen--4.2
Operatives... ................
6.7
9.1
Nonfarmlaborers....... .
4.9
Serviceworkers......................
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage
5.2
and salary workers 2...........
11.9
Construction.................
5.2
Manufacturing.... ...... .
4.9
Durable goods............
5.7
Nondurable goods-----Transportation and public
utilities_____
3.3
Wholesale and retail trade.. 5.1
Finance and service indus­
tries........................
4.2
Government wage and salary
2. 2
workers..... ...............
Agricultural wage and salary
9.3
workers..... ...............

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

1969

1968

4.8
3.2
4.4
15.7
4.3
8.7
2.4
4.4
.7
3.1
5.1

4.4
2.9
4.5
13.9
4.1
7.1
2.2
4.0
.7
2.7
4.8

4.2
2.8
4.1
13.4
3.8
7.0
2.0
3.7
.6
2.7
4.5

3.9
2.5
3.6
13.8
3.6
6.3
1.8
3.4
.5
2.5
4.2

3.5
2.2
3.5
11.8
3.2
5.7
1.7
3.2
.5
2.4
3.9

3.5
2.1
3.6
11.8
3.2
6.2
1.5
3.1
.5
2.4
4.0

3.8
2.3
3.8
12.9
3.5
6.6
1.6
3.1
.4
2.2
4.3

3.8
2.4
3.9
12.9
3.5
6.7
1.7
3.3
.5
2.2
4.3

3.5
2.1
3.8
12.3
3.2
6.4
1.5
3.1
.5
2.1
4.0

3.5
2.2
3.7
12.2
3.2
6.5
1.6
3.1
.5
2.2
4.0

3.4
2.0
3.7
11.7
3.0
6.8
1.5
3.1
.5
2.1
3.8

3.5
2.0
3.7
12.4
3.1
6.4
1.5
3.1
.5
2.0
3.8

3.5
2.1
3.7
12.2
3.1
6.4
1.5
3.1
.5
2.1
3.9

3.6
2.2
3.8
12.7
3.2
6.7
1.6
3.1
.5
2.2
4.0

2.9
1.7
4.0
4.1
5.7
3.5
6.3
8.8
5.0

2.7
1.8
3.6
3.5
5.2
3.1
6.2
7.4
4.9

2.3
1.4
3.2
3.4
5.0
2.5
6.0
7.7
4.8

2.1
1.3
3.1
2.8
4.6
2.3
5.1
8.5
4.5

2.1
1.5
2.8
2.6
4.3
2.3
5.0
7.4
3.6

2.1
1.1
3.5
2.2
4.2
2.1
4.9
6.9
4.0

2.4
1.3
3.4
3.5
4.2
2.4
4.9
6.5
4.2

2.2
1.3
3.2
2.8
4.4
2.6
4.7
7.6
4.8

2.2
1.2
3.2
2.9
3.8
2.1
4.2
6.8
4.5

2.2
1.2
3.2
3.2
3.8
1.9
4.2
7.1
4.3

2.1
1.2
3.0
2.8
3.7
1.9
4.3
6.1
4.4

2.0
1.2
2.9
2.9
3.8
2.3
4.1
6.5
4.2

2.1
1.2
3.0
2.9
3.9
2.2
4.5
6.7
4.2

2.0
1.1
3.0
2.8
4.1
2.4
4.4
7.2
4.5

4.8
8.1
4.7
4.9
4.5

4.6
8.1
4.7
4.8
4.6

4.3
7.9
4.6
4.7
4.4

3.9
7.1
3.8
3.8
3.8

3.6
6.0
3.8
3.7
3.9

3.6
5.4
3.7
3.6
3.9

3.8
7.3
3.6
3.2
4.2

3.9
7.4
3.7
3.2
4.3

3.5
7.0
2.9
2.3
3.7

3.5
5.9
3.2
3.1
3.3

3.5
5.1
3.3
3.2
3.4

3.5
5.7
3.1
2.9
3.4

3.5
6.0
3.3
3.0
3.7

3.6
6.9
3.3
3.0
3.7

3.9
5.5
3.9

3.1
4.7
4.0

2.4
4.7
3.2

2.9
4.3
3.1

2.4
3.9
2.7

2.4
3.9
3.2

2.9
4.2
3.1

2.0
4.5
3.4

2.0
4.3
3.4

2.0
4.1
3.6

1.9
4.2
3.2

2.4
4.1
3.3

2.2
4.1
3.2

2.0
4.0
3.4

2.2

2.1

2.0

2.2

2.0

2.1

2.4

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.9

1.8

5.9

6.4

5.8

6.2

6.5

5.2

6.3

6.5

6.5

8.9

5.6

5.3

6.1

6.3

2 Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered
employment.
<Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons
as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours.
5 Includes mining, not shown separately.

' These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of EmploymentandEarnings.
2Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force.

9.

Annual average

1969

1970

Selectedcategories

Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1

[Inthousands]

May
Less than 5weeks___ ___ - 2,219
1,214
612
15weeks and over............ .
352
15to 26 weeks________
260
27 weeks and over______
15weeks andover as a percent
.7
of civilian laborforce_____

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

1969

1968

2,295
1,075
569
372
197

1,995
1,154
545
363
182

1,973
1,016
465
306
159

1,756
914
409
276
133

1,515
893
392
272
120

1,558
912
389
249
140

1,882
882
363
233
130

1,756
995
392
240
152

1,646
854
385
250
135

1,656
824
400
233
167

1,578
812
385
2bb
130

1,720
639
400
263
137

1,629
827
375
242
133

1,594
810
412
256
lbb

.7

.7

.6

.5

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.4

.5

i These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969.
For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Annual average

1969

1970

Period

adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of EmploymentandEarnings.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
10.

HOUSEHOLD DATA

101

Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1

[All items except average benefits amounts are inthousands]
1970

Item

Apr.
Employment service:2

Newapplications for work______
Nonfarmplacements_________

857
351

Mar.
828
328

1969

Feb.
765
295

Jan.

Dec.

950
326

658
311

Nov.
711
372

O c t.

762
463

Sept.
801
503

Aug.
750
471

July
874
469

June
1,237
512

May
850
437

Apr.
82?
454

Mar.
745
397

State unemploymentinsurance programs:

O
ooo
o

Initial claims34_____ ______
1,333 1,078 1,169 1,529 1,363
866
745
655
731 1,105
710
709
613
7^6
Insured unemployment« (average
weekly volume)«__________
1,770 1,798 1,874 1,847 1,375 1,030
864
840
948 1,021
852
1
.9
00
906
1,090
Rate of insured unemployment7___
3.4
3.6
3.5
2.7
2.0
3.6
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.6
1.7
? ?
18
? 6
Weeks of unemployment compen­
sated_____________________ ______
6,743 6,956 6, 517 6,418 4,692 3,054 3,156 3,104 3, 496 3,626 3,123 3, 519 4 496 4,998
Average weekly benefit amount for
total unemployment-................ $49. 00 $48. 93 $49.11 $48.49 $47.42 $46. 47 $46. 25 $45.70 $46.16 $45. 30 $44. 88 $45.14 $46 03 $46 71
Total benefits paid- _________ $320,224 $331, 067
$299,352 $214,260 $136, 585$139, 536 $136,182 $156,707 $159,161 $135,004 $152,966 $200,052 $226,516

Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen:!

m

Initial claims3«________ ____
42
38
39
44
39
30
29
32
26
27
26
20
22
24
Insured unemployment« (average
weekly volume___________
70
66
48
38
69
61
32
32
37
36
30
29
40
35
Weeks of unemployment compen­
294
sated_________________
244
289
242
126
193
127
133
114
155
148
143
122
I£3
Total benefits paid________ .. $14, 564 $14,200 $12,028 $11,957 $9, 517 $6, 240 $6, 256 $6, 514 $7,156
$6,946 $5,511 $5,847 $7,425 $7,794

Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian
employees: 10

«
Initial claims3______ ___ ____
Insured unemployment« (average
weekly volume)___________
Weeks of unemployment compen­
sated_______________ -.
Total benefits paid__________

15
13
11
11
11
12
11
10
11
10
8
8
8
8
28
22
27
29
30
24
18
17
19
18
18
17
20
23
118
109
110
128
101
75
76
74
77
78
73
69
88
94
$5,824 $6,192 $5, 239 $5,194 $4,748 $3, 465 $3, 494 $3,163 $3,497 $3,597 $3,155
$3,318 $4,038 $4,265

Railroad unemployment insurance:

5
8
4
Applications11_____________
9
9
5
10
6
7
11
11
5
5
17
Insured unemployment (average
16
17
14
19
18
21
weekly volume)___________
15
13
13
13
10
18
17
21
35
28
Number of payments«_____ ___
43
42
38
47
36
28
28
26
25
39
4
1
46
Average amount of benefit payment 3_ $81. 50 $92. 00 $96. 76 $94.78 $96. 02 $96. 28 $89.31 $93.64 $94.12 $91.74 $90. 69 $75. 65 $88. 32 $91 06
Total benefits paid 4_________ $3, 565 $3, 668 $3,374 $4, 091 $3,241 $2, 513 $2,918 $2,478 $2,375 $2,113 $2,043 $2, 804 $3,386 $4,056
All programs: 13
1,885 1,916 1,987 1,957 1,464 1,105
Insured unemployment«.............
929
902 1,015 1,088
911
970 1,162 1,384

1Includes data for Puerto Rico.
2Includes Guamand the Virgin Islands.
3Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of
unemployment. Excludes transition claims understate programs.
4Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands.
3Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment.
«Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program
for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers.
7The rate isthe numberof insured unemployedexpressed as a percent of the average
covered employment ina 12-month period.
«Excludes data onclaims and payments made jointly with other programs.
»Includes the Virgin Islands.
i«Excludes data onclaims and payments made jointly with State programs.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

11Anapplication for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first
period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent
periods inthe same year.
12Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods.
43The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for
recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments.
14Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments.
15Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State,
Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
Includes claims filed under Extended Duration(ED)provisions of regularState laws.
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.

102
11.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

PAYROLL DATA

Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date1

[Inthousands]

TOTAL

Year
1947____
1948.......
1949____
1950____
1951........
1952____
1953........
1954____
1955........
1956____
1957____
1958 .......
19592___
1960........
1961....... .
1962____
1963 ___
1964........
1965____
1966........
1967____
1968____
1969____

Transpor­
Contract Manufac­ tation and
public
construc­ turing
utilities
tion

Mining

43, 881
44,891
43,778
45, 222
47, 849
48, 825
50,232
49, 022
50,675
52,408
52, 894
51,363
53,313
54,234
54, 042
55, 596
56, 702
58,331
60,815
63,955
65, 857
67,915
70,274

955
994
930
901
929
898
866
791
792
822
828
751
732
712
672
650
635
634
632
627
613
606
619

1,982
2,169
2,165
2,333
2,603
2,634
2,623
2,612
2,802
2,999
2,923
2,778
2,960
2,885
2,816
2,902
2,963
3,050
3,186
3,275
3,208
3,285
3,437

15, 545
15, 582
14,441
15,241
16,393
16,632
17,549
16,314
16, 882
17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796
16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18, 062
19,214
19,447
19,781
20,169

4,166
4,189
4,001
4,034
4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141
4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004
3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4, 036
4,151
4,261
4,310
4,431

Wholesale and retail trade
Total
8,955
9,272
9,264
9,386
9,742
10,004
10,247
10, 235
10, 535
10,858
10,886
10,750
11,127
11,391
11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716
13,245
13, 606
14, 084
14,645

i The industry series have been adjusted to March 1969 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to July 1970. For comparable back data, see Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909-70(BLS Bulletin 1312-7) to be released this fall.
These series are based upon establishment reports whichcover all full- and part-time
employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or received pay for
any part of the pay periodwhich includes the 12thof the month. Therefore, persons who

12.

Wholesale
trade
2,361
2,489
2,487
2,518
2,606
2,687
2,727
2,739
2,796
2,884
2,893
2,848
2,946
3,004
2,993
3,056
3,104
3,189
3,312
3,437
3,525
3,611
3,738

Retail
trade
6, 595
6,783
6,778
6,868
7,136
7,317
7,520
7,496
7,740
7,974
7,992
7,902
8,182
8,388
8,344
8, 511
8,675
8,971
9,404
9, 808
10,081
10, 473
10,907

Finance,
insurance,
and real Services
estate
1,754
1,829
1,857
1,919
1,991
2,069
2,146
2,234
2,335
2,429
2,477
2, 519
2, 594
2,669
2,731
2,800
2,877
2,957
3,023
3,100
3,225
3,382
3,557

5,050
5,206
5,264
5,382
5,576
5,730
5, 867
6,002
6,274
6,536
6,749
6,806
7,130
7,423
7,664
8,028
8,325
8,709
9,087
9,551
10, 099
10,623
11,211

Government
Total

Federal

5,474
5,650
5,856
6,026
6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914
7,277
7,616
7,839
8, 083
8,353
8, 594
8,890
9,225
9,596
10,074
10,792
11,398
11,845
12,204

State
and local

1,892
1,863
1,908
1,928
2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2,187
2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270
2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378
2, 564
2,719
2,737
2,758

3,582
3,787
3,948
4,098
4,087
4,188
4,340
4,563
4,727
5,069
5,399
5, 648
5,850
6, 083
6,315
6,550
6,868
7,248
7,696
8, 227
8,679
9,109
9,446

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.
2Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an
increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) inthe nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench­
mark month.

Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State

[Inthousands]
State
Alabama_________
Alaska__________
Arizona. ________
Arkansas____ ____
California.__ _____
Colorado_________
Connecticut_______
Delaware________
District of Columbia__
Florida__________
Georgia....................
Hawaii__________
Idaho___________
Illinois....................
Indiana_________
Iowa_____ ___ __
Kansas....................
Kentucky____ ___ _
Louisiana ................
Maine.....................
Maryland............ .....
Massachusetts1..........
Michigan................
Minnesota....... .........
Mississippi_______
Missouri..................

Apr. 1970 *
1,004.8
83.9
547.5
529.0
6, 960.1
718.6
1,202.5
209.2
684.3
2,172.1
1, 529. 0
284.0
199.3
4, 339. 6
1, 856. 9
886.5
679.4
900.6
1,039.6
326.1
1,296.8
2,241.1
3, 011.0
1,300.9
577.3
1,651.7

Mar. 1970
995.4
81.7
545.7
526.1
6, 954.1
717.0
1,197.3
208.0
683.9
2,174.8
1, 526. 3
282.4
197.5
4, 347. 5
1,849.1
875.9
677.2
896.2
1, 041. 5
324.3
1,290.5
2, 228. 6
3, 022.1
1,298.6
571.6
1,660.9

1Revised series: not strictly comparable with previously published data.
» = preliminary.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Apr. 1969
990.5
79.1
506.2
526.7
6, 827. 3
697.6
1,191.6
203.0
677. 5
2, 068. 3
1,509.2
269.1
195.2
4, 321.4
1,862.6
874.5
685.8
887.7
1, 032. 4
324.5
1,260.9
2,220.7
3, 033. 7
1,271.9
561.6
1, 664. 0

State

Apr. 1970 p

Mar. 1970

Apr. 1969

Montana_________
Nebraska.................
Nevada__________
NewHampshire.........
NewJersey..............
NewMexico..............
NewYork________
North Carolina.........
North Dakota______
Ohio..................... .
Oklahoma.... ...........
Oregon_____ ____
Pennsylvania............
Rhode Island .............
South Carolina_____

192.7
483.1
194.2
252.5
2, 596. 2
290.2
7,224.8
1,741.8
158.2
3,915.7
759.3
695.1
4, 368. 7
333.5
814.4

188.5
474.6
192.8
250.6
2, 580. 6
288.6
7,159.1
1, 740. 8
157.7
3, 904. 9
758.5
693.2
4, 349.1
335. 5
816.4

191.5
468.2
183.3
250.8
2, 553.8
280. y
7,142.2
1, 720. 5
154.7
3,850. 5
748.1
693.4
4, 344. 7
344. 0
808.6

South Dakota.............
Tennessee _______
Texas___________
Utah___________
Vermont................. .

172.7
1,318.7
3,716.0
354.0
146.5

169.8
1, 320.7
3, 681. 6
349.0
146.0

166.4
1,298. 6
3, 580. 9
344.5
140.9

Virginia______ ___
Washington_______
West Virginia.........
Wisconsin________
Wyoming_________

1,446.2
1,096.2
507.3
1,517.2
104.4

1,438.0
1,096.3
508. 3
1, 516. 3
103.3

1,421.9
1,113.0
508.7
1,498.1
101.9

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.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
13.

PAYROLL DATA

103

Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1

[In thousands]
1970

Industry division and group
May »
T O T A L _____ ____________ ______

Apr. v

Mar.

1969
Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

Annual average
July

June

May

1969

1968

70,779 70,721 70,460 70, 029 69,933 71,760 71,354 71,333 70,964 70,758 70,481 71,116 70, 064 70,274 67,915

620
616
610
611
608
623
622
623
630
638
635
629
614
619
606
3,338 3,284 3,161 3, 071 3,048 3,398 3, 553 3,648 3,687 3,731 3,707 3,628 3,434 3,437 3,285
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ______________ 19,418 19,619 19,794 19,770 19,824 20,110 20,194 20,395 20,482 20,497 20,164 20,387 20,027 20,169
Production workers2____ 14, 070 14,236 14,385 14,346 14,402 14,680 14,763 14,953 15,041 15,014 14,700 14,958 14,655 14,768 19,781
14,514
11,358 11,484 11,607 11,573 11,623 11,802 11,832 12, 008 12, 030 11,992 11,889 12, 051 11,857 11,893 11,626
8,279
8,379
8,179
8,
327
8,377
8, 556 8, 580 8, 744 8,767 8,701 8,612 8, 794 8,624 8, 648 8,457
Production workers2...
Ordnance and accessories.. 252.4 260.0 271.0 277.6 282.8 291.3 297.1 298.3 305.8 313.9 322.1 325.2 328 2 318 8 338.0
Lumberandwood products. 582.4 574.3 578.6 579.2 583.8 597.0 600.1 604.4 616.7 629.3 627.5 634.7 611 6 609 7 600.1
Furniture and fixtures...... 452.0 463.5 468.6 470.3 475.6 482.2 485.2 488.1 486.8 488.4 476.2 487.1 480.6
483' 5 471.6
Stone, clay, and glass
products_________ 632.8 639.7 635.1 632.9 632.0 650.9 661.9 664.7 669.0 674.0 670.9 670.8 651.9 656.3 635.5
Primary metal industries... 1,308.8 1,327.2 1,338.1 1,346.6 1,351.4 1,367.6 1,364.7 1,364.0 1,373.9 1,375.5 1,374.3 1,383.4
1 1,358. 0 1,315.5
Fabricated metal products.. 1,383.3 1,401.3 1,416.1 1,421.1 1,433.1 1,456.6 1,456.7 1,454.6 1,459.6 1,449.2 1,428.9 li 456. 9 li1,354
434.1 1,442.1 1,390.4
Machinery, except
electrical................... 2, 016. 2 2, 041. 2 2,058. 3 2, 055.9 2, 044. 6 2, 043. 2 2, 028. 6 2, 036. 0 2, 032. 9 2, 022.2 7,032.1 2, 048.1 2,022.7 2, 027. 7 1,965.9
Electrical equipment........ 1,932.6 1,962.2 1,983.2 1,995.2 1,928.2 1,948.9 1,955.4 2, 069.7 2, 057.4 2, 049. 0 2, 022. 7 2,
033. 5 2,011.2 2, 013. 0 1,974.5
Transportation equipment.. 1,913. 0 1,923.0 1,963.4 1,901.1 1,999.4 2, 042. 9 2, 049.2 2, 088. 2 2, 096. 5 2, 056.0 2, 022. 9 2,
086. 8 2, 050.2 2, 067.1 2, 038.6
Instruments and related
products................... 463.9 469.2 471.3 471.3 472.6 477.7 476.9 476.2 476.8 482.1 477.4 480.5 476.6 476.5 461.9
Miscellaneous
manufacturing............ 420.7 422.3 423.0 421.4 419.0 443.7 456.4 463.4 454.9 452.0 433.7 444.0 436.2 440.2 433.4
Nondurable goods___________
8,060 8,135 8,178 8,197 8,201 8, 308 8, 362 8,387 8,452 8, 505 8,275
8,170 8,277 8,155
Production workers2... 5,891 5,957 6, 006 6, 019 6,025 6,124 6,183 6,209 6,274 6,313 6, 088 8,336
6,164 6,031 6,120 6, 056
Food and kindred products. 1,723.1 1,722.5 1,735.6 1,739.9 1,744.3 1,790.7 1,831.7 1,862.0 1,928.8 1,941.9 1,832.6 1,788.1 1,726. 5 1,795.9 1,781.5
Tobacco manufactures___ 70.2 71.1
73.8 77.4 79.9 84.0 87.1
94.5 97.6 93.0 71.9 72.0 71 1 82 0 84.6
Textile mill products____ 965.2 975.1 977.3 979.9 987.6 995.3 997.6 994.8 997.2 1,000.1 992.0 1,012.5
995.7 998.7 993.9
Apparel and other textile
products_________ 1,374. 0 1,379.8 1,402.8 1,404.0 1,388.8 1,407.6 1,417.6 1,423.0 1,421.4 1,427.1 1,369.2 1,434.5 1,414.9 1,412.3 1,405.8
Paper and allied products.. 704.2 713.6 714.9 714.2 716.0 722.7 720.4 716.4 718.0 722.6 715.7 720.8 703 6 712 1 6Q1 ?
Printing and publishing__ 1,105.7 1,110.8 1,112.3 1,110.0 1,107.7 1,116.2 1,113.4 1,107.7 1, 098. 5 1,098.0 1, 092. 5 1,092.3 1, 077. 6 1, 093.3 1, 065.1
Chemicals and allied
products................... 1,055.1 1,063.2 1, 064.1 1, 060. 8 1, 058. 5 1, 062.1 1,059.9 1, 058.1 1,063.9 1,076.5 1,076.1 1,072.9 1, 056. 8 1, 060.7 1,029.9
Petroleumand coal
products... ............... 190.0 190.1 189.7 188.4 188.0 188.9 191.0 191.8 191.9 195.0 195.3 192.9 188.1 182.9 186.8
Rubber and plastics
546.1 579.9 585.0 588.2 593.4 599.6 601.6 600.5 599.0 599.4 588.8 599.4 589.9 593.9 561.3
products................... 326.4 328.5 331.6 334.6 336.7 341.3 341.2 338.2 336.1 351.0 341.2 350.2 345.6 345.1 355.2
M IN IN G

_____________________

C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ...............

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D P U B LIC
U T I L I T I E S .......................................................
W H O L E S A L E A N D R ET A IL T R A D E .
Wholesale trade........................................

Retailtrade..............

F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E, A N D
R E A L E S T A T E ................................................
S E R V IC E S ................................................................

Hotels and other lodging
places.....................
Personal services...... .....
Medical and other health
services....................
Educational services____

G O V E R N M E N T .....................................................

Federal .......................
State and Local_______ ______

4,464 4,428 4,443 4,420 4,435 4,478 4,486 4,481 4, 508 4, 510 4, 507 4,494 4,411 4,431 4,310
14,868 14, 803 14,700 14, 606 14,707 15,638 15,092 14, 850 14,714 14,670 14,663 14,713 14,517 14,645 14, 084
3, 806 3,800 3,797 3,788 3,797 3,841 3,816 3, 801 3,781 3,796 3,787 3,758 3,678 3,738 3,611
11,062 11,003 10,903 10,818 10,910 11,797 11,276 11,049 10,933 10,874 10,876 10,955
10; 839 10,907 10,473
3,676 3,661 3,639
11,630 11,552 11,433
743.5 727.3
1,006.4 1,006.2
3, 031.3 3, 019.4
1,193.0 1,197.8
12,765 12,758 12, 680
2, 824 2, 838 2,758
9,941 9,920 9,922

3,615
11,357
717.5
1, 003. 0
3, 000. 7
1,196.1
12, 582
2,694
9,888

3,604
11,254
709.6
1, 005.1
2,979.8
1,163.6
12,450
2,690
9, 760

3,608
11,351
713.3
1, 022.0
2,961.4
1,179.9
12, 554
2,760
9, 794

1For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, and
coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11.
2Production 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,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3,597
11,349
714.5
1,025.4
2,950.0
1,184.5
12,461
2,705
9,756

3,589
11,372
738.4
1, 028. 0
2,927. 8
1,164.3
12,375
2,717
9,658

3,595
11,300
764.8
1,022.1
2,907. 8
1,061.6
12, 048
2,733
9,315

3,641
11,372
852.3
1, 023. 8
2,905.1
958.4
11,699
2,804
8, 895

3,628
11,384
856.5
1, 036. 9
2,903.3
974.7
11,793
2,842
8,951

3, 584 3,533 3, 557
11,353 11,236 11,211
750.3
1,043.2 1,032.0 1, 025. 8
2,880. 4 2, 830. 4 2,868. 8
1, 070. 7 1,167.1 1,116.9
12,328 12,292 12,204
2, 832 2, 740 2,758
9,496 9| 552 9; 446

3,382
10,623
722.2
1,031.4
2,638. 6
1,067.3
11,845
2,737
9,109

rapair, 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.
» = preliminary.

104
14.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

PAYROLL DATA

Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1
[I n t h o u s a n d s )

1970

1969

I n d u s t r y d iv is io n a n d g r o u p
A p r . j>

May"

M ar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

Ju ly

June

May

70 ,172

TOTAL----- ------------------------------------------------------------

70,855

7 1 ,1 2 4

71 ,2 5 6

7 1 ,13 5

70,992

70,842

70,808

70 ,8 36

70 ,5 6 7

70,49 7

70 ,40 0

70 ,3 4 7

MINING_________________________________ ____

620

622

626

626

625

627

624

6 22

62 3

621

618

614

614

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION-----------------------------------

3 , 34 5

3 ,4 2 4

3 ,4 8 1

3 ,4 6 6

3 ,3 9 4

3 ,49 6

3 ,4 73

3 ,4 4 5

3 ,4 3 6

3 ,4 2 0

3 ,43 9

3 ,4 4 2

3 ,4 4 1

MANUFACTURING_____________________________
P r o d u c t i o n w o r k e r s 2.......................................................................................

19 ,5 6 2
14 ,1 8 4

19 , 7 8 7
1 4 , 384

19 ,9 4 4
14, 512

19 ,9 3 7
14 ,4 8 9

2 0 ,0 18
14 ,5 73

2 0 , 082
1 4 , 638

2 0 , 082
14 ,6 3 8

20,233
14 ,7 9 4

20,252
1 4 , 826

20 , 246
1 4 , 8 26

2 0 ,247
14 ,8 3 9

20,248
1 4 , 844

20,195
14; 790

D ur ab l e goods__________ ______ . . ___________
P r o d u c t i o n w o r k e r s 2______ _________________
O r d n a n c e a n d a c c e s s o r i e s _______________________
L u m b e r a n d w o o d 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 --------------------------------------------------S t o n e , c l a y , a n d g l a s s p r o d u c t s .................................................

11 ,3 9 4
8 ,1 9 9
254
58 5
457
633

1 1 ,5 2 5
8 ,3 13
261
585
468
644

11 ,6 4 8
8,4 0 9
271
593
471
651

11 ,6 2 5
8, 367
277
59 8
472
657

1 1 ,6 7 9
8 ,4 2 5
281
605
477
653

1 1 ,7 7 3
8 ,5 16
29 0
6 06
478
6 59

1 1 ,7 8 2
8,5 22
296
603
479
6 59

1 1 ,9 6 5
8 ,70 3
298
601
483
658

11 ,9 6 8
8 ,71 3
306
6 06
483
657

11 ,9 5 0
8,6 9 8
316
607
484
6 55

1 1 ,9 5 5
8 ,70 6
322
608
484
655

11 ,9 5 7
8 ,70 7
326
612
486
6 56

1 1 ,9 1 5
8; 6 62
'3 3 0
614
486
652

P r i m a r y m e t a l i n d u s t r i e s .......................................................................
F a b r i c a t e d m e t a l p r o d u c t s ............................................................
M a c h i n e r y , e x c e p t e l e c t r i c a l ____________________
E l e c t r i c a l e q u i p m e n t ____________________________
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n e q u i p m e n t . . _______ _______
I n s t r u m e n t s a n d r e l a t e d p r o d u c t s .............................................

1,2 9 8
1,3 9 2
2 ,0 14
1 ,9 5 6
1,9 13
467

1,3 2 1
1,4 1 0
2 ,0 3 3
1,9 8 2
1,9 19
471

1 ,3 3 7
1,4 2 5
2 , 0 46
1 ,9 9 5
1,9 5 0
472

1,3 4 9
1,4 2 8
2 , 048
1 ,9 9 3
1,8 9 0
472

1,3 6 0
1 ,4 3 6
2 ,0 4 3
1,9 2 2
1,9 8 8
474

1,3 8 0
1,4 4 7
2 , 051
1.9 30
2 , 00 9
476

1,3 8 4
1,4 4 4
2, 043
1,9 3 4
2 ,0 2 8
476

1,3 8 6
1,4 4 5
2 ,0 5 0
2 ,0 5 1
2, 0 78
476

1,3 8 1
1,4 5 2
2,0 4 1
2 ,0 4 9
2, 0 78
477

1,3 6 7
1 ,4 5 1
2 ,0 2 8
2,0 4 3
2 , 081
479

1,3 5 8
1,4 4 6
2 , 032
2 , 045
2 , 086
478

1,3 5 6
1 ,4 4 4
2 , 032
2 ,0 3 8
2 ,0 8 7
479

1,3 4 3
l j 443
2', 0 2 1
2; 036
2; 070
'4 8 0

425

431

437

441

440

447

436

439

43 8

43 9

441

441

440

P r o d u c t i o n w o r k e r s 2. ....................................................................
F o o d a n d k i n d r e d 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 ____ . . . _________________
T e x t i l e m i l l p r o d u c t s ____________________________
A p p a r e l a n d o t h e r t e x t i l e p r o d u c t s ....................... ..................
P a p e r a n d a l l i e d p r o d u c t s ......................................................................

8 ,1 6 8
5,9 8 5
1 ,7 9 1
81
9 69
1 ,3 7 7
711

8, 262
6 ,0 7 1
1 ,8 0 6
81
979
1,3 9 1
721

8 ,2 9 6
6 ,10 3
1,8 2 3
81
980
1 ,3 9 6
721

8 ,3 12
6 ,12 2
1 ,8 3 0
80
987
1,3 9 8
720

8 ,3 3 9
6 ,14 8
1 ,8 1 7
80
999
1,4 1 6
721

8 ,3 0 9
6 ,12 2
1,8 0 5
77
9 95
1,4 1 0
720

8,3 0 0
6 ,1 1 6
1,8 0 6
80
9 93
1,4 0 5
718

8 ,2 6 8
6 , 09 1
1,7 8 0
81
991
1,4 0 6
716

8,28 4
6 ,113
1,7 9 9
83
992
1 ,4 0 9
715

8,29 6
6 ,12 8
1,8 0 1
86
992
1,4 1 0
714

8, 292
6 ,13 3
1 ,7 9 5
81
9 99
1,4 1 6
712

8 ,2 9 1
6 ,1 3 7
1,7 9 2
82
1,0 0 0
1 ,4 1 9
712

8 ,2 8 0
6 ,1 2 8
1,7 9 5
82
1,0 0 0
i ; 418
710

P r i n t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g _________________________
C h e m i c a l s a n d a l l i e d p r o d u c t s . _____ ____________
P e t r o l e u m a n d c o a l p r o d u c t s ____________________
R u b b e r a n d p l a s t i c s p r o d u c t s , n e c ______________
L e a t h e r a n d l e a t h e r p r o d u c t s -------------------------------------

1 ,1 1 1
1,0 5 7
191
551
329

1 ,1 1 2
1,0 6 2
19 2
585
333

1 ,1 1 3
1,0 6 6
194
589
333

1 ,1 1 3
1,0 6 7
193
5 91
333

1 ,1 1 3
1,0 6 8
19 3
595
337

1 ,1 1 0
1,0 6 7
192
59 4
339

1 ,1 0 9
1,0 6 4
191
59 6
338

1,1 0 6
1,0 6 2
19 1
59 6
339

1 ,1 0 0
1,0 6 4
189
59 6
337

1 ,0 9 7
1,0 6 4
19 0
597
345

1,0 93
1,0 6 4
189
597
346

1 ,0 9 0
1,0 6 4
189
59 6
347

1,0 8 3
1,0 5 9
' 189
59 5
349

M i s c e l l a n e o u s m a n u f a c t u r i n g . . . .................................................

Nondurable goods___________________________

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES........... .

4 ,4 7 3

4 ,4 6 4

4 , 50 2

4,4 9 6

4 , 50 7

4 ,46 9

4 ,4 6 4

4 ,4 6 3

4 ,4 5 9

4 ,4 5 7

4 ,4 5 4

4 ,4 4 5

4 ,4 2 0

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE................................

14 ,9 5 8

14 , 975

14 ,9 8 4

14 ,9 8 7

14 ,9 3 8

14 ,7 5 0

1 4 , 848

14 ,8 2 4

14 ,7 3 9

14 ,7 1 3

14 ,6 73

14 ,6 4 7

1 4 , 6 06

Wholesale trade____ _________________ ______
Retail trade............ ......... ..................... .....................

3 ,8 5 2
1 1 ,1 0 6

3 ,8 5 0
1 1 ,12 5

3 ,8 4 7
1 1 ,1 3 7

3 ,83 4
11 ,15 3

3, 828
1 1 ,1 1 0

3, 807
10 ,9 4 3

3 ,78 2
11 ,0 6 6

3 ,7 7 5
1 1 ,0 4 9

3 ,76 2
1 0 ,9 7 7

3 ,7 5 1
10 ,9 6 2

3 ,74 2
10 ,9 3 1

3 ,73 6
10 ,9 1 1

3 ,7 2 3
10 ,8 8 3

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE........ .........

3 ,6 8 3

3 ,6 76

3, 665

3 , 6 52

3 ,6 4 8

3 , 6 26

3 ,6 11

3 , 5 96

3 , 5 84

3 ,580

3 ,5 6 7

3 ,556

3, 540

SERVICES__________________ ___________ ______

11 ,5 6 1

11 ,5 5 2
76 6
1 ,0 0 6
3 ,0 4 0
1,1 4 6

11 ,5 3 7
772
1,0 15
3 ,025
1,1 4 3

1 1 ,5 3 0
770
1 ,0 1 8
3 , 00 7
1,1 4 5

11 ,4 7 2
775
1 ,0 1 6
2,9 9 2
1,1 2 5

11 ,4 3 1
770
1 ,0 1 6
2 ,9 73
1,1 2 9

l i , 383
760
1,0 2 1
2 ,9 5 0
1,1 2 5

11 ,3 6 1
761
1,0 2 5
2i 931
1,1 2 2

11,2 8 9
748
1 ,0 2 6
2 ,9 1 4
1 ,1 0 5

11 ,2 4 8
730
1 ,0 2 6
2,8 9 1
1 ,1 1 7

11 ,2 0 5
734
1 ,0 3 0
2 ,8 7 5
1 ,1 1 3

1 1 ,1 7 4
745
1,0 2 7
2 ,8 6 0
1 ,1 1 4

1 1 ,1 7 0
752
1 ,0 2 7
2 ,8 4 5
1,1 2 3

GOVERNMENT................ ............ ............ ......................

12,65 3

12,624

12, 517

12 ,4 41

12,39 0

1 2 , 361

12,323

12,292

12,18 5

12 ,2 12

12 ,19 7

12 ,2 2 1

12,18 6

Federal3______________ ____ ___________ _
State and local______________________________

2 ,8 4 0
9 ,8 13

2 ,8 5 1
9 ,773

2 ,7 8 0
9 ,73 7

2 ,7 1 8
9 ,7 2 3

2 ,7 1 7
9 ,6 7 3

2 ,7 2 1
9 ,6 4 0

2 ,7 3 0
9 , 59 3

2 ,7 3 9
9 , 55 3

2 ,7 4 7
9 ,4 3 8

2 ,7 4 9
9 ,4 6 3

2 ,7 6 5
9 ,4 3 2

2 ,7 8 2
9 ,4 3 9

2 ,7 5 7
9, 429

H o t e l s a n d o t h e r l o d g i n g p l a c e s ___________________
P e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s ______________________ ________ _
M e d i c a l a n d o t h e r h e a l t h s e r v i c e s _________________
E d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s ....... ..................................................................................

1 F o r c o m p a r a b i l it y of d at a w i t h th ose p u b l i s h e d in issues p ri or to J u l y
c o v e ra g e of th ese se rie s , see fo o tn o te 1 , ta b le 1 1 .
1 F o r defin it io n of p ro d u c t io n w o r k e r s , see fo o tn o te 2 , ta b le 1 3 .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

19 70 , and

N O T E : T h e s e d ata h a v e b e e n sea so na lly ad ju s te d to refle ct e xp e r i e n c e t h r o u g h
F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 0 . F o r a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s e e J u n e 1 9 7 0 i s s u e o f Employment and Earnings.

T= p r e l i m i n a r y .

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
15.

LABOR TURNOVER

1Q5

Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1959 to date 1
[ P e r 10 0 em p l o y e e s ]

Year

Jan.

Feb.

M ar.

Apr.

May

June

Ju ly

Aug.

Sept.

Oc t.

Nov.

Dec.

Annual
a v era g e

Total accessions

1 9 5 9 _______________________________
1 9 6 0 ______________ ________ _________
1 9 6 1 ___________ ____________________
1 9 6 2 ________________________________
1 9 6 3 ________ _______________________

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

1 9 6 4 __________________ _____________
1 9 6 5 . . . ................... .. .............. ..................
1 9 6 6 ________________________________
1 9 6 7 ______________ _________________
1 9 6 8 _______________________________
1 9 6 9 ________________________________
1 9 7 0 _________ _______ __________ _

3 .6
3 .8
4 .6
4 .3
4 .2
4 .6
4 .0

3 .4
3 .5
4 .2
3 .6
3 .8
3 .9
3.6

3 .7
4.0
4 .9
3 .9
4 .0
4 .4
3 .7

3 .8
3 .8
4 .6
3 .9
4 .3
4 .5
T 3 .7

3 .9
4.1
5.1
4 .6
4 .7
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 .8
5 .6

4 .8
5 .5
6.1
5 .3
5 .7
5 .9

4.0
4.5
5.1
4 .7
5.1
5 .0

3 .2
3 .9
3 .9
3 .7
3 .9
3 .6

2 .6
3.1
2 .9
2 .8
3.1
2 .9

4 .0
4 .3
5 .0
4 .4
4.6
4.7

New hires

Total separations

Quits
1959 ....................................................... ..
1960 ............. ......................................
1961 ................................. ..........................
1962 .............................................................
1963 ......................................................... ...

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

1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5

1.2
.9
1.1
1.1
1.1

1.0
.7
.9
.8
.8

1.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4

1964 .............................................................
1965 ................................................... ...
1966 ............................................................
1967 .............................................................
1968 ............................... .. ...........................
1969 ............._ _ _ _ ................................
1970 ................................................ ...............

1.2
1.4
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.1

1.1
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9

1.2
1.5
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.4
1.9

1.3
1.7
2 .5
2. 2
2.2
2. 6
»’ 2 . 1

1.5
1.7
2.5
2 .2
2 .4
2 .7

1.4
1.7
2. 5
2. 3
2 .3
2.6

1.5
1.8
2 .5
2.1
2 .4
2.6

2.1
2.6
3.6
3.2
3.8
4.0

2.7
3 .5
4 .5
4 .0
4.2
4.4

1.7
2.2
2. 8
2. 5
2 .8
2 .9

1.2
1.7
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.1

1.0
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.6

1.5
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.7

Layoffs
1 9 5 9 . ............................................................................
1 9 6 0 ................................................................................
1 9 6 1 ...............................................................................
1 9 6 2 ................................... ................................
1 9 6 3 ...............................................................................

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

1 9 6 4 ...............................................................................
1 9 6 5 . ................ ........................................... ...
1 9 6 6 . . . .....................................................................
1 9 6 7 ................................................................................
1 9 6 8 . . ........................................................................
1 9 6 9 ______ ___________________
1 9 7 0 _____________________

2 .0
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.2
1. 7

1.6
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.6

1.6
1.2
1.0
1.5
1 .1
1.0
1 6

1.4
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
.9
»> 1 .7

1.4
1 .1
.9
1.1
1.0
.9

1.3
1 .1
1.0
1.1
.9
1.0

2 .1
1.8
2 .0
1 .9
1.8
1.6

1.4
1.6
1 .1
1.2
1.3
1 .1

1.5
1.3
1.0
1.2
1 .1
1.1

1.8
1.4
1 .1
1.3
1.2
1.3

1.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3

2 .1
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.8

1.7
1.4
1.2
1 .4
1.2
1.2

1 F o r c o m p a r a b i l it y o f dat a w i th th o s e p u b lish e d in issues p ri o r to J u l y 1 9 7 0 , see
fo o tn o te 1 , t a b l e 1 1 .
M o n t h - t o - m o n t h c h a n g e s in t o t a l e m p l o y m e n t i n m a n u f a c t u r i n g a n d n o n m a n u f a c ­
tu r in g in d u s trie s as i ndic ate d b y l a b o r t u r n o v e r rates ar e no t c o m p a r a b l e w i th the
c h a n g e s s h o w n b y th e B u r e a u ’s e m p l o y m e n t ser ies f o r th e fo llo w in g re a s o n s : ( 1 ) T h e


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

l ab or t u r n o v e r series m e a s u re s c ha n g e s d u r i n g th e c a l e n d a r m o n t h , w h i l e th e e m p l o y ­
m e n t ser ies m e a s u re s c ha n g e s f r o m m i d m o n t h to m i d m o n t h an d ( 2 ) th e tu r n o v e r
series exc lu d e s p erson n el cha ng es cau sed b y s trikes, b u t th e e m p l o y m e n t series
reflects th e i nfl u enc e of such st op pa ges .
»^ p re lim ina ry.

16.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

LABOR TURNOVER

106

Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group 1
[Per 100 employees]
Acc ession rates

Apr.
1970

»

Mar.
1970

Total

't e w hi res

Total

Major industry group

S e p a ra t io n rates

Apr.
196 9

Apr.
1970

p

M ar.
1970

Apr.
1969

Apr.
1970 p

Mar.
1970

Quits

Apr.
1969

Apr.
1970 p

Mar.
1970

Layoffs
Apr.
1969

Apr.
1970 p

Mar.
1970

Apr.
196 9

3 .7
4 .0

3 .7
3 .9

4 .5
4 .9

2 .6
2 .9

2 .6
3 .0

3 .5
3 .8

4 .7
5 .1

4 .5
5 .0

4 .5
4 .9

2 .1
2 .2

1.9
2 .2

2 .6
2 .7

1.7
1.9

1.6
1.8

0.9

_____________

3 .4

3 .5

4 .4

2 .3

2 .3

3 .4

4.6

4 .4

4 .2

1.8

1 .7

2 .4

1.8

1.7

.8

O rd n a n c e and
a c c e s s o r i e s ____________
L u m b e r and wood
p r o d u c t s ..............................................
Fu rn itu re and fixtures—
S t o n e , c la y , an d glass
p r o d u c t s ...............................................

1.1

1 .4

2 .3

.6

.7

1.8

3.7

5 .1

3 .2

.9

1 .1

1 .7

2 .3

3 .2

.7

5 .4
4 .5

5 .5
4 .9

7 .7
6 .4

4 .1
3 .4

3 .9
3 .7

6 .3
5 .7

5.7
5.9

5.6
5 .7

7.0
6 .5

3 .4
3 .3

3 .0
3 .3

5 .1
4 .6

1.4
1.4

1.8
1.3

.8
.6

MANUFACTURING............ .......... .
Seasonally adjusted 2 .................
D urabl e

goods

Prim a ry metal industries.
Fabricated metal
p r o d u c t s ________ _______

4 .7

4 .6

5.5

3 .4

3 .1

4 .4

4 .7

4 .3

4 .5

2 .4

2 .1

2 .8

1.3

1.2

.6

2 .9

3 .1

3 .8

1.9

1.8

2 .9

3. 8

3 .7

3 .3

1.5

1.3

1.8

1.2

1.2

.4

4 .0

4 .2

5 .2

2 .9

3 .0

4 .3

5. 5

4 .6

5 .2

2 .3

2 .1

3 .0

2 .1

1.5

1.0

2 .5
3 .0

2 .8
3 .0

3 .2
3 .7

1.8
2 .1

2 .0
2 .0

2 .7
2 .8

3. 6
4.2

3 .3
4 .2

3 .3
3 .7

1. 5
1.7

1 .4
1.6

1.8
2 .1

1.2
1.5

1.0
1.5

.6
.6

3 .6

3 .4

4 .4

1.8

1 .7

2 .9

5.6

5.6

4 .4

1.2

1.2

1 .9

3 .5

3 .6

1.5

2 .6

2 .7

3 .1

1 .9

2 .1

2 .7

3.6

2 .9

3 .2

1.5

1.4

1 .9

1 .1

.7

.5

Machinery, except
e l e c t r i c a l _______________
E l e c t r i c a l e q u i p m e n t ---------Transp ortation equipm e n t _____________ ______
I n s t r u m e n t s an d rel ated
p r o d u c t s ..............................................
M iscellaneous m a n u f a c t u r i n g _____ _______

Nondurable goods.................... ....
Food and kindred
p r o d u c t s ..............
.................
Tobacco m a n u fa c tu r e s .. .
T e x t i l e m i l l p r o d u c t s --------A p p a r e l an d o t h e r te xtile
p r o d u c t s _______________
P a p e r a n d allie d
p r o d u c t s _______________
Printing and p u b l i s h i n g ..
C h e m i c a l s a n d allie d
p r o d u c t s ...............................................
P e t r o l e u m a n d c o al
p r o d u c t s ................. .............................
R u b b e r a n d plastics
p r o d u c t s , n . e . c ............................
L e a th e r and leather
p r o d u c t s ................................ ..............

5.8

5 .4

6 .2

3 .5

3 .7

4 .8

6 .1

5 .1

5.6

2 .8

2 .6

3 .5

2 .3

1.6

.9

4 .1

4 .1

4 .7

3 .0

3 .0

3 .6

4.8

4 .6

4 .8

2 .5

2 .3

2 .8

1.5

1.5

1.1

5 .3
2 .8
5 .0

5 .1
2 .9
4 .8

5 .9
2 .7
5.6

3 .7
1 .9
3 .8

3 .5
2 .4
3 .6

4 .2
1.7
4 .6

5.6
3.3
5. 5

6 .0
5 .6
5.2

5 .7
6 .4
5.9

2 .7
1.9
3 .7

2 .6
1 .9
3 .3

3 .1
1.8
4 .2

2 .1
.6

.7

2 .6
2 .9
.8

1.8
3 .8
.6

5 .0

4 .8

5.6

3.3

3 .4

3 .7

6 .2

5.6

5.9

2 .8

2 .5

3 .0

2 .6

2 .4

2 .2

2 .9
2 .8

3 .0
3 .2

3 .9
3 .2

2 .3
2 .3

2 .5
2 .6

3 .4
2 .8

3.5
3.5

3.3

3 .9

3.3

1.8
1.9

1.8
1.8

2 .5
2 .1

.8

3 .0

.9

.6
.6

.5

2 .3

2.3

2 .6

1.9

1.8

2 .2

2.7

2 .3

2 .5

1.4

1 .1

1.5

.6

.5

.3

2.5

2 .3

2 .0

.9

1.0

1.0

.7

.5

.2

2 .4

3 .4

2 .0

1.6

.6

1.7

2 .0

1 .7

2 .1

2 .0

2 .4

1.8

1.6

2 .1

4 .1

4 .3

5.3

3 .2

3.3

4 .5

6 .1

5 .1

5 .2

2 .8

4 .2

6.4

6 .2

6 .7

3 .5

5.5

5 .1

5.8

4 .0

3 .7

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For relationship to employment series see footnote 1, table 15.
2 These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through February
1970. For additional detail see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1.1

3 .2

3 .9

NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table D-2,
_
.. .
»—preliminary.

.4

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
17.

HOURS AND EARNINGS

107

Gross hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagriculturai payrolls by industry
division, 1947 to date

Averages
Year

Weekly
earnings

Weekly
hours

Averages
Hourly Weekly
earnings earnings

Total private
1947..___ ____ ___ $45. 58
1948____________
49. 00
1949-_____ ______
50.24
1950........... ........... . 53.13
1951................... .
57. 86
1952.................... .
60.65
1953.....................
63.76
64. 52
1954.____ _______
1955____________
67. 72
1956........................
70.74
1957......................... 73.33
1958......................... 75. 08
1959 2............. .......... 78.78
I960.................. ...... 80.67
1961........................ 82.60
85.91
1962.................... .
1963____________
88. 46
1964____________
91.33
1965.................... .
95. 06
1966____________
98. 82
1967____ ________ 101.84
1968____________ 107.73
1969____________ 114.61

40.3
40.0
39.4
39.8
39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6
39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7

41. 1
41.3
41.2
40.5
40. 6
40.7

$1.131
1.225
1.275
1.335
1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71
1.80
1.89
1.95
2.02
2.09
2.14
2.22
2.28
2.36
2.45
2. 56
2.68
2. 85
3. 04

$2. 88
3. 03
3.11
3.24
3. 42
3. 63

$59.94
65. 56
62. 33
67.16
74.11
77. 59
83. 03
82. 60
89. 54
95. 06
98.65
96. 08
103. 68
105. 44
106.92
110. 43
114. 40
117.74
123. 52
130. 24
135. 89
142. 71
154.80

40.8
39.4
36.3
37.9
38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
40.5
40.9
41.6
41.9
42.3
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0

$38. 07
40. 80
42.93
44. 55
47. 79
49. 20
51.35
53.33
55.16
57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66.01
67.41
69.91
72.01
74.28
76. 53
79. 02
81.76
86.40
91.14

40.5
40.4
40.5
40. 5
40. 5
40.0
39.5
39. 5
39.4
39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
37.1
36.5
36.0
35.6

Weekly
hours

Averages
Hourly
earnings

Weekly
earnings

Contractconstruction
$1. 469
1.664
1.717
1.772
1.93
2. 01
2.14
2.14
2. 20
2.33
2.46
2. 47
2. 56
2.61
2. 64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92
3. 05
3.19
3. 35
3. 60

Wholesale andretailtrade

1For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11.
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing: to construction
workers incontract construction: and to nonsupervisory workers intransportation and
public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Hourly Weekly
earnings earnings

Mining

Transportationandpublic utilities
1947..................... .
1948____________
1949____________
1950.........................
1951.........................
1952.........................
1953.........................
1954.........................
1955....................... .
1956.................... .
1957.................. ......
1958.____ _______
1959 2.................. .
I960.........................
1961............. ...........
1962.____________
1963...__________
1964________ ___ _ $118. 37
1965........ ............... . 125.14
1966......................... 128.13
1967____________
131.22
1968____________
138.85
1969__________
147. 74

Weekly
hours

Averages

$0. 940
1.010
1.060
1.100
1.18
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.47
1. 54
1.60
1.66
1.71
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.96
2. 03
2.13
2.24
2.40
2. 56

$58. 87
65.27
67.56
69.68
76. 96
82. 86
86.41
88.91
90.90
96. 38
100.27
103.78
108.41
113. 04
118. 08
122. 47
127.19
132. 06
138.38
146. 26
154.95
164. 93
181.16

38.2
38.1
37.7
37.4
38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
37.6
37.7
37.4
37.9

$1.541
1.713
1.792
1.863
2. 02
2.13
2.28
2. 39
2.45
2. 57
2.71
2. 82
2.93
3. 08
3. 20
3.31
3.41
3. 55
3.70
3.89
4. 11
4. 41
4.78

37.9
37.9
37. 8
37.7
37 7
37. 8
37.7
37 6
37. 6
36.9
36 7
37.1
37. 3
37.2
36 9
37.3
37. 5
37.3
37.2
37.3
37.0
37.0
37.1

$1 140
T 200
1 260
1 340
1 45
1 51
1. 58
1 65
1. 70
1 78
1 84
1 89
1 95
2 02
2 09
2.17
2 25
2. 30
2. 39
2.47
2. 58
2. 75
2. 92

Hourly
earnings

Manufacturing
$49.17
53.12
53. 88
58. 32
63.34
67.16
70. 47
70. 49
75.70
78.78
81.59
82.71
88.26
89.72
92.34
96. 56
99. 63
102.97
107. 53
112. 34
114.90
122. 51
129. 51

Finance, insurance, andreal estate
$43.21
45.48
47. 63
50. 52
54. 67
57. 08
59. 57
62. 04
63.92
65.68
67. 53
70.12
72.74
75.14
77.12
80. 94
84. 38
85. 79
88.91
92.13
95. 46
101.75
108. 33

Weekly
hours

40.4
40.0
39.1
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
41.3
40.6
40.7
40.6

$1.217
1.328
1. 378
1.440
1. 56
1.65
1.74
1.78
1.86
1.95
2. 05
2.11
2.19
2.26
2. 32
2.39
2. 46
2. 53
2.61
2. 72
2 83
3.01
3.19

Services

$69. 84
73. 60
77.04
80. 38
84. 32
91.26

36. 0
35.9
35.5
35.1
34.7
34,7

$1.94
2. 05
2.17
2.29
2.43
2. 63

services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment
on private nonagriculturai payrolls.
2Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959.
NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-l.

108
18.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

HOURS AND EARNINGS

Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industr y
division and major manufacturing group

Industry division and group

TOTAL PRIVATE
MINING

............... .
................. .

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION..........
MANUFACTURING............ .............

Ordnance and accessories___
Lumber and wood products...
Stone, clay, and glass
products.................................
Primary metal industries____
Fabricated metal products—
Machinery, except electrica l..
Electrical equipment and
Transportation equipment----Instruments and related

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Apparel and'other textile

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

1969

1968

May f

Apr. v

37.1

37.0

37.2

37.0

37.1

37.7

37.5

37.6

37.9

38.1

38.0

37.9

37.6

37.7

37.8

43.2

43.1

42.4

42.6

42.3

43.3

43.3

43.3

43.4

43.6

43.0

42.3

43.4

43.0

42.6

38.2

37.9

37.2

36.8

35.7

37.6

37.1

38.3

39.3

39.1

38.7

38.4

38.2

37.9

37.4

41.0
3.6

40.6
3.6

40.7
3.7

41.0
4.0

40.6
3.7

40.4
3. 5

40.9
3.7

40.7
3. 6

40.6
3.6

40.7
3.6

39.9
2.9

39.7
2.8

40.0
3.0

39.8
3.0

40.1
3.2

40.5
2.9

40.2
2.8

40.6
3.1

40.3
3.0

40.7
3.3

41.7
3.8

41.2
3.7

41.4
3.9

41.7
4.2

41.1
3.8

40.9
3.6

41.5
3.9

41.4
3.7

41.3
3.8

41.4
3. 8

40.8
40.7
38 7

40.8
39.9
38. 7

40.8
39.5
39.1

40.8
39.4
38.7

41.0
39.1
38.9

41.0
40.1
40.8

40.6
39.9
40.3

40.3
40.3
40.6

40.6
40.3
40.7

40.2
40.2
40.8

39.8
39.7
39.7

40.8
40. 6
40.8

40.5
40. 7
40.4

40.4
40.2
40.4

41.5
40.6
40. 6

41.4

41.4

41.3

40.9

40.9

42.9

41.9

42.1

42.4

42.4

41.8

42.3

42.4

42.0

41.8

41.6
41.2
41. 8

42.0
42. 0
42.6

41.9
41. 7
42.6

41.8
41. 6
42. 5

41.6
41. 7
42.1

40.6
40.7
40.9

40.4
40.7
41.5

40.8
40.9
42.1

40.8
40.6
41.9

41.3
41.0
42.2

41.7
41.8
43.1

41.4
41.6
42.2

41.7
41.7
42.4

42.1
42.1
42.7

41.8
41.7
42.9

39.7
41.0

39 6
39.3

40.1
40.0

39.7
39.6

40.3
40.1

40.9
42.2

40.5
41.5

40.4
41.9

40.7
42.3

40.3
40.5

39.8
41.6

40.7
41.6

40.5
41.3

40.4
41.5

40.3
42.2

40.4

40.3

40.7

40.2

40.5

41.3

41.1

40.9

41.2

40.7

40.5

41.0

40.7

40.7

40.5

38.6

38 8

39. 0

38.8

38.8

39.5

39.3

39.3

39.2

39.1

38.5

39.2

39.0

39.0

39.4

39.9
3. 5

39.8
3.4

39.9
3.4

39.7
3.3

39.7
3.4

39.8
3.3

41.4
37.5
41.0

41.2
37.6
40.7

40.9
39.9
41.4

40.5
37.6
40.9

40.8
37.4
40.8

40.8
37.9
41.2

Miscellaneous manufacturing

Food and kindred p ro d u cts...

Annual average

1969

1970

39.0
2.8

38.9
2.8

39.2
3.0

39.1
3.0

39.2
3.1

40.0
3.4

39.8
3.4

39.7
3.5

40.0
3.7

40.5
38.9
39.7

39.8
37.1
39.9

40.0
36.4
40.1

40.0
36.9
40. 0

40.5
37.2
40. 0

41.0
36.8
41.3

41.0
37.3
41.1

40.7
38.6
40.9

41.8
39.0
41.0

35.2

35.4

35.8

35.5

35.2

35.9

35.8

35.8

35.8

36.3

35.9

36.3

36.1

35.9

36.1

42.0
37.6
41.4
42.1

41.7
37.7
41.6
42.1

42.0
38.0
41.8
41.8

41.9
37.8
41.6
41.8

42.4
37.7
41. 7
41.9

43.2
39.0
42.9
41.7

42.9
38.4
42. 0
42.7

43.1
38.4
41. 7
42.9

43.3
38.6
41. 8
42.6

43.1
38.6
41.7
42.9

43.0
38.4
41.7
43.6

43.1
38.4
41.8
42.5

43.0
38.3
41.9
43.3

43.0
38.4
41.8
42.6

42.9
38.3
41.8
42.5

Leather and leather products.

39.7
37.1

40.2
36.3

40.4
37.1

40.6
37.4

40.7
37.7

41.5
38.3

41.1
37.4

41.3
37.0

41.5
36. 8

41.0
37.1

40.8
37.4

41.3
37.8

41.2
37.3

41.1
37.2

41.5
38.3

TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES__________

40.3

39.7

40.2

40.5

40.5

40.8

40.9

41.0

41.0

40.8

41.1

40.7

40.5

40.7

40.6

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE.

35.0

34.9

35.0

35.0

35.1

35.7

35.2

35.3

35.7

36.6

36.5

35.9

35.4

35.6

36.0

Retail trade ...........................

40.0
33.4

39.9
33.3

40.0
33.4

40.0
33.3

40.2
33.4

40.7
34.1

40.2
33.6

40.3
33.7

40.3
34.2

40.5
35.3

40.3
35.2

40.1
34.6

40.0
33.9

40.2
34.2

40.1
34.7

FINANCE INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE....................... ...............

36.7

36.9

37.0

37.0

36.9

37.0

37.2

37.1

37.0

37.0

37.1

37.1

37.0

37.1

37.0

SERVICES

34.4

34.5

34.7

34.3

34.3

34.6

34.6

34.5

34.6

35.3

35.3

34.8

34.5

34.7

34.7

Paper and allied products___
Chemicals and allied products.
Petroleum and coal products.
Rubber and plastics prod-

_________________

iF o r comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970,
see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
»^prelim inary.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
19.

HOURS AND EARNINGS

109

Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry
division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
1970

1969

I n d u s t r y d iv i s i o n a n d g r ou p

May»1

Apr.»

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

PR IV AT E.

37.2

37.3

37.4

37.3

37.5

37.6

37.6

37.5

37.7

37.7

37.7

37.7

37.8

M I N I N G ...............................

43.1

43.1

43.2

43.4

42.7

43.2

43.5

43.0

43.1

43.1

42.6

41.8

43.3

CONTRACT

38.2

38.3

38.0

38.2

36.7

38.2

38.1

37.6

38.1

37.9

37.6

37.6

38.2

39.9
2.9

40.0
3.0

40.2
3.2

39.9
3.2

40.3
3.3

40.7
3.5

40.5
3.5

40.5
3.5

40.7
3.6

40.6
3.6

40.6
3.6

40.7
3.7

40.7
3.7

40.5
3.0

40.4
3.0

40.7
3.2

40.5
3.2

41.0
3.4

41.3
3.6

41.1
3.5

41.2
3.6

41.4
3.8

41.2
3.8

41.3
3.8

41.3
3.9

41.4
3.8

40.8
40.3
39.1
41.2
40.4
40. G
40.9
39.8
40.9
40.5

41.1
39.9
39.3
41.5
40.1
41.0
41.5
40. C
39.8
40.5

41.1
39.5
39.4
41.8
40.7
41.2
41.8
4o. 2
40.4
40.7

41.3
40.1
39.3
41.7
40.9
41.1
41.9
39.7
40.3
40.2

40.6
39.6
39.5
41.7
41.2
41.4
42.2
40.5
40.2
40.7

40.5
40.3
40.0
42.1
41.7
41.5
42.6
40.3
41.4
40.9

40.3
40.2
40.0
41.8
41.6
41.4
42.2
40.1
40.7
40.9

40.2
39.9
39.9
41.7
42. 1
41.4
42.4
40.2
41.2
40.7

40.3
40.0
40.1
41.9
42.1
41.5
42.6
40.4
41.6
41.0

40.4
39.9
40.3
41.9
41.9
41.6
42.5
40.4
41.2
40.9

40.3
39.8
40.2
41.7
41.7
41.6
42.4
40.4
42.1
40.9

40.7
40.1
40.6
41.9
41.7
41.7
42.5
40.6
41.6
40.9

40.5
40.3
40.8
42.1
41.7
41.6
42.6
40.6
41.2
40.8

TO TAL

C O N S TR U C TIO N .

M AN U FA C TU R IN G

.................................

Overtime hours.
D u r a b l e G o o d s . .................................

Overtime hours.
Ordnance and accessories............ .
Lumber and wood products...........
Furniture and fixtures.................. .
Stone, clay, and glass products__
Primary metal industries...............
Fabricated metal products.............
Machinery, except electrical_____
Electrical equipment and supplies.
Transportation equipment.............
Instruments and related products.
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.

38.7

39.0

39.0

38.6

39.3

39.3

39.3

38.9

39.0

39.1

39.2

39.1

39.1

Nondurable Goods..........
Overtime hours.

39.1
2.9

39.3
3.0

39.4
3.2

39.3
3.2

39.6
3.4

39.8
3.3

39.6
3.3

39.6
3.3

39.7
3.3

39.7
3.4

39.8
3.4

39.7
3.4

39.8
3.4

Food and kindred products............
Tobacco manufactures....................
Textile mill products......................
Apparel and other textile products.

40.7
39.2
39.8
35.2

40.5
38.3
40.6
35.5

40.5
37.5
40.2
35.6

40.7
37.3
40.1
35.5

41.0
38.3
40.4
35.6

40.8
36.2
40.9
36.0

40.8
37.2
40.7
35.8

40.6
37.3
40.6
35.8

40.9
37.4
40.7
35.8

40.9
37.2
40.9
35.9

40.7
38.0
41.1
36.0

40.7
39.3
4i. 1
36.1

40.7
37.9
41.0
36.1

Paper and allied products..............
Printing and publishing..................
Chemicals and allied products.......
Petroleum and coal products.........
Rubber and plastics products, nec.
Leather and leather products.........

42.0
37.7
41.3
41.8
39.8
37.3

42.1
37.9
41.4
41.8
40.6
37.4

42.2
38.0
41.8
42.2
40.7
37.4

42.3
38.0
41.8
42.7
41.0
37.1

42.8
38.2
42.0
42.5
40.9
37.5

42.8
38.6
41.8
42.3
41.1
37.7

42.7
38.4
41.8
42.6
40.8
37.3

42.8
38.2
41.7
42.6
40.9
37.2

42.9
38.3
41.8
42.2
41.0
37.1

42.9
38.4
41.8
42.8
40.9
36.9

43.0
38.5
41.8
42.8
41.2
37.1

43.0
38.4
41.8
42.3
41.3
37.4

43.0
38.4
41.8
43.0
41.3
37.5

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D PU B LIC U T IL IT IE S .

40.5

40.1

40.6

40.7

40.7

40.8

40.7

40.9

40.8

40.5

40.7

40.6

40.7

W H O LESALE

35.4

35.3

35.3

35.4

35.4

35.5

35.5

35.5

35.6

35.7

35.7

35.7

35.8

40.2
33.8

40.1
33.7

40.1
33.8

40.2
33.7

40.3
33.8

40.5
33.8

40.3
34.0

40.3
34.0

40.3
34.1

40.3
34.2

40.0
34.2

40.0
34.3

40.2
34.3

36.8

36.9

37.0

37.0

36.9

36.9

37.2

37.0

37.1

37.0

37.1

37.1

37.1

34.6

34.6

34.7

34.4

34.4

34.6

34.7

34.6

34.7

35.0

35.0

34.7

34.7

AND

R ETAIL

TR A D E.

Wholesale Trade.
Retail trade____
FIN A N C E, IN S U R A N C E, A N D

REAL

ESTATE.

S E R V I C E S ................................................................................................................

i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.
p=preliminary.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through.
February 1970. For additional detail see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings.

110

20.

Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group

1970

Industry and division group

TO TAL

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

HOURS AND EARNINGS

P R I V A T E ..............................................................

M I N I N G ............................................................................................
C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N . .................
M A N U F A C T U R I N G ........................................................
D u r a b l e G o o d s .................................................
O rd n a n c e and acces­
s o r i e s ______________ _________
Lu m b e r and wood
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 ------------S t o n e , c la y , a n d g lass
p r o d u c t s ________ _________
Prim a ry m etal indus­
t r i e s . --------------------------------------------Fabricated m etal
p r o d u c t s ____________________
M ach in e ry , except
e l e c t r i c a l ___________________
Electrica l e q u ip m e n t a nd
s u p p l i e s ................. ..............................................
Tran sp o rtatio n e q u ip ­
m e n t ________________________
I n s t r u m e n t s a n d related
p r o d u c t s ..............................................................
M is c e lla n e o u s m a n u fa c ­
t u r i n g i n d u s t r i e s .................................
N o n d u r a b l e G o o d s . . . ................................
Fo o d and kindred
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 ______
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 oth er te x ­
t i l e p r o d u c t s ................................................
P a p e r a n d allied
p r o d u c t s ____________________
P r i n t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g ____
C h e m i c a l s a n d allied
p r o d u c t s _______ ____________
P e tro le u m a n d coal
p r o d u c t s _____________ ______
R u b b e r a n d plastics
p r o d u c t s , n e c .............................................
L e a th e r a n d leath er
p r o d u c t s ......................................... .....................
TR AN S PO R TATIO N

AND

PU B LIC

U T I L I T I E S ________________________
W H O L E S A L E A N D R ETA IL TR A D E .
W h o l e s a l e t r a d e . . . ............................................
R e t a i l t r a d e . . ..........................................................
F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D
R E A L E S T A T E ...............................................................
S E R V I C E S . . . ..........................................................................

1968

May»

Apr.»

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

1969

$3.20
3.80
5.09
3. 35
3. 56

$3.18
3.79
5. 08
3. 32
3. 52

$3.17
3. 78
5. 06
3.31
3.51

$3.15
3.77
5.06
3.29
3.48

$3.13
3.76
5.07
3. 29
3. 49

$3.12
3.71
5. 03
3.29
3.49

$3.13
3. 72
4.97
3.26
3.46

$3.12
3.69
4.96
3.25
3.45

$3.11
3.65
4.92
3.24
3. 44

$3. 06
3.60
4.80
3. 20
3.39

$3. 05
3. 59
4. 76
3.19
3.38

$3. 04
3. 56
4.70
3.18
3.37

$3. 02
3. 58
4.72
3.16
3.35

$3.04
3.60
4. 78
3.19
3.39

$2. 85
3. 35
4.41
3.01
3.19

3. 57
2.97
2.75
3. 36

3.58
2.89
2.73
3.34

3. 57
2.86
2.71
3.32

3. 54
2.84
2.70
3.28

3. 53
2.83
2.71
3.28

3. 51
2.84
2.71
3.28

3. 53
2.86
2. 70
3.29

3.48
2.83
2.68
3. 27

3. 46
2.84
2. 68
3.25

3.43
2.79
2.64
3.22

3.41
2. 75
2.62
3.19

3.43
2. 72
2.62
3.18

3.40
2.69
2. 60
3.17

3.42
2. 74
2.62
3.19

3. 26
2. 57
2.47
2.99

3.93
3.52
3.76
3. 28
4. 06
3.30

3.90
3. 50
3. 76
3.25
4. 00
3.29

3.86
3.48
3.75
3.24
4. 01
3.28

3.85
3.46
3. 72
3.20
3.97
3.27

3.86
3. 45
3.70
3.18
4. 02
3.26

3. 87
3.44
3. 72
3.17
4. 04
3.25

3.85
3.41
3.67
3.13
3. 98
3.23

3.85
3. 39
3.67
3.13
3.95
3.21

3.87
3.40
3.63
3.13
3.94
3.19

3.84
3. 34
3. 57
3.10
3.92
3.15

3. 79
3.33
3. 56
3. 09
3.90
3.13

3.77
3.33
3. 57
3. 08
3. 86
3.14

3.75
3. 32
3. 56
3.07
3.83
3.12

3.79
3. 34
3.58
3.09
3.90
3.15

3. 55
3.16
3. 36
2.93
3.69
2. 98

2.80
3. 05

2.80
3.04

2.80
3. 03

2.80
3. 01

2.79
3. 01

2. 76
2.99

2. 72
2. 97

2.69
2.96

2. 68
2.95

2.64
2. 92

2. 64
2.92

2.65
2. 89

2.64
2.88

2.66
2.91

2. 50
2.74

3.16
3. 05
2. 43
2.37

3.12
2.99
2. 43
2.37

3.10
2.90
2.42
2. 37

3. 08
2.89
2.42
2. 36

3. 08
2.86
2.42
2.36

3. 04
2.67
2.42
2.35

3. 01
2.62
2.42
2.34

2.98
2.49
2.41
2. 34

2. 97
2. 51
2.41
2.34

2.94
2. 49
2. 38
2.31

2.97
2.77
2.35
2.28

2.95
2.80
2.31
2. 30

2.95
2.74
2.30
2.29

2.96
2.62
2. 34
2.31

2.80
? 48
2.21
2.21

3.40
3.87
3.63
4.31
3.14
2. 50

3.37
3.85
3.61
4.27
3.16
2.48

3. 35
3. 84
3.60
4. 23
3.15
2. 47

3.35
3.81
3.60
4. 23
3.14
2.47

3.35
3.80
3.60
4.21
3.15
2.46

3. 34
3.81
3. 58
4.10
3.14
2.44

3. 32
3. 78
3. 56
4.10
3.13
2. 42

3.31
3. 77
3. 55
4. 06
3.12
2. 40

3.31
3.75
3. 52
4. 04
3.13
2. 38

3.28
3. 70
3. 50
3.99
3. 08
2. 35

3.27
3.68
3.49
4. 03
3.09
2. 34

3.23
3.68
3.46
3.99
3. 05
2. 35

3.20
3.66
3.43
4. 03
3. 04
2.35

3.24
3.69
3.47
4.00
3. 07
2. 36

3. 05
3. 48
3.26
3.75
2.92
2.23

3.76
2.70
3.41
2. 42
3.03

3.75
2. 69
3.39
2.42
3. 03

3.75
2. 68
3.40
2.41
3. 05

3. 75
2. 68
3.38
2.40
3. 04

3.73
2.65
3.35
2. 38
3. 02

3. 72
2.61
3. 34
2.35
2. 98

3. 72
2.63
3.33
2. 36
2.99

3.70
2.61
3. 29
2.35
2. 95

3.71
2. 59
3.28
2. 33
2.93

3. 67
2. 56
3.24
2.30
2.92

3.65
2. 55
3. 23
2.30
2.91

3. 62
2. 55
3.24
2. 30
2.93

3.61
2. 54
3. 20
2.29
2.90

3. 63
2. 56
3.23
2.30
2.92

3.42
2.40
3. 05
2 16
2.75

2.80

2.79

2.79

2.77

2. 74

2. 72

2.72

2.69

2.67

2. 62

2.63

2.61

2.60

2.63

2. 43

i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see
footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Annual average

1969

NOTE: For additional detail see Employment andEarnings, table C-2.
,. inary.
.
»=prehm

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
21.

HOURS AND EARNINGS

111

Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1970

19 6 9

Annual

average

In d u s try division a n d g ro u p
M ay"

TO TAL

P R I V A T E .............................................................. $ 1 1 8 . 7 2

A p r ."

M ar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

O c t.

Sept.

Aug.

Ju ly

June

May

1969

1968

$ 117.6 6

$ 1 17 .9 2

$ 1 1 6 .5 5

$ 1 1 6 .1 2

$ 1 17.6 2

$ 1 17.3 8

$ 1 1 7 . 31

$ 117. 87

$ 1 1 6 .5 9

$ 1 15 .9 0

$ 1 1 5 .2 2

$ 1 1 3 .5 5

$ 1 1 4 .6 1

M I N I N G ............................................................................................

1 6 4 .16

1 6 3 .3 5

1 6 0 .2 7

16 0 .6 0

1 5 9 . 05

16 0 .6 4

16 1.0 8

159. 78

1 5 8 .4 1

15 6 .9 6

1 5 4 .3 7

15 0 .5 9

1 5 5 .3 7

1 5 4 .8 0

142. 7 1

C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ......................

194. 44

1 9 2 . 53

18 8 .2 3

18 6 .2 1

1 8 1 .0 0

18 9 .13

184. 39

1 8 9 .9 7

1 9 3 .3 6

18 7 .6 8

18 4 .2 1

18 0 .4 8

1 8 0 .3 0

1 8 1 .1 6

16 4 .9 3

$ 10 7. 73

M A N U F A C T U R I N G .........................................................

1 3 3 .6 7

1 3 1 .8 0

13 2 .4 0

13 0 .9 4

13 1.9 3

13 4 .8 9

1 3 2 . 36

132. 28

132. 84

129. 92

1 2 8 .8 8

1 3 0 . 06

1 2 8 .6 1

12 9 .5 1

122. 51

D u r a b l e g o o d s .........................................................

14 4 .18

1 4 1 .5 0

14 2 .5 1

1 4 0 .2 4

1 4 2 . 04

1 4 5 . 53

1 4 2 . 55

14 2 .8 3

1 4 3 . 45

1 3 9 . 33

138. 24

1 3 9 .8 6

13 8 .6 9

1 4 0 . 01

132. 07

a c c e s s o r i e s ......................................................
Lum ber and wood

1 4 5 . 66

1 4 6 . 06

1 4 5 . 66

14 4 . 43

144. 73

14 3 .9 1

1 4 3 . 32

140. 24

14 0 .4 8

13 7.8 9

135. 72

13 9 .9 4

13 7.70

13 8 .17

1 3 5 .2 9

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 ______

12 0 .8 8

1 1 5 .3 1

112. 97

11 1 .9 0

1 1 0 .6 5

11 3 .8 8

1 1 4 .1 1

1 1 4 . 05

1 1 4 . 45

1 1 2 .1 6

10 9 .18

1 1 0 . 43

109. 48

10 6 .4 3

10 5 .6 5

1 0 5 .9 6

10 4. 49

105. 42

1 1 0 .5 7

1 0 8 .8 1

10 8 .8 1

1 0 9 . 08

1 0 7 .7 1

10 4. 01

10 6 .9 0

10 5 . 04

1 1 0 .1 5
10 5 . 85

100. 28
12 4 .9 8

Ordnance and

104. 34

S t o n e , c la y , a n d glass
p r o d u c t s ...............................................................

1 3 9 .1 0

138. 28

13 7.12

13 4 .15

1 3 4 .1 5

13 7. 76

1 3 7.8 5

13 7.6 7

1 3 7 .8 0

1 3 6 . 53

133. 34

134. 51

13 4 .4 1

1 3 3 .9 8

P rim a ry m etal in d u s tr ie s ...

1 5 9 . 56

1 5 7 . 56

15 7 .4 9

1 5 7 . 08

159. 42

1 6 1.3 8

15 9 . 39

1 6 0 . 55

16 2 .9 3

16 0 .5 1

1 5 7 . 66

158. 34

1 5 7 .1 3

1 5 8 .4 2

14 7.6 8

Fab rica ted m etal
p r o d u c t s ...............................................................

14 3 .2 6

14 2 .4 5

1 4 2 . 33

1 4 0 .4 8

1 4 1 .4 5

1 4 3 .79

14 1 .8 6

1 4 1 .3 6

14 3 .14

13 9 .2 8

13 7. 20

1 3 9 . 86

138. 44

1 3 8 .9 4

1 3 1 .7 7

M ach in e ry , except
e l e c t r i c a l ..............................................................
Electrica l e q u ip m e n t
a n d s u p p l i e s ................................................
Tra n sp o rta tio n
e q u i p m e n t .......................................................
In s t ru m e n t s a n d related
p r o d u c t s ..........................................................

153. 78

15 6 . 04

1 5 7 . 88

155. 87

15 6 .14

16 0 .3 3

15 4 .8 7

1 5 5 .6 1

15 5 .0 0

14 9 .9 4

14 8 .8 1

1 5 2 . 08

15 1 .6 6

1 5 2 .1 5

1 4 1 .4 6

130. 22

128. 70

12 9 .9 2

1 2 7 . 04

1 2 8 .1 5

12 9 .6 5

126. 7 7

126. 45

1 2 7 . 39

12 4 .9 3

12 2 .9 8

1 2 5 .3 6

124 . 34

1 2 4 .8 4

1 1 8 . 08

1 6 7 . 69

1 5 7 .2 0

160. 40

1 5 7 .2 1

1 6 1 .2 0

1 7 0 .4 9

16 5 .17

16 5 .5 1

1 6 6 . 66

158. 76

16 2 .2 4

1 6 0 . 58

1 5 8 .1 8

16 1.8 5

1 5 5 .7 2

1 3 3 . 32

1 3 2 . 59

13 3 . 50

13 1.4 5

13 2 .0 3

134. 23

132. 75

13 1.2 9

1 3 1 .4 3

1 2 8 .2 1

1 2 6 .77

128. 74

126. 98

1 2 8 .2 1

12 0 .6 9

M is c e lla n e o u s m a n u fa c ­
t u r i n g i n d u s t r i e s ...............................

1 0 8 . 08

10 8 .6 4

109. 20

10 8 .6 4

10 8 .2 5

1 0 9 . 02

10 6 .9 0

105. 72

1 0 5 . 06

10 3 .2 2

1 0 1 .6 4

10 3 . 88

10 2 .9 6

103. 74

9 8. 50

N o n d u r a b l e g o o d s .............................................

1 1 8 .9 5

11 8 .2 6

118 . 78

11 7 .6 9

11 7 .9 9

1 1 9 .6 0

1 1 8 .2 1

1 1 7 .5 1

1 1 8 . 00

11 6 .5 1

116 .2 2

1 1 5 .3 1

114 . 34

1 1 5 .5 3

1 0 9 . 05

Fo o d an d kindred
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 ....................

12 7 .9 8

124. 64

12 3 .4 1

1 2 0 .6 6

1 1 9 . 48
1 0 3 . 02

1 2 0 .7 7

1 1 4 .2 4

9 7 .9 9

9 3 .9 9

94. 07

9 5 .4 7

9 1 . 05

12 4 .18

1 2 4 . 00

123. 20

124. 74

1 2 1 .2 9

12 4 .15

1 1 8 .6 5

1 1 0 .9 3

10 6 . 39

9 8 . 26

9 7. 73

9 6 .11

9 7 . 89

1 2 1 .7 2
93. 38

12 2 .3 6
10 4 .15

96. 47

9 6 .9 6

1 0 5 .5 6
9 7.0 4

10 6 .6 4

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 and oth er

9 6 .8 0

9 6 .8 0

9 9 .9 5

9 9 .4 6

98. 57

9 8 .8 1

9 7 . 58

9 5 .6 5

1 1 1 .7 2
9 5 .6 3

t e x t i l e p r o d u c t s .....................................

8 3 .4 2

8 3 .9 0

84. 85

8 3 .7 8

83. 07

8 4 .3 7

8 3 .7 7

8 3 .7 7

83. 7 7

8 3 .8 5

8 1.8 5

8 3 .4 9

8 2 .6 7

8 2 .9 3

7 9 .7 8

p r o d u c t s ...............................................................

14 2 .8 0

1 4 0 . 53

1 4 2 . 04

14 4 .2 9

1 4 2 .4 3

14 2 .6 6

14 3 .3 2

1 3 9 .2 1

1 3 0 .8 5

1 4 4 . 02

14 3 .2 6

1 4 8 . 59

1 4 5 .1 5

14 4 .77

144. 75

1 4 1 .3 1

1 4 1 .3 1

13 7 .6 0
14 0 .18

1 3 9 .3 2

1 4 5 .1 5

1 4 1 .3 7
14 2 .8 2

14 0 .6 1

1 4 5 .5 1

14 0 .7 0
14 5 .9 2

14 0 .3 7

P r i n t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g _____

1 4 1 .7 0

1 3 3 .2 8

150. 28

1 5 0 .1 8

150. 48

149. 76

1 5 0 .1 2

15 0 . 36

1 4 9 . 52

148. 04

14 7 .1 4

145 . 95

14 5 . 53

14 4 .6 3

143. 72

1 4 5 . 05

136. 2 7

P a p e r a n d allie d

C h e m ic a ls a n d allied
p r o d u c t s ...............................................................
P e tro le u m a n d coal
p r o d u c t s ...............................................................
R u b b e r a n d pla stic s
p r o d u c t s , n e c ........................................
L e a th e r a n d leath er

18 1 .4 5

179. 77

176. 81

1 7 6 .8 1

1 7 6 . 40

1 7 0 .9 7

175 . 07

173. 77

1 7 2 .1 0

1 7 1 .1 7

175. 71

1 6 9 . 58

1 7 4 . 50

1 7 0 .4 0

15 9. 38

12 4 .6 6

1 2 7 . 03

1 2 7 . 26

1 2 7 .4 8

1 2 8 .2 1

1 3 0 .3 1

12 8 .6 4

1 2 8 . 86

12 9 .9 0

126. 28

126. 07

12 5 .9 7

12 5 .2 5

1 2 6 .18

1 2 1 .1 8

p r o d u c t s ...............................................................

92. 75

9 0 .0 2

9 1.6 4

9 2 . 38

92. 74

9 3. 45

9 0 .5 1

8 8 . 80

8 7 . 58

8 7 .19

8 7 . 52

88. 83

8 7.6 6

8 7. 79

8 5 .4 1

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D PU B LIC
U T I L I T I E S ....................... ..................................................

1 5 1 .5 3

1 4 8 . 88

150. 75

15 1 .8 8

1 5 1 .0 7

1 5 1 .7 8

1 5 2 .1 5

1 5 1 .7 0

1 5 2 .1 1

149. 74

15 0 . 02

1 4 7 . 33

14 6 .2 1

1 4 7 .7 4

138. 85

W H O LES A LE A N D R ETA IL TR A D E.

94. 50

9 3 .8 8

93. 80

9 3 .8 0

9 3 . 02

9 3 .18

9 2 . 58

9 2 .13

9 2. 46

93. 70

9 3 .0 8

9 1 .5 5

8 9 .9 2

9 1 .1 4

8 6 .4 0

W h o l e s a l e t r a d e . . . .........................................

1 3 5 .2 6

135. 20
79 .9 2

1 3 2 . 59

1 3 2 .1 8

12 9 .9 2

12 8 . 00

12 9 . 85

122 . 31

79 .3 0

79 .2 0

79 .6 9

13 1.2 2
8 1.19

13 0 .1 7

79 . 49

13 5 .9 4
8 0 .14

13 3 .8 7

8 0 .5 9

13 6 . 00
80. 49

13 4 .6 7

R e t a i l t r a d e ...................................................................

136. 40
8 0 .8 3

8 0 .9 6

7 9 . 58

77.6 3

78 .6 6

74 .9 5

FIN A N C E, IN SU R A NC E, A N D REA L
E S T A T E ......................................................................................

1 1 1 .2 0

1 1 1 .8 1

1 1 2 .8 5

1 1 2 . 48

1 1 1 .4 4

1 1 0 .2 6

1 1 1 .2 3

109. 45

108. 41

108. 04

1 0 7 .9 6

108. 70

10 7. 30

1 0 8 .3 3

10 1. 75

S E R V I C E S .......................................................................................

9 6 .3 2

96. 26

9 6 .8 1

9 5 .0 1

9 3 .9 8

9 4 .1 1

9 4 .1 1

9 2 .8 1

9 2. 38

9 2 . 49

9 2 .8 4

9 0 .8 3

89. 70

9 1.2 6

84. 32

1 F o r c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f d a t a w i t h t h o s e p u b l i s h e d in i s s u e s p r i o r to J u l y 1 9 7 0 , s e e
fo o tn o te 1 , ta b le 1 1 . F o r e m p lo ye e s c o ve re d , see foo tn o te 1 , ta b le 1 7 .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

N O T E :
j>

F o r ad d itio n a l detail se e
. .
= prelim ina ry.

E m p lo y m e n t and Ea rnings , t a b l e C - 2 .

112

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

HOURS AND EARNINGS/PRICES

22. Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural
payrolls, in current and 1957-59 dollars, 1960 to date

Manufacturing

Total private

Year and month

I960________________
1961________________
1962________________
1963________________
1964________________
1965________________
1966________________
1967________________
1968________________
1969........ .................. ......
1969:
April____ ______
May______________
June______________
July______________
August____________
September__________
October____________
November__________
December_______ ___
1970:
January.......................
February____ ___ ...
March_____________
April j>_ _ _ ___ ___

Spendable average weekly earnings

Gross average
weekly earnings

Worker with 3
dependents

Worker with no
dependents

Worker with no
dependents

Worker with 3
dependents

Current
dollars

1957-59
dollars

Current
dollars

1957-59
dollars

Current
dollars

1957-59
dollars

Current
dollars

1957-59
dollars

Current
dollars

1957-59
dollars

Current
dollars

$80.67
82.60
85.91
88. 46
91.33
95. 06
98. 82
101.84
107.73
114.61

$78.24
79.27
81.55
82.91
84. 49
86. 50
87.37
87. 57
88. 89
89. 75

$65.95
67. 08
69. 56
71.05
75. 04
78. 99
81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96

$63.62
64.38
66. 00
66. 59
69. 42
71.87
71.87
71.69
71.54
71.23

$72.96
74. 48
76.99
78. 56
82. 57
86.30
88. 66
90. 86
95.28
99. 99

$70.77
71.48
73. 05
73. 63
76.38
78.53
78.39
78.13
78.61
78. 30

$89. 72
92.34
96. 56
99.63
102. 97
107. 53
112.34
114.90
122. 51
129. 51

$87. 02
88.62
91.61
93.37
95.25
97.84
99. 33
98.80
101.08
101.42

$72. 57
74. 60
77.86
79. 82
84.40
89.08
91.57
93.28
97.70
101.90

$70.39
71.59
73.87
74.81
78. 08
81.06
80.96
80.21
80. 61
79.80

$80.11
82.18
85. 53
87.58
92.18
96.78
99.45
101.26
106.75
111.44

$77.70
78.87
81.15
82. 08
85.27
88. 06
87.93
87.07
88. 08
87.27

112.13
113. 55
115.22
115.90
116. 59
117.87
117.31
117.38
117. 62

88.71
89. 55
90.30
90.41
90. 59
91.16
90.38
89.95
89. 58

89.14
90.18
91.40
91.90
92.41
93.35
92. 94
92. 99
93.17

70. 52
71. 12
71.63
71.68
71.80
72.20
71.60
71.26
70.96

98.11
99.19
100.46
100.98
101. 51
102.49
102. 06
102.11
102.30

77. 62
78.23
78.73
78.77
78. 87
79. 27
78. 63
78.25
77.91

127. 58
128.61
130. 06
128. 88
129.92
132. 84
132.28
132.36
134. 89

100. 93
101.43
101.93
100. 53
100.95
102.74
101.91
101.43
102. 73

100.48
101.34
102.30
101.43
102.20
104. 34
103.93
103.99
105. 85

79. 49
79. 84
80.17
79.12
79.41
80.70
80. 07
79. 69
80. 62

109.95
110.74
111.86
110.95
111.75
114. 01
113. 57
113. 63
115.61

86. 99
87. 33
87.66
86. 54
86. 83
88.17
87. 50
87. 07
88. 05

116.12
116. 55
117.92
117.66

88.10
87.96
88. 53
87. 81

93. 43
93. 76
94.78
94. 59

70. 89
70. 76
71.16
70. 59

101.97
102.32
103.39
103.18

77. 37
77.22
77. 62
77. 00

131.93
130. 94
132.40
131.80

100.10
98. 82
99. 40
98.36

105. 28
104. 53
105. 63
105.18

79. 88
78. 89
79. 30
78. 49

114. 48
113.69
114. 85
114.37

86. 86
85. 80
86. 22
85. 35

1957-59
dollars

The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes in pur­
chasing power as measured bythe Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
These series are described in “The Spendable Earnings Series: ATechnical Note
on its Calculation,” in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force,
February 1969, pp. 6-13.
NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-5.
»>=preliminary.

1For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, 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 intable 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 bythe worker as well as onthe level of his gross income, spend­
able earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) Aworker with
no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents.
23.

Spendable average weekly earnings

Gross average
weekly earnings

Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 1949 to date1

(Indexes: 1957-59=100]
W h o le s a le prices

C o n s u m e r prices

A ll item s

S ervices

C om m odities

Farm

A ll co m m o d itie s

Year

Index

Percent

Index

change

Percent

Index

Percent

change

1.0
1.0
8.0
2.2
0.8

2.6
0.6

8 3 .0

1 9 5 0 ___________________________________

8 3 .8

1 9 5 1 ___________________________________
1 9 5 2 ___________________________________

9 0 .5

1 9 5 3 ___________ ______ _________________
1 9 5 4 _____________________ ____________

9 3 .2

9 6 .4

- . 3

86.0

9 3 .6

0 .4

9 5 .5

- . 9

8 8 .7

1 9 5 5 ____________________

9 3 .3
9 4 .7
9 8 .0

9 4 .6
9 5 .5
9 8 .5

- . 9

1 9 5 6 . . . .....................................................
1 9 5 7 ____________________

- . 3
1.5

9 2 .5

1 9 5 8 _______________
1 9 5 9 . . . .............................................

1 0 0 .7
1 0 1 .5

1

-

3 .5

2.8
.8
1r 6i

8 7 .1
8 7.6
9 5 .5
9 6 .7

100.8
1 0 0 .9

101 7
10 \

-

9 .0
1.3

1.0

3 .1
2 .3

.1
8

7 2 .6

4 .6

7 5 .0

3 .3
5 .2

7 8 .9
8 2 .4

In d u stria l c o m m o d itie s

1 1 2 .5
1 0 8 .0

13 .9
- 4 .0

8 9 .4

2.8
.2

9 3 .2

9 2 .8

2 .5

9 6 .2

.3
3 .2

9 6 .6
1 0 0 .3

4 .1
3 .8

9 9 .0
1 0 0 ,4

10 3 .2

2 .9

100.6

2 .9
1.4

100 3
1003
100.5
102.5

6
8

1.1

113! 0

1.9

1 0 5 .2

11 5 .2

1 .9

1 9 6 5 _________

10 9 .9

1 .7

10 6 .4

1 .1

1 1 7 .8

1 9 6 6 _________
1 9 6 7 _____ . .

11 3 .1

2 .9

10 9 .2

2 .8

1 1 1 .2

2 .6
1 .8

12 2 .3

11 6 .3

1 2 7 .7

4 .4

1 9 6 8 _____

1 2 1 .2

4 .2

1 1 5 .3
1 2 0 .5

3 .7

13 4 .3
14 3 .7

5 .2

4 .5

1 1 .4

9 6 .7

2.0

1.2

5 .4

8 2 .9

9 0 .5

1.3

1 2 7 .7

8 0 .0

4 .8

- 1 .4

1 0 8 .1

.'9

- 1 1 . 7

9 8 .8

9 2 .7

106! 7

104! 1

9 4 .3

4 .0

9 2 .9

1 9 6 3 ____________
1 9 6 4 ____________

ß
9

106
108

110

*

9

2 .3
3 .8

7 .0

!

1 0 5 .9
1 0 6 .1
1 0 8 .7
1 1 3 .0

Index

change

- 5 .0

86.8

3 .1

104* ?
in s 4

?’
103 ?

8 3 .5

4 .4

103

Percent

Index

change

-

1 9 6 0 _______________

?

Percent

9 4 .0

4 .4

1 9 6 1 ___________
1 9 6 2 _______________

r

Index

change

1 9 4 9 .................. .................................................. ..........................................

1 9 6 9 _______

p ro d u cts, proc-

e ssed fo o d s , a n d fee d s

.2
1
4
3
-.3
.2
2.0
3.3
.2
2.5
4.0
’
’

101.0

9 1.5

- 6 .5

9 0 .1

1 0 0 .7

- . 3

9 0 .4

9 5 .9

- 4 .8

9 2 .4
9 6 .5

3 .5

9 9 .2

4 .7

9 9 .5

- 4 .7

1 0 1 .3

9 5 .3
9 8 .6
1 0 3 .2
9 8 .4
98
98
99

6
6
6

-.6
2
10

-

2.1
3 .6
1 0 .4

- 2 .3

.8
.3

2.2
2.8
1.8

4 .4
.3

1 0 1 .3

100.8
100.8

98! 7

- . 9

1 0 0 .7

9 8 .0

- . 7

10 1 .2
1 0 2 .5

1 0 2 .1

4 .2

1 0 8 .9
1 0 5 .2

6 .7

1 0 4 .7

- 3 .4

1 0 7 .6

2 .3

10 6 .3
10 9 .0

11 3 .5

5 .5

1 1 2 .7

1Historical price changes are shown in greater detail and for earlier years in the Bureau’s Handbook of LaborStatistics, 1989(BLS Bulletin 1630), in tables 108-120.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Percent
change

- 0 .5

-.1
. 5

1.3
2.1
2.5
3.4
1. 5

CONSUMER PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.

113

Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items

[The official name of the index is, “Consumer Price Indexfor UrbanWage Earners and Clerical Workers.” 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]
General summary

1970

Item and group

All item s___________ ______
All items (1947-49=100)_____
Food at home . . . __
Food away fromhome___
Housing_____________
Rent____
__
Homeownership-........... - —
Apparel and upkeep______
Transportation_________
Medical care..._______
Special groups:
All items less shelter____
All items less food____ .
All items less medical care..
Commodities__ ___ ____
Nondurables____ _____
Durables.................. .
Services_____________
Commodities less food____
Nondurables less food___
Apparel commodities__
Apparel commodities less footwear_________
Nondurables less food and apparel...
Household durables_____
Housefurnishings........... .
Service less rent________
Household services less rent.
Transportation services. . .
Medical care services... ...
Other services______ .

1969

May,

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

O c t.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

134.6
165.2
132.4
127.8
154.7
135.1
123.0
153.3
131.9
129.9
142.9
163.6

134.0
164.4
132.0
127.4
154.0
134.4
122.6
152.1
131.1
128.9
142.3
162.8

133.2
163.4
131.6
127.4
152.4
133.6
122.3
150.9
130.6
127.1
141. 4
161.6

132.5
162.5
131.5
127.4
151.5
132. 2
121.8
148.5
130.0
127.3
140.7
160.1

131.8
161.7
130.7
126.6
150.6
131.1
121.3
146.8
129.3
127.3
140.1
159.0

131.3
161.1
129.9
125.8
149.9
130.5
121.0
145.4
130.8
126.4
139.6
158.1

130.5
160.1
128.1
123.8
149.0
129.8
120.5
144.5
130.7
125.6
139.1
157.4

129.8
159.3
127.2
122.9
148.1
129.2
120.1
143.6
129.8
125.7
138.6
156.9

129.3
158.6
127.5
123.6
146.7
128.6
119.7
142.6
128.7
123.6
138.4
157.6

128.7
157.9
127.4
123.6
145.8
127.8
119.3
141.3
126.6
124.2
137.7
156.8

128.2
157.3
126.7
123.0
144.8
127.0
118.8
140.0
126.8
124.3
137.0
155.9

127.6
156.6
125.5
121.8
143.7
126.3
118.5
138.7
127.0
124.6
136. 3
155.2

126.8
155.6
123.7
119.8
142.8
125.8
118.1
138.0
126.6
124.0
135. 7
154.5

127.7
156.7
125.5
121.5
144.6
126.7
118.8
139.4
127.1
124.2
136 6
155.0

132.1
135.5
132.9
125.8
129.8
115.9
154.1
122.3
127.5
131.2
128.0
125.3
108.0
112.2
161.0
160.0
156.1
179.3
152.3

131.5
134.8
132.2
125.2
129.3
114.8
153.4
121.6
127.0
130.4
127.1
125.0
107.8
112.0
160.1
159.1
155.5
178.4
151.4

130.7 130.3
133.8 133.0
131.5 130.8
124.5 124.2
128.7 128.4
114.1 113.7
152.3 150.7
120.8 120.4
126.1 125.8
129.9 129.3
126.7 126.2
123.9 123.7
107.4 106.9
111.7 111.1
158.9 157.1
157.7 155.0
154. 5 154.1
177.0 175.2
150.3 149.8

129.8
132.3
130.1
123.7
127.8
113.7
149.6
120.1
125.2
128.6
125.5
123.2
106.6
110.5
155.8
153.2
152.9
173.8
149.4

129.5
131.9
129.7
123.6
127.7
113.6
148.3
120.3
125.7
130.3
127.5
123.0
106.5
110.6
154.3
152.4
148.4
172.8
148.9

128.6
131.4
128.9
122.9
126.7
113.5
147.2
120.2
125.5
130.4
127.7
122.6
106.5
110.4
153.1
151.4
145.8
171.8
148.2

128.1
130.8
128.2
122.4
126.1
113.2
146.5
119.8
125.1
129.3
126.6
122.6
106.4
110.2
152.3
150.4
145.1
171.2
147.6

127.6
130.0
127.6
121.7
125.8
111.6
146.0
118.7
124.4
128.1
125.3
122.2
106.2
109.9
151.7
149.5
144. 0
172.2
147.2

127.1
129.3
127.0
121.4
125.2
111.9
145.0
118.2
123.3
125.9
122.8
121.7
106.0
109.4
150.7
148.2
143.1
171.1
146.5

126.7
128.8
126.5
121.0
124.7
111.9
144.0
118.1
123.1
126.2
123.5
121.3
106.0
109.3
149.6
146.9
142.5
170.1
145.7

126.3
128.4
126.0
120.5
124.1
111.7
143.3
118.0
123.0
126.4
123.7
121.0
105.8
109.0
148.8
145.7
142.3
169.1
145.2

125.4
127.9
125.2
119.6
123.0
111.3
142.7
117.5
122.4
126.0
123.4
120.3
105.6
108.8
148.1
145.0
141.8
168.2
144.7

126.3
128.6
126.1
120.5
124.1
111.6
143.7
118.0
123.0
126.5
123.7
121.0
105.5
109.0
149.2
146.4
142.9
168.9
145.5

126.7
144.8
145.1
125.1
123.0
122.6
1 1 1 .6
123.3
129.0
112.3
128.2
120.9
100.9
113.6
113.4
127.6
131.7
136.8
132.5
131.1
135.5
125.0
150.1
131.0
140.0
115.4
161.1

125.5
143.7
144. 0
124.4
121.8
122.0
112.1
122.1
129.0
112.1
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

123.7
142.8
143.0
124.1
119.8
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

125.5
144.6
144.9
125.4
121.5
122.4
111.5
122.3
129.2
112.3
128.1
120.5
100.6
113.7
113.1
123.2
126.8
129.5
124.4
121.7
126.4
118.4
139.7
122.3
134.0
113.2
156.4

Other
index
bases
F O O D ________________________
Food away from h o m e ....................... ..

Restaurant meals__ ...
Snacks............. ......... Dec. 63

Food at home________________
Cereals and bakery products .

Flour. _________
Cracker meal_____ .
Corn flakes_____ ._
Rice___________
Bread, white______
Bread, whole wheat__
Cookies_________
Layer cake_______
Cinnamon rolls_____

Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Meats, poultry, and fish______

Meats.__ ____ .
Beef and veal____
Steak, round____
Steak, sirloin___
Steak, porterhouse
Rump roast____
Rib roast______
Chuck roast____
Hamburger_____
Beef liver_____
Veal cutlets____


3 8 6 -0 2 7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Annual
average
1969

U .S . average for groups, subgroups, and selected items

132.4
154.7
154.8
134.6
127.8
128.0
113.2
135.7
130.5
115.0
134.1
125.3
104.7
121.5
118.5
130.5
135.0
135.9
129.0
124.3
129.2
124.2
142.7
128.0
142.8
121.8
171.8

132.0
154.0
154.2
134.0
127.4
127.6
114.2
134.3
130.0
114.8
133.3
125.7
103.4
121.7
118.2
130.9
135.6
136.5
131.1
124. 5
130.5
125.1
142.8
130.0
142.4
121.1
171.1

131.6
152.4
152.5
132.4
127.4
127.0
113.1
132.9
130.4
114.4
133.4
125.6
102.4
121.3
116.4
130.2
134.7
133.6
126.9
121.8
126.8
121.1
141.2
126.9
140.8
120.5
168.1

131.5
151.5
151.6
132.0
127.4
126.3
112.1
130.2
130.2
114.2
132.6
125.5
101.7
119.9
116.7
129.7
133.9
133.0
126.4
120.4
126.4
120.1
141.8
126.7
140.5
119.9
166.0

130.7
150.6
150.7
131.4
126.6
125.5
111.9
127.8
130.2
113.8
132.2
124.4
101.3
118.1
116.3
128.8
132.9
132.2
126.2
121.4
126.6
120.7
141.6
122.1
138.7
118.7
164.0

129.9 128.1
149.9 149.0
150.2 149.3
129.9 129.2
125.8 123.8
124.9 124.1
110.9 111.2
127.9 127.2
130.0 129.7
113.4 113.0
131.1 129.7
124. 1 123.4
100.9 99.8
118.0 117.1
115.8 115.1
127.2 127.2
131.3 131.1
130.6 131.5
123.2 125.2
119.0 121.1
123.9 125.9
118.8 119.5
140.5 140.9
123.2 122.7
137.8 138.4
118.6 117.9
162.0 162.1

127.2
148.1
148.3
128.8
122.9
123.7
111.6
126.9
129.6
113.0
129.1
122.5
99.8
115.4
115.2
127.6
132.0
132.9
126.8
123.4
129.0
121.1
140.8
125.3
139.1
117.8
162.8

127.5
146.7
147.2
126.2
123.6
123.0
111.2
125.8
129.4
112.9
128.8
121.6
101.0
113.2
113.2
129.0
133.1
135.0
128.1
128.3
132.9
122.1
145.9
127.2
140.9
117.8
162.8

127.4
145.8
146.2
125.6
123.6
122.6
111.4
124.7
129.4
112.6
128.1
120.3
100.9
113.8
112.8
127.9
131.9
135.4
129.9
127.4
132.7
123.4
146.5
128.7
140.5
117.8
162.1

114

24.

CONSUMER PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued

Indexor(roup
FOOD—Continued
Meats, poultry, andfish—Continued
Meats—Continued
Pork............. ......................
Chops............ ........... ......
Loin roast__ ___________
Pork sausage___________
Ham, whole____________
Picnics................. .............
Bacon.____ ___________
Other meats.........................
Lamb chops..................... .
Frankfurters___ ___ ______
Ham, canned___ ___ _____
Bologna sausage_________
Salami sausage....................
Liverwurst_____________
Poultry...................................
Frying chicken........................
Chicken breasts__ ___ _____
Turkey...... ...... ...................
Fish......................................
Shrimp, frozen..... ............... .
Fish, fresh orfrozen.................
Tuna, fish, canned..... ..............
Sardines, canned.....................
Dairyproducts................................
Milk, fresh, grocery..... ...............
Milk, fresh, delivered...................
Milk, fresh, skim........................
Milk, evaporated-.......................
Ice cream................ ...... .........
Cheese, American process.............
Butter....... ............................
Fruitsandvegetables_____________
Fresh fruits and vegetables............
Apples........ ........................
Bananas...............................
Oranges...... .........................
Orange juice, fresh............ .....
Grapefruit............................
Grapes____________ ____
Strawberries........... ..............
Watermelon_____________
Potatoes................. .............
Onions.............. ............ .....
Asparagus............................
Cabbage__________ _____
Carrots____ __ _________
Celery.................... ............
Cucumbers________ ___ __
Lettuce.............................. .
Peppers, green..... .......... ........
Spinach................................
Tomatoes................ .............
Processedfruitsandvegetables___ _____
Fruit cocktail, canned................
Pears, canned_____________
Grapefruit-pineapple juice, canned...
Orange juice concentrate, frozen___
Lemonade concentrate, frozen____
Beets, canned. ________ ____
Peas, green, canned... _______
Tomatoes, canned.... ..................
Dried beans.............. ..............
Broccoli, frozen........ ............... .
Otherfoodathome______ ____
Eggs------------- -----------------Fats and oils:
Margarine________ ___ _ .. _
Salad dressing, Italian..................
Salad or cooking oil...... ........... .
Sugar and sweets........................
Sugar..... .........................
Grape jelly.... ..........................
Chocolate bar____ _______
Syrup, chocolate flavored..............
S e e footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Other
index
bases

Apr. 60
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.

63
63
63
63
63

Dec. 63
Dec. 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

Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Dec. 63

1970

1969

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

134.8
135.1
143.6
150.4
129.0
138.5
137.1
137.9
141.2
138.2
136.7
139.5
132.0
132.9
97.1
95.3
109.2
119.5
142.3
127.8
153.0
126.0
130.8
129.9
126.6
134.0
129.2
129.7
103.4
157.2
121.0
136.8
151.5
149.7
101.6
123.7
90.1
160.1
O)
128.1
0
166.9
180.0
138.9
194.3
117.3
160.5
154.6
138.9
344. 4
117.5
145.2
118.3
106.3
105.6
105.5
92.4
97.0
115.9
122.0
133.3
121.3
112.9
113.7
97.7
111.4
103.2
134.7
131.8
119.6
132.3
133.2
110.6

135.9
135.6
143.5
150.6
133.5
139.9
138.2
138.0
142. 0
137.4
138.3
139.7
131.8
131.9
97.1
95.4
109.4
119.0
141.1
126.8
152.5
124.5
129.3
129.5
126.5
133.9
128.3
127.9
102.7
157.3
120.2
134.7
148. 0
141.3
101.4
122.4
89.9
152.4
162.7
134.9
0
159.9
180.8
119. 3
202.1
115. 3
128.7
214. 0
125.2
299. 7
119.9
159. 0
118.0
106.2
104.9
105.2
92.6
96.5
116.2
123.1
130.7
121.5
113. 0
113.8
103.6
108.8
102.3
131.2
130.5
118.9
131.3
130.1
110.3

137.9
139.7
146.1
150.6
135.3
142.1
138.7
137.3
142.2
136.1
138.3
138.4
130.4
131.6
97.9
96.7
110.4
116.9
139.8
127.4
150.9
123.1
126.9
129.4
126.8
133.5
128.4
127.7
102.7
156.4
119.5
133.1
145.7
139.6
101.9
125.4
90.6
150.6
0
0
«
153.3
171.0
176.6
204.5
122.1
136.2
209.1
123.0
265.5
118.3
136.1
117.3
105.3
104.9
104.1
93.5
95.9
115.0
121.8
128.0
122.0
112.7
116.0
122.6
106.1
102.2
129.1
129.7
118.2
131.5
127.9
110.1

137.2
139.5
146.2
148.6
134.0
139.9
138.8
136.0
140.8
134.2
136. 6
137.7
128.6
131.4
99.1
98.5
110.4
115.9
138.3
126.2
148.1
121.6
126.5
128.8
126.2
133.1
127.3
127.4
102.1
154.8
119.5
132.4
144.5
135.8
96.5
124.5
90.7
151.7
(O
0
0
151.1
166.9
0
211.3
145.3
143.6
208.5
122.7
283.9
122.0
134.8
117.3
104.9
105.4
103.7
96.5
94.8
114.1
122.2
127.2
123.4
111.8
118.1
141.0
105.6
101.9
127.2
128.6
117.2
130.6
126.6
109.3

135.6
136.9
143.7
146.7
136.9
137.7
136.7
135.3
140.9
134.2
134.8
137.2
128.0
130.1
99.5
99.4
110.1
114.4
137.0
125.4
145.2
120.5
126.0
128.4
126.1
132.7
127.4
126.4
102.1
153.1
119.9
130.9
141.9
134.0
94.5
121.5
90.5
143.7
(O
0
0
144.3
140.5
141.6
188.7
139.2
140.5
203.4
137.6
231.2
120.3
168.1
117.1
105.3
106.0
103.0
96.4
95.1
113.9
122.4
126.7
123.1
110.8
117.7
143.0
105.6
102.5
126.2
128.1
116.7
129.7
127.1
108.1

133.3
135.7
143.4
146.8
130.7
134.7
133.1
134.4
140.4
134.6
130.4
136.6
127.9
129.9
97.9
97.9
110.4
110.3
135.4
124.4
143.4
117.9
125.4
127.6
125.0
132.3
126.0
125.0
102.0
152.4
119.6
132.1
144. 1
129.3
93.3
125.0
91.5
142.0
0
0
(0
142.0
136.4
0
173.4
146.6
132.2
176.5
189.5
217.2
121.8
177.5
117.1
106.2
106.4
102.4
97.4
94.7
113.6
122.4
126.6
123.3
109.6
116.6
140.6
105.0
102.6
124.8
127.5
116.2
128.7
127.4
107.1

132.0
134.1
140.4
148.3
124.8
136.0
132.4
133.6
139.4
134.7
127.8
136.1
127.1
129.8
99.1
99.5
110.8
110.0
134.0
122.9
141.1
116.7
125.0
126.3
123.4
130.4
125.0
124.3
100.7
151.0
119.4
127.0
135.4
125.7
93.9
132.4
91.8
144.1
154.3
(O
0
140.1
133.2
0
150.6
127.1
131.2
122.5
177.9
160.9
116.5
146.7
116.8
105.4
106.9
102.6
97.2
94.1
113.3
123.1
125.5
123.6
108.0
112.9
122.3
103.7
102.5
123.9
126.6
116.2
126.5
126.6
106.9

132.7
134.0
141.8
149.1
123.9
136.5
134.9
133.3
139.9
134.7
125.1
136.2
127.2
129.9
98.2
98.6
112.0
107.2
133.4
122.5
139.9
116.2
124.9
125.8
122.8
130.1
124.3
123.8
99.9
149.9
119.9
124.0
130.1
131.7
100.7
131.9
92.0
184.0
144.0
0
(>)
137.6
134.2
0
145.9
129.6
115.5
118.5
133.3
145.7
120.1
119.0
116.6
105.6
107.6
102.2
98.2
93.8
112.8
122.9
124.8
124.3
106.7
111.0
114.5
102.7
102.8
123.0
126.4
116.3
125.6
126.7
106.8

133.7
137.6
143.0
149.6
121.8
135.5
135.6
132.6
139.7
135.4
122.6
136.2
127.0
128.0
102.0
103.8
113.8
105.9
132.2
121.0
138.6
114.9
124.2
125.5
122.8
129.4
124.8
124.1
100.1
148.9
118.3
126.8
134.9
174.6
99.6
132.1
92.1
205.9
137.8
0
0
144.5
139.0
0
135.6
128.3
120.1
111.7
130.8
147.8
118.0
103.2
116.9
106.6
108.2
101.8
99.4
93.3
113.1
122.9
124.1
125.0
107.5
110.5
113.8
102.2
102.3
123.6
126.0
116.4
124.7
126.5
106.5

130.2
135.7
141.3
146.0
117.0
134.5
128.7
131.2
139.3
133.7
120.6
134.5
126.0
126.3
101.4
103.3
113.0
104.7
131.5
120.8
137.2
114.4
123.5
125.0
122.3
128.7
124.3
124.1
99.5
148.5
118.0
130.2
141.0
190.5
97.4
132.7
92.0
194.6
147.4
0
116.1
159.0
152.2
(')
138.3
139.6
130.2
122.5
124.2
146.4
117.2
116.3
116.7
106.3
108.8
101.0
100.0
92.5
112.8
122.7
124.6
125.0
106.7
110.5
114.4
102.4
102.3
123.6
125.4
116.5
123.9
125.1
106.5

129.0
136.4
141.9
143.6
114.2
130.9
126.8
128.8
140.9
129.4
115.6
132.0
123.7
125.0
100.4
103.1
109.4
101.8
130.6
119.7
134.5
113.6
124.4
124.4
121.7
128.0
122.9
123.9
99.0
147.7
118.0
132.3
145.0
192.9
97.7
127.9
91.4
156.6
188.3
,119.6
(I>
165.2
141.5
129.6
145.7
129.5
151.8
123.0
126.8
165.6
118.8
131.0
116.4
107.1
108.6
100.4
100.4
90.6
113.3
121.7
124.5
124.7
105.4
107.2
95. 6
103.1
102.4
123.5
125.3
116.2
123.9
124.9
106.4

126.1
134.8
139.7
137.2
114.2
124.8
124.1
127.2
139.1
127.6
117.6
128.8
121.5
122.2
97.3
99.2
107.6
101.1
129.8
118.3
133.1
113.8
124.0
124.0
121.3
127.6
122.3
124.0
99.8
146.6
117.8
130.8
142.4
185.3
94.5
125.4
91.8
143.5
0
126.8
159.9
154.5
135.0
121.1
155.6
119.8
139.2
124.6
120.2
180.7
111.1
158.0
116.3
106.3
108.9
9 9 .9
101.0
92. 3
112.7
121.0
124.1
124.9
104.9
106.6
92.5
103.5
103.4
123.3
125.2
115.6
124.1
124.8
106.5

118.8
122.4
129.8
130.0
111.1
121.5
118.4
124.0
136.2
122.2
116.6
123.7
118.6
120.6
93.3
94.7
104.4
98.7
129.5
118.2
132.0
114.0
123.7
123.6
120.7
127.3
121.7
123.8
98.8
146.1
117.9
130.0
140.9
171.4
96.3
126.2
91.2
137.3
0
12L5
0
143.8
130.5
118.9
152.6
109.7
134 3
161 1
149.3
188 0
109.6
173.8
116 3
106 0
109 n
99 1
103.7
9? R
113 4
121 1
123 8
125 4
103.2
107.1
97.4
102 8
103.2
122.7
124.7
115.0
123.1
124.5
10 6 .4

Annual
average
1969

125.2
129.6
135.8
137.8
117.1
127.5
124.3
127.7
137.0
127.4
120.0
129.3
122.1
123.7
96.9
98.1
108.4
102.8
130.6
119.3
134.6
114.4
124.2
124.5
121.8
128.4
123.0
123.5
99.5
146.8
118.3
128.4
138.1
162.5
95.3
128.4
90.9
155.1
154.4
131.9
131.9
144.8
134.1
138.7
152.0
123.8
125.6
148.1
144.4
172.4
114.8
138.1
116.3
106.4
108 7
100 5
98.9
92.5
113.2
121 7
124.7
124.7
104.7
109.9
112.1
103.0
102.6
123.4
125.1
115.3
124.1
125.1
106.1

CONSUMER PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.

115

Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued

Itemor group

Other
index
bases

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

115.2
103.6
114.7
104.8
163.0
130.0
110.1
111. 1
102.3
123.2
110.7
93.5
112.5
117.6
110.1
135.1
144.7
123.0
153.3
149.2
139.4
153.2
149.9
118.4
119.9
115.0
147.9
191.7
167.1
137.4
150.4
153.7
116.4
121.0
118.0
115.8
123.2
108.2

114.0
102.2
114.1
103.6
162.0
128.5
109.8
110. 5
102.0
122.7
110.6
93.2
112.9
118.0
110.0
134.4
143.7
122.6
152.1
149.1
138.2
153. b
148.8
117.8
119.9
114.6
146.7
187.9
lbb. b
137.1
149.1
152.9
116.3
120.9
117.8
115.7
123.1
108.0

112.4
99.7
113.1
103.1
161.9
127.4
109.5
110.4
101.8
121.8
110.5
93.2
112.0
117.2
109.1
133.6
142.8
122.3
150.9
148.9
134.7
153.2
148.3
117.2
121.0
114.7
146.2
186.8
166.1
136.7
148.2
152.4
115.6
120.8
117.8
114.8
121.9
107.5

110.7
97.4
111.0
103.6
160.3
126.0
109.0
110.9
101.1
121.1
110.3
92.8
112.0
116.0
108.3
132.2
140.9
121.8
148.5
143.5
133.6
152.8
146.9
116.5
119.8
114.8
144.7
185.4
165.4
135.0
145.6
151.3
114.9
120.6
117.5
114.6
121.5
107.4

109.1
94.9
109.6
103.1
159.3
125.5
108.5
109.7
100.8
120.8
109.7
92.7
112.1
115.6
107.1
131.1
139.6
121. 3
146. 8
139.9
133.0
152. 5
14b. 4
116.1
119.3
114.1
144.1
184.6
164.9
134.6
145. 2
150. 0
114.6
119.7
116.6
114.1
120. 5
107.4

107.4
92.3
108.0
102.9
158.4
124.8
108.2
108.8
100.3
120.4
109.6
92.5
111.9
115.0
107.5
130.5
138.5
121.0
145. 4
139.6
132.0
159. 9
145.8
115.9
119.1
114.3
143.5
183.6
164.1
134.0
144.5
149.7
114.6
119.2
116.2
113.7
119.8
107.2

106.1
90.0
106.0
102.2
158.7
124.7
107.6
107.2
99.5
119.8
110.0
92.1
111.4
114.3
107.0
129.8
137.7
120.5
144. 5
139.3
131.5
152.3
144.9
116.0
118.7
113.6
142.2
182.6
163.0
134.2
142.6
145.2
114.2
118.9
116.0
113.2
118.8
107.2

104.3
87.0
104.2
102.1
158.0
124.5
107.4
106.3
98.3
118.9
109.6
92.8
111.7
114.2
107.6
129.2
137.0
120.1
143.6
138.8
130.5
150.7
144.5
116.2
118.0
113.8
141.6
181.8
162.3
133.7
142.0
144.1
113.5
118.4
115.5
112.2
116.9
106.9

103.7
86.6
103.8
102.0
156.8
123.4
106.9
105.6
98.1
117.2
108.9
92.7
112.7
112 6
107.6
128.6
136.1
119.7
142.6
138.2
130.4
149.5
143.8
116.7
117.6
113.1
140.4
179.7
161.4
133.0
140.4
142.8
113.3
118.1
115.4
112.0
116.7
106.8

103.8
86.7
103.9
102.2
156.6
123.1
106.7
105.4
98.3
117.3
108.5
92.5
112.1
112.0
107.6
127.8
135.1
119.3
141.3
137.1
129.9
150.3
142.4
117.2
116.5
113.1
138.2
178.3
157.6
130.0
139.0
141.2
113.0
117.7
115.2
111.5
116.1
106.4

103.3
86.3
103.6
102.0
155.3
122.7
106.2
105.1
98.0
117.0
108.1
91.8
111.7
111.0
107.4
127.0
134.0
118.8
140.0
135.8
128.7
149.6
141.5
117.5
115.7
112.3
136.9
176.1
155.4
129.3
137.8
139.7
112.6
117.4
115.0
110.9
115.7
105.6

103.4
86.8
103.7
102.0
155.1
121.9
105.9
105.1
97.8
116.4
107.7
90.8
110.7
111.8
107.0
126.3
133.0
118.5
138.7
134.9
128.2
147.4
140.8
117.8
115.6
112.2
135.7
174.0
154.2
128.6
137.2
137.7
112.7
117.5
115.0
111.3
116.4
105.7

102.7
86.6
103.0
100.8
153.8
120.4
106.0
105.2
98.2
116.2
107.7
90.6
110.9
112.5
106.8
125.8
132.4
118.1
138.0
134.3
128.3
146.9
139.6
117.5
115.9
111.6
134.2
171.5
152.3
127.6
135.3
136.4
112.6
117.5
114.9
111.2
116.4
105.5

103.7
87. 5
103.2
101.8
155.3
121.9
106.2
105.0
98.0
117.1
107.2
91.4
111.6
112.8
107.1
126.7
133.6
118.8
139.4
134.4
129.0
148.7
140.7
116.1
116.5
112.4
136.4
174.6
155.8
129.0
137.4
139.1
112.9
117.8
115.1
111.5
116.8
105.8

104.9
151.0
122.5
112.2
116.2
121.8
113.2
116.8
127.3
Dec. 63 112.7
126.6
Mar. 70 100.5
128.1
Dec. 63 122.5
Mar. 70 100.2
Dec. 63 119.1
123.3
Dec. 63 (5)
121.4
107.4
104.2
113.7
Dec. 63 113.1
87.1
1 92.9
1 81.5

104.8
151.0
122.0
112.0
116.7
123.6
113.3
117.8
127.0
111.8
126.0
100.4
127.9
121.9
100.2
118.7
122.6
(5)
120.0
106.9
103.8
113.7
111.8
87.1
92.9
81.6

103.9
151.0
121.6
111.7
116.4
122.7
113.7
117.1
126.5
112.1
125.4

102.8
147.5
120.8
111.1
115.7
120.8
112.7
116.6
125.8
112.3
124.6

103.0
147.5
120.1
110.5
114.2
117.3
111.6
115.0
125.0

103.8
147.5
120.0
110.6
116.1
122.2
112.3
117.6
126.6
111.0 110.4
124.1 123.9

103.7
147.5
119.6
110.4
115.7
121.7
112.1
117.7
126.0
110.0
123.7

103.6
145.3
119.3
110.2
115.0
120.1
112.0
117.1
124.1
111.1
123.6

103.6
145.3
119.0
109.9
115.2
119.8
112.0
116.9
124.5
110.0
122.9

103.6
145.3
118.5
109.4
113.8
116.2
112.0
115.7
125.0
110.3
122.4

103.6
145.3
118.2
109.3
114.8
118.7
111.6
116.5
124.8
110.1
122.1

103.6
143.4
117.9
109.0
114.8
120.2
111.5
116.9
122.2
109.6
121.8

103.4
143.4
117.4
108.8
114.4
118.3
111.1
117.3
122.1
109.4
121.6

103.5
144.4
117.9
109.0
114.4
119.6
110.9
116.2
123.1
109.6
121.5

127.3
121.0
118.0
120.6
124.2
120.6
106.9
103.9
113.7
111.7
86.8
92.4
81.3

126.1
120.0
116.5
120.0
122.5
119.9
106.9
104. 0
113.6
111.3
86.6
92.3
81.5

126.0
120.0
116.3
120.5
122.4
119.6
106.8
104.0
113.2
110.3
86.5
91.8
81.8

126.3
118.8
116.5
120.0
122.6
119.8
107.1
104.7
112.5
110.3
86.4
91.5
81.4

125.8
118.6
115.7
120.2
122.5
119.5
107.1
104.8
112.5
110.1
86.3
91.2
81.4

125.9
118.9
115.9
118.9
124.1
119.2
107.1
104.9
112.1
109.6
86.2
90.9
81.5

124.9
119.0
114.8
118.8
123.7
117.1
107.0
104.9
111.8
109.3
86.0
91.0
81.3

124.8
117.9
115.1
118.6
123.2
118.0
106.3
104. 1
111.6
108.5
86.0
90.8
82.1

123.9
116.5
114.3
117.9
123.0
117.7
106.4
104.4
111.5
108.2
85.9
90.5
82.0

123.4
116.2
113.8
117.1
123.0
117.5
106.2
104.1
111.2
108.0
85.8
90.5
81.8

123.3
114.6
114.3
116.2
122.8
117.1
106.2
104.2
111.1
108.0
85.6
90.2
81.4

123.7
115.8
114.2
117.2
122.0
117.0
106.5
104.5
111.2
108.4
85.8
90.6
81.5

Dec.
Prepared and partially prepared foods.. Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Apr.
Dec.
Dec.
HOUSING
________ __

63
63
63
63
63
63
60
63
63

Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63
Dec. 63

Bedroom furniture chest and
Living roomsuites, good and inexLounge chairs, upholstered____

Washing machines, electric, autoVacuumcleaners, canister type__
See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Annual
average
1969

Apr.

July 61

Curtains', tailored, polyester marBedspreads, chiefly cotton, tufted..
Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/
Slipcovers, ready made, chiefly

1969

May

FOOD—Continued
Other foodat home—Continued

Residential water and sewerage.......

1970

116

24.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

CONSUMER PRICES

Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued
Index or {roup

1970

Other
index
base s
May

Apr.

Mar.

1969

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Annual
a v era g e
1969

Aug.

Ju ly

June

May

H O U S IN G — Continued
Household furnishings and operation— Con.
App lia nces— C ontinued
Refrigerators
or
refrigeratorf r e e z e r s , e l e c t r i c .................................................. ..
Ra nges, free s ta n d in g, gas or
e l e c t r i c ...................................................................................

8 7.3

8 7.5

8 7.2

8 6 .8

8 6 .1

8 6 .0

8 5.8

85 .8

85 .8

8 5 .7

85 .4

8 5 .2

8 4 .9

8 5.3

100.2

10 0 .7

10 0 .1

9 9.3

9 9.0

99.0

9 8 .8

9 8 .5

9 8 .1

9 8 .2

9 7.6

9 7.4

9 7.0

9 7.7

1 0 1 .9
10 1.3

10 2 .1
10 1.3

10 1.8

10 1.3

10 0 .8

10 0 .6

9 9.6

0
1 0 0 .6
10 5 .9

0
1 0 0 .6
10 5 .5

0
10 0 .4
10 5 .0

0
99.6
10 4.7

0
0
10 4.3

9 9 .7
9 9.8

9 9.5
9 9 .7

9 9.5
99.5

9 9 .1
9 9.2

1 0 7 .4

0
10 0 .5
10 6.6

10 0 .5
0
99.8
1 0 5 .0

99.8

0
10 7 .2

0
10 3.9

0
10 3.9

(O
10 3.9

0
10 3.6

9 9.4
9 9.5
9 8 .8
10 3.9

13 8 .3
12 0 .8
1 2 1 .4

13 8 .1
12 0 .7
1 2 1 .2

13 8 .1
1 2 0 .4
119.9

13 7.1
12 0 .1
1 1 8 .6

13 6 .2
119.2
118 .3

135.6
119.0
1 1 8 .7

13 5 .2
119.6
11 8 .3

13 4 .8
119 .6
1 1 7 .8

13 4 .3
119 .8
116 .0

13 3 .5
11 9 .6
1 1 5 .4

13 3 .6
119.5
11 5 .3

13 2 .7
1 1 8 .9
1 1 4 .0

13 2.5
1 1 8 .1
113 .6

1 3 3 .3
1 1 8 .7
1 1 4 .6

110.0
13 8 .5
129 .4

10 9.8
13 6 .4
1 2 7 .8

1 1 0 .0
13 4 .7
12 6 .8

10 8 .8
13 1.3
123 .5

10 8 .1
129.8
12 1 .9

1 0 7 .1
13 1.0
12 0 .3

10 6.2
13 0 .0
12 1 .2

10 6.8
129 .0
12 1 .2

1 0 7 .4
1 2 8 .6
1 2 0 .7

1 0 7 .4
1 2 8 .0
119 .1

10 6.4
12 7 .2
119 .5

10 6.5
12 8 .1
119 .8

10 6 .1
1 2 7 .1
118 .0

10 6.3
12 8 .2
1 1 8 .9

D e c . 63

1 8 5 .5
14 1 .5
165.5
1 5 0 .0

184 .8
14 0 .9
16 5.5
14 9 .8

1 8 2 .5
14 0.0
16 5 .5
14 9 .1

1 8 2 .0
13 8 .6
16 5.5
14 7.9

18 0 .5
13 7.6
165.5
14 7.5

179 .9
13 7.4
16 5 .5
14 6 .8

1 7 8 .7
13 6 .6
165.5
14 4 .3

1 7 7 .6
13 5 .7
165.5
14 3 .2

1 7 5 .1
13 5 .6
16 5 .5
14 2 .7

17 3 .9
13 4 .9
16 5.5
1 4 1 .4

17 2 .9
13 4 .5
165. 5
140.6

17 2 .2
1 3 3 .7
16 5.5
140 .2

17 1 .9
1 3 3 .1
165.5
13 9 .6

173 .5
13 3 .7
16 5 .5
140.6

D e c . 63
D e c . 63

13 2 .5
140.4

13 2 .1
1 3 9 .8

13 2 .0
1 3 9 .6

13 2.0
13 8 .3

13 2 .0
1 3 6 .6

13 1.8
13 5 .4

13 1.8
13 5.1

13 0 .7
135.2

13 0 .3
13 4 .4

12 9 .7
13 3 .5

1 2 8 .4
1 3 3 .0

12 8 .1
13 1.6

1 2 7 .2
13 1.0

12 7 .9
13 1.7

A P P A R EL AND U PK EEP.

13 1.9

1 3 1.1

130.6

13 0 .0

129.3

13 0 .8

13 0 .7

12 9 .8

12 8 .7

126 .6

126 .8

1 2 7 .0

126 .6

1 2 7 .1

Men's and boys'.

1 3 3 .9

13 3 .4

13 2 .3

13 1.0

13 0 .8

13 2 .0

13 2 .1

13 1.0

13 0.0

1 2 8 .7

12 8 .1

1 2 8 .5

12 8 .1

12 8 .5

<9

0
15 9.8
13 7.4
1 2 5 .3
13 1.8
123 .0
1 1 7 .2

14 4 .1
1 5 7 .3
13 6 .6
12 5 .3
13 1.0
12 0 .9
116 .6

1 4 1 .0
15 3.9

14 3 .7
15 4 .2

14 7.4
15 8 .2

14 8 .5
15 8 .2

14 5 .9
15 6.4

144.0
15 4 .5

0
1 2 5 .6
12 9 .6
11 9 .4
11 6 .4

0
12 5 . 5
13 0 .0
11 7 .6
116.0

0
12 5 .7
13 1.2
1 1 7 .6
1 1 7 .2

0
12 5 .6
13 1.7
1 1 7 .1
11 7 .0

0
12 5 .4
13 0 .4
11 5 .6
116 .9

0
1 2 5 .2
12 8 .9
11 5 .2
11 6 .9

0
15 0 .7
0
12 5 .0
1 2 7 .1
1 1 4 .5
116 .8

0
149 .6
12 7 .7
12 5 .1
12 6 .1
1 1 2 .1
116 .9

0
15 0 .0
13 0.8
1 2 5 .6
126 .6
1 1 4 .3
116 .7

0
15 0 .1
13 0 .0
12 5 .3
12 6 .3
1 1 4 .3
116 .5

14 2.9
15 0 .9
1 2 8 .6
124 .6
1 2 7 .4
113 .9
11 6 .4

11 5 .1

126 .4
12 4 .1
13 4 .1
12 2 .6
1 1 4 .4

126 .0
12 3 .7
13 2.9
12 1 .5
1 1 4 .2

124 .9
123 .2
1 3 3 .3
1 2 1 .3
113 .9

12 4 .4
12 2 .5
13 2 .4
12 0 .9
113 .8

12 4 .2
12 2 .3
13 1.9
12 0 .9
11 3 .8

12 4 .7
12 2 .2
13 1.8
1 2 0 .4
113 .3

124 .2
12 2 .2
13 1.5
1 2 1 .1
11 2 .9

123 .2
1 2 1 .8
13 0 .6
1 2 1 .6
1 1 2 .7

123 .3
1 2 1 .6
13 0 .6
1 2 1 .6
1 1 2 .4

12 3 .1
12 1 .5
13 0 .1
1 2 1 .1
1 1 2 .3

123 .4
1 2 1 .7
129 .4
12 0 .5
11 2 .3

1 2 2 .6
1 2 1 .3
12 8 .8
119 .4
1 1 1 .5

12 2 .9
12 1 .3
13 0.0
119 .8
1 1 2 .1

0
0
129 .5
13 0 .9

11 4 .6

13 0 .1
13 1.6

0
129 .5
130.5

1 1 4 .3
0
129 .4
129 .9

1 1 4 .2
1 2 7 .8
12 8 .9
13 0 .1

11 6 .1
13 0 .3
1 2 7 .1
13 0 .3

1 1 5 .9
13 1.0
12 7 .9
13 0 .3

11 5 .2
126 .4
126 .9
129 .0

11 3 .5
12 2 .5
12 7 .4
1 2 8 .9

0
0
1 2 7 .4
12 8 .4

0
0
1 2 7 .2
1 2 7 .9

0
(O
1 2 7 .0
126 .6

0
0
126 .0
12 6 .1

1 1 2 .4
1 2 5 .6
12 6 , 3
1 2 7 .1

126 .6

1 2 5 .2

12 5 .3

12 5 .4

12 4 .2

1 2 7 .2

12 7 .4

126 .2

12 4 .6

1 2 0 .8

1 2 2 .5

12 2 .7

1 2 2 .4

1 2 2 .8

0
0
0
12 5 .3

0
1 2 1 .0

12 4 .9
l3b. 6

13 6 .2
144. 6

13 9 .9
1 4 5 .3

0

0
124 .9

0
126.9

(O
12 7 .6

0
12 7 .2

13 9 .9
13 3 .9
0
12 5 .4

1 3 6 .0
129 .4

13 6 .3
12 9 .7

0
0
13 5 .2
1 2 7 .1

0
12 2 .7

0
12 1 .8
12 2 .2

0
O)
13 0 .7
12 2 .4

(O
(i)
13 5 .0
1 2 2 .7

0
0
13 4 .4
123 .4

13 4.4
129 .3
129 .3
123 .6

15 6.5

1 5 8 .9

1 5 8 .5

15 8 .7

O)
0
0

0
0
15 3.5

1 5 8 .8
14 4 .8

0

(>)
0
0

1 5 8 .3
14 5 .7

0
15 2 .3

0
15 3.0

0
1 5 2 .1

15 5 .9
14 5 .7
(O
1 5 0 .7

1 5 2 .5
14 0.8
O)
14 9 .0

14 7.3
0
1 3 6 .6
1 5 0 .0

14 7.6
O)
14 9 .9
14 8 .8

14 7.3

0)

15 5 .9
14 4 .2

0

(O
1 5 0 .6
14 9 .6

14 7.7
0
15 0 .5
14 7.3

1 5 0 .2
1 4 1 .0
1 4 7.2
14 7.9

1 1 5 .6
11 3 .3
12 1 .4
129 .2

1 1 4 .7
1 1 2 .7
12 1 .3
12 8 .4

1 1 4 .2
113 .2
1 2 1 .4
1 2 7 .4

1 1 4 .6
1 1 2 .7
12 0 .9
1 2 5 .6

113 .4
1 1 2 .0
12 0 .5
12 4 .4

11 2 .3
1 1 1 .2
1 2 0 .8
124.9

1 1 2 .2
11 1 .4
1 2 0 .5
123 .8

11 1 .9
11 0 .5
12 0 .2
12 3 .1

1 1 1 .9
10 9.9
119 .5
12 2 .9

1 1 1 .6
10 9 .1
119 .4
12 2 .5

10 9 .7
1 0 8 .6
119 .0
1 2 2 .2

11 0 .5
1 0 8 .4
11 8 .7
12 2 .0

11 0 .1
10 8 .8
119 .0
12 0 .8

11 0 .8
10 9.2
11 9 .1
12 1 .7

9 9.1

9 8 .9
12 0 .1
1 1 0 .6
1 1 8 .8

9 9.0
12 0 .5
1 1 0 .9
1 1 8 .2

9 8 .3
1 2 2 .5
11 1.0
1 1 8 .5

9 8 .5
1 2 1 .0
1 1 0 .7
116 .4

99.8
12 1 .5
1 1 0 .5
11 7 .3

9 9.8
1 1 8 .5
10 9.8
1 1 7 .2

9 9.4
11 8 .5
10 9.2
1 1 5 .5

9 9 .2
118.
10 9.0
1 1 4 .8

9 8 .8
1 1 8 .2
10 9.3
1 1 4 .1

9 9.6
1 1 8 .1
1 0 8 .9
113 .8

9 9.0
1 1 7 .6
10 8 .9
113 .7

9 9 .1
116 .6
10 8 .6
113 .0

9 9 .1
1 1 7 .2
1 0 8 .6
113 .6

1 1 4 .8

11 8 .9

1 1 8 .1
11/. 4

12 5 .6
123 .2

12 4 .4
123 .4

1 2 1 .7
124.0

1 2 0 .8

0
<‘ >

C lo t h e s d r y e r s , ele c t ric , a u t o m a t i c ,.
A i r c o n d i t i o n e r s , d e m o u n t a b l e _____
R o o m h e a t e r s , e l e c t r i c , p o r t a b l e ____
G a r b a g e d i s p o s a l u n i t s . . . ............................ ...
O th e r house furn ishin g s:
D in n erw are, earthenware.
Fla tw a re , stainless s te e l..
Ta b le lam ps, w ith s h a d e .

Dec.
June
Dec.
Dec.

63
64
63
63

D e c . 63
Dec. 63

Housekeeping su p p lie s:
L a u n d r y s o a p s a n d d e t e r g e n t s .................
P a p e r n a p k i n s ............................ ........................................
T o i l e t t i s s u e , . . . .................................................................
Housekeeping services:
D o m e s tic service, general house­
w o r k . ........................................................................................
B a b y s i t t e r s e r v i c e _________ ________
P o s t a l c h a r g e s ....................................................................
L a u n d r y , fla tw o rk , finished service.
L i c e n s e d d a y c are s e r v i c e , p r e ­
s c h o o l c h i l d .....................................................................
W a s h i n g m a c h i n e r e p a i r s ..........................

M e n 's :
T o p c o a t s , w o o l ....................... ........................................... ...
S u i t s , y e a r r o u n d w e i g h t ...........................................
S u i t s , t r o p i c a l w e i g h t __________ _______
J a c k e t s , l i g h t w e i g h t ...........................................................
S l a c k s , w o o l o r w o o l b l e n d ....................................
S l a c k s , c o t t o n o r m a n m a d e b l e n d ____
T r o u s e r s , w o r k , c o t t o n ................................... ...
S h i r t s , w o r k , c o t t o n ___
S h i r t s , b u s in e s s , cott on
T - s h i r t s , c h ie fly c o t t o n .
S o c k s , c o t t o n . . . ....................
Handkerchiefs, c o tto n ..
B o ys':
C o a t s , all p u rp o s e , c o tto n o r c o tt on
b l e n d ____________ ___________________
S p o r t c o a t s , w o o l o r w o o l b l e n d .....................
D u n g a r e e s , c o t t o n o r c o t t o n b l e n d ____
U n d e r s h o r t s , c o t t o n . ........................................................

D e c . 63

J u n e 64
D e c . 63

16 0 .2
138.4
12 5 .1
13 2 .7
12 3 .4
1 1 7 .1
12 6 .5
124 .2
13 4 .6

122.6
D e c . 63

D e c . 63
D e c . 63

Women's and girls'.
W o m e n ’s:
Coats, heavyw eight, w ool or wool
b l e n d ..................................................................................................
S k i r t s , w o o l o r w o o l b l e n d ......................................
S k i r t s , c o t t o n o r c o t t o n b l e n d . ........................
B l o u s e s , c o t t o n ________ _______ ________
Dresses, street, chiefly m a n m a d e
f i b e r ...................................................................................................
Dresses, street, wool or w ool b l e n d . ..
D r e s s e s , s t r e e t , c o t t o n ...................................................
H o u s e d r e s s e s , c o t t o n .......... ............................................

0

S e p t . 61
M a r . 62

0

<0

S l i p s , n y l o n .........................................
P a n t i e s , a c e t a t e _________
G ir d l e s , m a n m a d e b le n d .
B r a s s i e r e s , c o t t o n .....................

Dec.

H o s e , n y l o n , s e a m l e s s ....................................................
A n k l e t s , c o t t o n . ................... ...................................................
G l o v e s , f a b r i c , n y l o n o r c o t t o n . ......................
H a n d b a g s , r a y o n f a i l l e o r p l a s t i c ..................

D e c . 63
D e c . 63
D e c . 63

120.1

D e c . 63

0

G irls':
Ra in c o a t s , v i n y l p la s t ic o r c h ie fly
c o t t o n ...............................................................................................
S k i r t s , w o o l o r w o o l b l e n d .....................................
S e e f o o tn o te s a t e nd o f ta b le .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

63

111.2
119.3

0

0
0

0

0

i

0

0
0

0
0

0
0

12 0 .9
1 2 1 .4

CONSUMER PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
24.

117

Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued

1970

O th e r
Index or group

index
bases

May

1969

Annual
average

1969

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

129.4 135.1 134.0
125.5
Dec. 63 O )
O)
Dec. 63 107.3 107.5 108.1
Dec. 63 117.4 115.7 115.1
147.6 147.2 146.3
145.3 144.7 143.8
142.9 142.6 142.1

132.3
125.4
107.8
114.9
145.0
142.3
141.4

129.8
128.4
108.0
113.7
144.4
141.3
140.9

133.6
131.8
108.0
114.2
144.4
142.6
139.8

136.3
131.7
108.6
114.7
143.9
142.1
139.5

137.4
127.9
108.5
111.1
143.3
141.5
139.0

136.9
O)
107.7
108.9
142.3
140.1
138.4

135.4
0)
108.0
108.3
141.5
138.7
138.1

134.2
(>)
108.1
108.2
139.9
137.5
137.3

133.9
O)
107.2
106.5
140.1
138.6
136.8

134.1
(»)
107.0
108.5
139.6
138.2
136.1

134.4
125.8
107.5
109.3
140.3
138.4
136.7

157.3 157.3
Dec. 63 126.7 125.8
Dec. 63 138.7 138.3
Dec. 63 127.7 127.7

lbl. 6
124.8
135. /
127.8

151.8
124.2
134.2
128.0

152.7
123.2
134.0
127.5

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

148.6
120.3
127.7
124.7

Apr.

M a r.

A P P A R E L A N D U P K E E P -C o n tin u e d
Women’ s and girls’—Continued

Girls' Continued
Dresses, cotton________ ___
Slacks, cotton____________ Slips, cotton blend_____ ____
handbags---- -------------------Footwear ___ __________________________
Men’s:
Shoes, street, oxford.----- --------Shoes, work, high___________
Women's:
Shoes, street, pump....................
Shoes, evening, pump_________
Shoes, casual, pump__________
Housesllppers, scuff_________ Children's:
Shoes, oxford______ ________
Sneakers, boys’, oxford type_____
Dress shoes, girls’, strap.---- ------

155.5
125.0
136.3
128.2

146.6 146.3 146.6 145.9 144.3 144.3 143.3 142.3 141.4 140.7 140.2 139.8 139.4 140.1
Dec. 63 122.6 122.0 120.7 120.0 119.6 119.5 119.3 119.1 118.9 118.1 116.9 116.2 115.8 117.2
Dec. 63 138.3 137.5 138.0 136.6 136.6 136.4 135.7 134.6 134.1 133.1 130.6 131.9 130.7 131.5

Miscellaneous apparel:

104.9 104.8 104.9 104.3 104.0 104.0 104.1 103.8 103.9 104.0 103.5 103.2 102.7 103.0
127.6 126.8 125.9 124.6 123.3 123.5 123.1 123.5 123.2 123.2 122.1 123.2 120.5 120.9

Diapers, cotton gauze__________
Yard goods, cotton........... ........ .

Apparel services:

Drycleaning, men’s suits and women's
dresses_________________
Automatic laundry service___ ___ _ Dec. 63
Laundry, men’s shirts-- ------------- Dec. 63
Tailoring charges, hemadjustment---- Dec. 63
Shoe repairs, women’s heel lift.........

136.0
113.2
129.0
128.8
126.5
129.9
125.9
104.1
127.5
118.6
142.8
118.6
142.9
179.5
140.9
166.6
185.2
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
142.9
163.6
101.4
109.2
92.7
109.2
101.9
121.4
112.7
116.4
90.5
63.1
114.2
90.7
102.4
118.0
100.4
105.2
107.2
94.2

135.7
113.1
128.8
128.4
126.3
128.9
124.9
104.3
121.1
119.2
142.6
118.6
142.1
175.6
140.9
165.8
183.9
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
142.3
162.8
100.9
108.6
92.0
108.1
101.9
119.8
112.6
116.0
90.3
63.0
113.7
90.7
102.2
118.1
100.0
105.3
106.0
93.6

135.2
113.2
128.5
127.7
125.5
127.1
123.0
104.4
117.6
115.3
142.3
119.4
141.5
176.4
140.3
165.8
183.8
131.5
121.1
117.8
128.6
141.4
161.6
100.3
107.8
91.7
107.3
101.5
119.7
112.2
113.5
89.7
62.8
112.1
90.0
101.7
117.1
99.0
104.7
105.8
93.9

134.6
112.3
128.0
127.4
125.0
127.3
123.3
104.6
117.8
116.7
141.4
118.5
140.2
176.0
140.3
165.4
183.8
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
140.7
160.1
100.0
107.2
90.8
107.4
101.2
118.2
111.5
113.0
89.7
63.0
112.0
90.0
101.6
115.2
98.8
105.0
105.5
93.6

133.8
112.0
126.8
127.0
124.6
127.3
123.3
104.7
120.7
116.6
140.7
118.2
139.2
173.4
140.3
165.1
183.3
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
140.1
159.0
99.7
107.2
92.3
106.2
101.3
117.8
111.0
113.4
89.3
62.8
110.6
90.0
101.5
112.7
98.3
104.3
104.8
93.6

133.3
112.0
126.7
127.4
123.7
126.4
123.4
104.9
123.9
116.9
140.2
118.2
137.3
171.5
134.2
153.0
163.2
131.5
117.2
117.4
127.9
139.6
158.1
99.6
107.1
92.8
106.6
101.3
117.7
110.5
112.9
89.1
62.8
110.4
89.8
101.3
112.0
98.0
103.3
104.3
94.2

132.9
111.8
124.3
127.6
123.6
125.6
122.7
105.1
124.9
116.3
140.1
118.0
136.6
164.6
134.2
151. 1
163.0
127.5
115.5
111.6
127.0
139.1
157.4
99.6
107.1
92.4
106.2
101.3
117.1
110.0
114.7
89.0
62.8
109.6
89.8
101.3
111.7
98.0
103.2
104.3
93.9

132.2
111.4
123.8
127.5
122.7
125.7
122.8
104.2
125.8
118.0
139.6
117.4
136.1
163.7
134.2
150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0
138.6
156.9
99.4
106.9
92.5
106.1
100.8
117.4
109.6
113.7
89.0
63.0
108.9
89.8
101.3
111.4
97.9
103.1
104.2
94.3

132.0
111.3
123.4
126.5
123.1
123.6
120.5
99.5
121.4
117.7
139.1
117.0
135.2
163.2
134.2
150.3
161.7
127.5
115.1
111.6
127.0
138.4
157.6
99.3
106.9
92.4
105.5
100.9
117.0
109.1
115.1
88.8
62.9
107.8
89.8
101.2
111.1
97.7
103.1
103.6
93.9

131.7
111.0
123.2
125.4
121.3
124.2
121.3
101.0
125.4
118.0
138.7
116.0
134.5
160.3
134.2
149.7
160.8
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
137.7
156.8
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.8
100.9
116.5
109.2
114.8
88.7
62.9
107.6
89.7
101.0
110.8
97.6
103.1
103.3
93.9

130.5
111.0
123.0
125.2
121.1
124.3
121.4
101.6
127.0
117.7
138.1
116.3
133.8
159.0
134.2
149.5
160.5
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
137.0
155.9
99.2
106.9
92.1
106.4
100.8
116.7
109.1
114.8
88.6
62.8
107.1
89.9
101.0
110.2
97.1
102.9
102.9
93.8

130.2
110.4
122.5
125.1
120.4
124.6
121.8
101.8
128.2
118.6
137.4
115.5
133.3
158.7
134.2
149.1
159.9
127.5
114.9
112.1
122.9
136.3
155.2
99.3
107.1
92.2
106.6
100.9
117.0
109.5
115.2
88.6
63.1
106.9
90.0
101.2
109.7
97.0
102.8
102.6
93.9

129.8
110.3
122.1
123.5
120.1
124.0
121.2
101.8
126.8
117.3
136.7
115.6
132.9
158.1
134.2
148.0
159.6
124.8
114.6
110.7
118.6
135.7
154.5
99.3
107.0
92.4
106.2
100.9
116.9
109.3
115.1
88.6
63.1
106.4
90.0
101.1
109.3
96.9
103.0
102.6
94.9

130.8
110.1
122.9
124.5
121.3
124.2
121.3
102.4
125.3
117.0
137.5
116.2
133.8
160.2
133.6
148.9
160.4
126.7
114.0
110.6
122.4
136.6
155.0
99.2
106.9
92.4
106.2
101.0
116.9
109.2
114.5
88.6
62.8
107.2
89.8
101.1
109.4
97.1
102.8
103.1
94.3

165.6
168.3
173.6
161.1
Dec. 63 151.3
Dec. 63 135.0

164.3
167.3
172.5
159.2
148.7
134.7

163.7
166.6
171.7
159.0
148.5
134.6

161.6
164.0
169.0
157.6
147.7
133.7

160.7
163.1
167.9
155.9
146.5
133.0

160.0
162.4
167.6
155.0
145.9
132.6

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

154.3
155.8
162.9
148.6
140.2
129.2

155.4
157.2
163.3
150.2
1 4 1 .4
129.1

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N ___________________________
Private___________________________________

Automobiles, new_____________
Automobiles, used____________
Gasoline, regular and premium— --Motor oil, premium________ ___
Tires, new, tubeless______ _____
Auto repairs and maintenance...........
Auto insurance rates___________
Auto registration..................... .....

Public____________________________________

Local transit fares____________
Taxicab fares___ ________ ___ Dec. 63
Railroad fares, coach__ ________
Airplane fares, chiefly coach__ . ... Dec. 63
Bus fares, intercity________ __ Dec. 63

H E A L T H A N D R E C R E A T I O N _____ _____________
Medical care______________________________

Drugs and prescriptions............... .
Over-the-counter items....... .........
Multiple vitamin concentrates___
Aspirin compounds_____ ___
Liquid tonics..____ _______
Adhesive bandages, package.......
Cold tablets or capsules ............
Cough syrup________ ____
Prescriptions___ __________
Anti-infectives____ ______ _
Sedatives and hypnotics______
Ataractics........ .............. ......
Anti-spasmodics.....................
Cough preparations.................
Cardiovasculars and antihypertensives______________
Analgesics, internal.............. .
Anti-obesity....... ...... .............
Hormones______________
Professional services:
Physicians’ fees______ ____ _
Family doctor, office visits...........
Family doctor, house visits..........
Obstetrical cases__________
Pediatric care, office visits..........
Psychiatrist, office visits.............

S e e fo o tn o te s at e n d o f ta b le .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.

63
63
63
63
63
63
63

Mar. 60
Mar. 60
Mar. 60
Mar. 60
Mar. 60
Mar. 60
Mar. 67
Mar. 67
Mar. 67

1 2 9 .6

118

24.

CONSUMER PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Consumer Price Index-general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items-Continued
I n d e x o r gro up

Other
index
bases

HEALTH AND RECREATION—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 dis­
pensing 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...
Personal care......................................................
Toilet goods_____________________
Toothpaste, standard dentifrice..
Toilet soap, hard milled...............
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 haircuts_________
Shampoo and wave sets,
plain............................... ..
Permanent waves, cold____
Reading and recreation....................................
Recreational goods________________
TV sets, portable and console___
TV replacement tubes_________
Radios,
portable and table
model_____________________
Tape recorders, portable...........
Phonograph records, stereo­
phonic.................... .....................
Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom
lens....... ......... .............................
Film, 35mm, color_____ _____ _
Bicycle, boys’__________ _____
Tricycles________ ____ _______

Dec.

63

Dec.

63

Dec.

63

1970

Apr.

M ar.

63
63

Dec.

63

Dec.

63

12 9 .6

1 2 8 .7

15 6 .1

154. 2

1 5 1 .2
15 3 .3
14 8 .9

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

1 2 7 .5

12 6 .7

12 6 .3

1 2 5 .4

1 2 5 .2

12 4 .6

15 3 .8

1 5 2 .6

1 5 2 .3

1 5 1 .6

1 5 1 .3

14 9 .3

1 5 0 .7

1 4 8 .7

14 8 .4

14 8 .0

14 7.6

1 4 7 .2

14 6 .9

15 2 .5

1 5 0 .6

14 9 .8

14 8 .7

14 8 .3

14 8 .9
13 2 .7

14 6 .1

1 5 0 .3
1 4 5 .9

14 6 .0

14 6 .7

13 1.7

13 1.3

1 3 0 .6

14 7 .0
13 0 .2

14 8 .3
1 4 5 .9

12 9 .7

12 9 .5

1 3 6 .9

1 3 6 .7

1 3 5 .7
11 9 .8

13 2 .4

13 2 .2

1 3 1 .7

119 .6

13 3 .9
11 9 .5

1 3 2 .8

1 2 1 .2

1 3 6 .3
12 0 .8

1 3 3 .8

1 2 1 .3

11 9 .4

1 1 8 .5

1 1 8 .5

1 1 8 .6

1 1 8 .0

2 8 2 .3

2 7 9 .0

2 7 5 .6

2 6 1.9
2 5 8 .4

2 5 3 .8

2 5 2 .4

2 7 1 .9
2 6 5 .9
1 7 5 .4

2 6 7.9
2 6 4 .1

2 5 6 .7

2 7 5 .6
2 6 8 .7

2 7 1 .6
2 6 8 .0

2 5 9 .9

2 7 9 .1
2 7 1 .4

2 6 1.8

2 5 8 .7
1 7 0 .9

25o. 3
2 5 0 .8

2 5 3 .0
2 4 7.9

2 5 0 .0
2 4 5 .5

2 4 8 .4
2 4 4 .4

256. 0
252 1
247 5

16 4 .8
1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .7

1 3 3 .2

2 7 2 .3
18 0 .9

1 2 7 .7

1 2 5 .4

12 9 .6
1 1 2 .9
1 1 3 .9

12 9 .0
1 1 2 .4

126. 2

12 4 .3

111. 5

1 1 7 .3

1 2 5 .6
1 1 0 .5

1 0 2 .1

10 2 .3
13 1.0

1 3 1 .6
9 5 .8

10 2 .2

1 1 4 .3
12 4 .3
1 1 0 .0
1 0 2 .1
12 9 .1

14 3 .9

144

6

1 4 5 .3
1 2 8 .9

1 4 4 .7
12 8 .8

14 4 .5

14 3 .4

142

6

1 2 8 .3

1 2 7 .7

1 2 7 .3

1 2 7 .4

13 1.2

130

1 1 7 .9

1 1 7 .6

131 1
1 1 7 .4

16 5 .6

1 2 7 .3
1 1 1 .6
1 1 4 .4

1 2 7 .3
1 1 1 .7
11 3 .8

12 6 .8
1 1 1 .4

12 6 .6
1 1 1 .2

12 6 .2
1 1 0 .9

12 5 .8
110. 4

no. 7

11 3 .4

11 3 .6
12 3 .6
10 9 .0

11 3 .2
12 3 .9

113
124

1 0 7 .7

1 0 8 .6

10 2 .3
125. 0

10 2 .3
12 4 .0
9 5 .4

125 0
94 9

1 2 3 .0

1 1 4 .7
1 2 4 .8

1 2 5 .1

12 6 .3

12 3 .3

1 1 2 .9
1 2 5 .1

10 9 .2

10 9 .1

1 0 9 .7

1 1 0 .7

111.1

1 1 1 .2

11 0 .4

1 0 1 .9

1 0 1 .6
1 2 7 .5
9 5 .0

10 2 .0
1 2 7 .2

1 0 2 .1
12 6 .8

1 0 2 .1
12 6 .6

12 6 .1

9 5 .1
10 9 .2

9 5 .3
1 0 8 .4

9 5 .5

9 5 .0

1 2 7 .8
1 1 1 .8

1 2 5 .4

1 2 5 .3

12 5 .2

12 4 .0

15 6 .3

1 5 5 .3
1 0 7 .2

1 5 8 .3
10 9 .0

1 5 7 .5
1 0 8 .9

15 6 .8
1 0 7 .5
1 3 3 .1
99. 1
8 0 .0
1 1 6 .6

1 0 7 .2
13 2 .7
9 9 .1
8 0 .2
1 1 6 .3

1 3 2 .3
9 9 .2

10 1 .4

9 8 .5

9 9 .2

10 9 .3
9 9 .1

1 0 9 .3
9 8 .8

14 6 .7
15 5 .2

14 6 .5
1 5 4 .8

1 4 5 .8
1 5 4 .5

1 4 5 .5

1 3 7 .7
12 3 .4

13 7.5

15 4 .9
1 0 7 .1
1 3 2 .0

8 0 .3

9 9 .1
8 0 .2

1 1 6 .3

1 1 5 .9

1 5 4 .7

1 2 3 .2

1 3 6 .6
1 2 1 .9

1 3 6 .0

1 5 4 .6
1 0 7 .0

15 3 .6
10 6 .9

1 0 6 .7

13 1.6
9 9 .0
8 0 .0
1 1 5 .7

1 3 1 .2
9 8 .8
7 9 .7

13 0 .7
9 8 .7
7 9 .8

1 1 5 .4

1 1 5 .6

1 2 1 .2
15 2 .8

9 4 .9
1 0 8 .7
9 9 .3
1 4 4 .9
1 5 3 .8
1 3 5 .6
1 2 0 .9

2

1 2 6 .2
7
1

10 2 .0

108 8
9 8 .0

14 4 .7
15 3 .1
1 3 5 .7

145
153

2
7

1 2 1 .7

136 1
1 2 2 .0

15 2 .3
10 6 .5

1 5 2 .1
1 0 6 .5

152. 7
1 0 6 .4

13 0 .4
9 8 .6
8 0 .0
1 1 5 .8

1 3 0 .2
9 8 .6

130 5
98 6

8 0 .1
1 1 5 .6

80 1
1 1 5 .5

117. 5

1 1 7 .3

7 6 .6

7 6 .5

7 6 .0

7 6 .1

7 6 .4

7 6 .5

7 6 .5

7 6 .6

76 .9

76 .5

7 6 .5

7 6 .6

76 .6

7 6 .5

9 0 .4

9 0 .3

9 0 .2

9 0 .2

9 0 .0

9 0 .1

9 1 .2

9 1.4

9 1.5

9 1.4

9 1.5

9 1.9

9 1 .7

9 1.3
9 7 .2

Dec.

63

9 8 .3

9 7 .8

9 8 .1

9 7.9

9 8 .0

9 8 .0

9 8 .0

9 8 .1

9 7.6

9 7 .7

9 7.9

9 7 .5

9 7 .5

63

8 2 .0

8 1.4

8 2 .3

8 3 .4

8 3 .5

8 4 .1

85

9 9 .7

9 9 .1
1 1 0 .7
1 1 2 .0

9 9 .1
1 1 0 .0

9 9 .6

110. 5

9 9 .1
1 1 0 .4

8 3 .1
9 9 .4

8 3 .5

100. 0

8 3 .4

63
63

8 1.6
9 9 .7

8 2 .1

Dec.
Dec.

8 1.3
9 9 .7
1 1 1 .4

9 9 .2
10 9 .5

1 1 1 .6

1 1 1 .4

13 3 .9
2 1 1 .7

13 3 .2

13 2 .6

13 2 .1

2 0 8 .3
2 0 3 .2
2 2 5 .4

2 0 7 .0

12 9 .2
19 7.4

2 0 1 .9
2 2 4 .5

16 5 .0
11 3 .6

16 4 .5
1 1 2 .1

1 6 4 .1

1 6 3 .5

16 1.9

1 1 0 .9

11 0 .4

13 5 .5

13 5 .9

1 1 0 .3
13 5 .8

13 4 .7

1 0 1 .0
1 1 8 .4

1 0 1 .0
1 1 8 .9

63

11 3 .1

1 1 1 .2

13 5 .9

1 3 5 .0

1 3 4 .1

1 3 3 .7

21/. 9
212. 8
234. 8

215. 4
2 1 0 .9

2 1 2 .0

2 3 0 .6

2 0 7 .7
2 2 6 .7

2 1 0 .5
2 0 6 .1
2 2 5 .4

Drive-in movie admissions, adult.
Bowing fees, evening_________
Golf greens fees______________
TV repairs, picture tube re­
placement...... ..................... .......
Film developing, black and white.

Dec.
Dec.

63
63

16 8 .1
1 1 5 .2

16 7 .5
1 1 4 .8

16 7 .0
1 1 5 .0

Dec.

63

1 6 8 .9
115. 2
141. 5

13 9 .3

0

0

2 1 0 .3
2 0 5 .4

0
0

1 1 1 .2
13 1 .1

13 0 .1

12 9 .7

2 0 1 .6

2 0 4 .2
19 8 .8

2 0 0 .2
19 4 .4

19 8 .3
19 2 .9

19 2 .0

2 0 0 .6
195 5

2 2 3 .2

2 2 2 .1

2 19 .6

2 16 .7

2 1 5 .6

2 1 7 .6

16 0 .1

1 5 7 .0

159

1 1 0 .6
13 4 .6

1 1 0 .6
1 3 3 .8

111 1
13 1.8

1 0 2 .2
1 1 9 .2

10 2 .3
1 2 0 .0

101 7
11 9 .1

154

1 1 1 .9

13 1 .7
2 0 6 .5

10 9 .6
129

9

1 1 5 .3

1 1 3 .7

( 2>

<2)
1 0 0 .2

1 0 0 .0

1 0 1 .4

1 0 1 .0

1 1 7 .7

1 1 7 .9

1 1 7 .9

1 1 8 .3

15 8 .2
1 2 7 .3

1 5 6 .7

15 6 .4

1 5 5 .9

12 6 .5

12 6 .1

1 5 5 .8
12 3 .8

1 5 5 .2

12 6 .7

1 2 2 .8

12 2 .3

15 3 .7
1 2 2 .2

13 3 .5

1 3 3 .1

13 2 .2

1 3 1.3

13 0 .1

12 9 .1

1 2 7 .9

12 6 .9

129. 0

15 3 .8

1 5 3 .1

1 5 1 .5

1 5 0 .6

14 8 .7

14 6 .7

14 4 .0

14 2 .3

14 6 .5

1 6 1.4

1 6 0 .7
1 5 2 .6
1 0 9 .9

1 5 8 .9

1 5 8 .0

15 1 .0
10 9 .4

1 5 0 .0

1 5 5 .8
14 8 .1

1 5 3 .7
14 6 .2

1 5 0 .8
14 3 .4

14 9 .3
1 4 1 .0

153
145

10 9 .6

1 0 8 .7

1 0 7 .1

10 6 .5

10 6 .1

1 0 7 .6

1 1 9 .1
1 1 6 .4

1 1 8 .2

1 1 7 .7

1 1 7 .4

11 6 .8

1 1 7 .8

1 1 5 .3

1 1 4 .8

1 1 4 .5

1 1 4 .2

11 4 .8

10 9 .4

10 9 .2
1 0 8 .8
12 0 .5

109
110

9 8 .7

9 8 .9

9 9 .5

1 1 7 .6

1 1 7 .3

1 1 7 .7

10 0 .2
1 1 7 .4

16 0 .4

15 9 .8

16 0 .2

63

1 6 1.5
128. 2

16 0 .4

Dec.

1 2 8 .2

1 2 7 .8

1 2 7 .7

1 2 7 .6

13 6 .1

13 5 .6

1 3 4 .8
155. 0

1 3 4 .3
1 5 4 .9

13 3 .9
1 5 4 .1

16 2 .8
1 5 4 .9

16 2 .7
15 4 .8

16 1.8
1 5 4 .0

15 3 .5

1 0 8 .7

1 0 8 .7

10 9 .0

1 1 0 .0

156. 4

99
10 9

16 5 .5

9 8 .6

16 4 .1

0

99. 0
109. 0
1 0 8 .5

2 2 7 .1

117. 7

156. 7

84

9 9 .0
10 9 .1
10 9 .2

9 9 .1
1 0 9 .7
10 9 .4

10 9 .9
1 1 1 .6

1 0 9 .7

16 5 .6

63

1 6 4 .4
lb/. 2

0

2 0 7 .3
2 2 6 .9

Dec.

59

165

1 0 7 .9
9 8 .4

Dec.

M ar.

9
1

1 2 2 .3

12 8 .5
1 1 2 .0
114. 1

1 0 2 .1
128. 1
9 6 .0

8

144
143

1 6 6 .4

1 3 9 .2

63

108. 6

156. 8
1 0 8 .6

12 3 .1
118. 5

1 2 2 .5

12 2 .0

1 2 1 .4

1 2 1 .0

1 1 8 .2

1 1 7 .7

11 6 .9

116 .5

1 2 0 .6
11 6 .5

1 1 1 .8

1 1 1 .6
1 1 7 .4

1 1 1 .3
11 6 .8

1 1 1 .2
11 6 .5

1 1 1 .5
1 1 5 .2

1 2 8 .0

12 7 .6

1 2 7 .1

12 5 .9

0

1 2 0 .4

12 0 .0

116 .6

11 6 .3

1 1 1 .4

1 1 1 .3
11 3 .6
1 2 5 .0

1 5 4 .3

9

7

12 3 .7

6
7

Dec.

63

11 2 .5
119. 4

Dec.

63

129. 3

Dec.

63

11 9 .3

11 9 .0

1 1 8 .6

1 1 8 .1

1 1 7 .7

1 1 7 .4

1 1 7 .3

116 .9

11 6 .5

1 1 5 .9

1 1 5 .5

1 1 5 .2

1 1 4 .6

11 5 .2

Dec.
Dec.

63
63

1 1 0 .0

1 1 0 .0
1 4 5 .6

1 1 0 .1
1 4 5 .1

1 1 0 .0

1 1 0 .2

10 9 .1
1 3 9 .5

1 0 8 .3
13 8 .8

10 3 .4
13 7.8

1 0 8 .2
13 4 .5

1 0 7 .9
13 2 .9

108

14 2 .3

10 9 .9
13 9 .5

1 0 8 .2

14 2 .7

1 1 0 .3
1 4 1 .2

room

suites,

146. 1

1 1 8 .9
1 2 8 .4

1 P r i c e d o n l y in s e a s o n .
1 N o t a v aila ble .
T h i s i t e m is a r e p l a c e m e n t f o r b e d r o o m s u i t e s , g o o d o r i n e x p e n s i v e q u a l i t y
w a s d is c o n tin u e d a fte r M a rc h 19 70 .
H


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

14 3 .6

1 4 5 .1

1 2 2 .7

14 7 .5
15 6 .4
1 3 8 .0

Dec.

3

1 4 4 .2

1 4 5 .7

1 6 7 .6

14 8 .5
1 5 7 .8
13 8 .8

Dec.

Financial and miscellaneous personal
expenses:
Funeral services, ad u lt.................
Bank service charges, checking
accounts......... ...........
Legal services, short form will__

14 4 .9

14 6 .4

12 3 .2

14 8 .9
1 5 8 .0

Recreational services.............. .............
Indoor movie admissions_______
Adult.................... ...................
Children's________________

Alcoholic beverages.................. ...........
Beer______________________
Whiskey, spirit blended and
straight bourbon_______ ____
Wine, dessert and ta b le ..............
Beer, away from home_________

14 5 .5

1 4 7 .1

9

16 8 .7

14 9 .5
1 5 8 .7
140. 0

1 1 1 .2
1 1 2 .0

Other goods and services.......... ...........................
Tobacco products_________________
Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular
size_______________________
Cigarettes, filter tip, king size___
Cigars, domestic, regular size___

14 6 .0

123

12 4 .6

1 5 0 .1
15 9 .1

1 1 0 .8
1 1 1 .6

Reading and education:
Newspapers, street sale and
delivery.............. ................... ..
Piano lessons, beginner________

14 8 .2

9

1 7 0 .9
1 2 4 .8

1 5 0 .5
159. 7
14 0 .9

1 1 7 .3

1 1 8 .3

14 7.3

1 7 0 .6

1 1 1 .8
9 8 .6

7 9 .9

63
63

123

1 4 7 .8

12 4 .5

9 8 .7

1 3 3 .2
9 9 .2
79 .9

12 4 .1

1 4 8 .1

12 4 .7

9 8 .6

13 3 .6
9 9 .4

1 2 4 .3

14 9 .0

1 2 8 .1
1 1 1 .6
1 1 4 .6
12 3 .4

11 3 .8

109. 4

1 2 4 .3

1 4 9 .1

12 4 .7

9 8 .6

1 3 4 .4
9 9 .6
80. 0

12 4 .6

May

2 5 2 .6

9 8 .6

10 9 .6

June

2 6 3 .8

9 8 .3

12 6 .3

Ju ly

2 6 0 .1
2 5 4 .7

1 2 7 .6
9 4 .5
1 1 2 .5

14 0 .6
12 6 .1

Aug.

2 6 5 .4

9 6 .1
1 1 4 .4

15 8 .6

Dec.

1 7 2 .8

S ept.

2 6 1 .7
2 5 6 .1

13 0 .8
9 6 .1
1 1 5 .5

12 6 .4

Dec.

13 4 .6

9 5 .9
11 6 .0

15 9 .0

1 3 5 .2
9 9 .9
8 0 .1

63

1 7 7 .7

1 2 8 .1
12 9 .8
11 3 .0
114. 7

161. 0
1 4 1 .2

Dec.

18 0 .3

12 9 .4
13 0 .3
113. 3
114. 4

1 5 1 .3

63

19 6 9

Jan.

116. 4
98. 4

Dec.

An n u al

Feb.

2 8 3 .1
279. 8
Dec.
Dec.

19 6 9

average
May

r'

w hich

1 1 4 .5
1 2 5 .6

4 T h i s i t e m is a r e p l a c e m e n t
after M arch 1970.
5 Ite m d is contin ued.
N O T E :

11 0 .4

1 1 0 .1

1 0 9 .8

1 1 2 .0

1 1 0 .6
1 2 2 .3

1 1 0 .2

1 0 9 .5

1 2 1 .8

1 2 1 .5

1 2 3 .0

for

d ining

M o n th ly data for in dividual

nonfood

1 3 5 .0

w hich

was

9
5

1 2 1 .8

3

1 3 4 .7

d is c o n tin u e d

ite m s n o t a v aila ble for 1968.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
25.

CONSUMER PRICES

119

Consumer Price Index1—U.S. city average, and selected areas
[ 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 u n le s s o th e rw is e specified]

1970

Annual
avg.

1969

Area2
May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

1969

All items

U.S. city average3......... ........... - ............................. ................... ..

134.6

134.0

133.2

132.5

131.8

131.3

130.5

129.8

128.7

128.2

127.6

126.8

127.7

Atlanta, Ga____________ ____ ______ _____________ — .
Baltimore, Md............. ................... .. . .................. .................
Boston, Mass............................ ......... ......................... ..............
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100).................................................
Chicago, III.-Northwestern Ind........ ................. .......................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky...... ................... ..................... .........

( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
127.0
131.1
( 4)

( 4)
( 4)
137.9
(4)
130.2
(4)

131.9
133. 5
(4)
(4)
129.9
129.2

( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
125.3
129.3
( 4)

( 4)
( 4)
136.1
(4)
129.1
(4)

129.9
131.9
( 4)
( 4)
128.3
127.7

(4)
(4)
(4>
123.2
127.7
(4)

( 4)
<4)
134.7
( 4)
126.9
(4)

128.6
130.4
(4)
( 4)
127.2
125.5

( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
121.2
126.1
( 4)

(4)
( 4)
132.1
( 4)
125.3
( 4)

126.1
127.9
(4)
( 4)
124.6
124.6

<4)
( 4)
(4)
120.2
123.6
( 4)

126.7
128.3
131.8
120.5
124.9
124.6

Cleveland, Ohio................................ ...................................... Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100)___________ _____ _______
Detroit, Mich______________________ ____ ____________
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100)......... .................................
Houston, T e x .................. ......... ......................... ........... ...........
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas...........................................................

134.3
127.1
134.9
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

(4)
(4)
133.8
( 4)
132.9
( 4)

(4)
( 4)
133.1
122.0
( 4)
134.6

132.3
125.6
132.2
(4)
( 4)
( 4)

(4)
(4)
131.1
( 4)
130.9
( 4)

<4)
( 4)
130.8
119.7
( 4)
133.2

129.5
123.7
129.8
(4)
(4)
(4)

(4)
( 4)
129.2
( 4)
129.8
( 4)

0)
<4)
128.6
118.1
( 4)
131.4

127.3
121.2
128.5
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

( 4)
(4)
127.6
(4)
127.0
( 4)

(4>
(4)
127.3
116.6
( 4)
130.4

125.3
119.4
126.4
(4)
(4)
(4)

126.3
120.3
127.1
117.0
127.0
130.1

Los Angeles-Long Beach, C a lif................................................
Milwaukee, W is .............................. ........... ............. ...............
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn------------------------- --------------------New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J_____________________
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J___ ____ ____________ ___________
Pittsburgh, Pa......... ......... ...................... ............... .................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.3------------ ---------- ---------------------------

133.8
130.0
( 4)
140. 7
136. 5
( 4)
(4)

133.5
(4)
135.1
140.1
135.7
132.4
133.4

132.2
(4)
(4)
139.1
135.4
(4)
( 4)

131.6
128.5
(4)
138.1
134.1
(/)
( 4)

131.2
(4)
132.8
137. 0
132.9
129.4
130.7

131.1
(4)
(4)
136.0
132.2
(4)
( 4)

130.0
127.0
(4>
134.6
131.7
<4)
(4)

130.1
(4)
130.3
134.1
131.2
128.5
130.1

129.6
( 4)
( 4)
133.5
131.0
( 4)
( 4)

128.9
123.9
( 4)
132.5
130.2
( 4)
( 4)

128.6
(4)
128.0
132.1
129.2
127.7
128.4

127.9
(4)
(4)
131.6
128.2
(4)
O)

126.9
122.8
(4)
130.8
127.5
( 4)
( 4)

128.0
123.6
127.4
131.8
128.9
127.0
128.4

St. Louis, M o .-IIL ....................... ............... ..................... .........
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965 = 100).... ..................... .................
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif____ _____ _______________
Scranton, Pa.3_______________ _____ _________________
Seattle, Wash................................... ....................... ................ Washington, D .C .-M d.-Va.........................................................

M n
120.9
( 4)
136.9
133.9
136.7

(4)
( 4)
( 4)
(4)
(4)
( 4)

132.4
( 4)
136.1
( 4)
(O
(4)

<»>
118.6
( 4>
134.4
132.2
134.6

(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
( 4)

130.7
(4)
134.5
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

(4)
117.0
<4)
127.3
130.0
132.0

(4)
<4>
<4>
(4)
<4>
(4)

129.2
<4)
132.8
(4)
( 4)
(4)

( 4)
116.0
( 4)
130.5
129.5
130.8

(4)
( 4)
( 4)
(4)
( 4)
( 4)

127.0
( 4)
130.8
( 4>
(4)
(4)

( ‘)
114.4
( 4)
128.1
127.6
128.8

127.5
115.1
131.1
129.2
128.3
129.5

129.3

Food

U.S.city average3. ............... ......... ................ ............................. .

132.4

132.0

131.6

131.5

130.7

129.9

128.1

127.2

127.5

127.4

126.7

125.5

123.7

125.5

Atlanta, G a .. . .................................... ............................... .........
Baltimore, M d ..................................... ......... .............................
Boston, M a s s ..._____ _________________ _____ _______
Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100)..............................................
Chicago, 111.—Northwestern Ind___ ______ ______________
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky___
___ _ ______________

130.0
136.5
136.6
128.1
133.1
129.1

130.6
135.9
135.9
128.4
132.6
128.6

130.5
136.2
135.4
127.3
133.0
127.9

130.7
135.4
135.0
127.0
133.2
127.8

129.0
134.9
134.3
125.4
132.8
127.2

128.4
134.1
133.1
125.1
131.3
126.6

126.9
132.3
131.6
122.8
129.4
125.1

126.5
131.5
131.2
121.9
128.3
124.1

126.7
131.8
131.4
121.8
130.2
123.6

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
121.2
127.5
121.9

121.2
126.2
127.8
118.9
125.3
120.7

123.8
128.8
129.3
120.6
127.2
122.1

Cleveland, Ohio................................ ..................................... ..
Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100)................................. ................
Detroit, Mich__________________________ ____ ________
Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 1 0 0 ).._____ _____________
Houston, Tex____________________ _______ ______ ____
Kansas C ity , Mo.-Kansas_____________________________

130.8
126.0
132.1
123.2
133.4
136.8

129.7
125.5
131.2
123.4
133.8
136.4

129.3
125.5
130.9
123.4
132.7
135.9

128.4
125.9
130.2
122.9
133.3
135.8

129.0
125.0
129.8
123.0
132.3
135.1

128.5
124.2
129.3
120.8
131.2
134.4

125.7
122.8
126.8
119.5
129.2
132.9

125.0
121.7
126.1
119.7
128.7
131.2

125.1
122.0
126.5
119.1
129.2
131.9

125.2
121.9
127.3
118.0
129.0
131.3

123.3
120.6
126.5
116.9
127.7
130.7

123.2
120.1
124.5
116.3
126.8
129.8

122.3
118.2
122.7
116.1
125.2
127.5

123.2
119.8
124.3
117.4
126.9
129.4

Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif.................................................
Milwaukee, Wis________________________ _______ ____
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn____________ ____________ _
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N .J ............................ .......... .
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.................................................. ...............
Pittsburgh, P a .. ............................................................ ........... .
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.3..............................................................

128.1
129.4
131.3
136.0
132.3
128.8

127.4
129.3
131.2
135.7
131. 5
128.3
128.5

126.7
130.2
131.2
135.1
132.0
128.2

127.2
130.1
130.6
134.7
132.0
128.0

126.2
129.5
129.5
133.8
130.7
127.5
126.7

125.8
128.4
128.2
132.9
129.7
127.1

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
122.8
126.6
124.5
123.2

121.6
123.3
121.3
124.9
123.1
120.9

122.6
125.2
123.7
127.1
125.5
122.4
124 0

St. Louis, Mo.—1II___________________ _______________ _
San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965=100)..........................................
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif....... ....................................... .
Scranton , P a .......................
Seattle, Wash............. ................................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va....... ...................................................

136.3
122.3
129.0
131.3
130.6
136.2

136.5
121.3
128.8

136.6
120.8
128.2

136.6
120.6
128.2

135.5
120.0
127.2

132.6
118.3
124.9

128.6
118.1
124.3

127.8
134.8

127.6
133.5

125.2
130.5

Ï25.9
131.6

131.2
118.6
124.9
127.5
126.2
132.5

129.8
118.7
125.9

128.5
135.7

133.5
119.1
126.2
131.9
126.2
131.2

132.4
117.8
125.6

130.1
136.6

137.4
121.3
128.7
131.3
129.2
136.2

Ï25.8
131.3

125.0
129.1

126.9
116.4
122.7
123.4
123.6
128.3

129.5
117.0
123.8
125.0
124.5
129.5

1 S e e t a b l e 2 3 . I n d e x e s m e a s u r e t i m e - t o - t i m e c h a n g e s in p r i c e s . T h e y d o n o t i n d i c a t e
w h e t h e r it c o s t s m o r e t o l iv e in o n e a r e a t h a n in a n o t h e r .
2 T h e a r e a s lis te d i n c l u d e n o t o n l y t h e c e n t r a l c i t y b u t t h e e n t i r e u r b a n p o r t i o n o f t h e
S ta n d a r d M e tr o p o lita n Statistical A r e a , as d e fin e d fo r th e 19 6 0 C e n s u s of P o p u l a ti o n ;
e x c e p t t h a t t h e S t a n d a r d C o n s o l i d a t e d A r e a is u s e d f o r N e w Y o r k a n d C h i c a g o .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3
A v e r a g e o f 56 “ citie s” ( m e tr o p o l it a n are a s a n d n o n m e tr o p o lit a n u r b a n p laces
beginning Ja n u a ry 19 6 6).
A ll ite m s in d e x e s are c o m p u te d m o n th ly fo r 5 areas an d once e v e r y 3 m o n th s on a

*

ro tating c ycle fo r o th e r areas.
5 O l d series.

120
26.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

WHOLESALE PRICES
Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities
[ 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 unless o th e rw ise s p e c ifie d ]3

1970
Code

1969

Annual
average
1969

Commodity Group

ALL COMMODITIES____________________

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

116.8

116.6

116.6

116.4

116.0

115.1

114.7

114.0

113.6

113.4

113.3

113.2

112.8

113.0

FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS_________________________

117.0

117.6

118.8

118.7

118.2

116.4

115.7

114.3

114.3

114.6

115.5

115.5

114.1

113.5

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES_____ _______

116.6

116.2

115.8

115.5

115.1

114.6

114.2

113.8

113.2

112.8

112.4

112.2

112.2

112.7

111.1

108.4
108.9
103.4
106.7
83.4
81.9
119.2
123.6
89.0
92.3
66.4
66.9
135.1
135.6
122.5
100.5
105.7 1107.3
110.6
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
86.7
123.0
90.7
67.7
134.1
80.6
115.1
105.6

108 5
111 0
88 3
118 3
89 8
67 1
134 8
112 9
109 ?
109.1

FARM PRODUCTS, AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9

Farm products________________________________
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables---------Grains............... ...................................................
Livestock_______________ ______________
Live poultry__________________ _____ —
Plant and animal fib e rs .................................
Fluid milk.......... ......... .......................................
Eggs---------- ---------------------------------- ------------Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds______________
Other farm products______________ ____ _

111.0
123.5
88.4
122.2
83.7
60. b
139.5
79.7
111.1
115. 0

111.3
112.7
87.8
124.8
82.8
65.4
141.1
94.9
109.8
114.7

114.3
118.2
85.5
129.6
90.8
64.9
139.7
120.1
106.3
114.8

113.7
117.2
85.9
124.9
87.1
65.4
140.8
136.9
106.3
115.2

112.5
116.6
85.9
117.3
94.8
65. 3
140.5
152.2
107.7
116.3

111.7
112.4
82.9
120.2
86.9
6b. /
138.3
155.8
105.1
113.1

13/. 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

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--------------------------------------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 oils__________ __________
Crude vegetable oils----- --------- - ---------------Refined vegetable oils___________________
Vegetable oil end products__________ ____
Miscellaneous processed foods____________
Manufactured animal feeds-------------------------

124.1
124.6
122.5
135.4
118.1
129.4
120.3
116.8
106.6
106.4
113. 1
124. 1
119.4

124.9
124.6
124.9
135.1
117.5
128.7
118.8
118.8
114.7
107.7
113.6
125.8
121.4

124.9
123.7
127.1
133.1
116.5
127.4
118.4
133.7
110.7
111.9
112.4
127.1
119.0

125.2
123.3
124.9
134.1
117.3
127.7
118.3
115.7
99.5
99.8
107.5
127.4
131.3

125.1
122.3
125.8
133.9
116.9
129.1
117. 4
111.0
86.4
97.8
107. 5
126.5
131.7

122.6
122.0
121.9
133.9
116.4
127.1
116.1
115.6
86.1
97.9
108.0
126.4
121.8

121.8
121.9
120. 5
131. 2
116. 3
127. 9
116.0
123.0
97.0
91.1
106. b
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

119
1?0
119
131
11 S

81.7
116. 6
86. 3

8
2
S
q
7

11? 9

118.2

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-41
03-5
03-6
03-7

Textileproductsand apparel..----- ----------- -----------------Cotton products_____________ _______ _
Wool products___________ _______ _____ _
Manmade fiber textile products------------------Silk yarns____________ _____ ___ _______
Apparel--------- --------- ------------------------------Textile housefurnishings.................................
Miscellaneous textile products_______ ____

109.3
105.8
103.8
89. 5
204.8
118. 0
108.7
125.6

109.3
105.8
104.0
89.9
201.3
117.9
108.6
121.4

109.5
105. 8
104.4
90.4
194.2
117.9
108.6
126.5

109.4
106.1
104. 3
91. 0
196.3
117. b
109. 0
124.3

109.5
106.1
104.3
91. 5
193. 5
117.2
109.1
129. 0

109.2
106.1
104.3
91. 1
191.1
116.9
108.1
127.8

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

108. 0
105.2
104.6
92.2
169.7
114.5
106.7
122.8

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............

127.9
101.8
120.4
137.8
120.4

128.5
106.6
120.4
138.4
120.0

126.8
99.4
118.2
136.9
119.9

126.7
101.1
117.3
136 9
119. 8

126.6
102.8
119.6
135.9
119.2

126.5
108.9
119.7
135.0
118.5

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

125.8
116. 9
119. 9
133.2
116.9

05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7

Fuelsand related products and power._______ _______
Coal......................................................................
Coke_________________ _____ ____ _____
Gas fuels (Jan. 1958=100) ______________
Electric power (Jan. 1958=100).....................
Crude petroleum................................................
Petroleum products, r e fin e d .........................

109.1
146.9
139.6
136.1
104.2
104.5
104.2

107.5
145.9
139.6
136.2
103.7
104.5
101.3

106.3
133.4
126.9
135.0
103.6
104.5
100.8

106.4
131. 7
126.9
135.2
103.6
104. 5
101.2

105.6
12b. 4
126.9
132.4
103.4
104. 5
101. 0

106.1
124.6
126.9
131.8
103.4
104.5
102.2

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

104.6
116.2
122.0
124.5
102.7
103.7
101.8

06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7

Chemicals and allied products..___ ________________
Industrial chemicals.._______ ___________
Prepared paint....................................... ...........
Paint materials__________________ ______
Drugs and pharmaceuticals______________
Fats and oils, inedible___________________
Agricultural chemicals and chem. products..
Plastic resins and materials....... ......................
Other chemicals and allied products............

100.6
98.2
122.8
93.2
94.7
106.8
91.7
80.6
117.7

100.4
97.9
122.8
92.6
94.7
107.6
92.4
81.1
116.8

100.0
97.3
122.8
92.6
95.0
102.2
92.0
81. 2
1ib. b

99.5
97.7
122.0
92.8
94.6
94.3
91.4
80.3
115.7

99.1
97.9
121.7
93.4
94. 5
95. 0
87.6
80. 0
115. 5

98.8
97.8
120.3
93.4
94.6
92.8
86.7
80.1
115.1

98.9
97.8
120.3
93.1
94.2
100.5
86.7
79.6
114.9

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

98.3
97.7
119.2
92.8
93.8
88.7
89.8
80.7
112.9

07
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-21

Rubber and plastic products______ ________ _______ _
Crude rubber......................................................
Tires and tubes.................... ..............................
Miscellaneous rubber products______ ____

104.2
87.1
101.7
115.7
97.6

104.2
87.5
101.7
114.3
98 7

104.4
87.6
101.7
114.3
99. 1

104.6
89.4
101.7
114.3
99.1

104.7
89.3
101.7
114. 0
99.8

104.5
88.1
101.7
113.4
100. 0

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

102.5
90.7
98.4
111.0

101.2
89.7
96.3
110.2

101.1
89.5
96.3
110.2

102.1
89.4
98.2
110.8

08

Lumber and wood products........ .....................................

121.0

120.1

119.5

121.6
123.9 122.6 123.2
120.2
122.5
124.1 126.9 128.2 129.3 128.0 129.5
130.7 131. b 131.7 133.2 133.9 134.4
96.3 95. 5 96.9 99.6 1 95.8 94.4
119.5 119. 5 118.4 116.7 116.7 116.5

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

138.0
155.9
134.3
103.5
114.7

132.0
142.6
132.2
109.3
114.8

08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4

Lumber......................................... 124.3 123.5 123.3
Millwork. _................................... . 131.1 130.8 130.7
Plywood....... ....... ........................ . 99.5 97.2 94. 5
Other wood products (Dec. 1966= 100)___ 119.3 119.3 119. 5

S e e fo o tn o te s a t e n d of ta b le .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
26.

WHOLESALE PRICES

121

Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued
[ 1 9 5 7 = 1 0 0 unless o th e rw is e s p e c ifie d ]3

1970
Cods

1969

Annual
average
1969

Commodity Group
May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

112.3

112.5

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____________________________
P a p er----- -------- ------------- ---------------------Paperboard--------------- --------------------------------Converted paper and paperboard products.. _
Building paper and board------- -----------------

113.0
105.0
104.2
121.6
96.7
113.4
93.3

113.2
105.0
108.5
121.6
97.0
113.5
93.4

112.1

111. 8

111.1

109.5

112.9
104.7
108.5
121.6
97.0
112.9
92.9

112.5
104.7
108.2
121.5
97.1
112.2
93.0

111.8
103.7
107.5
120.3
96.0
111.9
93.4

110.1
98.0
106.7
117.4
96.0
110.7
93.9

10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8

Metals and metal products------ ------ ------------ -----------Iron and steel _______________ ______ _
Steel mill products . ___________________
Nonferrous metals-------------------------------------Metal containers____ ________ ______ ___
Hardware. ____________ _________ ____
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittin g s .............
Heating equipment. ___________________
Fabricated structural metal products-----------Miscellaneous metal products... --------------

128.7
118.9
120.5
157.2
125.0
125.4
124.0
101.7
117.3
128.3

127.8
117.3
118.7
157.1
125.0
125.2
123.2
101.3
116.4
127.5

127.0
117.7
118.4
153.4
125.0
124.9
122.8
100.5
116.0
127.1

126.1
117.0
117.7
152.8
125.0
124.7
122.8
99.9
114.6
125.2

124.9
114.6
115.5
152.8
120.6
124.2
122.8
99.7
114.0
124.9

123.8
113.9
116.4
150.1
120.6
123.0
122.8
99.7
113.7
124.5

11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9

Machinery and equipment.. ____________________
Agricultural machinery and equipment-------Construction machinery and equipment------Metalworking machinery and equipment-----General purpose machinery and equipment..
Special industry machinery and equipment
(Jan. 1961 = 100)______________________
Electrical machinery and equipment............
Miscellaneous machinery------------ . .............

123.7
137.4
140.9
141.3
127.9

123.4
137.3
140.8
140.3
127.6

123.1
137.1
140.6
139.8
127.1

122.8
137.2
140.3
139.3
126.5

122.5
136.7
140.2
138.6
126.1

134.0
107.5
122.9

133.6
107.3
122.8

133.6
107.2
122.3

133.4
106.9
121.7

12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6

Furniture and household durables.. ____ ___________
Household furniture . . . ............................ .
Commercial furniture... ________________
Floor coverings....... ........................ . .............
Household appliances_________ _______ _
Home electronic equipment______________
Other household durable goods.....................

108.3
125.9
125.1
92.8
94.9
77.0
135.3

108.3
125.6
125.1
93.1
94.8
77.0
135.6

108.1
125.3
124.9
93.4
94.7
77.2
134.6

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 m inerals............................

117.9
121.1
122.1
117.4
121.2
126.1
95.1
104.0
120.9
113.7

117.8
121.5
121.9
117.2
120.9
125.9
95.1
105.6
120.9
113.5

117.3
119.9
120.8
117.0
119.8
125.4
97.8
107.0
120.9
112.4

14
14-1
14-4

Transportation equipment ( D e c . 1 9 6 8 = 1 0 0 ) ___________
Motor vehicles and equipment........................
Railroad equipment (Jan. 1961 = 100)______

103.2
109.4
119.0

103.1
109.3
118.8

103.2
109.4
118.7

15
15-1

Miscellaneous products
_____________________
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni­
tion............................. ............... ......................
Tobacco products....... ............................... .......
Notions____________________________ _
Photographic equipment and supplies_____
Other miscellaneous products........ .................

118.2

117.8

115.1
124.1
109.0
116.2
116.6

115.0
124.1
109.0
116.2
115.0

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

109.3

109.0

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

122.9
113.7
lib . 4
146. 4
120.6
122.7
122.2
99.3
113.6
124.4

121.9
136.4
139.8
138.0
124.8

133.3
106.8
121.5

107.9
125.1
124.5
93.5
94.4
77.2
134.8

Aug.

July

108.8

108.7

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

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

121.0
135. 8
138.6
136. 5
123.7

120.5
133.2
137.7
135.4
123.4

132.8
106.2
121.0

130.6
106.0
120.4

107.5
124.3
124.4
93.5
94.4
77.2
133.0

107.2
123.6
124.1
93.1
93.6
77.8
133.3

116.9
119.0
120.6
116.4
119.4
125.1
100.8
108.3
120.9

116.5
118.4
120.1
115.9
119.4
123.5
101.8
107.3
120.9

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .0

102.9
109.1
117.7

102.9
109.1
117.4

117.8

117.5

115.3
124.1
109.0
115.9
114.8

114.2
124.0
109.0
115.8
114.8

June

May

108.4

108.3

108.1

108.2

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

108.6
98. 0
108.3
116.6
94.4
108.8
97.1

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

118.9
111.0
113.7
137.4
119.7
120.5
118.7
97.6
111.5
122.0

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

119. 0
132.8
135.5
133.4
121.4

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

128.7
104.8
118.1

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

106.1
122.3
120.0
94.1
93.0
78.2
130.6

114.5
117.8
116.7
114.2
118.5
120.9
101.2
104.3
116.1
110.6

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

112.8
114.6
115.6
112.2
117.0
115.1
98.3
106.4
116.1
109.1

102.7
109.0
115.7

102.7
109.0
115.1

102.3
108.7
115.1

100.0
106.1
114.4

9 9 .9

106.0
114.3

100.4
106.6
114.3

100.3
106.6
111.8

100.2
106.5

100.7
107.0
112.4

117.4

117.0

117.0

116.7

116.4

115.9

115.5

115.1

112.8

114.7

114.1
124.0
107.2
115.7
115.1

112.7
124.0
107.2
115.3
114.9

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

111.3
120.8
103.6
113.0
113.1

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES— Continued
09
09-1

15-2
15-3
15-4
15-9

i
A s o f J a n u a r y 1 9 6 7 , th e in d e x e s in co rp o ra te d a re vis e d w e ig h tin g s tru c tu re re fle ct­
i n g 1 9 6 3 v a l u e s o f s h i p m e n t s . C h a n g e s a l s o w e r e m a d e in t h e c la s s i fi c a t i o n s t r u c t u r e ,
a n d titles a n d c o m p o s itio n o f s o m e in d e x e s w e r e c h a n g e d . T it le s a n d in d e x e s in th is
ta b le c o n fo r m w i th th e re v is e d classification s tru c tu re , a n d m a y d iffe r fr o m d a ta p r e ­
v i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d . S e e W h o l e s a l e P r i c e s a nd P r i c e I n d e x e s .
F e b r u a r y 1 9 6 7 (fin a l) fo r a d escription of th e chang es.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

January

1967

(final) and

2

1 1 1 .1

A s of J a n u a r y 19 6 2 , th e in d e x e s w e r e c o n v e rte d fro m th e fo r m e r ba se of 1 9 4 7 - 4 9 =

1 0 0 to t h e n e w b a s e o f 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 . T e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s a n d e a r l i e r d a t a o n t h e 1 9 5 7 - 5 9
b a se fu rn is h e d u p o n re q u e s t to th e B u r e a u .
N O T E : F o r a d escription o f th e general m e th o d of c o m p u tin g th e m o n t h ly W h o le s a le
Price In d e x , see B L S Handbook
O c tob er 19 6 6), C h a p te r 1 1 .

of M e th o d s for

Surveys

a nd

Studies ( B L S

B u lle tin

1458,

122
27.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

WHOLESALE PRICES
Wholesale price indexes for special commodity groupings 1
[1957-59=100, unless otherwise specified]8
1970

Annual
average

19 6 9

Commodity group

1969

All commodities—less farm products---------------All foods_________________ ____________
Processed foods________ ______ ______
Textile products, excluding hard and bast
fiber products................. ............ - ............
Hosiery_____________ - .................. ..
Underwear and nightwear............ ...............
Refined petroleum products.........................
East Coast_________ _____ Mid-Continent..................... .................
Gulf Coast____________ _____ ____
Pacific Coast_____________________
Midwest (Jan. 1 9 6 1 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................
Pharmaceutical preparations___________
Lumber and wood products excluding
millwork and other wood products3___
Special metals and metal products4. .........
Machinery and motive products_________
Machinery and equipment, except elec­
trical___ __ _______________________
Agricultural machinery, including tractors.
Metalworking machinery______________
Total tractors.................................................
Industrial valves................... ..................... ..
Industrial fittings.. ....................................
Abrasive grinding wheels...........................
Construction materials________________

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

1 1 7 .4
1 2 2 .8

1 1 7 .2
1 2 3 .2

11 6 .8
12 4 .9

11 6 .6
1 2 4 .5

1 1 6 .3
12 5 .0

12 4 .6

1 2 5 .4

1 2 5 .7

1 2 4 .6

1 2 4 .5

1 2 2 .8

1 1 5 .4

1 1 5 .0

1 2 3 .3

1 2 3 .1
1 2 2 .1

1 0 0 .2

1 0 0 .4
9 2 .3

1 0 0 .6
9 2 .4

1 0 1 .0

9 2 .3
11 6 .7
10 4 .2

1 0 1 .3
9 2 .8

1 0 1 .0

1 0 1 .1

1 0 1 .1

9 2 .7
1 1 5 .9

9 2 .7
1 1 5 .7

11 6 .7

116 .4

1 1 0 .2

1 0 1 .3
10 3 .6

1 0 0 .8
10 3 .4

10 2 .2
1 0 3 .4

1 0 1 .6
10 3 .4

1 1 1 .7

9 8 .5

99.2

10 3 .4
1 0 2 .2

9 9 .6
9 4 .8

9 8 .6
9 4 .0

9 9 .3
9 2 .2

9 9 .3
9 1.2

1 0 1 .2
9 8 .4
9 2 .5

10 3 .9

1 0 2 .5

1 0 0 .7

9 9 .8

9 8 .7
1 0 1 .4

1 0 1 .4

1 0 1 .8

9 9 .3

9 6 .8

9 2 .5

9 8 .0

9 8 .0

9 9 .1

9 2 .5
9 8 .4

9 2 .3
9 7 .4

9 4 .9
9 7 .0

9 6 .9

9 6 .8

9 7 .4

9 7 .0

9 7.0

9 7 .1

9 6 .7

9 6 .5

9 6 .5

1 0 1 .2

116 .2
1 0 1 .0
10 3 .4

Aug.

July

1 1 4 .7

1 1 4 .1

11 3 .8

1 1 2 .9

1 2 0 .1

11 9 .9
1 2 1 .9

1 1 3 .6
1 2 0 .7
1 2 2 .5

11 3 .3

11 9 .8
1 2 1 .8

119 .9
1 2 2 .0

11 9 .0
11 9 .9

1 2 1 .6

June

1 0 1 .3

1 0 1 .0

1 0 0 .8

9 2 .7

9 2 .7

9 2 .7

1 1 5 .7
1 0 1 .6
10 3 .4

1 1 5 .6
1 0 1 .8

1 1 5 .6
10 2 .5
1 0 3 .4

9 2 .7
1 1 5 .6
10 3 .2

9 2 .7
1 1 4 .5

1 0 1 .3

10 3 .4
9 8 .0

1 0 1 .0
9 2 .7
1 1 5 .0

1 0 3 .4
9 8 .8

10 3 .9
10 3 .2

1 0 1 .0
1 0 2 .4

9 4 .9
9 7 .0

9 7 .0

9 3 .6
9 8 .7

9 3 .6
9 7 .4

9 6 .2

9 6 .3

9 6 .2

9 6 .2

9 6 .3

14 2 .5
1 1 4 .9

13 4 .6
1 1 6 .0

11 6 .4

1 1 7 .5

1 1 9 .3

1 2 0 .6

12 2 .2

1 2 0 .1

12 0 .8

1 2 1 .7

1 2 3 .5

1 3 0 .0

1 2 2 .5
11 9 .0

1 2 2 .0

1 2 1 .4

1 1 7 .5

11 6 .6

1 1 7 .9

119 .2
1 1 7 .4

1 1 8 .8

1 1 8 .6

1 2 0 .6
1 1 8 .4

1 1 9 .9

1 1 8 .9

116 .9

1 1 5 .5

1 1 5 .1

1 1 5 .7
11 5 .2

1 1 5 .2
1 1 4 .9

1 3 4 .1
1 3 9 .8

1 3 3 .7
1 3 9 .7

13 3 .3
13 9 .6

13 2 .6
13 9 .3

13 1.9
13 9 .1

1 3 0 .6
1 3 8 .5

1 2 8 .3
13 4 .6

14 6 .6

14 5 .2

14 4 .6

14 3 .6

1 4 1 .7

14 0 .9

1 2 8 .1
1 3 4 .7
14 0 .9

1 2 7 .5
13 4 .3

14 7 .1

12 9 .9
1 3 5 .5
14 3 .4

12 9 .0
1 3 5 .3

1 4 8 .3

13 2 .9
1 3 9 .7
14 6 .0

14 2 .8
1 3 1.2
1 2 4 .2
1 0 7 .1
1 1 8 .5

14 2 .8
13 0 .1
12 4 .2
1 0 7 .1

14 2 .9
13 0 .0
1 2 4 .2

1 4 3 .0
1 2 9 .4

14 2 .8
1 2 8 .5

14 2 .5

1 4 1 .3
12 5 .8

1 3 9 .4

13 7 .1

13 7.0

1 2 3 .2
1 0 7 .1
1 1 7 .4

11 6 .9

11 6 .9

1 0 2 .6
11 6 .3

1 0 2 .6
1 1 5 .9

12 5 .8
1 1 5 .3
1 0 2 .6
1 1 5 .9

13 7.0
12 6 .5
1 1 5 .9

1 0 7 .1

1 1 8 .6
1 0 7 .0

1 2 5 .8
1 1 8 .0

1 2 4 .8

1 2 4 .2
1 0 7 .1
1 1 7 .4

13 8 .4
1 2 4 .8
1 1 8 .0

1 0 7 .1
1 1 7 .5

1 1 9 .9

10 4 .8
9 4 .9

10 3 .9
1 0 1 .4

1 1 7 .3

1 1 8 .0

1 0 0 .6
9 2 .7
1 1 4 .3
1 0 2 .4

11 3 .4
11 9 .0

10 3 .3
10 3 .4

1 1 8 .6

1 2 7 .3
1 1 9 .4

May

Sept.

12 3 .1
11 9 .3

• See footnote 1, table 26.
•See footnote 2, table 26.
3
Formerly titled "Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork.”


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

9 2 .8
1 1 6 .4

Jan.

1 1 5 .3
1 0 2 .6
1 1 5 .7

1 3 9 .2

1 0 2 .6
11 6 .9

1 0 3 .4

1 0 1 .8
10 3 .4
10 2 .0
1 0 0 .7
9 3 .0
9 7 .5

1 1 4 .7

1 1 5 .3

1 2 7 .1
13 4 .3
13 8 .9

1 2 8 .1
13 5 .2
14 0 .5

13 7.0
12 3 .5
1 1 5 .9
1 0 2 .6
1 1 8 .9

12 4 .2
1 1 5 .9
10 3 .3
1 1 7 .7

13 8 .1

• Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor
vehicles and equipment.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
28.

WHOLESALE PRICES

123

Wholesale price indexes,1 by stage of processing
[1957-59 = 100] s
1970

1969

Annual

Commodity group

average
1969

May

Apr.

M ar.

Feb.

Ja n .

Dec.

Nov.

O c t.

Sept.

Aug.

Ju ly

Ju n e

M ay

113.3

113.2

112.8

113.0
107.9

116.8

116.6

116.6

116.4

116.0

115.1

114.7

114.0

113.6

113.4

C R U D E M A T E R IA LS F O R F U R T H E R PR 0 C E S S I N G _______________________________

112.8

113.4

114.2

113.0

110.7

109.9

109.0

108.7

108.7

109.5

110.2

111.2

109.7

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs_______________

114.4

115.3

117.3

115.5

112.9

112.2

111.0

110.5

110.4

112.1

113.8

115.6

113.5

110.4

Nonfood materials except fuel____________

106.9
105.6
120.3

107.0
105.8
120.2

106.6
105.6
118.0

106.9
105.9
117.5

105.3
104.3
116.4

104.2
103.2
115.3

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

102.0
101.0
114.0

Manufacturing industries. . . . . .
Nonmanufacturing industries-------

131.8
126.2
139.2

131.5
126.0
138.8

125.2
121.5
130.3

124.7
121.2
129.4

122.2
119.6
125.8

121.5
118.8
125.0

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

117.6
116.0
119.8

I N T E R M E D I A T E M A T E R I A L S , S U P P L IE S A N D
C O M P O N E N T S _________________________

115.7

115.3

114.8

114.7

114.4

113.5

113.1

112.8

112.4

111.9

111.4

111.4

111.4

111.8

115.3
122. 5

115.0
123.4

114.4
122.9

113.9
121.5

113.6
121.1

112.9
119.9

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

110.8
116.8

A L L C O M M O D I T I E S ______ ________________

Manufacturing.............. .....................
Construction_________ ________
Crude fuel___________________________

Materials and Components for Manufacturing_________________________

Materials for food manufacturing...
Materials for nondurable manufactu r in g _______ _______ __________

102.8

102.7

102.4

102.3

102.3

101.6

101.7

101.5

101.7

101.7

101.2

101.1

100.9

101.2

125.4
119.0

124.5
118.7

123.4
118.3

122.7
118.0

122.1
117.7

121.4
117.0

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

118.1
114.0

Materials for durable manufacturin g ------------------------------- ----------------------

Components for manufacturing----Materials and Componentsfor Construction..

118.6

118.2

117.7

117.3

117.3

116.8

116.7

116.2

115.8

115.5

115.4

116.0

117.6

116.9

Processed fuels and lubricants____________

105.1
107.3
101.6

103.6
106.7
98.8

103.0
106.1
98.3

103.0
106.0
98.3

102.4
105.3
97.8

102.7
105.1
99.0

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

100.9
103.1
97.4

Manufacturing industries________
Nonmanufacturing industries_____
Containers___________________________

118.5

118.5

118.1

117.6

116.2

114.8

114.6

114.5

114.2

113.7

113.3

113.2

113.1

113.3

Supplies_____________________________

118.3
121.9
116.0
111.4
114.5

118.5
121.7
116.4
113.2
114.2

117.6
121.1
115.4
110.7
113.9

120.1
120.9
119.1
122.8
113.4

119.7
120.5
118.6
123.7
112.3

116.9
119.4
115.1
114.1
111.8

115.9
118.7
113.9
111.6
111.4

115.6
118.0
113.9
112.3
1 1 1 .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

114.4
117.0
112.5
110.6
109.8

118.7

118.6

119.0

118.8

118.8

118.0

117.6

116.5

116.0

115.7

115.9

115.4

114.7

115.3

117.0
123.6
115.0
125.2
115.6
108.0

116.8
124.1
114.3
125.9
114.9
107.8

117.4
126.0
123.3
126.4
114.7
107.8

117.3
125.9
128.0
125.4
114.6
107.6

117.3
126.4
131.6
125.3
114.2
107.4

116.5
124.5
129.5
123.5
114.1
107.2

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

114.0
120.3
117.5
120.7
112.3
105.8

124.0
129.5
118.8

123.7
129.1
118.7

123.5
128.9
118.5

123.1
128.4
118.2

122.9
128.0
118.0

122.3
127.5
117.4

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

119.3
124.1
114.7

Crude materials for further processing, excluding
crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers, oilseeds and leaf tobacco________

120.0

120.3

118.5

118.5

116.0

114.5

114.1

113.7

113.9

112.5

110.7

110.2

109.7

110.5

Intermediate materials supplies and compo­
nents, excluding intermediate materials for
food m fg., and m fr.’ d animal fe e d s ________

115.2

114.7

114.2

113.9

113.5

112.9

112.6

112.2

111.8

111.3

110.9

110.8

1 1 1 .1

111.3

Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer
foods_________________________________

112.7

112.2

112.1

111.9

111.7

111.5

111.3

111.1

110.3

110.1

110.0

109.7

109.2

109.9

Manufacturing industries________
Nonmanufacturing industries_____
Manufactured animal feeds____
Other supplies_______________
F I N I S H E D G O O D S (Including Raw Foods and
Fuels)____ ____________________________

Consumer Goods______________________

Foods________________ _______ _
Crude. _____________ _______
Processed..................... ...............
Other nondurable goods_________
Durable goods.............................. ..
Producer Finished Goods_______________

Manufacturing industries________
Nonmanufacturing industries..........
S P E C I A L G R O U P IN G S

1 See footnote 1, table 26.
JSee 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).

124
29.

WHOLESALE PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

Wholesale price indexes,1 by durability of product

11957-59=1001*
1970

Commoditygroup
Allcommodities.......... ....... ..............
Total durable goods__________
Total nondurable goods.... __.........
Total manufactures_______________
Durable_________________
Nondurable_______ _______
Total raworslightlyprocessedgoods.... ........
Durable__ ______________
Nondurable_______ _______

1969

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

116.8
121.3
113.6
117.1
121.0
113.4
114.5
131.9
113.6

116.6
120.9
113.6
116.9
120.5
113.4
114.7
131.9
113.8

116.6
120.5
113.9
116.6
120.1
113.2
116.3
134.0
115.3

116.4
120.0
113.9
116.4
119.7
113.2
116.0
133.8
115.1

116.0
119.6
113.4
116.1
119.4
113.0
114.8
128.9
114.1

115.1
119.0
112.4
115.3
118.8
111.9
113.9
125.3
113.3

114.7
118.4
111.9
114.9
118.3
111.6
113.1
124.0
112.5

114.0
117.9
111.2
114.6
117.9
111.4
111.0
122.8
110.3

113.6
117.1
111.1
113.9
117.0
111.0
111.6
123.7
110.9

113.4
116.5
111.1
113.6
116.4
111.0
111.5
119.7
111.1

113.3
116.1
111.3
113.5
116.1
111.0
112.2
114.8
112.1

113.2
115.9
111.2
113.2
116.0
110.6
112.6
114.9
112.4

112.8
116.1
110.3
112.8
116.2
109.6
112.1
113.3
112.0

i See footnote 1, table 26.
JSee footnote 2, table 26.
30.

Annual
average
1969
113.0
116.6
110.3
113.3
116.6
110.1
110.9
115.8
110.7

NOTE: Fordescription of the series bydurability 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

MINING
........ ......
Anthracite__
Bituminous coal
. . . . ... __
Crude petroleumand natural gas..__
Crushed and broken stone___ ... .
Construction sand and gravel_____ _
Phosphate rock__
__ . _
Rocksalt..
. .
____ _
Sulfur______ _ _ .. ___ ___
MANUFACTURING
2011 Meat slaughtering plants_________
2013 Meat processing plants... .. _
2015 Poultry dressing plants...
____
2021 Creamery butter______________
2033 Canned fruits and vegetables.. ... _
2036 Fresh orfrozen packaged fish______
2044 Rice milling______ ___
2052 Biscuits, crackers and cookies______
2061 Rawcane sugar______
2062 Cane sugar refining_____ _____
2063 Beet sugar_____ ... ... _ _ ____
2073 Chewinggum... _ _______
2082 Malt liquors_____ _________
2083 Malt_____ . _____
2084 Wines and brandy.. ... ..
2091 Cottonseed oil mills...
2092 Soybean oil mills.. .........
2094 Animal and marine fats and oils
2096 Shortening and cooking oils..
2098 Macaroniand noodle products__
2111 Cigarettes ... . ...
.. .
2121 Cigars__________ _ ...
2131 Chewingand smokingtobacco__
2254 Knit underwear mills_______
2311 Men’s and boys’ suits and coats__
2321 Men’s dress shirts and nightwear___
2322 Men’s and boys' underwear__
2327 Men’s and boys’ separate trousers__
2328 Workclothing. . . _ .
2381 Fabric dress and work gloves______
2426 Hardwood dimension and flooring_
2442 Wirebound boxes and crates__
Z515 Mattresses and bedsprings___
2521 Woodoffice furniture___
2647 Sanitary paper products___ _____
2654 Sanitaryfood containers______ .
See footnotes at end of table.

Other
bases

1111
1211
1311
1421
1442
1475
1476
1477


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/66
12/67
12/66
12/66
12/66

Dec. 2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1968 Annual
average
Dec. 1969

118.4
124.9
110.9
114.5
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8

114.9
124.2
110.9
114.5
123.0
147.4
107.0
115.8

111.4
121.3
110.8
114.2
123.0
147.4
107.0
124.1

111.4
116.2
110.9
114.2
122.5
147.4
107.0
165.4

108.0
116.1
110.6
113.6
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4

108.0
116.0
110.5
113.6
121.5
147.4
107.0
165.4

104.2
115.0
110.6
113.6
120.7
147.4
107.0
165.4

104.2
114.1
110.7
112.6
120.6
147.4
107.0
165.4

106.2
113.4
110.9
112.5
120.8
147.4
107.0
165.4

107.4
113.1
109.9
112.5
120.6
147.4
100.8
165.4

107.4
113.1
106.6
112.5
119.8
147.4
100.8
165.4

107.0
113.1
106.5
112.5
119.8
147.4
100.8
173.7

107.0
113.1
106.4
111.3
118.6
147.4
100.8
173.7

109.0
116.7
110.0
113.4
121.4
147.4
105.5
154.4

114.0
121.3
105.7
106.3
109.8
150.8
94.0
109.7
107.0
108.9
106.1
106.2
107.3
96.8
118.3
99.4
88.6
96.4
108.8
101.9
125.1
107.3
141.4
107.8
142.7
122.1
109.1
106.9
119.1
137.1
116.5
110.7
108.2
139.2
115.3
101.3

113.5
118.5
103.3
105.1
109.7
154.1
94.0
109.7
110.1
109.3
106.6
106.1
107.3
96.8
118.3
95.8
88.0
104.9
107.2
101.9
125.0
107.3
140.6
107.7
142.2
121.0
109.0
106.8
119.0
135.4
116.6
110.0
108.7
138.9
115.3
101.2

113.8
119.1
101.7
105.1
109.5
146.5
94.0
108.0
110.5
109.2
106.7
106.1
107.7
96.8
118.3
91.5
91.0
102.1
105.5
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.5
107.7
140.4
121.0
109.0
106.8
119.0
135.4
116.7
110.0
108.5
137.6
113.9
100.6

116.2
120.3
104.0
105.1
109.0
145.9
93.1
107.1
109.6
108.4
106.4
106.1
107.1
96.8
115.5
97.0
85.7
105.8
102.6
101.9
125.0
106.8
138.3
107.7
139.4
120.6
107.9
106.4
118.3
134.8
117.2
110.0
108.5
135.9
113.5
100.4

117.4
122.0
107.8
104.9
108.7
143.8
92.6
104.5
108.9
108.1
106.3
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.5
97.2
87.4
104.6
102.5
101.8
125.0
105.2
138.1
107.7
138.5
120.6
107.9
106.3
117.7
132.1
117.3
108.6
108.5
134.3
113.1
100.4

121.7
118.7
103.3
104.9
108.7
146.4
92.6
104.4
104.5
107.6
105.7
106.1
107.2
96.8
115.7
98.3
87.1
99.6
102.3
101.9
125.0
103.8
138.1
107.7
137.1
118.3
107.7
106.1
117.4
131.9
117.8
108.3
108.3
134.3
112.3
100.1

121.2
117.0
101.7
104.8
107.7
139.9
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.6
106.7
106.1
106.7
96.8
115.7
92.9
87.0
93.8
103.3
101.8
124.9
102.7
137.1
106.3
135.8
118.2
106.9
106.1
117.4
131.9
119.0
107.4
108.2
134.3
111.5
100.7

114.8
109.7
102.3
104.8
107.7
140.4
93.8
104.4
109.5
107.2
104.9
106.1
106.0
96.8
115.7
92.7
86.3
89.0
103.1
101.8
117.5
102.7
137.0
106.4
134.4
118.2
107.0
104.8
116.6
131.9
120.7
107.4
108.2
133.4
111.1
100.6

108.0
104.8
96.1
104.9
107.8
136.8
93.8
104.3
109.0
105.8
105.0
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.9
85.6
88.9
103.2
101.5
117.5
102.7
136.0
106.3
134.7
118.8
107.1
104.8
116.6
131.7
121.1
106.5
108.3
132.8
111.1
100.6

104.6
103.4
99.6
103.4
107.7
141.7
93.8
104.3
108.5
103.9
102.3
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.7
93.6
84.8
85.1
103.1
100.4
117.4
102.1
134.7
106.3
134.3
118.8
107.1
104.7
116.6
130.8
120.6
106.4
108.2
132.2
111.1
100.4

103.9
101.7
98.5
103.3
107.6
141.4
93.8
104.3
107.7
103.6
102.2
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
93.7
83.1
82.9
102.9
100.3
117.4
102.0
134.7
106.3
134.3
118.9
107.0
104.7
116.6
130.6
118.8
106.4
108.2
131.7
110.2
100.7

104.2
100.3
95.9
103.4
107.4
140.1
93.8
104.3
107.5
103.6
102.6
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
95.0
83.3
81.3
101.0
100.3
117.4
102.0
132.4
106.3
134.2
118.7
106.9
104.7
116.5
130.1
116.5
106.3
106.7
131.1
108.0
100.8

100.1
100.7
90.4
105.0
107.3
139.0
93.8
104.3
106.8
103.2
102.5
106.1
104.9
96.8
115.5
94.5
82.2
79.7
100.3
100.3
117.4
101.7
132.4
105.7
133.4
115.5
106.4
103.9
115.1
128.4
114.7
105.6
104.3
131.1
108.0
100.5

112.8
113.1
101.7
104.7
108.4
144.0
93.6
105.8
108.5
106.9
105.1
106.1
106.3
96.8
116.3
95.1
86.5
94.5
103.8
101.5
121.9
104.3
137.2
107.0
137.3
119.6
107.7
105.8
117.6
132.8
118.2
108.2
108.2
134.6
112.2
100.7

1969

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
30.

1963
SIC
Code

WHOLESALE PRICES

Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries

Industry

Other
bases

Continued

1969
Dec. 2 Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

1968 Annual
Average
1969
Dec.

MANUFACTURING-Continued
96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 95.9 95.9 95.9 95.9 95.8 95.3 95.3 94.5 94.7
2822 Synthetic rubber__ .. -----------95.6 95.6 95.6 95. 6 95. 6 95. 6 95. 6 95.6 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.7
2823 Cellulosic man-made fibers.. ----- — 12/66 95.6
96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0
2824 Organic fibers, noncellulosic-----85.0 85.0 85.4 88.3 88.5 88.7 99.2 99.2 99.2 99.4 99.4 99.6 100.3
2871 Fertilizers__ --- -- --------- 12/66 90.6
90.6 91.2 92.7 92.6 93.1 93.3 93.3 93.3 93.9 93.7 94.1 94.8
12/66
2872 Fertilizers, mixing only— -- —
117.1 117.3 117.3 117.4 117.5 117. 4 117.5 116.9 115.0 114.8 114.1 114.1 114.6
-- - --2892 Explosives.
97.8
97.3 97.3 97.5 98.1 98.8 98.8 98.0 98.0 97.1 95.1 94.7 95.1
2911 Petroleumrefining___ --- ------ 120.4 120.5 121.2 122.3 121.5 121.7 122.1 122.2 122.8 116.7 116.7 117.0 116.1
3111 Leather tanning and finishing.. _ - - 12/66 118.3
117.4 117.6 118.2 117. 5 113. 5 115.4 112.0 111.5 110.5 109.7 111.0
117.2
3121 Industrial leather belting------------116.1
116.1
116.1 116.1 116.1 116.1 116.1 116.1 116.1 116.1 116.1 116.1 110.3
--- -----3221 Glass containers.
114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.8 114.7 111.7 108.5 105.9
3241 Cement, hydraulic.. ----- - - 125.1
125.1
124.4 124.4 123.5 123.5 123.4 123.2 123.0 121.5 121.5 121.4 121.2
. --.
3251 Brickand structural clay tile
126.2 122.2 122.2 122.2 122. 0 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.8 116.7 116.7 116.7 116.7
3255 Clay refractories__ ____ _ — -116.4 116.4 115.9 115.1 115. 0 114. 4 114.8 115.3 115.3 115.3 115.1 115.0 114.1
3259 Structural clay products, n.e.c------ .
104.6 104.2 103.4 102.4 102.4 102.4 100.9 100.8 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.5 99.1
3261 Vitreous plumbing fixtures...--- -- 143.7 143.7 139.8 139.8 139.8 139.8 137.2 137.2 137.2 134.3 134.3 134.3 134.3
3262 Vitreous china food utensils-----131.2 131.2 130.9 130.9 130.9 130.9 127.0 127.0 127.0 123.3 123.3 123.3 123.3
3263 Fine earthenware food utensils. - - ...
115.4 115.0 114.9 114.6 114. 5 114. 5 113.7 114.2 114.2 114.5 113,4 112.9 111.7
3271 Concrete block and brick.. ---- -.
114.9 114.7 114.4 113.7 113. 5 112.7 112.6 112.3 112.0 111.8 111.7 110.3
3273 Ready mixed concrete__ .. -.- - - 1958 115.7 110.1
106.2 106.4 103.6 105. 2 108.9 108.9 106.5 106.5 106.5 106.5 106.5
104.7
3275 Gypsumproducts____ -- -------115.3 115.3 115.2 114.4 114.3 112. 5 111.8 111.7 110.8 110.6 109.5 109.3 107.7
3312 Blast furnace and steel mills..- _. --108.5
108.4 107.5 107.0 106. 4 106.3 105.9 105.1 105.1 105.1 104.5 103.7
12/66
108.6
Steel
w
ire
d
raw
ing,
etc------.
----3315
112.1 112.1 109.0 109.0 108.7 107.5 107.4 107.4 107.2 107.0
113.7
113.7
12/66
113.6
C
old
finishing
of
steel
shapes---------3316
108.4 107.8 107.7 107.3 107.3 107.2 105.7 105.6 104.8 104.7
3317 Steel pipe and tube____________ 12/66 110.5 110.4 110.4 105.6
100.9 100.6 100.5 100.4 97.1 96.9 96.9 97.2 93.9
107.7
107.4
12/66
107.7
3333 Primaryzinc________ ___ ___
114.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 106.1 105.4
3334 Primary aluminum____________ 12/66 114.0 114.0
123.8 120.5 120.1 120.1 120.3 119.5 119.8 122.3 119.4
131.8
138.9
133.9
12/66
134.8
P
rim
ary
nonferrous
m
etals,
n.e.c____
3339
171.4 166.4 166.4 165.9 160.6 154. 5 152.3 151.7 147.8 144.6 142.8 142.8 134.3
3351 Copper rolling and drawing..............109.0
108.9 108.9 108.9 108.9 108.9 108.8 106.3 106.2
109.0
109.0
109.0
12/66
109.0
3411 Metal cans_____ ___ ___ -...... 108.4
107.8
108.4
107.1 106.9 107.2 106.3 105.9 105.0 104.8
110.6
12/67
110.8
109.6
H
an
d
an
d
edge
tools.
---------------3423
100.4 100.3 99.8 99.4 98.8 98.7 97.3 96.6 95.8 95.8 95.7 95.3 95.0
3431 Metal plumbing fixtures..................
106.8
106.8
106.8
107.2
106.3 106.0 105.9 105.8 105.8 105.8 105.2
107.2
12/66
107.2
Steel
springs_________
_____
3493
1958 103.8 103.7 103.7 103.7 103. 6 103.6 103.5 103.2 103.2 103.1 103.0 102.9 101.5
3496 Collapsible tubes........ .............. .
130.3
130.3
130.4
130.8
129.7 129.7 129.7 123.4 123.4 123.4 122.7
130.4
130.9
F
ab
ricated
pipe
an
d
fittings...............
3498
3519 Internal combustion engines_______ 12/66 110.9 110.8 110.1 109.7 109. 1 108.0 108.3 108.3 107.9 107.5 106.9 106.7 106.6
125.1 122.7 122.5 122.4 121.8 121.5 121.0 120.8 120.4 120.0 119.1 119.0 118.0
3533 Oil field machinery_______ ___
107.7 107.6 107.6 107.6 104.5 104.5 104.5 104.5 103.9 103.9 103.9
3534 Elevators and moving stairways......... 12/66 110.5 107.7
134.0 133.9 133.6 132.6 131.2 131.2 130.5 129.1 128.6 128.6 128.2 128.1 127.2
3537 Industrial trucks and tractors--------103.7
103.7 102.6 102.6 102.2 102.2 102.1 102.1 102.1 102.1 101.6 101.6
12/66
105.7
3562 Ball and roller bearings___ ___ __
3572 Typewriters___ _ ---------------- 12/66 103.9 103.8 103.2 103.1 103.1 101. 5 101.4 101.3 100.5 100.6 100.6 100.6 100.6
133.4 133.2 133.0 133.0 129.9 129.9 128.6 127.0 127.0 126.9 126.9 126.3 126.4
3576 Scales and balances__ _____ ___
99.3 100.2 101.6 101.6 101.3 101.1 100.2 100.8 102.2 102.3 104.6 104.6
3612 Transformers_______ __ ___ 12/66 100.3 106.7
105.9 103.6 104.4 104.9 104.0 103.6 104.3 104.9 104.8 104.4
3613 Switchgear and switchboards---------- 12/66 107.1 104.4 105.7
104.4 104.3 104. 3 104.3 103.0 101.1 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0
12/67
104.8
C
arb
on
an
d
graphite
products-------3624
99.9 99. 8 99. 8 99. 8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.5
3635 Household vacuumcleaners--------- 12/66 99.9 99.9
3641 Electric lamps...... ................... . 12/66 98.4 98.5 99.2 101.1 100.3 99.6 104.1 103.1 103.6 102.7 103.0 103.0 103.0
122.6 122.6 122.3 122.3 122.3 122.3 121.3 119.8
123.5 123.5 123.5 123.5 122.6
3652 Phonograph records..... ...............
121.3 121.2 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.8 117.7 109.6 105.9 105.9
3671 Electron tubes, receivingtype______ 12/66 121.2 121.3
90.
0
90.0 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.8 89.9 92.4
90.0
89.7
90.0
87.5
12/66
C
athode
ray
picture
tubes________
3672
3673 Electron tubes, transmitting_______ 12/66 103.2 103.2 103.1 103. 0 102.9 102.9 102.1 102.1 102.0 102.0 102.0 102.1 102.0
92.8 92.7 92.6 92.7 92.6 92.6 92.7 92.7 92.6 92.4 92.4 92.5
3674 Semiconductors______________ 12/66 92.7 115.4
115.3 115.2 115.2 115.2 115.2 115.2 115.2 114.9 113.8 112.5 111.3
115.4
3692 Primary batteries, dry and wet..........
115.6 115.4 113.1 112.8 112.8 112.5 112.6 111.0 111.3 111.4 111.1 107.7
3693 X-ray apparatus and tubes........... . 12/67 117.4 112.2
111.4 111.4 111.4 111. 1 111.1 111.1 111.2 111.1 111.2 110.3 110.1
3941 Games and toys.. .. .. ................ 12/66 112.1
1For 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.
2Current monthly industry-sector price indexes are not available for this issue. At
the beginning of each calendar year, changes inthe sample forsome indexes must be


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

125

95.7
95.7
96.0
93.1
92.7
116.4
97.4
120.4
114.9
116.1
114.0
123.3
119.7
115.3
101.7
138.4
128.1
114.3
113.3
106.7
112.6
106.5
110.1
107.8
101.6
110.3
125.5
155.6
108.7
107.8
97.8
106.5
103.4
128.5
108.7
121.4
106.2
130.8
102.7
102.0
129.6
101.3
105.0
102.9
99.8
101.4
122.7
117.3
89.7
102.6
92.6
114.9
113. 1
111.3

made and necessary internal reweighting accomplished; this has caused the delay.
Indexes beginning with January 1970 will be published in a later report.
NOTE. Beginning inJanuary 1967, index weights and classifications are based onthe
1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were formerly based on the 1958
Industrial Censuses.

126
31.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JULY 1970

LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES
Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1

Workers involved instoppages

Number of stoppages
Monthandyear

1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
195?
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
196?
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1967: January.... ...... .....
February..............
March ... -------April....................
May.____ _____
June....................
July....................
August.... .......... .
September__ ___ _
October........... .....
November___ ___
December.............
1968: January________
February...............
March.................
April............. ......
May...................
June....................
July................. .
August.................
September______
October................
November.... .........
December..............
1969: January________
February_______
March_________
April__________
May_... ______
June__________
July__________
August________
September. ____
October........... .
November_______
December_______
1970: January?. ______
February?_______
March?________
April ?__ ____

Beginning in
month or year
4,750
4,985
3,693
3,419
3,606
4, 843
4| 737
5; 117
5,091
3j 468
4, 320
3i 825
3 ;673
3; 694
3,708
3,333
3’367
3; 614
3,362
3i 655
3,963
4,405
4; 595
5,045
5,700
286
292
368
462
528
472
389
392
415
449
360
182
314
357
381
505
610
500
520
466
448
434
327
183
342
385
436
578
723
565
528
538
554
531
324
196
260
290
390
600

Ineffect during
month

443
485
545
638
769
759
682
689
681
727
653
445
483
569
618
748
930
810
880
821
738
741
617
408
511
578
651
831
1,054
911
883
915
904
850
611
446
420
460
570
810

■The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and
lasting a full day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle
cover all workers made idle for as long as 1shift inestablishments directly involved in


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
3,470
4,600
2,170
1,960
3,030
2,410
2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530
2,650
1,900
1,390
2,060
1,880
1,320
1,450
1,230
941
1,640
1,550
1,960
2,870
2,649
2, 481
94.4
104.1
129.9
397.6
277.8
211.8
664.6
91.3
372.8
178.8
277.1
74.4
187.8
275.0
174.5
537.2
307.3
168.5
202.0
153.8
169.8
279.0
129.9
64.1
184.9
177.1
158.1
309.7
286.3
214.6
255.0
191.2
185.6
337.0
131.0
50.8
55
106
294
319

Ineffect during
month
(thousands)

163.5
159.2
195.4
438.8
584.9
405.0
865.5
233.1
473.6
458.7
559.5
209.5
275.7
451.3
368.7
656.7
736.2
399.9
465.1
359.6
349.0
414.5
306.1
139.2
264.3
339.9
386.3
462.3
507.7
500.0
461.5
394.8
274.5
420.9
367.6
276.0
233
296
364
385

Man-days idle during month oryear
Number
(thousands)
38,000
116,000
34,600
34,100
50,500
38,800
22,900
59,100
28,300
22,600
28,200
33,100
16, 500
23,900
69, 000
19,100
16,300
18,600
16,100
22,900
23,300
25,400
42,100
49,018
42, 869
1,247.9
1,275.8
1,507.8
2, 544.8
4,406.4
4,927.4
4,328.7
2,859.5
6,159.8
7,105.6
3,213.2
2, 546. 5
2,668. 5
4,104.1
3,682.0
5, 677. 4
7,452.2
5, 576. 8
4,611.9
4, 048. 9
3, 081.1
3,991.7
2,430. 5
1,692. 5
3,173.3
2, 565. 8
2, 412. 5
3, 755. 0
4, 744. 7
4, 722. 7
4,311.0
3,634.3
2,193. 4
3,167. 5
4,307.6
3,881.8
3,730
1,820
2,230
4,181

Percent of esti­
mated working
time
0.31
1.04
.30
.28
.44
.33
.18
.48
.22
.18
.22
.24
.12
.18
.50
.14
.11
.13
.11
.15
.15
.15
.25
.28
.24
.09
.10
.10
.19
.30
.33
.32
.18
.45
.47
.22
.18
.18
.29
.26
.38
.49
.40
.30
.26
.22
.25
.17
.11
.21
.18
.16
.24
.32
.31
.27
.24
.15
.19
.31
.24
.25
.13
.14
.26

astoppage. Theydo not measurethe indirectorsecondaryeffect onotherestablishments
orindustries whose employees are made idle as aresult of material orservice shortages,
^Preliminary.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
32.

PRODUCTIVITY

1 27

Output per man-hour, hourly compensation and unit labor costs, private economy, seasonally adjusted
(Indexes 1957-59=100]

Output

Man-hours

Output per
man-hour

Compensation per Real compensation
man-hour1
per man-hour3

Unit labor
costs

Yearandquarter
Private
1st quarter..-..............................
2d quarter...... .............. -.............
3d quarter--------------------------4th quarter-------------------------Annual average______ ___ .. --------1968: 1st quarter----- --------------------2d quarter............. .................-- 3d quarter__________________
4th quarter_______ _________
Annual average________ ___________
1969: 1st quarter........... ...... ...... ....... .
2d quarter_____ ___ _____ _ 3d quarter_____ ____ _ ______
4th quarter_______ ___ _____
Annual average_________ _____ —
1970: 1st quarter*________________
1967:

146.4
147.2
148.9
150.2
148.2
152.4
155.2
156.7
158.1
155.6
159.1
159.9
160.8
160.5
160.1
159.7

Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private
nonfarm
nonfarm
nonfarm
nonfarm
nontarm
nonfarm
148.2
148.9
150.7
152.1
150.0
154.3
157.5
159.0
160.6
157.9
161.5
162.3
163.1
163.2
162.5
162.2

110.6
109.6
110.3
110.9
110.4
111.2
112.2
112.7
112.6
112.2
113.7
114.6
115.0
114.3
114.4
114.0

115.5
114.9
115.3
116.0
115.4
116.4
117.5
118.3
118.3
117.6
119.6
120.7
121.4
121.0
120.6
120.6

132.4
134.4
134.9
135.4
134.3
137.0
138.3
139.0
140.4
138.7
139.9
139.5
139.8
140.3
139.9
140.1

128.3
129.6
130.6
131.1
129.9
132.6
134.1
134.4
135.8
134.2
135.0
134.5
134.4
134.9
134.7
134.5

147.9
150.3
152.2
154.3
151.2
158.5
160.8
163.7
167.8
162.7
170.5
172.7
175.8
179.4
174.7
182.7

143.5
145.5
147.6
149.7
146.6
153.6
155.7
158.1
162.0
157.4
164.4
166.5
169.1
172.2
168.1
175.2

129.0
130.1
130.4
131.1
130.1
133.3
133.7
134.5
136.3
134.4
136.7
136.2
136.8
137.6
136.9
138.0

125.2
126.0
126.4
127.2
126.2
129.2
129.4
129.8
131.5
130.0
131.8
131.3
131.5
132.1
131.7
132.3

111.7
111.9
112.9
114.0
112.6
115.7
116.3
117.8
119.6
117.4
121.8
123.8
125.8
127.8
124.9
130.4

111.9
112.3
113.0
114.2
112.9
115.9
116.1
117.6
119.4
117.3
121.8
123.8
125.8
127.7
124.8
130.3

3.2
3.7
0.9
2.1
6.8
1.1
2.3
5.5
1.4
-1.4
1.5
2.4
1.4

4.1
2.6
1.6
2.3
6.5
0.7
1.3
5.4
0.8
-1.4
0.4
1.8
0.8

5.3
0.5
3.6
4.1
6.0
2.1
5.3
6.3
7.6
6.8
6.5
6.6
8.4

6.9
1.4
2.7
4.4
5.9
1.0
5.3
6.0
8.3
6.9
6.6
6.0
8.4

2.6
1.9
1.7
1.0
1.0

2.0
1.5
1.3
0.4
0.4

5.3
6.5
6.8
6.9
7.1

5.1
6.6
7.0
6.9
7.0

Percent change over previous quarter at annual rate3
1st quarter______________ ___
2d quarter_______ ___-.............
3d quarter_____ _________ ___
4th quarter.................. ....... .......
1968: 1st quarter______ _____ _____
2d quarter--------------------------3d quarter_____ ____ _______
4th quarter---------- ---------------1969: 1st quarter...... ............ ...............
2d quarter_________________
3d quarter________ ___ _____
4th quarter.... ...... ......................
1970: 1st quarter*............ ...................
1967:

-1.4
2.3
4.5
3.6
6.0
7.4
4.1
3.5
2.6
1.9
2.2
-0.7
-1.9

-2.2
1.9
4.8
3.9
6.0
8.4
4.0
4.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
0.2
-2.4

0.0
-3.7
2.9
2.1
1.0
3.5
1.9
-0.3
3.8
3.2
1.3
-2.3
-1.3

-1.4
6.2
1.5
1.5
4.9
3.8
2.1
3.8
-1.2
-1.3
0.8
1.6
-0.6

-0.3
-2.1
1.7
2.4
1.2
3.8
2.8
0.0
4.6
3.5
2.4
-1.3
-1.2

-1.9
4.1
3.0
1.5
4.8
4.5
1.1
4.0
-2.3
-1.4
-0.4
1.5
-1.2

3.9
6.7
5.2
5.6
11.3
6.0
7.5
10.4
6.4
5.4
7.4
8.3
7.7

4.9
5.5
5.8
5.9
10.9
5.5
6.4
10.3
5.8
5.4
6.2
7.6
7.1

Percent change over previous year*
1st quarter................................
2d quarter___ ___ _______ ___
3rd quarter___ ___ _________
4th quarter....... ........... ..............
1970: 1st quarter*________________
1969:

4.4
3.0
2.6
1.5
0.4

4.6
3.0
2.6
1.6
0.4

2.2
2.2
2.0
1.5
0.2

i W
ages 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.
8Percent change computed from original data.

2.1
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.1

2.8
2.7
2.6
2.3
0.8

1.8
0.3
0.0
-0.7
-0.4

7.6
7.4
7.4
6.9
7.2

7.0
7.0
6.9
6.2
6.6

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.
*= Preliminary
*

Scheduled release dates for major BLS statistical series, August 1970

Title

Date of
release

Employment situation_____________________________________
Wholesale Price Index, final___ ___ __________ ____ _____
Factory labor turnover____________________ ___ ___ ________
Consumer Price Index.__ ________ _________________________
Wholesale Price Index, preliminary_____________________________
Workstoppages_________________ _____ ____ __________ .

August 7
September 8
August 27
August 21
August 26
August 25


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Period
covered
July
August
July
July
August
July

MLRtable
numbers
1-14
26-30
15-16
24-25
26-30
31

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 9 7 0

O — 3 8 6 -0 2 7

1970
MANPOWER REPORT
OF THE PRESIDENT
This first Manpower Report by the present Administration discusses:

The major developments in employment and unemployment during 1969 and
their economic background.
New developments in manpower programs and the contributions of these pro­
grams to the country's crucial economic objectives—controlling inflation and
limiting and easing any rise in unemployment.
Progress and problems in working toward equal employment opportunity.
Poverty among the employed as well as the jobless, its geographic concentra­
tions, and the factors which contribute to it.
New manpower and related legislation recommended by the Administration—
the Manpower Training Act, to create a comprehensive new Federal-State-local
system of manpower services; amendments that strengthen and extend the
unemployment insurance system; and the Family Assistance Act, to overhaul
the present welfare system.
The rapidly changing manpower situation in the professions.
The 329-page report also includes:


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

A new guide to federally assisted manpower training and support programs.
An extensive statistical appendix.
To order, use the coupon below.
i §18 wm m m mu m ¡m piii §ng mu mu gm pg§ mg pgg mu
To: S u pe rinten den t o f D ocum ents
U.S. G o ve rnm ent P rin tin g O ffice
W ashing ton, D.C. 20402

Please send m e ____copies o f
the 1970 M a n p o w e r Report o f the President @ $2.50 each.
Payment enclosed: $ ___

FOR USE OF SUPT. DOCS
Enclosed ____________
To be m ailed later
Subscription ____
Refund _________
Coupon refund
Postage ______

(Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents')

Name

Address

i

City, State, and ZIP Code

Se m

mm

I
im Hü s®! its

sì

mt

mi mu

mm

mm

Y o u r B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s R e g io n a l O ffic e
is eq u ip p e d to...
*

H e l p y o u f in d th e in fo rm a tio n you n ee d a b o u t p r ic e s , e m p l o y m e n t ,
w a g e s , f r in g e b e n e fits , e a r n in g s , a n d o t h e r c u r r e n t s ta tis t ic a l s e rie s .

*

E x p la in w h a t th e d a ta m e a n to y o u r r e g io n , y o u r in d u s try ,
y o u r la b o r m a rk e t.

■ H e l p you u s e t h e d a t a c o r r e c t l y .
■ D e l i v e r the in fo rm a tio n p r o m p tly .

For the address of your nearest Bureau o f Labor Statistics Regional Office, see the inside
front cover of this issue o f the Monthly Labor Review.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis