Full text of Monthly Labor Review : June 1963, Vol. 86, No. 6

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

Monthly
Labor
Review
JU N E

1963

VOL.

86

NO.

Worker Security
in a Changing Economy
. . . a special issue in honor of the

C'etY

50th Anniversary of the U.S. Department of Labor

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

W. Willard Wirtz , Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
E wan C lague, Commissioner of Labor Statistics
R obert J. M yers, Deputy Commissioner of Labor Statistics
W. D uane E vans, Associate Commissioner for Systems Analysis and Economic Growth
P aul R. K erschbaum, Associate Commissioner for Management and Field Operations
H erman B. B yer, Assistant Commissioner
J ack Alterman, Chief, Division of Economic Growth
G ertrude B ancroft, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
A rnold E. C hase, Assistant Commissioner for Prices and Living Conditions
H. M. D outy, Assistant Commissioner for Wages and Industrial Relations
J oseph P. G oldberg, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
H arold G oldstein, Assistant Commissioner for Manpower and Employment Statistics
L eon Greenberg , Assistant Commissioner for Productivity and Technological Developments
P eter H enle , Special Assistant to the Commissioner
R ichard F. J ones, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Management
W alter G. K eim , Deputy Associate Commissioner for Field Operations
L awrence R. Klein . Chief, Division of Publications (on leave)
H yman L. L ewis , Economic Consultant to the Commissioner
L eonard R. L insenmayer , Deputy Associate Commissioner for Program Planning and Publications
F rank S. M cE lroy, Chief, Division of Industrial Hazards
A be R othman, Chief, Division of Statistical Standards
W illiam C. Shelton, Chief, Division of Foreign Labor Conditions
R obert B. Steffes , Departmental Statistical Officer

Regional Offices and Directors
N EW ENGLAND REGION
W endell D. M acdonald
18 Oliver Street
Boston 10, Mass.
New Hampshire
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Maine
Vermont
Massachusetts

M ID D L E ATLANTIC REG IO N
H erbert Bienstock
341 Ninth Avenue
New York 1, N.Y.
Delaware
New York
Maryland
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
District of Columbia

EAST CEN TRA L REGION
J ohn W. L ehman
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland 14, Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Michigan
West Virginia

N O R TH C E N T R A L REG IO N
Adolph O. B erger
105 West Adams Street
Chicago 3, 111.
Missouri
Illinois
Nebraska
Indiana
North Dakota
Iowa
South Dakota
Kansas
Wisconsin
Minnesota

SOUTHERN REG IO N
B runswick A. B agdon
1371 Peachtree Street N E.
Atlanta 9, Ga.
North Carolina
Alabama
Arkansas
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Florida
Tennessee
Georgia
Texas
Louisiana
Virginia
Mississippi

W ESTERN REGION
M ax D. K ossoris
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco 11, Calif.
Nevada
Alaska
New Mexico
Arizona
Oregon
California
Utah
Colorado
Washington
Hawaii
Wyoming
Idaho
Montana

The Monthly Labor Review is for sale by the regional offices listed above and by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington 25, D.C.—Subscription price per year—$7.50 domestic; $9.00 foreign. Price 75 cents a copy.
The distribution of subscription copy is handled by the Superintendent of Documents. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the editor-in-chief.

Use of funds for printing this publication approved by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (October 31,1962).


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

Monthly Labor Review
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR • BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Lawrence R. K lein , Editor-in-Chief (on leave)
Mary S. B edell, Executive Editor

CONTENTS
Worker Security in a Changing Economy
ii
611
612
614
618
620
622
630
636
645
652
659
666
674
676
687
695
701

The Contributors to This Issue
Dedication
A Prefatory Note
The Workers’ Search for Security
The Dynamic Nature of Workers’ Goals
The Response to Change
Public Systems for Distributing Risks to Security
Management’s Adjustment to Change
The Union Agenda for Security
The Strike and Discontent
The Security of Worker Institutions
The Individual and the Union
The Individual’s Legal Rights as an Employee
Measures of Workers’ Wealth and Welfare
Workers’ Wealth and Family Living Standards
Social Expenditures and Worker Welfare
The Economic Base and Limits of Social Welfare
Chronology of Worker Security, 1931-63

Departments
703
705
707
716
727


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

Significant Decisions in Labor Cases
Chronology of Recent Labor Events
Developments in Industrial Relations
Book Reviews and Notes
Current Labor Statistics

June 1963 • Voi. 86 • No. 6

The Contributors to This Issue
Our profound thanks go to the authors listed below, whose faithful and fruitful
work resulted in this issue. We appreciate their forbearance in enduring many months
of what must have seemed editorial tyranny, although no effort was made to make their
views conform with any official policy respecting the general subject matter. The value
of this volume is due to their efforts, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics remains in their
debt.
B enjamin A aron
J oseph A. B eirne
D aniel B ell
J oseph W. B loch

A lfred W. B lumrosen
P hilip B ooth
G eorge W. B rooks
G erhard C olm

E dward L. C ushman
H elen H. L amale
I da C. M erriam
J oel S eidman

Special acknowledgment' is due Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz, Edward D.
Hollander, Vice President of Robert R. Nathan Associates, and Commissioner of Labor
Statistics Ewan Clague, whose introductory comments enrich and place in perspective
the various sections of the volume. Finally, our grateful thanks to the members of
the advisory committee, who graciously gave many hours to the planning of the issue
and the review of manuscripts for it.
P hyllis G room

Special Issues Editor

ii


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

Dedication
As its part in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Labor,
the Monthly Labor Review publishes this special issue devoted to the theme “ Worker
Security in a Changing Economy.”

The issue is inscribed in honor of working men and women, for whom the Department
has sought to carry out the mandate of Congress “to foster, promote, and develop the
welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions,
and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment.”


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

011

Worker Security in a Changing Economy. . .

T h e d i s t i n g u i s h e d c o n t r ib u t o r s to this special Anniversary Issue of
the Monthly Labor Review have reviewed the structure of security that
underlies American employment—and have properly raised questions as
to its future adequacy.
A majority of working Americans enjoy substantial personal security
based primarily on wages and supported by a number of protective
arrangements agreed upon privately or rendered as a m atter of public
policy. Typically of America, the origins and the particulars of these
arrangements are diverse. They range from seniority provisions and
health and insurance benefits negotiated for limited numbers of employees
in particular plants to income maintenance and social security laws of the
widest general application.
Yet this achievement in itself evokes the spirit of DeTocqueville’s
remark that democratic nations are “haunted by visions of what will be.”
Our wage system itself is only as old as the industrial revolution; the
concept of “fringe benefits” became a bargaining force only 20 years
ago; the Employment Act committing Government policy to the promo­
tion of maximum employment and production was passed only in 1946.
In the long historical record, these appear as recent innovations. Yet
the pace of change accelerates, and it already appears evident that new
forms of security will be needed in an economy in which technological
change is challenging traditional ideas of “work” and employment. The
maker of goods has already lost his place at the center of our labor force.
These changes have led to a revision in our concept of security as
merely protection against disability, unemployment, the declining pro­
ductivity of advancing age, and other threats of wage loss. Security
measures in the past were thought of as substitution or recompense for
loss. Payments from a private fund or a public treasury were made in
place of wages lost with the termination of employment. Employment
offices sought new jobs to replace old ones.
It is clear today that meaningful security cannot rest upon the
narrow idea of wage replacement alone. Individual security in a tech­
nical economy is not assured by income maintenance during periods of
layoff. Today, security depends to a large extent on ability to adjust,
to meet change as it occurs. Worker security requires, then, an essential
right to education, to job opportunity and advancement, and beyond
these to the expectation of honorable treatm ent on the job.
612

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

A Prefatory Note
W , W illard W irtz , S ecretary of L abor

How to achieve this new security is at present the concern of many
public and private organizations. I am pleased that the Monthly Labor
Review, in keeping with its tradition for factual presentation based upon
free inquiry, has included in this issue discussion of the relative responsi­
bilities of the individual worker and the institutions linked to his well-being.
These institutions—labor unions, collective bargaining, agencies
of Government, and the like—have long been accustomed to modes of
action developed in earlier periods. They are, on the whole, instruments
for achieving collective security or economic stability or both. Now,
economic events—an inadequate growth rate, the decline in the number
of production jobs, the rapidity of job alteration, the continuing plight of
the unskilled—have made necessary an evaluation of the relationship
between individual and collective security, between the individual himself
and the organization that serves his desires for security.
One other fact emerges from this examination of worker security.
Far too many working people have none at all. Far too many others
have only a limited form of security when it is measured against what
the economy can afford. There is no question that curing the chronic
weakness in our economy would be of some benefit in enlarging the em­
ployment opportunities of those, such as the unskilled Negro and the
untrained youth, who suffer from severe unemployment rates. But
raising the possibility of a permanent form of security for the under­
privileged jobseekers of our Nation can be little more than an intellectual
exercise until basic educational needs are met and fundamental rights to
opportunity are acknowledged.
The progress of any inquiry into worker security stops, at present,
on the doorstep of greater questions regarding equality. If individual
workers and the institutions, both public and private, that protect them
choose to table the question of equality, then the change sweeping through
the economy will benefit only those prepared for it—while the others
drift into a permanent limbo of uselessness.
The question of security, in the last analysis, is directed to the
conscience. When all men are respected, each man is more secure.
When all men are able to reach a maximum of competence within their
own natural limitations, then each man enjoys a chance. And when
each man enjoys a chance, all men are secure.


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

613

The Workers’
Search for
Security
D a n ie l B e l l *

I have always thought it to be a lovely paradox
that the most sophisticated defense of capitalism
and the most inspired paean to revolution were
couched in almost identical words. In 1842, the
young Russian anarchist M. A. Bakunin published
an article in the Deutsche Jahrbücher (forerunner
of the Deutsche-Französische Jahrbücher which was
later coedited by Karl Marx) in which he declared,
in a phrase that soon became famous and was to
be repeated by anarchists the world over, that
“the will to destroy is a creative will.” One
hundred years later, the Austro-Harvardian econ­
omist Joseph Schumpeter remarked (in his Capital­
ismSocialism, and Democracy, a book that sought
to take the measure of Marx) that the saving,
“essential fact about capitalism” is the process of
creative destruction. “It is what capitalism con­
sists in and what every capitalist concern has got
to live in.” 1
The destruction that Bakunin sought was a
quick, frenzied, chiliastic act in which the existing
social order would be torn up root and branch
and replaced by a flowering of mutual self-help
worker communities. The destruction that
Schumpeter described was an incessant process in
which the social map of the economy was being
constantly reworked, not by the contrived will of
any single person or band of persons, but unwit­
tingly by entrepreneurs who, spurred by new
consumer demands and goaded by competition,
614


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

used the powers of technology to create new
products, to alter existing markets, and to reshape
industrial organizations; and in this grinding mill
of competition—a competition not of price but of
new commodities, new technology, and new types
of organization—the old, the archaic, the anti­
quated, the unwanted, and the inefficient are
driven to the wall.2
The further paradox is that the industrial
worker has rejected both Bakunin and Schum­
peter. The industrial proletariat, as George Ber­
nard Shaw once noted, is profoundly conservative,
in the psychological rather than the political
sense of the term. The worker has not wanted
revolution, but a place in society; and even when
he has given vent to violence—for example, in the
mining camps and timber forests-—its form and
direction have been more characteristic of the
blind resentments of the Jacquerie than of the
ideological formulations of the intelligentsia. The
search for security has been the chief drive of the
industrial worker. What else could it be when
the costs of social change—costs in terms of
unemployment, short workweeks, the destruction
of skills—have been borne largely by him.
The Apprehension of Change
The question has been posed whether the eco­
nomic environment today is changing more
rapidly than before and, as a consequence, whether
the pressure for security has increased. I find no
way of answering this question. Even if a tech­
nique for measuring the rate of job displacement
today could be devised, how could this measure­
ment be applied to the past in order to make
comparisons? Whether or not the actual rate of
change is greater than in the past is largely aca­
demic (in the true sense of the word), but what
is relevant is that there does seem to be today an
increased apprehension about change, an appre­
hension which is manifest in the thinking and
behavior of the industrial working class and its
leadership.
* Professor of Sociology, Columbia University.
i Second edition (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1947), pp. 81-86.
s With Schumpeter’s penchant for irony, it is quite likely that his use of
the phrase "creative destruction” was a deliberate play on Bakunin’s words.
One can see him enjoying the idea of using Bakunin’s phase to describe and
justify a system that Bakunin had sworn to destroy, and of having capitalists
applaud and employ a defense of the system based on the words of an
anarchist.

THE WORKERS’ SEARCH FOR SECURITY

This, too, seemingly is a paradox. Fifty years
ago, the only security a worker had, outside the
support he might receive from his extended
family, was the small benefits that a trade union
or a fraternal association might provide. Today,
the organized worker has, on the job, protection
against arbitrary dismissal, seniority on job assign­
ments and layoffs, call-in pay, supplementary
unemployment benefits, health, welfare, and pen­
sion benefits, and in many instances severance pay
or retraining benefits in the event of permanent
layoff. In the society, the worker now expects
that there will be jobs for him, and that legally
(through the Employment Act of 1946) and
politically (in order to obtain reelection), any gov­
ernment in office will seek to fulfill that expectation
through some direct (public works) or indirect
(fiscal policy) intervention in the economy.
One might say, too, that the American worker
has today a more realistic view of the job order in
society. Fifty years ago, a significant proportion
of the working class were immigrants, with little
expectation of their own advancement but often
with extravagant expectations about the advance­
ment of their children. Today, a largely nativeborn and more homogeneous working class seems
to have lowered its sights: There is the realization
that education is the chief ladder of social mobility
and an accompanying awareness that without edu­
cation one will remain in the working class.
Yet the apprehensions remain or even increase.
Part of the explanation is socio-psychological.
Half a century ago, people knew vaguely that the
society was changing but had no means of under­
standing the direction of change or gaging the
force of its effects. Today, we know so much more
that one source of apprehension about change is
the increased awareness of its dimensions and its
linked effects on the various sectors of society. A
second point is that society today is more highly
organized and, as a consequence, individuals have
more specific expectations of social action to meet
today’s challenges. Further apprehension arises
from the fear that these expectations will not be
met. Third, there is the tangible evidence that
the major force of technological change today is
largely in the blue-collar sections of the economy
and that the erosion of these jobs means a decline
of union power as well, since they are most highly
unionized.


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

615

The knowledge which we now have concerning
the direction and effect of change, although it can
increase power, can also increase anxiety—
particularly when companioned with the realiza­
tion that the mechanisms to cope with change
are not at all adequate to the tasks at hand.
For the individual worker, there is the knowledge
that the new jobs developing in the economy may
require a degree of education he has failed to
acquire and, as a result, he may be permanently
“beached.” For the union leader, there is the
dawning understanding that collective bargaining,
the chief means by which we have cushioned
the impact of change hitherto, no longer may
“work” in the present-day economy and that the
ways of coping with change, since the market
does not provide automatic offsets for job losses
in the economy, are dependent on broader social
policy. And the average union leader, despite
his lip service to the idea of social planning, is
often as parochial as the trade association executive
in understanding the new forces at work today.
Hence his own apprehensions.
The Risks of Change
The worker’s search for security in the United
States, for reasons too well known to be restated
here, has centered largely in the enterprise through
collective bargaining, rather than in the State
through political action. The early factory sys­
tem treated the worker as a commodity, paying
him by the piece or by the hour, while the pre­
vailing ideology made it plain that if he became
unemployed or had no savings upon which to
retire in his old age, the fault was his, not the
system’s. Step by step the worker, through the
trade union, built up enclaves of security, forcing
on the employer some of the burdens of the costs
of change. This was done by limiting the supply
of labor to a market and so forcing up the price;
by imposing a standardized wage rate in a labor
market or industy and so eliminating wages as
a factor in competition between firms; by con­
trolling job assignments through rotation in
hiring halls in casual employments or by seniority
systems in fixed employments; by insisting on
fixed work crews, as in the manning scales on
ships or the number of stagehands in a theatre;
by obtaining call-in pay guarantees and supple-

616

mentary income benefits; and so forth. As a
result of all this, a modern collective bargaining
contract has as many entails on a job as the old
manorial three-field strip system had on the land.
But collective bargaining, in the absence of a
national wage policy, only works in an expanding
economy or an expanding industry, where the
costs which are added by the wage bargain can be
absorbed by the rate of growth or where the costs
are shifted to other, unorganized sectors of the
economy. In the latter instance, collective bar­
gaining works usually because there is a bilateral
monopoly, so to speak, wherein the industry or
firm often gains as much as the union, as in the
steel and auto industries, where the employers
have been able to gain a “cost-plus fee” from the
union contract by using wage bargains as the
occasion to chalk up higher prices than were
warranted by the union gains.3
The problem of the labor movement today is
that collective bargaining, as a means of obtaining
job security, no longer works so well. In the last
5 years, the economy’s growth rate has slowed
considerably. One reason (and I do not seek to
assess its centrality) is that productivity has risen
much more than demand has in the manufacturing
sector, thus reducing the number of jobs. The
steel industry, for example, which already has an
oversaturated capacity at a low break-even point,
recently announced that it would spend a billion
dollars in the near future for capital replacements
which would further cut its costs. Thus, there
is every prospect of a further shrinkage of jobs in
the steel industry. Statistics show that the auto
industry today can produce the same number of
cars as it did a decade ago with perhaps 20 percent
fewer production workers. Even at lowered
prices, demand is probably relatively inelastic.
The major point is that in this sector the increased
productivity resulting from technological change
is not being reallocated in a meaningful way.
At the same time, in the service sector, costs
have risen, while productivity has failed to keep
pace, so that whatever possible employment offsets
might have taken place have not been realized.
(How many small firms, for example, want to hire
messengers at $60 to $70 a week?) Thus, in a
“shrinking” area of the economy, productivity is
rising, and in an “expanding” area it fails to keep
pace. In the coming years, it is likely that this
“scissors” movement will accelerate.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

The traditional response of the unions has been
to ask the firm to shoulder the costs of change,
either by keeping a fixed number of workers in
the industry, by increasing supplementary un­
employment benefits, by paying retraining costs,
or by paying lump-sum discharge or severance
benefits. But the magnitude of such costs is
already far higher than those benefits previously
negotiated. As the experience of Armour & Co.
in the packinghouse industry showed, even when
an employer seeks to assume some of the burdens
of technological or market change, the costs may
be too high for the firm, individually, to bear.4
Where such burdens can be distributed on an
industrywide basis, as in the contract of the West
Coast longshoremen with the Pacific Maritime
Association, the problem may be handled through
collective bargaining. In this case, the industry
has been freed to introduce laborsaving devices
and modernize work rules by creating a fund,
which is used for (1) paying special retirement
benefits and (2) guaranteeing payment for a
specified number of straight-time hours a week
to each longshoreman who was fully registered in
1960 when the agreement was signed.6 In this
instance, the number of jobs in the port is not
fixed, but the income of the individual is guar­
anteed, so long as he reports for work. As the
labor force shrinks because of deaths, retirements,
and dropouts, the demands on the fund are
reduced until presumably the registered member­
ship and the number of jobs come into balance.
This is a humane solution.
But there is the question of how widely it can be
applied. In both coal and railroads, the two
industries with the highest percentage of re­
dundant or potentially redundant labor, such a
scheme is unlikely to work. In coal, where
John L. Lewis sought many years ago to protect
older workers by “buying” a huge welfare and
pension fund at the expense of jobs, the inability
to completely control the industry has resulted
in large numbers of wholly destitute miners. The
ultimate costs have been borne by government
through poor relief.
3 For an elaboration of my argument, see “The Subversion of Collective
Bargaining,” Commentary, March 1960, pp. 185-197, and the comment by
Arthur J. Goldberg and the reply in the July 1960 issue.
4 See “ Progress Report of Armour’s Tripartite Automation Committee,”
Monthly Labor Review, August 1961, pp. 851-857.
8 See Max D. Kossoris, “ Working Rules in West Coast Longshoring,”
Monthly Labor Review, January 1961, pp. 1-10.

617

THE WORKERS’ SEARCH FOR SECURITY

Useful as it is in other areas (e.g., grievances),
collective bargaining works only fitfully well as a
way of sharing the burden of such costs. Given
the increasing human cost factor of technological
change and the increasingly linked nature of the
economy, it seems unlikely that any of these
automation problems can be met by other than
comprehensive action at the National Govern­
ment lev^el. And the realization of this, which is
slow in coming, inevitably must create extraor­
dinary changes not only in manpower policy
but in the character of education and training,
in patterns of investment, and in the structure of
the labor movement.
One of our problems has been that we have
never had an adequate picture of the social costs
of technical change. Our national accounting
system provides us with a picture of the total
value of goods and services produced during a
year, but we have no precise measure of the rami­
fications of change. Our national ethos, going
back to the prodigal wastefulness of the early
republic, was that any technical change was
inherently good; the economic mythos has been
that technological change is ultimately costreducing and beneficial to the consumer.
But can such equations be so easily made? How
can the value of a price reduction for utility com­

panies and consumers in the substitution of
natural gas and oil for coal be measured against
the joblessness of thousands of miners and the
wrecked communities in the coal mining area?
When one hears talk of 40,000 obsolete jobs on
the railroads, how does one measure the financial
gain to the roads against the idleness of men who
find that a skill of 30 years is no longer useful or
against the increased hospitalization in mental
institutions of men who find the routines of their
lives cut from under them? To look at the prob­
lem of waste in a different perspective, is it a
rational use of capital resources for firms to invest
more in o v e rc ap a city industries when such
resources might be better used for needed
services?
. To pose these questions is not to argue against
technological change (or to advocate capital
levies). It is simply to point up the problem that
the pressing search for security which is becoming
a feature of this decade poses social questions that
we are ill-equipped to assess, let alone to handle
in policy terms. The problem of all social policy
is one of relative equities. The question involved
here is that of distributing costs. All social change
generates costs that are borne differentially
throughout the society. The question is whether
we can find a better system than the patchwork
methods that we have used until now.

All collectively provided services are deliberately designed to meet certain
socially recognized ‘needs’; they are manifestations, first, of society’s will to
survive as an organic whole and, secondly, of the expressed wish of all the
people to assist the survival of some people. ‘Needs’ may therefore be thought
of as ‘social’ and ‘individual’; as . . . mutually related essentials for the
continued existence of the parts and the whole. . . . the shading of one into
the other changes with time over the life of all societies; it changes with time
over the cycle of needs of the individual and the family; and it depends on
prevailing notions of what constitutes a ‘need’ and in what circumstances;
and to what extent, if at all, such needs, when recognized, should be met in
the interests of the individual and/or of society.
— Richard Morris Titmuss, Essays on “The Welfare State”
(New Haven, Yale University Press, 1959), pp. 112-113.

686133— 63-

-2


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

The Dynamic
Nature of
Workers’ Goals
J oseph A . B e ir n e *

I q u e s t i o n whether personal security in and of
itself is a desirable goal. Certainly, trade union
members and leaders risked the most serious kind
of insecurity when they literally gambled life and
limb to organize unions originally. Security,
standing alone, is surely not an inspiring goal.
The Communists stress “security,” and the price
they exact for it is much too high for any selfrespecting person to pay. American trade unions
have tried to combine fulfilling basic security
needs with broader purposes.
It has been amply demonstrated over the years
that the American worker has relied upon his
trade union to obtain through collective bargain­
ing and political action the security he needs.
Further, there is a direct correlation between the
strength and effectiveness of the trade unions and
the relative security of the American worker. One
of the current tragedies in the economic order is
that in the midst of great achievements the trade
union movement finds it beyond its powers to
cope with the serious and prolonged unemploy­
ment of important segments of our labor force.
This inability is directly attributable to the same
factors which account for the lack of growth of
union membership in recent years. Unions today
do not have the same support from the broader
communities that they used to have; yet the need
for cooperative approaches in solving our problems
is greater than ever before. Now, we see a situa­
tion where the relative influence of the labor move­
ment has not kept pace with the need for it.
This was not always the case. During the
early years of trade unionism, its spirit captured
the imagination of member and nonmember alike
618

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

and its goals reflected not only the aspirations of
dues-paying members but an aroused Nation as well.
It is not easy to convince young people and their
short-memoried elders that just 25 years ago, the
basic issue in dispute between labor and manage­
ment in the United States was the right of unions
to exist. For a long time, it looked as if social,
economic, and political democracy would not be
extended to include industrial democracy. For­
tunately for all of us, we decided in favor of indus­
trial democracy. The early goals of trade
unions—and this is still true today—reflected
what was happening in the country at large. The
emerging liberalism of the New Deal, such ex~
periments as the National Recovery Act, and other
important State and national developments were
significant elements contributing to the early de­
velopment of unions and their collective bargain­
ing programs. Similarly, what was happening in
unions leavened the entire economy.
After this initial struggle to establish the right
to form a union, the American worker looked to
his organization to secure his right to dignity
in the work place. This involved a head-on
challenge of management’s decisionmaking power
as it affected wages, working conditions, and the
important subjects of job tenure and movement
between jobs. The relative ease with which
unions combined basic essentials and higher pur­
poses is testimony to, first, the expanding nature
of the American economy in the first half of this
century and, then, the validity of industrial
democracy.
New Goals

Once fundamentals were fulfilled, the worker
looked for further frontiers to conquer. These
were not difficult to find. Not only did he look
inward to assess his own unfulfilled wants, but
he could see around him, in management and in
the (often, nonunion) work force surrounding
management, examples of benefits which would
help him to achieve a more meaningful life for
himself and his family. He saw such things as
pensions, pay for sickness absence time, company
paid life insurance, and similar practices that
maintained income, not only during the working
life of a person but also in his obsolescent years.
School teachers and similar salaried people also
•President, Communications Workers of America.

619

THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF WORKERS’ GOALS

had many advantages which the industrial worker
needed. Holidays with pay, paid vacations, pen­
sions, etc., were obviously, from the examples
around him, attainable goals—and they were
desirable.
While there is no doubt that in recent years
and throughout our history, workers, through
their trade unions, have initiated many innova­
tions and shown great creativity in the kind of
bargaining goals established, many of the goals
were borrowed or copied from other countries
and from other groups in our society. Certainly,
pensions, a guaranteed annual wage, and paidfor absence time, for example, were nothing new;
they were merely things which the higher paid
managerial and other groups of workers had
already achieved.
A very significant development in defining the
goals of workers came with the realization that
when certain benefits were provided on a group
basis, inherent savings and administrative effi­
ciencies resulted which benefited the entire work
group. This realization opened up the whole
area of group life and health insurance, credit
unions, and related group practices. Initially,
in some instances, the employee paid for all or a
part of the costs and premiums, with the employers
merely providing the payroll deduction machinery
and related administrative services. Later,
through collective bargaining, the employer often
paid the entire premium as indirect wages. Even
here, if you could go to the core of the matter,
management and salaried workers served as the
models. While the specifics of the management
group's fringe benefits were not always exactly
the same as those which workers proposed, such
things as bonuses, company provided automobiles,
stock option plans, “sabbatical leaves,” the ex­
pense account, and related extras frequently
outside of the impact of the income tax and
designed to provide benefits other than those
directly provided by the pay check, served the
same ends as company paid-for health insurance,
pension plans, life insurance, and other indirect
benefits.
Underlying all these goals was a basic commit­
ment by trade unionists to social justice, both
1 For a discussion of the varied goals and programs, see Joel Seidman, Jack
London, Bernard Karsh, Daisy L. Tagliacozzo, The Worker Views His Union
(Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1958).
2E ditob’s N ote: Mr. Beime’s hook, New Horizons for American Labor
(Washington Public Affairs Press, 1962), which discusses this point in greater
detail, is reviewed on p. 718 of this issue.


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

for themselves and for others.1 When it was
possible to catch their breath, to rest a bit after
winning the basic bread and butter struggles, the
workers, through their unions, were able to spend
more time on political action, on social welfare
matters, and on matters of international concern.
This has been one of the proudest parts of Amer­
ican labor history and one of its least understood
contributions.
The Future
New goals are also emerging from the demands
of the world we now live in, just as the drive for
union recognition, minimum wages, and safe and
healthful work places arose from the very nature
of society at that point in our history. Modern
counterparts relate to such problems as mental
health, urban development and redevelopment,
free higher education for the youth and the adult,
decent housing and intelligent planning for
recreational facilities, and cheap, rapid transpor­
tation to get to them. Paramount, of course, is
the whole problem of unemployment and this
country’s inadequate rate of economic growth.
The union member will look to his union to
correct these situations through collective bargain­
ing, if possible, and through social, economic, and
political action where collective bargaining is in­
adequate. In my view, the traditional trade
union collective bargaining areas will not provide
the great challenges of the future. The bold,
imaginative bargaining which Secretary of Labor
W. Willard Wirtz calls for, it seems to me, will be
conducted in the broader areas of community
action, education, international affairs, and similar
fields. Further, it is through an imaginative
approach toward these broader areas that we will
attract to union membership the groups of workers
not yet organized.2
Will this change be accomplished easily? Will
the trade unions move into these areas as readily
as they moved into past collective bargaining and
other programs? Social change is not easy. If
we are to develop a society in which rational be­
havior and dignity are basic social values, we have
to keep working at it and no institution can be
exempt from its responsibility in working toward
those aims. Unions must and will rise to the needs
of a changing society and the expectations of the
kinds of people who always have their eyes on
the horizon.

The Response to Change
E w an C l a g u e *

E conomic progress and change are indivisible.
In fact, change is the price of progress. New and
better products and new and easier methods of
producing goods and services have raised the in­
comes and standards of living of American workers
and their families and thus made them economi­
cally more secure. At the same time, part of our
growing economic resources have been needed to
reduce new threats to their security arising from
change. For, although change is a permanent
feature of our economy, it does not repeat itself.
So our response has differed from time to time, as
the articles in this section demonstrate.
Our society seems now to be in the fourth stage
of developing measures to meet the changing risks
to workers’ economic and social welfare. Until
30 years ago, in the first stage, we relied princi­
pally on private initiative and enterprise, the indi­
vidual worker’s savings, the sharing of income
and resources within the family, union welfare
funds, management pension plans, and private
philanthropy. When the economy plunged into
the great depression of the 1930’s, it soon became
apparent that the protective devices which indi­
viduals and families had prior to that time were
totally inadequate to the new situation, and the
second stage began to emerge. New devices were
created—nationwide unemployment insurance for
laid-off workers, old-age insurance for those too
old to work, public assistance for those who


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

couldn’t work, emergency work programs, ex­
pansion of regular public works, etc. A whole
new set of governmental protective measures was
established to supplement the limitations of the
previous, private systems of protections.
The third stage covers the period from 1940
to 1957, when the economy was expanding rap­
idly, at first under the forced draft of wartime
needs and then under the pressure of postwar
civilian shortages. Nearly 12 million men (and
women) were inducted into the Armed Forces,
leaving gaps in the labor market which brought
into the Nation’s labor force millions of people
who had never previously worked. The manning
of the war industries required far-reaching geo­
graphic and industrial shifts of labor, but these
movements were faciliated by patriotic motiva­
tions, high wages in the war industries (later sup­
plemented by such “new” benefits as vacations
for factory workers) full employment, limited
labor controls, and assured protection after the
war. During most of the postwar period, jobs were
plentiful, and the labor force responded rather
easily to the job shifts required by large-scale
geographic and industrial changes accompanied
by technological displacement. Unemployment
was fairly high at times, but the duration was
short; most workers could find jobs before their
unemployment benefits were exhausted.
‘Commissioner of Labor Statistics.

THE RESPONSE TO CHANGE

Labor market conditions in the postwar econ­
omy facilitated many forward steps in the work­
er’s quest for security. In circumstances favorable
to collective bargaining, many workers, in addi­
tion to obtaining higher wages, were able to nego­
tiate substantial fringe benefits in the form of
pensions, health and welfare plans, supplemental
unemployment benefits, separation allowances,
and other similar protections. In addition, man­
agement on its own initiative made provision for
many of these benefits among white-collar employ­
ees. At the same time, legislative changes broad­
ened and strengthened our system of social
insurance. Furthermore, substantial numbers of
individuals and families from all walks of life
made provision for their own medical care and
hospitalization through private insurance plans.
During the past 5 years, the pattern of indus­
trial change has shifted again. In speed and in
degree, the new changes are certainly far less
dramatic than those which occurred in wartime
and in the postwar readjustment. However, they
are having more effect upon people. Unemploy­
ment is higher and the sense of insecurity is
stronger. Consequently, employers and workers,
as well as the community itself, have had to take
another look at the problems of individuals and
families in a changing society.
Why is the problem seemingly more serious
today when the changes are less violent? One
obvious reason is that economic growth has slowed
down and job opportunities are less plentiful.
That is why public attention is being centered
upon ways and means of increasing the recent
rate of economic growth. A second reason is
that the technological and industrial changes of
recent years have had a profound effect upon the
job opportunities and the occupational outlook
of certain groups in the labor force. The atomic
revolution and its scientific aftermath have brought
about a marked stiffening in the quality of labor
requirements. Unskilled and repetitive jobs are
being eliminated; highly technical and profes­
sional groups are increasing rapidly. The most
pronounced changes of this kind have occurred
in the goods producing industries. At the same


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

621

time, shifting demand in a high consumption
economy has opened up new jobs in the lighter
service industries. But many workers are occu­
pationally stranded. They could still hold jobs
in their own lines of work but they cannot
qualify for the new occupations.
These recent developments have stimulated a
search for new protective devices—the fourth
stage of our response. Both managements and
unions have been working out new experiments in
providing security and protection to the workers
and stability to the enterprise. Government too
has embarked upon new programs.
The articles in this section analyze different
aspects of the defenses against insecurity. For
example, it is quite clear that a quarter of a
century of advances in social security have not yet
brought that program to maturity. In fact, the
increasing protection of the great majority of
workers and their families contrasts more sharply
now than formerly with the disadvantages and
the poverty of the minority who at best have only
minimal protection. Nor, ironically, has this
minority come within the scope of the significant
achievements in strengthening worker security
through collective bargaining. Here, there is
some evidence of innovation, but the innovations
consist mainly of variations appropriate to the
particular situation in contracts reflecting common
union or management concepts of their respective
obligations to employees. Management has in­
creasingly recognized the need to ease workers’
readjustments to technological improvements by
setting aside some of the cost savings from in­
creased productivity for this purpose. Among
the unions, the basic approach has been either to
protect jobs or income or to distribute the re­
maining jobs equitably. There is also some new
thinking concerning the security of the worker in
relation to the union, not only with respect to its
service to him in collective bargaining but also
with respect to his individual rights vis-a-vis the
organization itself. The analysts whose papers
are presented here foresee significant challenges to
government, labor, and management in the
economic setting of the 1960’s.

The present mixture of governmental and private
measures to promote worker security and the
strengths and limitations of public programs indi­
cate a need for revitalization of government’s role.

Public Systems for
Distributing Risks to Security
P h il ip B ooth *

E conomic upheavals , war, and society's read­
justments to postwar conditions have posed the
most serious threats to workers’ security. Today,
our highly productive forward-moving economy,
with technological change moving at virtually ex­
plosive speeds, may be producing equally serious
threats to workers’ security, while at the same
time opening the door to greater achievement and
satisfaction for society as a whole. In a sense,
our successes bewilder us because of the many
adjustments which are necessary to prevent the
imbalances and waste accompanying the tech­
nological revolution from defeating our hopes of
a more abundant life for all Americans.
During the past half century, marked changes
have occurred in the nature of the risks which
endanger workers’ security. Many forces which
formerly endangered continuity of employment
and income, old-age security, and the health of
the worker and his family have declined in im­
portance. Longer life expectancy, better living
and working standards, a higher level of health
and physical well-being, and greater capacity to
enjoy social and cultural advances through edu­
cation and leisure have improved man’s lot in the
last 50 years; at the same time, they have tended
to raise his sights and add to his expectations.
Our society requires that these needs and expecta­
tions be met by employment.
Changes in the nature of threats to workers’
security have had major consequences for the role
of government. This article discusses the mix of
622

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

governmental and private measures for worker
security, the characteristics of existing systems of
governmental protection, and their strengths and
limitations. Finally, some observations are made
as to the needs for reexamination and revitaliza­
tion of government’s role in view of today’s de­
mands for security.
Until fairly recent times, the individual worker,
employer, and voluntary community measures were
relied upon for alleviation of the consequences of
major contingencies. The exhaustion of private
resources and those of voluntary organizations for
dealing with the consequences of mass unemploy­
ment in the depression of the 193Q’s led to the
assumption of responsibility by the government.
For lack of financial resources, or because of ob­
stacles to tapping them, governmental responsi­
bilities for worker security have been more and
more surrendered by local government to the
States and by the States to the Nation.
Government has not been as much concerned
with the abolition of threats to worker security
as with the more limited objectives of alleviation
of their harsher and crueler consequences. But,
at this point in our history, should we not be
asking whether and in what areas preventive
measures can be taken to lessen the threat of
dependency and to meet the consequences of
old age, illness, and unemployment in a more
effective and constructive manner?
Of the many forms that governmental action
has assumed, only a few are dealt with in this
‘Lecturer In Social Work, University of Michigan.

PUBLIC SYSTEMS FOR DISTRIBUTING RISKS TO SECURITY

article. They are categorized in the following
three ways: The encouragement of private action
by governmental subsidy, primarily in the form
of favorable tax treatment; the encouragement
by the Federal Government of State and local
government action through grants or other
financial devices; and the services and programs
provided or operated by government itself.
The discussion thus cuts across specific risks to
worker security and focuses on the nature and
extent of the responsibility which government
has undertaken.
Encouragement of Private Action
In keeping with the importance which private
and individual responsibility and freedom have
long enjoyed in our society, government has en­
couraged voluntary individual and group pro­
tection, primarily through fiscal devices. Certain
types of favorable tax treatment by the Federal
Government and the States, such as deduction
from taxable earnings of the cost of health insur­
ance premiums and of contributions to nonprofit
charitable and educational organizations are now
taken for granted. Employer contributions for
such purposes are treated as deductible business
expense. What Titmuss has called “fiscal wel­
fare” 1 measures have subsidized the establish­
ment of pension and life insurance plans, sup­
plemental
unemployment
and
workmen’s
compensation benefits, health and welfare funds,
hospitalization plans, and other such arrangements.
Value of Favorable Tax Treatment. The variety
and complexity of the plans and arrangements so
favored, the problems of obtaining comparable
data, and the complexity of the assumptions
involved in estimating tax savings make it dif­
ficult to put a measuring tape around the entire
body of such governmental support. To take
only one limb, as it were, the favorable tax
1 See R. M. Titmuss, Essays on the Welfare State (New Haven, Yale Uni­
versity Press, 1959), p. 45.
2 See Daniel M. Holland, “ Some Characteristics of Private Pension Plans,”
Tax Revision Compendium: Papers on Broadening the Tax Base, submitted
to the House Committee on Ways and Means, 86th Cong., November 16,
1959, Vol. II, pp. 1324-1325.
2 John W. McConnell, “ Treatment of Pension Plans,” ibid., p. 1348.
* See Jerome Pollack’s discussion of the complementary roles of public and
voluntary insurance measures in “insurance and Government,” Insurance
Series Vol. II, No. 5, University of Wisconsin, Bureau of Business
Research, Madison, 1960, pp. 11-14.
« For a discussion of public welfare expenditures, see Ida C. Merriam’s
^article, pp. 687-694 of this issue.


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

623

treatment of employer contributions to private
pension plans alone has been estimated as resulting
in tax savings of over $1 billion a year.2 Accord­
ing to John W. McConnell, “The government . . .
has waived its right to tax approximately $7
billion of the income of private business [in 1959]
devoted to pension and retirement systems.” 3
The value of these arrangements in our entire
structure of worker security protection is certainly
considerable. Such older private arrangements as
pensions, retirement, and life insurance, which
have experienced their major growth in the past
20 years, now supplement the protection offered
by governmental social insurance programs (pri­
marily Federal) originally created largely because
of the absence or inadequacy of private individual
and group measures. Recently, newer types of
employer plans have supplemented State unem­
ployment insurance and workmen’s compensation
systems, but they reach only a few million workers
in our mass-production industries. These plans
signify recognition by both management and labor
of the inadequacy of benefits in basic govern­
mental programs. In such areas as hospital and
medical care, also favored by State and Federal
tax provisions, private measures protect millions
of wage and salary workers; here, governmental
insurance programs are largely undeveloped.4
Supervision of Tax Subsidized Programs. The
private group programs created since World War
II have grown so rapidly in coverage and in finan­
cial resources as to outstrip the capacity of existing
governmental supervisory measures to deal with
them. Only recently have legal standards and
regulations been instituted to assure that funds
accumulated from worker and employer contribu­
tions in welfare and pension plans are conserved
for the benefit of the workers for whom they
were established and not wasted or diverted for
the personal gain of those responsible for their
management.
Encouragement of State and Local Action
Public Welfare Payments and Services. A second
major form of governmental action for worker
security has been Federal financial encouragement
of State and local measures, the most significant
of which are Federal grants-in-aid of State public
welfare programs 5 and Federal tax credit support

624
of State unemployment insurance. The needy aged,
dependent children, the blind, the long-term
totally disabled, and more recently, the medically
indigent aged have been the major beneficiaries.
At the end of 1962, 6.6 million needy individuals
were receiving payments of $4.3 billion a year.
Some 800,000 additional recipients of direct relief
under State programs with no Federal aid were
receiving $420 million a year.
The Federal Government’s share of welfare pay­
ments amounted to 54 cents of each dollar in 1962,
a share which has been increasing year by year (44
cents in 1950) for programs which were regarded
as entirely local and State responsibilities only 30
years ago.
Studies and evaluations of the programs tend to
agree that assistance payments are frequently and
seriously inadequate in amount, that few welfare,
medical, and health services are supplied, because
of financial ceilings on spending for such purposes,
and that existing interstate variations in financial
support and health and welfare services are
out of keeping with the financial responsibility
carried by all of the Nation’s taxpayers through
the substantial Federal sharing of costs.
The Advisory Committee on Public Assistance
appointed by former Secretary of Health, Educa­
tion, and Welfare Arthur S. Flemming found:
. . . less than one-half the States fully meet need [as
defined] by their own standards, that assumed resources
[of the families of assistance recipients] may actually be
nonexistent; and that the amount of unmet need in the
old-age assistance and aid to dependent children programs
varies from $ } i billion to about $1 billion.8

On health and medical care, the Committee found
that:
. . . the sums expended . . . are pitifully insufficient. Low
income and poor health work in a vicious circle; malnutri­
tion, untreated physical handicaps, debilitating chronic
conditions . . . do not make for vigorous self-supporting
people.7

The lack of public social services means that
disadvantaged groups on our assistance rolls
remain handicapped in attaining independence
and self-support. Although more positive Fed­
eral standards and greater financial support are
available, remedial and rehabilitative services to
broken families, the aged, and infirm thus far lack
the local and State financial participation and
support to make them fully effective.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

Employment Security. State unemployment insur­
ance programs were brought into being by a
Federal payroll tax on employers, against which
they credit their contributions under State unem­
ployment insurance laws. The programs protect
47 million workers in 50 States and the District of
Columbia, but some 14 million workers are still
unprotected because they work in small-size firms,
for State and local governments, or in other
excluded industries or occupations. The combina­
tion of these exclusions, plus limitations on
duration of benefits and the effect of eligibility
requirements on new entrants, low earners, and
workers who move back and forth from covered to
noncovered employment results in some 40 to 65
of any 100 unemployed workers not receiving
benefits in any given month.8 (See chart.) In 2
of the past 5 years, more than $4 billion was paid
in benefits to more than 7 million jobless workers
(nearly 8 million in 1958); over $3 billion was paid
in 1962. It is estimated that such benefits com­
pensate for about 20 percent of wage loss caused
by unemployment.9
While the contribution of unemployment in­
surance to economic stability and family security
is unquestioned, the gaps in coverage and limita­
tions on benefit amount and duration have re­
duced its effectiveness in achieving the goals for
which it was designed. For example, in 1958
and again in 1961, emergency ad hoc Federal
programs were rushed in to provide continuing
income for more than 2K million unemployed
workers who had exhausted their benefits. Fur­
thermore, only a handful of State laws pay bene­
fits equal to as much as half the average weekly
wage in the State. In a half-dozen States, in
1962, no worker was eligible for more than 20-24
weeks of protection, regardless of how long it
took to find another job, or to be recalled to his
former job. Under some laws, persons with only
marginal attachment to the labor force are eligible
for benefits, but for only 2 to 3 months and at low
weekly amounts. More adequate duration of
benefit protection will necessarily be accompanied
6 Report of Advisory Committee on Public Assistance, 1960, p. 14.
7 Ibid., p. 17.
8 Philip Booth, “ Unemployment Insurance and the Challenge of the
1960’s,” Proceedings of the 1 4 th Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations
Research Association, New York City, December 28-29, 1961 (Madison, The
Association, University of Wisconsin, 1962), p. 168.
• R. A. Lester, The Economics of Unemployment Compensation, (Princeton,
N.J., Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section, 1962).

PUBLIO SYSTEMS FOR DISTRIBUTING RISKS TO SECURITY

by tightening of unjustifiably loose qualifying
requirements.
The interstate competition which the Social
Security Act was designed to eliminate has per­
sisted in the pernicious form of competition for
low tax and benefit rates. In States with the
highest unemployment incidence in recent years,
including Illinois and Michigan for example,
benefit levels fall further and further behind wages,
despite higher tax rates. In terms of employer
payroll costs, the unemployment insurance system
is rather inexpensive compared with other worker
security systems, but the resulting protection is
weakest for the better paid workers. For this
reason, private supplementary systems have
developed, but these protect less than 2 million
workers,10 mostly those in the most favorable
bargaining positions. Clearly, individual State
action is not meeting the need for worker security
during unemployment. The inability of the
system to cope with the extended and extensive un­
employment in depressed areas is accentuated by
the difficulty in finding work experienced by those
who have used up even the additional supple­
mentary 9 to 13 weeks of benefits provided in
some States to take care of local, as distinguished
from nationwide, recession conditions.
The national system of State employment
services are financed entirely by Federal grants
(as is unemployment insurance administration),
a virtually unique Federal-State arrangement.
In their basic function of bringing jobseekers and
vacant jobs together, they perform a preventive
and constructive role in worker security; insofar
as they can shorten periods of unemployment
by more effective planning and operation (since
creation of employment is beyond their capacity),
they make ameliorative measures less necessary.
But the most rapid placement hinders rather than
aids worker security unless it contributes to the
most effective use of manpower resources. The
recent concentration on guidance and training
of the long-term jobless (whether the totally un­
skilled or those with obsolete skills) reflects
fuller appreciation of the need for positive action
to protect worker security. Perhaps the most
fruitful future role of the employment services is
in this area, as effective planning for future labor
market changes becomes even more urgent.
10
Alfred M. Skolnik, “ Growth of Employee Benefit Plans, 1954-1961,"
Social Security Bulletin, April 1963, table 1, p. 5.


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

625

Extent of Unemployment Insurance Protection, Week
Including the 12th of October 1962

Programs Directly Operated by Government
All levels of government directly operate
programs designed to protect workers against
insecurity. While foremost among these are the
Federal old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
(OASDI) and railroad retirement systems, they
also include State programs of workmen’s compen­
sation, direct relief, and compensation for wage
loss arising from nonwork-connected temporary
disability. (The Federal-State public assistance
and employment security systems have already
been discussed.) In addition, all levels of govern­
ment provide free medical care for the indigent
and for victims of tuberculosis and mental illness,
and the Federal Government operates special
programs for Indians, veterans, and seamen, to
cite only a few examples.
OASDI. The old-age, survivors, and disability
insurance program, established in 1935, today
provides protection for virtually the entire popula­
tion. Its all-embracing character has been
described as coming “ closer than any other
statute to being, in a vivid, demonstrable way,
everybody’s law. . . . almost as universally
recognized a right as the right to vote. . . . [There
is no other] law in which so many persons have a

626
positive, personal interest.” 11 While statistics alone
cannot adequately describe its role, one can
readily appreciate the significance of 18 million
individuals receiving monthly benefits at the
close of 1962, with the number growing so rapidly
that it had exceeded 17 million only 8 months
earlier. Of the total, nearly 17 million were
getting old-age and survivor benefits and another
million, the newer disability benefits. In 1962,
beneficiaries were paid $14.5 billion—one-sixth of
the entire amount of benefits paid since the
program began in 1940.
Government as Employer. Government, in its
capacity as employer of 9 million workers, provides
uneven protection to its workers against the
threats to worker security. It probably does a
better job than private industry with respect to
the completeness of its pension benefits; however,
involuntary unemployment, sickness, work injury,
and survivor protection for local and State
employees is either spotty or largely unprovided
for. The advent and spread of local and State
government workers’ coverage under OASDI in
the past decade has largely revolutionized their
formerly grossly inadequate protection even for
retirement.
Workmen’s Compensation. The State workmen’s
compensation system constitutes our oldest social
insurance program for meeting the threats to
worker security arising from work-connected
injury and disease. Before workmen’s compen­
sation laws, loss of income resulting from work
injuries could be recovered only through suing the
employer under the common law. Neither the
common law nor the early workmen’s compensa­
tion legislation provided on any large scale for
medical services to restore the worker’s health and
ability to work. Vocational rehabilitation for the
victims of work injuries developed later.
Today, 80 percent of all wage and salary workers
are protected against the risk of work inj ury, although
the extent of coverage varies from State to State—
from less than 65 to over 85 percent.12 Injured
workers and their survivors received $1.4 billion
under Federal and State workmen’s compensation
laws in 1961, about two-thirds for wage-loss
compensation and the remaining one-third for
medical and hospitalization costs. These benefits


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

amounted to about 63 percent of all insurance
premiums paid.13
Legislation requires employers to insure their
liability against this risk or, under certain condi­
tions, permits them to self-insure. In this respect,
government plays the part of regulator and
standard setter, rather than insurer, as in OASDI
and unemployment insurance. State funds, opera­
ting as sole or as competitive carriers in 15 States
and those workers who are insured under Federal
law, accounted for only 25 percent of all benefits
paid in 1961, private carriers and self-insurers for
75 percent.14
Nonwork-Connected Disability. Government plays
a far smaller role in the area of wage loss caused
by disabilities unconnected with work, although
these pose a much greater threat to worker
security. The best available estimates indicate
that of all work time lost because of illness or
injury, about one-tenth is work connected. Of
the $7.5 billion in wages lost by short-term sick­
ness in 1961, the largest part—$6.3 billion—was
incurred by workers in private employment. The
$2.1 billion paid as compensation in 1961 repre­
sented about 28 percent of each dollar of lost
wages. Paid sick leave, typically a white-collar
workers’ benefit, accounted for slightly more than
half of this amount ($1.3 billion) and insurance
the remainder.
Five governmental programs insure 12 million
workers against such wage loss—four State pro­
grams15 and the railroad system. Workers so
protected experienced about 28 percent of the
total wage loss because of sickness in 1961, but
they were compensated for about 26 percent of
their loss; by contrast, privately employed workers
not so protected were compensated for 17 percent.
Government employees were protected for over
two-thirds of their time lost because of disability.
Except for these 12 million workers, protection
against income loss caused by disabilities lasting
11 Elizabeth and Karl de Schweinitz, Interviewing in Social Security, (U.S •
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance, 1961).
12 Alfred M. Skolnik, “ New Benchmarks in Workmen’s Compensation,”
Social Security Bulletin, June 1962, p. 5.
is Alfred M. Skolnik and Julius W. Hobson, “ Workmen’s Compensation
Payments and Costs, 1961,” Social Security Bulletin, January 1963, pp. 27-28,
37-41.
i< Ibid.
is California, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

PUBLIC SYSTEMS FOR DISTRIBUTING RISKS TO SECURITY

less than 6 months is nonexistent under govern­
mental programs, except for public assistance for
the needy. Nor do the disability provisions of
OASDI protect workers during the first 6 months
of a long and indefinite period of disability, and
even after the first 6 months, over one-third of all
claims are disallowed under the rigid legal require­
ments.16
While these governmental disability insurance
programs do attempt to protect the worker against
wage loss, perhaps the most significant fact is
that, except for workmen’s compensation, they
leave virtually untouched the need for protection
against the cost of medical and hospital services
which could restore his health and capacity for
work. The minor exception of the California dis­
ability insurance system, which provides hospital
benefits up to $12 for 20 days, only accentuates
the lack of worker security provisions in this
area. Here government has left the worker and
his employer to provide protection against this
major risk through savings or insurance; for those
millions who have inadequate or no protection,
public assistance for the indigent remains the
governmental residual measure.
Medical and health services for the worker’s
dependents are largely lacking. The older worker
and the very young, the intermittently employed,
and those in agriculture and other seasonal oc­
cupations, even when they themselves are so
protected, are least likely to have such protection
for their dependents.
Education and Training. We are becoming more
painfully aware of the trend toward more serious
unemployment and underemployment of those
with lesser skills, education, and training. The
effect has not been as visible in smaller localities
because of the larger numbers of underemployed
in big cities, where they have gone hoping to find
better jobs and a better chance to share in the
richer life that our economy has made possible.
Especially hard hit by this trend are the young
people, particularly nonwhite youths in big cities,
who are unable to get their feet on the first rung
of the ladder leading to skills and experience
needed in today’s labor market.
isThe requirements demandproofofinabilitytoengageinany gainful work
because of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can
be expected to continue for a long and indefinite period or to result in death.

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

627

As jobs which can use the unskilled, uneducated,
and inexperienced have declined, and as semi­
skilled, clerical, and skilled jobs are being washed
away by the machine, fewer job opportunities are
left for the great mass of the unprepared. With
enactment of the Area Redevelopment Act (ARA)
in early 1961, government assumed responsibility
within the spirit of the Employment Act of 1946
to help these displaced men and women. In some
cases, those States and communities which most
needed the stimulus of restored economic activity
were least able or willing to take the steps neces­
sary to bring it about. Despite spotty and dis­
parate action by individual States and communi­
ties, especially in the Middle South and Southeast,
to recruit industry from other parts of the country,
such efforts had not been feasible, for example,
in areas with worked-out and high-cost coal seams
and abandoned textile plants.
The Manpower Development and Training
Act in early 1962 carried more ample financial
resources and a broader responsibility. Under
the Area Redevelopment Act, training is author­
ized for workers in areas designated by the
Secretary of Commerce as “redevelopment areas” ;
the new law goes further by making funds available
for training in any area where its need can be
demonstrated, while under the even more recent
Trade Expansion Act, training assistance becomes
available only where the loss of work was due to
the adverse effect of trade policy.
Under the first two programs, over 45,000
men and women would be trained under projects
approved as of February 1963; on the surface,
a bare start. By now, more programs have
started and some workers have been placed in
jobs which otherwise would not have been open
to them. This number is expected to increase in
the next 2 years.
A significant though small step taken during
the last days of the 87th Congress, the Trade
Expansion Act, provides more effectively for the
training and readjustment of workers displaced
by foreign trade competition. For the first time,
retraining allowances could continue as long as
52 weeks (65 weeks for workers past 60), and
provision was made for paying transportation
costs to a training center and moving costs to
a new job. Such provisions, hitherto absent in
governmental retraining programs, have been
made available, oddly enough, under a program

628

which may pay allowances to not more than a few
thousand workers able to qualify.17 This more
realistic bundle of devices to facilitate training
and mobility should be utilized in programs
applying to larger numbers of workers.
Public Works. With the recent accelerated public
works program, the Federal Government has
adopted another preventive measure focused on
warding off, through direct provision and stimula­
tion of employment, the threats of unemployment
to worker security. Through such grants to
State and to local governments, more effective
and, in the long run, more constructive steps can
be taken to bolster worker security. State action
directly aimed at gaining a higher level of economic
activity has been less apparent, although as
urgently needed.
Minimum Wage. Threats to worker security also
arise from substandard wages. When wages are
so low that the fully employed worker cannot
provide for his family’s needs, he is even less able
to provide for such contingencies as illness, unem­
ployment, and old age.18 In this area, the role of
government has been to prevent threats to worker
insecurity; Federal, State, and local minimum
wage laws have reduced the area of substandard
wages during the past two decades. However,
workers in many trade and service occupations and
those in agriculture are not covered by this legis­
lation. Furthermore, these are the workers who
are least protected by other governmental worker
security measures.19
Reexamination of the Role of Government
Since the governmental activities discussed here
are largely ameliorative in character, rather than
aimed at abolition of basic risks to worker security,
the role of government in working toward economic
growth and a healthy economy, in promoting edu­
cation, health, and private and public welfare is
not central to our theme.
In our narrower context, we find a variety of
devices utilized to assure that for most of us,
the major risks of worker security are shared with
the individual worker and his family by the indus­
try, the locality, State, or the entire Nation.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

Some risks are carried primarily through volun­
tary measures, others by the members of contribu­
tory public insurance systems, and still others by
the general taxpayers; in some situations, the mix
is heavily voluntary, in others, primarily public.
The insufficiency of existing arrangements shows
up most sharply with respect to the ill, the aged,
the poorly educated, and those of darker skin.
The following areas in which government must
play a more vigorous positive role includes only
a few of those which appear to me to be most
in greatest need of attention:
Income Support and Welfare. The public assist­
ance programs, though basic to our worker
security system, should be brought into tune with
the nature of our mobile population, and ideals
of human worth. The road to support of the
victims of old age, illness, and unemployment lies
in the broadening of social insurance programs,
and reducing the role of programs based on a test
of demonstrated family need.
Within these programs, we should give effect
to the recommendations of many competent study
groups for more adequate financial aid, reduction
of State residence requirements, and provision of
more rehabilitative services.
In reducing our reliance on programs based on
a test of needs, the extension of workmen’s com­
pensation and unemployment insurance to the
workers who are presently not covered would con­
stitute major progress. More adequate benefits
for longer duration and reexamination of eligibility
requirements are both overdue.
Medical care and rehabilitation provisions for
workmen’s compensation need to be overhauled
and strengthened. If this cannot be done under

17 As of M ay 1963, no workers had qualified for readjustment assistance.
18 Substandard wages as related to a need for public assistance are illustrated
by the finding of the New York City Welfare Department in 1962 that it was
paying $10 million a year to nearly 7,000 families whose breadwinners were
working full time—but with such low earnings as to fall below minimum
welfare standards for family support. Other studies had shown such situa­
tions were twice as frequent in nonwhite families as in white families. See
Public Welfare: Myth vs. Fact (New York, Citizens Committee for Children
of New York, 1963), pp. 8-9.
» For a discussion of the lack or inadequacy of protection against old age,
sickness, and unemployment, with variations in the extent of help from public
assistance, see James N. Morgan and others, Income and Welfare in the United
States (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co , Inc, 1962), Ch. 16, especially
pp. 216-217.

PUBLIC SYSTEMS FOR DISTRIBUTING RISKS TO SECURITY

present arrangements whereby most insurance is
carried by private carriers, more effective govern­
ment underwriting of insurance may be needed.
More public participation is necessary to pro­
vide insurance against wage loss arising from dis­
abilities which are not job-related. Since the
existing mix of private and public measures com­
pensates for nearly 30 percent of wage loss, but
has remained constant for some years, a new ap­
proach to public participation is called for to
bring this essential protection to all wage and
salary workers.
Medical care for the aged remains one of our
greatest unmet needs. Current proposals for
bringing hospital care for the aged under the
social security system provide one answer, and
an appropriate one, to this problem. While more
adequate protection would be desirable than that
contained in the President’s proposal of February
1963, it would certainly constitute a good start.
Coordination oj Existing Programs. Many worker
security programs need coordination. Duplica­
tion of protection, side by side with unmet needs,
is found, for example, when victims of fatal acci­
dents in industry leave survivors protected by
several public as well as private programs—death
benefits under workmen’s compensation, survivor
benefits under old-age and survivor’s insurance,
plus employer life insurance.
Employment Opportunities and Training. Gov­
ernmental and private industry collaboration is
needed to extend work opportunities. The de­
vices for providing compensation, training, and
retraining for the jobless are vital but only partial
solutions. Continued support of workers and
their families by unemployment insurance or
public assistance for longer and longer periods
does not provide an adequate answer. Employ­


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

629

ment is the answer which society and the economy
require, whatever the combination of fiscal policies
and direct government provision of employment
opportunities which may be necessary.
For youth, employment programs directly sup­
ported by the Federal Government are necessary.
For the older jobless, action at the community
level, with the assistance of State, Federal, and pri­
vate funds, is needed. The waste of potential talent
and skill involved in the continued unemployment
of so many Americans is a luxury we can afford
no more than the loss of the goods and services
which their work could produce. Our most shame­
ful waste of manpower resources lies in the em­
ployment and training discrimination practiced
against Negroes and other nonwhite members
of our population. More determined and widereaching action to provide greater work opportun­
ity will remove a great threat to worker security;
that the answer to this problem is tied to edu­
cation and training is self-evident.
Education, reeducation, and training programs
need broadening and more financial support. At
the same time, we must not place undue reliance
upon glowing promises of local redevelopment, or
expect easy solutions to basic employment malad­
justments through the beginning governmental
retraining efforts thus far put into play. It is
already painfully obvious that too many of our
jobless will remain so because they do not have
the educational base upon which training for
today’s jobs must be founded.
But for the long pull, government must rely
upon industry and labor to open the door to em­
ployment and training, without which worker
security cannot be solidly built. Here too, private
and public efforts must be mutually supportive if
we are to be successful in planning today to reduce
rather than increase threats to worker security in
tomorrow’s world.

Complex changes have combined to lengthen management’s
planning horizon and to require the inclusion of worker
security among the basic premises of innovation.

Management’s Adjustment to Change
E dward L. Cushman*
T he h a l l m a r k of a competitive economy is
change. Resources are allocated to competing
uses in response to factors such as changing
consumer demand and technology. The essence
of the managerial function is adjusting to this
change; or, put another way, management’s task
is to “manage” change. In a competitive econ­
omy, management is simultaneously initiating
change and reacting to change initiated elsewhere.
In either case, some degree of change is imposed
on the organization.
The Sources of Change
The sources of change affecting management are
many and varied. One which management lives
with every day is technology, and it is one aspect
of change which is generated in large part by
management itself. This is not to imply that
technological change is completely within the
control of management. In this context, each
management is vying with all others for success
in the market place.
Competition has spurred a never-ending search
for new markets, new products, new processes
and techniques. The history of our economy is
replete with examples of the changing positions of
various industries and, within those industries,
of the rise and fall of individual companies.
The development of electronics is a recent example
of the birth of an entirely new industry with new
companies. Other examples of change that come
to mind are the dieselization of the railroads,
substitution of oil and gas for coal, and development
of new synthetic materials.
Thus, for the individual management, there are
strong competitive pressures for the utilization of
the latest technology in the manufacture and
630

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

distribution of its products; pressures increased
by the possibility that new products developed
elsewhere will prove substitutable in the consum­
er’s mind for existing products.
In recent years, business expenditures for re­
search and development have risen substantially
and projections indicate that this trend will
continue. One set of national figures indicates
that business research and development expendi­
tures have increased from $840 million to $10.9
billion since the end of World War II, and should
increase at the rate of nearly $750 million a year
for the rest of the 1960’s. In a sense, these
expenditures represent management’s investment
in change, for the expectation is that new tech­
nological progress will result from them.
Obviously, not all change affecting business is
management-generated, nor is it solely technolog­
ical in nature. The entire economic, social, and
political environment of business produces changes
which influence the behavior and pattern of
management.
In fact, the increasing complexity of our
economy has led to increased efforts by man­
agement to identify and anticipate the effects of
changes in the economic, social, and political
environments upon the enterprise. In recent
years, a long-range planning function has devel­
oped within management, representing an attempt
to identify trends in the total business environ­
ment and to prepare for anticipated changes as
far in advance as possible. The competitive edge
will go to the company that is best prepared to
meet forthcoming change.
The longer the planning period, however, the
broader must be management’s perspective in
terms of factors involved. Product planning
in the automobile industry, to use one illustration,
*Vice President, American Motors Corp.

631

MANAGEMENT’S ADJUSTMENT TO CHANGE

requires a constant evaluation of potential de­
velopments in technology. Research in new
materials, new sources of energy, and new
processes of manufacturing is of interest. Be­
yond these, however, patterns of car usage, high­
way construction, urban renewal, and suburban
living are related to the size of the automobile
market and to the nature of the product. An
evaluation of these factors, in turn, involves an
assessment of some of the basic forces in the econ­
omy, e.g., rate of economic growth, taxation and
government spending, and family formation and
income.
The productivity of our economy, which is the
source of our rising standard of living, is the
result of many factors, among which technology
is obviously important. But, the entire business
environment has an impact on productivity—
the size and structure of the labor force, the type
and amount of taxation, the size and nature of
foreign trade, monetary and fiscal policy, all of
these have an influence on our productivity.
Over the years, emphasis has shifted as the
major problems of our economy have varied.
The transition of our society from agricultural to
industrial predominance brought with it a need
for new policies and techniques on the part of
business as well as the entire community in meet­
ing the human problems of adjustment.
In the depressed years of the 1930’s, the prob­
lems of international competition were relatively
minor. Today, they are of major importance to
our economy. The changing political and social
environment embodied in the social legislation
of the 1930’s brought a realization to management
that the American people expected business to do
a better job of meeting the needs of its employees.
The dramatic mobilization of our resources
during World War II has been replaced by the
necessity of girding ourselves for the long pull of
the cold war.
Thus, the changing environment of business
produces changes in management—changes in its
structure and in its objectives and policies.
The growth of unions, supported by law,
largely brought an end to the unilateral deter­
mination of policies affecting employees. This,
in turn, brought changes in those policies as
unions articulated unmet employee needs.
The growth of collective bargaining brought a
major change in management attitudes,

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

techniques, and objectives in employee relations.
The most obvious and immediate effect was the
limitation upon management’s right to act uni­
laterally on employee problems. With broad
public support, unions moved aggressively to
express employee needs and aspirations.
Thus, the expectations of the American people
have had an influence on management’s objectives
and practices. Only as business and other insti­
tutions demonstrate their ability to meet the
needs of people can they continue to merit public
support.
Changes in Management Practices
These changing environmental conditions have
brought about adjustments in management’s
policies and practices and also have brought about
adjustments in the structure of management
itself. The management organization has devel­
oped more areas of specialization, paralleling the
increasing complexity of business. Expert knowl­
edge has been brought to bear on each subject
through the use of persons with special insight
into a particular field.
The personnel function has epitomized this
development. From the relatively simple hiring
task of the foreman or the employment clerk, the
personnel function has emerged in the large
company as a multifaceted operation combining
the capabilities of many specialists. Generally,
the personnel staff is supervised by an officer of
the company who participates in the formulation
of policy decisions. He is supported by specialists
in pensions, insurance, training, salary and wage
administration, union relations, and other par­
ticularized areas of knowledge.
Policies which recognize the needs of the
individual employee now are developed after toplevel management discussion. The personnel
officer is charged with the responsibility of
determining employee needs and developing poli­
cies to meet these needs, within the limits of
management’s reasonable responsibility to its
employees.
In our economy, each company must meet the
test of competition, providing its customers with
product values at least as good as those of com­
petitors, and meeting its competitors in terms of
employee compensation and return to stockholders.
These are the basic tests of management’s ability

632
to adapt to change. Within these limitations,
there is constant need for open-minded review of
personnel policies in the light of employee needs.
Although the personnel function affects a wide
area of the company’s operations, it has probably
not yet reached its full potential. As we gain
additional insight into the motivational factors of
human behavior, the personnel function will be
modified accordingly.
Worker Security
As a result of the changes in the socio-political
environment of business—as reflected in manage­
ment’s own self-enlightenment and the salutary
influence of a zealous union movement—much has
been done to meet the employment security needs
of workers.
Within the private sector of the economy there
now exists a widespread system of private security
plans. These have, as part of their objectives,
the maintenance of employee income in periods of
illness, unemployment, and retirement. Many
companies had retirement plans and welfare pro­
grams before the development of comparable
public programs during the 1930’s. By and large,
however, the current private plans have been built
on the foundations of public programs, such as
social security and unemployment insurance. In
recent years, the emphasis has shifted again to
private plans. This reflects, in part, an effort to
meet diverse employee interests and needs in
varying industrial settings. Currently, nearly
$10 billion annually is contributed by industry for
such private programs, compared with the total
national employer contribution of just over $10
billion annually to public programs—old-age, sur­
vivors, and disability insurance, unemployment
compensation, and workmen’s compensation.1
As the purposes of the plans have shifted, so, too,
have the methods of funding. A wide variety of
arrangements has been developed, tailored to the
economics of the particular industry or company.
For example, there are welfare plans funded on
the basis of man-hours worked, units of output,
and, in some cases, profits. There are industry­
wide plans in industries such as trucking, clothing,
construction, and shipping, where a large body of
employees tends to “ float” from company to com­
pany or job to job, and the employee-employer
relationship is tenuous.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, .TUNE 1963

In 1955, the automobile industry pioneered in
the development of supplemental unemployment
benefit plans (SUB), financed on the basis of hours
worked. These plans are intended to supplement
State payments during periods of unemployment.
They now include among their benefits payments
for short workweeks and for permanent separation
from employment.
Other programs described in the following article,
including funds related to cushioning the effects
of technological displacement, point up the
diversity in financing, objectives, and techniques
involved.
The last few years have seen a renewed interest
in an old idea, profit-sharing, as a means of
financing employee benefit programs, particularly
pension plans. Profit-sharing flourished during
the 1920’s, but the depression of the thirties left
few profits to share. Since World War II, as
employee benefit programs have spread rapidly,
profit-sharing plans have multiplied many times
over. More than 30,000 qualified retirement
plans covering 5 million employees are now
financed, at least in part, through profit-sharing.
At American Motors, there was agreement
between the company and the unions that repre­
sent its employees that the philosophy of profitsharing could provide mutual advantages to em­
ployees and the company. Management also felt
that the financing of benefit improvements as a
variable cost would provide a sound basis for more
adequately meeting employee job security needs.
American Motors’ 1961 agreements with the
United Auto Workers and other unions provide
specifically for amounts generated by the American
Motors-Union Progress Sharing Plan to be used
for insurance and pension improvements, for
reserves for these programs, finally, for SUB
financing and such other uses as the parties agree
upon.
New Problems. The wide range of sound person­
nel programs has been aimed, in large part, at
giving employees a sense of security as well as
tangible and economic benefits. The widespread
recognition of seniority or length of service as an
important factor in job retention and promotion
is an example.
1 National Industrial Conference Board, “Employer Payments for E m ­
ployee Security,” Road Maps of Industry, No. 1410, Jan. 4, 1963.

633

MANAGEMENT’S ADJUSTMENT TO CHANGE

Emphasis has shifted with the passage of time
to different aspects of worker security. Initially,
employers and unions were concerned more with
the problems of illness and retirement. More
recently, the emphasis has been on the effects of
technological change, for which a variety of tech­
niques has been developed to accommodate the
interests of management and employees. As is
pointed out in the next article in this volume,
these policies have varied from industry to indus­
try. At one end of the spectrum are the devices
which tend to freeze the number of jobs required—
a limitation on management’s right to make man­
power adjustments. The railroads are an example
of this type of accommodation. At the other
end are the mass production industries, where
the accommodation of interests has taken less the
form of job control and more the form of income
security plans for displaced employees.
In an environment of less than adequate
economic growth, employee displacement be­
comes much more acute. With a good rate of
economic growth, the impact of technology may
not result in job displacement in a particular
industry or company. As aggregate demand
grows, the volume of employment will grow, too.
The job problems of the displaced employee,
or the new worker, are minimized in an economy
where there are adequate job opportunities.
The concept of changing job needs in the in­
dustry, or the company, becomes more accept­
able to the employee and his union.
The basic problem then is to develop those
policies which will promote economic growth.
After all, the best way of meeting employee
security needs is to provide the employee with a
job in a competitive company in a healthy,
growing industry. The outer limitations upon
management’s ability to provide job security are
established by competition. The uneconomic use
of resources cannot be continued indefinitely and
in the long run negates the objectives of employee
security.
Given an adequate rate of economic growth,
our problem then is to find a blend of public and
private policies which will permit the labor market
to function effectively, using those manpower
policies and techniques which facilitate change
rather than stand in the way of it. This means
that in the labor-management area, we must


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

reexamine many of the things we have been
doing, many of the attitudes and beliefs we now
hold and many of our institutional relationships.
Certainly, a central problem in employee
relations—including management-union rela­
tions-—is the development of programs to meet the
security needs of employees stemming from the
fear of unemployment. In the private sector of
the economy, management is the primary locus
of the decisionmaking authority. The prime
responsibility for coping with change rests with
management.
The pressures generated by a changing environ­
ment, however, do not always work in the same
direction. For example, the Employment Act
of 1946 established as objectives of public policy
the achievement of full employment, maintenance
of stable prices, and rapid economic growth, all
within a framework of free private enterprise.
Periodically, doubts are expressed as to the com­
patibility of these three goals. Can we achieve
all three simultaneously, or, at any given moment,
must one goal take precedence over the other two?
Currently, we are most concerned with two
of these objectives: reducing the rate of unemploy­
ment and increasing the rate of economic growth
of the economy. In the short run, these goals
may seem to be contradictory in nature. Achiev­
ing more rapid economic growth implies putting
economic resources to their most efficient uses.
One of these resources is manpower. Thus, we
come to the major issue in many of the recent
labor-management disputes—the manpower re­
quired to perform available work.
Union-Management Relations
The widespread public criticism of the collective
bargaining process as it exists today, focuses on
the need for noninflationary settlements and for
noncrisis bargaining. The pressure for com­
pulsory arbitration or outside intervention in
major disputes is mounting. At the same time,
the central issue in these disputes—job security—
is one of the most difficult to resolve. Both
labor and management are in danger of having
their bargaining freedom further limited unless
their actions meet the expectations of our society.
It is incumbent upon labor and management
to now reexamine their relationships in view of

634
their mutual self-interests in preserving their
freedoms.
Management accepted unions grudgingly in
the beginning; conversely, unions, growing rapidly
in an atmosphere of militancy, by and large, were
not sympathetic to management problems. The
accommodation between the parties in this setting
was based fundamentally on power. The attitude
of the leadership of both institutions tended to
be one of competition, lack of understanding of
the role of the other institution, and lack of clearly
enunciated and known objectives. There were,
therefore, inadequacies in techniques for furthering
cooperative programs.
Many union-management relations have not
progressed beyond this point. Others fall into
what may be called an armed truce relationship
in which the union and the company have learned
to work together to some degree but continue to
place their reliance upon power. It has also been
called, from a management point of view, a period
of containment. The corporation tries to prevent
the union from expanding the areas in which the
union has made inroads on managerial freedom.
Broadly speaking, this summarizes the present
state of the “art” of collective bargaining. That
it has progressed no further probably is to be
expected, considering the relatively short period
of time labor and management have had to arrive
at mutual accommodation. During this period,
too, there were times when both sides were
restricted in their freedom because of govern­
mental controls.
During the past 30 years, there has been a
subtle change in the roles played by both manage­
ment and the unions. Unions, which had their
greatest growth during the depression years and
World War II, made a great contribution during
those periods, primarily because management
had failed to exercise the high degree of freedom
it had enjoyed up to that time to deal adequately
with the human problems of industry.
Since the 1930’s, influenced by the growth of
unions, government policy, and an increasing
awareness of the need to manage properly, man­
agement’s concern for and approach to problems
previously dealt with inadequately has been on
an ascending scale. The prevailing attitude of
the new generation of managers has been that
every organization consists fundamentally of


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JENE 1963

people and that the way to succeed competitively
is to so organize company policy and operation as
to tap fully the contribution of individual employ­
ees at every level.
Many union officials, over the years, have
tended to overlook this fundamental change in
management attitudes, and have tended to act
as if today’s problems were still the problems of
the 1930’s. Instead of the zeal and evangelism
the unions displayed during the period of their
greatest growth, we now see a relative conserva­
tism and formalized institutionalism. The staff
has shifted from unpaid, concerned volunteers to
the more detached, paid professionals. Leaders
have grown old in office, and both they and the
membership have lost some of the excitement of
early struggles in the latter-day security that has
been achieved.
To some extent, it could be argued that the
unions have entered a stage of ritual in their
development. As problems arise, many seek the
same remedies that worked 20 and 30 years ago.
Yet the changed conditions may not be dealt with
in old-fashioned ways. Management today has
grasped this fact more thoroughly than many
union leaders, and it has seized the initiative.
Organized Cooperation. Labor-management rela­
tions need to mature to the stage where organized
cooperation replaces reliance on power, and there
is greater reliance on fundamental agreements
about the nature of the problems confronting
both institutions. On both sides, there has to be
a greater acceptance of techniques and programs
designed to deal with particular institutional
problems and the problems of employees as
individuals.
A fundamental need is a better method of
communication between labor and management,
to promote better understanding by each of the
needs of the other. For example, there ought to
be a clear understanding of the economic facts
about the company, its markets, and its position
in those markets. In the interplay of economic
and social forces, no company can guarantee
for participants in the enterprise what it cannot
guarantee for the enterprise itself—absolute se­
curity and continuity of income. What it does
owe its employees, in addition to the obvious
“fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work,” and the

635

MANAGEMENT’S ADJUSTMENT TO CHANGE

competent exercise of the management function—
is honesty regarding the facts of the enterprise that
affect the employee’s ability to look out for his
own interests, opportunity and reward related to
ability and contribution over and above need,
and provision for sharing equitably the economic
burdens as well as the rewards of the operation.
In the area of adjusting to technological change,
both labor and management need to reexamine
their attitudes, policies, and techniques. Some
of these, worked out in the past, have outlived
their usefulness. For example, those devices
which are based on the premise of restricting the
rate of economic change cannot continue under
today’s conditions ; nor can obstructive make-work
practices by organized labor; nor can business
itself avoid a share of responsibility for employ­
ment planning, job relocation, and retraining.
We need to emphasize the advantages rather
than the disadvantages of technology. In fact,
a more rapid rate of economic growth and full
utilization of technological change are imperative
to our economic survival as a Nation.
These objectives will be accepted by workers
if it can be demonstrated that they are also com­
patible with worker security. We need, therefore,
a blend of public and private policies which will
enable the labor market to function more effec­
tively.

I believe there are some things we can and must
have to acheive what I prefer to call full “techno­
logical reemployment,” without hardship. And
these are:
1. The same degree of planning for jobs by the
individual company that is involved in planning
for the technological advance itself.
2. More and better retraining programs, both
by business and by community schools.
3. Better information on job opportunities and
strengthened public employment services.
4. Appropriate maintenance of income for the
temporarily dislocated worker through unem­
ployment compensation, supplemented by private
means.
5. Private and public financing for relocation
of qualified workers.
6. Elimination of improper hiring barriers based
on such factors as race, creed, sex, or age.
7. Intelligent cooperation between management
and labor to speed economic growth.
8. Profits adequate to provide investment
incentive.
The ultimate “policy” for worker security, as
it is for most other problems of practical action,
is the effective use of all our human instrumentali­
ties and mechanism, each in its proper role and its
proper way . . . the corporation, the union,
government, and the market place.

. . . a great many employers find it in their interest to provide training
for their employees and we can infer that such training will help those in the
median age ranges and with higher educational attainments to acquire specific
skills. Many more employees will receive job training this way than through
any governmental program, however grandly conceived.


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

— From a speech by George P. Schultz, Dean, Graduate School of Business,
University of Chicago, at the Annual Meeting of the Chamber of Com­
merce, April 30, 1963.

The Union Agenda for Security
Job and income protection have now supplanted other
benefit programs as chief union priorities; the con­
quest of insecurity, however, requires the fulfillment of
the full employment commitment.

J oel S e id m a n *
U n i o n p r i o r i t i e s have shifted over the past three
decades as the labor movement has sought to
solve the most pressing problems of its member­
ship within the context of collective bargaining,
supplemented by legislative action. Union organi­
zation is now much more widely extended than it
was at the beginning of this period. Union-man­
agement relations have managed to adapt to a
succession of economic changes. The first two
decades created program priorities directed first
toward depression, then toward the World War II
Government regulation and reconversion ; and the
Korean conflict and inflation pressed new items to
the head of the list until the 1950’s.
Whereas organizational needs for security and
workers’ desires for higher wages and protection
from illness and aging were leading issues in the
earlier years, in more recent times high and persistent
unemployment related to technological change has
confronted the labor movement of America
with its most dramatic challenge: To achieve the
greatest measure of job or income security possible
for workers without unduly restricting produc­
tivity and economic progress. With unemploy­
ment hovering just under 6 percent of the labor
force, with automation and rationalization steadily
eliminating large numbers of jobs while the labor
force continued to grow by more than half a
million persons annually, union objectives under­
went substantial changes until the emphasis had
shifted, by the end of the 1950’s, to programs to
provide greater job and income security.
Faced with declining profits (and in some cases
with increased competition from abroad), many
employers became increasingly determined to
lower costs and sought to eliminate or escape
work rules and practices inherited from the far less
competitive war and immediate postwar periods.

636


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

The problems facing both management and unions
were complicated in industries such as railroading
and coal mining that have suffered a decline in
demand. Workers displaced by technological in­
novation often found their skills obsolete, and
workers of middle age who found themselves un­
employed for any reason faced additional, some­
times insurmountable, barriers to obtaining new
employment. Such workers held legitimate claim
to the concern of both union and management.
Some companies planned technological innova­
tion long in advance and introduced it slowly so
as to minimize the dislocation of present employees.
Particularly in growth industries the dismissal of
employees could be kept to a minimum by
capitalizing on the normal attrition of the work
force and by retraining for other work some of
those whose skills became obsolete. In other
cases, the task of protecting the interests of dis­
placed workers fell in the first instance upon the
individual himself or on the labor movement, with
the burden ultimately resting, in many cases, upon
government agencies.
Though unions have retained the allegiance of
their members and remain in a strong bargaining
position in many of the country’s leading in­
dustries, it is apparent that the strength of the
labor movement has been eroded. Blue-collar
workers engaged in repetitive tasks, who have
long constituted a major part of the core of in­
dustrial union attachment, were among those
most vulnerable to the new technology, while the
growing army of white-collar workers were far
less receptive, especially at the technical and
professional levels, to union approaches. The
presence of a substantial body of unemployed
diluted the bargaining position of many parts of
the labor movement, while automatic or nearly
‘ Professor of In d u stria l R elations, U n iv ersity of Chicago.

THE UNION AGENDA FOB SECURITY

automatic processes immunized a number of
industries against union economic pressure.
The main varieties of union responses to worker
insecurity are: (1) Programs to increase or preserve
job opportunities and income security, (2) pro­
grams to allocate the remaining jobs equitably,
and (3) programs to ease the burden on those
displaced.
Job and Income Protection

The labor movement learned long ago in this
country as in others that it could not bar tech­
nological progress and that efforts to do so were
sure to fail. Instead, unions have sought to con­
trol the rate of technological advance, to minimize
its dislocating effects, to reduce the workweek, or
to obtain for workers—both those displaced and
those remaining in employment—a share of the
proceeds. Some unions, as on the railroads, have
fought a delaying action to preserve the largest
possible number of jobs, while others, as in coal
mining, have put no obstacles in the path of
technological progress. Union manning require­
ments, along with resistance to new materials and
output controls, have led to management charges
of obstructionism, particularly in railroading,
construction, printing, and entertainment. In
some of the cases, however, safety or reasonable
working speeds are objectives, along with the
creation or preservation of job opportunities.
In a direct approach to job protection, the Kailroad Telegraphers, hard hit by transference of
work to other crafts, general force reductions,
and the threatened closing of little used stations,
won an agreement from the Southern Pacific
Railroad in October 1961 that no more than 2
percent of a specified number of jobs could be
abolished in any one year; the settlement guaran­
teed 40 hours’ work or pay per week to men on the
extra board, and provided severance benefits for
laid-off employees. Similar issues led to a 30-day
strike against the Chicago & North Western
Railway in 1962, which was resolved by a similar
agreement, except that the carrier won the right
to abolish jobs, provided it gave 90 days’ notice
and severance pay according to length of service.
The differences in the settlements may be due
to the fact that the Southern Pacific had been
expanding its operations in a rapidly growing
i See M. D. Kossoris, “ Working Rules In West Coast Longshoring,”
Monthly Labor Review, January 1961, pp. 1-10.


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

637

section of the country, whereas the Chicago &
North Western had been retrenching.
A somewhat less rigid approach has been taken
by the Transit Authority of the City of New
York, which has agreed with the Transport
Workers that permanent employees will not be
laid off because of automation or other im­
provements in efficiency of operation but will be
assigned to other duties without reduction in pay.
Similarly, the recent New York City newspaper
strike settlement permitted the publishers to
set stock exchange tables with the use of outside
teletypesetter tape, provided no employees would
be laid off as a result; publishers will make savings
by reducing the force as printers leave their
service.
In the basic steel industry, the clause denying
companies the right to change local working
conditions even in the absence of technological
innovation was retained after figuring prominently
in the 1959 strike, though not all companies had
the clause or found it a burden. Nevertheless,
some job losses not related to technological
change have occurred in particular operations in
the recent years of low plant capacity use in
instances where management traded increased
production at a plant for the size of crew it
thought appropriate.
In the West Coast longshore industry, signifi­
cant because of its size and the flexibility of the
union’s approach, the employers’ association and
the International Longshoremen’s and Ware­
housemen’s Union reached an agreement in 1960
which gave the employers a free hand to intro­
duce laborsaving machinery and to modernize
work rules, in return for payments of $5 million
yearly for 5y2 years into a jointly managed fund.1
The fund is to be used to guarantee fully registered
longshoremen a specified number of hours’ pay
per week, to provide for a payment of $7,920 to
a man reaching 65 after 25 years of service as a
fully registered longshoreman, and to provide
supplemental pay to men who retire, on a volun­
tary or compulsory basis, at ages 62 to 64. This
agreement was preceded by substantial decasualization of the work force, which constitutes an
important difference between the labor force in
the industry on the East and the West Coasts.
Twice in late 1962, East and Gulf Coast dockworkers, organized in the International Long­
shoremen’s Association, struck over wages, wel-

638
fare, and pension issues—and the employers’
demand that work gangs be cut from 20 to 17
men. In their strike settlement, the parties
agreed to a Department of Labor study of the
manpower utilization and job security issue, to
be followed by further negotiations. If no agree­
ment is reached by July 31, 1964, the issue will go
to a panel for hearing.
Following a different approach, the Musicians
established Music Performance Trust Funds in
1948, placing a tax upon mechanical devices to
support personal performances by instrumental
musicians.2 Under the current agreement, record­
ing companies pay to a trustee from 1.2 to 2.9
percent of their manufacturer’s suggested retail
price, for free performances at educational,
charitable, or civic activities.
Reduced Working Hours. Much of the union
effort to increase the number of job opportunities
has taken the form of reduction in the hours of
work without a cut in take-home pay. Currently,
the labor movement as a whole is continuing its
push for shorter hours, an objective that finds
both management and the Kennedy Administra­
tion in opposition. A reduction of working hours
from 40 to 35 without reduction in earnings would
be bound to affect prices in many industries—
though the impact on prices would be lessened, of
course, if the change were made in steps over a
period of time. This objective will be pursued
through legislative means as well as through col­
lective bargaining. The United Automobile
Workers urges legislation to achieve a flexible
adjustment of the workweek based on the level of
unemployment, with weekly wages maintained at
the equivalent of 40 hours’ pay; the additional
cost, under the UAW proposal, would be reim­
bursed to employers from a special fund financed
by a tax on payrolls.
In the controversy over shorter hours, it is
sometimes forgotten that the 40-hour workweek
is no longer standard, shorter hours having al­
ready been achieved in a number of industries.
Akron rubber companies, for example, led by
Goodyear, instituted the 6-hour day and 6-day
week in 1930 in an effort to share the work. The
International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union
won its first 35-hour, 5-day agreement in 1933.
In the printing industry, the prevalent workweek
has long been shorter than 40 hours.3

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

New York City construction electricians, who
had enjoyed a basic 30-hour workweek since 1934,
won a basic 25-hour week in January 1962; under
both agreements, 5 hours of overtime were guar­
anteed weekly at time and a half. In the fall of
1962, construction electricians in Chicago won the
7-hour workday, and in a number of other indus­
tries the 37K- or 35-hour workweek has already
been achieved.
Another way of reducing hours of work, thereby
opening up job opportunities for the unemployed
and for new entrants to the labor force, has
been lengthening paid vacation periods. Once
limited primarily to salaried, white-collar workers,
paid vacations for manufacturing workers ex­
panded in the late 1930’s, with an employerfinanced, pooled vacation fund established in the
ladies’ garment industry in 1937. The freeze on
direct wage increases during World War II gave
a strong impetus to the spread of paid vacations.
The principle of paid vacations is now generally
accepted for blue-collar workers, except in indus­
tries where job changes are frequent and seasonal
layoffs common. Whereas the 2-week paid vaca­
tion was most common a decade ago, by the late
1950’s the 3- or 3%-week vacation maximum was
most widely in use, and at the present time, the
maximum is 4 weeks in a large and growing num­
ber of graduated vacation plans, with the 5-week
maximum found in some instances.4
In 1962, the United Steelworkers negotiated an
unusual vacation clause with the Continental Can
and American Can Companies, providing a 13week vacation every 5 years for employees with
15 or more years of service. Teamster local
unions in the New York City brewing industry,
which had already achieved a 35-hour workweek
with 4 weeks’ vacation after 5 years’ employment,
recently negotiated a “vacation security” clause
under which vacation time has been increased to
a maximum of 7 weeks for those with service over
25 years. For the first 2 years, the additional
weeks can be taken only as needed, under joint

* For more information on the Music Performance Trust Funds, the West
Coast Longshore Mechanization and Modernization, the Armour Automa­
tion Fund, and similar developments, see Thomas Kennedy, Automation
Funds and Displaced Workers (Boston, Harvard University, Graduate School
of Business Administration, 1962).
3Union Wages and Hours: Printing Industry, July 1,1961, and Trend 190761 (BLS Bulletin 1315,1962).
* Paid Leave Provisions in Major Contrads, 1961 (BLS Bulletin 1342, 1962).

THE UNION AGENDA FOR SECURITY

union-management decision, to prevent layoff; at
the end of that time, the unused time may be
taken by the employee at his own option.
The union campaign to reduce the hours of work
may take other forms. In its 1961 bargaining the
UAW listed the following major approaches, in
addition to any that management might suggest,
that it was prepared to explore in an effort to get
its unemployed members back to work:
Reduction of the workweek without loss in pay;
Reduction of the workday without loss in pay;
Reduction of the workyear without loss in pay ;
Early retirement; and
Control of overtime.5

While overtime, with its premium rate of pay,
is welcome to large numbers of workers, the UAW
has criticized some managements for scheduling
overtime rather than increasing the number of
workers on their payrolls. To discourage this
practice, for which it says penalty pay of time aud
a half is not a sufficient deterrent, the UAW pro­
poses double pay for overtime, with triple pay for
work above 10 hours a day or on Sunday.
Income Security for the Employed. Whereas the
movement toward shorter hours of work has as a
major objective the creation of additional job
opportunities, the effort to obtain work or wage
guarantees seeks greater income security for those
already on the payroll. Beginning in the latter
years of the last century, various types of wage
and work guarantees were extended by manage­
ment, usually in relatively stable consumer goods
industries. Following World War II, labor efforts
to obtain comparable guarantees in such industries
as automobiles and steel manufacturing led to the
extension of supplemental unemployment benefits,
beginning with the Ford-UAW agreement of 1955.
Work or wage guarantees have been developed
extensively in the meatpacking industry. Even
under the recent downward modification, the
Hormel plan, one of the oldest and best known in
American industry, still guarantees annually, to
every worker who establishes seniority, 1,872
work hours or the equivalent pay, with provision
that no one can be laid off without 52 weeks’
» Workers’ Problems Are Democracy's Problems: A Declaration of Principles,
Priorities, Purpose—UAW Special Collective Bargaining Convention,
April 27-29, 1961 (Detroit, United Automobile Workers, 1961), p. 29. See
also“ Special Bargaining Convention of the United AutoWorkers,” Monthly
Labor Review, June 1961, pp. 611-613.
« For text of this plan, see Monthly LaborReview, February 1963, pp. 151-160.


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

689

notice. In the sugar refining industry, the
Packinghouse Workers has attained a work guar­
antee of 52 weeks of 40 hours each year. In its
contracts throughout the packing industry, the
same union has a provision, first obtained in 1945,
that a worker who is not laid off by the end of a
working week enjoys a guarantee of 36 working
hours for the week that follows.
A number of other unions have negotiated some
sort of guarantee. Such guarantees are found in
the organized retail industry, where the contracts
of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union generally provide for 52 weeks’ pay yearly
for all full-time employees.
The Teamsters Union has obtained a number
of guaranteed wage plans, especially in the St.
Louis area, with a guarantee of 2,000 hours of
work a year applying to a varying percentage of
the work force in different plants. Laundry
workers in New York City, represented by an
affiliate of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers,
are guaranteed either 40 hours of work a week or a
weekly wage. A UAW contract with the Buffalo
Machinery Co. provides an annual salary for
shop workers, to be paid despite sickness, absence
for urgent personal reasons, or production dif­
ficulties. This represents the achievement, on
behalf of production employees of a small com­
pany, of the kind of income security enjoyed by
white-collar workers—a bargaining objective that
the UAW is seeking to obtain throughout its
industry. The UAW contract with the Air Re­
duction Sales Co. of Lima, Ohio, stipulates that
any employee who works at any time during a
workweek is guaranteed 40 hours of working
opportunity during that week or its equivalent
in pay.
An unusual plan to enlist the cooperation of
employees in production, providing them with
job and income security in turn, was adopted by
the Kaiser Steel Corp. and the United Steel­
workers in December 1962. The main focus of
the plan was on reducing the cost of materials
and supplies and encouraging employees to use the
most efficient methods by giving them an agreedupon percentage of the savings; one of the im­
portant features, however, was a guarantee of
jobs and income to participating workers.6
A few unions, particularly those in the needle
trades, have sought to increase job opportunities
for their members by promotion of their industry’s

640
products. Union label campaigns are another
device to promote the sales of unionized segments
of industry.
The Millinery Workers has engaged in other
unusual efforts to conserve jobs. In 1961, when
the Merrimac Hat Co. of Amesbury, Mass.,
found itself in a precarious financial position, the
union raised half a million dollars of capital funds
to become majority stockholder, thus preserving
the jobs of its 325 members in the company’s
employ. In 1954, when the Kartiganer Hat
Corp. was in financial difficulty, the union lent
$50,000 to the company and encouraged the
unionized employees to lend an additional $200
each, increasing the rescue fund to $180,000.
The latter firm, which is in a healthy position
today, has repaid the loan in full. The union has
also purchased one loft building and lent mortgage
money on a second, in order to preserve buildings
in which women’s hats were manufactured and
sold. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers, which
for many years has operated its own banks in
New York City and Chicago, has also extended
credit to employers in order to save jobs. In other
cases, as in the hosiery industry and in meat­
packing, union members have taken substantial
cuts in pay to dissuade employers from closing
their plants or from moving to lower wage areas.
Pressures on Government. The Federal Govern­
ment plays an important role in maintaining the
level of employment through, for example, wagehour legislation, foreign trade regulations, and
public works programs. Moreover, taxes and
subsidies, as in the case of transportation, affect
the relative ability of particular industries to com­
pete for consumer patronage.
In many of these legislative issues, such as
tariffs or subsidies, lines of interest follow industry
boundaries, with management and union in the
same enterprise or industry finding their objectives
identical—and sometimes opposed to those of
management and union in industries that are
competitive with their own. In other cases, as in
wage or hour legislation, the entire labor movement
is likely to be on one side of the controversy, with
management either united on the other side or
split into unionized and nonunion segments with
opposing interests. State or local government
may similarly affect the level of employment, with
similar alinements of union and management.

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1S63

In industries faced with growing foreign com­
petition, such as textiles or garments, employers
and unions are likely to cooperate in efforts to
persuade Government to impose tariff or quota
restrictions on imports, though other unions have
sought to educate their members to accept a free
trade position. In the lead and zinc industries,
the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers has sought
to protect domestic jobs through import quotas or
taxes, subsidies, stockpiling, and an international
agreement regulating world trade in these com­
modities. Railroad management and unions co­
operated to oppose the St. Lawrence Seaway, and
to urge an end to subsidies and the imposition of
taxes on competitive industries such as airlines or
trucking. Coal operators and the United Mine
Workers readily unite to protect their industry
from threats from competitive fuels. Ship­
builders and the unions of their employees join
to obtain Government programs for increased
shipbuilding, and management and unions in
the construction industry cooperate to increase the
volume of public works.
An example of divergent interests being pressed
before Government is the railroad industry, where
management has sought to solve its financial
problems in part through mergers, and the rail­
road unions have urged disapproval by the
Interstate Commerce Commission on the ground
that jobs would be eliminated. A similar division
occurs over another issue involving legislative
action—the level of the minimum wage. Here
the labor movement urges a raising of the level,
primarily to raise the wage costs of nonunion
concerns, thereby protecting the markets of higher
paying unionized firms, reducing the incentive for
them to relocate in nonunion areas, and increasing
the likelihood of raising unionized wages through
collective bargaining.
Equitable Allocation of Jobs

When the number of jobs in an enterprise
declines, unions are concerned over allocation of
those remaining. Here the area of disagreement
between management and union is likely to be
minimal, although differences often arise between
the relative weight to be accorded ability as
against seniority, and over the effect on efficiency
where “bumping” is permitted. Unions tend to
insist on a fairly rigid seniority system for layoffs,

THE UNION AGENDA FOR SECURITY

to enlarge the size of the seniority unit, to provide
for employment rights in other plants of the same
company, and to seek moving allowances where
such employment rights exist.
Not all unions establish seniority systems, how­
ever; where the job is of short duration, as in the
construction industry and some of the service
trades, hiring halls may be used as devices to
assemble information about jobs and distribute
work opportunities equitably. In the case of
some of the crafts in these industries, a combina­
tion of apprenticeship limitations, high initiation
fees, and the closing of the membership books
during periods of acute job shortage is used to
keep the supply of eligible workers in equilibrium
with the volume of jobs available. In certain
seasonal industries, as in the garment trades and
shoe manufacturing, a system of equal sharing of
work, once the newest employees have been laid
off, is used in slack times, rather than a straight
seniority system. Worksharing may be modified
however, by supplementary unemployment bene­
fit plans, since workers receiving such benefits,
combined with unemployment compensation, may
be better off than those working only part time.
Seniority is combined in a variety of ways with
preference to highly valued employees on the one
hand and with equal division of work on the other.7
The issue of job rights for displaced workers has
become important in the automobile industry, and
contract clauses providing for broadened seniority
rights or preferential hiring have been negotiated.8
Faced with problems of layoffs, unions generally
have sought to enlarge the size of the seniority
unit for this purpose, as by figuring seniority on a
plantwide rather than on a departmental basis.
In multiplant companies, similarly, efforts are
frequently made to obtain transfer rights, though
this causes conflicts of interest within the union
between the employee who transfers to a new loca­
tion and the employee already at the site. Where
substantial amounts of severance pay are obtain­
able under a contract, however, workers may
choose this in preference to transfer rights. The
7 See Sumner H. Slichter, James J. Healy, E. Robert Livemash, The Impact
of Collective Bargaining on Management (Washington, Brookings Institution,
1960), ch. 6, for a discussion of worksharing and layoff systems. This volume
also deals with other topics covered in this article, including severance pay,
pension plans, make-work rules, and union attitudes toward technological
change.
8 See Philip Taft, “ Interplant Transfers in the Automobile Industry,”
Monthly Labor Review, March 1963, pp. 276-277, for a discussion of the opera­
tion of such clauses.
686133— 63-------3


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

641
Packinghouse Workers established master agree­
ment seniority dates in its 1961 agreements
providing that, in the event of plant shutdowns or
permanent reductions of force, displaced workers
could move to any job in other plants that they
could perform, provided that the persons so dis­
placed had been hired after the seniority dates
established by the master agreement.
Under the current agreements in the basic steel
industry, an employment pool is established at the
bottom of the job classification structure. An
employee’s standing within this pool is based on
his total plant seniority without regard to other
seniority regulations, to guard against situations
in which long-service employees might be laid off
from some departments while juiior employees
were kept at work in others. These pool pro­
visions, operating within a single plant, are supple­
mented by intra- and inter-regional transfer ar­
rangements which are more limited in scope but
which extend job transfer rights from a depart­
mental or plant basis to a companywide basis.
Protection of the Displaced

A number of programs ease the burden on those
who are displaced by technological advance or
who lose their jobs for other reasons beyond their
control. Of particular importance are severance
pay, supplementary unemployment benefits, lib­
eralized pensions and early retirement provisions,
and retraining programs. In addition, there have
been several joint union-management efforts, of
which the Armour Automation Fund is perhaps
the best known, to study the human problems
caused by technological displacements.
Severance Pay. Recently, there has been increas­
ingly wide acceptance of the principle of severance
pay, the amount of which is usually linked to the
employee’s length of service. Some unions, such
as the Newspaper Guild, have long negotiated a
model contract clause providing that the employee,
upon termination of his employment, is to receive
a lump sum equal to 3 weeks’ pay for each year of
service. Some unions negotiate a graduated scale,
with workers receiving more severance pay per
year for service after perhaps 10 or 20 years. The
ILGWU negotiated an industrywide plan in 1960,
covering 450,000 garment workers, providing for
weekly payments of $12.50 to $25 to be paid
for as long as 48 weeks. Each eligible worker

642
also receives one-fourth of his total benefits in
a lump sum. The fund, planned to reach a total
of $10 million, is financed by employers’ con­
tributions of 0.5 percent of payrolls.
One of the highest benefit severance pay plans
was negotiated in 1962 by Trans World Airlines
in resolving the stubborn dispute involving the
Air Line Pilots Association and the Flight Engi­
neers incident to the reduction of jet cockpit
crews from four men to three. Incumbent
engineers were given priority to fill the third
cockpit seat, providing they qualified as pilots.
For those who decided against taking pilot train­
ing, or who failed the course, severance pay rang­
ing from $10,000 to $39,400 was provided. In
Hawaii, displaced longshoremen receive severance
allowances under ILWU contracts that sometimes
exceed $10,000, with the unusual provision that
men wishing to return to their country of origin—
usually the Philippines or Japan—may receive
free transportation.
Supplementary Unemployment Benefits. Supple­
mentary unemployment benefits, earlier referred
to, have spread widely since their adoption
in the automobile industry in 1955. Since then,
there have been constant efforts by unions to
increase the sums paid under the plans and to
lengthen the period of benefits. The 1961 General
Motors agreement, for example, raised the com­
bined payments under unemployment compensa­
tion and supplementary unemployment benefits
from 65 to nearly 75 percent of take-home pay, and
increased the benefit period from 26 (temporarily
39) weeks to 52.9
Pensions and Early Retirement. Recognizing the
difficulties confronting older workers who are
displaced, a large number of unions have sought
to ease the burden on them through pensions that
supplement social security benefits or that provide
for their wants until they are eligible for such
benefits. In some cases, early and liberalized
benefits are provided under union-management
pension funds in order to persuade senior em­
ployees to retire, thus securing job opportunities
for younger workers or preventing their displace­
ment. Though early retirement can be very
costly, it protects the group that would have
greatest difficulty finding other jobs. By late
1960, over 11 million workers, or 60 percent of
those under union contracts, were covered by

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

collectively bargained pension plans.10 Nearly
nine-tenths of 300 plans analyzed by the BLS in
the fall of 1959 permitted retirement under early
or disability retirement provisions. Three-fifths
of them provided for compulsory or automatic
retirement, or some combination of these involun­
tary provisions.11
One of the early union-management pension
plans was set up in the bituminous coal mining
industry as part of a general welfare program
financed by a royalty on tonnage mined. Under
this program, which also provided sickness, dis­
ability, and death benefits, miners who had worked
20 years in the industry were eligible for pensions
of $100 a month when they reached the age of 62.
More recently, however, as the fund has encoun­
tered financial difficulties, pension and welfare
benefits payable under its provisions have had to
be reduced. Such difficulties, to be expected in a
declining industry with large numbers of aged
former employees, illustrate the problems that
may be encountered in a nonvested, privately
negotiated plan, dependent upon revenue from a
single industry, as against a broadly based Gov­
ernment program supported by taxes.
Where small employing units predominate,
unions have negotiated industrywide pension
plans, permitting labor mobility without loss of
benefits while easing the financial burden on each
employer. The ILGWU set up an employerfinanced pooled retirement fund in 1943, and the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers has arranged,
through reciprocity among areas and branches of
its industry, for members who change jobs or move
to retain their rights to retirement benefits, pro­
rating the costs among the various funds involved.
Workers represented by the UAW at General
Motors and Ford since 1955 have had vested
pension rights. While some unions urge pension
plans with vesting, others do not, permitting the
loss of accumulated pension rights for workers who
leave the industry and the union. The Retail
Clerks in California has developed areawide pen­
sion programs, under which employees may shift
from company to company without loss of rights.
# This contract also established a short workweek benefit to provide pay
at 50 percent of the regular hourly rate for each hour lost below 40 for unsched­
uled short workweeks and 65 percent for most scheduled short weeks.
10 See Health and Insurance, and Pension Plan Coverage in Union Contracts,
Late 1960 (BLS Report 228,1962), p. 1.
11 Coverage of these plans was estimated at half total pension coverage.
See “ Early and Disability Retirement Under Collective Bargaining, 1959,”
Monthly Labor Review, November 1960, pp. 1176-1183 and “Involuntary
Retirement Provisions,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1959, pp. 855-860.

THE UNION AGENDA FOR SECURITY

Several other union-negotiated or union-spon­
sored pension provisions will illustrate the wide
variety of practices found in this field. The West
Coast longshore agreement, referred to earlier,
encourages voluntary retirement at age 62 with a
monthly benefit of $220, which is reduced when
the retiree becomes eligible for social security
benefits. Payments made under this provision are
subtracted from the retirees’ lump sum settlement.
The Central States, Southeast, and Southwest
areas pension fund of the Teamsters has recently
reduced the normal retirement age of covered
workers from 60 to 57. The retirement plans of
the Packinghouse Workers, amended in 1961, now
call for payment of $2.50 a month for each year of
service. An employee of 55 with 20 years of serv­
ice who is displaced because of technological ad­
vance or plant shutdown, draws his full pension
plus 50 percent until he is eligible for his social
security pension, at which time his payment from
the industry will be reduced to its normal amount.
Retirement is compulsory at age 65. The UAW
has negotiated comparable provisions in the auto­
mobile and farm equipment industries. Under
agreements of the Street and Electric Railway
Employes in Washington, D.C., and in St. Louis,
employees who cannot qualify for positions as a
result of changeovers from streetcar to bus opera­
tions are entitled to pensions. The Typographical
Union, whose members’ pension are paid from
union dues, is now seeking additional pension bene­
fits through collective bargaining.
In an unusual experiment, contracts of New
York District 65 of the Retail, Wholesale and
Department Store Union provide for trial retire­
ment for workers age 60 or older, who may retire
for as long as 6 months and then return to work
without loss of seniority or other benefits. The
union, which is opposed to compulsory retirement,
found that many members failed to take advantage
of voluntary retirement programs because they
feared that the reduced income would be insuffi­
cient for their needs, or because they were fearful
in other ways of their future in retirement. Most
of the two dozen members who have taken advan­
tage of trial retirement have chosen to remain
retired, the others returning to work for short
periods of time or on a part-time basis.
i* Monthly Labor Review, November 1962, pp. 1260-1261.
13 See Rennard Davis, “ Skill Improvement Training for Electricians and
Plumbers,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1961, pp. 1074-1080 for a discussion
of this program.


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

643
Retraining Programs. Unions have also sponsored,
sometimes alone and sometimes with industry,
government agencies, or both, a variety of pro­
grams to help prepare those currently employed
for more demanding jobs or to retrain workers
displaced by technological advance for skills more
in demand in American industry. Under the
rulings in some States, however, unemployed
workers who attend retraining programs lose their
right to unemployment insurance, since they are
considered unavailable for work.12 A great many
craft unions have supplemented apprenticeship
programs with efforts to develop journeyman job
skills or keep members abreast of changing tech­
nology. Perhaps the most elaborate such effort
sponsored solely by a labor organization is that
conducted by the Typographical Union, which
operates a $2,500,000 training center in Colorado
Springs, Colo., which has trained some 2,000
members in various new printing processes since
it opened several years ago. The International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which among
other educational projects has developed a 2-year
industrial electronics course, estimated in the fall
of 1962 that 50,000 journeymen members of the
union were then engaged in or had completed one or
more courses designed to improve their job skills.13
A number of unions have agreements with
employers which provide for retraining displaced
workers or create a fund to finance such training
programs. One of the most ambitious of these,
established in 1959 by Armour and Co. in coopera­
tion with the Packinghouse Workers and the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters, has sought to train
displaced workers for whatever skills seemed to be
in demand for which they had the necessary basic
qualifications. Several hundred workers have
thus far participated in retraining programs, with
inconclusive results. Nevertheless, such efforts
contribute to an understanding of the problems
involved in technological displacement and
retraining.
Another union-management venture, similar
in many ways to the Armour effort, was developed
in February 1962 by U.S. Industries, Inc., and
the Machinists, which have set up a Foundation on
Automation and Employment, financed by con­
tributions scaled to the sale or lease price of the
company’s automated machines, to study the
problems of workers affected by technological
change.

644
In 1961, International Good Music, in coopera­
tion with the IBEW, set up a trust fund, financed
by 5 percent of its receipts from the sales of
automated equipment and program service, for
retraining radio or television employees displaced
as a result of such sales. In other situations,
workers are retrained for jobs with the same em­
ployer, as when local transportation companies
change from streetcars to buses. The UAW has
proposed a program of aptitude tests, training
opportunities, and job preference, to facilitate
transfer of production workers to white-collar
vacancies with the same company. A local of the
Communications Workers of America has itself
subsidized testing of operators who might be dis­
placed by automatic equipment, to see whether
they have the aptitudes necessary for clerical jobs
with the company. Several operators whose tests
showed high aptitude were then tested by the
company and transferred to clerical work.
Conclusions

This review of union efforts to alleviate inse­
curity illustrates the wide diversity of programs
that have been undertaken, particularly in recent
years. Belying primarily upon collective bar­
gaining, but also seeking to influence govern­
mental action where appropriate, unions have
sought to preserve or increase the number of jobs,
to allocate declining job opportunities equitably
through the operation of seniority, and to provide
severance pay, retirement benefits, or retraining
to ease the lot of displaced workers. Though
most such measures find unions arrayed against
managements, in some instances labor and man­
agement in the same industry have joint interests
against rival industries. Still other issues, such
as the “bumping” rights of displaced workers or
the carrying of seniority to other plants of multi­
plant companies, reveal differences of interest
within union ranks, while measures such as the
raising of the statutory minimum wage may split
management groups. Struggles over jurisdic­
tional rights, on the other hand, find different
national or local unions in conflict with each other.
As a chronic problem of insecurity developed
in the postwar period, a wide variety of devices
in various industries and over a period of years
have been employed in efforts to solve the prob­
lems of job and income insecurity. Devices de­
veloped to deal with one problem have sometimes

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

MONTHLY LABOE REVIEW, JUNE 1963

been adapted to serve another purpose as well1
as with the use of bargained pension plans,
originally devised to supplement social security
benefits, to promote early retirement.
Faced with a general problem of job and income
insecurity, the leaders of each union have sought
to develop protection for their members in the
light of the particular situation. How successful
they are in this, as in other bargaining demands,
has depended upon many factors. Once a par­
ticular measure has been achieved in a key unionmanagement bargain in a leading industry, a
pattern-following process is set in motion in that
industry, along with a widespread tendency for
the device to be copied by or adapted to a number
of other industries.
Sometimes a farsighted management with a
sense of social responsibility has taken the initia­
tive in solving some of the problems of insecurity
that industrial developments have brought in
their wake. In other cases, the problems have
been beyond the ability of particular companies
and unions—or even of industries—to solve, and
have depended on governmental action.
Union-management programs in some cases have
been able to provide job security to those already
employed, although at the price of providing less
opportunity to the unemployed or to new en­
trants to the labor force. Efforts to provide
improved benefits to the unemployed or to those
past retirement age depend primarily on legis­
lative enactments, just as the development of a
full employment economy is a task for which
Government must take final responsibility. With
the failure of our economy to expand sufficiently
rapidly in recent years, unions have placed more
emphasis on Government programs to provide
job protection and encourage economic growth.
Even the achievement of a full employment
economy, however, would not solve all the prob­
lems of worker insecurity. Shifts would still
occur in the occupational structure of the country,
particular companies or industries would decline
as others expanded, and particular areas of the
country would experience a relative loss of job
opportunities. Unions would still seek as best
they could to provide income and job security
for their members. With greater security in the
economy as a whole, however, unions and man­
agement would be more likely to cooperate for
productive efficiency, with higher living standards
the reward for all.

The Strike and Discontent
The mounting effect of technological change on job security
practices and on plant and wage administration offers little
assurance of a decline in strikes over these issues which now
account for one-third of all stoppages.
J o seph

W. B loch *

I n t h e p r e f a c e to Strikes in the United States,
1880-1936, published in 1937, Commissioner of
Labor Statistics Isador Lubin, in line with a
traditional approach, characterized strikes in the
following terms:
A strike or lockout is an evidence of discontent and an
expression of protest. . . . The number of strikes and
their magnitude is, therefore, one indication of the degree
of industrial unrest existing at any particular time or
in any particular situation.
*

*

*

*

*

In general, strike statistics measure such unrest as pre­
vails under circumstances that lead workers to hope that
they may better their conditions or mitigate a worsening
of conditions through strike action.1

This view of strikes, although widely accepted
25 years ago, is rarely expressed today, at least as
a generalization. Instead, there is a tendency to
describe strikes as symptoms of temporary
malfunctionings of collective bargaining or as
“avoidable interruptions of operation,” or to
accept a certain level of strike activity as a neces­
sary accompaniment to industrial peace, or to
turn the tables completely and view each strike
as a breach of responsibility—that is, the public
replaces the strikers as the discontented.
If one assumes, as do most students of the
industrial scene, that dissatisfactions, if not dis­
content, are inherent in work, and that some degree
of opposition, if not conflict, is inherent in unionmanagement relations, it may be premature to
discard the old view entirely. Although labormanagement relations have greatly matured
during recent decades, the collective bargaining
structure, for all its growing institutionalism and
professionalism, is obviously by no means dis­
content-free and strikeproof. The purpose of this
article is to assess the Nation's strike record and
attitudes toward the strike in an attempt to
separate the strands of discontent and their

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

effects from institutional factors and bargaining
strategy. No precise weighing of the respective
aspects is possible, since the gray areas and the
overlap are so large. The analysis deals with
strikes in general, not, it must be emphasized,
with national emergency disputes, missile-site
strikes, and the like, which are special categories.
The Current Character of Strikes

If the volume of strike activity 2 serves as a
measure of discontent and unrest, the record for
the past 3 years (1960-62) marks a period of
sustained contentment and tranquility unmatched
in at least a generation, considering the size of
the labor force and the extent of union member­
ship. The number of stoppages 3 averaged 3,438
a year; the number of workers involved averaged
about 1,333,000; and strike idleness averaged
about 18 million man-days. All three indicators
were substantially below the levels for any com­
parable period since the late 1930's and early
1940's. Idleness as a percent of total worktime,
the most significant single measure of strike
activity, averaged 0.16 percent, the lowest 3-year
level since the depression years 1930-32, except
for the controlled war years 1942-44. As re­
flected in such aggregates, this was clearly an
exceptional period, not to be written off, as any
one year might be, as an accident of contract
expiration timing.
Even within the collective bargaining-union
organizing arena, it is easy to demonstrate the
low incidence of strikes in the aggregate. In

*Of the Division of Industrial and Labor Relations, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
1 BLS Bulletin 651, p. v
3 BLS statistics do not differentiate between strikes and lockouts and, for
the most part, the term “ strike” as used in reference to data in this article
is intended also to include lockouts.
3 BLS data include all stoppages involving at least six workers and lasting
at least 1 full day or shift.

645

646
1961, for example,4 1,517 stoppages developed
from the renegotiation of agreement terms out of an
estimated 100,000 contract expirations or re­
openings. In the frontier of union organization
and penetration, there were 513 strikes involving
only 36,300 workers. About 1,080 strikes,6 in­
cluding jurisdictional disputes, occurred during
the term of the approximately 150,000 agreements
in effect at any time during the year. The 17.5
million workers covered by union contracts lost
less than a full day each, on the average, through
strike idleness from any cause in 1961, and prob­
ably only about 1 out of 15 participated in or were
directly affected by a strike.
If trends in strike activity during the entire
postwar period were projected into the future,
further declines in aggregate volume might be
expected. With the many problems now facing
labor and management, however, only an optimist
who remained unshaken by the implications of
the recent longshore and New York newspaper
strikes would expect a substantial decline in the
immediate future. Moreover, industrial con­
flict, as the sociologists and psychologists look at
it, persists in its diverse fashion and is not likely
to disappear in the short run, whether or not it
finds an outlet in strikes. In this extraordinarily
peaceful 3-year period just concluded, there were
adverse indications, and it is to these that we
now turn.
One of the more puzzling aspects of strikes in
recent years has been the steady increase in
average duration since 1955. This is contrary
to often repeated assumptions that strikes in
general are getting shorter.6 From an average
(unweighted) of 18.5 calendar days in 1955,
duration has crept up to an average of 24.6 days
in 1962. During the past 3 or 4 years, average
duration has been at a level equaled, in modern
times, only during the organizing breakthrough
period of the late 1930,s and during the im­
mediate postwar period, when the magnitude of
union demands undoubtedly prolonged strikes.
One plausible reason is that the issues involved
in bargaining are expanding and becoming in­
creasingly complex. Although bargaining prom­
ises to become more complex before it gets simpler,
this reason does not necessarily reflect an under­
lying bed of discontent. The increasingly preva­
lent long-term contract may have contributed
to extending the duration of strikes simply by

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

accumulating too many unresolved issues too
long. Of a somewhat different order is another
reason sometimes offered for long strikes—the
availability of large union strike funds and strike
insurance for employers, both defensive (or ag­
gressive) measures in the parlance of conflict.
Strikes to obtain union recognition or to settle
the terms of a first agreement, which have a
pronounced tendency to last long, reflect an old
and unsophisticated conflict in which the termi­
nology of battle and discontent is still current.
There remain other less tangible reasons, in­
cluding the possibility, which cannot be dis­
missed offhand, that embitterments, personal
antagonisms, other remnants of past battles,
and unrest persist in sizable quantities. Strikes
over seemingly small matters that last far beyond
the point of economic gain to either party, or
of any other rational goal in the view of a baffled
public, are not uncommon.
The wide year-to-year changes in strike idleness
and number of workers involved, which charac­
terized the postwar strike picture until the past
3 years, were largely attributable to the impact of
major stoppages (over 10,000 workers), and they
masked rather persistent levels among smaller
strikes.7 This underlying layer of strike activity
continued with relatively minor variations during
1960-62. In other words, the favorable aspect
of the 1960-62 record, as previously described,
was created in large part by the lessening frequency
or impact of large strikes. This, of course, is all
to the good, especially if it signifies, as it may
well do in the case of steel, that in major situations
patterns of conflict or the habit of striking are
breaking up. The attention of the public and the
Government inevitably concentrates on the large
strikes and may be partly responsible for their
recent decline; even if their continued diminution
could be achieved, however, the stubborn character
of the underlying strike structure should dispel
any notions that the strike is becoming obsolete.
«Data for 1962, which differ little in the aspects for which 1961 data are
quoted in this article, will be presented in the July issue of the Review.
* The exclusion of stoppages lasting less than a full day or shift significantly
affects this total, but the point is not materially weakened by making allow­
ances for these brief walkouts.
6 This assumption found its way into the report to the President from the
Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Policy entitled “ Free and Re­
sponsible Collective Bargaining and Industrial Peace." See “ Report of Presi­
dential Committee on Pree Collective Bargaining,” Monthly Labor Review,
July 1962, pp. 767-770.
i See The Dimensions of Major Work Stoppages, 1947-59 (BLS Bulletin
1298,1961) or that title, Monthly Labor Review, April 1961, pp. 335-343.

THE STRIKE AND DISCONTENT

Another symptom of unease, possibly unrest,
may be found in the volume of stoppages arising
during the term of agreements. Few would deny
that the spread of grievance procedures and
grievance dispute arbitration ranks among the
great postwar innovations in labor-management
relations.8 The considerable achievements of
these institutions have obscured the realization
that they are not universal, that they do not apply
to all sources of disputes and conflict, and that
they do not dispose of all problems to which they
are directed. At any rate, in 1961, there were
1,084 stoppages during the term of agreements,
of which 363 grew out of disputes over plant
administration matters, 315 out of interunion or
intraunion disputes, and 145 out of job security
disputes. Resulting idleness accounted for about
12 percent of the year’s total. This incidence
conceivably represents only a minute fraction of
the volume that could be expected in the absence
of grievance and grievance arbitration provisions.
On these speculative grounds the volume might
be dismissed as inconsequential, were it not for
the nagging possibility that it may be increasing.
Unfortunately, data prior to 1961 are not avail­
able; the question and its implications thus must
be left hanging.
Changing Issues

Another way of evaluating the changing char­
acter of strikes and their elements of discontent
is through a study of trends in major issues.9 It
may be argued, with justification, that the stated
issues in disputes are not the real “reasons” for
strikes. Reasons, if at all susceptible to analysis,
are deeply buried and cannot be excavated, except
possibly on a case-by-case basis. Issues, on the
other hand, are what the parties say they are,
and they can be readily classified and counted.
In the American system of collective bargaining
in which strikes are not called for political pur­
poses or deliberately to harm the employer, the
union’s goal is a settlement and a return to work;
issues, not reasons, are argued by the parties and
s The Bureau of Labor Statistics is currently analyzing the grievance and
arbitration provisions of union agreements for publication in 1963.
9 For the purposes of this article, the analysis of changing issues is based
solely on the number of stoppages, not workers involved or man-days of idle­
ness. Since the categories used have not been consistent over the years, some
rearrangement was necessary.


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

647

thus comprise a significant part of the facade of
strikes seen by the public. Issues may, however,
change in the course of a strike.
It is difficult to grade issues in terms of the
relative degree of discontent or insecurity they
may reflect, since circumstances differ so markedly
in time and place, but it seems plain that strikes
to obtain general wage increases, fringe benefits,
hour decreases, or their combinations, would not
rank high in such a scale in a high-wage economy.
Throughout the postwar period, these were the
predominant issues in strikes, fluctuating around
40 percent of the total on a fairly steady level.
Wide year-to-year changes in the number of such
stoppages show no decisive trend if the Korean
conflict period is omitted. The postwar level was
high, as measured against the past. In the long
sweep, the trend of these strikes parallels, with
occasional sharp short-term fluctuations, the
decline and the rise of the trade union movement
since 1920 and may reflect the strength and, in a
sense, the fruits of organization achieved in
many instances through another type of strike.
In contrast, strikes to prevent a wage cut or an
increase in hours or both, probably the most
desperate type of strike, have all but disappeared.
There were only 14 such strikes in 1961, 14 in
1960, 16 in 1959; in only 2 postwar years did they
exceed 1 percent of the total. Such strikes have
never been experienced by the vast majority of
today’s union membership and probably have
been forgotten by a large segment of the public,
yet they occupy a prominent place in the history
of strikes between 1881 and the late 1930’s. Dur­
ing the depression periods 1921-22 and 1930-32,
they accounted for up to 50 percent of all strikes.
The desire on the part of many employers to reduce
wages in the press of business adversity has not
disappeared, although such an act may not be as
urgent as in the past and is certainly less feasible;
the trade union movement would claim credit for
this gap between desire and action. While few
would wish a reverse ratio, the relatively high
incidence of strikes for general wage and fringe
advances and the rarity of wage cuts sets the
stage for adverse reaction to strikes in general.
Strikes over union organization issues (recogni­
tion, union security, strengthening bargaining
position, discrimination against union members,
etc., often accompanied by economic issues)
historically have taken place on the frontiers of

648
the spread of unionism. They tend to carry over,
even to this day, the language of conflict which
characterized the early development of labormanagement relations in the United States.10
From a relatively low level in 1932 (yet second to
wage cut strikes in that year), the number of union
organization strikes climbed rapidly to an alltime
high in 1937. The second highest level was
reached in 1941, followed by a sharp drop in the
war years 1942-43. The third highest level was
reached in 1946. Since then, at least partly under
the influence of the Taft-Hartley Act, the number
has sharply declined, reaching the lowest level
since 1932 in 1960 and 1961. As a percent of all
strikes, union organization strikes have dropped
to virtually their lowest level since the turn of the
century. The postwar decline in strikes over
matters relating to union organization may be
attributed to, or reflected in, the relative stability
in prevalence and type of union security provisions
and the failure of the trade union movement to
expand. Since unions plan to advance upon the
larger strongholds of nonunionism (white-collar
employment in particular) with a strike-deempha­
sizing approach, a continued withering of union
organization strikes seems likely.
Jurisdictional disputes and disputes between
rival unions that result in a work stoppage have
roots in worker concern over job security and
employment opportunities, but they have also
been nourished by interunion battles in which
something other than the jobs of members was at
stake. Jurisdictional and rivalry strikes have
increased during postwar years to new high levels;
indeed, they reached their peak after the merger
of the AFL and CIO in 1955.11 In 1961, there
were over 300 strikes of this type, the highest
ever recorded. Sympathy strikes, a low-keyed
aspect of union cooperation in the United States,
persist at hardly noticeable levels, but show no
signs of disappearing.
Two important categories of strike issues, which
can be grouped only under such broad terms as
“other wage practices” and “other working condi­
tions,” generally relate, more intimately perhaps
than the issues previously discussed, to plant
operations, to the day-to-day workings of unionmanagement relations, and to the problems that
grow out of grievances and that provoke grievances.
“Other wage practices” would include disputes
over incentive systems and standards, job evalua­

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

tion, job classification and rates, downgrading,
and other wage-rate determination or administra­
tion matters; “other working conditions” would
include the host of issues relating to job security
(seniority, layoff, transfer, subcontracting, new
machinery, etc.) and plant administration (phys­
ical facilities, safety, supervision, work assign­
ments, work rules, discipline, etc.). In the
fluctuating volume of strikes since the early
years of World War II,12 the two groups of issues
have moved along closely parallel lines, both
peculiarly sensitive to wartime conditions and
controls. Each category reached an alltime peak
in 1944, declined in the immediate postwar years,
rose again during the Korean emergency, and has
declined since then. During the entire post­
war period, excluding Korea, “working conditions”
issues fluctuated within a range of about 20 to 25
percent of all stoppages, while “other wage
practices” were the major issues in 8 to 12 percent
of the strikes. Together, they have accounted
for almost a third of all stoppages in recent years,
placing them second only to general wage issues.
The prospect of mounting problems induced by
the impact of technological change on job security
practices and on plant and wage administration
offers little assurance of a future decline.
Attitudes of the Participants

The view of the strike structure just drawn is
not what the participants normally see. Unions,
employers, and workers see primarily the strikes
in which they are, or may be, involved or which
directly affect them; the press and the public tend
to concentrate on the big strikes, the strikes in
essential industries, the irritating strikes, the pro­
longed strikes; possibly only the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service and the State mediation
agencies are thoroughly familiar with such a view
of the strike structure, although they might
analyze it differently. In the remainder of this
article, some observations are offered on current
attitudes or postures of unions, managements,
union members, the public, and Government as
T h e instruction s issued b y un ions on how to organize an d b y em ployer
organizations a nd advisers on h ow to resist organization are still u n abash ed ly
m ilitaristic.

11 An improvement in BLS coverage, stimulated by a stronger and more
open approach to jurisdictional and rivalry disputes on the part of the Fed­
eration and the construction industry, may account for part of this increase.
12 Data or other wage practices are available only since 1942.

THE STRIKE AND DISCONTENT

seen against this background. The qualifications
and limitations of such general observations are
too obvious to require listing.
The Unions. The union approach to the strike
appears to be in the process of slow change.
During the postwar period, trade unions have been
largely collective bargaining oriented, seeking a
progressive expansion in the scope of agreements,
“good” contracts, and fair administration from
employers who often have substantially different
ideas on these matters. Although the labormanagement antagonisms which sparked the
organizing and recognition campaigns of the
prewar years, and which inevitably survived them,
have been disintegrating, the past is too recent
not to continue to exert some influence on union
behavior insofar as strikes are concerned. Many,
if not most, of the leaders of national unions and
of the AFL-CIO are veterans of the campaigns of
the 1930’s. The desire of many unions to build
large financial reserves and special strike funds
is based, at least in part, on a traditional instinct
for preparedness. The basic structure of unionofficer-member relationships and discipline was
established during conflict periods. The persist­
ence of an instinct for opposition, so readily
aroused by certain types of management behavior,
is nurtured by memories of the past, even if it
were to receive nothing more to feed on. Yet,
except for isolated spots outside the mainstream
of the labor movement and established collective
bargaining, ideologies are dead, violence is vir­
tually gone, and the strike has shed much of its
emotional overtones. Except for occasional “wild­
cats,” the strike is largely under the control of the
individual unions, and its use is more likely to
reflect strategy than stress. The strategy, to be
sure, is that of the local or national unions, not of
the AFL-CIO or the labor movement as a whole.
Sensitive to members’ actual and possible
discontents, the labor movement as a whole, with
some exceptions, is not about to disown its use of
the strike in peacetime, even if, at times, it may
deny parentage. It not only remains the ultimate,
if undesirable, weapon in the type of collective
bargaining practiced in the United States; it is,
to the labor movement, still the ultimate test of a
free society. Yet, as the previous data have
suggested, not the strike but its derivative, the
overt or implied threat of strike, has become
686133— 63-------4


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

649
labor’s indispensable tool. This, in concert with
a desire on the part of unions to avoid strikes, pro­
vides motivation for the peaceful renegotiation
of all but a small fraction of contracts expiring
each year and for the widespread acceptance of
grievance arbitration. Impartial industrial rela­
tions experts have long acknowledged this role of
strikes and the threat of strikes, and Federal
legislation recognizes the right with relatively
little restriction outside the railroad and airline
industries and in national emergencies. Perhaps
the principal explanation for the self-consciousness
on the subject of strikes displayed by union
spokesmen in recent years lies in the reluctance of
the public to accept stoppages as an integral part
of established collective bargaining, but recogni­
tion of the dilution of basic discontents may be a
contributing factor.
The Employers. Since strikes are directed against
employers, it is natural for employers to abhor
strikes, not only because of the costs and inter­
ruptions involved but because of the inference of
discontent inherent in a strike. Employers or
managers, like union leaders, remember the past
and remain sensitive to behavioral patterns
carried over from other times and circumstances.
They, too, put experience to practical uses.
Through more aggressive, more professional per­
sonnel administration, many companies seek to
get at the roots of employee discontent and to
neutralize adverse developments. They con­
tribute toward institutionalizing the contractrenegotiation strike and removing its sting as an
expression of discontent by closing down opera­
tions (rather than attempting to hire replace­
ments) and by remaining on good terms with
strikers in diverse ways—paying vacation bene­
fits and insurance premiums, sometimes providing
coffee and shelter for pickets, and so on. Within
the scope available to them, managements learn
how to plan production around a possible strike
situation. They balance their own dread of a
strike against the union’s, and sometimes “take”
a strike for tactical purposes. It has become the
practice in recent years, among commentators on
the labor-management relations scene, to refer to
management’s “hardening of attitudes,” interp­
reted as an increase in obduracy, not in bargaining
skill, as if it were a general attribute. Although
there are unquestionably some outstanding cases

650
which may have a contagious influence, the strike
data previously presented lend very little support
to this “hardening” hypothesis, at least up to
1963. Support is not forthcoming from other
points. Undoubtedly irked from time to time by
unfavorable arbitration decisions, few companies
have seriously sought an end to grievance arbi­
tration. Although management frequently frets
about the price paid for the assurances offered by
long-term contracts, their prevalence is increasing
and their durations are lengthening, largely at
management’s insistence.
Unity among unions and union locals, long
envied or castigated by employers, has its counter­
part in the employer association with bargaining
functions, which is still, despite innovations, basic­
ally a device available to employers to counteract
“whipsawing.” Multiemployer agreements, it is
estimated, account for about a third of total agree­
ment coverage, a ratio that has not changed
significantly since World War II, but formal
agreements do not take into account the rise of
informal, or even undercover, cooperation through
which strategy and data are swapped. Modern
union-association bargaining tends to pit profes­
sionals against professionals, union reserves against
association reserves, and union unity against
association unity. It would seem that a more
aggressive approach among employer associations,
symbolized by the use of the joint lockout and by
strike insurance, may be developing, but these
techniques still have relatively minor importance
in the whole picture.
Union Members. Since the principal outlet for
the discontents of union members is in collective
bargaining, it seems necessary to emphasize that
collective bargaining agreements are negotiated
by union representatives and managements, that
with or without strikes they are essentially prod­
ucts of compromise, and that despite their steadily
increasing size and scope they do not, and can
never, cover all the areas of possible discontent.
The day-to-day administration of employeremployee relations, moreover, is channeled into
grooves which, under the terms of most agree­
ments, either eliminate consideration of workers’
grievances not involving the interpretation or
application of the agreement or, if they allow such
grievances, provide no terminal point in arbitra­


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

tion. The union typically makes the decision as
to how far a grievance dispute will be carried. In
this institutionalization of labor-management re­
lations 13and of industrial law, it would seem that
the individual worker (with his own list of frustra­
tions and inequities, both real and fancied) re­
ceives only those satisfactions which this type of
representative government affords. In the aggre­
gate, these satisfactions sustain and justify the
trade union movement and collective bargaining;
more to the point, they provide the grounds for
worker support without which most strikes would
be hopeless ventures, although it may be reasoned
that the greater the sum of satisfactions the lesser
will be the inclination to strike for more.
Nonetheless, outlets will be found for any sub­
stantial residue of unresolved work-related dis­
contents. One such outlet is the unauthorized
“wildcat” strike; another is the union itself. To a
certain degree, the agreement and its administra­
tive machinery (unless it stalls) comprise a buffer
shielding management from employee discontent,
which then may be directed toward the union and
its leaders. This redirection of discontent, along
with other factors, may result in changing the
leadership, casting aside one union for another,
refusal to ratify agreements,14reluctance to pay or
increase dues, or simply in apathy insofar as union
affairs are concerned. The consequences maybe
healthy or disruptive; in this context, it might be
noted that union members traditionally lag be­
hind their leaders in accepting and adjusting to
technological change, and they show no over­
whelming appreciation for restraint in wage
bargaining, even in periods of wage controls.
The Public. There may be little room for doubt
as to how the public feels about strikes that affect
national health or safety, but deciphering the
public attitude toward strikes in general is often,
in practice, a subjective exercise. The assumption
13 There was a time when impromptu workers’ groups and employee com­
mittees, which sometimes shunned the designation of “ union,” could form,
solicit help, score a point or fail, and dissolve, all without attracting the
attention of the outside world. This may still be happening, but the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act defines all such groups and com­
mittees in the trade limits of the act as “ labor organizations,” and thus they
are required to submit reports and observe the proper procedures required of
more formal organizations.
14 William E. Simkin, in “ Today’s Topics at the Bargaining Table,”
Business Horizons (Indiana University, School of Business), Summer 1962,
p. 78, notes that “ we have been experiencing a mounting number of referendum
rejections of negotiated settlements, even in instances where local union
leadership has been instrumental in achieving the settlement.”

THE STRIKE AND DISCONTENT

that the public dislikes strikes is hardly a debatable
one, since the tactic implicit in most strikes is to
withhold goods or services; the significant ques­
tions, however, relate to the degree of dislike,
changes in this level, and its effect. Every strike
has its own public, and many have several (e.g.,
different classes of consumers, suppliers, competi­
tors, local merchants, other managements, and
other unions) which may be visualized as forming
concentric layers of involvement. The very mul­
tiplicity of publics and the variety of reactions
possible in each render meaningless such gener­
alities as “the public exaggerates,” “the public is
apathetic,” or “the public is increasingly intoler­
ant,” although such findings may well apply to
specific strikes and specific publics. Depending
on one’s inclinations, it may be argued, for ex­
ample, that public intolerance is increasing because
strikes are growing longer or, conversely, that
strikes are growing longer because the public is
increasingly apathetic.
On the other hand, the existence of a changing
general public attitude cannot be dismissed as a
factor in the current strike picture on the grounds
that there are too many publics and that their re­
actions cannot be adequately measured, if the other
participants act as if a distinct change in public
attitude had taken place. Unions and manage­
ment may not sample general public opinion, but
they do read newspapers; considered all together—
the press, impartial observers, unions, manage­
ments, and Government—it would appear that
the assumption widely prevails that the public
has been increasingly disturbed by, and has be­
come increasingly intolerant toward, all strikes.
The reasons and the degree of feeling are variously
interpreted. Yet, while public reaction may now
be more of a factor in union and management
strategy than in the past, those who would rely
on a certain sustained reaction in a specific
situation continue to do so at their own peril.
Government. The paradox of increasing govern­
ment anxiety about strikes in the face of a
long-term downward trend in strike activity can
be explained only by reference to international


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

651
and economic issues not ordinarily considered
within the immediate framework of labor-manage­
ment relations. Government officials outside
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service,
to the extent that they become directly or closely
involved in strikes, have been concerned mainly
with “national emergency” disputes and with
similar types of disputes which could not be
covered by Taft-Hartley procedures, either because
of the act’s definition or because the formal pro­
cedures were not appropriate to the dispute. If
there is now a single dominant attitude toward
strikes in general, it is that strikes are wasteful,
they they are avoidable, and that the parties
have a responsibility to avoid stoppages “in the
public interest.” This is, essentially, a working
approach to strikes; it does not attempt to ex­
tinguish real discontents with which Government
itself is deeply concerned. The Taft-Hartley
Act assigned to the Federal Mediation and Con­
ciliation Service the duty to assist parties in dis­
putes to “prevent or minimize” stoppages and
established the mechanism of advance notice to
FMCS and State mediation agencies of intent to
terminate or modify an agreement. The extent
to which mediation agencies have helped to
prevent or shorten contract renegotiation strikes
is an important, if unmeasurable, factor in postwar
strike developments, as is the contribution of
mediators toward diluting the emotionalism and
the personification of issues that frequently
attend bargaining and strikes.
Since the early 1930’s, the Government has
tackled the basic discontents of working men
and women through a variety of methods dis­
cussed in other articles in this volume. The trade
union movement, pressing for but never satisfied
with minimum legislation, sought and obtained
additional benefits from employers, often through
strikes. At the present time, in the early flood
of job security problems created by a rapidly
changing technology, union leaders are becoming
increasingly aware of the limits of collective
bargaining and look to Government for solutions.
The future of the strike in the United States may
be determined, in part at least, by this issue.

Where bargaining relationships are established, unions
have greater security today than was ever anticipated, but
where unions are weakest, they have not had the legal support
they need to perm it workers an effective selection of agent.

The Security of Worker Institutions
G eorge W . B ro oks *
T h e o u t s t a n d i n g a c c o m p l i s h m e n t of the Amer­
ican labor movement is the establishment of the
“rule of law” in the employer-employee relation­
ship. Wage increases and other economic
objectives may have more frequently provided the
drive for union organization and collective bar­
gaining, but the most significant and lasting
contribution of the trade unions since 1933 is the
shift from unilateral determination of the condi­
tions of employment to an elaborate legislative,
administrative, and judicial procedure in which
the worker himself plays a meaningful role. The
idea of the rule of law has been, at least in part, the
objective of every local and national union for more
than a century, but it was not until the National
Labor Relations (Wagner) Act made collective
bargaining our national policy that the rule of
law was extended to the citadel of U.S. industry.
The rule of law, which began as a regulation of
hiring and discharge, has been extended to almost
all aspects of the employment relationship,
including the administration of pension and
health and welfare plans and the response to
technological change. This accomplishment, in a
day in which the labor movement is subject to
increasing criticism, is almost universally accepted.
The influence of the unions extends far beyond
the boundaries of formal organization. Partly to
avoid union organization, but even more because
union organization has become a permanent part
of our way of life, large numbers of employers
whose workers are unorganized imitate the

652


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

practices of organized companies. Some even
establish “grievance machinery,” although such
devices are likely to be spurious.
Traditionally, the establishment of a rule of
law has been a principal objective in the American
worker's search for security. The very word
“security” has meant protection from arbitrary
or capricious employer action and the creation of
a set of reliable, predictable expectations. More­
over, this is the only aspect of security for which
American workers have been able to create effec­
tual organization. In West Europe, labor move­
ments have developed cooperatives and political
parties together with the trade unions, and secu­
rity is pursued along all three lines. In the United
States, the major governmental security pro­
gram—the Social Security Act—was inspired and
engineered outside the labor movement, at first
even without the help of the unions.
This is not to say that the labor movement is
currently uncommitted to economic security
through Government action. The unions do pay
attention to legislation and support political edu­
cation, but as an auxiliary function. The national
unions are organized fundamentally for the pursuit
of collective bargaining objectives. They are not
readily adapted to other purposes.
The remainder of this discussion will focus on
the institution built for the purpose of pursuing
and protecting economic security through collec­
tive bargaining, namely, the trade union.
♦V isiting Professor, N e w Y ork State School of Industrial and Labor
R elations, C ornell U n iv ersity .

THE SECURITY OF WORKER INSTITUTIONS

Acceptance of the Union Institution

Almost everyone is now prepared to accord the
unions a permanent place in our society. If work­
ers are to be freed from management caprice, they
must have institutions which organize and artic­
ulate their own aspirations. The right to or­
ganize and the right to representation require that
labor organizations be given legal protection from
the assaults of management. The Wagner Act
established this view as national labor policy.
The prohibition of unfair labor practices was then
buttressed by the principles of majority rule and
exclusive representation. Taken together, they
gave the unions, as institutions, a large measure
of security.
An adequate assessment of the current position
of the unions requires a reminder of the relevant
philosophy of the Wagner Act and of the condi­
tions to which it was intended to be responsive:
First, workers are entitled to a voice in the de­
termination of their own employment conditions,
including that array of goals embraced in the idea
of “security.”
Second, the union and collective bargaining are
the ideal instruments for articulating the aspira­
tions of workers. The machinery of the union
provides for the formulation and achievement of
goals by workers themselves. For this reason, the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is care­
fully excluded from any voice in determining the
terms of collective bargaining agreements.
Third, Federal law is necessary to protect unions
which otherwise are unable to maintain them­
selves against a determined antiunion employer.
Finally, the goals of the workers and the goals
of the unions are one and the same; security for
one is security for the other.
Every retrospective anatysis of the Wagner Act
agrees that its authors correctly discerned the
remedies for the conditions of their time. Our
current difficulties arise because the conditions
have in some respects been fundamentally altered.
The Union’s Position Today

The most striking change since 1933 has been
in the legal and economic position of the unions,
1 R obert M ichels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical
Tendencies of Modern Democracy, translated b y E den and Cedar P au l (N ew
Y ork, D o v er P u b lication s, In c., 1959).


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

653

the national unions in particular. The end
result of many different forces and events has
been increased security for the established union
and a consequent alteration of its relations with
the employers and with its members. The
principal forces or causes at work have been
impersonal economic and political changes which
have created larger and larger bargaining units,
more and more centralization in the collective
bargaining process, and increasing complexities
(or apparent complexities) in the agreement itself.
In consequence, many workers have been divorced
from significant participation in, or control over,
the collective bargaining process, even where
neither members nor officers intended this result.
Thus the central Wagner Act assumption—that
the union provides direct, responsive, continuous
representation—is no longer completely valid.
And the more this is true, the less accurate is the
assumption that the enhancement of the security
of the union may be equated with the objectives
of the workers, including their own security. It
may or may not, but certainly the assumption
made in the Wagner Act is not automatically
true.
Labor organizations are no exception to the
general proposition that organizations develop
lives of their own, that large and successful organi­
zations become profoundly concerned with their
own perpetuation and growth, and that the pursuit
of these objectives is not necessarily consistent
with, and may even be opposed to, the objectives
for which the organization was created. Michels’
general thesis, first proposed in 1916, that estab­
lished labor organizations tend always toward
oligarchy is by now firmly established.1
The “ security of the union” (again, particularly
the national union) thus has quite different
meanings to different people. The elected or
appointed union official finds it difficult, at least
in his own organization, to distinguish between
the security of the union and the security of the
workers it represents. It would be surprising if
it were any other way, and even more surprising
if his concept of security for the union did not
include a relatively impregnable position for
himself and his entourage. He will equate the
security of the union with an absence of challenge
to the full-time officers and representatives of the
union and will do everything in his power to limit
the possibilities of such challenge even when, or

654
perhaps especially when, the challenge is based
upon dissatisfaction with the kind of representation
which they have given.
A union leader who could not identify his
personal interest with those of the organization
would probably be made of poor stuff. On the
other hand, in a democratic society, it is not
necessarily wise for everyone to agree with him,
least of all the members of his own organization.
They also want unionism protected, but they see
the issues in different terms.
In the absence of significant contrary evidence,
we take for granted that most employees who are
represented by unions do not wish to see the force
of unionism removed from the employer-employee
relationship. Even many unorganized employees
would not wish to see unions disappear. For both
the organized and unorganized, however, this does
not necessarily mean adherence or loyalty to par­
ticular unions and certainly need not involve
personal loyalty to specific union leaders. Work­
ers might fear, hate, or despise the union leader
who speaks for them and still not wish to “go
nonunion.” They might welcome and embrace
the results of autocratic unionism and still resent
the autocracy. Some (and they are apparently
joined by numerous representatives of manage­
ment) apparently believe that there is some
direct connection between a lack of democracy
and an abundance of economic benefits.
Forces Increasing Union Security

Public policy, therefore, cannot concern itself
solely with the simple question of whether the
union ought to be secure. The question of union
security needs to be critically examined to discover
those ways in which it does or does not contribute
to the security of the worker and to his new status
acquired mainly through union efforts. For both
Government and management have seen fit to
surround national unions with protective walls.
They have reinforced the tendencies toward cen­
tralism and thrown their weight on the side of
minimizing the challenge to established unions and
established union leadership.
N LRB Decisions. The Government has strength­
ened central control in the unions in the best of
causes—the cause of stability in industrial rela­
tions. Although the annual reports of the Na­

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

tional Labor Relations Board in the 1930’s demon­
strated a steady awareness of the problem of
balancing freedom of choice against stability in
labor-management relations, in the end, the
Board’s weight was thrown on the side of stability
in so many ways as to put established union
leadership in a nearly impregnable position.
In retrospect, it appears that the key decisions
were made when the NLRB was suddenly and
embarrassingly confronted with the fact of rival
unionism. Never did an agency carry out its
duties more reluctantly than did the Board when
the rise of the Congress of Industrial Organiza­
tions forced it to deal with disputes between
unions. But once the step was taken, the whole
arsenal of measures for protecting the union
against management—including exclusive repre­
sentation, majority rule, protected certification,
and multiplant unit determinations—was avail­
able to give established unions protection against
rival unions and to insulate union officialdom from
attack inside the union.
The “contract bar” doctrine is an example.
This doctrine was first adumbrated around the
necessary and obvious judgment that a union
ought to have protection for a reasonable period
of time after winning an election in order to cope
with a management which might be recalcitrant.
Virtually all of its present significance, however,
in the light of the current trend for long-term
contracts, is that it prevents any opposition group
to the established leadership of the union, whether
inside or outside, from seeking a change in repre­
sentation except during relatively brief periods at
infrequent intervals. Only recently, the Board
has increased from 2 to 3 years the period during
which a contract may protect a union from
challenge,2no matter what degree of dissatisfaction
may exist.
This change had the support of unions and
employers. Most of the unions within the AFLCIO, party to the no-raiding agreement, have
become convinced that elimination of interunion
raiding is not only in their own best interests, as
incumbent officers and incumbent unions, but also
in the best interests of the country. Employers,
for reasons of their own, have the same preoccu­
pation with preserving the status quo.
2 General Cable Corp. and International Union of Electrical Workers (139
NLRB No. 111).

THE SECURITY OF WORKER INSTITUTIONS

A far more important grant of security from
Government to the unions stems from the pro­
tection of multiplant (including multiemployer)
units from challenge except on the basis of the
entire bargaining unit. These multiplant units
are not usually established by the Board on the
basis of economic considerations inherent in an
industry, but by agreement of the parties. When
the Board holds that no election may be held in a
multiplant unit (which may be as large as a quar­
ter of a million workers spread out over the entire
country) except for the whole unit at once, it in
effect grants the union a monopoly of represen­
tation. Since it is now being widely argued that
Government authority ought to be used to limit
the “power” of unions through new legislation, it
is ironic that so much of that “power” depends
on protection from the Government itself.
Changes in Management Attitudes. There have
been equally important changes in the attitudes
of management affecting the security of the
union. There are persistent areas of antiunionism,
but there has also been widespread and construc­
tive accommodation to unions by companies
throughout U.S. industry. Unfortunately, this
accommodation often develops into forms of
collaboration and collusion which undermine the
union as a representative institution. When
companies move from hostility to collaboration
and collusion, the very weapons that unions
develop to protect them against a hostile manage­
ment are quietly transformed into instruments to
protect union leaders against changes within the
union or in the collective bargaining representa­
tive.
The existence, side by side, of a wide range of
employer attitudes toward unions has presented
our legislators with some of their most perplexing
problems. Consider, for example, that aspect of
the security of the union which traditionally bears
the name of “union security.” Confronted by a
persistently hostile management, a union cannot
survive without some form of union security—the
closed shop, the union shop, the hiring hall—as
a means of preventing the employer from pecking
away at the membership of the union. But the
union shop or another form of union security may
become, and often does become, a very different
institution when the employer is no longer anti­
union and may be committed to a close working

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

655
relationship with the leadership of the incumbent
national union. In many industries today, there
is no expectation and no desire to get rid of the
union. The union shop becomes then a device
through which management supports the union’s
control over its membership, or at least the
union’s control of its income. This arrangement
is not “union security” in the historical sense, but
rather a form of “income security.” It may not
contribute in any Way to the security of the
worker or to the other avowed goals of unionism
and may even work in the opposite direction. The
combination of the cooperative employer, the
union shop, and centralized bargaining removes
most of the pressure upon the union leaders to
maintain that close responsiveness to union
membership which exclusive representation
assumes.
The most recent controversies in the aerospace
industry illustrate dramatically the distinction
between “security of the union” in its broad sense
and “union security” in its traditional meaning.
The aerospace companies apparently have com­
bined, formally or informally, to resist the demands
of all unions in the industry for any form of union
security. Their strategy, however, is very differ­
ent from what it was in the days of the TaftHartley union shop elections in 1948 and 1949,
when attacks upon union security were universally
interpreted as attacks on the union. The workers,
at least, were convinced then that the attempt to
take away the union shop was merely a prelude to
an attempt to take away unionism altogether. In
the recent conflict, the aerospace companies have
taken a different tack. Far from identifying oppo­
sition to union security with opposition to union­
ism, they have instead reaffirmed their belief in
collective bargaining, have said good things about
the unions involved, and have argued only against
union security in its narrowest sense. The union
leadership has retorted that the attack on union
security is merely a prelude to an attack on
unionism, and they may be right, since some of
the drive against union security in aerospace comes
from quarters that make it difficult to believe
otherwise. But the security of the institution of
the union and union security in the narrow sense
are not necessarily identical, and apparently
workers who believe that the union itself is not
threatened are less willing to fight for a union
shop. This presents union leaders with a problem;

656
most of them are not only unwilling but also unable
to believe that there is a significant distinction
between the two.
Both Federal and State legislators have been
plagued by an inability to deal realistically with
this aspect of union security. The Taft-Hartley
Act, attempted to introduce flexibility into the
matter by permitting the States to adopt rules
more stringent than Federal law. To date, 20
States have adopted such 'legislation, commonly
termed “right-to-work” laws. For the most part,
and for obvious reasons, these are the very States
in which antiunionism is most prevalent and where
some kind of union security is needed for the
preservation of the union. It might have been
wiser to prohibit right-to-work laws only in those
States whose legislators could be persuaded to
adopt them!
Effects of Multiplant Bargaining. Multiplant bar­
gaining is another example of an institution which
changes its character (though not its form) in
accordance with the posture of the company, or
companies, toward the union. Multiplant bar­
gaining, and especially marketwide bargaining,
starts as a defense against standard-cutting
employers. The problem is especially virulent in
industries marked by a large number of low-capital
enterprises in a highly competitive market.
Against the ever-present threat to standards which
exists automatically in such markets, the union’s
only defense is the standard agreement, preferably
negotiated with representatives of all the employ­
ers under a single contract. For the clothing and
trucking industries, to use some obvious examples,
it is an indispensable arrangement.
Multiplant bargaining in recent years, however,
has been extended to industries dominated by
large multiplant corporations not subject to com­
petition resembling that found in clothing and
trucking. Nor are these corporations “antiunion”
in the sense attached to that term in 1935. Here
a multiplant bargaining arrangement is a closed
system managed jointly by the leadership of the
union and of the industrial relations department.
It is closed in the sense that no rival union may
intrude because of the NLRB doctrine noted
earlier, and for the same reason, it is closed in
practice to internal dissent. The arrangement is
self-perpetuating and self-aggrandizing. Once a


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

multiplant bargaining system has been firmly
established between a union and a corporation, all
the new plants built by the corporation can be
added to the multiplant contract by mutual agree­
ment, and they will be except in rare circumstances.
These arrangements are apparently not re­
garded by employers as undesirable. Many
corporate managements are persuaded that large
multiplant bargaining units serve the cause of
stability and are in the interest of the corporation.
This view is not universal, and there are companies
which prefer the flexibility of plant-by-plant
bargaining to the security and stability of a single
unit. This differentiation is one of the more
important elements of flexibility in American
labor-management relations. But the big multi­
plant unit is the characteristic arrangement in a
number of major mass production industries; there
the union has an unprecedented amount of
“security.” What needs to be asked is, Security
against what? or whom? The challenge to the
security of the institution from management has
been withdrawn altogether, at least for the time
being. The current significance of the multiplant
bargaining unit is that it gives the union protection
against challenge from other unions or from
dissident groups within the union.
Effects of Landrum-Griffin Act. It is too early to
assess the long-range effects of the LandrumGriffin Act (the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959), but ironically there is
already evidence that it, too, serves to strengthen
tendencies toward centralization and thus to
increase the security of the union as an institution.
The requirement of annual financial reports by
the unions has probably not increased meaningful
accounting to membership. It has encouraged
employment of certified public accountants and
has given national union headquarters a strong
justification for supervising local affairs more
closely than before. In response to bonding
requirements, many national headquarters now
secure bonds for local unions and thus have with­
drawn some autonomous activity from local
officers. Although one part of the law requires a
secret ballot election of the membership to increase
dues, another part permits delegates at a con­
vention to raise dues without balloting by members.

THE SECURITY OF WORKER INSTITUTIONS

Forces Diminishing Union Security

Other forces tend to diminish the security of
the union or attempt to do so. Some of these have
been proposals for legislation aimed at limiting
union “power.” The current debate is inspired
by the public reaction to strikes which allegedly
affect the “public interest” ; in 1963, the strikes
in longshoring, the New York City newspapers,
and the Philadelphia transit system have all led
to a rash of statements that the “power of the
unions” must be restricted in one way or another.
Very few serious suggestions are made to dis­
mantle or even appreciably weaken the union as
an institution. Most go to a limitation on the
weapons which labor may use to achieve its ends.
In particular, compulsory arbitration and other
substitutes for the strike are proposed to deal
with those industries vitally affected with the
“public interest.” None of the suggestions in­
volves depriving the union of a key role in the
process. Perhaps in recognition of this changed
tone, many labor people can now discuss com­
pulsory arbitration dispassionately. If most of
the proposals were to be adopted, the security,
the machinery, and the staff of most unions
probably would not be materially affected. The
employees themselves might lose something, and
more important, the economy might lose a great
deal of the freedom and flexibility which it now
has. But these are not relevant to this discussion.
A far more important threat to the security of
the union results from the accelerated rate of
technological change. For some unions, techno­
logical change has become a problem of major
proportions. Moreover, losses of membership
from this source in one industry are not being
recouped in other industries. The major shift
in the working population today is not dissimilar
in magnitude or significance to the shift to mass
production in the 1920’s and 1930’s. The trade
unions in 1929 held strongholds in building con­
struction, railroads, and printing, among others,
but they were steadily losing ground because the
the rapidly growing mass production industries
were unorganized and even uninfluenced by
organization. A similar situation now threatens
the unions in the new, rapidly expanding pro­
fessional, technical, and clerical occupations.


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

657
The acknowledged difficulty of organizing these
occupations is exacerbated by certain unit provi­
sions of the Taft-Hartley Act. The requirement
of separate elections for professional employees
and what is in effect a prohibition of organization
for supervisors have acquired an importance that
could hardly have been foreseen in 1947. To
illustrate, it was startling to learn during the union
shop elections in the aerospace companies that
large proportions of employees—40 percent or
more—were not even in the bargaining units!
Furthermore, the NLRB’s interpretations of the
Taft-Hartley unit amendments have made them
harsher than necessary. Although the act does
not so specify, the Board has often ordered sep­
arate elections for technical or office clerical
employees in a unit with other types of workers.
These bargaining unit rules have had a double
importance. Not only has the organizing of
office and technical employees been made more
difficult, because they cannot be “blanketed in”
with manual workers, but the differences between
manual and nonmanual employees have also been
magnified unnecessarily.
It is difficult to see this development as desirable.
Note that the “ security” of the large manufac­
turing unions is not likely to be affected by the
dramatic decline of employment in some of the
mass production industries. Their bargaining
positions may even be improved, and any loss of
revenue can be compensated by a dues increase.
But meanwhile, union organization is withheld
from major groups of employees at the very time
when they may need it most. In a period of rapid
growth, when a multitude of adjustments must
be made, employees need to have a voice in shaping
decisions which will affect their livelihoods.
The AFL-CIO unions have thus far had little
success in organizing white-collar employees be­
cause of factors over which the Federal Govern­
ment neither has nor should have any control.
But it cannot be denied that employer antiunion­
ism in this field is very strong and that the law
and its administration have made a difficult job
more difficult. An objective appraisal suggests
that the obstacles to the organization of whitecollar workers are great, perhaps greater than can
be surmounted, and that it would be sound public
policy to remove some of them.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

658
Another influence diminishing the security of
the unions is the “employer free speech*’provision
of the Taft-Hartley law. Section 8 (c) says,
The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the
dissemination thereof, . . . shall not constitute or be
evidence of any unfair labor practice . . . if such expres­
sion contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of
benefit.

Originally under the Wagner Act, the view was
that the employees* choice of representatives was
their exclusive concern and that the employer had
no proper part in the debate on this matter. To­
day he is permitted wide latitude, with the result
that new organizing is made difficult where the
employer uses his economic position to influence
and persuade his employees against joining the
union. The situation is almost impossible when
the union is confronted with a combination of a
hostile community, an employer with “ free speech**
and the employees* lively fear of reprisals.
The Case for a Change in Public Policy

Altogether, a major change of public policy
seems needed. We are now launched on a course
of action which has the effect of strengthening the
security of the union in those places where it is

least necessary. In established collective bargain­
ing relationships, today’s unions have a measure
of security far greater than was anticipated. In
part, this security of the institution derives from
changes in attitudes and practices of management.
In part, it derives from public policy which pro­
tects the union against assaults or even criticism.
Furthermore, in these places the security of the
union is not synonymous with the security of the
workers it represents, and the connection between
union security and employee welfare cannot be
taken for granted.
On the other hand, the support of the Federal
Government is withheld from the unions in situa­
tions which require the very opposite policy.
Where employer antiunionism is strong and but­
tressed by State and local government administra­
tions, the free speech provision of the Taf t-Hartley
law and some of the unit decisions of the National
Labor Relations Board restrict unduly the right
to self-determination.
In both situations just described, the tendency
is to deprive the employees of adequate representa­
tion for discussion of their hours, wages, and
working conditions. Some reversals of law and
its interpretation seem desirable in both areas.

The lifeblood of any union is what it does to safeguard each individual
worker in his own place of employment—the day-by-day effort to ensure
fair treatment for each employee in all aspects of his working life. This is
a part of the labor movement that the public does not see, but it is the foun­
tainhead of all the rest.


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

-From an editorial “To Abolish Poverty and Unemployment” by George
Meany in T he A m e r ic a n F e d era tio n ist, February 1963, p. 1.

The Individual and the Union
Workers are not yet adequately secure in their right to
participate in the exercise of power within the organiza­
tion, but protection is gradually emerging through
administrative, legislative , and judicial decisions.
Alfred W. Blumrosen*
T he a b i l i t y of the individual to influence his
union is an important aspect of worker securityunder collective bargaining. The union, which
has promoted employment security for the work­
ers, is in a powerful position to dilute or deny such
security. Thus the issue of worker security be­
comes intertwined in the relation between indi­
vidual and union.
The attitude of the legal system toward the
worker-union relationship has undergone a drastic
transformation during the last half century.
Fifty years ago, the union was viewed as a social
club which acted only in the self-interest of its
members and whose expansion, at the expense of
employers and nonunion employees, could not be
justified. The internal affairs of the union were
largely left alone by the courts, under the doctrine
of judicial nonintervention in the affairs of a
nonprofit society.
By degrees, the legal system moved toward the
Wagner Act theory that the union is a socially
desirable institution which promotes the public
interest in the economic position and dignity of
the worker. Under this concept, the union was
given a broad privilege to expand its organization
over the objection of some employers and employ­
ees who may have preferred individual bargaining.
In internal affairs, the freedom of action which
the earlier period had afforded was now justified
on the additional ground that it facilitated collec­
tive bargaining. Toward the end of this second
period, in the mid-1940’s, the legal system began
to regulate the freedom of the union in internal matters.
The attitude toward unionism of the third
period—the present—also emerged gradually. It
may be characterized as respectful regulation of
the union. Unions are recognized as legitimate
interest groups in our society, exercising powers
granted by consent and by statute but subject to

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

restraints to protect other interests. For instance,
in the interest of those who wish to avoid unioni­
zation, the privilege of expanding organization
has been limited. Further, to prevent the abuse
of its power in internal affairs, the union is subject
to restrictions never before imposed.
The following analysis of the relation of worker
and union is based upon the distinction between
union organizational activities and union activities
in the collective bargaining process.
The Organizational Context
Organizational Rights of the Union. Fifty years
ago, many of the organizational activities of
unions were subject to injunction. Unions could
not engage in strikes and picketing for organiza­
tional purposes,1 since rights of workers were not
recognized by the law as either justifying col­
lective action or supporting legislation.2 Further­
more, the right of the employer to enter into
employment contracts which denied worker secu­
rity was placed on a constitutional pedestal.3 The
courts protected the interests of employers and un­
organized employees in being free from unionization.
In the second period, which began in the 1920’s
and culminated in the National Labor Relations
Act of 1935, the enhancement of worker security
through collective bargaining became national
* Professor of Law, Rutgers-The State University.
1 Plant v. Woods, 176 Mass. 492, 57 N.E. 1011 (1900); Loewe v. Lawlor, 208
U.S. 274 (1908).
2 Similar judicial reluctance to recognize worker security is found in the
interpretation of individual employment contracts during this period. In
1895, the New York Court of Appeals adopted a “rule” announced in 1877
in the work of Horace G. Wood, A Treatise on the Law of Master and Servant
(Albany, N.Y., John D. Parsons, Jr., 1877), pp. 271-274, th at individual
employment contracts were to be interpreted as “at will” and not providing
job security, unless the parties had very explicitly indicated to the contrary.
Martin v. New York Life Insurance Co., 148 N.Y. 117, 42 N.E. 416 (1895).
This rule overturned earlier decisions which had indicated a greater willing­
ness to interpret employment contracts as providing a definite term of em­
ployment. Franklin Mining Co. v. Harris, 24 Mich. 115 (1871).
3 Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908); Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S.
1 (1915).

659

660
policy. The antiunion “yellow-dog” contract,
which had been encouraged by the courts of the
earlier period, was declared unenforcible, first by
the courts 4 and then, in 1932, by Congress in the
Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act.5 Such
contracts were outlawed altogether in 1935 in the
Wagner Act, which fully recognized the right to
organize.6
The right to picket for organizational purposes
was recognized in a grudging and limited way by
the U.S. Supreme Court in 1921 7 and then by
Congress in the Norris-LaGuardia and Wagner
Acts. The Supreme Court further protected the
right to picket, first under the principle that
picketing involves constitutionally protected
speech 8 and later under the principle of “pre­
emption,” which prevented State and Federal
courts from enjoining peaceful picketing except
where Congress specifically permitted injunctions.9
Thus, the power of the union to extend its
organization by the use of the economic pressures
implicit in picketing was established. Employees
and employers who sought to remain beyond the
range of organization were subjected to adverse
economic consequences. The union’s objective
of eliminating competition among employers
based on wage differentials justified the infliction
of economic harm. However, nonunion employees
were owed certain obligations, including the
elementary one of nonviolence.10
The ability of the union to expand its organi­
zational power was promoted by the decision—
taken in 1935 and maintained to this day—that
union bargaining power would be analogized to
the territorial power of a governmental unit,
rather than to the contracting power of a personal
agent. The National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) was to determine the “ appropriate
bargaining unit” which defined the boundaries of
union power. Within that unit, once the majority
of employees wished union representation, the
union was given power to bargain for all the
employees. This majority rule principle was
justified as an appropriate method of maximizing
the group bargaining power.11 Individual con­
tracts containing less favorable terms than those
which had been collectively bargained were
inconsistent with this principle and were made
subservient to the collective agreement. For
most purposes, the individual contracting power
of the employee was destroyed, and the union

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

was free to negotiate a final arrangement of the
terms of employment with the employer.12
In the present period, which originated in 1947
with the Labor Management Relations Act
(LMRA) and came to full bloom with the adoption
in 1959 of the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act (LMRDA),13 union organizational
rights have been restricted. In 1947, Congress
limited the right to picket for organizational
purposes where another union was certified as
bargaining agent.14 In 1959, the principle of
majority rule was also applied to limit union
expansion, when Congress made picketing for
recognition or organizational purposes an unfair
labor practice under certain circumstances, i.e.,
(1) when another union is lawfully recognized,
(2) an election has been held within the preceding
12 months, or (3) picketing has been conducted
without a representation petition being filed
within a reasonable time (not to exceed 30 days).15
It remains possible for a carefully designed picket
line to influence customers of the nonunion em­
ployer—so long as no work or delivery stoppages
result—under the protection which the 1959
amendments to the LMRA afford “ informational
picketing.” This suggests that the unions may
continue, through consumer picketing, to expand
organization through economic pressure where the
community of customers is already union minded,
but that in areas where unionization has not been
accepted by the consuming public, the picketing
is likely to be ineffective. It will be ineffective
also where the customers of the employer do not
come to the plant or place of business being
picketed.
* Exchange Bakery & Restaurant v. Rifkin, 245 N.Y. 260,157 N.E. 130 (1927).
s 47 Stat. 70, 29 U.S.C. sec. 101-115 (1932).
6 49 Stat. 449, at 452: "Section 7. Employees shall have the right to self­
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other m utual aid or
protection.” The right to refrain from such activities was added in 1947.
i American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S.
184 (1921).
8 Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), modified in International Brother­
hood of Teamsters, Local 695 v. Vogt, 354 U.S. 284 (1957).
8 San Biego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, at 245 (1959).
id For a more extensive analysis of this development, see my article, “ Group
Interests in Labor Law,” Rutgers Law Review, Spring 1959, pp. 432-441,
446-452, 465-471.
n J. i. Case Co. v. N L R B , 321 U.S. 332 (1944).
w For a fuller discussion of this point, see Benjamin Aaron’s article,
pp. 666-673 of this issue.
is The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, P t. I, 29
U.S.C. sec. 141. The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. sec. 401.
n Sec. 8(b)(4)(c).
1» Sec. 8(b)(7).

THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE UNION

At the same time, Congress tightened restric­
tions on secondary picketing.16 “Handbilling”
but not picketing, is now permitted at the site of
a secondary employer, and this only if it does not
cause a stoppage of work or deliveries. These
decisions reflect a legislative judgment that the
interests of nonunion employers and employees
should limit the right of the union to extend its
organization by economic pressure.
Obligations to Employees Being Organized. During
the early period, when the union had no legal
power to extend organization, it likewise had few
obligations toward the employees whom it did
organize. It was not obligated to admit anyone
to membership or participation in internal affairs.17
This freedom continued into the second period,
justified by the desire to allow the union freedom
in collective bargaining. Unions were free to
restrict membership, which denied nonmembers
the right to participate in decisions relating to
collective bargaining, and they were free to dis­
criminate in some other ways against non­
members.18 In the mid-1940’s, the judicial tide
began to turn. The courts, in concurrence with
the Supreme Court decision in Steele v. Louisville
& Nashville RR.,12 began to require that the union
act fairly toward all the employees they represent,
whether members or not. The most striking
example of such a requirement is the case of James
v. Marinship Corp.20 In that case, the union
attempted to justify the discharge of nonmembers
under three principles of law: (1) A majority of
the employees could select a union which would
then represent all employees, (2) the union was
not obligated to admit the minority of employees
to membership21 and could therefore determine
collective bargaining policies without participation
by the minority, and (3) one such collective bar18 Sec. 8(b)(4), as amended in 1959.
17 Zechariah Chafee, Jr., “ The Internal Affairs of Associations Not For
Profit,” Harvard Law Review, May 1930, p. 993; and Clyde W. Summers,
‘Legal Limitations on Union Discipline,” Harvard Law Review, May 1951,
p. 1049.
18 Britt v. Trailmobile Co., 179 F. 2d 569 (C.A. 6, 1950).
19 323 U.S. 192 (1944). See also Wallace Corp. v. N L R B , 323 U.S. 248 (1944).
29 25 Cal. 2d 721, 155 P . 2d 329 (1944).
In fact, they were not obligated to adm it to membership all who had
voted for a labor organization. It is theoretically possible for a majority to
designate a union which would admit to membership only a minority. This
is not likely to happen as a practical matter, if full knowledge of union
policies is available.
22 Sec. 7 and Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) of the LM EA.
23 See Paul E. Sultan, “ The Union Security Issue” in Joseph Shister,
Benjamin Aaron, Clyde W. Summers, eds., Public Policy and Collective Bar­
gaining (New York, Harper & Bow, 1962).
24 Sec. 101(a)(1) of the LM RDA .


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

661
gaining demand, the closed shop, which was then
lawful, would require the employer to hire or
retain only members of the union. Simultaneous
application of these three principles would allow
the union to freeze nonmembers out of their jobs.
The California Supreme Court in Marinship, held
that this attempt was inconsistent with the duty
to represent all employees fairly. It gave the
union its choice of a closed shop or closed union,
but not both at once.
With the beginning of the present period,
Congress began to impose obligations on the union
toward employees who were brought within the
range of its bargaining power by the majority rule
principle. Congress forbade discrimination by the
union against employees based on membership in
the union,22 outlawed the closed shop, and allowed
the union shop only if union membership was
available to all employees. Congress further per­
mitted the States to adopt “right-to-work” laws
which would foreclose union security devices, and
thus allow nonunion employees to remain free of
union dues. About two-fifths of the States have
adopted such laws.23 But Congress, for political
reasons, did not allow the NLRB to limit union
power to restrict union membership.
It thus remained possible for the union to
represent a substantial number of workers who
were not members and could not participate in its
deliberations. Some unions adopted an inter­
mediate position of restricting the rights of par­
ticipation of some members. In 1959, Congress
abolished such “ second-class” union membership.24
This enfranchised some members who had been
barred from full participation in union affairs by
internal union rules. But the franchise has not,
as of this writing, been made universal. Unions
may, and some still do, discriminate in admission
to membership on racial and other grounds. This
privilege, a last remnant of the rule of judicial
nonintervention in the internal affairs of a private
voluntary association, will, however, probably fall
during this decade. It has been undercut by
States’ fair employment practice laws and by the
activities of the President’s Committee on Equal
Employment Opportunities. The union has
moved from the status of a private voluntary as­
sociation to that of a public authority with public
responsibility, which must meet certain standards.
One such standard is that those affected by public
power are entitled to participate in some way in

662
the decisional process which leads to its exercise.
Applying this standard to the union, all employees
within the unit must be permitted to participate
in its collective bargaining activities.25
The Union as Bargaining Agent

The relationship between individual and union,
once the organizational stage has been passed,
involves problems in three areas—internal affairs,
external political activities, and the collective
bargaining process.26
Internal Affairs. The union is an institution in
which the personal ambitions of the member may
be channeled. Individuals and groups vie for
leadership positions from which they may exercise
such power as the union possesses. The tempta­
tion of the victor or incumbent to assure his posi­
tion by taking action against the insurgent or
defeated minority is ever present and is not always
resisted. The power of the leadership may be
exercised in such a way as to threaten the employ­
ment security of the worker who has engaged in
internal political activities.
In the first period under study, the concept
that the union was a voluntary association gave
it substantial immunity from judicial efforts to
protect the dissident within the organization.
During the Wagner Act period, the courts began
to protect internal union political freedom without
expressly stating that this was their policy. How­
ever, in the third period, the basis for judicial
action was made clear.27 In 1958, the New York
Court of Appeals held, for the first time, that the
union member had a legally protected right of
political opposition within the union and that the
union could not retaliate against the dissident.28
In 1959, this principle of internal political freedom
was written into the LMRDA.29
The right to participate, without retaliation, in
the political activities of unions is imperfectly
protected. Three of the weaknesses in the protec­
tion of this right are discussed here.
1.
The rights pertain only to members. As
stated earlier, the law does not yet afford the op­
portunity to participate to all who are subject to
the union rule. Much of the union’s power is
exercised within the collective bargaining process.
The opportunity to influence the union through its


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

political process has a- direct bearing on the posi­
tions the union will take in collective bargaining.
Thus the opportunity to participate in the internal
union political process is essential if the union is
to take some account of all the interests which it is
required to represent in collective bargaining.
2. To be meaningful, political freedom within a
union must include the right of candidacy for posi­
tions of leadership. The 1959 legislation, however,
does not fully protect this right. If a potential
candidate has been kept off the ballot and the
election is held, his rights can thereafter be pro­
tected in a proceeding by the Secretary of Labor.30
But before the election, he may have no Federal
rights and may be obligated to proceed in State
courts under varying State law which will protect
only his claims under the union constitution and
bylaws.31 Such a weak guarantee of the right of
candidacy may be partially cured by judicial con­
struction of the LMRDA. But the full cure,
giving the Secretary of Labor power to supervise
elections before the balloting to assure that all
properly nominated candidates are on the ballot,
requires congressional action.
3. Union internal disciplinary procedures have
not always been impartial.32 The legislation does
little to promote impartial tribunals to determine
disputes between the individual member and the
union, and since the economic rights which the
union may affect are so important, they deserve
such a safeguard. A significant number of cases
suggest that the majority within a union, exercis­
ing their political freedom, may decide to sub­
ordinate the job security of the minority or of
25
For a more extended discussion of the analysis, see m y article, “ The
Legal Protection Against Exclusion From Union Activities,” Ohio State Laio
Journal, Winter 1961, pp. 21-38.
281 have discussed many of the following problems in detail in an article
entitled “ The Worker and Three Phases of Unionism: Administrative and
Judicial Control of the Worker-Union Relationship,” which will be pub­
lished in a 1963 issue of the Michigan Law Review.
27 See Summers, “Legal Limitations on Union Discipline,” op. cit., and
“ The Law of Union Discipline: What the Courts Do in Fact,” Yale Law
Journal, December 1960, pp. 175-224.
28 Madden v. Atkins, 4 N.Y. 2d 283,151 N.E.2d 73 (1958).
28 Sec. 101(a)(1) and (2) of the LM RDA affords each member the right of
freedom of speech and assembly in connection with union matters, the right
to discuss union business at union meetings, and the right to nominate and
vote for candidates for union office.
28 See LM RDA, Title IV.
8i See Mamula v. United Steelworkers, 304 F. 2d 108 (C.A. 3,1962). But see
Colpo v. Highway Truck Drivers Local 107, International Brotherhood of Team­
sters, 305 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1922). See also Clyde W. Summers, “Preemp­
tion and the Labor Reform Act—Dual Rights and Remedies,” Ohio State
Law Journal, Winter 1961, pp. 119, 135-140.
32 Summers, “ Legal Limitations on Union Discipline,” op. cit., and Leo
Bromwich, Union Constitutions (New York, Fund for the Republic, 1959).

THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE UNION

the disenfranchised.33 What is needed is an appro­
priate mix between the flexibility inherent in the
principle of majority rule and the stability which
impartial adjudication can afford to basic claims
to worker security.
Some unions—the Automobile Workers and the
Upholsterers—have provided for impartial internal
union adjudication by public review boards,34 but
the LMRDA fails to encourage such provisions.
To be sure, the legislation requires a “full and fair
hearing” for the employee and may require him
to exhaust within the organization “reasonable
hearing procedures (but not to exceed a 4-month
lapse of time).” 35 However, it does not require
the courts to defer to union decisions in accordance
with the impartiality of the tribunal. This lapse
can be partly cured by interpretation which per­
mits the courts to give finality to facts found by
an impartial union tribunal.
Encouragement of impartial internal review re­
mains a major task for the coming decade. Absent
such review, the courts must play a significant role
in shaping a great number of specific decisions
concerning internal union affairs. Once the 4
months have expired, the member is entitled to
judicial review of union discipline on three grounds:
(1) It violated the statutory due process rights of
notice, opportunity to prepare a defense, and full
and fair hearing; (2) it violated the rights to engage
in political activity within the union guaranteed
by the LMRDA; and (3) it violated the rights
under the constitution and bylaws of the union.
External Political Activities. Unions seek worker
security not only through collective bargaining but
also through active participation in national and
local politics. The future, with its problems of
reorganization of the productive process which
83 See, for example, Hartley v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, 283 Mich. 201,
277 N.W . 885 (1938); Britt v. Trailmobile, cited in footnote 18; Donovan v.
Traverse, 285 Mass. 167, 188 N .E . 705 (1934).
34 See Jack Stieber, Walter E. Oberer, and Michael Harrington, Democracy
and Public Review: A n Analysis of the TJAW Public Review Board (Santa
Barbara, Calif., Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1960);
Walter E. Oberer, “Voluntary Impartial Review of Labor: Some Reflec­
tions,” Michigan Law Review, November 1959, pp. 55-88; Jerome H . Brooks,
“ Im partial Public Review of Internal Union Disputes: Experiment in
Democratic Self-Discipline,” Ohio State Law Journal, Winter 1961, pp. 64-96.
33 Sec. 101(a)(4) and (5) of the LM RDA.
88 De Mille v. American Federation of Radio Artists, 17 A.C.A. 480, 175
P.2d 851 (1946).
87 Pfoh v. Whitney, 43 Ohio L. Abs. 417, 62 N.E.2d 744 (1945).
88 Morgan v. Local 1150, United Electrical Workers, 331 111. App. 21, 72
N.E.2d 59 (1946).
38 Mitchell v. International Association of Machinists, 195 Cal. App. 2d 796
16 Cal. R ptr. 813 (1961).
40 International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961).


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

663
transcend the capacities of collective bargaining,
probably holds an increased emphasis on union
political action designed to improve legislation
relating to worker security.
When a member disagrees with the political
position of the union, the resulting tension may
become acute. Under the older conception of
the union as a voluntary association, the member
was bound by the majority decision. Thus, the
expulsion of Cecil B. De Mille from the American
Federation of Radio Artists because of his refusal
to pay a $1 assessment to be used to oppose
“right-to-work” legislation was upheld on the
principle of majority rule in 1946.36 Similarly,
a union officer who supported Wendell Wilkie
for president, while the union supported Franklin
D. Roosevelt, was successfully expelled,37 as was
an officer of the United Electrical Workers who
handed out Republican literature in Illinois in
1944 after his union decided to support the
Democratic Party.38
Today, this line of decisions has been sub­
stantially overruled. A union member may not
be penalized now because he opposes the union
position and may not be compelled to financially
support political causes with which he disagrees.
A California court has upset the expulsion of
two members of the Machinists union who sup­
ported a “right-to-work” law while the union
was strenuously—and successfully—opposing its
adoption.39 In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court,
in a rather technical decision under the Railway
Labor Act, held that dues paid under union-shop
agreements cannot, over timely objection of the
member, be used for political purposes.40 This
change in judicial attitude toward the relation of
the member and the union in the political context
provides another example of increasing judicial
awareness that the voluntary association concept
cannot be applied to the modern union and that
the public nature of union’s power requires that
it act responsibly.
These decisions may ultimately prove of great
benefit to unions. From time to time, Congress
has attempted to regulate union political ex­
penditures and activi ties, and the Supreme Court has
hesitated to invalidate such regulations as an
interference with political freedom of the member­
ship, in part because of the possibility that some
members may have been coerced into supporting
the union’s political position. Now that it is

664
clear that the dissenter can prevent this use of
his dues, the political expenditures of the union
will probably be viewed as voluntary. Union
political action becomes the expression of the
right of association for political purposes of the
membership and is protected under the First
Amendment from congressional regulation.41 Thus,
union efforts to enhance worker security through
the political process will be protected against
restrictive legislation by the very decision which
restricts the right of the union to impose political
restraints on its members.
Collective Bargaining Process. Union-worker re­
lations in collective bargaining are central to any
consideration of worker security in a society which is
constantly reorganizing the productive processes
upon which such security is based. The topic
deserves the separate treatment which Professor
Aaron gives it in this symposium. Within the
framework of this paper, however, a few observa­
tions are in order.
The transition of the union from a purely vol­
untary association to an institution clothed with
public power and responsibility is apparent in
this area. In the early period, the internal
affairs, including collective bargaining activities,
of unions were subject to only minimal regulation.
Union decisions in collective bargaining which
abrogated worker security in employment would
be reviewed by the court only to determine if
they were arbitrary from the viewpoint of the
union as a whole.42 If they met the interests of
the group, then the sacrifice of individual claims
was not grounds for legal complaint. This
principle, that the union could subordinate the
interest of the individual in the interest of the
group, was applied vigorously in the Wagner Act
period. It afforded the union freedom to bargain
collectively.43 Even in the present period, pro­
tection of individual rights in collective bargaining
lags far behind such protection in other areas.
Only recently, for example, have the courts begun
to protect seniority rights to some extent. The
union now must provide more than a political
justification for their destruction.44 The right of
the union in the administration of the labor agree­
ment to sign away employee rights under col­
lective contracts has not been effectively limited
by the courts.45 However, in late 1962, in
Miranda Fuel Co. and Lopuch,iQ the NLRB


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

stepped into the situation by holding that the
National Labor Relations Act incorporates the
duty of fair representation and that the Board
may require the union to honor and protect worker
rights under collective contracts. This protection
for employee expectations based on the collective
contract has not been afforded by the courts.
The irony of the entire development is now
clear. In order to maintain the dignity and
improve the economic position of the worker,
unions were given extensive powers by statute.
Since these powers could be turned against the
employees, they have been restricted by law in
connection with internal political affairs and exter­
nal political action. However, where worker
security is most directly involved—in the collec­
tive bargaining process itself-—the power of the
union to subordinate individual claims has not yet
been limited. Yet it was to protect worker
security that the power was initially recognized.
The Future of Individual-Union Relations

Major legislation altering the basic pattern of
union-employer-employee relationships seems un­
likely for the next decade except as regards ‘'emer­
gency disputes.’’ On this assumption, it is possible
to analyze probable courses of development in
the two areas which have been examined.
In organizational activities, the basic statutory
pattern has been established by Congress. The
scope of union freedom to use economic pressures
to organize will depend upon the interpretation
of that pattern by the NLRB, unless the courts
intervene. The present Board seems prepared to
allow the union to assert such pressures unless they
are clearly precluded by the LMRA. Thus it
will remain possible to employ carefully planned
economic pressures to further union organization.
However, pressures for unionization which involve
strikes or picketing directed at employees of any
employer will be prohibited, as will any picketing
of secondary employers. The result is that
expanding unionization by direct economic action
41 See John F. Lane, “Analysis of the Federal Law Governing Political
Expenditures by Labor Unions,” Labor Law Journal, October 1958, pp.
725-744; United States v. United Automobile Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957).
« gee K urt L. Hanslowe, “individual Rights in Collective Labor Rela­
tions,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Fall 1959, pp. 25-55.
43 See Britt v. Trailmobile Co., cited in footnote 18.
44 Ferro v. Railway Express Agency, 296 F. 2d 847 (C.A. 2,1961); O’Donnell
v. Pabst Brewing Co., 12 Wis. 2d 491, 107 N.W. 2d 484 (1961).
43 Union News Co. v. Hildreth, 295 F. 2d 658 (C.A. 6, 1961).
43140 NLRB No. 7 (Dec. 19, 1962).

THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE UNION

will succeed only to the extent that the direct or
secondary consumer refuses to deal with nonunion
firms. This suggests that in a region where
unionism is strong, it may expand its organization
power, but where it is weak, its only hope to
exploit a favorably inclined consumer group is to
use secondary pressure. For example, picketing
which is permitted by the act around a manufac­
turing plant in a nonunion town probably would
not pressure the employees to unionize. But if
the product of the plant is distributed in urban
areas which are unionized, the pressure on the
retailer from customer refusals to purchase may
ultimately work its way back to the plant. The
key question, as far as union economic pressures
to unionize are concerned, will be the interpreta­
tion of the provisions in the LMRDA of 1959
which permit handbilling of secondary employers
who are distributing products of a supplier with
whom a union has a labor dispute. The NLRB
has broadly construed this clause.47 The Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has narrowly
construed it.48 This division of opinion will
ultimately reach the Supreme Court, which is apt
to defer to a well-reasoned NLRB policy decision.
Thus, as long as the Board maintains its present
orientation toward the problem, union economic
pressures may be applied in the manner indicated.
This Board position is likely to continue until
there has been a change in national political
administration followed by appointments of Board
members who are differently oriented. The
present NLRB is prone to interpret ambiguities
as favorably as honorably may be done in support
of union organizational activities. This I believe
is proper, because the mission of the Board, within
limits established by Congress, remains the promo­
tion of the collective bargaining process.
Wherever the union is established, the processes
of collective bargaining will become subject to
two rules which enhance the position of the
individual and are only now beginning to emerge
in enforcible form through Federal law. The
first is that all those represented by the union are
entitled to participate equally in the collective
bargaining activities of the union. Congress took
one step in this direction when it eliminated
47 Upholsterers Frame & Bedding Workers Twin City Local 61, Upholsterers
Union and Minneapolis House Furnishing Co., 132 NLRB 40 (1961); Local
llfik, Retail Clerks and Jay Jacobs Downtown, Inc., 140 NLRB No. 127 (1963).
« Servette, Inc. v. N L R B , 51 LRRM 2621 (C.A. 9, Nov. 26, 1962).
49 See m y article, “Legal Protection for Critical Job Interests: Union
Management Authority Versus Employee Autonomy,” Rutgers Law Review,
Summer 1959, pp. 631-665.


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

665
“second-class” union membership. Congress ap­
pears to be politically immobilized, however, as
far as any further steps because of the racial
aspects of the problem. Additional steps will
come from either the administrative agencies or
from the judiciary. The final decision will
probably involve the following reasoning: Union
decisions in collective bargaining are supposed to
reflect a net judgment on the interests of all the
represented employees. Only by allowing all
represented to participate can we assure that the
judgment finally made will reflect a politically
realistic balance of these interests. Thus the
union cannot fairly represent all employees unless
it allows them all to participate in such activities.
To the extent that it denies such participation,
without reasonable grounds, it is subject to either
administrative or judicial restraint to compel it to
do so.
The second rule will require the union to protect
some individual claims to critical job interests,
as in the negotiation and administration of the
collective bargaining agreement.49 Here genuine
worker security may begin to develop. The
right not to be discharged except for proven just
cause and to retain seniority from contract to
contract, unless proven necessity intervenes, will
emerge as protected individual claims. Enforce­
ment of these claims may be channeled through
the NLRB if its decision in the Mirand case is upheld.
The emergence of this rule is the most specula­
tive aspect of the prediction, for it will require that
union and management freedom to negotiate or
administer the collective bargaining agreement
be restrained in the interest of the individual.
Neither union nor management desires such re­
straints. Yet both could learn to live with them.
Collective bargaining is tough enough to adjust
to a requirement that the union protect seniority
rights in negotiation of new contracts and honor
contract rights in the administration of existing
agreements.
Whether the law will protect individual claims
is part of a broader question concerning the na­
ture of individual freedom in organized society.
Freedom only against government—the classic
definition of civil liberties—is inadequate because
the power to harm or help, formerly held by the
State, is distributed among influential groups, in­
cluding labor and management. Worker security
will be meaningful for the individual only if those
who exercise group power are required to honor it.

The Individual’s Legal Rights
as an Employee
That many of the worker's rights with respect to his employ­
ment are uncertain, inadequate, and often illusory reflects the
lack of a consensus as to what our labor relations law should do.

Benjamin Aaron*
T he l a s t h a l f c e n t u r y has witnessed dramatic
changes in the relationships between the employee,
his employer, and his union. Fifty years ago,
the law governing terms and conditions of employ­
ment was still dominated by what Roscoe Pound
characterized as “an uncompromising insistence
upon individual interests and individual prop­
erty.” 1 The law’s protection of individual
interests and property, however, seldom extended
to employees. By rigorously upholding the prin­
ciple of freedom of contract, the courts aided
employers in their efforts to combat unionism
through such devices as the “yellow-dog” contract2
and struck down legislation designed to regulate
wages, hours, and working conditions.3
The New Deal brought in its wake a profound
shift in emphasis from individual to collective
rights. Recognizing the inequality of bargaining
power between the individual employee and his
corporate employer, the framers of the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA) sought to redress
the imbalance by fostering and protecting the
right of employees to organize and to bargain
through representatives of their own choosing.
Judicial acceptance of a new philosophy of the
role of the Federal Government, permitting it to
exercise its taxing and regulatory powers to a far
greater extent than ever before, resulted in a large
body of protective legislation for the Nation’s
wage earners. These and other fundamental
social changes substantially enhanced the strength
of organized labor.
In recent years, however, it has become in­
creasingly apparent that individual workers re­
quire protection against the arbitrary exercise of
666

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

power by unions as well as by employers. Simi­
larly, it is clear that the enforcement of individual
rights frequently runs counter to the collective
interests of labor and management. The accom­
modation of individual rights and collective inter­
ests must thus be viewed as a critical and growing
problem.
Collective Agreements and Individual Contracts

Today, there are approximately 17.5 million
workers covered by collective bargaining agree­
ments in the United States. These collective
agreements neither create the employer-employee
relationship nor deal exclusively with it, but they
do establish a set of rules which create rights and
impose obligations applicable to the employer,
the union, and the employee.
Originally, American courts refused to recognize
a collective agreement as a contract which could
be enforced by unions or employers against each
other. The terms of these agreements, however,
were sometimes, under a “usage” theory, incor­
porated into individual contracts of employment
and enforcible as such. Some courts took the
view that collective agreements, though not
legally binding as contracts, created moral obliga­
tions which might provide the basis for equitable
relief under certain circumstances.
In the next phase of development, the courts,
while continuing to hold collective agreements
unenforcible by or against unions, gave effect to
♦Professor of Law, University of California (Los Angeles).
1 The Spirit of the Common Law (Boston, Marshall Jones Co., 1921), p. 37.
2 Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908); Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1
(1915).
3For example, Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905); Adkins v. Children’s
Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).

THE INDIVIDUAL’S LEGAL RIGHTS AS AN EMPLOYEE

them in actions between individual employees and
employers. One rationale for this was that those
who negotiated the collective agreement were mere
agents of the individual members of the union and
employers’ group. Another was that the collective
agreement was itself a valid and enforcible “thirdparty beneficiary” contract made by the employer
and the union expressly for the benefit of the
individual employees.
Statutory Agreements. Each of the foregoing
theories was patently inadequate to explain or ac­
commodate the variety of legal relationships which
the collective agreement creates. In time, the
majority of American courts came to regard such
an agreement as a binding and enforcible contract
between the employer and the union. The enforcibility of collective bargaining agreements has
also been established by statute. At the Federal
level, section 301(a) of the Labor Management
Relations Act (LM.RA) provides:
Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and
a labor organization representing employees in an industry
affecting commerce . . . or between any such labor or­
ganizations, may be brought in any [Federal] district
court . . . having jurisdiction of the parties, without
respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to
the citizenship of the parties.4

These developments partially clarified the legal
status of collective agreements, but they left un­
resolved a number of difficult questions concerning
the rights of individual employees under such
agreements. Specifically, they cast no light on the
right of the individual to enforce claims arising
under the agreement which are opposed to the
interests of the union representing him or which
run counter to the understandings between the
union and the employer as to how the collective
agreement should be administered.
The advent of the “statutory contract” in­
troduced a new and far-reaching concept into the
law of collective agreements and individual em­
ployment rights. Thus, the National Labor
Relations Act provides that collective agreements
4 Some States have similar statutes. In California, for example, a 1941
amendment to the Labor Code provided: “ Any collective bargaining agree­
ment between an employer and a labor organization shall be enforcible at law
or in equity, and a breach of such collective bargaining agreement by any
party thereto shall be subject to the same remedies, including injunctive
relief, as are available on other contracts in the courts of this State.”
5 J. I. Case Co. v. N L R B , 321 U.S. 332, at 337 (1944).
Ibid, at 338.
* Ibid.


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

667

between an employer and the duly authorized
bargaining representative of his employees “in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ­
ment, or other conditions of employment,” shall
apply to all employees (whether union members
or not) within the appropriate bargaining unit.
However, the collective agreement does not, of
itself, subject the individual employment relation­
ships within the bargaining unit to its terms. This
result is accomplished by statutory command, as
interpreted by courts and administrative agencies,
which remains constant even though the provisions
of collective agreements vary widely and change
frequently.
Although the statutory collective agreement has
not eliminated individual contracts of employ­
ment, it has reduced them to little more than
hiring contracts. The U.S. Supreme Court held
long ago that otherwise valid individual employ­
ment contracts,
. . . no matter what the circumstances that justify their
execution or what their terms, may not be availed of to
defeat or delay the procedures of the National Labor
Relations Act looking to collective bargaining, nor to
exclude the contracting employee from a duly ascertained
bargaining unit; nor may they be used to forestall bargain­
ing or to limit or condition the terms of the collective
agreement.5

Similarly, “the individual contract cannot be
effective as a waiver of any benefit to which the
employee otherwise would be entitled under the
trade agreement.” 6
The statutory policy, as construed and applied
by the Court, thus abandons the earlier philosophy
that legislative interference with individual free­
dom of contract is unconstitutional. Indeed, the
Court has expressly rejected the argument that
individual contracts which provide more favorable
terms than the applicable collective agreement
should be permitted to survive or surmount the
latter. In respect to that contention it has said:
“The practice and philosophy of collective bar­
gaining looks with suspicion on such individual
advantages.” 7 Although the employer and his
employees are free to enter into individual con­
tracts which are not inconsistent with the collective
agreement or which deal with matters not included
within the statutory scope of collective bargaining,
the mandatory subjects of collective bargaining
have been increased so greatly as to make this
possibility virtually meaningless.

668

In the absence of a collective agreement, the
terms of employment are determined by agree­
ment between the employer and the individual
employees. Owing to the limited bargaining
power of unorganized employees, the terms are
usually determined unilaterally by the employer.
Formal individual contracts are rare; most are
held by professional or technical personnel.
Other Statutory Protection. Protection of the
employees’ interests is provided to a limited
extent, however, by Federal and State statutes.
The Railway Labor Act, the National Labor
Relations Act, and various State labor relations
acts forbid employers from exacting individual
agreements in derogation of the employees’ rights
to organize, bargain collectively through repre­
sentatives of their own choosing, and engage in
related concerted activities.
Other Federal and State laws establish com­
pulsory standards and employee benefit rights
relating to minimum wages; maximum hours;
old-age, survivors, and disability insurance; un­
employment insurance; workmen’s compensation;
and the like. Their applicability depends on the
existence of an employment relation, as variously
defined in the respective statutes, and not upon
the existence of a collective agreement. Some
rights and benefits under this legislation, like the
protective provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, are nonwaivable; they cannot be bargained
away or compromised either by the individual
employee or by a union acting in his behalf. The
latter group of standards and benefits, sometimes
referred to collectively as “ social legislation,” are
beyond the scope of this article and are mentioned
only in passing.8 However, it is important to
remember that large numbers of employees most
in need of protection, of which agricultural
workers constitute the largest single group, are
almost totally excluded from the coverage of
much Federal and State social legislation. Finally,
even those workers who are covered must ordi­
narily enforce contested claims by individual suits
before administrative tribunals and courts. The
handicaps of insufficient information about their
rights under the law, inability to obtain adequate
representation, and lack of financial resources to
sustain themselves for the long periods frequently
required to process their cases combine to force


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

many of these individual employees to abandon
their claims or to accept inequitable compromises.
Administrative Enforcement of Rights

The National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA
guarantees not only the right of employees “to
self-organization . . . and to bargain collec­
tively through representatives of their own
choosing,” but also the right “to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”
At the same time, it reserves to employees the
right “to refrain from any or all of such activities,”
except to the extent required by a valid union
security provision in a collective bargaining
agreement. Violation of such rights by either
unions or employers is an unfair labor practice
which is subject to cease-and-desist and other
remedial orders by the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB). The Board’s orders are, in
turn, subject to judicial review.
Section 9(a) of the NLRA, after setting forth
the exclusive representation rights of the duly
authorized bargaining representative, adds the
following proviso:
P ro v id e d , That any individual employee or a group of
employees shall have the right at any time to present
grievances to their employer and to have such grievances
adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining
representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent
with the terms of a collective bargaining contract or agree­
ment then in effect: P r o v id e d fu rth e r, That the bargaining
representative has been given opportunity to be present
at such adjustment.

This proviso has created considerable confusion,
chiefly because of the difficulty involved in dis­
tinguishing between collective bargaining (the
exclusive function of the certified or designated
union) and grievance handling. Thus, the em­
ployer is under no obligation to process a grievance
presented by an individual employee when it
concerns a matter within the scope of the union’s
exclusive bargaining authority.9
The employer’s obligation in this regard is
purely a negative one; he may not discriminate
against an employee who presents a grievance
8 For a discussion of this legislation, see Philip Booth’s article, pp. 622-629
of this issue.
9 Cowles Publishing Co. and Howard, 106 NLRB 801 (1953).

THE INDIVIDUAL’S LEGAL RIGHTS AS AN EMPLOYEE

either independently or through his union. By
the same token, he may not insist on a contract
clause excluding the union representative from
the first step of the grievance procedure, which
means that in most cases a union representative
is present. Finally, the employer’s settlement
of an employee’s grievance is valid only if a union
representative has been given the opportunity to
be present and if the settlement is consistent
with the terms of the collective agreement.
Yet the legislative history and the express
language of the proviso make it clear that it was
intended to delineate relative rights of the union
and of the individual employee to enforce the
collective agreement. One noted authority in­
terprets it as establishing the following principles:
1. The individual employee has rights under the collec­
tive agreement, the enforcement of which are not subject
to the union’s exclusive control.
2. The union and the employer cannot block the en­
forcement of these rights by agreeing between themselves
that those rights can be compromised or ignored without
the individual employee’s consent or authorization.
3. The individual rights are limited by the substantive
terms of the collective agreement.
4. The union has an interest in all terms of the collective
agreement and a right to insist on the enforcement of the
agreement.10

The Board’s remedial orders are predicated
upon a finding that one or both of the parties have
committed an unfair labor practice. Recently,
the NLRB held that the act gives employees the
right to be free from “unfair or irrelevant or
invidious treatment by their bargaining agent.” 11
Such treatment by a union of any employee it is
obligated to represent constitutes an unlawful
restraint on the exercise of his rights. Moreover,
although an employer’s delegation to the union
of authority to determine such a personal right
as a worker’s seniority is not in itself a violation
of the act, the employer shares the responsibility
if the union exercises the delegation in an unlaw­
ful manner.
From time to time, the Board has also threat­
ened to rescind the exclusive bargaining certi­
fication of any union which fails to represent all
10 Clyde W. Summers, ’’Individual Eights In Collective Agreements and
Arbitration,” New York University Law Review, May 1962, pp. 384-385.
11 Miranda Fuel Co. and Lopuch, 140 NLRB No. 7 (Dec. 19, 1962).
12 A . 0. Smith Corp. and Local 311, Office Employes, 119 NLRB 621 (1957).
13 Spielberg Manufacturing Co. and Greenberg, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955).
14 Raytheon Co. and Reikard, 140 NLRB No. 84 (Jan. 28,1963).


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

669

employees in the bargaining unit. In one case,
it actually did rescind the certification for 6
months.12
Inasmuch as the rights protected by the NLRA
exist independently of any collective agreement
and apply to both organized and unorganized
employees, an individual worker is free to seek
his statutory remedy for alleged violation of
such rights without exhausting grievance and
arbitration procedures. Moreover, an arbitration
award purporting to dispose of an employee’s
grievance is not binding upon the Board if the
complaint involves protected activity under the
act. As a matter of policy, however, the Board
refuses to accept unfair labor practice charges
and recognizes an arbitration award adjudicating
the same subject matter if all parties agreed to
be bound by and participated in the arbitration,
if the proceedings were fair and regular, and if
the award was not contrary to the NLRA.13
Cases presenting the greatest difficulty are those
in which there is a conflict between rules estab­
lished by the collective agreement and rights
created by the statute. The Board has indicated
that it will not be bound by an arbitration award
which enforces provisions of a collective agreement
in derogation of statutory rights.14
The public nature of rights protected under the
NLRA is emphasized by the circumstances of
the violation and methods of enforcement. The
Board will not entertain unfair labor practice
charges based on violations of collective agree­
ments which do not involve alleged violations of
the act. Moreover, the act creates no private
remedies; only the Board can seek enforcement
of its orders, and in case of any conflict between
such orders and private remedial rights, the latter
must give way.
The Railway Labor Act. Like the NLRA, the
Railway Labor Act (RLA) guarantees the right
of employees to organize and bargain collectively
and also establishes the principle of exclusive
representation by the majority union. Unlike
the NLRA, however, the RLA specifies only
criminal penalties for willful violation of
employees’ statutory rights by employers.
The most relevant difference between the two
statutes, however, is that the RLA provides for
the submission of all unresolved grievances to

670
the National Railroad Adjustment Board
(NRAB), an administrative tribunal composed
of equal numbers of labor and management
representatives. The decisions of the NRAB
are enforcible in the Federal courts. Grievances
may be submitted to the Board only after they
have been “ handled in the usual manner” at the
local level.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Elgin,
Joliet cfc Eastern Ry. v. Burley,15 the railroad
unions argued that the individual employee had
no right to process his own grievance, on the theory
that their certifications as exclusive bargaining
representatives extended to the settlement of
grievances as well as to the negotiation of collective
agreements. In that case, however, the Court
drew a distinction between “ disputes concerning
the making of collective agreements” and “ dis­
putes over grievances,” characterizing the former
as those which “look to the acquisition of rights
for the future” and the latter as those which
relate “either to the meaning or proper application
of a particular provision [of an existing agreement]
with reference to a specific situation or to an
omitted case.” 16 A majority of the Court felt
that the union’s exclusive authority to make or
change collective agreements did not extend to
“ changing them with retroactive effects upon ac­
crued rights or claims.” 17 Upon rehearing, the
Court, although reaffirming its decision, modified
its earlier statements by conceding that the union’s
authority to settle individual grievance claims
might be inferred from the language of the union
constitution. Most, if not all, of the railroad
brotherhood constitutions now include a provision
giving the union officers more or less complete
discretion to settle grievances.
Present rules governing the processing of
grievances under the RLA are similar to those
under the NLRA. The individual employee may
file his grievance independently, but must follow
the regular steps of the grievance procedure. The
union is entitled to receive notice and to participate
in the discussion and must concur in the settle­
ment.
After the individual has exhausted the grievance
procedure in seeking to enforce his claim, he may
take it to the NRAB. Indeed, he has no alterna­
tive, except in the case of an outright discharge,
in which event he can treat his termination as
final and sue for damages.18 In practice, however,


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

the right of an individual to present his own case
to the Board, over the objections of the bargaining
representative, is more apparent than real. There
is ample evidence that the usual fate of such cases
is to be put at the foot of the docket, not to be
docketed at all, or to be summarily rejected.19
This rather startling inequity is possible because
the labor members on the NRAB are representa­
tives of the organizations which bargain for most
of the employees. Thus, dissident members of
the majority union, members of minority unions,
or employees who do not choose to join any
union or who are otherwise ineligible for member­
ship are without any representation on the NRAB.
Since the Board’s rules do not provide for the
breaking of deadlocks over procedural matters by
a neutral referee, the employee’s case is not likely
to be considered on the merits even if the employer
representatives vote to hear it.
The Grievance and Arbitration Procedure. The
great majority of all collective agreements estab­
lish a grievance procedure with arbitration as its
terminal point. Inasmuch as the contract is
between the employer and the union, the latter
exercises almost complete control over the proc­
essing of individual employee grievances based
on alleged violations of the contract terms, as
noted earlier. A number of situations thus arise
in which individual interests are in conflict with
those of the union.
Perhaps the most frequent instance of such
conflict is a seniority grievance in which the union
must decide between competing claims of its own
constituents. If the employer promotes A and the
union supports B’s claim to the job, it will process
B’s grievance. In any subsequent arbitration, B
will be an active participant, but A usually will
not even be officially notified that his promotion
has been challenged, and rarely will he be allowed
to testify in his own behalf. A few arbitrators cus­
tomarily insist that A be called as a witness, but
most do not, either because they are unwilling
to interfere in the presentation of the case or

is 325 U.S. 711 (1945), affirmed on rehearing, 327 U.S. 661 (1946).
is 325 U.S. 711, at 723.
ii Ibid, at 739.
is Moore v. Illinois Central R.R., 312 U.S. 630 (1941).
1®See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Swan, 214 F.2d 56 (C.A. 6, 1954);
“ Comment: Railroad Labor Disputes and the National Railroad Adjust­
ment Board,” University of Chicago Law Review, Winter 1951, pp. 303-321.

THE INDIVIDUAL’S LEGAL RIGHTS AS AN EMPLOYEE

because they rely upon the employer to protect
A’s interests while defending management’s action.
Suppose, however, that A is a union member and
B is not; the union may refuse to process B’s
grievance. When an individual presents a claim
that the union should be compelled to arbitrate
his grievance, arbitrators generally refer him to
the courts.20
Another problem arises when an individual
employee either fears that his bargaining repre­
sentative will handle his case ineptly or in bad
faith, or favors a rival union and wishes it to re­
present him. He may therefore seek to present
the case himself or to retain outside counsel,
who frequently is associated with a rival union.
If the bargaining representative objects, most
arbitrators will deny the employee’s request,
although some will seek to work out a procedure
agreeable to all concerned. There is not much
more the arbitrator can do, for his authority is
limited by the terms of the collective agreement,
which typically omits any reference to issues of
this type.
Finally, arbitrators are not inclined to look
behind any settlement of a grievance to see
whether it has the approval of the grievant, and
this information is seldom volunteered by the
parties. Therefore, when opposed by the union
acting alone or in concert with the employer, the
individual employee must usually elect either to
drop his claim or seek vindication in the courts.
Judicial Enforcement of Rights

Review of Administrative Decisions. Under the
NLRA, as previously noted, an individual whose
rights have been found by the NLRB to have
been violated by the union or the employer must
rely upon the Board to insure compliance with its
remedial order by petitioning a Federal court of

'' 20 Robben W. Fleming, “Some Problems of Due Process and Fair Pro­
cedure in Labor Arbitration,” Stanford Law Review, March 1961, p. 240.
81 See, for example, Brotherhood of Railway Clerks v. Railway Express
Agency, 238 F.2d 181 (C.A. 6,1956).
22 See footnote 18.
22 Majors v. Thompson, 235 F.2d 449 (C.A. 5, 1956); Bower v. Eastern A ir
Lines, Inc.,214 F.2d623 (C.A. 3,1954).
24 See, for example, Mountain v. National Airlines, 75 So.2d 574 (Fla. Sup.
Ct., 1954).
25 See Summers, op. cit., pp. 398-399.
28 See, for example, “Report of the Committee on Improvement of Admin­
istration of Union-Employer Contracts,” American Bar Association, Section
of Labor Relations Law, 1954 Proceedings, pp. 33-71.


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

671

appeals for a decree of enforcement. In such a
proceeding, the Board’s findings of fact are con­
clusive if supported by substantial evidence on the
record considered as a whole.
The situation under the RLA is quite different.
Since the NRAB does not obtain enforcement of
its awards, an individual or his union must seek
compliance in a private action. The scope of
judicial review is much broader than under the
NLRA. Although the findings and order of the
NRAB are considered prima facie evidence of
the facts therein stated, the court may review the
merits of the dispute and set aside the award if it
finds that the employer was correct in its sub­
stantive contentions.21
As previously noted, the employee may side­
step NRAB procedures in wrongful discharge
cases, for which a cause of action exists under
State law. If the grievant seeks reinstatement,
he must apply to the NRAB; but if he wants
damages, he may bring a legal action without
taking his case to the Board.22 However, the
employee has only an election of remedies; if
he proceeds before the NRAB, he may not there­
after litigate the issue of his wrongful discharge
under State law.23 Moreover, the law in many
States requires the employee to exhaust whatever
remedies exist under a contract grievance pro­
cedure before seeking to recover damages for a
wrongful discharge.24
Enforcement Under Collective Agreements. The
courts have not been inclined to aid an employee
who seeks to prevent his authorized bargaining
representative from handling his grievance when
the union has indicated a willingness to do so.
Most authorities support this policy on the ground
that neither the NLRA nor the RLA guarantees
employees more than the rights to participate in
and reject any settlements made without their
consent.25
A more serious problem arises when the union
refuses to process an employee’s grievance.
Commentators disagree over what remedies, if
any, should be available to the employee under
such circumstances. Some argue that inasmuch
as the union’s principal reason for being is to im­
prove the economic and social position of its
members, the individual member should have a
vested right to use the grievance and arbitration
provisions of the applicable collective agreement.26

672
Others believe that the union must be given a
free hand to evaluate the individual’s claim in
terms of the collective interest and therefore must
be allowed to refuse to process the grievance, so
long as it acts in good faith.27 A third position
is that the individual employee should be per­
mitted to compel the union to process meritorious
grievances involving only the “critical job in­
terests” of discharge, compensation, and
seniority.28
The courts appear to be in similar disagree­
ment. In Parker v. Borock,29 the union refused
to carry the grievance of a discharged employee
to arbitration. The employee then asked a
Federal district court to compel the employer to
arbitrate, but his motion was denied on the ground
that enforcement of the arbitration clause was
“purely a union right.” 30 The employee then
sued the employer for damages for discharge in
the New York Court of Appeals, which ruled
against the plaintiff. The court held that although
the employee had an enforcible right, he had
entrusted it to the union; therefore, if the union
improperly failed to preserve that right, the
employee’s sole recourse was to sue the union
for breach of its fiduciary duty.
Even the individual’s remedy against the union
may be illusory. In Saint v. Pope?1 another
New York case, three employees sued their union
for violation of its fiduciary duty in failing to
process their grievances for wrongful layoff.
Their claims were denied on the ground that the
union, being an unincorporated association, would
be liable only if the cause of action were provable
against every member of the association.
Some other State courts view the problem
differently. In Wisconsin, for example, the courts
have extended broad protection to individual
rights. Pattenge v. Wagner Iron Works32 in­
volved a claim for vacation pay for which the
individual plaintiffs had become eligible prior to
their discharge for participation in a strike. Sub­
sequently they were taken back as new employees.
The strike grew out of their shift in allegiance
from an AFL to a CIO union, and the penalty
imposed on the strikers had been approved by
the AFL union, which retained exclusive bargain­
ing rights. Under these circumstances, the court
held that the employees need not process their
claim as a grievance, even though the collective
agreement provided that the grievance and


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

arbitration procedure “ shall be the sole means of
disposing of grievances.” The reasoning was that
an individual’s contract right need not be placed
“ at the mercy of an unfriendly union.” 33
In Clark v. Hein-Werner Corp.,u the issue con­
cerned seniority. A group of supervisors who
had been promoted out of the bargaining unit
were subsequently returned to it, causing other
employees to be laid off. The employer contended
that the supervisors had continued to accumulate
seniority while they were outside the bargaining
unit, but the union took the opposite view and
filed a grievance on behalf of those employees
who had been laid off. The former supervisors
were not formally notified of the arbitration hear­
ing and none attended. Following a ruling by
the arbitrator upholding the union’s position, the
former supervisors moved to vacate the award.
A judgment in their favor was affirmed by the
Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held in part:
. . . where the interests of two groups of employees
are diametrically opposed to each other and the union
espouses the cause of one in the arbitration, it follows as a
matter of law that there has been no fair representation of
the other group. This is true even though, in choosing the
cause . . . to espouse, the union acts completely ob­
jectively and with the best of motives. The old adage, that
one cannot serve two masters, is particularly applicable to
such a situation.35

In probably a majority of cases, however, the
courts have refused to compel arbitration of an
individual employee’s grievance which the union
has declined to process. Their decisions have been
based on two principal grounds. First, arbitration
is a right created by the collective agreement, not
by the statute; and grievance and arbitration
provisions in most collective agreements specify
that only the union may demand arbitration.
Second, as explained by one court,
The philosophy of the union in retaining control over
disputes and of the company in requiring the same is sound.
A contrary procedure which would allow each individual
27 See, for example, Archibald Cox, “ Rights Under a Labor Agreement,”
Harvard. Law Review, February 1956, pp. 601-657.
28 Alfred W. Blumrosen, “ Legal Protection for Critical Job Interests:
Union-Management Activity Versus Employee Autonomy,” Rutgers Law
Review, Summer 1959, pp. 631-665.
22 5 N.Y.2d 156, 156 N.E.2d 297, 182 N.Y.S.2d 577 (1959).
s» United States v. Voges, 124 F.Supp. 543, at 546 (E.D., N.Y. 1954).
3i 12 App. Div. 2d 168, 211 N.Y.S.2d 9 (1961).
82 275 Wis. 495, 82 N.W.2d 172 (1957),
33 275 Wis. at 500, 82 N.W.2d at 174.
3i 8 Wis.2d 264, 99 N.W.2d 132 (1959), rehearing denied, 8 Wis.2d 277, 100
N.W . 2d 317 (1960).
ss 8 Wis.2d 264, at 272, 99 N.W.2d 132, at 137.

THE INDIVIDUAL’S LEGAL RIGHTS AS AN EMPLOYEE
employee to overrule and supersede the governing body of
a union would create a condition of disorder and insta­
bility which would be disastrous to labor as well as to
industry. . . . 36

The question whether a union has standing
under section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act to
sue an employer on behalf of individual employees
for damages arising from his alleged violation of
the collective agreement has at last been resolved.
In 1955 the Supreme Court, by a divided vote,
held that section 301(a) did not give Federal
courts jurisdiction over such suits because the
rights sought to be enforced were “peculiar in the
individual benefit which is their subject matter,”
were “uniquely personal,” and arose “from
separate hiring contracts between the employer
and each employee.” 37 Kecently, however, the
Court has held that the “concept that all suits to
vindicate individual employee rights arising from
a collective bargaining contract should be ex­
cluded from coverage of sec. 301 has . . . not
survived.” 38 It seems clear now that such suits
may be brought by either the individuals directly
involved or the union.
Conclusion

The foregoing review of the legal rights of the
individual relating to terms and conditions of
employment is not complete (for example, the
workers’ rights relating to strikes has not been
38 Bianculli v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 14 M ise. 2d 297, at 299, 115 N .Y .S .
2d 715, at 718 (Sup. C t. 1952).

17 Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric
Corp., 348 U .S . 437 (1955).
38 Smith v. Evening News Association, 83 Su p. C t. 267, at 270 (D ec. 10, 1962).

686133—o;

-5


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

673

touched upon); yet it is sufficient to demonstrate
how uncertain, inadequate, and often illusory
these rights are. In the area of social legislation,
the principal needs are broader statutory coverage
and better administration. Progress toward both
of these objectives is slow, but the outlook is
moderately hopeful.
In the area of collective
bargaining, however, the problems are more
serious because there is no real consensus as to
how they should be resolved.
Collective bargaining is a system of private
government. The rulers of that government—
employers and unions—frequently demand a
greater allegiance to their law, as embodied in
the collective agreement which they administer,
than they themselves are willing to give to the
national labor policy. That policy guarantees
certain individual rights, which, at the very least,
require fair representation by the union of all
employees within the bargaining unit. Yet it is
clear that the number of instances in which
this requirement is not met justifies popular
concern.
Solicitude for the individual worker, however,
should not cause us to ignore the difficult role
which the union must play. Its legitimate
objective of maintaining and improving its own
institutional position requires it frequently to
override the wishes of the one or the few in the
interests of the many. These conflicts are un­
avoidable concomitants of our collective bargain­
ing system; how to resolve them without destroy­
ing the rights of either the minority or the majority
remains one of the most challenging problems o£
our times.

Measures of
Workers ’
Wealth
E dw ard D . H ollander *

which follow describe the
effects on family living standards of the great
increases in productivity and production during
the 1950’s and the institutional and political devel­
opments for strengthening and safeguarding family
welfare and security.
The changes in private family expenditures and
consuming habits are essentially an extension of
the trends toward greater employment security,
higher wages, and higher incomes which have been
evident for several decades. In one respect, how­
ever, they may represent a new phase: the period
of comparatively high employment, rising incomes,
and rising levels of living, almost continuous since
World War II, has persisted so long that it
appears to have embedded the material improve­
ments in the standard of living; that is to say, the
higher level of living has come to be not only
accepted but expected. This expectation, as Mrs.
Lamale points out, has built up an intolerance to
reduction in the level of living and a resistance to
curtailment of consumption. The resistance has
been reinforced by long-term credit commitments
for consumption of housing and other durables.
These developments may have important effects
in conditioning consumer demand and raising pro­
pensities to consume over a wide range of the
income scale and at various stages of the economic
T h e two articles


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

cycle. Mrs. Lamale has shown how relatively
high we find the break-even points between family
income and expenditures for consumption, espe­
cially if we consider such outlays as payments on
mortgage debt more realistically as consumption
than as saving. This evidence of the stabilizing
effects of a high consumption economy is consist­
ent with the resistance to decline of per capita
consumer expenditures (in real terms), observed
in each postwar recession.
The 1950’s witnessed also the expansion of the
broad array of public programs for social and
economic benefits. Mrs. Merriam’s article docu­
ments the vast changes in these programs. The
social expenditures with which her article deals
have increased tenfold since the mid-1930’s and
threefold since 1950. Nor has this remarkable
expansion been limited to social insurance pro­
grams, which, even by 1950, were hardly out of
their infancy. The principal form of “public
consumption,” the public education system, has
grown more than tenfold since the mid-1930’s
and more than threefold since the end of the
1940’s.
The public programs, though they represent
politica] rather than individual consuming deci­
sions, also have their ratchet effects: the great
•Vice President, Robert R. Nathan Associates.

MEASURES OF WORKER WELFARE

increases in resources allocated to these programs
over the past couple of decades, far from having
satisfied the public demand, have only raised the
standards and created demands for still better
services. There is today more public agitation
for better education, for example, than there was
30 years ago, when the expenditures were less
than a tenth as great. And this too has proved
to be a demand that resisted the downswings of
the cycle.
In the case of the social insurances, however,
this awakening and unsatisfied demand has not
expressed itself with sufficient political force to
keep the quality of the programs improving step
by step with the advances of the economy. Mrs.
Merriam has shown the extent to which both un­
employment insurance and old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance, as well as workmen’s com­
pensation, have lagged through political neglect.
Both the contribution base and the benefit scale
have been stunted; a smaller part of individual
earnings is insured, or replaced, by benefits today
than 10 to 20 years ago.
The greatest benefit lag has been for workers
with above-average earnings; hence the negotia­
tion in a number of industries of private pension
plans and supplemental unemployment benefits.
This trend has been one of the dominant charac­
teristics of industrial relations in the past decade.
Through these private benefits, a large number
(but a relatively small fraction) of workers
gained protection against the inadequacies of the
public programs; but they have thus had less
reason to throw their great political weight behind
the efforts to improve the public programs. This
has in effect created a discrimination against the
workers in the less highly organized industries or
those with less rapidly rising productivity.
The title of this section, “Worker Welfare Since
1950,” emphasizes developments which have
affected the labor force, mainly, with less attention
to the large numbers of people on the fringes of the
labor market, whose participation in the rising


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

675

standards of living has been intermittent and
incomplete. In respect to these, the 1950’s left
much undone. Mrs. Lamale refers to “sizable
numbers of families whose incomes, either tem­
porarily or permanently, are not sufficient to
provide [the] modest standard of living” described
in the BLS family budget. She identifies them
as “primarily the disabled, the untrained younger
heads of households, the elderly retired, and the
unemployed.” We would have to add reference
to the heavy unemployment among young people;
the persistence of miserably low wages in some
areas and industries; the effect of chronic depres­
sion in a disturbingly large number of areas: and
the vicious cycle of undereducation, lack of train­
ing, unemployment, and poverty arising from
racial discrimination. Can we admit with com­
placency that in so productive a society, the
disabled, the unemployed, the elderly, the de­
pendent, and even many able-bodied employed
workers cannot claim enough of the benefits of
either the private economy or public protection
to escape poverty?
As the national agenda of the 1950’s was di­
rected at raising the economic status and securing
the social protection of the more fortunately
situated majority in the main body of the labor
force, the agenda of the 1960’s may be directed at
solving the stubborn problems of the less favored
and all-too-large minorities, who have been rele­
gated to the periphery or who are altogether
outside the labor force. There are multiplying
signs that the dynamics of the economy are operat­
ing to increase the extent and complexities of the
adjustments demanded of the society and its mem­
bers. The relative shifts from a predominantly
goods economy toward a predominantly service
economy, the revolutionary changes in technology
and production, the continuing displacement of
farm population, the increasing educational re­
quirements for the labor force, will add to the
formidable agenda on which worker welfare in the
1960’s will depend.

During the 1950’s, greater purchasing power and
financial resources enabled city workers’ families to
consume and save more and to build these improve­
ments into their living standards.

Workers’ Wealth and
Family Living Standards
H e l e n H . L am ale *

1776, Adam Smith advanced the then revolu­
tionary idea that the wealth of a nation is the
productive capacity of its labor. As a corollary,
he said, “Every man is rich or poor according to
the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the
necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of
human life.” 1
By 1960, the United States and its citizens had
achieved unprecedented wealth, thus defined, with
substantial increases in real income and expendi­
tures and many changes in manners and standards
of living occurring in the previous decade. The
highlights of these changes are shown in table 1.
For example, income before taxes of all U.S.
families and individuals was $6,845 in 1960, 54
percent over 1950, but with wide variations in
levels and rates of change among different types
of consumers. In dollars of the same purchasing
power, the 1960 average was 26 percent higher
than in 1950.
Individual wealth is, however, revealed more
by the manner of living and by patterns of spend­
ing and saving than by income per se, and this is
becoming increasingly so. The degree in which
city-worker families have enjoyed the “necessaries,
conveniences, and amusements of human life”—
and hence, in a broad sense, economic security—
is revealed by the periodic studies of consumer
income, expenditures, and saving conducted by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics over the past 75
years.2 Information now available from the
survey for 1960-61 is limited to summary data for
families and single consumers residing in metro­
politan areas in 1960, but serves to illustrate
variations in levels of living among families and
In

676

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

communities and changes in spending and saving
since 1950.3 Supplemented by other data, the
information also supports the inference of marked
changes in the way of life and living standards.
Increased Purchasing Power

In 1960, income after taxes of all families and
single consumers in these areas averaged $6,090,
52 percent above 1950. Allowing for the 23percent increase in consumer prices, this repre­
sented a 23-percent gain in purchasing power
(table 2). Among the 15 large cities for which
separate price indexes are available, the net in­
crease in purchasing power ranged from 11 per­
cent in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to 44 percent
in Boston.4
•Chief, Division of Living Conditions Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
i Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, ch. V.
* Studies before the mid-1930’s were limited to families of city wage and
clerical workers. Subsequent studies covered all types of city consumers.
For summaries, see: How American Buying Habits Change (U. S. Department
of Labor, 1959); Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to
1957, A Statistical Abstract Supplement (U.S. Bureau of the Census), Ch. G,
pp. 159-187; Study of Consumer Expenditures, Incomes and Savings— Statisti­
cal Tables, Urban U.S., 1950 (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania,
Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, 1956-57), Vol. I-X V III; Helen
H. Lamale, Methodology of the Survey of Consumer Expenditures in 1950
(Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, 1959); and Faith M. Williams,
“ Standards and Levels of Living of City-Worker Families,” Monthly Labor
Review, September 1956, pp. 1015-1023.
» Information for 1960 is based on a summary of data given in the Bureau’s
Advance Reports (Series 237) for the 23 metropolitan areas in the Survey of
Consumer Expenditures in 1960, supplemented by unpublished data for
wage and clerical families of two persons or more. The sample of 23 metro­
politan areas for 1960 includes 3,642 consumer units and 1,741 wage and clerical
families of two persons or more, and is a representative cross-section of all
families and single consumers residing in metropolitan areas in that year.
The full survey in 1960 covered all urban consumers and in 1961, both urban
and rural households.
* In the 13 metropolitan areas with populations of 1,250,000 or more, only
one-half the sample of consumer units was surveyed in 1960, and the re­
mainder in 1961, because national averages are to be developed for both years.
Some of the variations among the cities may be reduced when the data for
the 2 years are combined.

WORKERS’ WEALTH AND LIVING STANDARDS

The income of wage and clerical worker families
in metropolitan areas was higher than that of all
consumer units, averaging $6,329, and ranging
from $4,927 in Austin, Tex., to $7,106 in Cleveland,
Ohio. Except for the self-employed and the
salaried professional and managerial workers,
employed wage and clerical families might be
expected to have higher average incomes than the
other groups of consumer units—the unemployed,
the retired, and the single consumers. The effect
of differences in the occupational structure of com­
munities on average incomes is quite evident in
these data. In Washington, D.C., where more
than one-fourth of all consumer units were
headed by a salaried professional or managerial
worker, the average income of all consumer units
was $6,838, compared with $6,016 for wage and
clerical families. In most of the other cities,
where salaried professional or managerial workers
represented only about one-tenth to one-fifth of
all consumer units, the average income of wage
and clerical families was higher than that of all
consumer units. Some of the cities illustrate the
important shifts in the industrial and occupational
distribution of workers which occurred during the
decade. For example, in the Boston area the
growth of the electronics industry and employ­
ment in skilled occupations contributed to the
marked gain in real income.
Wage and clerical worker families were larger
than all consumer units and had more full-time
earners. Since the worker-family classification
excluded single consumers and families headed
by retired persons, heads of wage and clerical
families were also younger, on the average, and
more had children under age 18, as shown in the
following tabulation:
A ll Wage and
consumer clerical
units
families
(Average)
size_____________________________
3. 1
3. 6

Family
Number of full-time earners.____________
Age of head____________________________
Years of school completed by head______
Number of children under 18 years_______
Homeowners, all year___________________
Auto owners, end of year________________
Nonwhite______________________________
With children under 18 years____________
With persons 65 years and over__________

.8
47

1.1
43

11

10

1. 2
1. 4
(Percent)
52
54

72

82

12

13

50
21

63
11

Employed wage and clerical families in most of
these cities also showed larger gains than all con
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

677
T a b l e 1. T o t a l a n d P e r C a p it a N a t i o n a l I n c o m e
a n d P r o d u c t , A v e r a g e F a m il y I n c o m e , a n d P o p u l a ­
t i o n , U n it e d S t a t e s , 1950 a n d 1960
Item

Percent
change,
1950-60

1960

1950

$503. 4
$349.4
$328. 5
$20.9

$284. 6
$207. 7
$195. 0
$12.6

77
68
68
66

$2,436
$1,756
$1,651

$2,096
$1,523
$1,430

16
15
15

Current dollars:
All families and individuals.
Nonfarm families______
Farm operator families..
Individuals___________

$6,845
$8,049
$4,518
$3,232

$4,444
$5,232
$3,382
$2,147

54
54
34
51

1961 dollars:
All families and individuals.

$6,930

$5,490

26

180,676
56,060
40,830
4,540
10,690

151,689
48,890
34,140
5,650
9,100

19
15
20
-2 0
17

N ational I ncome

and

P roduct

Total, current dollars, In billions:
Gross national product..................... .
Disposable personal income__I_IIII7
Personal consumption expenditures
Personal net saving............

.

Per capita, 1954 dollars:
Gross national product.__________
Disposable personal income______ I
Personal consumption expenditures.
A verage F amily P ersonal I ncome

P opulation 2 (in

i

thousands)

T otal2............ ........................
All families and individuals.
Nonfarm families______
Farm operator families..
Individuals___________

1 Mean income before taxes.
2 Excludes Alaska and Hawaii in 1950.
8 Population as of July 1; includes Armed Forces abroad.
Source: National income and product and total population—Economic
deport of the President Transmitted to the Congress January 1963, Together with
the Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisers, appendix C, tables
y~}< cf 3« p-6, C-15, C-16; and Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1963
(83d ed., U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1962), table 424. Average family personal income and population of families and individuals—Maurice Liebenberg and Jeanette M. Fitzwilliams, “ Size Distribution of Income in 1961,”
Survey of Current Business, April 1962, pp. 9-16, and Selma F. Goldsmith,
Income Distribution of the United States, 1950-53,” ibid., March 1955. pp.
14-27.

sumer units in real purchasing power since 1950,
with increases averaging 28 percent and ranging
from 19 percent in Philadelphia to 44 percent in
Boston.5 This is not surprising, in view of the
widespread recognition of changes in consumer
prices as a basis for wage increases under collective
bargaining contracts, either in formal escalator
clauses or in wage rate negotiations. There was
also increased recognition in wage negotiations of
rising productivity. Output per man-hour in the
private economy increased about one-third during
the decade.6
On the other hand, incomes of many of the
other types of consumers do not respond readily
to changes in prices or improved economic con­
ditions, e.g., the retired, the unemployed, and
those dependent on public or private assistance.
• Between 1934-36 and 1950, worker families in large cities had a net in­
crease in purchasing power of about 50 percent, and between 1901 and 1950,
about 110 percent.
* Indexes of Output per Man-Hour for the Private Economy (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1962), tables 1 and 2.

678

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

large segments of the population, city families
have greatly expanded their use of credit, pri­
marily to finance purchase of homes, automobiles,
and household durable goods, but also to improve
their homes and to finance an education and other
large or unexpected expenses. The frequency
of mortgage and other debt is highly related
to the income level and age cycle of the family,
with younger families and middle income groups
the most frequent users.8

For example, although the incomes of retired
workers and other elderly persons improved
markedly during the 1950’s, their incomes in
1960 were still only about half those of younger
families throughout the United States.7 Average
incomes of older families in large cities were higher
than those for the country as a whole. In most
of the metropolitan areas studied by BLS in
1960, average incomes after taxes of consumer
units headed by a person 65 to 75 years of age
were in the $4,000-$5,000 range; consumer units
with older heads were generally in the $3,000$4,000 range. The increasing awareness of fami­
lies of the necessity of planning for an adequate
income in retirement and the steps taken toward
this end are important considerations in evaluat­
ing individual wealth, because of their effect on
current income, spending, and saving patterns.

3 In 1960, about 14 percent of all U.S. families were headed by a person
age 65 years or older. Their median income before taxes was $2,897, about
one-half that of families with heads under 65. The income differences of
older and younger families with more than two members were less signifi­
cant, but those of individuals not in families were greater. See Current
Population Reports, Consumer Income (U.S. Bureau of the Census, January
1962), Series P-60, No. 37.
* In the cities in the BLS survey in 1960, there was usually an average net
increase in liabilities for all age groups up to 55 years, with the largest increase
in the 25-34 age group. The 55-64 group usually reported an average net
decrease in liabilities during the year. Older age groups reported relatively
little credit activity. For a discussion of levels and changes in mortgage
and installment debt for all U.S. spending units, see 1960 Survey of Consumer
Finances (Ann Arbor, Mich., Survey Research Center, Institute for Social
Research, University of Michigan, 1961).

Greater Use of Credit. In spite of, or perhaps
because of, the continued rise in real income of
T a b l e 2.

I n c o m e A f t e r T a x e s a n d C u r r e n t C o n s u m p t io n E x p e n d i t u r e s f o r A l l C o n s u m e r U n it s a n d
a n d C l e r ic a l F a m il ie s i n M e t r o p o l it a n A r e a s , b y P o p u l a t io n , 1 9 5 0 - 6 0 1

Expenditures for current consumption

Income after taxes
Area and population

Net percent increase,
1950-60 «

1960 average

W age

1960 average

Net percent increase,
1950-60 «

All con­ Wage and
All con­ Wage and
All con­ Wage and
All con­ Wage and
sumer units clerical sumer units clerical sumer units clerical sumer units clerical
families
families
families
families

Percent
increase in
Consumer
Price Index,
1950-60

All areas-..............................................

$6,090

$6,329

«23

«28

$5,630

$6,044

« 17

320

23.2

Population—1,250,000 or more
Baltimore, M d____ ___________ _____
Boston, Mass_____ ________ ________
Chicago, 111___ _________ ___________
Cleveland, Ohio_____ ______________
Detroit, Mich______ _______________
Los Angeles. Calif.....................................
New York, N .Y __________ ______ _
Northern New Jersey...............................
Philadelphia, P a___________________
Pittsburgh, Pa.................................
St. Louis, Mo__ ___________________
San Francisco, Calif________________
Washington, D .C_______ __________

$5,671
6,869
6,857
<7,884
6,226
6,361
6,708
6,489
5,947
6,095
5,818
6,154
6,838

$6,007
6,956
7,006
4 7,106
6,520
6,753
6,919
6,474
6,135
6,276
6, 437
6,959
6,016

19
44
17
37
« 23
20
20
20
11
11
13
15
? 20

27
44
28
26

$5,302
6,045
6,156
6,493
5,599
6,154
6,336
6,326
5,667
5,486
5,236
5,705
5,813

$5,589
6,431
6,694
6,086
5, 759
6,693
6,699
6,501
5,983
5,851
5,909
6,732
5,470

13
23
10
18
« 18
17
13
15
9
1
8
9
112

17
20
17
10
«21
19
29
18
15
14
26
17
«8

24.7
24.4
25.2
24.0
«21.3
26.3
22.7
22.7
23.9
25.4
23.7
29.8
327.9

Population—250,000 to 1,250,000
A tlanta, Qa__________________
Buffalo, N .Y ........ ....................................
Dallas, T e x ..............................................
Indianapolis, In d ________________ ..
Seattle, Wash......... ................... .............

5,412
5,755
5,613
5,652
6,548

5,660
6,511
5,415
6,132
6,860

m
(•)
(«)

5,118
5,627
5,587
4.902
5,877

5,724
6,434
5,465
5,404
6,365

(«)
C)
(«)

Population—50,000 to 250,000
Austin, Tex________ _______ _______
Cedar Rapids, Iowa________________
Champaign-Urbana, 111_____________
Orlando, Fla____ _______________ _
Portland, Me____________ ______ ___

4,750
5,886
6,236
6,167
4,665

4,927
6,702
5,770
5,311
5,480

(•)
(»)
m
(»)
<*>

4,425
5,334
5,365
5,657
4,441

4,696
6,108
5,602
5,423
5,239

C)
(«1
(•)
m
m

31

24
41
23
19
22
34
22

<*)
29

20

i See text footnote 3 for coverage, definitions, and source of 1960 data. 1950
data for all consumer units are from the BLS Survey of Consumer Expendi­
tures in 1950, Study of Consumer Expenditures, Incomes and Savings, Statis­
tical Tables, Urban U.S.—1950, op. cit. The 1950 data for wage and clerical
families are from Faith M. Williams, “ Standards and Levels of Living of
City-Worker Families,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1956, pp. 10151023, and include urban areas with populations of 30,500 or more. The 1950
sample consisted of 10,351 consumer units and 5,994 wage and clerical families.
« After allowance for change in Consumer Price Index.


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

(«)

(*)
(«)
C)
(«)
(«)
(»)
(«)
(«)

25

17
19

30
(«)
(6)
<*)
(»)
«
CO
(8)
(«)

15

(«)
(«)
(«)

22.8

25.1

(«)
(«)
(«)
00
CO

3 Detroit and Washington not included in 1950 averages, since the previous
surveys in those cities relate to 1948 and 1947, respectively.
4 For a discussion of the overstatement of the 1960 income averages, see
footnote 3, Consumer Expenditures and Income, Cleveland, Ohio, 1960 (BLS
Report 237-21, May 1963).
• Change from 1948 to 1960.
« Not available.
1 Change from 1947 to 1960.

679

WORKERS’ WEALTH AND LIVING STANDARDS

Through the widespread use of credit, families
have acquired financial resources with which to
supplement current money income and to build
up an equity for the future. It has enabled them
to acquire consumption goods, particularly houses
and heavy durables, sooner than would be possible
with current income and to spread their costs over
a longer period of time. It also has had an important
stabilizing effect on consumer demand and hence
the overall level of economic activity.

After-Tax Income and Current Consumption Expendi
tures, Metropolitan Areas, 1960 and 1950
[Based on BLS surveys; see text footnote 3 and table 2]

All Consumer Units

Wage and Clerical Families
$6,329

Spending and Saving
Between 1950 and 1960, expenditures for cur­
rent consumption9 of all consumer units in metro­
politan areas increased, both in actual dollars
(44 percent) and after allowance for price changes
(17 percent), but in no area was the increase in
expenditures as great as the increase in income.
(See accompanying chart.) Net increases in
current consumption expenditures ranged from
1 percent in Pittsburgh to 23 percent in Boston.
Increases in real consumption expenditures of
wage and clerical families were usually somewhat
larger than those for all families, averaging 20
percent and ranging from 8 to 30 percent.
In 1960, families and single consumers spent an
average of $5,630 for current living expenses. In
addition, their gifts and contributions averaged
$313, including $124 for church and welfare
organizations, and payments for personal insurance
amounted to $336 (table 3). One-half of the fam­
ilies reported a net increase in assets or decrease
in liabilities, which averaged $155 for all families,
including those who had a net dissaving or no
change in their asset-liability position. Wage and
clerical families spent an average of $6,044 for cur­
rent consumption, with their outlays for gifts,
contributions, and personal insurance proportion­
ately about the same as those for all consumer
• Expenditures for current consumption include outlays for all goods and
services purchased for family use. The total cost of durable goods purchased
in the year is included, except for owned homes where only the costs of current
operations, i.e., interest on mortgages, taxes, insurance, and repairs and re­
placements, are considered current consumption expenditures. Payments
on mortgage principal and installment debts are considered reductions in
liabilities, i.e., saving in the current year. Mortgage and installment debts
incurred in the year are considered as dissaving. Personal insurance includes
employee contributions to social security and government and private retire­
ment funds, as well as premium payments for life and other types of personal
insurance, except health insurance. The family’s outlays for personal
insurance are shown separately as a disbursement and do not enter into the
computation of net change In assets and liabilities, i.e., average saving or
dissaving.


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

1960

1950

1960

1950
IN 1960 DOUARS

units. Current living expenses of wage and cleri­
cal families accounted for 95 percent of their
disposable income, with considerable variation
among the cities.
Contractual Arrangements. Fifty years ago, fam­
ily spending was largely limited to items for
immediate, or short-term, consumption and carried
out on a cash basis. In such a situation, saving
was for most families "money in the bank,” and
the average financial status of families in a given
year could be assessed rather accurately by observ­
ing the point on the income scale where income
equaled expenditures, i.e., the break-even point.
Furthermore, whether families on the average
reported a net saving or a net dissaving for the year
was a pretty good clue to their general financial
status and that of the community. Today, much
of family spending is done on the basis of long-term

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, .TUNE 1963

680

commitments of various kinds, e.g., purchase of
homes, automobiles, other durables, and insurance
of all kinds, and it is increasingly difficult to draw
a clear-cut line between spending and saving in
a given year.
Significantly, 1960 expenditures for current con­
sumption by all consumer units accounted for only
92 percent of income after taxes, an additional 2
percent was allocated to gifts and contributions to
church and welfare agencies, and 5 percent to
personal insurance. Furthermore, principal pay­
ments on mortgages, an essential outlay for con­
tinued occupancy of the home although they
appear as a contractual saving in the family
accounts, required an additional 5 percent and
ranged from about 2 to 7 percent among the cities.
Thus, the average net change in assets and
liabilities in a given city at a given time is mean­

ingful only in relation to the various transactions
which produced the average and to the way assets
and liabilities were defined. In the BLS survey,
for example, outlays for personal insurance are
classified with disbursements and do not enter
into the computation of net changes in assets and
liabilities. Thus, excluding insurance from
savings, the point on the after-tax income scale
at which families reported an average net saving
in 1960 ranged in the largest metropolitan areas
from $4,000 in Washington, D.C., to $10,000 in
San Francisco and New York. Most frequently
the break-even point in these cities was at the
$6,000-$7,500 income level. The income class
in which a majority of families had a net saving
was generally somewhat lower. If personal in­
surance, which includes individual outlays for
social security and other retirement plans and life

T a b l e 3 .— E x p e n d i t u r e D i s t r i b u t i o n , I n c o m e , a n d S a v i n g s f o r A l l C o n s u m e r U n i t s a n d W a g e
F a m il ie s in M e t r o p o l it a n A r e a s , 1 1 9 5 0 - 6 0

1960 average
Item

Expenditures for current consumption,2total______ ____ .
Food and beverages................................................................................
'Tobacco______________________________
Housing, to ta l8__________ ____________
Shelter, fuel, light, refrigeration and water 4________ _______________
Household operation__ ____ ______________
Housefurnishings and equipment________
Clothing, materials, services______________
Personal care__________________
Medical care___________________________
Prepaid care (group plans and insurance).................... .................................
Recreation___ ______ ________
Reading and education................. ................ ....................
Automobile purchase and o p e ra tio n ._____________
Other transportation_______________
Other expenditures................ ................. ...... ...........

C l e r ic a l

Percent distribution

Percent change,
1950-60

All
Wage and
All
Wage and
consumer clerical consumer clerical
units
families
units
families

and

All consumer
units

Wage and cleri­
cal families

1960

1950

1960

1950

$5,630
1,472
101
1,674
1,040
336
292
575
158
356
90
225
119
721
103
126

$6,044
1,635
124
1,704
1,041
321
324
640
174
371
94
241
107
836
99
113

43.7
19.3
44.3
57.9
69.9
80.6
11.5
27.2
79.5
76.2
164.7
25.7
98.3
63.1
35.5
129.1

48.3
22.5
55.0
62.4
73.2
92.2
15.3
35.3
87.1
74.2
(5)
26.2
94.5
82.9
22.2
130.6

100.0
26.1
1.8
29.8
18.6
6.0
5.2
10.2
2.8
6.3
1.6
4.0
2.1
12.9
1.8
2.2

100.0
31.6
1.8
27.0
15. 6
4.7
6.7
11.5
2.2
5.2
.9
4.6
1.5
11.3
1.9
1.4

100.0
27.1
2.1
28.2
17.2
5.3
5.3
10.5
2.9
6.1
1.6
4.0
1.8
13.8
1.6
1.9

100.0
32.8
1.9
25.7
14.7
4.1
6.9
11.6
2.3
5.2
(!)
4.7
1.3
11.2
2.0
1.2

Gifts and contributions8............... .
To church and other religious organizations............ .
To welfare agencies...........................................

313
100
24

250
92
22

83.0
92.3
60.0

83.8
(!)
(!)

100.0
31.9
7.7

100.0
30.4
8.8

100.0
36.8
8.8

100.0
(’)
(s)

Personal insurance outlays....................................
Social security, railroad, and other government and private retirem en t... .
Life, endowment, annuity, and other insurance.........................

336
181
155

357
209
148

83.6
221.4
22.2

95.1
(s)
(!)

100.0
53.9
46.1

100.0
30.6
69.4

100.0
58.5
41.5

100.0
1«)
<*)

Money income before taxes_______________ ______
Money income after taxes___________ ________
Other money receipts.............. ..............................................

6,906
6,090
83

7,116
6' 329
67

58.7
51. 9
59.6

65. 5
58.0
103. 0

Net change in assets and liabilities8__________ .
Mortgage principal payments on owned dwelling___

+155
296

+48
305

Account balancing difference 7........................................

-260

—303

1 See tex t footnote 3 for coverage, d efin ition s, and source of 1960 data; for
1950, see footnote 1, table 2.
2 The classification of item s in th e 2 su rveys is n o t strictly com parable.
1 In cludes item s n o t listed separately.
1 Includes ren t and taxes, insurance, in terest, repairs, and other current
operation expenditures of hom eow ners for principal residence and vacation
hom e. E xcludes paym en ts on m ortgage principal and for hom e im p rove­
m en ts, w hich are counted as changes in assets and lia b ilities.
» N o t available.
• T he algebraic sum of increases and decreases in assets and liab ilities.


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

N e t increases in assets or decreases in lia b ilitie s represent a n et savin g (-f-)
during th e year. N e t decreases in a ssets or increases in lia b ilitie s represent
a deficit ( —) or n et dissa v in g .
7 N e t reporting discrepancy b etw een th e receipts and disbursem ents a c­
cou n ts, obtained b y subtractin g personal consum ption expenditures, gifts
and contribu tions, personal in su ran ce, and the n e t change in assets and
lia b ilities from th e su m of m o n ey incom e after taxes and other m on ey re­
ceip ts. N eg a tiv e ( —) difference in d ica tes reported receipts are less th an
disb u rsem en ts (in clu d in g sa v in g s or dissavin gs).

WORKERS’ WEALTH AND LIVING STANDARDS

insurance premiums, were classified as saving, net
deficits would be offset in most income classes
above $3,000-$4,000.
The BLS survey did not measure total liquid
asset holdings, but a nationwide survey conducted
by the University of Michigan shows that onehalf of all U.S. spending units held more than
$475 of liquid assets in 1960, with 24 percent
reporting no holdings and 25 percent with liquid
assets of $2,000 or more.10 The proportion of
spending units with sizable liquid assets was
much larger in 1960 than at any time in the past
decade, and the number with checking accounts
and deposits in savings institutions had grown
sharply in recent years.
Taxes. Many of the goods and services which
families formerly purchased themselves, saved for,
or did without are now provided through the tax
dollar. Personal taxes—Federal, State, and
local—on the average represented 12 percent of
money income before taxes for all consumer
units, and 11 percent for wage and clerical families.
Sales and excise taxes on goods and services are
included with the expenditures for the item and
cannot be identified in the data now available.
Real property taxes, classified as a housing
expenditure, are an important source of revenue
for local governments. They averaged about 1 to
2 percent of before-tax income of all consumer
units, or about 2 to 5 percent of the before-tax
income of homeowners.
Current Living Expenses

Significant changes also occurred during the
1950’s in the families’ allocation of current con­
sumption expenditures to various kinds of goods
and services and the nature of the goods and
services purchased. These changes reflect the
complex interaction of many factors which affect
family spending—economic, demographic, and
social. These factors include changes in the level
and distribution of income, in price levels and
relationships, in production and distribution, and
in financing methods. Accompanying these eco­
nomic changes have been important social and
demographic changes—most importantly, the
changing age distribution of the population, the
continued trend to homeownership with the ac­
686133—63------6

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

681

companying increase in suburban living, increased
employment of women (particularly older women
and married women), and increased independence
of retired persons.
Despite the limited detail of available data on
family spending, broad patterns and trends are
observable. Perhaps the most significant is that
the three basic expenses—food, shelter, and
clothing—required a smaller share, declining from
57 percent of the 1950 expenditures to 53 percent
in 1960, with considerable variation among the
cities. Spending for food declined from 30 to
24 percent, and clothing from 11 to 10 percent,
while the proportion of total spending for shelter,
including fuel and utilities, rose from 16 to 19
percent. Wage and clerical families used a
slightly smaller percent than all consumers for
shelter in both years; 15 percent in 1950 and 17
percent in 1960.
The Home and the Automobile. One cannot assess
the 1960 shelter expenditure without reference
to increased homeownership and suburban living,
which have linked together, for many families,
expenditures for housing and automobile trans­
portation. In all areas except New York and
Portland, Maine, in 1960, homeownership ex­
ceeded 40 percent and ranged as high as 69 percent
for wage and clerical families in Detroit and
Buffalo (table 4). Even in New York, where 29
percent of all consumer units and 34 percent of
wage and clerical families owned homes and 50
and 59 percent, respectively, owned automobiles,
the increase in both home and auto ownership
from 1950 levels had been substantial (9 and 11
percentage points, respectively, for all consumer
units). Auto ownership in the other cities ranged
from 64 to 85 percent for all consumer units and
77 to 96 percent for wage and clerical families,
averaging 72 and 82 percent, respectively.
Expenditures for auto purchase and operation
in all areas combined accounted for 13 percent of
total current consumption expenditures for all
consumer units and 14 percent for wage and
clerical families, up from 11 percent for both in
1950. Public transportation expenditures added
another 2 percent. Even if outlays for recréa­
lo Liquid asset holdings Include U.S. savings bonds, checking accounts,
savings accounts in banks, and shares in savings and loan associations and
credit unions. I960 Survey of Consumer Finances, op. cit., p. 77.

682

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

T a ble 4.
P e r c e n t O w n i n g H o m e s a n d A u t o m o b il e s a n d P e r c e n t o f C u r r e n t C o n s u m p t io n E x p e n d i t u r e s f o r
{s h e l t e r a n d A u t o m o b i l e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , A l l C o n s u m e r U n i t s a n d W a g e a n d C l e r i c a l F a m i l i e s i n M e t r o ­
p o l it a n A r e a s , 1 9 6 0 1

Percent homeowners all
year
Area and region

Percent spent for shelter,
fuel, light, refrigeration,
and water 2

Percent automobile owners
end of year

Percent spent for auto­
mobile purchase and
operation

All consumer Wage and All consumer Wage and All consumer Wage and All consumer Wage and
units
clerical fam­
units
clerical fam­
units
clerical fam­
units
clerical fam­
ilies
ilies
ilies
ilies
A ll areas_____________

62

54

18.6

17.2

72

82

12.9

13.8

N o rth east:
B o sto n , M ass__________
B uffalo, N .Y .....................
N e w Y ork, N .Y _______
N orthern N e w J e r s e y P h ilad elp h ia, P a ..............
P ittsb u rg h , P a .................
P ortlan d , M e ....................

41
65
29
55
64
66
38

42
69
34
56
68
65
39

20.1
17.4
19.3
19.6
16.6
17.0
20.2

18.5
15.9
18.3
18.9
15.1
16.3
18.8

67
76
50
80
67
67
64

78
86
59
85
77
82
80

12.1
14.4
8.3
13.2
12.4
13.6
10.6

13.4
16.1
9.2
13.1
14.4
13.4
12.2

N o rth C entral:
Cedar R apid s, I o w a ___
C ham p aign-U rban a, 111.
C hicago, 111____________
C levelan d , O hio_______
D e tr o it, M ic h ...................
In d ian ap olis, I n d —.........
S t. L ou is, M o _________

64
58
46
64
65
53
62

61
62
48
60
69
61
62

18.9
19.7
19.8
17.9
17.1
19.6
18.2

18.7
20.1
18.2
17.9
16.8
17.9
17.0

80
83
70
81
77
72
77

91
91
80
81
84
89
92

15.9
12.3
12.8
11.7
15.5
11.9
13.1

16.3
15.2
14.0
10.6
15.3
14.7
14.2

S o u th :
A tla n ta , G a.......................
A u stin , T e x ___________
B altim ore, M d ________
D a lla s, T e x ____________
Orlando, F la .....................
W ashington, D .C ............

49
54
58
53
63
43

50
47
60
60
60
41

16.7
18.2
19.0
17.7
19.0
20.9

15.6
16.1
17.8
17.4
18.8
20.3

68
79
68
83
83
72

80
87
78
87
95
78

14.8
14.4
12.4
15.0
14.2
11.3

16.6
17.1
14.3
14.9
14.3
12.3

W est:
L os A ngeles, C a lif_____
San Francisco, C a lif___
S eattle, W ash ...................

49
48
60

53
61
61

16.9
17.6
17.9

17.0
15.9
16.4

85
71
76

96
89
83

16.3
12.9
11.1

16.6
15.1
10.9

1 See text footnote 3 for coverage and definitions.

tional travel were not included in the 1960 trans­
portation expenses, the combined expenditures
for shelter and transportation for regular family
living, on the average, exceeded those for food.
This is the first time that this has occurred in
BLS expenditure studies.
Furthermore, mortgage and auto instalhnent
debts make up the major share of the total
liabilities of most families, and the increased
equity in the home, their principal saving and
major asset. One-third of all consumers and
two-fifths of wage and clerical families (about
one-half to three-fourths of the homeowners in the
different areas) made principal payments on then’
mortgages, which amounted to about 5 percent
of average income after taxes for all families in
the survey. The payments averaged $863 for all
families with mortgages; $768 for wage and clerical
families. This increased equity in homes was
the major source of net saving in cities which
had an average net increase in saving, and the
incurring of new’ mortgages in excess of average
repayments was the major source of dissaving


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

2 See footnote 4, table 3.

in cities which had a net dissaving during 1960.
Variations among the cities in the rate and time
at which shifts to homeownership occurred largely
determined their mortgage status in 1960. In
Detroit, for example, despite a relatively poor
employment situation in 1960, owners continued
to make payments on mortgages incurred in
earlier years. Since relatively few families in
this high homeownership city bought houses
during the year, a net average saving was recorded.
In San Francisco, on the other hand, a high home
purchase rate resulted in a net increase in mortgage
indebtedness, and a consequent dissaving during
the year.
The importance of the home as most families’
principal asset makes the current market value
of homes an important consideration in under­
standing individual wealth. In 1960, average
home values in the 15 largest metropolitan areas
surveyed ranged from about $12,000 to $20,000,
with homes owned by wage and clerical families
about $1,000 to $2,000 less. In some cities,
families have built up sizable equities in their

WORKERS’ WEALTH AND LIVING STANDARDS

homes; in others, the average family is in the
early stages of homeownership.11
In addition to providing more space and,
usually, a better quality of housing, homeownership has sparked the acquisition of household
durable goods, particularly mechanical kitchen,
laundry, and cleaning equipment. The increased
ownership of such equipment is not readily dis­
cernible from changes in family expenditures,
since their cost is frequently included in the pur­
chase price of the home. There can be little
doubt, however, that technological developments
and a high real income level enabled the average
family to have a substantially higher inventory of
household goods in 1960 than 10 years earlier.
The Role of Insurance
The greatly improved governmental measures
designed to protect the level of living of the worker
and his family from the risks of unemployment,
illness, old age, and premature death, discussed
elsewhere in this issue, have certainly added to
individual wealth over the past decade and have
also immeasurably affected family spending and
saving habits. Families have not, however,
looked to government for all the protection they
want but have increased their purchases of pri­
vate insurance of all types: Insurance on homes,
automobiles, and other personal property; health
insurance and prepaid medical plans; life insurance
ii The nationwide Michigan study previously cited indicated that 60
percent of nonfarm families owned their homes in 1960, with an annual rate
of purchase of about 6 percent. Forty percent of these homes were mortgage
free, with indebtedness more prevalent at higher income levels and among
younger age groups. Ibid., pp. 49-71.
ii Includes expenditures for hospitalization, surgical, and other forms of
health insurance paid for entirely by the family and employee contributions
to plans associated with employment, but excludes employer contributions.
u See also, Louis S. Reed and Dorothy P. Rice, “ Private Medical Care
Expenditures and Voluntary Health Insurance, 1948-61,” Social Security
Bulletin, December 1962, pp. 3-13; and Donald G. Hay, “Independent
Health Insurance Plans, 1961 Survey,” Social Security Bulletin, February
1963, pp. 3-11.
i* Alfred M. Skolnik, “ Employee-Benefit Plans, 1954-60,” Social Security
Bulletin, April 1962, pp. 5-16.
is Over four-fifths of the workers in a BLS study of wages and supplementary
benefits in metropolitan areas in 1959-60, were covered by hospitalization
and surgical insurance paid for partly or wholly by the employer. About
two-thirds of the office workers and one-fourth of the plant workers had
paid sick leave. Sickness and accident insurance covered about two-thirds
of the plant workers and about two-fifths of the office workers. Three-fifths
of both plant and office workers were covered by medical insurance which
paid doctors’ fees, either in whole or part, and one-fifth and two-fifths, respec­
tively, had insurance covering major medical expense. See “Supplementary
Wage Benefits in Metropolitan Areas, 1959-60,” Monthly Labor Review,
April 1961, pp. 379-387.
1« Skolnik, op. cit.


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

683
and annuities; personal liability insurance; and
disability income insurance. In addition, many
workers and their families are covered by health
insurance and pension plans paid for either wholly
or in part by employers. The many scientific
achievements in preventive medicine and medical
treatment, which have greatly reduced the risks
for workers of disabling illness and premature
death, have also lengthened life expectancy and
years of retirement, albeit with associated health
and income maintenance problems.
Total medical care expenditure12 averaged $356
for all families and single consumers and $371 for
wage and clerical families—about 6 percent of
after-tax income for both groups. Seven to
eight families out of ten made payments on health
insurance, with average outlays (for all families,
including those who made no such payments)
about one-fourth of total medical care expenditures
for both groups. In all cities where the compari­
son could be made, the increase in health insurance
between 1950 and 1960 exceeded that for total
consumption expenditures, even though prices of
hospitalization insurance more than doubled over
the decade.13
At the end of 1960, more than two-thirds of
the Nation’s employed wage and salary labor
force had some form of health insurance financed
wholly or partly by the employer,14 and about
one-half had formal protection against income loss
resulting from sickness.15
Personal insurance payments, including both
life and retirement, were also about 6 percent of
after-tax income, averaging $336 for all consumer
units and $357 for wage and clerical families. In
1960, social security and other retirement pay­
ments were from 1% to over 3 times their level in
1950, reflecting broader coverage, increased rates
and earnings base, and higher incomes. On the
other hand, life insurance premiums, which
accounted for about 2.5 percent of after-tax income
in 1960, had increased only moderately in most
cities and showed a slight decrease in a few areas.
This probably resulted in part from the wide­
spread coverage of workers by insurance plans as
supplementary wage benefits.
At the end of 1960, almost three-fourths of the
employed labor wage and salary workers had life
insurance under such plans, and over two-fifths
were covered by such retirement plans.16 Cover-

684
age was higher for office and plant workers in
metropolitan areas surveyed by BLS.17 The
provisions of pension plans cover a wide variety
of conditions and vary widely among different
organizations, but they have been greatly im­
proved and extended in the postwar years.18
There has also been a proliferation of profitsharing, savings, stock purchase, and similar plans
in recent years to insure workers a share of
profits and benefits in case of loss of job, retire­
ment, disability, or death.19
The Way of Life and Living Standards
More Leisuref As we have seen, much of the
increase in productivity between 1950 and 1960
went for increased spending and saving, but
part of it went to increased leisure time. There
were marked increases in the prevalence and
length of paid vacations provided in collective
bargaining contracts, and eligibility requirements
were liberalized.20 Paid holidays also became
more prevalent. There have been challenges to
the idea that the reduction in number of hours
worked has increased leisure in any real sense, i.e.,
when defined as “the state of being free from the
necessity to labor,” since much of the free time
has been devoted to do-it-yourself activities,
organized recreation, and participation in com­
munity activities.21 There is, however, little
doubt that increased leisure has contributed im­
portantly to changes in family living patterns and
spending habits.
Participation in Community Activity. Both the
time and money which Americans have tradi­
tionally contributed to community activities,
particularly those of religious and welfare organi­
zations, are a part of individual wealth and enrich
the social and cultural level of living of both the
individual and the community. And the ex­
tent of participation and the share of family
income given to religious and welfare organiza­
tions are indicative of the high regard with which
such activities are held.
In 1960, about 90 percent of the families in the
metropolitan areas studied reported gifts to re­
ligious and welfare organizations. The average
contribution of all consumer units, including
those who did not give, was $124, or about 2
percent of after-tax ineome in these cities. Among


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

wage and clerical families, the average gift to
religious and welfare organizations represented
an only slightly lower proportion of income.
Three-fourths of all families and single consumers
reported contributions to religious organizations
which averaged almost double such contributions
in 1950.22 Contributions to welfare organizations
showed smaller gains over the decade in these
cities.
Emphasis on Education. Traditionally, American
families have recognized both the cultural and the
money value of an education, but increasingly so
in the postwar years. That “education is the
ultimate source of much of our increased produc­
tivity” and “one of the deepest roots of economic
growth” cannot be seriously challenged in a nuclear
age.23 When asked why children should con­
tinue their schooling, parents overwhelmingly
cite the better job prospects, greater choice in
employment, and increased financial success asso­
ciated with higher levels of education.24
Total expenditures for private education and
research reached a level of $5.1 billion in 1961, or
almost three times the 1950 level. In all of the
metropolitan areas studied by BLS, expenditures
17 Life insurance plans applied to about nine-tenths of these workers, and
pension plans to three-fourths of the office workers and two-thirds of the
plant workers. See source cited in footnote 15.
18 Digest of One-Hundred Selected Pension Plans Under Collective Bargaining,
Spring 1961 (BLS Bulletin 1307, 1962).
18 See Digest of Profit-Sharing, Savings, and Stock Purchase Plans, Winter
1961-62 {20 Selected Plans), (BLS Bulletin 1325, 1962); Also, “ Long Range
Sharing Plan for Kaiser Steel Corp. Employees,” Monthly Labor Review,
February 1963, pp. 154-160.
28 The maximum vacation allowance of 2 weeks, characteristic of collective
bargaining agreements in 1949, was provided by less than 10 percent of the
agreements studied in 1961. Maximums of 3 to 3J4 weeks were provided in
49 percent of the 1961 agreements, and 4 weeks or more in 43 percent. The
percent of workers under agreements providing for a 3-week allowance after
10 years’ employment more than doubled between 1957 and 1961, from 11
percent to 26 percent. See “ Paid Vacation Provisions in Major Union
Contracts, 1961,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1962, pp. 875-881, and “ Re­
cent Growth of Paid Leisure for U.S. Workers,” Monthly Labor Review,
March 1962, pp. 249-257.
21 Sebastian de Grazia, Of Time, Work, and Leisure, as reviewed by Peter
Henle in Monthly Labor Review, January 1963, pp. 79-80.
22 For similar data from earlier BLS studies, see “ City Families as Givers,”
Monthly Labor Review, December 1959, pp. 1303-1311; see also, Thomas
Karter, “ Voluntary Agency Expenditures for Health and Welfare from
Philanthropic Contributions, 1930-55,” Social Security Bulletin, February
1958, pp. 14-18; and James N. Morgan and others, Income and Welfare in
the United States (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1962).
23 Economic Report of the President Transmitted to the Congress January
1963, p. xxvi.
2<In 1958, an elementary school graduate could expect, on the average, a
lifetime income of about $182,000, compared with approximately $258,000 for
a high school graduate, or about a 42-percent differential. A college graduate
could expect to earn about $435,000, or about a 70-percent differential over the
high school graduate. See Herman P. Miller, “ Money Value of an Educa­
tion,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, September 1961, pp. 3-10.

WORKERS’ WEALTH AND LIVING STANDARDS

for reading and education increased substantially
more than did total expenditures for current con­
sumption over the decade. Reading and educa­
tion represented only about 2 percent of after-tax
income in 1960, but this excludes the families’
expenditures for the support of public schools,
which commanded a major share of their property
taxes.25
Working Wives. The importance of the wife’s
contributions to the level and standard of living
of the family has never been seriously questioned,
although in recent years some discussions of the
employment and earnings of married women give
the impression that wives have assumed an en­
tirely new role in the family. When the Nation
was predominantly rural, women frequently pre­
pared and marketed poultry, eggs, and dairy
products and assisted in vegetable gardening and
thus, within the home, contributed to the cash
income of the farming operation. In urban com­
munities, home industries provided them an
opportunity to contribute to the family’s money
income. With increased urbanization and indus­
trialization, opportunities for employment within
the home became very limited. In the large
industrial centers on the East Coast, from the
turn of the century through the period of immigra­
tion following World War I, a sizable proportion
of the income of workers’ families came from
roomers and boarders.28 In 1960, receipts from
boarders and lodgers were not a significant source
of family income, but employment of married
women outside the home had increased greatly.
as For a discussion of the value of public school education to families, see
the article by Ida C. Merriam on pp. 687-694 of this issue.
>8 In 1901, 23 percent of the 25,440 wage and clerical worker families in the
BLS survey of the cost of living in industrial areas had income from boarders
and lodgers which accounted for 7.8 percent of total family income. Children
contributed 9.5 percent, wives, 1.5 percent, and 81.3 percent was from hus­
bands’ earnings and other sources. See Eighteenth Annual Report of the
Commissioner of Labor, 1903, Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food (Wash­
ington, 1904), pp. 64 and 362.
37 Jacob Schiflman, “ Marital and Family Characteristics of Workers,
March 1960,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1961, pp. 355-364; see also same
title, March 1962, Monthly Labor Review, January 1963, pp. 24-36; and Marga­
ret S. Carroll, “ The Working Wife and Her Family’s Economic Position,”
Monthly Labor Review, April 1962, pp. 366-374.
28 Emma O. Holmes, Job-Related Expenditures of Working Wives, Agricul­
ture Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 19,
1958. See also “Net Contribution of Working Wives in Texas to Family
Income,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1962, pp. 1383-1384.
2« For a summary of women’s ownership of Insurance and other assets, see
Women’s Wealth—How Much7 (Women’s Division, Institute of Life In­
surance, January 1963).
30 Williams, op. cit., p. 1016.


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

685
Information on income, spending, and saving
of families with working wives is not yet available
from the BLS expenditure survey, but data on
the extent of their employment and earnings are
available from other sources. In March 1960,
about 30 percent of wives were employed: About
one-third at year-round, full-time jobs; one-third
full time but part year; and one-third part time.
Full-time, year-round working wives contributed
about 38 percent of their family income. The
median proportion for all working wives, including
part-time workers, was 20 percent.27 Of course,
the earnings of married women are not a net gain
to family income, for there are expenses associated
with employment outside the home. Studies of
work-associated expenditures are not conclusive,
but if the increased tax liability is considered as
an expenditure, it appears that only about onehalf to three-fifths of the wife’s earnings result
in a net addition to family income.28
Although much has been said of the advantages
and disadvantages of such employment and its
effect upon family life, working wives have no
doubt contributed appreciably to the rise in real
income of families since 1950, and thus the
attainment of a considerably higher level of living,
including acquisition of homes and better educa­
tion of children, than would otherwise have been
possible. Their long-run contribution may be
enhanced if their employment entitles them and
their families to participate in health and life
insurance and retirement plans,29 and their
earnings could provide an important cushion in
case of unemployment of the husband.
Another important aspect of women’s working
outside the home has been its effect on “standards
of living—the goals we set for ourselves as con­
sumers of goods and services and as users of
leisure time, and our norms for conditions of
work.” 30 More education and opportunities to
associate with persons from various social and
economic backgrounds have greatly influenced
working women’s ideas of what is necessary for
adequate living. The rising scale of living made
possible by their higher family income and the
more limited time to devote to household tasks
have in turn stimulated the development of various
laborsaving devices for housekeeping and care of
the family, from frozen prepared foods to auto­
matic washer-dryer combinations.

686

Higher Standards. In 1959, the BLS estimated
the cost of a “modest but adequate” standard of
living for a workingman’s family of four persons
in 20 large cities. The total cost of this budget
ranged from about $5,400 to $6,600, with the cost
of goods and services in the $4,600 to $5,600
range.31 The 1960 average income of workers’
families most nearly approximating the type used
in the budget substantially exceeded the budget
costs in these cities, indicating that a majority of
families had achieved a level of living above that
provided by the budget. There are, however,
sizable numbers of families whose incomes,
either temporarily or permanently, are not
sufficient to provide this modest standard of
living. The many studies made to identify the
low-income groups in the population agree that
they are primarily the disabled, the untrained
younger heads of households, the elderly retired,
and the unemployed.
Implications for the Future
The level of living, as a measure of the wealth
of city-worker families in 1960, is evidence at the
same time of considerable progress in workers’
security and of potential problems. Maintaining
these high levels of consumption is predicated on
families’ being able to meet their spending and
saving commitments through continued employ­
ment and high real income. Continued improve­
ments in the level of living and economic growth
are inextricably related. Both the nature and
rate of growth depend heavily, in our economy,
upon the purchasing power and choices of the
consumer. Quite clearly, in 1960, city families
had more of what is often called "discretionary
income,” above that required to provide the neces­
sities of life, and they followed the usual family
practice of spending it for what previously were
thought of as "extras” ; home improvements,
leisure time activities such as travel, more eating
out, more for education, insurance, gifts and con­
tributions, etc. In so doing, they have introduced
into their manner and standard of living many
things which, in a sense, become "necessities” in


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

then- future budgets and important considerations
in estimating future demand. To support these
levels and improve them will require not only
higher productivity but also changes in the com­
position of the labor force and of production in
response to changing patterns of consumption and
new ways of life.
The importance of the mutual dependence of
the family and society in economic matters was
succinctly stated by Frederic Le Play when he
said, “Fundamental prosperity is associated not
only with a well-developed material standard of
living but with a social system organized to pre­
serve this standard of living.” 32 American fam­
ilies strongly resist reductions in standards of
living once achieved, and spending and saving
patterns as complex as those currently prevailing,
once established, are not easily changed. The
high incomes and levels of living achieved by
fully employed families in recent years have
become the accepted way of life, and it has become
increasingly difficult for families in periods of
reduced income incident to disability, unemploy­
ment, or retirement to adjust such standards
downward. Young married persons, leaving home
at the peak of their parents’ earning power, do
not wish to establish their own households at a
lower scale commensurate with their incomes.
The increased cost and necessity of more and better
education has become a substantial financial
burden for many families. The high income and
level of living of the majority of worker families
contrasts sharply with that of those dependent on
assistance. Measures to insure an improvement
in the level of living of such families are of utmost
importance, not only to the individual but to the
national economy.
m I t was estimated that a comparable budget of goods and services for an
employed 2-person family would range from about $3,100 to $3,700 in these
large cities; for a 3-person family, from about $4,000 to $4,900; and for a 5-person
family, from about $5,550 to $6,700. The comparable budget for a retired
couple ranged from about $2,600 to $3,400. See Helen H. Lamale and
Margaret S. Stotz, “ The Interim City Worker’s Family Budget,” Monthly
Labor Review, August 1960, pp. 785-808; and Margaret S. Stotz, “ The BLS
Interim Budget for a Retired Couple,” Monthly Labor Review, November
1960, pp. 1141-1157.
« As interpreted by Carle C. Zimmerman, Consumption and Standards of
Living (New York, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1936), p. 431.

Social Expenditures and
Worker Welfare
Although there are gaps in the protection and
coverage of our social welfare programs, the signifi­
cant fact is that these mechanisms exist and can be
adjusted .

I da C. Merriam*
To a ssess the changes and improvements that
have occurred in recent years in the welfare of
workers and their families, social expenditures as
well as the growth in consumer purchasing power
must be considered. In one sense, all govern­
mental activities and expenditures have an
effect—whether favorable or unfavorable—on the
welfare of the people of a country. The nature of
our relations with the rest of the world and the
overall vigor of the domestic economy determine
what is possible in any specific area of life. For
the increasing number of people who live in cities,
governmental action or inaction regarding city
planning, urban renewal, mass transportation,
roads, parks and recreational facilities, waste
disposal, water supplies, control of air pollution,
and similar matters has an inescapable effect on
their lives.
However, in this article, our assessment of
public expenditures is limited to those programs
which provide benefits directly to individuals and
families. These programs and social mechanisms
are of two general kinds: (1) those designed to
distribute income more evenly over the life cycle
and over periods of earning and nonearning and
to assure at least minimum income to everyone,
regardless of his circumstance and (2) those
which provide services—such as education, health
care, rehabilitation and training—of basic im­
portance to society as well as to individuals and
which are not readily provided through market
mechanisms or likely to be universally or widely
available if left entirely to private action.
Both types of social welfare expenditure have
been increasing in importance over the past

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

several decades (table 1). The growth in total
social welfare expenditures when adjusted for
price changes has been somewhat greater in the
13 years since 1950 than it was in the 15-year
period from 1935 to 1950. Such expenditures
constituted 9.5 percent of the gross national
product in fiscal 1935, when output was low and
emergency relief near its peak, 8.8 percent in
fiscal 1950, and will be about 11.6 percent in
fiscal 1963 (table 2). Federal welfare expenditures
have declined from 48 to 28 percent of total
Federal expenditures since 1935; State and local
government welfare expenditures rose from 51 to
60 percent of their total expenditures during the
same time.
Income Maintenance Programs

Fluctuations in income—whether due to crop
failure or bounty, war and pillage, epidemics, or
unusually favorable conditions—were more ex­
treme in most preindustrial societies than they are
in modern economies. Technology has increased
our control over output,and we have gone a long
way toward building the social institutions
necessary to assure a continuing flow of income,
that is, of claims to a share of the current output,
to individuals and families in all kinds of situations.
Today, practically all workers in the United
States contribute toward one or more social
insurance programs through which claims to
income can be exercised if they retire, are disabled,
or their earnings are cut off under other designated
circumstances. The total contributions ear­
marked for social insurance (including amounts
•Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Social Security Administra­
tion, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

687

688

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

paid by employers as well as by employees and selfemployed persons) are currently about equal to
the total benefits being paid to retired, disabled,
or unemployed workers and their dependents or
survivors under these programs—about $26 billion
in fiscal 1963.
Social insurance benefit payments have in­
creased more rapidly since 1935, and especially
since 1950, than any other major type of social
welfare expenditure. This is largely the result of
the expansion of coverage and addition of new
benefits and the increasing proportion of persons
reaching retirement age with enough credited
earnings (whether their own or their spouse’s) to
qualify for benefits under old-age, survivors and
disability insurance.
In fiscal 1935, prior to the passage of the Social
Security Act, payments under workmen’s compen­
sation laws (then in effect in all but four States)
and the Federal Longshoremen’s and Harbor
Workers’ Compensation Act amounted to $174
million. Retirement systems for Federal, State,
and local government employees paid $210 million
(table 3). In the United States, as in most other
countries, retirement systems for public em­
ployees long antedated the establishment of
retirement benefits for the working population in
general. Workmen’s compensation was the first
type of social insurance covering wage earners
T

a b l e 1. S o c ia l
l ic P r o g r a m s ,

W e l f a r e E x p e n d it u r e s U n d e r P u b ­
F is c a l Y e a r s 1 9 3 5 , 1 9 5 0 , a n d 1 9 6 3
[In millions]
Fiscal year

Program
1935

1950

19631

$6,503

$23,189

$65,904

finclal insurance and related programs________
Public aid 2 _____________ ________________
Veteran s’ program s
Other welfare programs 8 . m _
TTealt.h and medical program s__ ... __
"Education 4 _
_ _______________________

$384
2,998
450
139
544
1,989

$4,911
2,496
6,381
402
2,344
6,655

$25,735
5,516
5,385
1,483
5,657
22,128

Services selected from above programs:
Medical services provided under programs
other than health and medical programs.
Educational benefits provided under veterftps' pro g ram s___ ___________________

134

978

2,824

Total

.

______

2,689

10 0

^Preliminary estimates.
2 Includes public assistance, work program earnings, other emergency
assistance, and the value of surplus food or food stamps distributed to needy
families.
2 Includes vocational rehabilitation, Institutional and other care (including
value of surplus food distributed to institutions), school lunch, and child
welfare services.
‘ Includes school health programs and excludes veterans’ educational
expenditures.
N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual Items m ay not equal totals.
Source: For 1935and 1950, Ida C. Merriam, “ Social Welfare Expenditures,
1960-61,” Social Security Bulletin, November 1962, pp. 3-13; for 1963,estimates
of the Division of Research and Statistics, Social Security Administration.


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

T a bl e 2.
T r e n d s i n S o c ia l W e l f a r e E x p e n d i t u r e s
U n d e r P u b l ic P r o g r a m s, F is c a l Y e a r s 1 9 3 5 , 1 9 5 0 ,
a n d 1963

Fiscal year
Item

Percent increase
1935

Total social welfare expenditures
(in millions):
Current prices______________
1963 2 prices________________
Per capita social welfare expendi­
tures:
Current prices______________
19632 prices.......... .....................
Ratio of—
All welfare expenditures to—
Gross national product___
Total government expendi­
tures_________________
Federal welfare expenditures to
all Federal expenditures____
Federal welfare expenditures
from general revenues to all
Federal expenditures from
general revenues___________
State and local welfare expendi­
tures to all State and local ex­
penditures________________

1950

19631

1935- 1950- 193550 63
63

$ 6,503 $23,189 $65,904 257
$15,265 $29,353 $65,904 92

184
125

913
332

$ 50.33 $150. 89 $345. 67
$118.15 $191.0C $345. 67

129
81

587
193

9.5

8 .8

1 1 .6

49.4

36.7

38.7

47.8

24.3

28.4

47.6

21.3

13.7

50.8

61.7

59.8

200

62

Preliminary estimates.
Fiscal year.
Source: See table 1 .

1
2

generally to be adopted in the United States, also
following the pattern of development in other
countries.
Pensions for veterans have played a somewhat
more important role in the United States than in
many other countries. While largely over-shadowed now by social insurance, veterans’ pensions
and compensation in fiscal 1963 amounted to
$3.8 billion, compared with $4.2 billion for all
public assistance cash payments. In addition,
vendor medical payments under public assistance
amounted to $1.0 billion. The costs of medical
services under the veterans’ programs were at
about the same level as vendor medical payments
under public assistance (table 4).
The Social Security Act of 1935 initiated a
nationwide program of protection against the loss
of earnings that has now expanded to provide very
broad, though still far from universal coverage.
In moving from workmen’s compensation to
old-age and unemployment insurance, the United
States laid out a new path. Most countries have
given priority to sickness benefits and health
insurance, and only later have undertaken to
provide retirement, permanent disability, and
survivor insurance. Unemployment insurance,
which can operate effectively only in a developed
labor market (and not in an economy with a vast

SOCIAL EXPENDITURES AND WORKER WELFARE

689

overhang of underemployed and marginally selfemployed), is still nonexistent in most parts of
the world and even in some industrialized countries.

T a b l e 4.
P u b l ic E x p e n d i t u r e s f o r H e a l t h a n d
M e d ic a l S e r v ic e s , F is c a l Y e a r s 1 9 3 5 , 1 9 5 0 , a n d 1 9 6 3
[In millions]
Fiscal year

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. The
social security program in this country took
another important innovating step. As a result
of the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Act,
workers then at or approaching retirement age
were enabled to qualify for almost full-amount
benefits if they had been covered by the Federal
old-age and survivors insurance system (OASDI)
for a year and a half. Subsequent amendments
extended almost immediate full benefits rights to
other newly covered groups. The program origi­
nally covered wage and salary workers in private
industry. The major expansions in coverage and
benefits came after 1950 as the almost twentyfold
growth in benefit payments (sixteenfold in 1963
dollars) since 1950 would suggest.
The 1939 amendments added benefits for de­
pendent wives and children of retired workers
and for survivors (aged widows and orphaned
children and their mothers). The program was
not amended again in any important respect until
1950. During the intervening years and particu­
larly after 1946, the value of the benefits was
largely eroded by inflation. By 1949, the purT a b l e 3.
tenance

E x p e n d i t u r e s U n d e r P u b l ic I n c o m e M a in ­
P r o g r a m s , F is c a l Y e a r s 1 9 3 5 , 1 9 5 0 , a n d 1 9 6 3
[In millions]
Fiscal year
Program
1935

1950

T otal---- --------- ---------- --------------------- —

$3,772

Social insurance and related programs...................
Old-age, survivors and disability insurance..
Railroad retirement--------------------------------Public employee retirem ent-............................
Unemployment insurance and employment
service________________________________
Railroad unemployment insurance and
temporary disability insurance-------- ------State temporary disability insurance (ex­
cludes private medical benefits2) ----------Workmen’s compensation________________

$384

Veterans’ pensions and compensation.
Public aid_________
Public assistance.
Medical benefits included I n Workmen’s compensation_________________
Temporary disability insurance-----------------Public assistance (vendor medical paym ents).

1963 J

$9,500

$35,079

$4,911
784
304
743
2ÎÔ'

$25,735
15,663
1,089
3,571

2,230

3,292

151

215

71
626

435
1,470

174
390

2,093

3,828

2,998
624

2,496
2,490

5,516
5,256

65

193
1

470
25
1,036

« Preliminary estimates.
. . .
» Medical benefits paid under public law in California and N ew York by
private insurance carriers and self-insurers.

p N ote: Because of rounding, sums of Individual items may not equal
totals.
S ource : See table 1.


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

Type of service

19631

1935

1950

$678

$3,323

$8,481

Health and medical services____________________ $640 $2,738
1,174
339
General hospital and medical care___________
332
39
Defense Department facilities and medicare___
586
56
Veterans’ hospital and medical care__________
Public assistance (vendor medical payments)__
193
Workmen’s compensation (medical benefits)2. .
65
Temporary disability insurance (medical bene­
1
fits) 2
. - ___ _____ ____
7
Medical vocational rehabilitation____________ (9
Matouml and child health services
7
30
31
10
School health (educational agencies)_________
55
Medical research 5_ _______________________
328
Other public activities_____________________ 124
585
38
Medical facilities construction__________________
3
156
Veterans Administration___________________
Defense Departm ent______________________
(8)
(6)
429
35
Other__ ________________________________

$7,832
2,730
790

Total expenditures

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

1 ,0 2 1

1,036
470
25
26
179
122

938
495
649
94
30
525

1 Preliminary estimates.
2 Includes medical benefits paid under public law b y private insurance
carriers and. self-insurers.
2 Excludes medical benefits paid under public law in California and N ew
York by private insurance carriers and self-insurers.
1Less than $)3 million.
2 Excludes medical and health-related research expenditures included under
the maternal and child health and vocational rehabilitation programs.
6 Included in “ Other” category under “ Medical facilities construction.”
N ote : Because of rounding, sums of individual items m ay not equal totals.

Source: See table 1.

chasing power of a benefit awarded in 1940 was
only 60 percent of what it had been in the earlier
year. The difficulties encountered in Congress in
getting serious attention and action on social
security were, indeed, one major reason unions
exerted increasing pressure for pensions and other
benefits in bargaining.
The 1950 amendments of the Social Security Act
restored the value of the benefits with an average
increase of more than three-fourths for those on
the rolls and somewhat raised the level of benefits
for most of those who would be eligible in the
future. They also extended coverage to most non­
farm self-employed persons, some hired farm
workers and domestic workers, most employees of
nonprofit organizations, and employees of Federal,
State, and local governments without staff retire­
ment protection. Subsequent major amendments
in 1954 and 1956 extended coverage still further,
until today the only groups not covered or eligible
for coverage are Federal employees under the Civil
Service Retirement Act, self-employed physicians,
persons earning less than $400 a year, and workers
in certain types of casual and part-time employ­
ment. Since 1951, railroad workers have been in
effect, jointly covered under OASDI and the Rail­
road Retirement Act.

690
The risks covered have also expanded. Perma­
nent disability benefits were added to the system
gradually, starting in 1954, with a simple waiver
of premium which kept disabled workers from
losing their rights to old-age retirement and survi­
vor benefits. In 1956, cash disability benefits
were provided for workers 50 to 64 years old (and
for disabled children under 18 or older if the disa­
bility began before age 18). In 1958, benefits
were provided for dependents of disability bene­
ficiaries, and in 1960, the age restriction was
removed.
For persons who are not disabled, the setting of
an age at which substitute income in the form of
retirement benefits should be available to those
who stop working must be somewhat arbitrary.
Age 65 has become the standard age in most social
insurance systems and, in this country, in most
private pension plans. However, the average age
of retirement has been closer to 67, and some
persons continue working well beyond this.
Others find themselves pushed into retirement
before age 65 by automation or technological
change or for other economic reasons. The
pressure for payment of social security benefits
prior to age 65 started with the problem of wives'
benefits. Since wives are typically about 3 years
younger than their husbands, many men were
economically unable to retire until some years
after they reached 65, when their wives also could
draw benefits. The 1956 amendments made it
possible for wives (and in fairness, women workers)
to draw actuarially reduced benefits at 62. Wid­
ows were given full benefits at 62. In 1961, the
law~ was again amended to enable men to draw
reduced benefits at 62. Thus older men who find
themselves shut out of the labor market will have
some continuing income. At the end of 1962,
benefits were being paid to 411,000 men between
62 and 64, 20 percent of those in this age group.
Unemployment Insurance. Unemployment insur­
ance has undergone fewer basic changes since 1935.
All States had unemployment insurance programs
in operation by 1937. In all States coverage has
been extended from establishments with eight
employees or more to establishments with four or
more. At the end of 1962, 20 States covered
i See Helen H. Lamale’s and Philip Booth’s articles on pp. 676-686 and
622-629, respectively, in this issue. See also Alfred M. Skolnik, “Income-Los
Protection Against Short-Term Sickness, 1948-61,” Social Security Bulletin,
January 1963, pp. 16-20.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

establishments with one employee or more. Fed­
eral civilian employees were first covered by
amendment of the Federal Unemployment Tax
Act in 1954, and military employees in 1958. At
the end of 1962, about four-fifths of all civilian
wage and salary workers were covered by unem­
ployment insurance, compared with about twothirds at the end of 1939.
The maximum duration of benefit payments,
generally 13 weeks in 1937, has been substantially
increased to at least 26 weeks in most States and
to 30 or more in nine States. Eligibility condi­
tions have generally been tightened, and benefit
amounts have been raised but not commensurately
with increases in wage levels, particularly for those
with higher than average earnings. Special Fed­
eral extended benefits have been provided during
the past two recessions.
Temporary Disability Insurance. During the
1940’s, legislation providing temporary disability
insurance benefits was enacted in four States and
for workers in the railroad industry. Since then
public programs covering the risk of income loss
caused by short-term illness have not expanded.
There has been a significant increase in paid sick
leave and voluntary sickness insurance largely
under collective bargaining arrangements.1
Private Employee Benefit Plans. Private pension
plans supplementing OASDI have increased rap­
idly since 1950 and now provide a continuing
income to 2 million persons, most of whom are over
age 65. The cash income maintenance benefits
paid under all types of private employee plans in
fiscal 1963 amounted to a little more than onesixth of all cash benefits under social insurance
programs. Private employee benefit plan expen­
ditures for income maintenance benefits in fiscal
1950 and fiscal 1963 are estimated as follows:
Private employee benefit
plan payments (in mil­
lions)
Fiscal years
1960

m s
0 estimated)

Total...................................................................
Retirement...................................................................
Temporary disability i...............................................
Supplemental unemployment_________________
Life insurance, death, and accidental death and
dismemberment___________________________

$965

$4,520

335

2, 200
ggo
no

33o
________
3qo

j 350

Includes paid sick leave and excludes benefits paid through private
carriers under the compulsory temporary disability insurance programs in
California, New Jersey, and New York.
1

SOCIAL EXPENDITURES AND WORKER WELFARE

In addition, private employee benefit plans paid
about $5.4 billion in health insurance benefits for
workers, their dependents, and in a few cases,
retired employees in fiscal 1963. Comparable
expenditures in fiscal 1950 were about $660 million.
Public Assistance. However comprehensive and
adequate social insurance and supplementary pri­
vate benefit plans may be, there will always be
some individuals who fail to meet the eligibility
requirements or whose needs are unusually great
or arise from causes not covered by the insurance
programs. If a society wishes to assure that no
one is forced to live below a designated minimum
level, it must have some form of social assistance
or public assistance program designed to take care
of current need whatever its origin.
In the United States, public assistance started
as a local responsibility. Aid for special groups,
such as the blind, widows and orphans, and the
aged, was provided by a number of States before
the 1930’s. During the depression, the Federal
Government extended temporary emergency as­
sistance on a broad basis. The Social Security Act
of 1935 established a permanent program of Fed­
eral matching grants to States for old-age as­
sistance and aid to the blind and to dependent
children. Federal grants for aid to permanently
and totally disabled persons were added in 1950.
In 1961, aid to families with dependent children
was broadened (for 1 year, extended in 1962 for
another 5 years) to include needy children of unem­
ployed parents. Needy persons who do not fall
within one of these categories must look to State
or more frequently to local programs for help.
The level of assistance payments is determined
by the States and it varies greatly, with the largest
differences occurring in general assistance sup­
ported entirely by State and/or local funds. In
recent years, a substantial and increasing part of
total assistance expenditures has gone for pay­
ments for medical services. Of the total expendi­
tures for public assistance (including general as­
sistance) in fiscal 1963, 54 percent came from
Federal funds and 46 percent from State and local
funds.
Income and Income Maintenance Payments

By whatever measure one chooses to use, there
is no doubt that social insurance and related pro­

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

691

grams in this country have come to occupy a sig­
nificant place in the economy and in the lives of
individual workers and their families. There is
also no doubt that these programs fall consider­
ably short of their potential contribution. In
fiscal 1963, aggregate benefit payments under
social insurance and veterans’ programs will
amount to about 8 percent of all personal consump­
tion expenditures (and to about 7.6 percent of
total disposable personal income, but since such
benefits are usually spent and not saved, the for­
mer relationship may be more meaningful). There
have been several occasions in recent years when
employment and production were declining, that
the income going to individuals and families
through these programs has prevented a drop in
aggregate personal incomes and in personal con­
sumption expenditures.
When one looks at the proportion of wage loss
covered, however, the limitations of the current
programs appear. A number of recent studies,
using varying degrees of refinement in their meth­
ods of estimate have come to the conclusion that
unemployment insurance has been compensating
no more than 20 to 25 percent of the total wage
loss from unemployment. Some of the uncovered
loss is that of young persons newly entering the
labor market who find themselves out of a job
before they have been able to build up benefit
rights and that of workers who remain unemployed
beyond the maximum weeks for which they can
draw benefits. There are also several million em­
ployees whose jobs are not covered. And for
many workers who do receive benefits, the amounts
are much less than half their previous earnings. If
unemployment benefits amounting to two-thirds
of previous earnings had been payable in 1961 for
as long as 39 weeks to all workers eligible under
existing laws total benefit payments—assuming
the same level of unemployment that actually
prevailed—would have been more than $1 billion
higher than the $3.4 billion actually spent for
unemployment benefits in that year, according to
a recent estimate of the Social Security Adminis­
tration’s Division of Research and Statistics.
The situation with respect to workmen’s com­
pensation is similar. To bring benefits in all
States up to the levels of those in the more liberal
States would increase current expenditures by
perhaps $700 million a year. To provide tem­
porary disability insurance benefits to all em-

692
ployees under public programs would of course
require a very substantial increase in expenditures,
since only four States and the railroad retirement
system now provide for such benefits. It is esti­
mated that in 1961 about 28 percent of wage loss
caused by short-term sickness and disability (up
to 26 weeks) was compensated for under public
and private benefit plans combined.
In mid-1962, about four-fifths of all persons 65
and over were receiving a regular income under
OASDI or a special public retirement program
(including the veterans’ program). Private pen­
sioners and their wives represented about 15 per­
cent of the total aged population, and their
pensions mostly supplement the benefits provided
under public programs. Compared with 1950,
when less than 30 percent of the aged were receiv­
ing benefits from social insurance or related pro­
grams, this represents a considerable advance in
the extent of income protection for the aged.
In evaluating the level of retirement, disability,
and survivor benefits going to individuals, it is
easiest and most useful to look at the national
OASDI program. At present, the OASDI bene­
fit for a worker with average earnings represents a
little less than a third of his preretirement earnings,
and for a couple both 65 years old or over, the
benefit is about 48 percent of the spouse’s previous
earnings. A worker who had very low or inter­
mittent earnings during his working years may
receive benefits equal to 80 percent or more of
those earnings. But these persons are unlikely
to have any income except public assistance.
A man who had been earning $7,500 a year
would get an OASDI benefit equal to only onefifth, and he and his wife together would get less
than one-third of his previous earnings. Some
beneficiaries of course have savings; two-thirds of
the couples and more than one-third of the other
beneficiaries own their own homes, usually mort­
gage free. Between one-fifth and one-fourth of
the retired worker beneficiaries (or one-sixth of
all beneficiaries) receive private pensions as well.
But in the two national studies made in 1951 and
1957,2 about one-fourth of the beneficiaries had
little or no cash income other than OASDI.
Because the contribution income of social
insurance programs automatically reflects increases
in wage levels, below the taxable earnings ceiling,
a social insurance system can raise benefits as
the general earnings level and the level of living

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

of the population rises without increasing the rate
of contribution (expressed as a percent of payroll).
Although benefits under social insurance programs
in this country have been adjusted at fairly
frequent intervals, for workers with average or
above average earnings, the benefits paid under
most of our social insurance programs now
replace a smaller proportion of the wage loss than
was the case in 1940 or even in 1950. The primary
reason is that statutory maximum dollar benefit
amounts and the taxable earnings base in OASDI
have not been raised proportionately with increases
in wage levels. While workers with lower than
average earnings have fared relatively well as
minimum and lower bracket benefits have been
raised and benefit duration (for unemployment
insurance) increased, the programs have thus
tended to become comparatively less adequate
for the skilled higher paid workers.
The adequacy of our existing public assistance
programs can be measured in various ways.
One recent study 3 used as a standard of need
twice the amount of a low-cost food budget as
calculated, with regional variations, by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. To meet this minimal
standard, in 1958, assistance payments for families
receiving aid to dependent children would have
had to be increased for the country as a whole by
72 percent—in the West by 27 percent and in the
South by 149 percent. It was estimated that to
provide an income of twice the cost of a low-cost
food budget to all persons on the public assistance
rolls in 1958 would have required expenditures
of $1 billion more than the $3 billion actually
spent for public assistance by all levels of govern­
ment in that year. No estimate was made of the
number of additional persons who would qualify
as needy if standards were raised, nor of the
amounts that would be required to meet
their needs.
Public Services

The re al income of many, perhaps most, families
in the United States includes the benefits of a
variety of public services.
* See Margaret L. Stocker, “ Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Beneficiaries:
Income Id 1951"; and "Income o* Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Benefici­
aries: Highlights From Preliminary Data, 1957 Survey,” Social Security
Bulletin, June 1953, pp. 11-18, 35, and August 1958, pp. 17-23, respectively.
»Ellen J. Perkins, “ Unmet Need in Public Assistance," Social Security
Bulletin, April 1960, pp. 3-11.

SOCIAL EXPENDITURES AND WORKER WELFARE

693

Education. One of the critical social policy strug­
gles in the early history of this country centered
around the question of universal tuition-free public
education. The labor movement of the 1830’s
and 1840’s provided much of the strength and drive
for publicly supported education for the children
of the workingman as well as the landed and com­
mercial aristocracy. Working families as well as
the Nation have benefited from public support of
education, first at the elementary level, then in
public high schools, and more recently college,
graduate, and technical education and training.
In fiscal 1963, public expenditures for education
were estimated at a little over $22 billion—the
equivalent of 6 percent of all personal consumption
expenditures. About four-fifths of our total
national expenditures for education come from
public funds (almost 90 percent of current expendi­
tures for elementary and secondary education and
just under 50 percent for higher education). In
1950, when large numbers of veterans were using
their educational benefits, 80 percent of all ex­
penditures for higher education were public
expenditures. Public and private expenditures
in fiscal 1950 and the preliminary estimates for
fiscal 1963 are shown in the following tabulation:

ployed businessmen). For families with children
from 6 to 17 years old, the average benefit was
about $570 a year, or 7.7 percent of the gross dis­
posable income of these families. The ratio of
benefits to income was generally higher among
low-income and nonwhite families. The absolute
amounts of the benefits, and presumably the
quality of education, tended to be higher for highincome families, however. The study also an­
alyzed the impact of property taxes on different
groups of families. The general conclusion
reached was that free public education is a power­
ful redistributive force, both in the short run for
parents and later through its effect on the future
earnings of the children. The upgrading of the
level of skill and education of the population is
also coming to be recognized as a major factor in
increasing overall productivity and economic
growth.

Expenditures for education
(in millions)
Fiscal years
I960

1963
( e stim a te d )

Public expenditures >..........................................
Current operations..........................
Elementary and secondary_________
Higher and other__________________
Veterans______________________
Construction..................................................

$9,314
7,984
4,696
3,288
2,689
1,329

* $22,106
18,445
15,586
2,859
100
3,661

Private expenditures...........................................
Current operations...... .................................
Elementary and secondary...................
Higher and other__________________
Construction_________________________

1,589
1,308
507
801
282

5, 6 6 6
5,052
2,057
2,995
614

1 Excludes expenditures for school health.
Includes $23 million spent for training and retraining of adults under the
area redevelopment and manpower and training programs.
2

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

It is difficult to measure the distribution of
benefits from public expenditures for services.
A recent study conducted by the Survey Research
Center at the University of Michigan 4 attempted
to calculate the average (mean) public school
benefits accruing to families in the survey (other
than families headed by farmers and self-em‘ James N. Morgan and others, Income and Welfare in the United States
(New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962).


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

Health Services. New medical discoveries and
increasingly complex medical technologies have,
over the past 10 or 15 years, drastically affected
the relations between medical expenditures and
family budgets. Medical care is a more powerful
determinant of life and death or of the extent of
disablement than ever before. The aggregate
costs of medical service have risen far faster than
total consumption expenditures. Public and pri­
vate expenditures for personal health services
represented 5.5 percent of total disposable personal
income both in fiscal 1935 and 1950, and 7.6 per­
cent in 1963. Health costs have always fallen
unevenly on different families, but the inequality
of costs for those who have little illness and those
who experience one serious illness or more during
a year is probably increasing. It is not surprising
that both public expenditures and private insur­
ance and prepayment arrangements for health
care have been expanding.
Most of the personal health services provided
from public funds are for special groups—veterans,
military personnel, crippled children, infants and
pregnant women, and persons receiving public
assistance. State hospitals for mental illness and,
until the most recent years, tuberculosis, and munic­
ipal or State-operated general hospitals account
for a large share of the total. The medical care
paid for as a result of workmen’s compensation
laws is treated as a public program expenditure in
this accounting (table 4).

694

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

Private expenditures for medical care and other
health purposes amounted to $25.3 billion in fiscal
1963. The relative importance of public and pri­
vate expenditures and of insurance payments is
indicated in the following tabulation:
Percent of total health expenditures
Fiscal years
1935
Public expenditures...........
Direct payments.................
Private insurance benefits.
Expenses for prepayment
A n o th e r ...........................

1950
21
77

2

1963
(estimated)
27
58
7
2
6

25
45
21
3
6

» Difference between insurance premiums and insurance benefits, including
costs of administration, reserve accumulation, and profits of insurance car­
riers.

Currently about three-fourths of the private
health insurance benefits are paid under private
employee-benefit plans, about 30 percent of which
are collectively bargained plans.
Other Services. The programs combined in table
1 under Other Welfare Programs include a variety
of services, each important for special groups in
the population. In fiscal 1963, the Federal and
State Governments spent an estimated $160 mil­
lion for vocational rehabilitation services, includ­
ing cash allowances, medical care, and counseling
and training. Child welfare services, such as
family counseling, adoption and foster home serv­
ices, and protective services for neglected or de­
linquent children, accounted for $250 million.
About $597 million was spent for institutional care
(in other than medical institutions), and $474
million for the school lunch program (the cost of
surplus food for needy persons and of pilot food
stamp plans in operation in a few localities is in­
cluded with public aid).
In table 3, a service of growing importance—
the public employment service—was combined
with unemployment insurance. These two pro­
grams are, of course, inseparably linked. In­
creasingly, however, we are recognizing that the
employment service must put as much or more
effort into job counseling and placement for those
workers who are not protected by unemployment
insurance, the new, young entrant to the labor
market, the older worker displaced by automation
who has exhausted his unemployment benefits,
the disabled, the person with limited education,


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

and the member of a minority group blocked from
employment by discrimination. Under the stimulus
of the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 and the
Manpower Development and Training Act of
1962, the public employment service is broaden­
ing the scope of its general manpower activities.
Employment service, as distinct from unemploy­
ment insurance, expenditures amounted to $362
million in 1950 and $414 million in 1963. The
latter figure includes $14 million financed under
the area redevelopment and manpower develop­
ment and training programs. (The combined
unemployment insurance and employment service
figure includes $45 million in subsistence and
allowance payments under these training pro­
grams.)
In Conclusion

In terms of aggregate national expenditures or
individual family budgets, social welfare ex­
penditures are increasingly significant. Takehome pay is a smaller proportion of calculated
labor income than it was in the 1920’s or 1930’s.
But the great majority of workers can now count
on an assured retirement income, on continuing
income in the event of short-term or severe
disability or unemployment of short duration,
and on benefits for their survivors.
Most workers have some protection against
medical costs through private health insurance.
Special groups receive not inconsiderable amounts
of medical care paid for from public funds.
Publicly provided education, with all its inad­
equacies, continues to open the door of oppor­
tunity for children in all types of circumstances.
Adult education and technical training are bright­
ening the prospects of many now in their middle
years or older.
There are gaps in the amount of protection and
the extent of coverage of programs. The amount
or quality of the benefits is frequently less than
it might be or low by any standard. The im­
portant fact may be that we have the mechanism,
the established social institutions, through which
we can provide more adequate cash incomes and
a broad range of social services whenever we
decide that these areas of life should be strength­
ened.

The Economic Base
and Limits of
Social Welfare
G erh ard C olm *
W h e n the U.S. Department of Labor was estab­
lished 50 years ago, the Federal Government had
hardly any responsibility for workers’ security and
welfare. Some State and local governments and
some philanthropic organizations were engaged in
programs for labor welfare. The Federal labor
program, however, was concerned only with col­
lecting statistical and other information on labor
conditions in general and child labor specifically,
with occasional mediation in management-labor
conflicts of national impact, and with immigration
as it affected the labor market; welfare expendi­
tures were negligible.
Actually, the main body of the U.S. labor move­
ment rejected suggestions that the Federal Gov­
ernment should provide for social insurance,
following the lead of European countries, which
already had moderately developed social security
systems. The unions preferred to rely on the
workers’ individual and collective self-responsi­
bility, undisturbed by an intrusion of a paternalis­
tic state. Labor maintained this attitude until
the depression of the 1930’s dramatically demon­
strated that economic conditions could create
hazards far beyond those which the individual
worker or his union or the States could meet with
the resources at their disposal. The social security
legislation of the 1930’s was a response to the
conditions of the depression, but in a more funda­
mental way it can be said that the depression
broke down resistance to the broad social security


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

legislation which is an essential feature of a
modem industrial society.
Since the end of World War II, there has been
increasing trust that the Government, with its
responsibility under the Employment Act of 1946,
is determined and able to combat depressions of
the duration and severity of that of the 1930’s.
However, the rapid technological advances of the
last decade have created additional sources of
insecurity. Furthermore, the individual needs of
workers and their families for more adequate pro­
vision for education, health, recreation, employ­
ment security, and old age have become more
widely recognized and more articulated.
Social security and welfare programs expanded
in the postwar period on the Federal and on the
State and local levels, both in number of bene­
ficiaries and dollars disbursed. The increase
remained small, however, in relation to the rise in
total production of goods and services.
In the West European countries, a much larger
share of total production is allocated to the bene­
ficiaries of government social programs. For a
comparison, presented in table 1, we have selected
Sweden, which is often considered the country
most advanced toward the “welfare state,” and
Germany, which is often considered the nearest
approximation to a “free enterprise” country.
Actually, the relative size of social security and
welfare expenditures is nearly the same in both
countries, and in both countries, far higher than
in the United States. The estimates in table 1
include only government social insurance and
welfare programs, not voluntary or contractual
private pension provisions, which are substantial
in the United States and Germany and of lesser
importance in Sweden.
The development of social insurance and welfare
programs in the United States has certainly not
come to an end. As indicated in the preceding
articles in this volume, there is still a great deal
of unfinished business in this respect. The pace
of that development will be hammered out in the
political arena and influenced by the relative
strength of various vested interests. This does
not mean, however, that there is no place for a
detached humanitarian point of view and for
economic and social analysis. In a pluralistic
•Assisted by Barbro Salaj. Dr. Colm is Chief Economist of the National
Planning Association.
695

696

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

T able

1. S o c ia l S e c u r it y a n d W e l f a r e E x p e n d i ­
t u r e s 1 o f C e n t r a l a n d L ocal G o v e r n m e n t s as
P e r c e n t o f G r o s s N a t io n a l P r o d u c t , U n it e d
S t a t e s , G e r m a n y , a n d S w e d e n , S e l e c t e d Y e a r s ,2

1935-62
Y earJ

U n ited
States

G erm any

(Federal

Sw eden

R epublic)
1935-40 ...............................................
1950.......................................................
1956.....................................................
1958.......................................................
1959 .................................... ..............

I960

1961... ............................................... .
1 9 6 2 ..............................................

s 6.5
6.1
5.3
6.7
7.0
6.9
7.6
5 7.6

*6.0
12.0
14.1
13.6

10.8
11.9
12.0
12.2

* 12.6
« 12.7

1 Includes expenditures for social insurance, public aid, health and medical
programs, veterans’ programs, public housing, and other welfare services
(e.g., vocational rehabilitation, school lunch program); excludes expenditures
for education. Because of differences in concepts, the comparison is only
of approximate validity.
2 Fiscal years for United States and Germany; calendar years for Sweden.
s Average of fiscal years 1935 and 1940.
4 Reichsgebiet, fiscal year 1938.
* Preliminary estimate.
Source: United States—1935-61, Social Security Bulletin, November 1962,
p. 4; 1962, estimate of Research and Statistics Division, Social Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Germany—official estimates of the German Minister of Finance. Sweden—
The Cost and Financing of the Social Services in Sweden in 1960 (Stockholm,
National Social Welfare Board, 1962).

society—if not in every society—several objec­
tives are pursued, such as economic growth,
individual well-being, fairness in the distribution
of goods and leisure, a secure national position in
a world at peace. Economic analysis can dem­
onstrate to what extent policies adopted in pursuit
of one objective may, at the same time, either
enhance or come in conflict with other objectives.
It is the purpose of this article to identify some
of the considerations which should be taken into
account in evaluating the Government’s responsi­
bility for workers’ security and welfare.
The Economic Requisite
If we succeed in making reasonably full use of
our rapidly rising potential in productivity and
production, the “social problem” appears solvable.
Here, however, the economist must consider
whether the additional welfare programs that
become feasible as production rises in accord with
capabilities may interfere with the incentives and
motivations which keep our economic system going
and thus prevent full utilization of productive
capabilities and cause a slowdown in our rate of
growth.
With respect to the past, it would be difficult
to prove that the rise in the welfare programs has
interfered with high employment and a larger rate
of growth. It is more plausible to argue that the


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

welfare programs have introduced an element of
stability into our economic system and were one of
the factors preventing postwar recessions from
developing into depressions. For example, during
the 1960-61 recession, personal incomes continued
to rise although production declined. That per­
sonal incomes and consumer expenditures cush­
ioned the impact of the recession was in part due to
the fact that social insurance payments and
Government welfare expenditures rose Thus,
old-age and survivors’ insurance benefits and
State unemployment benefit payments rose from
a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $13.6 billion
in the second quarter of 1960 to $16.9 billion in the
second quarter of 1961. Many of those who with­
drew from the labor force because of age or disabil­
ity or who were temporarily unemployed received
at least a minimum income and thereby contrib­
uted to a relative steadiness in consumer markets.
With respect to the future, an increase in welfare
programs if properly dosed and timed may support
economic growth and thereby help to strengthen
its own economic basis. If improperly dosed and
timed, however, such an increase in welfare pro­
grams could interfere with economic growth and
thereby- become self-defeating. Conversely, in
connection with programs in support of economic
growth, social security and welfare measures may
become feasible which would be oppressive if
associated with policies of economic restriction.
Many of our social security measures originated
during the 1930’s, when depression psychology
dominated much of the thinking. Hours of work
were reduced, not primarily to enrich the life of
the worker and to increase his productivity but to
spread available work opportunities among those
seeking employment. Old-age insurance was wel­
comed by many, not only to permit the aged a
well-deserved pension but also to enable older
workers to make a place for unemployed younger
workers. Technological advances were viewed
primarily as a threat to employment and even a
special tax was proposed, although not enacted,
to slow down the adoption of laborsaving techno­
logical advances.
Again today, although the unemployment rate is
but a fraction of the rate during the depression,
the country is experiencing substantial chronic
unemployment, rapid advances in laborsaving
technology, and a continuing reduction in the farm
population. It also faces the prospect of unprece-

THE ECONOMIC BASE AND LIMITS OF SOCIAL WELFARE

dented additions to the labor force. During the
last decade, the increase in the number of people
seeking employment, particularly nonagricultural
employment, has exceeded the increase in job
opportunities, with the result that the unemploy­
ment rate has risen slowly, labor force expansion
has slowed down, and the number of workers
involuntarily working short hours has increased
somewhat. In consequence, there is again a
drive for a shorter workweek and a growing
concern with job security reflected in union
demands for “controlled” adoption in laborsaving
technological and managerial advances.
It is one question to ask what the economic
burden of adequately providing for workers'
security would be, assuming that the slow prog­
ress in the opening up of job opportunities be
continued. It would be another question to ask
what the result would be, assuming that through
a combination of monetary, fiscal, and related
policies a faster rate of growth and a more adequate
creation of new job opportunities is achieved.
The expansion in security and welfare measures
which we can “afford” depends to a large extent
on the answers to these questions, namely whether
a slower or faster rate of economic growth can be
expected for the foreseeable future. It also
depends on the international economic relations
of the American economy.
As a matter of fact, the need to provide more
adequately for workers' security and welfare is a
powerful argument in favor of a policy in support
of economic growth. Entirely apart from human­
itarian considerations, inadequate growth would
create a rising burden of social security and
welfare expenditures; that is, needed expenditures
in relation to the national income or product, and
consequently the burden of taxes would rise.
Furthermore, a rising trend of unemployment
would make labor demands for shorter hours
almost irresistible and would buttress labor
attempts to control laborsaving technological
and managerial advances. All such developments
might not only impede our economic growth and
reduce our ability to meet urgent domestic tasks
but also worsen the international competitive
position of U.S. industry by raising costs of
production.
i Using the Council of Economic Advisers’ estimate of potential GNP in
the Economic Report of the President, Transmitted to the C o n g re s s , J a n u a r y 1962,
p. 61.


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

697

In contrast, a satisfactory rate of growth would
make it possible to reduce unemployment, to
open up job opportunities in compensation of
laborsaving advances, and to increase social
security benefits and welfare programs without a
corresponding increase in tax rates. Labor
demands for restrictive measures would have less
persuasiveness and force.
If we could assume that approximately full use
would be made of the potential production of our
economy, we could hardly fail to conclude that we
could “afford” more adequate provision for the
aged, the unemployed (including those who have
no skills or whose skills have become obsolete),
the disabled, and the sick. In the last decade,
we could have produced about $22 billion 1 more
each year, on the average, if we had succeeded
in keeping unemployment to a reasonable mini­
mum. Assuming that 50 percent of this potential
increase in production would have been needed
to supply the additional wage earners with more
consumer goods (wages being higher than receipts
of the unemployed) and to provide for additional
expansion and maintenance of plant and equip­
ment which would be needed to achieve the higher
rate of growth, this would have made about
$11 billion per year available for other public and
private purposes. If future production of goods
and services should increase each year by, say,
4- 4)2 percent, this would mean an additional
increase of $20—
$25 billion. Granting that again
a part of this increase would be “preempted” for
wages and the expansion and maintenance of
productive facilities, welfare programs could
nevertheless be expanded by very substantial
amounts without any redistribution of incomes.
This assumes, of course, that the increase in pro­
duction is not fully absorbed by other claimants,
as for example, a rapidly rising defense program.
The Economic Limits
In an economy growing at a satisfactory rate, a
substantial but not unlimited increase in security
and welfare expenditures is feasible. To explore
some of the limits for such programs, the require­
ments of a growing economy must be examined.
There is first the age-old conflict between re­
sources that can be made available for current
personal consumption and those needed for addi­
tional capital outlays in the interest of growth

698

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

T a b l e 2.

F e d e r a l E x p e n d i t u r e s f o r S o c ia l I n s u r ­
a n ce and W e l fa r e P rogram s and T otal F ed e r a l
E x p e n d i t u r e s , F is c a l Y e a r s 1940 a n d 1963
[Millions of dollars]
Item

1940

1963 *

Welfare expenditures1 financed by general
revenue____________ _____
2,894
Other expenditures financed by general revenue. 6,161

11,042
83,269

8,148
77,108

Total administrative budeet, exnenditnres

94,311

85,256

Social insurance expenditures financed by special employment taxes____________ . .
Total cash payments_____________
Welfare expenditures as percent of administrative budget......... ...............
Welfare and social insurance expenditures as
percent of total cash navments

9,055

Increase,
1940-63

350

19,691

19,341

9,600

116,774

107,174

32.0

11.7

9.6

33.8

26.3

25.6

1 Preliminary estimates.
^Includes expenditures for public aid, health and medical programs,
other welfare programs (e.g., vocational rehabilitation), and veterans’ pro­
grams; excludes expenditures for education.
Source: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Social
Security Administration: Social Security Bulletin, November 1962. p. 5;
Division of Research and Statistics, and the U.S. Budget.

and increased future consumption. This factor
is of crucial importance for the so-called under­
developed countries. It is of less significance in
the United States because full utilization of
currently underemployed resources would permit
a substantial increase in security and welfare ex­
penditures, and at the same time, an increase in
capital outlays. Actually in the industrial nation,
a slight relative decline in the share of investment
in plant, equipment, and inventories tends to be
compatible with economic growth because of
simultaneous productivity increases for both labor
and capital.
Furthermore, if the definition of capital outlays
could be broadened to include all current outlays
which contribute to economic growth, it would
sharpen judgments on the desired balance between
outlays for consumption and for capital in the
broadened definition. Outlays for public health,
education, training, research, are designed for
the benefit of individuals whose life is enriched,
but in some part, they can also be regarded as in­
vestments in the future which increase the pro­
ductivity of labor. Similarly, some support for
residential construction not only brings decent
housing within the reach of low- and middle-income
families but also adds to the mobility of labor and
thereby contributes to economic growth. This
line of reasoning should not, of course, lead to the
conclusion that we need not be concerned with
adequate investments in the conventional defini­
tion, particularly in the expansion and moderni­

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

zation of plant and equipment, nor that every
increase in welfare outlays also contributes to
economic growth. Increases in physical capital
and improvements in health, skills, and knowledge
should be complementary. Nevertheless, the
fact that certain outlays at the same time serve
human welfare and promote economic growth
increases the limits within which an expansion of
welfare services is not only desirable but also eco­
nomically feasible.
A related question is whether expansion of wel­
fare and security measures may interfere with the
amount of savings needed in a growing economy.
When social insurance programs were first adopt­
ed, fear was often expressed that provision for
old age and other contingencies might reduce the
individual’s motivation to provide for private in­
surance and for savings. Actually, the opposite
has happened, as the preceding article demon­
strates.
Another question is whether the increase in pro­
gressive tax rates incident to the very large in­
crease in Federal expenditures since the period
before World War II has reduced the savings
available for future expansion and modernization,
especially whether individual income tax rates in
the higher brackets have reduced the supply of
risk capital.2 As already mentioned, it cannot
be said of the American economy in general that
development is handicapped by lack of savings.
Most of the capital required for business expansion
and modernization of corporations is provided by
undistributed profits and accrual of depreciation
allowances. Also the annual accrual in private
and public social insurance and welfare funds is
so large that it probably has offset, if not more
than offset, the reduction in savings which could
be attributed to the tax requirements for finan­
cing social security and welfare programs. In
considering how much this reduction might be,
we should estimate what part of the total increase
in expenditures is attributable to social security
and welfare programs and what part to other pro­
grams, particularly to national defense. Table
8High individual income tax rates combined with lower rates on capital
gains provide to some extent an incentive for investments in risky ventures,
e.g., in “ growth stocks.” Also a high corporate tax rate is an incentive for
engagement in risky undertakings by high profit corporations. On the other
hand, there is an incentive for wealthy individuals to invest in tax sheltered
securities, such as tax exempt municipal bonds. There is no doubt that the
increase in tax rates had a profound effect not only on the amount but also
on the type of saving which is forthcoming. It is, however, by no means
certain what the net effect has been.

THE ECONOMIC BASE AND LIMITS OF SOCIAL WELFARE

2 indicates that less than 10 percent of the in­
crease in total expenditures financed by general
revenue is due to the increase in welfare programs.
Welfare expenditures, in the fiscal year 1963,
amounted to about 12 percent of the total Federal
expenditures of the administrative budget.
It is also relevant to estimate what part of the
Federal general taxes (i.e., except employment
taxes) is likely to be paid by the wealthy whose
ability to save might thereby be reduced. In
taxes paid by the wealthy, we have included be­
sides individual income taxes of people with gross
incomes of $20,000 or more, all Federal estate
taxes, one-half of corporate taxes (assuming that
the other half is passed on to consumers), and 5
percent of excise taxes. The resulting estimate
suggests that from total budget revenue of $85.5
billion in fiscal year 1963 about $24 billion, or 28
percent, were paid directly or indirectly by the
wealthy. Assuming that 12 cents of every tax
dollar is used for Federal welfare expenditures
financed by general revenue it follows that $2.8
billion, or about one-fourth of these welfare ex­
penditures were financed by taxes of the wealthy.
We assume that the employment taxes3 which
finance social insurance are largely paid by em­
ployees, either by direct deductions from their
wages or salaries or indirectly through lower
wage and salary rates than they could command
if employers did not have to pay employment
taxes. Some part of these taxes also is passed
on in higher prices and thus is paid by consumers in
the lower and middle-income brackets. Only a
small proportion, perhaps 20 percent, is assumed
to be eventually borne by the wealthy through a
squeeze on profits with the resulting effect on
dividends and stock values.
Combining the welfare programs financed by
general revenue and the social insurance programs
financed by employment taxes, we reach the con­
clusion that of the whole $30.7 billion expendi­
tures for social security and welfare in fiscal year
1963, possibly $5.6 billion, or less than one-fifth
are directly or indirectly financed by the wealthy.
The part of social security and welfare programs
financed by the wealthy is even smaller if State
5Employment taxes in fiscal 1963 are estimated at $14.8 billion.
« Ia m not discussing here the question of incidence of the employers’ share
in social insurance taxes. However, I assume that, as far as labor costs are
concerned, an increase in such taxes is largely equivalent to a corresponding
increase in wage rates.


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

699

and local finances are included, because the tax
systems of these governments are less progressive
than that of the Federal Government. Nor can
we expect any substantial change in those re­
lationships in the future. In our modern econ­
omy, the wealthy are only to a small extent “taxed
for the benefit of the poor.” Actually, the fi­
nancing of security and welfare measures has
become mainly a transfer of funds by employers
and other members of the lower- and middleincome classes from the time they are earning a
living, to the time they retire or find themselves in
distress. Thus, it appears that only a minor part
of any reduction in venture capital that has re­
sulted from the increase in taxes on the highincome brackets can be attributed to the increase
in welfare expenditures.
Security as Income and Cost

Social security and welfare measures add to the
real income of the beneficiaries and, at the same
time, are an element of costs of production
specifically an element of labor costs. Therefore,
the economist should view them in relationship
to rewards for labor in general, particularly wages
and salaries, which are, on the one hand, one of
the most important factors determining purchas­
ing power and demand in the economy and, on the
other hand, one of the most important factors
determining costs of production. If wages and
salaries relative to prices are too low or rising too
little, they fail to contribute to the dynamic
balance between the potential increase in the pro­
duction of consumer goods and the demand for
such goods. If wages and salaries are too high or
rising too rapidly, costs of production are pushed
up unless the rise is offset by cost-reducing tech­
nological and managerial advances.
Wages and salaries or equivalent labor costs
include basically three elements, namely, (1) the
take-home pay which is used by the workers for
their own consumption or for making their own
provision for security through insurance or sav­
ing; (2) the expenditures by which the employer
provides fringe benefits for the employee, and (3)
that part of taxes or contributions4 which are
paid to the Government to finance the social
security and welfare expenditures. Thus, from
the labor cost standpoint, if tax-financed social
security and welfare measures are intended to be

700
raised rapidly, take-home pay rates and fringe
benefits can be raised only less rapidly, and vice
versa. An important factor in determining an
economically feasible rate of expansion in security
and welfare programs is the workers’ relative
preference for a more rapid increase in wage rates,
or in fringe benefits, or in tax-financed Govern­
ment social security and welfare programs.5
This statement is not meant to imply that there
cannot be simultaneous increases in wage rates,
fringe benefits, and security and welfare programs
to enhance workers’ real income and well being.
However, the combined effect of labor income and
costs on the price level and international com­
petitiveness should be taken into account.
The preference of the workers for relative
advances in the three different avenues towards
improved welfare is not the same for all categories
of workers. Workers who have obtained relatively
high pay scales often use their collective bargaining position for obtaining job security from the
employer. Their interest in unemployment in­
surance benefits is less than that of workers who
are in a weaker bargaining position and have lower
pay scales. These differences complicate the
formulation of policies. Also, over time, prefer­
ences of particular worker groups may change
substantially.
Over the last few decades, we have seen a
dramatic increase in Government provision for
workers’ security and welfare; in employers’ and
unions’ provisions for supplementary pensions,
medical care, and job security, and also in the in­
dividual worker’s ability and desire to buy private
insurance and participate in voluntary savings
schemes. There is doubt that the present mixture
in the provision for security and welfare is the best
possible one—there is for example, some question if
the relatively large role played by private unfunded
pension plans does not interfere with desired labor
mobility. It is certain that the mixture of the
three methods will change with the general rise in
the standard of living.
4As noted previously, the largest part of the welfare programs are assumed
to be financed by taxes paid directly or indirectly by people in the lowerand middle-income brackets.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

In Conclusion
For advances in the security and welfare of labor
as a whole, the most effective, if not the only truly
effective, measure is a policy promoting economic
growth. And a successful policy of economic
growth, in turn, will increase both workers’ income
and Government revenues—at existing or even
lower tax rates. Increasing Government revenue
directly increases the means available for financing
additional Government welfare programs. How­
ever, more is needed than additional revenue to
deal with the residual problems of poverty. For
today, although wage and salary employees
are distributed throughout the lower and middle
brackets of the income pyramid and poverty is no
longer a characteristic of labor per se, it has become
increasingly a characteristic of specific conditions.
The conventional welfare programs will not
solve the problems of the adolescents looking for
jobs without adequate schooling; they will not
solve the problems of workers of advanced age
who have been replaced by technological develop­
ments; they will not solve the problems of those
suffering from racial discrimination or those lacking opportunities because of physical or mental
handicaps; they will not solve the problems of
workers in depressed areas. Specific programs have
been initiated or proposed to deal with each of
these causes of poverty, such as policies combating
discrimination in employment practices, educa­
tional and training programs, drives for employ­
ment opportunities for the handicapped, for de­
pressed areas, the youth corps, and others. These
programs require money which will become more
easily available in an economy of satisfactory
growth, but even more, they require tolerant and
generous attitudes of management, labor, and the
general public. With the technical knowledge of
our age, we will have the material means available
for eliminating poverty as a mass phenomenon.
We can only hope that we also will develop the
attitudes necessary to use these resources for the
benefit of those who will not automatically benefit
from economic growth and rising incomes and from
the conventional security and welfare programs.

Chronology of
Worker Security, 1931-63
The Davis-Bacon Act provided for the payment
of prevailing wage rates to laborers and mechanics
employed on public construction.
1931

The Anti-Injunction (Norris-LaGuardia) Act
limited the use of Federal injunctions in labor
disputes and outlawed “yellow-dog” contracts.

1932

The Wagner-Peyser Act established the United
States Employment Service in the Department of
Labor with responsibility for coordinating State employ­
ment offices.
1933

Section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery
Act provided that every NIRA code and agreement should
guarantee the right of employees to organize and bargain
collectively through their representative without inter­
ference, restraint, or coercion by employers.
The National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act
established as national labor policy the protection
of workers’ right to organize and elect representatives for
collective bargaining.

1935

The Social Security Act provided Federal old-age
and survivors insurance and Federal-State unemployment
insurance. (Wisconsin, in 1932, was the first State to
effect an unemployment insurance program. By 1937,
approved unemployment insurance plans had been
legislated in every State.)
The Committee for Industrial Organization (later
the Congress of Industrial Organizations) was formed by
several American Federation of Labor officials and inter­
national unions to foster industrial unionism.
In the first large “sitdown” strike, the United
Rubber Workers won recognition at Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co.

1936

The Public Contracts (Walsh-Healey) Act estab­
lished labor standards on Government contracts, including
minimum wages, overtime compensation for hours in
excess of 8 a day or 40 a week, child and convict labor
provisions, and health and safety requirements.
The railroad brotherhoods and major carriers signed
the Washington Agreement which guaranteed employees
60 percent of their annual earnings for as much as 5 years,
as well as relocation and other benefits, if they were
displaced or demoted because two or more carriers con­
solidated facilities, operations, or services.
The Railroad Retirement Act, providing old-age
and permanent disability benefits, became law.
Similar laws of 1934 and 1935 had been declared uncon­
stitutional.

for its members. A 10-percent wage increase and an 8hour day, 40-hour week were negotiated.
The Fair Labor Standards Act provided minimum
wages, child labor standards, and time and a half
for hours over 40 in a workweek, for workers affecting
interstate commerce.
1938

The Crosser-Wheeler Act provided for payment of
unemployment and sickness benefits to railroad workers.
Rhode Island became the first State to effect a sys­
tem of temporary disability insurance. Similar
programs were undertaken later in California, New Jersey,
and New York.
1942

President Franklin D. Roosevelt created a Com­
mittee on Fair Employment Practices to “conduct
hearings, make findings of fact, and take appropriate steps
to obtain elimination” of “discrimination in the employ­
ment of any person in war industries or in Government by
reason of race, creed, color, or national origin.”
1943

The National War Labor Board excluded certain
benefits (merit increases, promotions, vacations with pay,
holiday pay, night-shift bonuses, overtime pay, and ad­
justments in piece rates following a complete job réévalua­
tion) from the wage ceiling set forth in its “Little Steel”
decision of 1942 which had limited wage raises generally
to the cost-of-living increase from January 1941 to May
1942.
The Railway Labor Act, authorizing labor union
majority representation, was held by the U.S.
Supreme Court to require union protection of minority
members of the unit. (S teele v. L o u isv ille & N a sh v ille R a il­
1944

ro a d .)

The Employment Act of 1946 committed the Fed­
eral Government to the promotion of maximum
employment, production, and purchasing power.
1946

A contract between the United Mine Workers of
America (Ind.) and the Federal Government, which had
seized the mines in a labor dispute, established a welfare
and retirement fund for bituminous coal miners. The
fund was to be financed by employer payments for each
ton of coal produced by members of the UMW.
The Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley)
Act amended the National Labor Relations
(Wagner) Act by restricting certain labor organization
activities and recognizing the worker’s right to refrain
from self-organization.
1947

1948

Mississippi was the final jurisdiction to enact work­
men’s compensation legislation. In 1911, 10 States

1937

enacted the first such legislation.

United States Steel Corp. recognized the Steel
Workers’ Organizing Committee as the bargaining agent

The U.S. Supreme Court, by denying review of a
lower court’s action, upheld, in effect, a decision
that the Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act
requires employers to bargain with unions on retirement
plans. (Inland Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of America.)


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

1949

701

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

702
The Social Security Act was amended to extend
coverage to about 10 million more persons, includ­
ing most nonfarm self-employed.
1950

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the
International Typographical Union to compel a
newspaper to pay for the setting of type not used, and of
the American Federation of Musicians to demand that a
local “standby” orchestra be employed when a traveling
orchestra was hired for an engagement.

1953

The Ford Motor Co. and the United Automobile
Workers negotiated a 3-year agreement establishing
a supplementary unemployment benefit (SUB) plan
financed by company contributions of 5 cents an hour.
By the end of the year, similar plans had been negotiated
for more than a million workers, including the remainder
of the automobile industry.

1955

The Social Security Act was amended to provide
monthly benefits to permanently and totally dis­
abled workers aged 50-64 under the OASI program; pay
benefits to disabled children (age 18 or over) of retired
or deceased workers if disability began before age 18;
allow retirement at the age of 62 with reduced benefits for
women; and extend coverage to self-employed professional
persons other than physicians.

1956

The Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act
required administrators of all health, insurance,
pension, and supplementary unemployment compensation
plans covering more than 25 workers to file plan descrip­
tions and annual financial reports with the Secretary of
Labor, to be available for public inspection.
1958

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
(Landrum-Griffin) Act provided a “bill of rights”
for union members and amended the Taft-Hartley Act to
limit organizational picketing and secondary boycotts.
1959

North Carolina became the 35th State to enact
minimum wage legislation; the first to do so was Massa­
chusetts, in 1912.
Amendments to the Social Security Act provided
for payments to States whose plans for paying
medical expenses of needy persons over 65 years of age
have been approved by the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare

1960

agreed to contribute to a fund that will provide each fullyregistered longshoreman lump-sum retirement benefits
and to guarantee minimum weekly earnings and no layoffs
as a result of decreased work opportunities under new
contract provisions that permitted extensive introduction
of new equipment. The fund was not to protect long­
shoremen from reduced earnings resulting from a decline
in business.
The Area Redevelopment Act authorized Federal
loans and grants to areas with “substantial and
persistent unemployment and underemployment” for such
purposes as construction and modernization of plants,
improvement of public facilities, and retraining of workers
and subsistence allowances during training.
1961

President John F. Kennedy created the President’s
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity which ex­
panded the Government’s efforts to abolish discrimination
in employment by Federal agencies or Government con­
tractors and required for the first time the filing of periodic
compliance reports. It replaced both the Committee on
Government Contracts (established in 1954) and the Presi­
dent’s Committee on Government Employment Policy
(established in 1955).
Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act ex­
tended coverage to about 3.6 million workers, mostly in
retail trade and construction.
The Railroad Telegraphers negotiated a job pro­
tection agreement with the Southern Pacific Railroad
which included a provision that no more than 2 percent of
a specified number of jobs could be abolished in any year
for any reason except line abandonment or a centralized
traffic control plan.
The Manpower Development and Training Act
authorized a 3-year Federal program of occupa­
tional training for unemployed and underemployed workers.
1962

In M ir a n d a F u el C o., I n c ., and L o p u c h , a supple­
mental decision, the NLRB found employer and union in
violation of the Labor Management Relations Act when
the union arbitrarily downgraded an employee’s seniority,
holding that the act gives employees the right to be free
from “unfair or irrelevant or invidious treatment by their
bargaining agent.”
The Equal Pay Act prohibits wage differentials
based on sex for workers covered by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, beginning June 1964.

1963

In a contract with the Longshoremen’s and Ware­
housemen’s Union (Ind.), the Pacific Maritime Association


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

Significant Decisions
in Labor Cases*

Labor Relations

Determination of Jurisdictional Disputes. The
National Labor Relations Board ruled1 that a
newspaper’s composing room employees, repre­
sented by the Typographical Union, were entitled
to disputed work involving a new photocompo­
sition process. The Board members could not
agree on criteria for the determination and filed
four opinions in the case, including two dissents.
Photocomposition, a photographic technique of
creating type, was introduced by the newspaper to
replace the hot-metal casting process. The em­
ployer assigned the work, consisting of darkroom
tasks and traditional composing room work, to
members of the Typographical Union. The
Newspaper Guild claimed that its contract re­
quired the assignment of photographers from the
editorial department to the darkroom. In up­
holding the Guild’s grievance, an arbitrator refused
to pass on the typographers’ rights under their
union’s contract with the employer since the union
was not a party to the arbitration.
The typographers refused to process darkroom
work done by members of other unions, and the
employer filed an unfair labor practice charge with
the Board. The Photo Engravers’ Union also
claimed a portion of the work—that involving the
making of certain copies.
The majority opinion, signed by Chairman
McCulloch and Member Fanning, stated that
since the usual criteria applied in jurisdictional
disputes are of no assistance in this case, the
Board must use its “experience and common
sense,” as suggested earlier by the U.S. Supreme
Court, it noted that, as photographic processes
gradually replaced the hot-metal methods of
composition in the newspaper industry and threat­
ened the jobs of typographers, the Typographical
Union instituted training programs to equip its
members with the new skills they needed to retain
their jobs. The opinion further noted that


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

although the photographers and photoengravers
have done darkroom work, they have never done it
in connection with composing the newspaper.
Assignment of the work to typographers by the
employer caused neither the photographers nor
the photoengravers to lose any work. If the
assignment were overturned, however, employ­
ment would be taken away from members of the
Typographical Union, and a new field would be
open to members of the other union. The
Board majority, therefore, declined to reverse
the employer’s action.
Member Rodgers concurred in the result and
said that, whenever faced with contending claims
of some validity, he would give “substantial, if
not decisive, weight” to the employer’s assign­
ment of work.
Member Leedom attacked the use of the two
new factors in jurisdictional-disputes determina­
tions—“substitution-of-function” and “loss-ofjobs” tests—because they had no precedent.
Under the “substitution-of-function” test, he
argued, bricklayers rather than glass workers
would be entitled to new work if glass were used
to replace brick in the construction industry;
he saw no reason to award new work requiring
different skills to employees who performed old
work. Since the Guild photographers had, for
a long period of time, possessed the skills necessary
to perform darkroom work, he would have awarded
the work to them. While Member Brown did
not endorse Leedom’s reasoning, he agreed that
the work should be assigned to the photographers.
Enforcement of Collective Agreements. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held 2
that an employee must exhaust grievance and
arbitration procedures established by a collective
bargaining agreement before taking court action
for damages resulting from an alleged breach of
contract.
An employee was discharged in apparent vio­
lation of a contract provision that employees with
♦Prepared in the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor. The
cases covered in this article represent a selection of the significant decisions
believed to be of special interest. No attem pt has been made to reflect all
recent judicial and administrative developments in the field of labor law or to
indicate the effect of particular decisions in jurisdictions in which contraryresults may be reached based upon local statutory provisions, the existence of
local precedents, or a different approach by the courts to the issue presented.
1 L o c a l ? , P h ila d e lp h ia T y p o g r a p h ic a l U n io n and P h ila d e lp h ia I n q u i r e r , 142
NLRB No. 1 (Apr. 16, 19631.
2B e l k v. A l l i e d A v i a t i o n S e r v ic e C o . (C.A. 2, Mar. 25,1963).

703

704
at least 90 days’ service would not be dismissed
without a “fair and impartial hearing.” The
contract provided further that although the ini­
tial stages of the grievance procedure were to be
prosecuted by the individual employee, arbitra­
tion could be demanded only by the company or
the union. The plaintiff brought a damage suit
for the alleged breach of contract in a Federal
district court without filing a grievance. The
court dismissed the suit and the employee’s
appeal followed.
The court of appeals noted the U.S. Supreme
Court ruling in Smith v. Evening News Association3
that section 301 of the LMRA permits suits by
individuals for breaches of collective agreements.
In that case, however, the Court said that there
were no arbitration procedures in the contract
which had to be exhausted before taking court
action. Here the court of appeals ruled that
“where the collective agreement provides for
arbitration by the union of the subject matter
of the employee’s suit, the employee must look to
his union initially for the vindication of his
rights.” The court deferred the decision on what
remedy the employee would have should the union
refuse to prosecute his claim.
The central theme of the court decisions relating
to the enforcement of collective bargaining
contracts, the appeals court observed, has been
that the arbitration procedure agreed upon by the
parties is the best method of settling disputes.
The courts should be extremely cautious, the
court stated, in interfering with private pro­
cedures for settlement of disputes.
Airline Adjustment Board Awards. The U.S.
Supreme Court held4 that Federal courts have
jurisdiction to enforce awards of airlines system
boards of adjustment because the boards are
established pursuant to the requirements of the
Railway Labor Act. The case was remanded to
the lower court with instruction to take jurisdic­
tion of the matter.
After refusing to attend disciplinary hearings
without having a union representative present,
six employees were discharged by an airline


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 19(53

company. Grievances over the discharges were
eventually submitted to the board of adjustment
established by agreement between the union and
the airline as required by the RLA. When the
four-man adjustment board also was unable to
agree, the National Mediation Board appointed a
referee. The board then awarded one of the em­
ployees reinstatement with back pay, but the
airline refused to comply. When the suit for
enforcement of the award was instituted, the
Federal district court declined jurisdiction, ruling
that the suit did not arise under the laws of the
United States. The court of appeals affirmed the
lower court’s decision on the basis that this was
not a federally created cause of action.
The Supreme Court noted the purpose of the
RLA—to minimize interruptions in the Nation’s
transportation services by labor disputes—and
reviewed the efforts of Congress to improve the
adjustment machinery in the railroad industry
so as to prevent deadlocks and provide for en­
forcement of awards. From the language of
section 204 of the act and from the act’s legisla­
tive history, the court concluded that the estab­
lishment of the adjustment boards by agreement
between carriers and then- employees in the airline
industry was clearly made compulsory and enforcible in courts.
The Court ruled that the contracts setting up
the adjustment boards pursuant to section 204
and the boards are the “creations of Federal
law and bound to the statute and its policy.”
The Court said that a contract under section 204
is analogous to one under section 301 of the
Taft-Hartley Act and enforcible by Federal law.
Moreover, the provisions of such a contract are
to be construed in a fashion consistent with the
statutory scheme of dispute settlement. The in­
tention of Congress was for the adjustment boards
to act as public agencies, not “private go-be­
tweens,” and their awards were to be legally
binding, not merely advisory.
* 371 U.S. 195 (1962); see Monthly Labor Review, February 1963, pp. 174-175.
« International Association of Machinists v. Central Airlines (U.S. Sup. Ct.„
Apr. 15. 1963).

Chronology of
Recent Labor Events

April 5
T h e 1 2 6 - d a y Cleveland newspaper strike ended with the
ratification of a contract amounting to $13.65 per week
over 26 months by the Typographical Union, last of
11 unions to settle. It expires December 1, 1964. (See
also MLR, May 1963, p. 555.)

April 9

April 1, 1963
I n c r e a s e s averaging 10J4 cents per hour for 4 ,9 0 0 Mil­
waukee employees of Allen-Bradley Co. represented by
the Electrical Workers (Ind.) became effective in settle­
ment of a wage reopening clause. Incentive workers’
base rates were increased 7 to 8 cents, and timeworkers,
10 to 12 cents per hour.

A n a g r e e m e n t became effective between the United
Packinghouse Workers and George A. Hormel and Co.
which cuts by 104 the annually guaranteed hours of work
for about 3,500 workers. (See also MLR, May 1963, p.
556.)

April 3
T h e R a il r o a d Y a r d m a s t e r s signed an agreement with
about 80 railroads on increases of $8 a month retroactive
to March 3, 1962, and an additional
percent retroactive
to May 1, 1962, for about 4,000 employees. The contract
also provided for a hospital, surgical, and medical program,
effective May 1, 1963, to be financed by a $21.01 reduction
in basic monthly pay rates.
U n d e r t h e Walsh-Healey Act, a prevailing minimum wage
determination of $1.65 an hour in the electric lamp industry
was signed by Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wfirtz to
take effect April 12. It applies to workers on projects
having Government contracts over $10,000 and provides
no exceptions for beginners or probationary workers.
The prior determination for the industry was $1.26 an
hour with a 6-cent tolerance for beginners for a period
not to exceed 3 months.
On April 22, Secretary Wirtz signed a determination
setting a minimum wage of $1.52 an hour in the electronic
equipment industry, effective May 4. Previously, the
industry had been covered by a 1961 order setting $1.15
as the minimum wage for industries where no specific
determination had been made.

John F. Henning was named
chairman and only government member of a 15-man
Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunity in Apprentice­
ship and Training established by the Secretary of Labor.
nder

Secreta ry

April 10
G. C r o s s , former president of the Bakery and
Confectionery Workers’ International of America (Ind.),
was convicted in a Federal district court of embezzlement
of union funds and conspiracy to bribe the jury of his 1959
perjury trial. (Chron. item for Feb. 3, MLR, Apr. 1959;
see also p. 714 of this issue.)
J am es

April 15
h e U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t , reversing and remanding the
case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that
section 204 of the Railway Labor Act gives Federal courts
jurisdiction of a suit brought to enforce an award made by
an airline board of adjustment required under the act.
The case was I n te r n a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f M a c h in is ts
et a l. v. C e n tra l A ir lin e s , I n c . (See also p. 704 of this issue.)

T

April 16
T h e N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t io n s B o a r d awarded new
photocomposition work on the Philadelphia Inquirer to
members of the International Typographical Union, who
had customarily done “hot metal” composing, over claim
of the Photo-Engravers and Newspaper Guild, whose
members had previously done the paper’s photographic
work. Finding no criteria in precedent, two Board
members adopted tests of “substitution of function” and
“job loss” in arriving at the award. They were joined—•
as to the award only— by a third member, with two
dissents filed. (See p. 703 of this issue.) The case was
P h ila d e lp h ia T y p o g r a p h ic a l U n io n , L o ca l 2 and P h i la ­
d e lp h ia I n q u ir e r .

April 4
U

S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r Wirtz issued Hazardous-Occupations
Order No. 17 pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The order, effective May 9, makes excavation
work, with certain exceptions, subject to the law’s 18year minimum age requirement for employment in oc­
cupations found by the Secretary of Labor to be par­
ticularly hazardous to minors. Among the exceptions is
the employment of 16- and 17-year-olds in apprentice­
ship and student-learner programs.

of

L abor

686133—63------7

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

A 2- d a y s t r i k e b y 10,000 sugar workers in Hawaii was
terminated when agreement on a 2-year contract was
reached b y the International Longshoremen’s and Ware­
housemen’s Union (Ind.) and 23 sugar plantation corn-

705

706

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

panies. The contract provides a 15-cent-an-hour wage
increase the first year with 10 cents more in the second.
Previous base rates of pay ranged from $1.50 hourly to
$2.30-%. It also provided for an agency shop, industry­
wide bargaining, medical benefits, a dental plan for
children, an additional paid holiday (the day after Thanks­
giving), and 3 weeks vacation after 15 years of service.
Pension benefits are to be at least 20 percent above the
present schedules, with details subject to further negotia­
tion. (See also p. 710 of this issue.)

April 22
antidiscrimination laws do not place
unconstitutional burdens on interstate air carriers, the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld a Colorado State order to Continen­
tal Airlines to offer a Negro applicant the first opening in
a company-operated training school. The case was
C o lo ra d o A n ti- D is c r im in a tio n C o m m issio n v. C o n tin e n ta l
H

o l d in g t h a t

to succeed Stuart Rothman as NLRB General Counsel
when his 4-year term expires May 13.

April 25
C o m m u n ic a t io n s W o r k e r s of A m e r ic a and the
Western Electric Co. agreed on a contract covering 17,500
telephone equipment installers in 44 States which included
wage increases of 7 to 14 cents an hour. (See p. 713 of this
issue.) The agreement was reached under a reopener and
is to be effective until January 1, 1964.
T he

April 28

State

A i r D in es.

April 24
i r e s t o n e T i r e & R u b b e r Co. and the United Rubber
Workers agreed on a proposed contract to increase tire
employee wages by 16 cents over its 2-year term and to
provide lesser increases for nontire workers. It also im­
proved supplemental unemployment benefits and partially
removed interplant differentials. On April 25, Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co. and B.F. Goodrich Co. agreed to sub­
stantially the same settlement. (See also pp. 707-708 of
this issue.)

F

P r e s i d e n t J o h n F. K e n n e d y appointed Arnold Ordman,
a career lawyer with the National Labor Relations Board,


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

T h e T e a m s t e r s U n io n defeated for the second time a
group of dissident members, the Voice of the Teamster
Democratic Organizing Committee, which had sought to
represent 7,000 over-the-road drivers in Philadelphia Local
107 and 1,000 members of three smaller locals in Delaware
and Southern New Jersey. The second vote, 4,893 to
2,550, favored the Teamsters by a much larger percentage
than the one taken in November 1962 and later set aside
by the NLRB upon evidence of Teamster-inspired violence
prior to the balloting. (See p. 713 of this issue.)
T h e NLRB, i n I n te r n a tio n a l L a d ie s' G a rm e n t W o rk e rs’
U n io n and F e d era tio n o f U n io n R e p re se n ta tiv e s, held that

the International Ladies’ Garment Workers restrained and
coerced its staff employees in their efforts to form a union
by soliciting employees to drop their membership in the
staff union, threatening reprisals, and denying periodic
wage increases (Chron. item for May 31, MLR, July 1962).
The Board ordered the ILGWU to pay the amounts lost
because of the withholding of the automatic increases, plus
6 percent interest.

Developments in
Industrial Relations*
Wages and Collective Bargaining
Rubber. In late April, the United Rubber
Workers, bargaining for about 50,000 employees,
and three of the Big Four rubber companies—
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., B. F. Goodrich Co.,
and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.—reached
agreement on 2-year contracts to expire April 20,
1965.
The three contracts provided tire employees
average 9-cent increases effective June 10, 1963,
and another 7 cents effective June 8, 1964. As
in the 1961 settlements, nontire employees re­
ceived smaller increases—6X cents effective June
10, 1963, and the same increase on May 11, 1964.
The agreements increased supplemental unem­
ployment benefits (SUB) and extended them so
as to coincide with any increase in the duration
of State unemployment compensation beyond 39
weeks. The contracts also improved supple­
mental workmen’s compensation for injured work­
ers. Newly created joint committees were
empowered to discuss a variety of subjects of
mutual concern including problems posed by the
impact of technological changes in the industry.
Under the Firestone agreement, the entire
9-cent increase for 1963 was to be applied as a
general wage change at the Memphis plant. At
each of the other tire factories, however, part of
the wage increase was to be allocated for adjust­
ment of intraplant inequities and night work
differentials, to be negotiated at the local plant
level. The amounts to be used as general wage
increases were 6X cents at Des Moines, 7 cents
at Akron, 7% cents at Los Angeles, and 8 cents
at Pottstown, Pa. The entire 6X-cent increase
to nontire workers was to be applied as a general
wage increase at Fall River, Mass., and Noblesville, Ind., but at New Castle, Ind., 1% cents was
allotted for other adjustments.

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

Of the 1964 increases, only one-half cent at Des
Moines, Los Angeles, and Noblesville, IndMwas
to be diverted for inequity and shift differential
changes.
The Firestone pact increased to 4 from 3 cents
an hour company payments to the SUB fund
whenever the maximum funding position falls
below 100 percent. Benefits were increased to
62 percent (when added to State unemployment
compensation) of the employee’s gross weekly
earnings (instead of the earlier 65 percent of
take-home pay), with a $5 increase in the maxi­
mum to $40 for a single worker if eligible for
State unemployment compensation and $62 if
ineligible; the $2-a-week allowance for each de­
pendent up to 4 was continued.
Benefits for workers in States where unemploy­
ment compensation is payable for less than 39
weeks were increased by providing that estimated
State unemployment compensation would no
longer be deducted from SUB after State benefits
run out. Provision was also made for SUB
benefits for more than 39 weeks if State unemploy­
ment compensation was provided for a longer
period.
A short workweek provision similar to that in
the 1961 automobile pacts guaranteed a worker
a portion of straight-time hourly earnings for each
unworked hour less than the regular schedule.
The proportion was 65 percent in the case of
short workweeks scheduled by the company and
50 percent in the case of unscheduled workweeks.
Lump-sum severance pay after a 2-year layoff
for workers ineligible either for retirement benefits
or a service award upon retirement was extended
to employees with 2 years’ service. Previously,
it applied only to those with 5 years’ service.
SUB payments subsequent to the final layoff
were no longer to be deducted from employees*
separation pay.
Workmen’s compensation was to be supple­
mented up to 80 percent of an employee’s average
earnings for a scheduled workweek; formerly it
had been supplemented up to the level of nonoccupational sickness and accident benefits—about
$40 in the case of men and $32 for women.
♦Prepared In the D iv isio n of W age E conom ies, B ureau of Labor S tatistics.

707

708
Other changes included revisions in funeral and
jury pay provisions and improved prorated vaca­
tions on retirement.
Metalworking. The Kaiser Steel Co. of Fontana,
Calif., on April 25 announced the first month
results of its long range sharing plan which took
effect March l.1 Under the formula, total cost
savings of $962,000 over the 1961 base were
achieved, of which the workers received 32.5 per­
cent, or $312,650. The 3,930 workers sharing in
the plan received supplemental pay checks for the
month of March ranging from 15 to 45 percent of
their regular earnings, depending on their job
classification, and averaging $80 or about 55 cents
an hour. Some 3,000 workers on incentive pay
systems did not participate; if they exercise their
option to switch to the new plan, future individual
shares may represent a smaller fraction of cost
savings.
On April 22, 11 major steel producers announced
that a majority of the Nation’s steelworkers chose
to take an immediate extra week of paid vacation
in preference to saving the money for retirement or
termination under the terms of the savingsvacation plan 2 established in the 1962 steel settle­
ment. In 10 of these companies, an average of 62
percent of the workers voted for an extra week of
paid vacation and 38 percent chose to save the
money, which would accrue 3-percent interest
until they retired or left the company. At Inland
Steel Co., 86.2 percent of the production and main­
tenance workers chose to take paid vacations and
the others chose the savings option.
On May 10, following more than 10 months of
negotiations,3 workers represented by the Inter­
national Association of Machinists at various
locations of The Boeing Co. across the nation,
ratified a 3-year contract by a vote of 14,205 to
4,688. The acceptance came after the company
made some modifications in an offer rejected in
mid-April. The pact, which covers over 40,000
workers, provided wage increases of 11 to 14 cents
retroactive to September 16, 1962, and 5% to 9
cents effective September 16 of both 1963 and
1964. A cost-of-living escalator clause was estab­
lished with maximum adjustments up to 3 cents
each year. The company also agreed to pay the
1See Monthly Labor Review, February 1963, pp. 154-160 and 179.
* See Monthly Labor Review, May 1962, p. 553, for details of the plan.
* See Monthly Labor Review, April 1963, p. 426.

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

equivalent of 4 cents an hour to correct job
inequities, to consolidate and upgrade jobs, and in
general to bring the Boeing wage structure into
line with other aerospace companies.
All new hires, recalls, or transfers who do not
elect to join the IAM must, between the 30th and
40th day of employment, give a letter to that
effect to the union and the company. Otherwise,
they are required as a condition of employment to
become members within 20 days. The company
revised an employee performance analysis rating
system to place more emphasis on seniority.
Dissatisfaction with this system was a primary
factor in the earlier contract rejection, especially
at Wichita where there had been substantial
layoffs and cutbacks. Pension benefits were
raised from $1.75 per month per year of service to
$2.25 with a minimum $50 monthly pension.
Relocation policies were to be made uniform and
will become part of the contract effective June 1,
1963. A strike was averted after the contract
rejection in April when, at the request of President
John F. Kennedy, union leaders asked members
to vote on the new and clarified proposals. The
subsequent ratification ended year-long negotia­
tions in the aerospace industry.
Late in April the Vertol Division of the Boeing
Co. and the United Automobile Workers, repre­
senting 4,200 workers at plants in the Philadel­
phia, Pa., and Wilmington, Del., areas, reached
agreement on a contract which provided 20 to 30
cents an hour wage increases over 3 years and com­
pany assumption of full cost of medical insurance.
The settlement also provided for cost-of-living
increases totaling as much as 3 cents.
The Curtiss Division of the Curtiss-Wright Corp.
and the International Association of Machinists,
representing over 1,600 workers at Caldwell, N.J.,
under a wage reopener scheduled for May agreed
to a 3-year contract supplementing one to expire
in 1964. The new agreement, retroactive to
January 1, 1963, provided 3K-percent wage in­
creases on January 6, 1964, and January 4, 1965.
The settlement also included a separation pay
provision, a ninth paid holiday and improvements
in vacations, and health and welfare benefits.
On April 11, members of the Marine Draftsmen’s
Association (Ind.) accepted an agreement negoti­
ated with the Electric Boat Division of the General
Dynamics Corp. for 1,500 design department em­
ployees at Groton, Conn. The 3-year contract

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

reportedly cost about 37 cents in wages and in­
creased supplementary benefits. Top technical
rates were increased 17 cents an hour retroactive
to March 1, with an additional 16 cents to go into
effect in both 1964 and 1965. The top clerical
rate was to be increased from $3.38 an hour to
$3.70 by 1965.
In early April, National Labor Relations Board
trial examiner Arthur Leff found that the General
Electric Co. failed to bargain in good faith in 1960
contract negotiations with the International Union
of Electrical Workers. Settlement had been pre­
ceded by a 3-week strike. The trial examiner
found that the company had adopted a take-it-orleave-it position on its only contract offer and
held that this did not amount to good faith bar­
gaining. Substantiating the finding of lack of
good faith, the examiner said, were General Elec­
tric efforts through its own communication media
to undermine the union leader’s position by ques­
tioning their motives; its failure to furnish the
union with necessary bargaining information; and
its action in bypassing the international union
(the designated bargaining agent) to deal with
locals. General Electric immediately announced
plans to appeal the case to the NLRB and if
necessary to judicial review.
Late in the month, General Electric and the
International Union of Electrical Workers agreed
to establish three joint subcommittees to discuss
arbitration, contract language, and employee bene­
fits in advance of July 31, the reopening date.
The IUE contract covers about 70,000 of General
Electric’s 130,000 production workers.
The Chrysler Corp. and American Motors Corp.
agreed to set up joint study committees with the
United Automobile Workers prior to contract
negotiations, as had General Motors Corp. and
Ford Motor Co.4 Two farm implement com­
panies—International Harvester and Deere &
Co.—also agreed to advance study. Allis-Chalmers
Manufacturing Co. and Caterpillar Tractor Co.
sought discussions on a local plant basis rather
than the UAW’s proposed companywide com­
mittees. According to Walter P. Reuther, UAW
president, “The proposed joint study committee
would not be authorized to bargain. It would
be confined to assembling relevant data and to
exploring and studying objectively and in good
faith the problems we will face when bargaining
begins.”

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

709
About 1,500 engineers and scientists, members
of the independent Association of Scientists and
Professional Engineers, walked off their jobs for
3 hours at the Camden, N.J., plant of Radio
Corporation of America April 19 in protest
over hiring, job assignment, and layoff practices.
They approved economic sanctions against the
company, including refusal to work overtime
except in “extreme emergencies.” The engineers
claimed the company was hiring persons not
covered by their agreement to work on jobs
that came within the engineers’ jurisdiction and
placing administrative personnel in engineering
jobs. The union also stated that layoffs of
union personnel, resulting from reductions in
defense contracts, were not being made in ac­
cordance with the contract. A committee set
up earlier by the company and the Electrical
Workers (IUE) representing production workers
at the plant had been largely unsuccessful in
soliciting new defense contracts. RCA agreed in
March to finance an IUE sponsored 32-week re­
training course for production and maintenance
employees.
About 7,000 workers in more than 100 shops in
the San Francisco Bay area were covered by a
2-year agreement reached in early April by the
California Metal Trades Association and the
International Association of Machinists. The
pact provided an 8- to 15-cent hourly wage in­
crease in 1963 with an additional 7 to 12 cents and
a possible cost-of-living adjustment in 1964.
Sick pay to supplement benefits under the Cali­
fornia State disability insurance program and other
health and welfare improvements were also in­
cluded in the settlement.
Under provisions of the previous contract, mem­
bers of three major lodges were paid double time
for all overtime worked while in manufacturing
shops; the 9th and 10th hours were paid at time
and one-half. The CMTA had proposed to elimi­
nate the provision for double time, but 5 of the 7
lodges affected had rejected an agreement con­
taining this provision and the employers sub­
sequently withdrew their proposal.
The Allen-Bradley Co., manufacturer of elec­
tronic components, and the United Electrical
Workers (Ind.) agreed to wage increases reportedly
averaging 10% cents an hour for 4,900 workers
in Milwaukee. The increases, negotiated under
4See Monthly Labor Review, May, 1963, p. 556.

710

a wage reopening clause, raised base rates of
incentive workers 7 to 8 cents an hour and rates
of day workers by 10 to 12 cents, retroactive
to April 1, 1963.
Food. Application of provisions of the 1961
master agreements at Swift & Co. to seven of its
plants was modified by agreements reached at
various dates with the Meat Cutters, representing
approximately 1,300 workers in Nashville, Tenn.;
Moultrie, Ga.; Ocala, Fla.; Montgomery, Ala.;
and Jackson, Miss., and the Brotherhood of
Packinghouse Workers (Ind.), representing ap­
proximately 1,500 workers in Fort Worth and
San Antonio, Tex.
At 6 of the 7 plants the agreements, effective
in January and February 1963, reduced rates in
effect and waived deferred increases that had been
due in September 1962. At Jackson, the deferred
increase was also waived but a 5-cent general
increase was put into effect in February 1963 and
2 cents of the cost-of-living allowance was incor­
porated into base rates. At all seven plants,
deferred increases or wage reopenings scheduled
for September 1963 were also waived.5
At some plants, pay for all holidays not worked
was abolished and at others the number of holidays
was reduced; during holiday weeks employees are
to be guaranteed 40 hours’ work in either 4 or 5
days.
At plants represented by the Meat Cutters, the
night premium was cut, and various benefits
eliminated—the number of holidays was reduced
or eliminated, meal and clothing allowances and
clothes changing time were abolished. Except at
Nashville, the number of vacation weeks was
reduced and the method of computing vacation
pay revised, premium pay for work on Saturday
as such was abolished and other weekend pre­
miums reduced, and the afternoon relief period,
jury duty, and military encampment pay were
eliminated. At the Texas plants, part of the
wage reduction consisted of cancellation of a pre­
vious wage increase granted in lieu of the clothing
and clothes changing time allowances. Sickness
and accident benefits were cut by both agreements.
In the future, any new workers are to be hired at
rates varying from 83% to 88% cents below the
pay of those already on the payrolls, with $1.25
as the new hiring rate for common laborers; new
employees will advance to the job rate in six

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

60-day pay steps.5 After the Packinghouse Work­
ers refused to agree to similar terms for the
company’s Atlanta plant, this plant was closed.
A 2-year contract to replace those that had
expired January 31, 1963, was agreed upon on
April 16 by the International Longshoremen’s
and Warehousemen’s Union, Local 142, represent­
ing approximately 10,000 employees, and 23 of
Hawaii’s 25 unionized sugar plantation companies.
The new agreement, which will expire January 31,
1965, provides wage increases of 15 cents retro­
active to February and 10 cents in 1964. The
total wage and fringe benefit gains were esti­
mated at 32 cents by a union spokesman.
Other provisions include a union shop, con­
tinuation of the sick benefit plan, but with benefits
to begin on the first day (rather than after the
third day) of illness or accident if ordered by
the company doctor not to report to work; added
protection for emergency care away from the
plantation; an additional paid holiday (the day
after Thanksgiving); an increased night shift
differential; and improved severance pay benefits.
Three weeks’ vacation will be provided after 15
years’ service; qualifying hours for vacations erew
reduced. The pension issue was to be further
negotiated, but company-paid medical care for
new pensioners and their spouses was added.
The period during which former rates of pay
were continued for workers whose jobs are down­
graded was increased for workers with 29 or
more years of service. The new contract also
called for the establishment of industrywide
bargaining. This settlement was preceded by
a 46-hour strike in April and a 10-day work
stoppage in February.
A strike was averted by a settlement on April
15 between the International Milling Co. and the
American Federation of Grain Millers which
represents approximately 1,000 of the company’s
employees. The settlement was similar to those
concluded earlier by the union for about 7,500
employees of General Mills, Inc., and Pillsbury
Mills, Inc.; like those agreements, it did not
provide for wage rates, which are negotiated on
a local level. All three contracts increased
hospital benefits and company payments for
1On the basis of earlier Information, some of these reductions were
reported In the Monthly Labor Review, February 1963, p. 181.
• Further details regarding these changes will be published in Supplement
No. 7 to the Swift Wage Chronology, in a subsequent issue of the Monthly
Labor Review.

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

health and welfare benefits. General Mills did
not change its contributory pension plan, but
company-paid pensions were increased to $3
a month for each year of service at the other
companies—from $2.25 at International Milling
Co. and from $2.50 at Pillsbury Mills. The
agreements also limited the companies’ rights to
subcontract work.
Other Manufacturing. The Eastman Kodak Co.
announced a wage increase of about 4 percent for
36,000 hourly and salaried employees at its
Rochester, N.Y., facilities, regional sales divisions,
processing laboratories, Eastman Kodak stores,
and at Gelatin Corp. The increase, effective
May 20, was estimated to cost $10 million a year.
The American Viscose Corp. and the Textile
Workers Union announced agreement April 8 on
a contract to run until December 1 , 1965, at the
Avisco cellophane plant at Fredericksburg, Va.
The contract covers some 2,000 workers and
provides a total of 15 cents in wages in three equal
installments on December 31, 1962, July 1963,
and July 1964. Vacation periods were liberalized
and hospital and surgical coverage increased.
About 3,000 employees of Lever Brothers Co.
received an 8-cent hourly wage increase in March
under terms of a 1-year contract with two chem­
ical unions. A 10th paid holiday (varying by
plant) was also added, the maximum surgical fee
was raised to $350, and the company agreed it
would not increase subcontracting of work. Work­
ers at plants in Baltimore, St. Louis, Los Angeles,
and Edgewater, N.J., were represented by the
International Chemical Workers, and those at
the Hammond, Ind., plant by the Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers.
A 10-day strike was ended when the Fulton
County Glove Manufacturers, Inc., and Block
Cut Manufacturers, Inc., and two unions, the
United Glove Workers (Ind.) and Local 1714,
Consolidated Glove Cutters and Shavers of the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America agreed
to 2-year contracts on April 10, 1963, which cov­
ered approximately 3,000 employees in about
50 glove shops in the Gloversville, N.Y., area.
The settlement provided an immediate general
3-cent-an-hour-increase, and an additional 4 cents
on April 1, 1964. Life insurance was increased
* See Monthly Labor Review, January 1963, p. 72.


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

711
to $1,000, from $750, and a double indemnity
clause added. Provision was made for checkoff
of union dues and for future revision of piece rates.
Establishment of an impartial umpire system
to settle labor disputes between the glass con­
tainer industry and the Glass Bottle Blowers As­
sociation was announced on April 20, 1963, by
a committee of union and company officials. This
new umpire system will resolve disputes covering
more than 50,000 workers in 77 plants operated
by 28 glass container manufacturers. Reportedly,
the selection of an arbitrator on a case-by-case
basis had caused long delays in the handling and
settlement of grievances.
The Pacific Lumber Co. announced an increase
in wage rates and life insurance coverage for 1,400
workers in the Eureka, Calif., area. Effective
April 1, hourly wages were increased 7 to 15
cents, depending upon classification, and minimum
life insurance was raised to $10,000.
Trade and Services. R. H. Macy and Co., Inc.,
at five stores in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens,
White Plains, and Parkchester, N.Y., followed
Gimbel’s, Inc. and Bloomingdale’s, Inc. with a
workweek reduction to 37% hours, from 40,
beginning in February 1964.7 A 2-year agreement
with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union provided that the reduction will be
effective for 9 months of each year; in the 3
months after October 15, employees will work
40 hours a week.
Pay was increased $3 a week at Macy’s, effective
February 1963, with an additional $2 due in
February 1964. The 8,300 employees affected
will also receive an extensive job evaluation which
is expected to cost Macy’s $421,324 annually and
can provide up to $12 a week additional pay for
certain job classifications. Employees given re­
duced job status as a result of the evaluation
were guaranteed previous pay for 1 year. Mini­
mum hiring rates and progression steps were also
increased.
Plans to initiate an employee profit-sharing
plan were approved by stockholders on May 9
as set forth in the annual report of Montgomery
Ward and Co. The plan, affecting 46,000 em­
ployees, is to entail an employee contribution of
3 percent of his annual earnings. The minimum
company contribution will be 25 percent of the
amount contributed by employees. If company

712
annual net earnings rise to $18 million, this
contribution will automatically increase to 28
percent of employee payments; thereafter, Ward’s
contributions will increase 3 percent for each $2
million increase in its earnings up to total earnings
of approximately $33 million, when it will con­
tribute 50 percent of total employee contributions.
Eligible employees—those participants in the
contributory retirement program with 2 year’s
service—-would receive payment when leaving the
company (after having paid into the fund for 5
years) or upon retirement, death, or total perma­
nent disability. Had the plan been in effect in
1962, company payments into the fund would
have been 31 percent of total employee contribu­
tions, or an estimated $1.6 million.
Amendments to the contributory retirement
program necessary to implement the profitsharing plan would also reduce employee contri­
butions by half (1.5 percent instead of 3 percent
of the first $4,800 and 3 percent instead of 6
percent on annual earnings above $4,800). Em­
ployee benefits would not be affected since these
are linked to earnings and years of service.
The Cleaners and Dyers Board of Trade and
the Empire State Chain Store Association in
early April signed a 3-year agreement with the
Amalgamated Clothing Workers covering about
3,500 drycleaning and dye house workers in New
York City. Another 1,500 employees in inde­
pendent drycleaning establishments were expected
to come under terms of the agreement.
The contract provided increases of 5 cents an
hour in each year for hourly paid workers and
clerks, $3 a week the first year and $2 a week
in the second and third years for salaried workers
and wholesale drivers, and $3 a week in each year
for chain store drivers. In addition, chain store
drivers will have their weekly hours reduced from
46 to 40 over the contract period. Pensions were
increased to $40 a month (from $35) and hospital
room allowances were increased to $12 a day
(from $9) and the hospitalization plan was broad­
ened to include dependent children.
The New Jersey Cleaners and Dyers Associa­
tion negotiated an agreement with the same union
for about 2,500 employees providing a 15-cent
increase for hourly workers and $6 a week for
salaried workers and wholesale and retail drivers
spread over the contract term of 3 years.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

Collective bargaining rights were granted to
employees of nonprofit hospitals in New York City
in a bill signed by New York Governor Nelson
A. Rockefeller on April 24. The measure pro­
hibits strikes and lockouts, gives the courts the
power to enjoin strikes, and provides for media­
tion, factfinding, and binding arbitration. The
law was enacted at the Governor’s request to
keep his pledge to hospital employees who struck
the Manhattan Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat
Hospital in June 1962 and Beth-El Hospital in
May 1962.
In late March and early April 1963, Local 1199
of the Drug and Hospital Employees Union, an
affiliate of the Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, negotiated its first contracts with
four hospitals in New York City. At the New
York Medical College’s Flower and Fifth Avenue
Hospitals, the union negotiated a 3-year contract
which provided immediate 10- to 20-cent-an hour
wage increases for about 225 nonprofessional
employees. The contract also included provisions
for medical care and life insurance and for annual
reopeners in 1964 and 1965. A 27-month con­
tract was signed at the Home for Aged and Infirm
Hebrews providing a 21-cent-an-hour wage in­
crease and a 37K-hour workweek. At the Long
Island Jewish Hospital, a 5-year contract provided
an increase of 5 cents an hour effective April 1
and an additional 5 cents an hour on July 1, 1963,
with subsequent annual reopeners. This brought
to 26 the number of hospitals in the area which
reportedly had agreements with the union.
Transportation and Utilities. The Railroad Yardmasters of America and the National Railway
Labor Conference representing about 80 of the
Nation’s class I railroads on April 3 signed an
agreement covering about 4,000 employees. The
agreement provides an $8 a month increase retro­
active to March 3, 1962, and an additional 2%
percent retroactive to May 1 , 1962. In addition,
a hospital, surgical, and medical program was
established, to be financed by reducing the em­
ployee’s basic monthly pay rates by $21.01 effec­
tive May 1 , 1963. The carriers agreed to pay 81
cents a month for each employee for accident
benefits for on-duty injuries.
Agreements between stevedoring firms in Great
Lakes ports and the International Longshoremen’s

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Association were reached in late March and in
April. Settlements in Cleveland, Toledo, Milwau­
kee, and Chicago provide a 32-cent-an-hour
increase in wages over 3 years, with 12 cents
in the first and 10 cents in each of the remaining
years. Contributions for fringe benefits in
Cleveland, Toledo, and Milwaukee were to in­
crease a total of 18 cents an hour with 7 cents the
first year, 6 cents the second, and 5 cents the third
year. In Chicago, benefit contributions were
reportedly to increase a total of 20 cents an hour,
with yearly increases of 8 cents, 7 cents, and 5
cents. Longshoremen in all ports previously
received $2.68 an hour in basic wages and 31 cents
an hour in fringes.
The Communications Workers of America
representing 17,500 telephone equipment installers
in 44 States reached agreement, under a reopener,
with Western Electric Co. on a new contract
which provided, subject to ratification, general
wage increases of 7 to 14 cents hourly and general
wage structure changes that would raise some
employees as much as 41 cents an hour. The
contract will be effective until January 1, 1964.
Late in March, the National Labor Relations
Board had dismissed Teamster union objections
to CWA representation of the equipment in­
stallers, following a representation election last
December in favor of the CWA.8
Commonwealth Edison Co. of Chicago and the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
agreed under a wage reopener to a 6- to 15-cent
increase for approximately 9,500 employees effec­
tive April 1. The increase averaged 12.28 cents
or 3.71 percent and the agreement was extended
for 1 year to March 1965, with a reopener in
March 1964.
Construction. The Builders Association of Chi­
cago, Inc., and the city’s District Council of Car­
penters on March 13 signed an agreement covering
about 30,000 employees in the Chicago area, ne­
gotiated under a reopening clause of their contract
which runs to May 1967. The settlement pro­
vided a 20-cent-an-hour increase effective June 1,
1963, raising the journeymen’s scale to $4.43 an
hour, and an additional 17 cents on May 31, 1964.

8See Monthly Labor Review, January, p. 67.
6 8 6 1 3 3 -6 3 -

-8


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

713
Foremen’s pay was increased to 35 cents, from 25
cents, an hour above journeymen’s scale.
On April 26, the Boston chapter of the Associ­
ated General Contractors and the Building Trades
Employers Association reached tentative agree­
ment with the Boston District Council of Car­
penters on a 5-year contract covering about 5,000
carpenters. The contract called for increases of
$1 an hour spread over the 5 years and a 5-cent-aman-hour increase in contributions to the health
and welfare fund on November 1, 1965. The
carpenters were receiving $3.85 an hour and 25
cents an hour contributions with 10 cents going
to the health and welfare fund and 15 cents to the
pension fund.
Carpenters Union, Local 90, with about 500
members in Vanderburgh and Posey Counties,
in southern Indiana, voted in early April to cut
their scale on home construction by 60 cents an
hour. The 1-year contract effective April 1 set
the scale at $3 an hour plus 12 cents for fringes
for home construction, but increased pay by 20
cents or to $3.80 an horn- on commercial and
industrial work. The aim is to provide more
work on homebuilding.
Increases of 42 X cents an hour in wage scales
over 3 years were provided in contracts signed
by the Teamsters Local 541 and the Carpenters
District Council of Kansas City and vicinity with
the Builders’ Association of Kansas City, Mo.
The agreements covered approximately 2,000
teamsters and 6,500 carpenters and provided
increases of 15 cents an hour in each of the first
2 years and 1 2 cents in the third year. The
union was given an option to take the second
year increase in wages or in supplementary bene­
fits. Top scales for teamsters previously had
been $3.23, for carpenters, $4.25.
The New York State Chapter of the Associated
General Contractors in mid-April reached agree­
ment on a new contract with the Teamsters union
and on a wage increase with the Laborers union
under a reopening clause, ending a 2-week strike.
Both settlements, covering about 7,000 laborers
and 4,000 Teamsters in upstate New York,
reportedly provided an 18-cent hourly package
increase retroactive to January 1, 1963, and an
additional 18 cents an hour in January 1964.
Laborers in four counties will receive additional
adjustments in 1964. Basic wage scales for labor-

714
ers varied, among counties, from $2,775 to $3,025
an hour. Teamsters’ scales varied from $2.95 to
$3.35 an hour depending on job classification.
The newly formed Southern Dredge Owners’
Association, comprised of eight major Atlantic
and gulf coast dredging companies, negotiated
a 3-year agreement with the Operating Engineers
covering about 1,400 employees working in south­
eastern States. This was the first time the com­
panies had negotiated as a unit with the union.
The contract provided an approximately 32-centan-hour package with wage increases of 7 cents
an hour effective on May 1, 1963, and 1965.
Hourly rates of levermen will be $3.14, and those
of deckhands, $1.73. In 1964, the companies will
begin contributions of 10 cents an hour per
employee to establish a fund which is to provide
a $100-a-month pension. The employers were
also to contribute 5 percent of total annual
straight-time hourly wages to a vacation fund.
Other Developments

The International Longshoremen’s and Ware­
housemen’s Union held its 15th biennial conven­
tion in San Francisco in early April. President
Harry Bridges, in the keynote address, stressed the
problem of jobs as the theme of the convention.
The officers’ report predicted that the United
States “is headed for an indefinite period of
chronic unemployment unless drastic steps are
undertaken by the unions and by Congress” and
based this prediction on what it described as
slowing economic growth, large numbers of low
incomes in the U.S., rising unemployment, and
Government pressure against wages.
The officers reported that the agreement on
mechanization and modernization of the union’s
waterfront division has achieved its job security
objectives and protected the membership against
the effects of automation but argued that this
solution was limited; they urged that the solution
be made on the national level by the labor move­
ment as a whole, and that a shorter workday and
workweek constituted the most meaningful attack
on unemployment.
The National Labor Relations Board on April
28 announced that the Teamsters Union had won
a second representation election covering about
8,400 truckdrivers and helpers in the Philadelphia


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

area.9 In the election held from April 25 through
April 28 among four locals, the votes totaled
4,893 for the Teamsters and 2,550 for the peti­
tioning group, called the Voice of the Teamster
Democratic Organizing Committee. In the pre­
vious election in November 1962, the Teamsters
won by only 596 votes out of 7,144 cast. How­
ever, in March, the NLRB set aside that election
on grounds of violence.
In late April, the NLRB decided two cases
against the International Ladies’ Garment
Workers’ Union and in favor of the Federation of
Union Representatives (FOUR) composed of
some 230 ILGWU organizers, business agents,
and other staff employees.10 In the first case, the
Board found that the ILGWU had coercively
questioned employees about their membership in
FOUR and threatened reprisals against union
members. In addition, the Board ordered the
ILGWU to compensate its employees for any
earnings lost (plus 6 percent interest) when the
union withheld automatic wage increases, but
dismissed charges that two leaders of the staff
union were discharged illegally.
In the second case, the Board ordered the
ILGWU to extend recognition to FOUR and to
begin collective bargaining by furnishing neces­
sary personnel data. The ILGWU announced
plans to appeal these decisions to the U.S. Court
of Appeals of the District of Columbia on grounds
that its staff, as policymaking officials, do not come
under the Labor Management Relations Act.
In Washington, D.C., striking office employees of
the Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International
Union represented by the Office Employees Inter­
national Union ended a 5-week strike on April 11
after agreeing to submit their contract dispute to
an arbitration panel appointed by AFL-CIO
President
George
Meany.11 The previous
contract expired in October 1962.
In mid-April, James G. Cross, former president
of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers’ Inter­
national Union (Ind.), was convicted in Federal
Court in Washington, D.C., of charges that he
and other former union officials, most of whom
pleaded guilty, had embezzled $35,000 and con-

' See Monthly Labor Review, January 1963, p. 67.
i° See Monthly Labor Review, October 1962, p. 1157.
11See Monthly Labor Review, M ay 1963, p. 561

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

spired to use the money to bribe jurors in a previ­
ous trial and had embezzled another $35,000 to
cover his first theft. The earlier trial ended in a
directed verdict acquitting him of perjury charges
growing out of his 1959 appearance before the
Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities
in the Labor or Management Field. Subse­
quently, he was suspended as president by the
union and then resigned.12
The New York City Central Labor Council
announced on April 23 that it had received a
$90,000 1-year grant from the U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare to develop a
pioneering project for rehabilitation, retraining,
and reemployment of disabled workers. The
grant, which was augmented by an appropriation
of $49,500 from the Labor Council, carried out a
2-year renewal guarantee. The project was de­
signed to make use of the labor movement’s
special knowledge to aid disabled workers to
become self-supporting, supplementing the work
of existing rehabilitation agencies.
Charges of racial discrimination brought by 13
workers against Local 2401 of the United Steel­
workers at Atlantic Steel Co. were dismissed in
April by Stuart Rothman, then NLRB General
Counsel.13 Still pending for action by the Board
itself was a petition by the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People that the
local be decertified. Rothman found no basis for
the charge that Negro lift truck operators received
u See Monthly Labor Review, July 1961, p. 778.
» See Monthly Labor Review, December 1962, p. 1407.
m See Monthly Labor Review, M ay 1961, p. 530. The remaining 9 firms had
few (employees and, little employment turnover. The Department of
Defense expected th at they would meet the requirements of the military
departments by the April 30 deadline established by the President’s Com­
mittee.


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

715

lower pay than their white counterparts. He
also rejected the allegation that the net effect of
two new provisions in the 1961 agreement—one
eliminating the employer practice of discrimina­
tory eligibility restrictions for certain occupations
and the other prohibiting a worker from main­
taining occupational seniority in more than one
line of promotion—discouraged Negroes from
applying for the jobs opened up by the contract.
He interpreted the new provisions as merely
applying the traditional seniority rules for inter­
departmental transfers to transfers within a
department, which had been prohibited until
1961. He pointed out that a number of Negro
employees had availed themselves of the new
opportunities.
A report issued May 3, 1963, by the President’s
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity
answered charges by the Southern Regional Coun­
cil, a private biracial organization seeking equal
opportunity for Negroes, that of 24 Atlanta
branches of companies with Government con­
tracts only 4 were complying with Executive
Order 10925, which prohibits Government con­
tractors from discriminating against employees
or applicants for employment because of race,
creed, color, or national origin.14 At the request
of the Committee, the Department of Defense
surveyed the same group of establishments and
found that the four firms in compliance employed
80 percent of all employees of the entire group of
companies. The 11 found not to be in com­
pliance in many cases had committed “ technical”
violations—for example, failure to display equal
employment opportunity posters—and some of
the firms were said to be complying at other
locations.

Book Reviews
and Notes

E ditor’s N ote.— This month, reviews are devoted

to recent books which have 'particular relevance
to the theme of this issue.
Social Security Perspectives—Essays by Edwin E.
Witte. Edited by Robert J. Lampman.
Madison, University of Wisconsin Press,
1962. 419 pp., bibliography. $6.75.
Professor Edwin E. Witte—my teacher a gener­
ation ago—has had a large influence upon men
and events. Few have influenced the develop­
ment of social security in America as much as he
has. His views were developed in Wisconsin,
which for some decades served as one of the most
exciting laboratories in human relations among the
States. As a professor at the University of
Wisconsin and as an official helping legislators
draft the basic legislation on minimum wages,
hours of labor, workmen’s compensation, and
unemployment insurance, Professor Witte be­
came intimately familiar with the central issues—
economic, political, and sociological—in these
areas.
While serving as executive director of the Com­
mittee on Economic Security, he assembled the
volume entitled Social Security in America;
The Factual Background of the Social Security Act
as Summarized From Staff Reports to the Committee
on Economic Security. Many of these staff
reports he wrote himself; others he guided. This
volume—published by the Social Security Board
in 1937—probably still remains, except for the
limitations of time, the most comprehensive
reference guide to the problems of economic
insecurity in America.
Professor Witte was at the hub of the discussions
that fashioned the central ideas in the Social
Security Act in 1935. The record of these dis­
cussions and the significance of the alternative
716

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

proposals, written by Professor Witte at that time,
were published only in 1962 by the University of
Wisconsin under the title of Development of the
Social Security Act.
We are indebted to Professor Lampman for
collating this third volume of various articles,
papers, and chapters written by Professor Witte
between 1938 and 1957. It is divided into four
parts. In part one, Professor Lampman has
included Professor Witte’s views on the welfare
state, objectives of social security, and the chang­
ing role of labor, management, and government
in the quest for security. Part two, on the prob­
lem of old-age security, includes Professor Witte’s
writings on the drive for universal pensions, on
private pension plans, and particularly his pro­
vocative comments on the solvency of the social
security fund. Part three deals with unemploy­
ment issues. While written between 1928 and
1956, every item included by the editor has sig­
nificance today: The nature of unemployment
insurance, the major issues, the role of the Federal
Government, the direction unemployment in­
surance is taking, and the highly controversial
problem of federalization. Part four treats health
issues. And here Professor Witte includes work­
men’s compensation (1930), compulsory health
insurance (1937), and related topics including
the future of social security in the health field.
Students of the subject will find these per­
spectives by the father of social security in
America most enlightening. We tend to take
social security for granted. It has been on the
statute books since 1935, and we often forget the
evolution of the ideas which gave it its form and
substance. I found it rewarding to examine this
selection of Professor Witte’s best writings of a
period of 32 years. Although they add little new
knowledge to the field, Dr. Lampman and the
University of Wisconsin are to be congratulated
in having brought together Professor Witte’s
ideas as they had evolved during the generation
when social security in America was being trans­
lated from a dream into the beginnings of a
reality.
— W illiam H aber
Department of Economics
University of Michigan

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

Income and Welfare in the United States. By James
N. Morgan, Martin H. David, Wilbur J.
Cohen, Harvey E. Brazer. Ann Arbor,
University of Michigan, Survey Kesearch
Center, 1962. 531 pp. $7.95, McGrawHill Book Co., Inc., New York.
Although all the data in this book came from a
single cross-section survey and were analyzed
generally in the same way, the substantive
chapters read like only loosely related papers
in a symposium. This survey of some 3,000
spending units in 1960 secured information on
parental backgrounds, education, religion, politi­
cal preferences, and physical condition and on
attitudes toward work, economic achievement,
care of dependent relatives, and education of
children. Along with the usual demographic and
economic factors, these social, physical, and
psychological variables provided a wide choice
of factors to associate with variations in income
and its sources, in the responsibility for the care
of relatives and the nurture of children, and in
the support of philanthropic activities.
The number of analytic factors was varied by
subject; at the same time, classification details on
particular factors were often changed so that it is
not possible to trace the influence of any one de­
terminant on all the aspects of income and welfare
included. The eight factors used to explain the
labor force participation of spending unit heads
(chapter 4) did not include sex and occupation.
The 14 factors used to analyze the variability in
hourly earnings of spending unit heads (chapter 5)
included sex and occupation as well as three meas­
ures of mobility and migration. The seven factors
associated with the hourly earnings of wives
(chapter 9) included occupation and number of
years worked as well as a combined age and educa­
tion classification used throughout, but the
occupational classification was more detailed and
the age-education groupings less detailed than in
the case of spending unit heads. The number of
years worked is probably as important an explana­
tion of the variation in the hourly earnings of the
women who were spending unit heads as for wives,
but it apparently could not be introduced into a
scheme of analysis with data covering both men
and women. The changes in the detail of occu­
pational and age-education classifications may
also have been imposed in part, by the analytical


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

717
scheme. Whatever the reasons for such differ­
ences, they confine the substantive results within
the separate chapters.
The regression procedure used for the analysis
was based on an extensive multiple classification
of every unit under study. The results of the
analysis depend on the classification groupings and
where these are very broad, as with occupation,
income, education, and age, variations within the
groupings can reasonably be attributed to factors
other than the ones selected. Thus, the authors
find that “the sex difference in hourly earnings of
spending unit heads do not become smaller when
other explanatory factors are taken into account.”
Only five occupational groups were used—business
and professional, clerical and sales, blue-collar,
farmers, and “not in the labor force now.” Within
the business and professional group, for example,
men and women of the same education and age,
say college graduates 45-54 years of age, are not
distributed by detailed occupations in the same
way, so that the classification construes the differ­
ences in hourly earnings between the different
occupational distributions within the group of
occupations as a sex difference. The problem of
grouping is particularly troublesome where family
or spending unit income is used as an explanatory
factor, principally in the chapter on voluntarism
and philanthropy. The authors conclude that
“non-Christians, mostly Jews, contribute the
most (to individuals, church, and charity) even
after adjustments for their other characteristics,
such as higher income.” Within the broad in­
come brackets, especially those at the upper end
of the distribution, $7,500-$9,999, $10,000$14,999, and $15,000 and over, that account for a
large fraction of all contributions, the differences
in mean incomes for the religious groups could
have accounted for the variation in contributions
attributed to religion. Those groups of families
or spending units that are more numerous in the
upper part of the income range have higher in­
comes within income brackets, and since income is
the primary determinant of nonfamily contribu­
tions, the small but significant religious differences
could simply reflect the tendency for the means of
classes to draw toward the general mean.
The multivariate technique used to estimate the
effects of each factor does not differ from an ex­
tensive standardization procedure in its sensitivity

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

718
to the operational definition of “all other things
being equal.” To be persuaded that this rela­
tively new tool offers precise direct estimates of
the differences in such phenomena as labor force
participation and hours and earnings of various
groups in the population adjusted for all other
factors, most labor economists will look for some
methodological comparisons, both within the
technique and with other methods of analysis, as
being essential to the continuation of research on
the structure of incomes.
— D orothy

S. B rady

Wharton School of Finance and Commerce
University of Pennsylvania

New Horizons for American Labor. By Joseph A.
Beirne. Washington, Public Affairs Press,
1962. 89 pp. $3.25.
A book by a prominent labor leader is an un­
common event, and this is an uncommon book.
Joseph A. Beirne, president of the Communica­
tions Workers of America, a vice president of the
AFL-CIO, and a promising candidate for higher
office, emerges in this book as the prophet of the
“new unionism,” 1980 model. Beirne’s new
unionism resembles Sidney Hillman’s short-lived
1920 model in name only, but the analogy between
Hillman and Beirne can be carried a step further.
Like Hillman, who was a veteran in industrial
unionism long before the rise of the CIO, Beirne
is already accustomed to the milieu he foresees for
other unions—a predominantly white-collar labor
force, in a rapidly changing technology, with tradi­
tional union tactics unavailing against virtually
strike-proof automated establishments. He may
thus be destined to play a leading role in shaping
a new unionism.
Beirne is concerned with the labor movement’s
isolation from the events that are changing the
character of industry, government, and the world
at large, and with its apparent reluctance to ad­
just. He senses the prevailing mood among union
leaders as one of puzzlement and frustration, lead­
ing to angry and defensive tactics that encourage
a hardening of management and public attitudes,
with the result that unions are pushed deeper into
isolation. He also heeds the pressures for change
arising within the labor movement. He defines
areas of rigidity withiD unions, analyzes the short­


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

comings of union bargaining tactics, and prescribes
some remedies. He is, of course, confident that
the labor movement will rise to its challenges and
will grow.
In the chapter entitled “Creating a New
Unionism,” Beirne projects a profile of the labor
movement 20 years from now. He foresees a
stronger and more creative national labor center
concerned primarily with economic and social
policy. He sees international unions organized
on industry lines and a subordination of collective
bargaining functions to services (the general
outlines of bargaining will be agreed upon at a
national level, to be implemented on an industry
group basis). Union staffs will be composed of
more professionals; administrative skills of union
officers will be stressed. State and city central
bodies will be the basic political and legislative
units and local unions will be concerned principally
with community affairs.
Beirne’s assessment of the problems facing
the labor movement, his diagnosis of labor’s
weaknesses, and his remedies may not appear to
be strikingly original amid the current flood of
similar writings, but the book conveys a sense of
realism and authority that is often lacking in the
others. Beirne sometimes weakens his argument
by adding qualifications or even contradictions
which appear to be designed to appease union
leaders of a different school or possibly to withhold
a tactical advantage from employers, but on the
whole this is unquestionably a bold book.
On its merits, it deserves a wide reading in
the labor movement and in university industrial
relations courses. A cheaper paperback edition
would seem worthwhile.
— J oseph

W. B loch

Division of Industrial and Labor Relations
Bureau of Labor Statistics

La grève, phénomène de civilisation. By Robert
Gubbels. Bruxelles, Université Libre de
Bruxelles, Institut de Sociologie, 1962. 334
pp., bibliography. 340 F.B.
Using the full range of research techniques and
social science perspectives—from case studies to
interviews to statistical data on strike durations
to regional and industrial relationships—Robert
Gubbels attempts in this treatise to provide an

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

understanding of the strike in a highly sophisti­
cated and meticulous manner. His extensive
bibliography of 14 pages covers sources of ideas
and insights from the literature of the United
States and Western Europe.
Essentially, Gubbels, a member of the Institute
of Sociology at Brussels University and formerly
with the Belgian Productivity Center as an
economist, concludes that the strike is—
An act through which a social group manifests both its
internal solidarity and its dissociation or alienation . . .
from the rest of society: this demonstration is generally,
but not necessarily, expressed through a concerted stoppage
of work; the social group resorts to this in order to express
its demands, discontent, or opinions in those cases where
it can find no other means of influencing decisions.

While much of his attention is directed at
verification and qualification of the several defini­
tions and interpretations of the strike found in the
literature of the United States and West Europe,
Gubbels also deals extensively with the legal
aspects within the Belgian context (including con­
ciliation and arbitration) and with the many func­
tions, both positive and negative, of plural
unionism in Belgium. His stress on the sociologi­
cal significance of the strike is derived from the
findings of an interview survey of 300 workers
and employers. The final part of the study pro­
vides a classification of strikes according to scope
(general or particularized), specific purpose, object
(employer or government), whether it is spon­
taneous or carefully planned, the nature of the
economic context (expanding or contracting econ­
omy), the methods employed, etc.
The author feels that a careful study of the
causes of strikes requires a distinction between
strikes involving companies or industries and
general or regional strikes, a distinction not appli­
cable to the United States but useful within the
European situation. In the first type, the most
frequent cause is to be found in the problem of
remuneration, including not only wages in its
usual sense but also production bonuses, produc­
tivity pace, night or difficult work assignments,
etc. The second most frequent cause relates to
“human” problems, such as discipline and harsh
attitudes of foremen, discharge for noneconomic
reasons, and affronts to workers’ self-respect.
While both employers and workers cited wage
demands as the most frequent, workers surveyed


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

719

considered the human relations factor as much
more important than did employers.
This difference of opinion, according to Gubbels,
can be explained by the fact that motives advanced
during the course of a strike do not always cor­
respond to the real causes. For example, the
determination of wage bases for a new work
assignment can result in conflict simply because
the production manager, the engineer, or the
foreman does not handle it with finesse.
For the company head, the strike was caused by the
“greediness” of his employees. The union member, on
the other hand, feels that it is due to the poor human re­
lations in the company. But this first explanation is not
enough and one might wonder whether the company heads
always make a sufficient effort to understand the psychol­
ogy of workers, to grasp their motivations or reasons for
action.

As for the causes of general or regional strikes,
the picture is not as clear. But they are more
related to political features, as well as to general
job security.
The breadth of this study, the richness of its
sources and insights, as well as its level of generali­
zations, place it in the category of similar attempts
by Dunlop, Ross, Kerr, Chamberlain, and others.
One irritating aspect of the book is the absence of
an index.
—H arold L. S heppard
Area Redevelopment Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce

Occupational Disability and Public Policy. Edited
by Earl F. Cheit and Margaret S. Gordon.
New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., August,
1963. Approximately 512 pp. $15.
Fourteen students of workmen’s compensation
joined efforts in this volume to discuss and con­
sider some of the key issues and problems that
beset the oldest form of social insurance in this
country. Under the able guidance of the editors,
the contributors covered such matters as “alter­
nate methods of compensating disability under
workmen’s compensation and under private em­
ployee-benefit plans and social security; approaches
to the problem of restoring the severely disabled
worker to employment; methods of financing
workmen’s compensation; the lessons of foreign
experience; and the ever-present problems of

720
administration, especially in the area of medical
care and rehabilitation.”
Despite the various directions from which many
of the subjects were approached, there was a sur­
prising amount of agreement among the contribu­
tors. There was little or no dissent from the view
that there should be a separate social insurance
program for occupationally disabled workers,
although they warned that the State programs
must be improved and revised if a separate system
is to continue to be justified.
Among the improvements readily agreed to
were expanded coverage, increased benefits, revi­
sion of procedures for rating and compensating
permanent disability cases, and tighter and more
effective supervision by State administrative
agencies, especially with respect to the quality of
medical care and the rehabilitation process.
The problem of overlapping benefit rights be­
tween the State workmen’s compensation laws and
the Federal old-age, survivors, and disability in­
surance program (and to a lesser extent, State
temporary disability programs and private em­
ployee-benefit plans) was weighed by most of the
contributors. The view most commonly expressed
was that survivors and victims of permanent total
disability should be entitled to their full benefits
from the Federal program, but that these benefits
should be partially or wholly deducted from
workmen’s compensation benefits in case of dual
entitlement.
Other current aspects of workmen’s compensa­
tion that were examined critically concerned the
litigation and adversary procedures that accom­
pany claims, State funds compared with private
insurance companies in terms of efficacy and costs,
and the question of Federal-State relationships.
In connection with the latter, a very illuminating
historical account was given by Arthur Larson of
the abortive efforts a few years ago of the U.S.
Department of Labor to provide assistance to
those States that wanted to improve their com­
pensation laws through a draft “Model Bill.”
Technicians will find several chapters which
concentrate on analysis rather than policy most
fruitful. One is Mrs. Gordon’s extensive descrip­
tion of European developments in which she per­
ceives a tendency to move away from voluntary
insurance systems toward a higher degree of cen­
tralization and toward closer integration with
other social security programs. Another is Har
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

land Fox’s detailed examination of private em­
ployee-benefit provisions that pay benefits in case
of work accidents in which he concludes that the
overlap with workmen’s compensation for short­
term benefits is not widespread or significant at
present. Still another is Z. L. Gulledge’s report
on a 3-year study of vocational rehabilitation in
California which included data on the number of
work-accident cases needing but not getting re­
habilitation services, lapse of time between injury
and referral for services, and work experience after
injury. Finally, there is Stefan A. Riesenfeld’s
analysis of private insurance operations in Cali­
fornia which, in his opinion, tend to produce
excess costs.
Contributors to the volume, besides the abovenamed individuals and the editors, include Ben­
jamin Marcus, Ashley St. Clair, Leon Lewis,
Jerome Pollack, Earl C. Steele, James N. Morgan,
Henry H. Kessler, and Ernst Jokl.
— A lfred M. S kolnik
Social Security Administration
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

Men, Management, and Mental Health. By Harry
Levinson and others. Cambridge, Mass.,
Harvard University Press, 1962. 205 pp.
$5.50.
This tight little book purporting to be an analysis
of “work and mental health” is an interdisciplinary
research effort—the authors represent the social
sciences as well as psychiatry.
The report proceeds quickly from a description
of the research setting (the “Midland Co.”—a gas
and electric corporation) to the concepts and ideas
that flow from the investigation. One principal
notion is that of an “unwritten or psychological
contract,” that is, the management and employees
have expectations about their respective responsi­
bilities. According to the authors, the interpre­
tation and interplay of these expectations in a
large measure determine the quality of mental
health that emerges in work situations.
The process of fulfilling this unwritten contract
involves other concepts. Important are interde­
pendence, social distance, interpersonal relations,
and the ability to cope with change. As the
authors point out, these ideas are not new, but
this is the first time they have been organized to
focus on work and mental health.

721

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

We are told that much of the framework comes
from the human-relations-in-industry school, and
it is not always clear how the authors distinguish
between “mental health/’ “human relations/’ and
“morale.” For example, in analyzing receptivity
to change, two broad groups are discussed—the
“Elders” and the “Heirs.” The former are the
older, more conservative workers and the latter
the jmunger, more ambitious workers. The re­
action of these groups toward change is discussed
almost entirely from a traditional human relations
perspective.
Depending on the reader’s proclivities, he will
be annoyed or pleased with the conceptual style
of the book; for example, it is not replete with
footnotes and methodological excursions. About
the only statistic provided is that 874 employees
were interviewed.
The authors see a link between company goals
and favorable mental health. Now an interesting
hypothesis might be that an aggressive union
could play a major role in positive mental health;
but the union in this case is only superficially
mentioned. In addition, it is suggested that
workers are strongly identified with management’s
goals in the community; this conflicts with other
research findings that conclude that rank-and-file
workers care little about the company as long as
the p a y c h e c k k eep s coming in (for example,
Robert Dubin’s, Industrial Workers’ World: A
Study of the “Central Life Interests” of Industrial
Workers).
This is a useful book; it is readable, fresh, and
stimulating. The executive, or any other practi­
tioner concerned with human behavior, will find
this a source of many valuable insights and ideas.
— J ohn

W.

M cC ollum

U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

Family Medical Care Under Three Types of Health
Insurance. A report on a survey conducted
by the School of Public Health and Adminis­
trative Medicine, Columbia University, with
the cooperation of the National Opinion
Research Center of the University of Chicago.
New York, Foundation on Employee Health,
Medical Care, and Welfare, Inc., 1962. 202
pp. $3.95.
This study is an attempt to examine the cost
and use of medical care by groups of workers cov­

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

ered by three different types of health insurance,
each of which is an alternative to the traditional
fixed-indemnity type of coverage. The plans
studied were the New Jersey Blue Cross-Blue
Shield plans, which paid service benefits for hospi­
talization to all subscribers and service benefits for
medical and surgical care in the hospital to those
with incomes below a certain level; the General
Electric plan, that with the exception of a cash
indemnity for maternity cases, paid comprehensive
major medical benefits for a wide range of covered
services (including psychiatric services); and the
Kaiser Foundation Health plan, which provided
direct comprehensive service from an organized
group of physicians in an affiliated chain of hospi­
tals. These plans are not held to be typical but,
rather, to be representative of the best plans of
each type.
Samples of subscribers and their dependents
were drawn from each plan. The subscribers
in the “Blues” and the G.E. plan were all members
of the International Association of Machinists;
the Kaiser subscribers were drawn from a number
of “blue-collar” unions in the San Francisco area.
In order to estimate price differentials among the
areas covered by each plan, a fourth sample of
railroad workers covered by a fixed-indemnity
plan and residing in each of the areas under study
w a s d raw n. From the la s t sa m p le, price in d e x es
were derived to deflate expenditure data from the
other samples.
The results of this study are really of two types.
The book is organized so that each plan is dis­
cussed in two chapters, one describing the organi­
zation and provisions of the plan and the other
dealing with the medical care experience under
that plan. In this sense, there are three separate
studies as well as a set of comparative findings.
While the results of this study can only be skimmed
in this review, a number of the findings with
respect to the individual plan merit mention.
For example, while the coverage under the G.E.
comprehensive major medical plan was quite
broad, the survey noted that many subscribers
did not file all of the claims to which they were
entitled. This implies a difference between paper
coverage and effective coverage. The survey
also discovered that under the Kaiser plan, which
offered an option of less coverage for dependents
at a reduced cost, the total outlay for matched
groups of dependents was about the same under

722

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

both options, so that the higher prepayment for
full coverage was offset by lower out-of-pocket
expenditures.
In comparing the three plans, the study found
similar patterns of utilization for all groups,
though some differences were noted among age
groups. The Blue plans covered nearly the same
proportion of charges for medical care as did the
G.E. major medical plan. Despite the higher
level of prices in the area covered by the Kaiser
plan, the outlay per family for insurance and medi­
cal care was almost the same ($280) as for the
Blue plans ($288), despite the higher number of
home and office visits for the Kaiser plan (5.9)
than for either the Blue plan (4.1) or the G.E.
plan (4.6).
In general, this study is well done and, as re­
search findings go, is well written. The separation
of the findings on each of the individual plans con­
tributes much to the ease with which this material
can be digested, as does the summary which pre­
cedes the main text. By way of criticism, it
would have been illuminating to have had a
breakdown of the hospitalization experience by
diagnostic category. This would eliminate the
necessity of comparing the three plans on the basis
of the similarity among the groups under each
plan, about which too little is known to state with
any great assurance that the differences noted
among these plans are the result of differences in
the plans themselves. However, even with these
reservations, the study is an important one and
anyone interested in health insurance from a
practical or an academic point of view will find
this book worth reading.
— G e r a l d R o se n t h a l
Department of Economics
Harvard University

A Review of the Medical Services in Great Britain.
A report of the Medical Services Review
Committee. London, Social Assay, 1962.
266 pp. 18s.
This is the report of the Medical Services Review
Committee, known as the Porritt Report after the
committee chairman, Sir Arthur Porritt. The
committee was established by the nine major
medical societies in Britain “to review the pro­
vision of medical services to the public, and their


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

organization, in the light of 10 years’ experience
of the National Health Service and to make
recommendations.” Because of the nature of the
British medical system, its report is basically an
evaluation of the National Health Service.
The committee’s 4-year evaluation is based upon
reports of subcommittees on specific aspects of
the health service and study of various official
publications about the health service and memo­
randa prepared by medical organizations. The
committee also received oral evidence from both
medical and lay sources and gathered information
by questionnaires sent to organizations and the
public. Perhaps unfortunately, the report is not
a technical one prepared by specialists in the
administration of medical care. The report states,
“so far as practical, we confined ourselves to
broad principles. In general we set out to deter­
mine the advantages or disadvantages to patient,
the community, and the doctor, through the
manner in which the health services have been
developed during the past 14 years.”
The first issue the committee faced—and
probably the one of greatest interest to foreign
observers-—is whether or not the comprehensive
National Health Service as it has developed in
Britain is sound and should be continued. The
committee “had no difficulty in reaching the
conclusion that basically, the concept of a com­
prehensive national health service is sound.”
After reaching this conclusion, the committee
analyzed specific aspects to determine whether
changes were needed to improve the service.
Many of these (such as the gulf between general
practitioners and the hospital and specialist
services, which some claim isolates the general
practitioner, lowers his status, and negatively
affects the quality of care) have been the subject
of recurring debate. Another issue concerned
problems of coordinating the three separate
branches of the service at the local level: the
Medical and Dental Service, the Hospital and
Consultant [specialists] Services, and the Public
Health and Social Services.
In all, the report covers 15 specific subjects.
A number of these, including Research, Medical
Education, Casualty and Accident Services, and
Occupational Health Services, involve primarily
problems of changing medical technology and
circumstances external to the service. For this

723

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

reason they are issues for developed nations
generally.
Probably of greatest interest to nonmedical
readers outside of Britain are the sections of The
Organization and Planning of the National Health
Service, The National Health Service and the
National Economy, Private Practice, and Pro­
fessional Freedom and Doctor’s Obligations. The
committee’s major conclusions are:
The present tripartite administration has isolated doctors
in the three main branches of the Service. . . . At
present, funds are allocated both from central and local
government to different authorities responsible in the same
area, for various parts of the Service. This method of
financing the Service has led to isolated rather than co­
ordinated policies, and to a loss of economy and efficiency.
. . . We recommend that the responsiblility of the ad­
ministration and coordination of all the medical and an­
cillary services in any area should be in the hands of one
authority. . . .
Economical operation of any public service carries with
it the danger that the Government may seek to lay down
standards and impose a uniformity which is incompatible
with professional freedom. We stress that the only
safeguard is to ensure an alternative to which doctors
and public alike can turn, by the encouragement of private
practice.
We have considered whether a direct payment by the
patient at the time he seeks advice would lead to a more
enlightened use of the National Health Service. We
think that the possible advantages of a direct payment
should be the subject of continuing study.
A patient should never be denied the right or oppor­
tunity of seeking private medical advice. We attach the
greatest importance to the preservation of private medical
practice which events of the past 14 years have tended to
discourage. . . . Private bed accommodation both in

Education and Training
By Edmund J. King.
New York, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1962. 380 pp.,
bibliography. $6.

W o rld P e rsp e c tiv e s in E d u c a tio n .

By Robert H. Plummer and
Clyde E. Blocker. Chicago, Science Research As­
sociates, Inc., 1963. 48 pp. (Guidance Series
Booklets, 156.)

N.H.S. hospitals and outside the Service is grossly in­
adequate. . . . Private beds should be available to general
practitioners.
We are satisfied that the doctor has retained his clinical
freedom.

In addition to recommendations on specific
aspects of the Service, the committee reached two
broad conclusions on steps to be taken to improve
it. First, it stressed the need for more extensive
long-range planning; second, it stated that greater
efforts should be made to impress upon the public
the fact that there is no such thing as a free
health service. The committee’s specific recom­
mendations both reinforce and, to an extent,
provide mechanisms for achieving the goal of
better planning. The committee’s grounds for its
second broad conclusion are not stated, nor are
any means for accomplishing the goal suggested.
Whether one agrees with them or not, the con­
clusions and recommendations of this committee,
which represented the medical profession of Great
Britain, are to some extent a measure of the suc­
cess of the National Health Service. They are
constructive rather than negative, and suggest
only limited changes. I t is rather disappointing,
however, that the committee did not examine
the quality of general practitioners’ services,
and the role of the medical profession in promoting
the quality of care and in improving the health
service.
— H oy P ench ansk y
Instructor in Medical Care Administration
Harvard School of Public Health

T r a in in g A c tiv itie s U n d e r the M a n p o w e r D ev elo p m en t a n d
T r a in in g A c t: R e p o r t o f the S e c r e ta ry o f H e a lth ,
E d u c a tio n , a n d W e lfa re to the C on gress. Washington,

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Office of Education, 1963. 87 pp. (OE-80027.)
55 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington.

C ollege, C a reers, a n d Y o u .

N e e d e d b y M illio n s : A B r o a d e r a n d B o ld er R e h a b ilita tio n
P ro g r a m . By Wendell Johnson.
{ I n Journal of

Rehabilitation, Washington, January-February 1963,
pp. 13-14, 41, et seq.)


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

By Mary Furlong Moore.
New York, Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1963. 261 pp.
(Dolphin Books.) 95 cents.

C areer G u id e f o r Y o u n g P e o p le .

By William S. Kalb, M.D.
New York, Richards Rosen Press, Inc., 1963. 158 pp.,
bibliography. (Careers in Depth.) $2.95.

Y o u r F u tu re a s a P h y s ic ia n .

724:

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

N u r s in g . By Virginia B. McDonnell.
New York, Richards Rosen Press, Inc., 1963. 157 pp.,
bibliography. (Careers in Depth.) $2.95.

Institute, 1963. 27 pp. (Company Approaches to
Industrial Relations Series, 2.) $2.

Y o u r F u tu re i n

C areers fo r T o m o rrow : C areers i n P e rs o n n e l A d m in is tr a tio n ,
by Sarah Splaver (107 pp.); C areers i n the F oreig n
S ervice, by Achilles N. Sakell (118 pp.). New York,

Henry Z.
$3.50 each.

Walck,

Inc.,

1962.

C oal a n d C on flict: A S tu d y o f I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s at
C o llie ries. By W. H. Scott and others. Liverpool,

Liverpool University Press, 1963. 214 pp.
Research Series.)

Bibliographies.
B a ttle f o r the H o s p ita ls : A S tu d y o f
N o n - P r o f it H o s p ita ls . By Estelle

a n d the P h y s ic a lly H a n d ic a p p e d C h ild . By
Irving Ratchick and Frances G. Koenig. Chicago,
Science Research Associates, Inc., 1963. 64 pp.,
bibliography.

O cc u p a tio n a l A b stra cts: I n s tr u m e n t M a k e r (No. 255);
A r c h ite c ts (No. 256); B u s in e s s M a c h in e O p era to rs
(No. 257); S u rg e o n (No. 258); M a th e m a tic s T eachers
(No. 259); In su r a n c e U n d e rw rite r s (No. 260). Jaffrey,

N.H., Personnel Services, Inc., 1962 and 1963. 6 pp.
each, bibliographies. 50 cents each; 25 cents to
students.

C a n a d a . By T. H. Patterson.
Health Review, Department of
National Health and Welfare, Ottawa, Vol. 15, No. 1,
1963, pp. 13-18.)

O cc u p a tio n a l H e a lth i n
( I n Occupational

S ervice i n P e o p le 's P o la n d .
( I n Polish Trade
Union News, Warsaw, December 1962, pp. 1-32.)

H e a lth

E m p lo y m e n t D a ta f o r the I r o n
I n d u s tr y f o r 1 9 6 1 . By Bertha

W. Brown, Naomi W. Kearney, Virginia E. Wrenn.
Washington, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines, 1963. 18 pp. (Mineral Industry Surveys.)
Free.
A n n u a l R e p o rt on C o m p en sa b le W o rk I n ju r ie s , 1961:
P a r t I I , C o m p e n sa tio n C la im s C losed D u r in g 19 6 1 b y
the I llin o is I n d u s tr ia l C o m m issio n U n d e r the W o rk ­
m e n 's C o m p en sa tio n a n d O cc u p a tio n a l D is e a s e s A c ts .

[Chicago], Illinois Department of Labor, Division of
Statistics and Research, 1962. viii, 98 pp.
R e p o r t on the U tiliz a tio n o f E m p lo y m e n t A c c id e n t S ta tis tic s
f o r A c c id e n t P re v e n tio n P u r p o s e s . Report VI sub­

mitted to the XIVth general meeting of the Inter­
national Social Security Association, Istanbul, 1961.
( I n Bulletin of the International Social Security
Association, Geneva, October-December 1962, pp.
1-67.)

S ta te

R e g u la tio n o f L a b o r-M a n a g e m e n t R e la tio n s: T he
I m p a c t o f G a rm o n a n d L a n d r u m -G riffin . By Allan
H. McCoid. ( I n Iowa Law Review, Iowa City,

Spring 1963, pp. 578-628.

$1.75.)

S ta te A n ti- I n ju n c tio n L a w s: A B r ie f D is c u s s io n o f M a jo r
P r o v is io n s . By Laura H. Dale. Washington, U.S.

T h e N o M a n ’s L a n d o f L abor R e la tio n s R e m a in s U noc­
c u p ie d . By Elvis C. Stephens. ( I n Labor Law

Journal, Chicago, February 1963, pp. 192-200.

Labor Force
Edited by William P.
Lineberry. New York, H. W. Wilson Co., 1962.
214 pp., bibliography. (The Reference Shelf; Vol. 34,
No. 6.) $2.50.

T h e C h allenge o f F u ll E m p lo y m e n t.

E m p lo y m e n t a n d C h a n g in g O c c u p a tio n a l P a tte r n s in
R a ilr o a d I n d u s tr y , 194-7-60. Washington, U.S.

the

De­
partment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1963.
32 pp., bibliography. (Bulletin 1344.) 30 cents,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington.
S ervice E m p lo y m e n t. By Daniel H. Kruger.
East Lansing, Michigan State University, Labor and
Industrial Relations Center, 1963. 11 pp.

T re n d s in

W o rk e r E fficien cy a n d W a g e D iffe r e n tia ls in a C lerica l
L a b o r M a rk e t. By Eaton H. Conant. ( I n Industrial

and Labor Relations Review, Ithaca, N.Y., April
1963, pp. 428-433. $1.75.)
E c o n o m ic, S o c ia l, a n d D em o g ra p h ic C h a ra c teristic s o f
S p a n is h - A m e r ic a n W a g e W o rk e rs on U .S . F a rm s.

By Reed E. Friend and Samuel Baum. Washington,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, 1963. 21 pp.
(Agricultural Economic
Report 27.)
G row th a n d I n te r n a tio n a l M ig r a tio n . By
Harold L. Geisert. Washington, George Washington
University, Population Research Project, 1962. 57
pp., bibliography. $1.25.

P o p u la tio n

Industrial Relations

$1.)

[I n d u s tr ie s ] A p p r o a c h to I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s .
Washington,
Machinery and Allied Products


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

in

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards,
1963. 9 pp. (Bulletin 250.) Free.

Health and Safety

T he S K F

U n io n iz a tio n

Hepton. Ithaca,
N.Y., Cornell University, New York State School
of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1963. 63 pp.
(Bulletin 49.) 50 cents; free to New York State resi­
dents.

G u id a n ce

I n j u r y E x p e rie n c e a n d
B la st-F u rn a c e S la g

(Social

A u to m a tio n is N o th in g N e w .
( I n Challenge, New York,

cents.)

By Robert Lekachman.
April 1963, pp. 14-16. 40

725

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
R u r a l A r e a s D evelo p m en t P ro g r a m , C ovin gton C o u n ty, M is s .:
P a r t I , E co n o m ic B a s e R e p o rt; P a r t I I , A p p lic a n t
O cc u p a tio n a l P o te n tia l. Jackson, Mississippi Employ­

ment Security Commission, 1962.

103 and 34 pp.

A r e a R e d evelo p m en t A c t— W h a t H a s I t A c c o m p lis h e d ? By
Conley H. Dillon. ( I n Challenge, New York, April

1963, pp. 21-24.

New
York, American Management Association, 1963. 156
pp. (Management Report 75.) $3.75; $2.50 to AM A
members.

C o rp o ra te G row th T h rou gh M e rg er a n d A c q u is itio n .

40 cents.)

Prices and Consumption Economics
T he

C o m m ittee R e p o rts on U n e m p lo y m e n t [in I llin o is ]: R ecom ­
m e n d a tio n s to the G overnor. ( I n Illinois Labor Bul­

letin, Department of Labor, Chicago, Vol. 23, No. 2,
1962, pp. 6-9, 19.)

By Aleksy Wakar
American Economic
Review, Manasha, Wis., March 1963, pp. 109-127.
$ 2 .)

S o c ia lis t O p e ra tio n a l P r ic e S y s te m s .
and Janusz G. Zielihski. ( I n

S ta te L a w s R e g u la tin g P r iv a te E m p lo y m e n t A g e n c ie s, D e­
cem ber 1 9 6 2 . Washington, U.S. Department of Labor,

Bureau of Labor Standards, 1963.
252.) Free.

39 pp.

(Bulletin

Problems of Worker Groups
The

Labor Organizations
T h e C r a ft- I n d u s tr ia l I s s u e R e v isite d : A S tu d y o f U n io n
G overn m en t. By Arnold R. Weber. ( I n Industrial

and Labor Relations Review, Ithaca, N.Y., April
1963, pp. 381-404. $1.75.)
R e p o rt o f the S even th W o rld C on gress [of the I n te r n a tio n a l
C o n fed era tio n o f Free T ra d e U n io n s], B e r lin , J u l y
6 - 1 3 , 1 9 6 2 . Brussels, ICFTU, 1962. 788 pp.

Personnel Management
By Lewis R.
Benton. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1962. 238 pp. $15.

( I n Inter­
national Labor Review, Geneva, March 1963, pp.
183-205. 75 cents. Distributed in United States
by Washington Branch of ILO.)

E x p a n d e d E m p lo y m e n t S ervice to Y o u th — [A S y m p o s iu m ] .
( I n Employment Security Review, U.S. Department

of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Washing­
ton, March 1963, pp. 3-40. 20 cents, Superintendent
of Documents, Washington.)
A g e -M o b ility a n d S o u th ern F a rm er S k ill— L o o k in g A h e a d
f o r A r e a D ev elo p m en t. By G. S. Tolley and H. W.
Hjort. ( I n Journal of Farm Economics, Menasha,

Wis., February 1963, pp. 31-46.

A G u id e to C reative P e rs o n n e l M a n a g e m e n t.

By Eugene
New York, Macmillan Co., 1963. 254

A

M a n a g in g C rea tive S c ie n tis ts a n d E n g in ee rs.

Raudsepp.
pp. $7.50.

P ro ce ed in g s o f the F ir s t A n n u a l C onference on A u to m a tio n
a n d P erso n n el A d m in is tr a tio n .
Washington, Society

for Personnel Administration, 1962. 28 pp., bibli­
ography. (Pamphlet 18.) 80 cents; 40 cents to
Society members.
By Lowell S. Trowbridge. Water­
ford, Conn., National Foremen’s Institute, Bureau of
Business Practice, 1963. 152 pp., bibliography.
(Complete Management Library, Vol. XII.) $4.95.

H um an

Production and Productivity
T he G row th o f O u tp u t a n d E m p lo y m e n t in B a s ic S ecto rs o f
the C h ilea n E c o n o m y , 1 9 0 8 - 1 9 5 7 . By Marto A.
Ballesteros and Tom E. Davis. ( I n Economic

Development and Cultural Change, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, January 1963, Pt. I, pp.
152-176. $1.75.)
T he I m p a c t o f T ech n ological C h ange. By
Yale Brozen. Washington, American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research, 1963. 47 pp.,
bibliography. $1.

A u to m a tio n :

in E m p lo y e e C o u n selin g .
(A National IRN
Survey.) New York, Industrial Relations News,
April 1963. 4. pp.
A re

Coatsville,
xi, 287 pp.

a

By William M. Read.
Pyramid Publishing Co., 1962.

S u p e rv is o r.

Pa.,
$6.50.


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

By Joseph D .
Cooper. New York, Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1963.
312 pp. $4.50.

W o m a n ’s G iu id e to P a r t- T im e J o b s .

By Gereon Zimmer­
mann. New York, Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1963.
343 pp. $5.95.

R e la tio n s.

You

$2.)

T he S ecrets o f S u c cessfu l R e tire m e n t.

P r a c tic e s

N ow

C o m in g C r is is : Y o u th W ith o u t W o rk .
( I n The
American Federationist, American Federation of
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations,
Washington, April 1963, pp. 8-15.)

U n e m p lo y e d Y o u th — A n A f r ic a n S y m p o s iu m .

I n d u s tr ia l a n d G eograph ic D is tr ib u tio n o f U n io n M e m b er­
s h ip in C a n a d a , 1 9 6 2 .
( I n Labor Gazette, Canadian

Department of Labor, Ottawa, March 1963, pp.
201-208. 50 cents, Queen’s Printer, Ottawa.)

N a tu r e o f P r ic e T h e o ry. By H. H. Liebhafsky.
Homewood, 111., Dorsey Press, Inc., 1963. 562 pp.
$10.65.

Social Security
T he

F in a n c in g o f E x ten d ed U n e m p lo y m e n t In su r a n c e
B en efits in the U n ite d S ta te s . By Harry Malisoff-

726

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963
(NSF 62-37.)
Washington.

Kalamazoo, Mich., W. E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, 1963. 52 pp. Free.
A i d to F a m ilie s W ith D e p e n d e n t C h ild ren : I n i t i a l F in d in g s
o f the 1 9 6 1 R e p o r t on the C h a ra c te ristic s o f R e c ip ie n ts .
By Robert H. Mugge. ( I n Social Security Bulletin,

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Social Security Administration, Washington, March
1963, pp. 3-15. 25 cents, Superintendent of Docu­
ments, Washington.)

M a in C u rre n ts i n M o d e r n E c o n o m ics: E c o n o m ic T h o u g h t
S in c e 1 8 7 0 . By Ben B. Seligman. New York, The

Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1962.

Bulletin No.
T ren to n , N . J . , D ecem ber 1 9 6 2 ___
B u ffa lo , N . Y . , D ecem ber 1 9 6 2 __
D en ver, C olo., D ecem b er 1 9 6 2 __
D a y to n . O hio, J a n u a r y 1 9 6 3 ____
M e m p h is , T e n n ., J a n u a r y 1963_„
M in n e a p o lis - S t.
P a u l,
M in n .,
J a n u a r y 1 9 6 3 _______________

Pages

1345-29
1345-30
1345-32
1345-35
1345-36

28
32

22
20
22

1345-38

32

20

By C. E. Ferguson and Juanita
M. Kreps. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1962. 852 pp., bibliographies. $7.95.

P r in c ip le s o f E c o n o m ics.

By Royall Brandis.
Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1963. 388
pp. Rev. ed. (Irwin Series in Economics.) $9.65.

E c o n o m ics: P r in c ip le s a n d P o lic y .

Q u a n tita tiv e A s p e c ts o f the E c o n o m ic G row th o f N a tio n s :
V I I I , D is tr ib u tio n o f In co m e b y S iz e .
By Simon
Kuznets. { I n Economic Development and Cultural

Change, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Janu­
ary 1963, Pt. II, pp. 1-80. $1.75.)

25
25

on E co n o m ic D ev elo p m en t. By
Graeme S. Dorrance. { I n Staff Papers, International
Monetary Fund, Washington, March 1963, pp. 1-47.
$2.50.)

T he E ffect o f I n fla tio n

D eferred W a g e In c re a se s a n d E sc a la to r C la u ses, 1 9 5 2 - 6 3 '

Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1963. 61 pp. (BLS Report 235.)
W age
C h ro n o lo g y: M a r tin - M a r ie tta
C o rp . {B a ltim o re
P la n t) , 1 9 4 4 - 5 1 . Washington, U.S. Department of

Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1963.
(BLS Report 232.)

19 pp.

I n d u s t r y W a g e S u rv e y : B a s ic I r o n a n d S teel, M a rc h 1 9 6 2 .

By L. Earl Lewis. Washington, U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1963. 34 pp.
(Bulletin 1358.) 30 cents, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.
By Martin Seham.
Waterford, Conn., National Foremen’s Institute,
Bureau of Business Practice, 1963. 94 pp.
(Complete Management Library, Vol. XIV.) $4.95.

T h e F e d era l W a g e a n d H o u r L a w .

W a g es a n d H o u rs i n N o n p r o fit O rg a n iz a tio n s i n N e w Y o r k
S ta te , 1 9 6 1 . New York, State Department of Labor,

Division of Research and Statistics, 1962.
(Publication B-142.)

31 pp.

Miscellaneous

$11.75.

New York, National Bureau of Economic Research,
1962. xii, 349 pp. (Special Conference Series, 14.)
$7.50, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Price
{cents)

25
25
25

887 pp.

A s p e c ts o f L a b o r E c o n o m ics: A C onference o f the U n iv e r s i­
tie s — N a tio n a l B u re a u C o m m ittee f o r E co n o m ic R esea rch .

Wages and Hours
Occupational Wage Survey: Salt Lake City, Utah, December
1 9 6 2 . Washington, U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1963. 26 pp. (Bulletin
1345-25.) 25 cents, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington. Other bulletins in this series include:

$3.50, Superintendent of Documents,

T he

D ev elo p m en t o f the I n d ia n E c o n o m y . By W. B.
Reddaway. Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
1962. 216 pp. (Irwin Series in Economics.) $5.

S tr ik e I n su r a n c e : A n A n a ly s is o f the L e g a lity o f In te r E m p lo y e r E co n o m ic A i d
U n d er P r e s e n t F e d era l
L e g isla tio n . By Frank M. Tuerkheimer. { I n New

York University Law Review, New York, January
1963, pp. 126-147. $2.)
By Alice W. Shurcliff
and Julie E. Hyman. Washington, U.S. Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1963. 48 pp.
(BLS Report 227.) 35 cents, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.

L a b o r L a w a n d P ra c tic e i n C eylo n .

L a w a n d P ra c tic e i n G u a tem a la . By Jesse A.
Friedman. Washington, U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1963. 32 pp. (BLS
Report 223.) 25 cents, Superintendent of Docu­
ments, Washington.

Labor

By Fred H. Lambrou. New
York, John F. Rider Publisher, Inc., 1962. 105 pp.

G u id e to W o rk S a m p lin g .
R e p o r t o f the [C o n g ressio n a l] J o in t E co n o m ic C o m m ittee on
the J a n u a r y 1 9 6 3 E c o n o m ic R e p o r t o f the P r e s id e n t
W ith M in o r it y a n d O ther V ie w s . Washington, 1963.

(S. Rept. 78, 88th Cong., 1st sess.) 35 cents, Super­
intendent of Documents, Washington.
F e d e ra l O rg a n iza tio n f o r S c ie n tific A c tiv itie s , 1 9 6 2 .

ington, National Science Foundation, 1963.


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

Wash­
598 pp.

P u b lic R e la tio n s: A H a n d b o o k f o r B u s in e s s , L a b o r, a n d
C o m m u n ity L ea d e rs. By Dave H yatt. Ithaca, N.Y.,

Cornell University, New York State School of In­
dustrial and Labor Relations, 1963. 94 pp. (Bul­
letin 48.) 50 cents; free to New York State resi­
dents.

Current Labor Statistics
TABLES
A.—Employment
728
729
733
737

A -l.
A -2 .
A -3 .
A -4 .

737

A -5 .

738

A -6 .

Estimated total labor force classified by employment status and sex
Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry
Production workers in nonagricultural establishments, by industry
Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry division and selected groups,
seasonally adjusted
Production workers in manufacturing industries, by major industry group, seasonally
adjusted
Unemployment insurance and employment service program operations

B.—Labor Turnover
739

B -l.

Labor turnover rates, by major industry group

c.—Earnings and Hours
742
754
754

0 -1 .
C -2 .
0 -3 .

755
757

C -4 .
0 -5 .

757

0 -6 .

Gross hours and earnings of production workers, by industry
Average weekly hours, seasonally adjusted, of production workers in selected industries
Average hourly earnings excluding overtime of production workers in manufacturing,
by major industry group
Average overtime hours of production workers in manufacturing, by industry
Indexes of aggregate weekly man-hours and payrolls in industrial and construction
activities
Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production workers in manufacturing

D.—Consumer and Wholesale Prices
758

D -l.

759
760
762
763

D -2 .
D -3 .
D -4 .
D -5 .

Consumer Price Index—All-city average: All items, groups, subgroups, and special
groups of items
Consumer Price Index—All items and food indexes, by city
Indexes of wholesale prices, by group and subgroup of commodities
Indexes of wholesale prices for special commodity groupings
Indexes of wholesale prices, by stage of processing and durability of product

E.—1
764

E —1.

Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes

F.—Work Injuries
F -l.

Injury-frequency rates for selected manufacturing industries 1

« This table Is included in the January, April, July, and October issues of the Review.
N ote: With the exceptions noted, the statistical series here from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are described in Technique» of Preparing Major B L S Sta­
tistical Series (BLS Bulletin 1168, 1954), and cover the United States without Alaska and Hawaii.


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

727

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

Y28

A.—Employment
T able

A -l. Estimated total labor force classified by employment status and sex
[In thousands]
Estimated number of persons 14 years of age and over i

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Annual aver­
age

1962

1963

Employment status

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1961

1960

Total, both sexes
Total labor force______________________ 74,897 74,382 73,999 73,323 74,142 74,532 74,923 74,914 76,554 76,437 76,857 74,797 73,654 74,175

73,126

72,161 71,650 71,275 70,607 71,378 71,782 72,187 72,179 73,695 73,582 74.001 71,922 70, 769 71,603
4,063 4,501 4,918 4,672 3,817 3,801 3,294 3,512 3,932 4,018 4,463 3,719 3,946 4,806

70,612
3,931

5.8
5.5
6.4
5.5
6.7
5.6
6.1
5.8
5.6
5.8
5.5
5.8
5.3
5.7
1,597 1,553 1,814 1,996 1,697 1,960 1,546 1,681 1,702 1,805 2,536 1,523 1,527 1,897
654
630
940 1,037
664
709
629
964
963 1,315 1,162
840
684
672
292
212
307
411
229
295
358
255
230
598
485
361
300
371
684
612
525
469
696
418
428
341
449
764
345
608
728
743
477
593
584
804
691
453
397
447
576
666
719
619
541
681
68,097 67,148 66,358 65, 935 67,561 67,981 68, 893 68,668 69,762 69,564 69, 539 68,203 66, 824 66,796
63, 424 62,812 62,309 61,730 63,495 63,098 63. 418 63,103 63,993 63,500 63,249 62,775 61, 863 61,333
46, 505 48,669 47,063 48, 480 49,175 45,107 48,047 49,684 47;264 46,372 49,209 49, 711 49,035 47,257
10, 455 7,588 8, 573 7, 235 7,932 11,894 9.426 7,265 6,849 6, 598 6,927 7,209 7,213 7,522
3, 856 4,119 4,238 3] 845 4; 143 4,074 3, 811 3,475 3', 222 3; 185 3,365 3', 912 3,794 3,610
2,608 2,436 2,432 2,172 2,243 2,021 2,133 2,680 6, 657 7,343 3,748 1,944 1,822 2,946
4, 673 4,337 4,049 4,206 4,066 4,883 5,475 5, 564 5, 770 6,064 6,290 5,428 4.961 5,463
3,198 2,587 2,261 2,522 2,352 3,262 3,688 3,693 3,900 4,270 4,377 3,801 3,196 3,540
907 1,069 1,232 1,310 1,285 1,215 1,346 1,149 1,116 1,245
987
1, 041 1,042 1,040
462
447
467
398
426
404
446
475
477
483
444
490
388
305
172
241
316
153
182
133
122
89
249
129
101
200
129
267

5.6
1,799
823
353
602
454
66, 681
60,958
46,388
8.249
3,279
3,042
5,723
3,811
1,279
444
190

Civilian labor force......... ...........................
Unemployment....................................... .
Unemployment rate seasonally adjusted *
Unemployed 4 weeks or less_________
Unemployed 5-10 weeks------------------Unemployed 11-14 weeks-----------------Unemployed 15-26 weeks___________
Unemployed over 26 weeks--------------Employment_______________________
Non agricultural____________- ______
Worked 35 hours or more....................
Worked 15-34 hours______________
Worked 1-14 hours-----------------------With a job but not at work*..............
Agricultural...... ........................... ..........
Worked 35 hours or more. ________
Worked 15-34 hours____ __________
Worked 1-14 hours----------------------With a job but not at w ork»..............

Males
Total labor force............................ ................ 50,010 49,675 49, 508 49,269 49, 574 49,719 49,974 50,110 51,657 51,733 51,832 50,272 49,568 49,918

47,025
2,541
44,485
39,807
32, 511
4 ;1 0 0
1,360
1,836
4,678
3,365
792
348
172

Total labor force______________________ 24,886 24, 707 24,492 24,054 24, 568 24,812 24,949 24,804 24,897 24,703 25,026 24, 525 24,086 24,257

23,619

Civilian labor force____________________
U n em p loyment............................. .............
Employment_______________________
Nonagricultural___________________
Worked 35 hours or more__________
Worked 15-34 hours.............................
Worked 1-14 hours___ ___________
With a job but not at work 1..............
Agricultural.............................................
Worked 35 hours or more....................
Worked 15-34 hours______________
Worked 1-14 hours............. ................
With a job but not at work *........ .

23,587
1,390
22,196
21,151
13, 627
4,149
1,919
1,206
1,045
445
486
96
17

47,306
2,600
44, 706
40, 762
32 806
4, 941
1,658
1,357
3, 945
2,888
700
247
112

46,975
3,013
43. 962
40,251
33,648
3,439
1,688
1,476
3,711
2,383
730
384
216

46, 816
3, 293
43. 523
39, 994
32, 710
4,026
1,779
1,481
3, 529
2,074
786
423
246

46, 585
3,080
43, 505
39,839
33,648
3. 251
1,593
1,351
3,666
2,281
751
400
232

46,841
2,522
44,319
40, 782
33,946
3,612
1,760
1,461
3,537
2,181
656
424
276

47,001
2,259
44,743
40. 703
31, 704
6,130
1,618
1,250
4,040
2,908
692
307
133

47,269
1,881
45,387
41.131
33,774
4,428
1,628
1,302
4,256
3,168
694
281
114

47,406
1,991
45,415
41, 052
34,769
3,261
1,433
1, 588
4,363
3,180
780
309
92

48, 830
2,327
46, 503
41,899
33,483
3,316
1,449
3,652
4.604
3,327
819
293
165

48,911
2,406
46,505
41, 732
32,952
3,183
1,337
4,261
4,773
3, 634
687
332
121

49,009
2,698
46,310
41,421
34,624
3,244
1,518
2,035
4,889
3,743
733
305
109

47,430
2,296
45,134
40.687
34,579
3,223
1,713
1,171
4,447
3,365
706
291
85

46,717
2,534
44,183
39,925
34,043
3.282
1,578
1,021
4,258
2,916
781
400
161

49,507

47,378
3,060
44,318
39,811
32.984
3, 587
1,511
1,729
4,508
3,132
827
370
179

Civilian labor force........................................
Unemployment_____________________
Employment_______________________
Nonagricultural___________________
Worked 35 hours or more__________
Worked 15-34 hours............................
Worked 1-14 hours_______________
With a job but not at work *..............
A gricultural...........................................
Worked 35 hours or more....................
Worked 15-34 hours______________
Worked 1-14 hours.----- ---------------W ith a job but not at work ......... .

Females

24, 854
1,463
23,391
22, 663
13, 699
5, 515
2,198
1,251
728
311
341
59
17

24,675
1,489
23,186
22, 560
15,022
4,149
2,430
960
625
204
312
83
26

24, 460
1,625
22, 835
22, 315
14,356
4, 547
2, 459
950
520
187
255
57
20

24,022
1,592
22, 430
21,890
14,835
3,983
2, 252
820
540
243
236
44
17

24,537
1,295
23,242
22, 714
15! 228
4,319
2,383
782
528
172
252
66
40

i Estimates are based on information obtained from a sample of households
and are subject to sampling variability. Data relate to the calendar week
ending nearest the 15th day of the month. The employed total includes all
wage and salary workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid workers in
family-operated enterprises. Persons in institutions are not included.
Because of rounding, sums of individual items do not necessarily equal
totals.
s Unemployment as a percent of labor force.
*Includes persons who had a job or business but who did not work during
the survey week because of illness, bad weather, vacation, or labor dispute.
Prior to January 1957, also included were persons on layoff with definite
Instructions to return to work within 30 days of layofl and persons who had


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

24,781
1. 543
23,238
22,395
13,404
5,763
2,457
771
843
355
377
91
27

24,918
1,413
23, 505
22,287
11]273
4,998
2,184
832
1,219
520
538
145
15

24,773
1,520
23, 253
22,051
14,914
4,004
2,042
1,092
1,201
512
529
152
9

24,865
1,605
23,260
22,094
Bi 782
3,533
1,773
3,005
1,166
573
466
110
17

24,671
1,611
23,059
21.768
13, 420
3,415
1,848
3,082
1,291
636
530
116
12

24,993
1, 764
23,228
21,827
14,583
3,682
1,847
1,713
1,491
634
613
141
13

24,492
1.423
23,069
22,088
15,130
3,985
2,199
773
982
438
443
97
4

24,052
1,411
22, 641
21,938
14,993
3,929
2,216
801
703
281
335
75
11

24,225
1,747
22,478
21, 523
14,273
3,934
2,098
1,217
955
408
419
107
22

new jobs to which they were scheduled to report within 30 days. Most of
the persons in these groups have, since that time, been classified as unem­
ployed.
N ote: For a description of these series, see Explanatory Notes (in Employ­
ment and Earnings, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
current issues).
Figures for periods prior to April 1962 are not strictly comparable with
current data because of the introduction of 1960 Census data into the esti­
mation procedure. The change primarily affected the labor force and em­
ployment totals, which were reduced by about 200,000. The unemployment
totals were virtually unchanged.

729

A.—EMPLOYMENT
T able

A-2. Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1
[In thousands]

Annual
average

1962

1963
Industry
Apr . 3
Total em ployees........................ .................

Mar . 3

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1961

1960

55,862 55,063 54,780 54,833 56,444 56,214 56,333 56,252 55,709 55,493 55,777 55,209 54,849 54,077 54,347
612
80.1
25.2
28.1

614
80.7
25.0
28.0

617
78.9
23.3
28.0

628
78.3
24.4
28.0

638
78.9
25.1
27.8

645
79.4
25.9
27.7

651
80.3
26.4
27.9

658
83.8
28.3
28.8

648
87.8
29.0
28.8

661
89.2
29.8
29.2

657
88.5
29.7
28.9

647
86.9
28.4
28.9

87. 1
27.5
28.9

709
93.3
33.2
28.3

Hnal mining
Bituminous_______________________

136.0
127.8

139.7
131.3

140.4
131.9

140.2
131.6

142.2
133.4

143.8
135.2

142.6
134.2

141.9
133.4

129.9
120.7

142.8
134.2

145.0
135.9

146.5
137.6

155.5
145.1

182.2
168.2

Crude petroleum and natural gas............. ...........
Crude petroleum and natural gas fields.
Oil and gas field services____________

293.1
170.9

294.1
171.5

12 2 .2

1 2 2 .6

295.3
171.6
123.7

301.2
171 6
129.6

300.1
172.1
128.0

303.0
172.8
130.2

307.2
175. 5
131.7

309.2
178.0
131. 2

310.1
178.0
132.1

307.9
177.5
130.4

304.0
174.9
129.1

302.0
173.8
128.2

308.9
176.8
132.2

313.9
181.7
132.2

Quarrying and nonmetalllc mining..........

10 2 .6

10 2 .2

108.2

116.4

119.1

12 1.0

122.9

12 0 .2

12 0 .6

119.3

111.7

114.9

119.5

Mining______________________________
Metal mining
_________________
Iron ores
______________________
flnppAr n r as

622

_________

99.3

2,316 2,241 2,349 2,532 2,801 2,936 2,978 3,031 2,982 2,839
718.5 693.7 731.4 786.2 861.7 889.1 903.2 929.2 916.4 873.0
General building contractors__________
413.3 383.8 409.6 471.1 579.3 648.4 667.6 685.4 675.0 624.5
Heavy construction__________________
Highway and street construction.......... ........... 208.3 185.5 201.4 244.9 326.9 379.0 394.5 405.2 393.6 359.6
205.0 198.3 208.2 226.2 252.4 269.4 273.1 280.2 281.4 264.9
O tb p r h e a v y n n n s tr n e tln n
1,184.2 1,163.0 1,207.8 1,274.4 1,360.4 1,398.8 1,407.1 1,416. 5 1,390.9 1,341.0
Special trade contractors______________
Manufacturing_______________________ 16,711 16,607 16,546 16,551 16,727 16,891 17,028 17,127 16,931 16,782 16,870
D n rn h le goods
9,520 9,428 9,399 9,407 9,473 9,533 9, 562 9,571 9,402 9,463 9, 547
N o n d u r a b le g o o d s
.
.
.
.
7,191 7,179 7,147 7,144 7,254 7,358 7,466 7,556 7, 529 7,319 7,323
2,575

fln n trn r t r n n s tr n rtin n

666

2,749 2,589 2,760 2,882
843.0 808.5 860.8 911.7
594.7 506.6 565. 6 581.3
335.4 268.4 302.8 302.4
259.3 238.2 262. 9 278.9
1,311.2 1,273.8 1,333.2 1,388.8
16,682 16,636 16,267 16,762
9, 475 9,422 9,042 9,441
7,207 7,214 7,225 7,321

D u ra b le g o o d )

O r d n a n c e a n d a c c e s s o rie s

Ammunition, except for small arms___
Sighting and fire control equipment__

216.3

217.4
113.7
49.9
53.8

219.2
114.3
51.1
53.8

220.3
114.1
52.1
54.1

2 2 1.0

220.7
114.0
53.0
53.7

2 11.6

2 11.0

2 0 0 .6

115.0
53.4
53.2

217.0
113.7
53.3
50.0

2 11.8

114.7
52.6
54.3

220.4
114.2
52.5
53.7

2 2 1.6

114.8
52.0
54.2

110.7
52.5
48.6

108.5
52.4
50.7

108.2
52.5
50.3

103.1
51.1
46.5

187.3
93.9
50.0
43.4

592.6

575.0
75.5
260.6

574.7
80.6
257.5

579.2
82.4
259.7

592.0

608.6
; 94.0
269.2

620.7
97.2
273.9

629.9
277.1

639.6
104.5
280.1

632.9
103.7
279.0

635.8

261.9

281.6

609.6
90.3
272.5

591.3
82.6
266.5

600.5
91.5
268.9

636.8
92.6
294.7

141.1
37.6
60.2

140.0
37.4
59.2

140.6
37.5
59.0

143.6
38.7
59.7

146.4
39.0
60.0

148.9
40.0
60.7

150. 7
39.6
61.3

152.9
40.5
61.6

149.2
40.8
60.2

149. 6
41.2
61.6

145.8
40.3
60.7

142.6
39.4
60.2

141.3
40.8
58.0

146.6
43.2
59.6

377.4

377.9
271.6
28.8
34.5
43.0

377.1
270.4
28.9
34.8
43.0

379.5
270.3
30.0
35.4
43.8

383.3
273.5
30.5
34.9
44.4

387.1
275. 8
30.7
35.7
44.9

388.2
276.9
28.5
37.8
45.0

388.0
276.0
28.2
38.0
45.8

387.6
273.3
30.3
37.7
46.3

378.3
266.5
29.2
37.2
45.4

382.3
269.1
29.7
37.1
46.4

379.3 377.1
268.8 269.1
29. 1 28.5
36.4
35.8
45.0
43.7

367. 4
259. 6
27.4
36.2
44.2

383.4
271. 1
28.3
39.0
45.1

574.0

550.1
28.8

540.7
29.0

660.3
30.3
99.7
37.9

578.2
31.0
100.4
40.3
70.6
44.5
154. 7
121.4

592.8
30.4
10 2 .8

40.8
71.4
45.3
160.7

41.4
72.5
44.8
163.2
122.7

589.5
29.6
103.9
41.3
71.8
43.9
162.2
122.4

566.8
27.9

10 1.8

595.6 590.1
30. 1 29. 7
103.1 103.0
41.5
41.7
72.1
73.1
44.2
43.5
165.1 163.0
123.5 123.0

579.1
28.6

10 0 .0

545.2
29.2
98.4
30.3
65.9
43.4
138.3
118.8

588.0
30.5

10 1.2

595.3
31.1
102.9
42.8
76.1
47.1
155.4
124.0

O t h e r o r d n a n c e a n d a c c e s s o rie s .........

Lumber and wood products, except
furniture ______________________
Logging camps and logging contractors.
Sawmills and planing mills__________
Millwork, plywood, and related
p r o d nets
Wooden containers_________________
Miscellaneous wood products________
Furniture and fixtures_______ ______ _
T T onsehold f u r n i tu r e

Office furniture____________________
Partitions; office and store fixtures____
Other furniture and fixtures_________
Pf.one, c la y , a n d g la s s p r o d u c t s

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

Flat glass_________________________
Glass- and glassware, pressed or blown.
C le m e n t, h y d r a u l i c

Structural clay products____________
Pottery and related products________
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products.
Other stone and mineral products

35.6
6 6 .0

43.5
141.6
118.5

34.6
64.8
43.4
136.0
118.3

8 8 .1

6 8 .6

43.7
144.9
12 0 .2

2 2 1.6

1 2 2 .2

10 1.2

10 1.8

40.0
71.0
43.5
157.9

566.2
29. 0
100.3
39.0
69. 5
43.9
149.3

12 2 .0

12 0 .8

10 1.8

10 0 .6

40.0
70. 7
43. 4
150 2
119.5

Primary metal industries_____________ 1,172.0 1,152.8 1,137.6 1,124.2 1.124. 4 1,118.7 1,123.1 1,136. 4 1,134. 7 1,134.7 1,166. 0 1,193. 8 1,221.3 1,142.3 1.228. 7
583.7 569.4 555.8 555.3 550.8 555.2 566.3 567.5 570.8 594.9 622.5 650. 1 599 9 652.5
Blast "furnace and basic steel products
196.8 196.2 195.3 195.3 194.9 195.5 196.6 193.8 194.0 196.9 196. 5 197.0 186 0 203 6
Iron and steel foundries. ___________
68.5
6 8 .6
67. 4 70.8
67.8
6 8 .8
67.4
6 8 .2
68.7
69.1
69. 4 68.9
66.9
Nonferrous smelting and refining_____
66.9
Nonferrous rolling, drawing,- and
177.
6
177.5
169.
9 175.6
177.3
178.0
176.8
176.7
177.5
177.5
176.6
176.8
177.3 176.8
extruding_______________________
67.4
6 6 .6
61. 4 65. 1
6 6 .0
67. 1 67. 1 67. 1 64.7
68.4
68.4
67.5
6 8 .1
6 8 .1
Nonferrous foundries_______________
61.2
61.6
57.8
61.1
60.
1
61.4
60.6
58.7
59.5
60.7
60.4
60.1
60.2
60.0
Miscellaneous primary metal industries.
1
,
1
2
1
.
2
1,111.3
1,076.4
1,128.6
1,129.0
1,115.5
1,115.8
1,135.7
1,128.3
1,134.1
1,111.3
1
,
1
2
2
.
1
1,108.1
Fabricated metal products____________ 1,117.2 1,108.2
62.9
61.6
60.6
62.5
65.4
65.7
65.2
61. C 65.3
57.9
57.6
58.3
59.6
59.0
Metal c a n s _______________________
Cutlery, handtools, and general hard­
ware___________________________
139.9 140.7 141.0 141.5 141.3 140.0 138.4 134.7 133.6 138.7 138.4 137.7 129.7 136.0
Heating equipment and plumbing
79.0
76.3
75.2
77.0
76.2
76.7
79.0
78.8
78.6
77.8
76.0
77.0
77.2
77.0
fixtures_________________________ —
Fabricated structural metal products. _
314.8 313.9 317.0 322.3 325. 8 330.9 335. 1 333.7 334.4 332.3 326. 9 321. 4 325. 8 334.3
80.4
85.6
86. 1
87.8
87.0
87. 1 87.5
87. 7 87.0
87.8
8 8 .0
88.3
87.9
88.5
Screw machine products, bolts, etc....... .......
191.7 192.2 195.3 197 1 196.4 196. 4 193.2 180.2 184.3 188.3 191 1 189.0 179.4 197.7
Metal stampings__________________
63.9
64.2
67.7
67. 4 6 8 9 67 6
67.8
69.6
69.2
6 6 .0
67.3
70.0
6 6 .1
Coating, engraving, and allied services..
65.6
56.0
53. 7 56.9
55.6
57. 1 56.8
55.7
57.4
57.7
56.8
57.0
56.2
56.4
56.1
Miscellaneous fabrieatedwire products.
114.4 113.7 113.9 107.8 112.4
114.7 114.6 113.6 114.3 113.9 1 1 1 . 8 1 1 2 . 1 1 1 2 . 2 1 1 2 . 0
Miscellaneous fabricated metal products.
See footnotes at end of table.


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

730

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

T able

A-2. Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]

1963

1962

Annual
average

Industry
Apr.» Mar.»

Feb.

Jan.

Dee.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1901

1960

Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods— Continued
Machinery.............................
1 , 489.1 1,481.3 1,474.0 1,469.3 1,464.2 1,462.9 1,463.1 1,466.7 1,463.9 1,468.1 1,479.5 1,468. 6 1,466.4
1,401.1 1,471.4
Engines and turbines________________
88.4
88.3
87. (
88.5
8A.Î
86.5
86. £ 86. £
85.7
sa e
86.7
86.5
80.0
86.8
Farm machinery and equipment...............
132.4 130.5 125.1 120.8 117.4 118,0 118,7 117.7 119.0 1 2 0 . 5 121.0 121.0 112.4 114.1
Construction and related machinery____
209.2 208.8 208.7 209.0 308.6 207.8 211.1 212.2 211.2 2 1 2 . 0 209.0 207.8 198.1 219.7
Metalworking machinery and equip­
m ent___________________________ _
261.6 260.7 259.5 259.5 258.3 256.4 255.0 253.1 256.7 259.7 260.5 260.8 243.8 258.2
Special industry machinery____________
169.8 169.2 169.9 170.8 170.8 17L6 17L 6 172.4 171S 173.5 171.5 170.9 167.9 173.8
General industrial machinery__________
221.9 221.2 222.2 220.5 222.5 223.4 223.2 222.9 222.0 2218 220.1 219.9 211.1 223.0
Office, computing, and accounting
machines_______ _____________ ____
148.7 148.7 149.6 150.0 150.4 150.5 151.9 152.1 151.0 151.8 151.7 151.9 149.3 145.7
Service industry machines___________ *"
97.4
95.3
95.3
96.0
96.2
96.7
95.9
96.3
99.7 101. C 99.6
98.7
94.1
99.8
Miscellaneous m ach in ery ............... . ”
151.9 150.7 150.5 151.3 152.6 152.7 151.7 150.3 149.9 151.6 148.5 148.9 144.6 150.4
Electrical equipment and supplies______i 5 2 1 . 3 1,525.8 1,533.7 1,543.5 1,556.0 1,661.1 1,561.2 1,556.7 1,538.9 1,529.1 1,534.2 1,513.1 1,505.2 1,436.0 1,445.0
Electric distribution-equipment______ _
■ 160.2 160.7 161.9 163.1 163.5 163.5 163.3 163.2 16L7 162.2 159.3 159.8 160.9 ‘ 163.2
Electrical industrial apparatus_______
T174.2 #¡174.8 175.3 170.4 176.9 176.6 176.9 175.7 177.0 178.3 175.5 174.8 170.5 177.4
Household appliances______________
155.5 154. 4 154.6 155.2 154.8 155.6 155.0 151.9 150.7 154. 3 154 R
Electric lighting and wiring equipment.
A138.3 138.2 137.6 138.6 188.9 139.4 iaa 8 136.1 133.6 135.4 134.8 134.2 12a 5 132.7
Radio and TV receiving sets_________
124.6 128.2 132.9 135.7 135.2 132.2 129. 9 127.8 122 9 h r a
«
1 2 1 .0
1 2 2 .1
Communication equipment._________
418.7 423.9 426.5 428.9 427.4 424.7 42X6 420.0 415.7 416.2 412.3 410.8 378.4 366.9
Electronic components and accessories.. ”
1241.0 241.8 244.5 246.5 247.6 247.6 24a 0 246.5 24A 7 245.7 240.0 238.5 227.2 225.2
Miscellaneous electrical equipment
and supplies___________________________ 116.9 117.8 118.5 119.1 119.1 118.1 116.9 113.3 113.8 114.3 113.5 114.3 106.4 111.4
Transportation equipment____________ 1 7 1 5 . 9 1,701.9 1,702.5 1,709.2 1,705.6 1,695. 4 1,683.9 1,66& 7 1,536.2 1,647.4 1,660.4 1,650.6 1,632.2 1,522.5 1,017.3
Motor vehicles and equipment_______ ’
747.8 751.3 761.2 7614 755.1 746.8 731.8 607.3 727.5 748.4 738.3 720.9 047.9 727.6
Aircraft and parts__________________
727.6 728.2 730.8 729.7 726.5 719.7 719.0 709.7 705.1 695.6 692.8 691.9 669.4 673.8
Ship and boat building and repairing..
152.4 150.1 148.5 145.1 144.0 145.5 144.3 144.3 141.8 142.6 144.1 145.5 142.2 141.0
Railroad equipment. ............................ .............
43.2
42.8
41.9
42.0
45.5
44.8
45.4
43.6
44.4
45.5
44.4
43.8
35.8
43.8
Other transportation equipment_____
26.5
27.8
28.7
2as
29.4
25.9
29.4
28.7
28.5
30.3
31.0
30.1
27.3
31.1
Instruments and related products______
Engineering and scientific instruments.
Mechanical measuring and control
devices.................. ...............................
Optical and ophthalmic goods_______
Surgical, medical, and dental équip­
e m e n t___________________________
Photographic equipment and supplies..
Watches and clocks________________

3 0 3 .7

Miscellaneous manufacturing industries..
Jewelry, silverware, and plated w are...
Toys, amusement, and sporting goods..
Pens, pencils, office and art m aterials..
Costume jewelry, buttons, and notions.
Other manufacturing industries______

339

5

362.1
73.2

361.2
73.3

361.3
74.2

362.0
74.4

352.1
74.8

361.6
74.4

361.3
74.1

361.3
73.6

357.4
713

358.2
72.6

355.8
72.5

355.2
72.5

340.4
73.9

354.2
75.7

97.6
42.0

97.6
41.9

97.0
41.6

96.6
41.7

96.3
41.6

95.8
41.8

95.7
41.8

95.9
4L 7

95.0
41.8

94.7
42.4

95.2
42.1

95.2
42.2

91.8
39.3

95.1
40. S

50.5
70.7
28.1

50.3
70.3
27.8

50.0
70.6
27.9

49.7
71.1
28.6

49.7
71.2
29.0

49.6
71.0
29.0

49.6
71.0
29.1

49.5
71.8
28.8

49.2
71.4
27.7

49.0
70.5
29.0

48.2
69.2
28.6

48.1
69.1
28.1

47.6
68.4
25.3

47.3
69.0
26.0

375.6
40.6
\ 94.9
? 34.1
» 53.0
153.0

370.2
41.0
89.1
33.5
53.3
153.3

363.9
40.9
84.1
33.5
52.8
152.6

383.4
41.8
95.3
34.2
55.2
155.9

409.0
42.8
116.1
34.9
57.1
158.1

418.1
42.6
123.1
35.1
56.9
160.4

414.5
42.3
119.7
34.6
56.8
161.1

407.3
41.5
117.1
34.1
56.0
158.6

392.4
40.0
112.4
33.6
53.1
154.3

399.9
41.2

391.8
41.2
107.6
32.6
55.1
155.3

384.8
41.3
103.0
32.6
53.9
154.0

381.6
41.8
101.9
31.2
54.0
152.7

392.1
43.2
102.3
31.0
57.5
158.1

1 1 2 .2

33.2
56.3
157.0

Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products_____________ 1,688.2 1,675.8 1, 665.1 1,686.9 1,738.8 1,780. 7 1,858. 5 1,931.1 1,910. 5 1,829.6 1,777.9 1,711.5 1,699.1 1,780.2
298.3 300.8 304.1 311.6 316.0 315.9 312.7 314.7 313. 4 314.4 307.7 305.2 317.0 1,792.7
M eat products____ ___________________ _______
321.1
D airy produ cts............................................... ............... ¿98.8 297.4 298.4 301.2 303.0 306.1 312.3 320. 5 322.3 318.8 311.5 308.5 313.3
316.6
C anned and preserved food, except
m eats_______________________________ _______
188.3 181.1 187.4 2 0 2 .2 227.5 298.1 379.1 859.1 386.7 236.3 204.1 203.1 243.5 241.8
124,1 123.7 124.4 124.8 124.9 128.2 130.5 131.1 131.0 128.7 127.4 123.8 128.6 128.4
Grain m ill products___________________ —...........
303.6 302.3 303.2 307.0 308.9 308.0 307.3 308.0 308.1 308.8 302.1 301.1
B akery products______________________ _______
305.7 307.5
Sugar____________ ____________________ _______
28. 5 34.8
27.9
44.1
45.7
45.1
32.1
30.0
39.3
28.8
27.2
28.2
34.3
30.9
Confectionery and related products....... ...............
78.6
78.7
87.5
85.1
79.9
84.0
83.0
76.9
69.1
73.2
73.8
76.1
80.0
79.6
B everages_____ ________ ______________ _______
214.9 2 1 0 .1 2 1 2 .2 217.9 219.7 223.5 22a 6 227.2 229.1 227.7 217.8 2 1 2 .2 216.5 218.2
M iscellaneous food and kindred prod­
u c ts................................................................................. 141.3 142.5 142.5 146.1 147.5 148.5 145.5 143.0 140.6 141.2 139.9 140.9 141.4

142.8

T obacco m anufactures__________________
77.0
C igarettes................................. ....... ...............................
C ig a r s ............................................................................

Textile mill products_________________
Cotton broad woven fabrics_________
Silk and synthetic broad woven fabrics.
Weaving and finishing broad woolens..
Narrow fabrics and small wares_______
Knitting.................................... ..............
Finishing textiles, except wool and knit.
Floor covering..........................................
Yarn and thread___________________
Miscellaneous textile goods__________
See footnotes at end of table.


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

856.8

79.4
37.2
21.9

85.2
36.8

88.3
37.1

2 2 .1

2 2 .0

856.9
238.7
69.6
50.2
26.5

854.4
238.7
69.8
50.2
26.5
199.2
70.4
34.2
100.9
64.5

855.2
240.2
70.1
48.6
26.6
198.1
70.6
34.6
100.7
65.7

2 0 1 .8

70.6
33.9
1 0 0 .6

65.0

94.1
37.2
23.0

96.2
37.0
22.9

1 1 1 .2

867.5
242.2
70.6
48.8
27.3
203.5
71.6
35.0

876.2
243.1
70.3
49.6
27.5
210.3
71.5
35.1
102.3
66.5

1 0 2 .2

66.3

37.0

117.6
37.9

1 0 2 .6

37.9

76.9
37.9

2 2 .6

2 2 .8

2 2 .6

881.3
243.2
70.1
50.8
27.2
214.4
71.6
34.7
102.9
66.4

883.7
244.2
70.5
51.5
27.4
215.3
71.2
34.2
103.0
66.4

885.8
245.0
70.6
52.2
27.8
217.2
71.1
33.1
103.8
65.5

2 2 .0

76.2
37.6
22.9

75.7
37.0
23.1

77.0
36.6
23.3

90.5
37.0
24.8

94.1
37.2
27.9

872.9
243.4
68.7
52.2
26.6
213.0
70.6
33.0
101.3
64.1

890.9
247.0
70.4
52.9
27.4
217.6
72.2
33.4
103.6
66.41

884.4
246.1
69.7
52.2
27.6
214.2
71.8
33.5
103.1

883.2
247.2
69.3
52.0
27.6

879.8
251.2
69.8
52.3
26.6

2 1 2 .1

2 1 1 .1

6 6 .2

6 6 .0

914.0
260.4
73.4
50.0
27.6
214.4
74.3
35.9
103.7
69.0

72.1
33.8
103.1

70.8
33.1
100.4
04.6

731

A.—EMPLOYMENT
T able

A-2. Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
Annual
average

1962

1963
Industry
Apr.« Mar.«

Feb.

Jan.

Dec,

Nov,

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1961

1960

Manufacturing—Continued
Nondurable poods—Continued
1
Apparel and related products--------------- 1,244.2 1,264.5 1,250.6 1,219.2 1,235.6 1,252.7 1,258.5 1,264.2 1,266.7 1,207.8 1,230.5 1,216.3 1,232.4
118.0 118.5 118.5 119.1 118.5 119.3 120.2 119.8 115.2 119.4 115.6 115.9
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats--------331.7 330.7 327.5 331.8 334.9 335.2 336.4 336.1 324.7 331.2 324.7 320.5
M en’s and boys’ furnishings..................
Women’s, misses’, and juniors’ outer­
363.2 356.0 337.9 339.5 343.4 342.3 349.7 356.7 335.5 342.2 355.5 340.5
wear___________________________
Women’s and children’s undergar­
122.8 121.7 120.2 123.6 126.0 126.7 124.6 123.3 116.7 120.0 119.2 120.4
ments____________________— -----38.7
31.8
31.7
36.2
32.0
35.8
36.8
32.9
36.8
34.5
39.3
40.0
Hats, caps, and millinery_______ ____
74.0
75.3
78.2
79.2
78.6
77.2
77.2
76.8
76.3
75.1
79.6
79.0
Girls’ and children’s outerwear_______
67.3
66.2
68.7
71.6
67.8
72.2
73.3
72.3
62.9
68.2
66.3
65.0
F ur goods and miscellaneous apparel... —
Miscellaneous fabricated textile prod­
142.9 140.4 139.1 143.8 147.9 148.7 147.7 143.8 137.7 138.1 142.5 140.1
ucts............ ..........................................
599.9 599.3 597.0 600.3 605.7 606.4 608.8 610.7 610.4 602.2 607.3 598.7 598.4
Paper and allied products.____ _______
223.6 223.4 225.2 226.2 226.8 227.9 229.0 231.4 227.7 228.5 224.9 224.8
Paper and pulp___________________
67.5
67.5
68.1
66.4
67.7
66.7
68.3
68.3
68.5
68.5
68.3
68.3
Paperboard......... ....................................
Converted paper and paperboard
128.5
128.6
130.2
130.4
129.3
130.6
129.7
130.5
129.7 128.6 128.9 130.2
products_______________________
177.7 176.7 177.7 180.8 181.6 182.1 183.4 181.9 178.8 180.5 177.7 177.6
Paperboard containers and boxes-------

199.5 1,228.4
116.4 121.6
302.2 307.5

Printing, publishing, and allied Indus­
tries....................... ..............................
Newspaper publishing and printing....
Periodical publishing and printing----Books________ ________________ ...
Commercial printing_______________
Bookbinding and related industries___
Other publishing and printing indus­
tries....................................................

.......

Chemicals and allied products____
Industrial chemicals________________
Plastics and synthetics, except glass.
Drugs................................................


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

135.8

136.9

589.5
224.5
66.8

693.3
224.4
69.3

124.3
174.0

124.4
175.1

920.1
323.7
69.1
75.4
294.7
48.4

945.7
348.5
69.4
75.7
293.8
48.4

945.0
346.6
68.9
76.0
293.8
48.7

941.3
345.1
68.3
76.4
292.2
49.3

934.0
345.5
66.1
75.8
288.9
49.5

930.7
343.1
66.4
76.1
289.2
48.3

933.4
343.7
66.4
75.4
292.0
48.0

929.0
341.0
68.5
74.4
291.1
47.3

930.8
342.5
68.7
74.5
291.4
47.2

926.3
339.1
71.0
73.0
289.8
47.1

917.2
332.6
71.0
71.1
289.2
47.0

108.3

108.0

107.5

108.8

109.9

111.0

110.0

108.2

107.6

107.9

106.7

106.5

106.3

106.3

870.1

860.1
285.4
163.3
112.3
101.0
62.6
49.1
86.4

852.7
284.4
163.2
112.0
99.9
62.0
45.4
85.8

850.1
284.6
163.4
111.6
99.9
61.6
43.5
85.5

849.9
284.9
162.9
111.7
100.2
61.7
42.3
86.2

852.0
285.2
163.3
111.3
101.2
62.0
41.6
87.4

853.6
284.9
163.2
110.6
101.8
62.8
42.9
87.4

855.9
285.1
164.3
110.5
101.8
63.6
42.7
87.9

858.0
287.8
163.4
111.4
101.2
64.7
40.7
88.8

855.0
288.9
162.9
110.7
99.2
64.5
40.5
88.3

851.2
287.7
158.4
110.0
99.4
64.2
43.3
88.2

851.9
284.6
159.7
108.7
98.0
63.0
52.5
85.4

854.9
286.0
159.7
108.8
98.1
62.2
63.9
86.2

830.2
284.8
152.3
106.6
96.5
62.4
44.7
82.9

829.6
286.8
153.2
107.4
92.2
63.5
44.8
81.8

187.6

185.6
154.8
30.8

186.3
154.6
31.7

185.4
153.0
32.4

186.9
153.5
33.4

189.1
154.3
34.8

190.7
154.9
35.8

192.8
156.4
36.2

199.9
163.5
36.4

200.9
165.0
35.9

200.9
165.3
35.6

199.3
164.6
34.7

198.3
165.0
33.3

203.0
170.0
33.0

211.7
177.6
34.1

392.5

391.8
104.2
160.9
126.7

391.5
104.4
161.0
126.1

394.7
105.3
163.9
125.5

395.8
105.7
164.4
125.7

398.2
105.3
164.4
128.5

399.9
105.3
164.7
129.9

397.7
105.7
164.3
127.7

392.1
104.5
161.4
126.2

384.5
103.5
157.1
123.9

391.4
104.5
161.5
125.4

385.0
103.0
158.8
123.2

380.4
102.5
157.2
120.7

365.1
101.0

149.1
114.9

374.0
106.8
153.3
113.8

343.9

352.1
31.8
235.2
85.1

354.6
32.1
237.6
84.9

351.4
32.9
236.1
82.4

359.3
33.1
238.4
87.8

361.0
33.1
235.8
92.1

358.6
32.9
233.4
92.2

360.8
32.8
236.!
91.1

368.6
32.8
243.5
92.3

358.4
31.6
239.2
87.6

363.5
32.7
241.7
89.1

355.4
32.2
236.6
86.6

359.5
32.0
238.8
88.7

361.0
33.0
239.3
88.7

365.8
34.1
242.6
89.1

3,887

3,867
764.4
666.9
267.7
86.0
109.9
46.6
889.2
212.5
190.1
19.9
299.4
813.5
685.0
34.7
91.9
599.9
247.5
150.0
172.5
29.9

3,862
761.4
664.4
268.8
86.2
110.7
46.7
888.2
211.9
190.3
19.9
301.0
811.3
682.7
34.7
92.0
599.8
247.4
150.2
172. '
29.8

3,794
760.4
663.4
270. C
86.5
110.2
48.2
884.8
212.4
190.8
20.2
233.8
811.5
683. i
34.9
91.4
600.5
247.4
150.5
172.8
29.8

3,937
786.7
681.6
269. Í
86.1
109. '
47.9
925. '
210.5
189.]
20.5
306. (
815.8
685.!
35.7
92.3
602.5
247.7
151.2
173.6
30. (

3,934
781.8
683.1
266. S
87.1
107. (
47.!
939. (
209.2
188. ;
20.6
296. (
816.!
687.5
35.7
91.8
603.'
247.7
151.7
174. (
30. (

3,959
792.5
692. !
267. (
87.7
105.7
48. !
947. S
210. Í
189.5
20.5
296. (
818.5
688.1
35.8
92.8
604.!
248.Î
151.5
174.5
30.3

3,959
784.4
685.!
265,2
87.9
105. C
49.7
942.1
210. C
188.5
21.2
300.7
823.6
693.2
36.2
92.3
612.1
251.'
153.4
176.8
30.5

3, 963
810.2
710.6
253.6
87.7
103. C
50.1
927.5
199.2
177.8
21.6
302.6
829.1
699.1
36.6
91.5
619.2
253.8
155.3
178.7
31.4

3,948
811.1
711.8
254.4
87.8
102.7
60.4
920.3
193.1
172.0
21.6
299.9
829.1
698.5
36.8
91.9
618.3
253.9
154.9
178.1
31.4

3,965
819.2
719.0
261.0
88.6
104.2
49.6
919.2
207.6
185.0
21.6
301.2
822.3
692.6
36.7
91.2
612.7
251.6
153.7
176.5
30.9

3,924
815.1
715.0
266.0
88.6
105.6
48.7
893.2
206.7
184.0
21.3
302.6
816.9
687.9
36.6
90.5
602.3
247.6
151.1
173.2
30.4

3,904
808.1
706.8
266.6
88.4
107.1
47.9
887.1
204.9
182.3
21.2
298.3
816.6
687.0
¿6.6
91.2
600.9
247.6
150.7
172.6
30. U

3,923
819.5
717.4
270.0
91.5
109.5
48.2
875.2
197.3
175.6

4,017
886.9
780.5
282.6
94.6
120.4
47.2
873.8
191.0
171.6
23.1
308.0
838.7
706.0
38.3
92.4
613.0
254.3
153.4
175.0
30.3

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

Other transportation________________
Communication____________________
Telephone communication_________
Telegraph communication_________ .........
Radio and television broadcasting----Electric, gas, and sanitary services____
Combined utility systems....................
Water, steam, and sanitary systems...
See footnotes at end of table.

119.7
36.2
76.1
69.0

912.2
320.6
69.5
75.4
291.2
48.0

Miscellaneous plastic products.

Transportation and public utilities__. . . . .
Railroad transportation______________
Class I railroads___________________
Local and interurban passenger transit...
Local and suburban transportation—
Taxicabs....................................... ..........
Intercity and rural buslines..............
Motor freight transportation and storage.
Air transportation__________________

118.0
34.9
74.4
69.5

909.2
321.0
68.7
75.1
288.6
47.8

Other petroleum and coal products.

Leather and leather products---Leather tanning and finishing.
Footwear, except rubber_____

361.3

913.9
322.2
08.5
75.6
290.8
48.5

930.4

Agricultural chem icals...____. . . ------

Rubber and miscellaneous plastic prod­
ucts___ _______________________
Tires and inner tubes______________

348.3

22.2

302.1
826.2
694.8
37.1
92.4
610.7
252.2
153.1
175.3
30.1

732

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963
T able

A-2. Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]

1963

1962

A nnual
average

Industry
A pr.3 M ar.3

F eb .

Jan,

D ec.

N ov.

O ct.

Sept.

A ug.

J u ly

June

M ay

Apr

1961

1960

Wholesale and retail trade________ _____
11,733 I I ,
I I , 469 11,520
415 12,401 11,842 11,682 11, 627 11, 558 11. 540 11,582 11, 476 I I ,
470 11,412
11, 368
Wholesale trade________________l.l.l. 3,089 3,080 3,078 3,086 3,129 3,113 3,113 3,105 3,107 3,091 3,074 3,034 3,028 3,008 3,009
Motor vehicles and automotive equip­
m ent____ ________ _____ __________
226.8 225.9 224.9 226.7 226.0 226.4 226.9 226.8 226.3 224.2 221.1 220.4 215.6 213.6
Drugs, chemicals, and allied products..
198.7 197.9 197.4 199.3 199.2 198.4 196.8 196.9 195.4 194.4 193.2 192.5 188.3 183.8
Dry goods and apparel................. ............
134.5 134.0 134.8 135.2 135.1 135.7 135.1 135.9 135.8 134.5 132.5 132.1 130.7 130.8
Groceries and related products_______
490.2 487.8 491.6 502.9 502.7 497.9 492.8 491.8 498.9 499
490.1 491.2 491.5 494.0
Electrical goods____________________
217.5 217.6 217.2 216.5 215.8 215.2 214.1 215.3 215.2 213.5 210.2 210.1 204.8 208.1
Hardware, plumbing and heating
goods____________________________
143.2 142.8 142.7 143.6 144.1 144.8 145.0 145.4 145.3 144.9 143.1 141.7 142.6 145.1
Machinery, equipment, and supplies!
520.2 519.0 514.8 514.8 512.2 511.9 514.5 513.5 512.1 508.5 502.6 500.0 483.6 479.1
Retail trade__________________________ 8,644 8,389 8 ,337 8,434
,272
,729 8,569 8,522 8,451 8 ,449 8,508 8,442 8 , 442 1,361 8,403
General merchandise stores___________
1, 480.0 1,461.2 1,534. 2 , 045. 5 , 700.9 1, 590. 5 1, 556.8 1,512.8 1, 501. 5 1,526. 8 1, 523. 9 1, 534. , 554. 8 1.563.1
Department stores_______________
873.5 861.9 915.0 , 242.8 ,014.2 936.2 911.0 885.7 878.1
897.4 901.9 910.6 914.4
Limited price variety stores_______
309.1 302.2 313.0 417.6 347.8 329.7 326.9 311.5 308.4 312.3 317.9 324
330.0 335.4
Food stores_______________________
1, 394. 2 1, 397. 6 1.386.4 , 417. 5 ,396.7 1,383. 6 1,368.7 1,365.0 1,376.6 ,374.9 1,370.1 1,373. 8 , 358.3 1, 356.1
Grocery, meat, and vegetable stores..
1, 225.2 1,223. 2 1.218.4 , 239.1 , 226. 2 1,216.5 1.204.0 1, 202.2 1,211.3 , 208.8 1,201.4 1, 198. 7 , 186. 9 1,181.6
Apparel and accessories stores.................
645. 7 634.1 661.2 801.2 695.7 674.6 663. 3 630.5 630.2 663.0 668.5 707.2 645.7 637.2
M en’s and boys’ apparel stores_____
107.8 109.9 117.3 146.3 117.1
108.9 106.6 107.9 113.2 108.9 I I I .
107.73 104.3
Women’s ready-to-wear stores______
252.1 244.3 252.7 304.1 268.4 259.9 252.8 241.1 242.0 251.7 256.9 264.3 246.2 243.1
Family clothing stores_____________
9 7 .4
9 6 .9
9 5 .7
1 0 2 .6
95.8 100.3
99.6 102.2
130.9 1 0 6 .7 101.6 100.8
96.8
94.7
Shoe stores_____________________
114.6
113.7 132.2 119.4 119.7 121.7 114.7 114.7 120. 5 123.5 140.3 116.0 119.0
Furniture and appliance stores........1 ...
416.3 413.3 416
432.4 419.6 414.5 413.0 409.1 407.8 410.0 407.6 409.8 405.4 409.2
Eating and drinking places__________
1,621. 2 1,610.9 1,607. 9 , 651.0 , 658. 7 1,670. 5 1. 686.0 1, 700.9 1, 699.2 , 706.3 1,663. 7 1,634.2
1,626.5
Other retail trade__________________
2,831.9 2 , 820.3 2,828.1 , 924. 4 , 857. 6 2,834.8 2,834.3 2,832. 7 2,833. 5 , 826. 7 2,
2,782. 3 , 776.9 2.811.1
Motor vehicle dealers____________
706.4 706.0 701.9 696.4 692.3 687.3 683.4 683.9 681.8 675.3 669.5 667. 3 656.5 674.6
Other vehicle and accessory dealers.
133.3 132.0 134
142.1 138.3 133.9 134.7 135.6 136.3 136.4 132.9 130.7 138.3 142.8
Drug stores.._____ ______________
382.2 379.6 383.2 402.7 386.9 384.7 382.2 382.5 378.0 379.5 377.1 375.1 372.9 369.5

111.0

III.

0

,617.

Finance, insurance, and real estate____

B an k in g________________________________
Credit agencies other th an banks'.” ! ! ! ! ! !
Savings and loan associations_________
Personal credit in stitu tio n s.......................
Security dealers and exchanges.......... .........
Insurance carriers_____________________
Life insurance____________ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
A ccid en t and health in su r a n c e !!!!!!!
Fire, marine, and casualty in s u r a n c e ..
Insurance agents, brokers, and services. .
Real e s t a te ................................ .........................
Operative builders_________ ! ____! ! ! ! ! !
Other finance, insurance, and real esta te.

Services and miscellaneous_____________
H otels and lodging places____ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
H otels, tourist courts, and m o tels_____ !!
Personal services:
Laundries, cleaning and dyeing plants.
M iscellaneous business services:
A dvertising__________________________
M otion pictures_____________! ! ! ! ! ......... "
M otion picture film ing and’ d istrib u t­
in g .................................................................
M otion picture theaters and ser v ic e s..
M ed ical services:
H osp itals___________________ _______

Government___ _________ _____
Federal G o v ern m en t3_________ ! ! ! ! !
E xecu tive____ ________________Ü Ü
D epartm ent of D efen se.................
P ost Office D ep artm en t________
Other agencies_________________
L egislative_______________________
Jud icial.................................................!!
State and local governm ent _______
State govern m ent________________
Local govern m ent________________
E d u cation ...............................................
Other State and local govern m ent.

*

2,838

2,822
729.2
270.9

2,803
722.7
270.3

543.6
28.7
75.0

2,807 2,808
723.4 720.9
270.1 268.6
87.0
87.4
142. 3 141.2
120.4 121.1
870.6 869.9
473.5 473.1
52.8
52.7
301.8 301.6
202.3 202.3
545.0 549.6
30.8
29.6
75.1
75.1

7,782
605. 4
564.3

7,761
599.6
558.5

7,805
603.1
560.5

490.3

487.3

492.8

III.

111.1

88.8

7,938

2,810
727.0
270.8
88.5
142.2

142.0
120.9
875.6
477.7
52.9
302.2
202.9
547.2
30.3
74.8

873.2
476.1
52.7
301.8
202.9
541.2
28.4
74.5

7,824
607.4
565.7

161.5

33.5
128.0

,

1 221.2

9,558 9,546
2,337 2,335
2,305.0
952.5
582.2
770.3
23.8
5.7
7,221 7,211
1, 813. 8
5, 397.1
3, 751. 7
3,459.2

120.2

4

.88.6

141.4
119.3
869.9
474.4
52.5
300.3
202.1

158.2

160.5

112.4
164.3

33.9
124.3

35.5
124.9

36.5
127.8

111.8

86.1

86.6

868.5
472.3
52.7
300.

142.2
125.5
869.4
472.5
52.8
301.7

201.0

201.2

86.6

140.5

2, 841
729.0
271.2

2,808
715.
268.2
85.1
143.0
131.9
864.0
469.6
52.8
298.9
552.6
30.3
75.2

2,780
705.1
264.9
83.6
141.5
131.8
859.0
468.7
52.0
296.4
198.8
545.2
31.0
75.4

2, 770
704.2
265.0
83.9
141.2
133.0
860
469.9
52.2
296.4
198.9
533.3
29.9
75.0

2,748
695.1
262.5
78.6
145.2
126.8
856.7
468. 4
51.6
295.1
199.8
531.4
32.5
75.9

2, 684
674.7
256.2
72.4
146.0
114.2
839.0
459.0
50.9
287.3
196.2
527.3
36.1
76.7

551.9
32.2
75.7

553.0
31.8
75.8

143.9
130.8
875.0
474.0
53.3
304.2
204.0
654.9
32.4
76.0

7,830
605.9
562.1

7, 870
616.5
570.1

7, 856
654.1
597.9

7,867
745.6
640.3

7,884
742.1
638.9

7,881
672. 6
612.7

7, 769
604
554.4

7, 690
584.2
539.0

7, 516
587.7
531.3

7, 361
567.7
511.1

122.8

201.0

498.2

503.4

503.9

504.6

614.1

518.8

513.3

507.1

510.5

621.0

112.4
167.7

111.6

174.5

111.4
180.7

112.1

111.6

183.2

182.0

110.4
179.8

112.1

178.1

112.3
178.6

110.4
184.4

109.9
189.3

36.3
131.4

36.2
138.3

37.2
143.5

36.9
146.3

36.1
145.9

35.2
144.6

35.0
143.1

37.9
140.7

43.5
140.9

43.5
145.8

1,215.9 1,204. 6 1, 201.6 1,202.4 1,196.9 1,192.8 1,192.3 1,194. 5 1,186. 5 1,174.2 1,173.3 1,141.7 1,105.0
9,510 9, 438 9,607 9,470 9, 406 9, 241 8,860 8.870 9,171 9,172 9,143 8 , 828 8 , 520
332
327
492 2,348
365
336
333
354
368
306
313
279
270
302.3 297.5 462.4 2,318.8 303.8 306.4 335. 5 338.5 324.2 284.0 276.9 250.9 242.6
957.0 959.1 961.9 965.1 964.0 962.6 972.9 973. 4 970.2 961.3 958.6 943.7 940.6
580.6 582.5 742.7 587.8 583.9 587.1 589.2 589.9 587.0 582.2 580.2 596 7 586.7
764.7 755.9 757. 8 765 9 755. 9 756.7 773.4 775.2 767.0 740. 5 738.1 710.5 715.3
23.8
23.6
23.7
23.9
24. 1 23.9
23.9
24.0
23.4
23.9
23.3
23.2
22.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.1
4.9
111
178
115 7,122
905
073
495
502
817
859
837
548
2.50
800.0 786.8 784.2 1, 786. 2 779.9 725. 2 670.7 677.6 729.9 731.8 721.5 1,663.6 592.7
377.6 324.2 330.3 5,336. 0 293.0 180.1 824.3 824.4 087.5 127.3 115.6 4. 884. 5 657.0
723.1 669.2 674.5 3,677.0 629.013, 410.9 933.4 949.2 318.7 438.7 44«. 2 3,175.4 983.3
454.5, 441.8 440.0 3,445.2 443. 9 3, 494.4 3,556.6 3, 552.8 498. 7(3, 420.4 388.9 3,373.9 266.4

1 Beginning with the December 1961 issue, figures differ from those pre­
viously published for three reasons. The industry structure has been con­
verted to the 1957 Standard Industrial Classification; the series have been
adjusted to March 1959 benchmark levels Indicated by data from government
social insurance programs; and, beginning with January 1959, the estimates
are prepared from a sample stratified by establishment size and, in some cases,
region. For comparable back data, see Employment and Earnings Statistics
(or the United States, 1909-60, (BLS Bulletin 1312). Statistics from April 1959
forward are subject to further revision when new benchmarks become avail­
able.
In addition, data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in January 1959.
This inclusion increased the nonagricultural total by 212,000 (0.4 percent) for
the March 1959 benchmark month, with increases for industry divisions
ranging from 0 . 1 percent in mining to 0 . 8 percent in government.
These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full- and
part-time employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during,


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

2, 813
719.9
268.3

2,839
725.1
271.5
87.4
143.5
132.4
871.7
472.3
53.2
302.8
203.0
559.4
32.7
75.7

2, 807
720.0
267.3

or received pay for, any part of the pay period ending nearest the 15tb of the
month. Therefore, persons who worked in more than 1 establishment dur­
ing the reporting period are counted more than once. Proprietors, selfemployed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic servants are
excluded.
3 Preliminary.
8 Data relate to civilian employees who worked on, or received pay for. the
last day of the month.
8 State and local government data exclude, as nominal employees, elected
officials of small local units and paid volunteer firemen.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for all
series except those for the Federal Government, which is prepared by the
U.S. Civil Service Commission, and that for Class I railroads, which is pre­
pared by the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission.

A.—EMPLOYMENT

733

T able A-3. Production workers in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1
[In thousands]
1963

1962

Annual
average

Industry
Apr.2 Mar.2 Feb.
Mining________ ______

475
65.5
.
23.0

Metal mining . . .
Iron ores________________________
Copper ores_____________________

20.7
22.9

479
64.2
19.2
2 2 .g

123.0
115.6

123.6
116.2

102.4
104. 6

207.5
102.5
105.2

83.2

79.8

1 91S
600.0
346. 8
176. 9
169.9
968.7

1,841
573.9
317. 6
154.9
162. 7
949.0

2 1

Coal mining______________________
Bituminous- . _ .......... ......... .

119.2
112 .0

Crude petroleum and natural gas......... .
Crude petroleum and natural gas fields.
Oil and gas field services___________

207.0

Quarrying and nonmetallic mining_____ _____
Contract construction___ ______________

General building contractors__________
Heavy construction_________________
Highway and street construction_____
Other heavy construction__________
Special trade contractors_____________ ...........

Jan.

476
6 6 .0

Dec. Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

July

June

May

Apr.

1961

1960

22.7

517
68.5
23. S
23.6

508
72.7
24.4
23.7

520
73.9
25.
24.0

517
73 1
25.0
23. 8

508
71 7
23.7
23.9

23 7

125.0
117.6

124.7
117.3

113.7
105.6

125.0
117.4

127.1
119.1

128.6
12 0 .8

136 7
127 5

161
148

214.0 215.8
103. C 103.2
111. C 1 1 2 . 6

219.8
105.2
1 1 4 .e

2 2 1.2

221.5 2 2 0 . 1
107.2 107. C 107.2
114. C 114.5 112. Í

216.4
105. (
111.4

214.5
104. (
110. 5

223.1
108. i
114 6

229.1
113.8

99.6

101.3

102.8

100.2

99.9

92.8

95.4

491
63.6

501
64.4

507
64.7

512
65.4

2 0 .0

2 0 .8
2 2 .8

2 1.6
2 2 .6

2 2 .1

123.4
115.8

125.0
117.3

126.6
118.9

209.0
102.5
106.5

215.0
102.5
112. 5

82.6

89.1

23.0

Aug.

97.2

100.8

527
71

22 8

567
76 9
28 6
22 6
2
9

Ilo 3

99.6
1,947 2,128 2,397 2,529 2,570 2,621 2,573 2,431 2,344 2,186 2 344 2 458
611.4 666.1 742.0 769.2 784.2 8Ó9.4 796.5 753.4 724.6 690.7 740.4 788.3
342.1 402.6 510.0 577. 8 596.1 612.2 602.3 552. £ 523.6 436.5 492. 8 509 0
170.4 213. 6 295.2 346.6 361.8 372.4 361.2 327.8 303. 7 237. 5 271.2 270 6
171.7 189.0 214.8 231.2 234.3 239.8 241.1 225.1 219.9 199.0 221 6 238 4
993.0 1,059.1 1,145.2 1,181.6 1,189.6 1,199.5 1,173.9 1,125.0 1,095.5 1,058.7 1, HO. 8 1,160.7

Manufacturing_____________ ____
12,319 12,237 12,173 12,187 12,358 12,518 12,661 12,751 12,544 12,403 12,516 12,372 12,338 12,044 12,562
Durable goods___________________ 6, 967 6, 881 6, 848 6,862 6,929 6,994 7,027 7,034 6, 862 6, 925 7,025 6, 975 6, 931 6,613 7,021
Nondurable goods________________ 5,352 5,356 5,325 5,325 5,429 5,524 5,634 5, 717 5,682 5, 478 5,491 5,397 5,407 5,431 5,541
D u ra b le goods

Ordnance and accessories.............. ..........
Ammunition, except for small arms__
Sighting and fire control equipment__
Other ordnance and accessories______
Lumber and wood products, except furniture____ ___________________
Logging camps and logging contractors.
Sawmills and planing mills..................
Millwork, plywood, and related products_________ ________________
Wooden containers________________
Miscellaneous wood products_______

97.4

530.5

Furniture and fixtures______________
Household furniture_______________
Office furniture___________________
Partitions, office and store fixtures___
Other furniture and fixtures_________

313.0

Stone, clay, and glass products________
Flat glass_______ ______________
Glass and glassware, pressed or blown..
Cement, hydraulic________________
Structural clay products___________
Pottery and related products................
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products..
0 ther stone and mineral products____

460.1

Primary metal industries____________
Blast furnace and basic steel products..
Iron and steel foundries___ ________
Nonferrous smelting and refining____
Nonferrous rolling, drawing, and extrading_______________________
Nonferrous foundries_____ ____ ___
Miscellaneous primary metal Industries__________________________

946.0

Fabricated metal products___________
Metal cans______________________
Cutlery, handtools, and general hardware....... ................. ............. ............
Heating equipment and plumbing
fixtures_______________________
Fabricated structural metal products
Screw machine products, bolts, etc___
Metal stampings_____ ____ 1______
Coating, engraving, and allied services.
Miscellaneous fabricated wire products.
Miscellaneous fabricated metal products.....................................................

852.8

See footnotes at end of table.


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

100.2
40.8

36.7

98.8
40.6
21.4
36.8

100.9
41.5

101.3
41.8

101.5
42.7

37.5

101.7
41.7
22.4
37.6

37.2

37.3

513.7
70.0
237.9

513.5
75.4
234.4

518.0
77.3
236.7

529.9
82.7
238.8

546.9
89.2
245.7

558.4
92.3
250.1

119. 5
34.1
52.2

118 8
33. 7
51.2

119.3
33.8
50.9

121.9
34.9
51- 6

124.7
35.3
62.0

313.2
232.0
22. 7
25.6
32. 9

312.7
230. 8

315.2
230.8
24.1
26.7
33.6

318.9
233.7
24. 6
26.3
34.3

436.4
23.2

427.5 432.2
23. 5 23.9
85. 5 83.9
28.5
26.9
54. 5 55.6
36.6
36. 5
103.0 105.2
85. 6 86.2

97.8
40.3

20. 8

86. 7

27.9
55.7
36.6
108.1

86.1

22. 8

26.0
33.1

22.2

37.2

37.0

98.6
43.0
21.9
33.7

33.2

567.2
96.3
253.1

576.0
99.5
255.6

668.4
98.3
254.3

127.0
36.3
62.7

128.6
35.9
53.3

130.4
36.9
53.6

322.5
236.1
24.7
27.0
34.7

323.7
237.3
28.9
34.9

323.0
235.9
22.4
29.1
35.6

446.5
24.9
84.8
30.0
58.4
36.8
111.7
87.5

465.1
25.6
85.8
32.5
60.4
37.8
121.3
89.0

474.2
25.3
87.0
32.9
61.0
38.6
126.9
89.7

101.0
41.5

22.0

22.2

22.6

34.9

97.5
40.6
22.3
34.6

94.3
39.6
22. 5
32.2

22 7

571.4
96.4
256.9

646.0
84.8
248.3

527.4
77.0
242.6

534.8
85.2
243.4

570.3
87.1
268.5

126.7
36.9
52.2

127.3
37.5
53.3

123.9
36.5
52.6

120.3
35.5
62.0

119.4
36.8
49.9

124 1
39 1
51 4

322.7
233.8
24.4
28.8
35.7

313.3
226.9

316.9
229.4
23.9
27.8
35.8

314.1
229.3
23.3
27.0
34.5

312.7
229.9

303.9 318.9
221. 5 232 3

26.5
33.5

26.6
34.0

29.2
34. 5

478.9
25.0
87.8
33.5
62.3
38.0
129.4
90.5

480.9
24.8
87.5
33.9
62.8
37.5
131.4
90.8

476.4
24.4
87.6
33.7
62.0
37.1
129.6
90.3

476.1
24.5
33.4
61.4
37.2
129.0
90.1

466.6
23.8
86.5
32.1
60.8
36.9
125.4
89.4

454.5
24.2
84.9
31.1
59.3
37.3
117.2
88.7

455.1
23.7
84.5
32.2
60.4
36.9
118.1
87.4

483.2
27.0
86.9
34 9
65 9
40 3
123. 5
91.8

22.2

21.8

23.2

28.3
34.9

96.7
41.7

21.8

88.6

97.5
40. 5

22.1

22.8

21.8

89.4
37 0

29.7

22.8

930.3
472.8
166. 5
51. 5

915. 4
458. 8
165.9
51.3

900.5
443.9
165.0
51.7

900.3
442.3
165.0
52.7

894.2
437.4
164.5
53.0

897.5
440.8
165.0
53.5

910.9
451.9
166.1
53.8

906.3
450.3
163.4
53.0

903.4
451.9
163.1
51.8

935.5
475.4
166.6
62.9

964.5
503.3
166.5
53.0

991.3
530.0
167.1
53.0

914.5
482.0
156.0
51.7

992.0
529.3
172.4
54.9

135.1
56.9

134.9
56. 8

134.9
56.9

135.2
67.1

135.4
56.0

135.8
55.9

136.2
55.9

135.3
56.1

135.4
53.4

136.9
54.7

136.5
56.4

136. 5
55.6

129.0
50.4

133.6
53.7

47.5

47. 7

48.1

48.0

47.9

46.5

47.0

48.2

47.8

49.0

48.8

49.1

45,4

48 2

844.7
49.1

844.2
48. 6

848.2
47.8

859.2
47.3

864.7
47.5

870.7
50.4

872.1
54.8

850.9
54.9

851.6
55.2

867.6
55.0

860.7
52.9

851.2
51.7

819.6
51.7

869.0
54.1

110.0

110.7

111.3

111.8

111.8

110.6

108.8

105.1

104.4

109.4

109.4

108.6

101.4

107.3

57.7
219 5
69.4
154.9
54.1
44. 7

57.5
218 4
69.6
155.2
54.6
44.3

56.3
221.3
69.3
158.2
54.9
44.6

57.2
226.3
69.4
160.1
56.2
45.4

58.1
229.0
69.2
159.4
58.7
46.0

58.9
234.7
68.9
159.3
68.4
46.3

58.6
238. 4
68.5
156.3
57.9
45.3

58.6
236.7

68.2

56.9
236.2

143.4
56.3
44.2

56.8
237.2
67.4
147.5
56.0
43.9

68.8

152.3
67.6
45.3

56.3
231. 3
69.1
154.8
56.4
45.1

56.0
226.8
69.3
152.6
56.4
44.6

55.2
230.3
62.6
143.7
53.0
42.2

58.7
238 1
67.2
160.7
53.8
45.5

85.3

85.3

84.5

85.5

85.0

83.2

83.5

83.6

83.2

86.1

85.4

85.2

79.6

83.6

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

734
T able

A-3. Production workers in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
Annual
average

1962

1963
Industry
Apr.» Mar.»

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1961

1960

Manufacturing—Continued
Durable poods—Continued
IViftopilnpry
____ _____ _______ 1,038.1 1,029.8 1,023.5 1,020.9 1,017.5 1,016.7 1,018.1 1,020.7 1,015.3 1,019.6 1,034.5 1,026.5 1,024.9
58.2
58.6
58.6
56.8
57.8
59.5
57.7
57.5
58.0
57.5
58.9
58.8
Engines and turbines______ . . . . . . . . . .
87.2
86.7
87.3
84.9
85.1
83.8
84.5
95.5
87.1
83.9
91.1
E&rm machinery and equipment
97.3
Construction and related machinery
139.5 138.5 138.6 138.7 138.3 137.6 140.8 141.3 140.3 141.7 139.5 138.2
Metalworking machinery and equip195.1 194.3 193.2 193.5 192.5 191.2 189.8 187.4 191.1 194.2 195.2 195.6
ment _ _________ -_. . . . . . . . . . . .
116.6 116.1 116.8 118.1 117.9 119.0 118.7 119.0 119.2 120.1 118.6 118.1
Ppeciftl industry machinery
______
149.1 148.8 150.1 148.2 151.0 151.7 151.6 151.6 150.9 152.3 150.0 149.9
General industrial machinery
____
Office, computing and accounting ma95.2
94.9
95.7
94.4
94.3
93.1
93.4
92.8
93.3
90.4
90.5
91.9
chines
_ _________- ______
69.1
68.3
65.3
68.7
70.1
66.0
64.2
64.8
65.3
65.3
64.5
66.3
Service Industry m achines..
116.6 115.7 115.5 116.6 117.5 117.7 116.8 114.8 114.6 116.3 113.1 113.2
TWijseellanenns machinery___________

964.5 1,030.4
51.2
56.1
78.6
79.0
128.2 144.5
180.1
116.2
143.0

194.0
122.3
154.0

94.5
63.8
109.0

95.2
69.7
114.2

1,024.4 1,027.3 1,031.5 1,042.3 1,052.9 1,060.1 1,062.0 1,059.2 1,041.1 1,031.4 1,038.9 1,024.7 1,018.8 963.3 986.9
Electrical equipment, and supplies
Tricctrie distribution cquinment ..
106.1 106.5 107.3 108.6 109.1 109.1 109.0 108.6 107.0 107.6 104.8 105.6 105.3 108.3
Electrical industrial apparatus_______
118.6 119.1 119.7 120.3 120.8 120.3 120.7 119.5 120.6 122.0 119.7 119.6 114.8 121.5
118.8 117.9 118.2 118.8 118.8 119.5 118.8 115.4 114.3 117.7 118.6 118.2 114.8 120.7
Household appliances---------------------99.9 103.6
108.0 107.9 107.8 108.5 108.9 109.5 109.2 106.1 104.2 105.8 105.6 104.9
Electric lighting and wiring equipment.
86.2
82.6
95.4
90.8
82.2
97.6
99.7
91.5
89.0
95.5 100.2 102.7 102.3
■Ror]in and TV receiving sets_________
88.3
Pnmrnnnlcation equipment_________
222.8 225.1 227.4 228.1 227.7 226.7 225.3 222.4 217.8 219.5 219.0 218.5 200.4 201.4
Electronic components and accessories_
176.2 176.8 179.8 182.0 183.4 183.8 184.5 183.4 183.1 183.3 179.6 178.2 165.5 164.4
Miscellaneous electrical equipment
86.6
87.6
87.7
79.9
86.8
84.9
89.4
86.0
90.4
90.6
91.2
89.2
91.1
88.5
and supplies________ __. . . . . ____ —
1,170.4 1,158.9 1,159.1 1,168.3 1,167.8 1,159.6 1,149.8 1,133.3 1,007.7 1,120.6 1,136.6 1,132.8 1,117.7 1,035.0 1,132.7
Transportation equipment
Motor vehicles and equipm ent.._____
579.5 583.3 592.8 595.8 589.3 681.0 566.3 441.2 561.3 580.0 573.1 557.0 491.7 566.5
391.9 394.0 398.7 398.7 396.4 391.4 389.3 388.0 384.2 378.4 380.4 381.9 378.7 392.5
Rhip and host building and renairing__
130.1 126.0 124.9 121.5 120.7 122.2 121.0 120.7 118.6 119.6 121. C 122.1 117.8 116.0
33.0
24.8
32.3
33.8
32.5
33.9
32.0
33.3
30.8
31.9
31.3
33.0
30.7
34.0
Railroad equipment................................
25.3
24.7
24.4
21.9
25.1
24.0
24.0
22.4
23.4
23.3
20.6
Other transportation equipment_____
23.4
22.8
21.1
Instrum ent and related products.._____ 231.2
Engineering and scientific instruments.
Mechanical measuring and control devices
_ __________________
Optical and ophthalmic goods...............
Surgical, medical, and dental equip- ...........
ment _________ __________ -____ _
Photographic equipment and supplies..
Watches and clocks________________

229.6
38.4

228.9
38.6

229.2
39.3

229.9
39.5

230.5
39.4

230.5
39.3

229.9
39.1

229.4
38.6

225.8
37.7

228.5
38.4

226.8
38.2

226.3
38.2

221.6
40.4

232.0
42.8

63.5
30.4

63.4
30.3

63.2
30.0

62.8
30.1

62.7
30.2

62.4
30.5

62.3
30.2

62.2
30.4

61.2
30.3

61.3
31.1

61.9
30.8

62.1
31.0

59.8
29.1

63.3
30.7

35.3
39.4
22.6

35.0
39.3
22.3

34.6
39.6
22.5

34.3
40.4
22.8

34.5
40.5
23.4

34.4
40.5
23.4

34.5
40.4
23.4

34.3
40.7
23.2

33.9
40.5
22.2

33.8
40.4
23.5

33.2
39.5
23.2

33.0
39.3
22.7

33.0
39.4
20.1

33.1
41.1
21.1

303.4

299.4
31.2
77.7
25.7
43.8
121.0

293.1
31.7
71.9
24.9
44.0
120.6

287.1
31.7
66.7
24.8
43.7
120.2

305.2
32.5
77.6
25.7
45.8
123.6

337.8 330.6
33. C 32.3
99.6
102.2
25.8
26.2
47.4
46.7
129. C 126.2

316.1
30.8
95.3
24.3
43.8
121. £

322.4 314.7
32. C 31.9
94.4
90.1
24.3
24. £
45.6
46.5
124.6 122.8

308.2
31.9
86.0
24.2
44.5
121.6

306.2
32.7
85.3
23.0
44.5
120.7

316.0
33.9
86.4
23.0
47.3
125.4

Miscellaneous manufacturing industries..
Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware__
Toys, arnnspmentf and snorting goods..
Pens, pencils, office and art materials__
Costume jewelry, buttons, and notions.
Other manufacturing industries______

332.4 341.6
33.4
33.3
99. C 105.8
26.6
26.3
47.8
47.5
125. £ 128.4

Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products___________ 1,096.0 1,087.8 1,076.9 1,098.9 1,146.6 1,187.6 1,265.6 1,329.7 1,303.5 1,223.8 1,175.8 1,121.0 1,110.9 1,190.8 1,211.3
IVTeat products
237.8 240.1 243.3 250.9 254.7 255.0 251. C 253.1 251.5 253. C 246.4 243.5 254.3 257.9
Dairy products
146.9 145.7 146.3 148.3 149.9 152.1 156.9 162.4 164.8 163.2 158.6 155.8 163.0 169.7
Canned and preserved food, except
151.5 144.3 150.6 165.2 190.4 260.6 338.1 318.2 246.4 197.8 166.5 166.0 206.2 206.1
meats
85.2
89.6
88.6
92.1
89.8
90.2
91.8
92.0
90.1
86. £
86.8
86.8
86.0
86.4
Grain mill products_____________. . . .
Bakery products
. . . .
175.1 173.3 173.6 176.7 178.7 179.2 177. £ 177.2 177.3 176.4 172.6 171.8 174.7 176.6
22.4
28.4
21.5
24.1
23.4
22.8
30.3
26.1
39.8
38.9
Rugar
__
38.4
28.9
22.5
21.9
57.2
57.8
60.1
62.8
67.3
61.4
53.7
63.5
71.0
69.4
63.9
67.7
62.8
Confectionery and related products.._
62.3
BAverages
.
111.6 100.6 110.0 114.2 115.7 118.9 122.4 119.3 121.4 120. £ 114.7 110.5 115.6 118.3
Miscellaneous food and kindred prod95.6
96.2
94.4
94.3
99.0
98.3
95.7
93.3
net»
...
95.5
98.4 100.5 101.3
95.6
94.3
79.4
64.5
65.9
65.2
64.7
83.3
90.4
84.1
98.7
105.1
76.5
81.9
73.2
65.2
67.7
Tobacco manufactures_______________
31.6
31. C 30.8
32.2
31.5
31.7
31.8
31.7
30. £ 30.8
31.0
31.1
Cigarettes__ _____________ ______
30.7
31.0
21.5
21.7
23.1
21.3
26.0
21.1
20. £ 20.3
21.3
20.9
Cigars
.....
20.5
21.2
20.5
20.3
Textile mill prndqct.s
... ..
_.
(Cotton broad woven fabrics.
Silk and synthetic broad woven fabrics.
Weaving and finishing broad woolens
Narrow'fabrics and smallwares---------Knitting
Finishing textiles, except wool and knit.
Plnnr covering
__ _.
. .
Yarn and thread
Miscellaneous textile goods....................
See footnotes at end of table.


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

768.7

768.6
221.1
62.7
44.4
23.2
181.6
60.2
27.9
92.8
54.7

766.1
221.4
62.9
44.4
23.2
178.8
60.1
28.2
93.0
54.1

767.0
223.0
63.4
42.8
23.4
177.2
60.3
28.6
93.1
65.2 1

778.9
224.8
63.8
43.0
24.0
182.4
61.2
29.2
94.6
55.9

787.7
225.4
63.6
43.8
24.2
189.4
61.2
29.2
94.8
56.1

792.5
225.5
63.3
44. £
23.9
193.2
61.3
28.8
95.4
56.2

795.7
226.5
63.9
45.7
24.1
194.2
61.1
28.4
95.5
56.3

798.2
227.8
63.9
46.3
23.9
196.3
61.0
27.4
96.2
55.4

786.0 803.4
226. C 229.7
62.1
63.7
47.2
46.3
24.1
23.3
192.5 196.7
62.1
60.5
27.8
27.4
93. £ 96.2
55.9
54.0

797.4
228. £
63.1
46.5
24.2
193.6
61.6
27. £
95.9
55.8

796.2
229.9
62.8
46.3
24.3
191.6
62.0
28.2
95.7
55.4

793.2
234.7
63.1
46.2
23.2
190.7
60.9
27.8
93.0
53.7

820.7
244.1
66.9
49.5
24.1
194.3
64.1
30.4
95.9
57.5

A.—EMPLOYMENT

735

T able A-3. Production workers in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
1963

1962

Annual
average

Industry
Apr.* Mar.«

Feb.

Jan.

Dec,

Nov.

Oct,

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1961

1960

Manufacturing—Continued
Nondurable goods— Continued
Apparel and related products....................1,105.2 1,125.0 1,112.3 1,081.3 1,096.8 1,113.1 1,118.5 1,125.3 1,128.7 1,071.2 1,092.6 1,079.9 1,096.1 1,066.8 1,094.2
M en’s and boys’ suits and coats......................... 105.4 105.9 106.1 106.3 105.8 106.4 107.6 107.5 103.1 106.7 103.6 103.7 104.3 108.9
M en’s and boys’ furnishings_______________ 301.2 300.0 297.2 300.5 303.7 304.4 305.7 305.8 294.2 300.6 294.7 2S0.4 273.7 279.6
Women’s, misses’ and juniors’ outer­
wear___________________________ ______ 326.9 320.2 301.9 304.4 307.5 305.7 313.5 320.9 300.2 306.7 305.0 319.9 313.7 325.8
Women’s and children’s undergarments....... ........ 108.4 107.5 106.0 109.3 111.5 112.0 110.2 109.2 103.0 106.2 105.2 106.5 104.8 106.2
Hats, caps, and millinery__________________
34.9
35.7
28.8
31.8
32.1
32.4
30.2
32.7
28.2
27.8
28.0
34.7
32.4
31.1
Girls’ and children’s o u terw ear............... ........
71.0
70.7
68.0
67.2
68.7
69.1
69.1
70.6
69.9
70.5
67.1
66.1
66.4
67.5
F ur goods and miscellaneous apparel.............
57.9
56.7
59.4
54.5
63.2
64.1
63.0
59.4
62.3
58.8
57.5
58.5
60.2
60.2
Miscellaneous fabricated textile prod­
ucts..................................................................... 118.5 116.4 115.2 119.5 123.9 125.0 124.1 119.8 113.8 114.7 118.8 116.3 112.6 113.6
Paper and allied products......................... 473.4 473.2 471.1 474.4 479.5 480.8 483.9 485.3 484.0 476.3 482.7 475.4 475.1 469.6 474.0
Paper and pulp_____ ____________ ________ 179.7 179.8 181.3 182.5 183.1 183.9 184.9 186.6 183.0 183.9 181.2 181.1 181.4 181.9
Paperboard....... .................................. ..............
54.5
54.4
54.8
54.9
54.9
54.4
64.8
55.2
53.4
62.8
54.6
54.6
54.0
56.4
Converted paper and paperboard prod­
ucts.....................................................................
97.7
96.6
97.6
96.8
97.5
98.6
98.6
97.5
98.7
98.3
97.3
97.3
94.9
95.7
Paperboard containers and boxes...... ................ 141.3 140.3 141.5 144.5 145.4 146.6 147.4 145.7 143.0 144.9 142.3 142.1 139.1 140.1
Printing, publishing, and allied Indus­
tries....................................................... 588.0 580.6 576.3 579.2 587.3 604.3 605.6 602.6 595.9 592.1 596.8 594.6 596.1 595.7 591.5
Newspaper publishing and printing.................. 161.8 160.7 160.8 163.7 179.9 178.9 177.9 177.4 175.0 177.1 176.4 177.0 175.5 172.4
Periodical publishing and printing....................
27.9
28.0
28.0
28.2
27.9
28.2
27.8
26.7
26.4
26.4
27.4
27.6
29.7
29.8
Books.....................................................................
46.2
45.8 45.9
46.2
45.7
46.7
46.7
46.0
46.4
46.1
45.6
45.6
44.4
43.0
Commercial printing............................................ 228.8 226.8 229.3 232.8 232.0 232.3 231.4 228.0 228.0 230.8 230.2 230.8 230.3 229.5
Bookbinding and related industries...................
38.4
38.9
38.7
39.1
39.3
39.1
39.8
38.5
40.1
39.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.1
Other publishing and printing indus­
tries.....................................................................
76.9
76.7
76.5
80.2
78.1
78.9
79.0
77.7
77.9
77.3
77.0
77.1
77.9
78.8
Chemicals and allied products.................. 530.5 522.5 517.3 515.4 515.4 518.6 520.3 522.7 522.9 521.0 520.4 624.6 527.1 506.1 510.8
Industrial chem icals.................. ....................... 164.6 163.7 164.1 164.2 164.9 164.6 165.3 166.9 167.6 167.3 165.8 166.6 164.7 169.0
Plastics and synthetics, except glass..... .. ......... 109.4 109.8 110.7 110.4 111.0 110.8 111.9 110.8 110.7 107.0 108.9 109.2 102.6 103.5
Drugs....................................................................
60.5
60.5
60.3
59.4
59.2
60.1
60.1
60.0
59.6
59.6
58.7
58.9
58.2
58.8
Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods_____________
61.6
61.1
60.6
61.3
62.8
62.2
62.9
62.2
60.9
60.0
59.4
59.6
58.4
56.1
Paints, varnishes, and allied products_______
35.6
35.1
34.7
35.8
35.2
36.6
34.7
37.3
37.6
37.3
35.5
36.3
35.5
36.7
Agricultural chemicals......... ............. ..................
31.0
34.5
29.3
27.5
28.9
28.4
26.5
26.4
28.0
29.0
38.4
39.8
30.9
31.0
Other chemical p roducts...____________ ____
56.3
56.1
55.7
56.7
57.7
58.0
68.4
59.2
69.1
59.3
57.1
57.5
55.8
65.6
Petroleum refining and related indus­
tries........................................................ 119.7 117.2 117.7 117.2 118.7 120.4 121.3 122.5 128.4 129.7 129.9 128.7 128.4 130.6 137.7
Petroleum refining..................................
96.1
96.3
95.4
96.8 102.6 104.2 104.5 104.1 105.1 107.1 113.1
94.9
95.8
95.9
Other petroleum and coal products___
20.9
21.6
22.3
23.3
24.6
25.4
25.7
25.8
25.5
25.4
24.6
23.5
23.3
24.6
Eubber and miscellaneous plastic prod­
ucts........................................................ 302.6
Tires and inner tubes......... ........... .....................
Other rubber products______ _______ ______
Miscellaneous plastic products_____________

302.6
76.0
126.2
100.4

301.6
75.7
126.2
99.7

3C4.8
76.7
129.0
99.1

306.4
76.9
129.8
99.7

308.9
76.5
130.1
102.3

310.9
76.5
130.7
103.7

308.5
77.0
129.9
101.6

303.4
75.8
127,5
100. 1

296.1
75.0
122.9
98.2

303.5 297.6
76.1
74.8
127.7 125.1
99. T 97.7

293.5
74.2
123.7
95.6

280.2
73.0
117.0
90.2

288.7
78.2
120.8
89.7

Leather and leather products...... ............. 302.3
Leather tanning and finishing______________
Footwear, except rubber___________________
Other leather products.......................................

310.3
27.8
209.6
72.9

312.8
28.2
211.9
72.7

310.2
28.9
211.1
70.2

317.6
29.3
213.1
75.2

318.8
29.1
210.3
79.4

316.6
29.0
208.1
79.5

319.1
28.8
211.6
78.7

326.6
28.8
218.1
79.7

316.4
27.7
213.8
74.9

321.3
28.7
216.4
76.2

313.3
28.1
211.3
73.9

317.7
28.1
213.4
76.2

318.8
28.9
213.8
76.2

322.9
29.9
216.4
76.5

82.1
43.2
805.2
17.2

82.4
43.3
804.1
17.0

82.9
44.8
801.5
17.4

83.3
44.4
843.1
17.6

83.5
44.4
857.8
17.7

83.9
44.9
867.1
17.9

84.2
46.2
862.7
18.2

83.9
46.6
848.7
18.5

84.1
46.9
840.8
18.6

85.0
46.4
840.5
18.5

85.0
45.5
814.8
18.2

83.9
44.4
809.5
18.2

86.7
45.0
800.0
18.8

89.2
44.6
801.8
19.3

554.1
25.0
75.6
623.7
211.5
132.4
153.8
26.0

553.3
24.8
75.5
524.1
211.5
132.6
154.0
26.0

554.0
25.2
75.3
525.9
211.7
133.1
155.1
26.0

556.8
25.9
75.4
528.5
212.2
133.9
156.2
26.2

55S.2
26.0
76.1
530.1
212.6
134.5
156.8
26.2

559.1
26.0
77,3
531.7
213.2
134.5
157.5
26.5

563.5
26.4
76.8
538.7
216.1
136.0
159.9
26.7

669.3
26.7
76.6
545.8
218.5
137.9
161.9
27.5

568.7
26.9
76.1
544.8
218.0
137.9
161.4
27.5

563.3
26.7
76.4
539.3
215.7
136.6
160.0
27.0

560.2
26.6
75.4
529.3
211.8
134.1
156.9
26.5

559.5
26.5
76.1
527.4
211.6
133.6
156.2
26.0

568.7
26.9
78.3
538.7
216.8
136.4
159.4
2d 1

581.9
27.9
77.9
543.6
220.2
137.3
159.4
26.7

Transportation and public utilities:
Local and interurban passenger transit:
Local and suburban transportation...................
Intercity and rural buslines.................................
Motor freight transportation and storage_______
Pipeline transportation...........................................
Communication:
Telephone communication..................................
Telegraph communication 3................................
Radio and television broadcasting.....................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.......................
Electric companies and systems____________
Gas companies and systems................................
Combined utility systems__________ _______
Water, steam, and sanitary sy stem s................
See footnotes at end of table.


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

736
T able

À-3. Production workers in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
fin thousands]
Annual
average

1962

1963
Industry
Apr.3 Mar.3 Feb.
Wholesale ami retail trad« 4
Wholesale trade..........................................
Motor vehicles and automotive equipm ent___________________________
Drugs, chemicals, and allied products
Dry goods and apparel_____________
Groceries and related products________
Electrical goods____________________
Hardware^ plumbing and heating
goods__________________________
Machinery, equipment, and supplies.—
Retail trade 4_______________________
General merchandise stores
Department stores
T.lmited price variety stores.
Food stores_______________________
Grocery, meat, and vegetable stores..
Apparel and accessories stores___ ____
Men’s and boy’s apparel stores_____
Wnmpri'i! rp.nriy-t.n-wpftr st.orps _
Family clothing stores____________
Shoe stores
....
Furniture and appliance stores_______
.......... ..
.
Other retail trade *
Motor vehicle dealers______________
Other vehicle and accessory dealers___
Drug stores
Finance, insurance, and real estate:
Banking___________________________
Security dealers and exchanges________
Insurance carriers___________________
Life insurance_____________________
Accident and health insurance_______
Fire, marine, and casualty insurance
Services and miscellaneous:
Hotels and lodging places:
Hotels, tourist courts, and motels____
Personal services:
Laundries, cleaning and dyeing plants.
Motion pictures:
Motion picture filming and distributing

Jan.

Nov.

Dec.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1960

8,741 8,710 8,822 9,657 9,100 8,939 8,868 8,791 8,775 8,817 8,757 8,785 8,744 8,810
2,633 2,633 2,643 2,689 2,676 2,677 2,668 2,671 2,657 2,642 2,603 2,598 2,597 2,610
191.9 191.0 189.9 191.3 190.7 191.4 191.6 191.5 191.5 189.6 186.6 186.0 182.0 181.5
164.9 164.3 163.8 166.1 166.2 165 4 164.5 165.0 163. 7 162.8 161.8 161.2 158.7 155.6
111.1 110. 5 111.4 112.0 112.3 113.0 112. 5 113.0 113.0 112.1 110.6 109.5 111.1 112.0
432.2 430.3 433.8 445. 6 445.5 440.5 435.8 434.8 442.1 442.4 433.0 434.4 435.7 439.1
189.5 189.5 189.5 189.4 188.8 188.1 187.4 188.9 188.7 187.2 183.9 184.1 179.5 183.6
124.1 123.8 123.5 124.6 124.9 125.3 125. 7 126.2 125.9 125.6 123.4 122.6 124.0 127.7
441.2 439.9 438.5 438.8 437.2 437.2 438.3 437.4 436.6 434.1 428.6 426.8 414.1 412.0
6,108 6,077 6,179 6,968 6,424 6,262 6, 200 6,120 6,118 6,175 6,154 6,186 6,147 6,201
1,349. 8 1,331.6 1,404. 0 1,910.3 1,567.6 1,462. 8 1, 430. 2 1, 388. 2 1,377.1 1, 402. 4 1,399. 9 1,411.0 1, 433. 5 1,447.9
797.4 785. 6 837.3 1,163. 8 935.2 859.3 834.7 810. 2 802.5 823.0 822.4 827.2 837.6 843.6
284.1 278.2 289.0 390. 8 322.5 307.7 304.9 290 4 287.3 291. 9 297.5 303.9 309.3 316.8
1,297. 9 1.302.3 1,292. 7 1,321.5 1,301.1 1, 290. 4 1,275. 2 1,272. 6 1,283.9 1,283.1 1,279. 5 1,284. 5 1, 273. 4 1,273.1
1,137. 7 1.136.4 1,133. 2 1,152.4 1,139. 9 1,131.8 1,119.1 1,118.5 1,127. 6 1,126.0 1,119.7 1,118.6 1,109.7 1,106. 5
582.5 572.1 599.3 737.7 632.7 611.9 601.0 569.5 569.5 601.9 607.3 645.6 586.9 682.3
98.9 101.2
97.9
96.2
98.0 103.1
98.6
95.6
99.4 107.1 135.3 106.3 100.5
97.3
229.1 221. 6 230.0 281.0 245.2 236. 6 229. 9 218.4 219. 4 229.1 234.2 241.4 225.0 223.3
92.0
92.5
94.3
89.8
88.2
94.2
88.5
88.1
93.1
95.2 123.2
99.2
89.7
89.5
100.8
97.5 100.1 118.6 105.9 106.4 108.3 101.5 101.6 107.5 110.6 127.4 102.9 106.3
369.6 367.7 370.4 387.2 373.9 368.9 367.8 364.0 363.4 365.4 362. 7 365. 7 364.2 368.9
2, 508.4 2, 503.3 2,512. 4 2, 611.4 2,548. 4 2, 527. 7 2, 525. 7 2, 526.1 2, 524. 2 2, 522. 2 2, 504. 9 2, 479. 6 2, 489. 7 2,528.3
615.6 614.8 611.8 607.0 603.6 600.0 596.2 596.8 594.6 589.0 583.6 581.7 576.1 596.2
113.1 111. 6 113.5 122.9 118.8 114.1 114.3 115.4 116.2 116.3 112.9 110.6 117.7 123.1
353.8 352.5 355. 9 375.0 359.8 357.5 355.5 355.1 351.1 353.1 351.0 348.9 348.4 347.5
607.5
122.7
779.6
427.0
47.5
267.8

598.2
122.7
774.9
426.0
46.9
265.4

598.3
123.8
776.7
427.8
47.0
265.4

592.0
119.0
777.0
428.8
46.4
265.2

610.7
116.1
783.8
429.5
47.3
270.2

619.9
121.4
789.7
431.3
47.8
272.7

616.8
123.1
786.3
429.2
47.8
271.4

538.3

565.4

606.3

605.0

579.9

521.9

507.4

503.8

485.0

369.9

378.1

380.3

376.1

369.8

377.9

389.2

24.2

23.9

23.6

23.4

24.6

28.1

29.0

616.4
111.1
785.8
431.7
47.1
270.0

614.2
110.5
784.1
430.7
46.9
269.7

610.9
109.8
781.0
429.3
46.7
268.2

613.3
110.6
783.2
429.2
46.9
270.0

611.5
111.5
782.8
428.5
47.2
270.1

610.8
113.3
781. 6
428.2
47.2
269.2

532.0

531.7

525. 2

528.0

529.7

357.2

355.2

360.0

361.0

364.6

368.0

369.4

22.1

22.2

23.4

24.7

23.9

24.1

24.1

• For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to Decem­
ber 1961 and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table A-2.
For mining, manufacturing, and laundries, cleaning and dyeing plants,
data refer to production and related workers; for contract construction, to
construction workers; and for all other industries, to nonsupervisory workers.
P r o d u c tio n a n d re la ted w o rk e rs include working foremen and all nonsuper­
visory workers (including leadman and trainees) engaged in fabricating,
processing, assembling, inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing,
warehousing, shipping, maintenance, repair, janitorial and watchmen
services, product development, auxiliary production for plant’s own use
(e.g., power plant), and recordkeeping and other services closely associated
with the above production operations.

575.9
107.0
763.9
420.7
46.0
260.3

C o n s tr u c t io n w o rk e rs include working foremen, journeymen, mechanics,
apprentices, laborers, etc., engaged in new work, alterations, demolition,
repair, and maintenance, etc., at the site of construction or working in shop
or yards at jobs (such as precutting and preassembling) ordinarily performed
by members of the construction trades.
N o n s u p e r v is o r y w o rk e rs include employees (not above the working super­
visory level) such as office and clerical workers, repairmen, salespersons,
operators, drivers, attendants, service employees, linemen, laborers, janitors,
watchmen, and similar occupational levels, and other employees whose
services are closely associated with those of the employees listed.
3 Preliminary.
» Data relate to nonsupervisory employees except messengers.
* Excludes eating and drinking places.

The revised series on employment, hours and earnings, and labor turnover in non­
agricultural establishments should not be compared with those published in issues prior
to December 1961. (See footnote 1, table A-2, and “ Technical Note, The 1961 Revision
of the BLS Payroll Employment Statistics," M o n th ly Labor R e view , January 1962,
pp. 59-62.) Moreover, if future benchmark adjustments require further revisions, the
figures presented in this issue should not be compared with those in later issues which
reflect the adjustments,
Comparable data for earlier periods are published in E m p lo y m e n t a n d Earnings
S ta tis t ic s for t h e U n ite d S ta te s , 1909-60 (BLS Bulletin 1312), which is available at
depository libraries or which may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents
for $3. For an individual industry, earlier data may be obtained upon request to the
Bureau.


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

1961

A.—EMPLOYMENT
T able

737

A-4. Employees in non agricultural establishments, by industry division and selected groups,
seasonally adjusted1
[In thousands]
1963

1962

Industry division and group
Apr.* Mar.*
Total.....................................................
M in in g ......................... ...................
Contract construction_______________
Manufacturing_____ ________________
Durable g o o d s............................................
Ordnance and accessories________
Lumber and wood products, except furniture__
Furniture and fixtures__ ___________
Stone, clay, and glass products_____
Primary metal industries__________
Fabricated metal products_________
Machinery_______________
Electrical equipment and supplies________
Transportation equipment___________
Instruments and related p roducts...___
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries..
Nondurable goods........................... .............
Food and kindred products_________
Tobacco manufactures__________
Textile mill products_______________
Apparel and related products........... ......
Paper and allied products_________
Printing, publishing, and allied industries__
Chemicals and allied products__
Petroleum refining and related Industries__
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products ..
Leather and leather products_______
Transportation and public utilities______ _
Wholesale and retail trade__________
Wholesale trade................... .................
Retail trade_____________________ _
Finance, insurance, and real estate______
Service and miscellaneous______________
Government__________________
Federal..........................................
State and local___________
i For coverage of the series, see footnote 1, table A-2.
* Preliminary.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

56,229 55,953 55,730 55,536 55,580 55, 597 55,647 55, 583 55,536 55, 617 55, 535 55,403
630
625
625
623
625
636
638
641
646
648
652
659
2,719 2,635 2,646 2,651 2,654 2,696 2,716 2,715 2,731 2,738 2,671 2,716
16,928 16,762 16, 665 16, 632 16,681 16,695 16,781 16,805 16, 795 16,908 16,923 16, 891
9, 591 9,473 9,423 9,399 9,418 9,413 9,470 9,486 9,461 9,552 9,555 9,544
216
217
219
220
220
221
222
222
220
217
213
213
613
612
610
608
603
605
602
603
609
607
611
609
382
381
378
380
380
380
378
380
385
386
386
387
579
561
566
562
665
672
fiSI
57Q
579
576
583
581
1,174 1,150 1,136 1,121 1,121 1,115 1,119 1,134 1,141 1,149 1,163 1,199
1,131 1,115 1,109 1,104 1,111 1,110 1,117 1,129 1,122 1,132 1,131 1,135
1,476 1,463 1,461 1,466 1.468 1,481 1,482 1,471 1,480 1,474 L 470 M 60
1,544 1,538 1,534 1, 533 1,535 1,527 1,546 1, 528 1,541 1, 555 1, 554 1, 541
1,721 1,683 1,671 1,662 1,669 1,652 1,674 1, 694 1,619 l! 688 1,687 1,663
365
362
361
360
359
358
359
358
362
362
359
359
390
386
383
383
387
392
392
393
397
401
400
399
7,337 7,289 7,242 7,233 7,263 7,282 7,311 7,319 7,334 7,356 7,368 7,347
1, 777 1,781 1, 768 1,770 1,773 1,763 1,769 1,770 1,763 1, 777 1,774 1,776
88
87
88
87
90
90
93
96
93
89
87
88
863
861
858
860
866
868
871
874
879
885
891
890
1,271 1,251 1,229 1,220 1,229 1,231 1,242 1,243 1,246 1,249 1,257 1,248
604
604
602
602
604
601
603
603
606
606
606
604
933
911
915
913
914
938
937
938
937
937
937
935
862
858
856
853
853
855
855
853
855
858
853
849
189
188
188
1QQ
187
189
189
191
191
198
199
397
394
392
391
389
389
390
393
395
396
399
392
353
350
350
350
356
358
360
358
362
360
365
366
3,918 3,914 3,913 3,836 3,921 3,918 3,935 3,928 3,932 3,913 3,934 3, 936

55,260
656
2,734
16,848
9,490
211
611
382
1,223
1,124
1,453
1 528
l! 637
3,56
394
7,358
1,788
88
889
1,258
602
934
847
384
369

3,935
11, 767 11, 756 11,679 11,637 11,573 11,600 11, 594 11,612 11,627 11,652 11,621 11, 596 11, 546
3,123 3,108 3,093 3,083 3.074 3,076 3,085 3,090 3,082 3,100 3.096 3,077 3,062
8,644 8,648 8, 586 8,554 8,499 8,524 8,509 8,522 8,545 8,552 8,525 8,519 8,484
2,847 2,845 2, 836 2,828 2,821 2,822 2,813 2, 799 2,796 2,792 2,788 2, 786 2,778
7,922 7,935 7,917 7,895 7,876 7,846 7,831 7,809 7,805 7,783 7,749 7,692 7,675
9,498 9, 481 9,449 9,434 9,429 9,384 9,339 9,274 9,204 9,183 9,197 9,127 9,088
2,356 2, 363 2,356 2,379 2.391 2,381 2.371 2,369 2,374 2,375 2,366 2,343 2,325
7,142 7,118 7,093 7,055 7.038 7,003 6, 968 6. 905 6.830 6.808 1 6. 831 6. 784 6, 763
N ote: The seasonal adjustment method used is described in “ New Sea­
sonal Adjustment Factors for Labor Force Components,” Monthly Labor
Review, August 1960, pp. 822-827.

T able A-5. Production workers in manufacturing industries, by major industry group, seasonally
adjusted 1
____________[In thousands]
1963

1962

Major industry group
Apr.* Mar.*
Manufacturing.
Durable goods______________________________
Ordnance and accessories_____________ H"~”!
Lumber and wood products, except furniture*.
Furniture and fixtures___________________
Stone, clay and glass products____ _IZIZIII!
Primary metal industries________________
Fabricated metal products___________
Machinery_______________________ ..I I I ” !
Electrical equipment and supplies_____ I..III!
Transportation equipm ent___ ___________ I!
Instruments and related products........... III” !
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries_____
Nondurable goods............................... ....................
Food and kindred products_________ IIIIIII!
Tobacco manufactures_________________III!
Textile mill products________________ I II” !
Apparel and related products_________ I II”
Paper and allied products................... I
Printing, publishing, and allied industries” ” !
Chemicals and allied products.........................
Petroleum refining and related industries.” ” !
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products__
Leather and leather products______________
* Preliminary.
686 1 3 3 -

63 -

9


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

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct,

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

12,518 12,384 12,284 12,257 12,311 12,324 12,416 12,446 12,432 12, 551 12, 581 12, 566 12,541
7,035 6,928 6,874 6,853 6,880 6,875 6,933 6,953 6,925 7,024 7,035 7,037 7,000
97
98
99
101
100
99
102
103
101
100
97
98
98
551
552
549
547
541
543
539
541
545
543
644
546
547
318
316
314
315
317
317
315
315
321
320
320
321
318
465
451
447
448
451
459
465
462
467
468
467
467
460
950
928
914
898
898
885
892
906
910
920
934
972
995
866
851
846
842
849
847
854
866
858
868
871
873
864
1,025 1,014 1,011 1,016 1,021 1,031 1,035 1,026 1,034 1,029 1.027 1,018 1,012
1,045 1,038 1,032 1,032 1,034 1,029 1,047 1,032 1,045 1,057 1,058 1,051 1,040
1,175 1,141 1,127 1,122 1,131 1,119 1,139 1,160 1,090 1,164 1,161 1,142 1,122
232
230
229
228
228
228
228
228
231
231
231
230
227
311
309
306
306
310
321
316
317
316
325
322
321
317
5,483 5,456 5,410 5,404 5,431 5,449 5,483 5,493 5,507 5,527 5. 546 5, 529 5, 541
1,177 1,184 1,169 1,173 1,175 1,168 1,178 1,179 1,170 1,181 1,180 1,184 1,193
75
76
75
76
78
79
84
82
81
77
76
76
77
774
774
771
772
780
783
777
787
791
798
803
803
802
1,130 1,111 1,090 1,081 1,089 1,093 1,105 1,105 1,109 1,110 1,120 1,111 1,121
477
478
476
476
478
478
477
481
476
481
482
479
479
590
582
579
581
582
597
599
598
6G8
599
600
599
598
522
520
519
521
518
517
520
519
524
523
628
521
518
121
118
120
121
121
118
120
120
127
128
129
128
129
306
305
302
301
304
300
300
301
306
307
312
304
297
311
308
309
308
315
318
316
320
318
322
316
323
327
N ote: The seasonal adjustment method used is described in “ New Sea­
sonal Adjustment Factors for Labor Force Components.” Monthly Labor
Review, August 1960, pp. 822-827.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

738
T able

A-6. Unemployment insurance and employment service program operations 1
[All Items except average benefit amounts are In thousands]
1962

1963
Item
Mar.
E m p loym en t service:J
N e w applications for w ork ---------------------N onfarm p lacem ents............. ............... ...........

Feb.

861
496

Dec.

Jan.

904
423

1,097
459

Nov.

766
434

907
533

Sept.

Oct.

948
643

856
652

Aug.

879
642

June

July

914
580

May

1,102
605

Apr.

899
656

Mar.

847
577

860
511

State u n em p loym en t insurance programs:
1,267
956
1,197
1,395
1,083
1,133
1,147
1,353
1,171
1,127
1,308 2,102
1,747
In itial claim s * 4......... - .......................................
Insured u n em p lo y m e n t4 (average w eek ly
1,625
1,385
1,331
1,469
1,543
1,469
2,546
2,063
1,570
1,831
2,298
2.591
2,218
v o lu m e).............. ................................. .............
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.8
3.6
5.1
4.0
3.9
4.5
5.6
6.2
5.5
6.3
B a te of Insured u n em p loym en t «.................
5,702
5,207
4,695
5,563
5,507
5,781
6,391
7,088
9,121
9,091
9,025 10,002
6,307
W eeks of un em p loym en t com pensated—
A verage w eek ly benefit am ount for to ta l
u n em p loym en t________________________ $35.80 $35.70 $35.52 $35.11 $34.95 $34.69 $34. 42 $34.29 $34.01 $34.20 $34.04 $34.52 $34.98
T o ta l benefits p aid______________________ $316,422 $313,272 $342,411 $214,203 $193,551 $176,608 $160,559 $197,414 $186,965 $188,871 $215,015 $239, 562 $310,246
U n em p loym en t com pensation for ex-service­
m en: J «
In itial claim s *__________________________
Insured un em p loym en t * (average w eek ly
v o lu m e).............................................................
W eeks of u n em p loym en t com pensated__
T o ta l benefits paid............................................

39

31

29

31

27

39

30

25

22

25

26

71
77
77
303
306
338
$9, 932 $10,027 $11,100

65
235
$7,679

57
222
$7,298

52
214
$7,019

52
200
$6, 549

52
211
$6,934

46
175
$5,659

40
165
$5,420

40
177
$5,703

45
190
$6,036

49
209
$6,545

U n em p loym en t com pensation for Federal
civilian e m p lo y ees:8 8
In itial c la im s 8__________________________
Insured u n em p lo y m e n t1 (average w eek ly
v olu m e).................... ............................... .........
W eeks of u n em p loym en t c o m p e n s a te d ...
T o ta l benefits p aid ............................................

11

12

20

12

12

14

10

12

15

10

11

11

11

35
150
$5, 591

38
148
$5,433

37
156
$5,744

31
116
$4,262

29
115
$4,282

27
111
$4,182

25
98
$3,797

26
114
$4,354

26
97
$3,653

24
107
$4,172

26
114
$4,297

29
128
$4,711

34
152
$5,391

5

7

19

12

16

16

32

22

65

7

4

4

5

50
61
60
65
64
61
57
73
124
129
133
148
132
138
137
173
$80.24 $80. 58 $79.97 $79. 56 $78. 73 $74. 47 $83. 26 $78.53
$11,004 $10,881 $13,732 $10,358 $10,373 $11,081 $10,134 $10,081

52
98
$75. 84
$7,256

44
108
$71.91
$7,825

1,699

1,614

Railroad u n em p loym en t insurance:
A pplications 10................... .................................
Insured u n em p loym en t (average w eek ly
v olu m e)............................ ............. ...................
N u m b er of paym en ts 11......................... .........
A verage am ount of benefit p aym en t « ----T o ta l b enefits paid 18____________________
A ll programs: 14
Insured u n em p lo y m e n t8________________

25

2,465

27

2,726

2, 778

2,223

* Includes data for Puerto Rico, beginning January 1961 when the Com­
monwealth’s program became part of the Federal-State UI system.
1 Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.
* Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting
periods of unemployment. Excludes transitional claims.
4 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands.
8 Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unem­
ployment.
« The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of
the average covered employment in a 12-month period.
r Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
8 Includes the Virgin Islands.
8 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.
1 0 An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning
of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is re­
quired for subsequent periods in the same year.


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

1,780

1,539

1,497

1,628

52
64
74
125
155
187
$73. 03 $76. 76 $79. 55
$9,052 $11,807 $14,791
1,719

1,986

2,381

1 1 Payments are for unemployment In 14-day registration periods.
1 » The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not
adjusted for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments.
13 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpay­
ments.
14 Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the
State. Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security for
all items except railroad unemployment insurance, which is prepared by the
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board.

B.—LABOR TURNOVER

739

B.—Labor Turnover
T a ble

B -l. Labor turnover rates, by major industry group
fPer 100 employees]
1963

1962

Annual
average

Major industry group
Mar.2 Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

4.0

1960

Accessions: Total*
M anufacturing:
A ctu a l________________________________
S e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d . . . ..................................... .......................

D urable goods........................... ........... .............
Ordnance and accessories_____________
L um b er and wood products, excep t fur­
n itu re______________________________
F u rniture and fixtu res................... .............
Stone, clay, and glass products________
Prim ary m etal in d u stries_____________
F ab ricated m etal products____________
M ach inery........................................................
E lectrical eq u ip m en t and su p p lies____
T ran sp ortation eq u ip m en t____________
In stru m ents and related products_____
M iscellaneous m anufacturing in d u s­
tries.................................................................
N ondu rab le g oods....................... .....................
F ood and kindred produ cts.......................
T obacco m an ufactures________________
T ex tile m ill products_________________
A pparel and related produ cts_________
Paper and allied products_____________
P rin tin g, pu blishing, and allied in ­
du stries_______ _____________________
C hem icals and allied p rod u cts.................
Petroleum refining and related in d u s­
tries......... ........... ........................ .................
R ubb er an d m iscellaneous plastic
products........................................................
L eather and leather p rodu cts_________
N onm anufacturing:
M eta l m in in g _________________________
C o a lm in in g .......... ..................... ...................

3.4
3.9

3.3
3.9

3.6
3.9

2.4
3.5

3.0
3.6

3.9
4.0

4.9
3.8

5.1
4.0

4.5
4.1

5.0
3.9

4.3
4.3

3.7
4.3

4.1

3.8

4 .4

3.3
2.0

3.2
2.2

3.5
2.4

2.3
1.6

2.8
1.9

3.6
2.4

4.5
2.5

4.6
2.6

3.8
3.0

4.5
3.9

4.1
2.9

4.0
2.8

3.8
3.0

3.9
2.8

3.5
2.6

5.5
3.8
4.5
3.4
3.5
2.6
2.7
3.2
2.6

4.5
3.9
3.4
3.6
3.2
2.7
2.6
3.2
2.4

4.7
4.1
3.5
3.4
3.7
3.0
3.0
3.7
2.6

2.5
2.5
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.1
2.1
2.8
1.7

3.2
3.3
2.4
2.5
3.0
2.3
2.7
3.5
2.4

4.5
4.3
2.8
2.7
3.9
2.8
3.4
4.5
2.6

5.4
5.0
3.3
2.7
4.5
2.9
3.8
8.0
2.6

5.4
6.0
4.0
3.3
5.5
3.2
4.0
6.1
3.4

6.3
5.2
3.8
2.8
4.0
2.9
3.5
4.2
2.8

8.8
4.7
4.8
2.8
4.6
3.7
4.4
4.4
3.9

7.5
5.1
4.6
2.5
4.5
3.1
3.8
4.3
2.7

7.3
4.6
5.4
2.2
4.3
3.1
3.6
4.5
2.6

5.2
4.5
4.3
2.6
4.0
3.2
3.6
4.4
2.6

5.3
4.1
3.6
3.4
4.4
3.0
3.6
4.7
2.6

4.8
3.9
3.4
2.4
3.9
2.9
3.2
4.3
2.4

5.0

5.1

6.3

2.4

3.6

5.8

6.8

6.9

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.4

5.8

5.6

5.3

3.4
4.4
2.2
3.5
4.4
2.3

3.4
3.8
2.6
3.3
5.3
2.1

3.7
4.1
3.7
3.3
5.8
2.2

2.5
3.2
5.9
1.9
3.1
1.6

3.1
3.9
5.5
2.7
4.4
1.9

4.2
6.4
4.4
3.5
5.3
2.4

5.3
9.2
16.0
3.8
5.2
2.8

5.8
10.0
19.8
4.2
6.2
3.0

5.4
9.1
8.9
3.9
6.7
2.9

5.7
9.0
3.2
4.2
6.6
4.1

4.5
6.6
3.0
4.1
6.1
2.8

4.0
5.6
2.7
3.7
5.1
2.8

3.6
4.2
1.8
3.6
5.1
2.5

4.2
5.9
6.1
3.5
5.6
2.6

4.1
6.0
5.6
3.2
5.3
2.6

2.4
2.3

2.6
1.9

2.9
2.0

2.0
1.3

2.5
1.4

3.2
1.8

3.7
2.1

3.4
2.0

8.2
2.0

4.1
3.3

2.9
2.2

2.7
2.4

2.8
2.6

2.9
2.1

3.0
2.0

1.3

.9

1.3

.6

.8

1.2

1.5

1.7

1.5

2.7

1.6

1.5

1.7

1.3

1.2

3.2
4.1

2.9
4.2

3.1
5.9

2.2
3.5

3.0
4.4

3.7
4.8

4.5
4.7

4.3
5.5

4.1
6.1

4.4
6.1

4.1
5.3

3.6
4.2

3.4
4.3

3.8
5.0

3.1
4.8

2.9
2.0

2.9
2.2

3.2
2.2

2.0
1.4

2.9
1.5

2.7
1.7

2.9
2.5

2.4
2.5

2.4
1.4

3.8
1.2

3.4
1.8

4.1
1.6

2.4
1.6

2.7
2.1

3.4
1.6

Accessions: New hires
Manufacturing:
Actual—.................................... ...............
Seasonally adjusted_________________
Durable goods.......................... .................
Ordnance and accessories___________
Lumber and wood products, except
furniture________________________
Furniture and fixtures______________
Stone, clay, and glass products..............
Prim ary metal industries___________
Fabricated metal products__________
Machinery________________________
Electrical equipment and supplies____
Transportation equipment__________
Instrum ents and related products____
Miscellaneous manufacturing indus­
tries......................................................

2.0
2.4

1.9
2.3

2.5
2.3

3.1
2.3

3.2
2.4

2.9
2.5

3.4
2.5

2.9

2.4
2.7

2.2
2.7

2.2

2.2

2 .2

1.8
2.3

2.8

2 .1

1.8
1.3

1.7
1.3

1.7
1.4

1.1
.9

1.6
1.2

2.2
1.5

2.6
1.8

2.6
1.8

2.4
2.2

3.1
2.9

2.6
2.0

2.3
2.0

2.2
1.9

1.9
1.9

1.9
1.8

3.5
2.8
2.1
1.0
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.9

3.0
2.7
1.5
.9
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.6

2.7
2.7
1.3
.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.8

1.7
1.5
.9
.6
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1

2.5
2.5
1.3
.7
1.8
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.7

3.6
3.4
1.8
.9
2.6
1.7
2.2
2.4
2.0

4.4
4.3
2.1
1.0
3.0
1.9
2.7
2.9
2.0

4.6
4.8
2.5
1.0
2.9
1.9
2.6
2.1
2.2

4.7
4.2
2.5
.9
2.5
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.2

6.2
3.9
3.3
1.3
3.2
2.7
3.2
2.5
3.3

5.4
4.1
3.1
1.1
2.9
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.1

4.7
3.3
2.8
1.0
2.4
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.0

3.3
3.4
2.2
1.2
2.2
2.1
2.3
1.9
2.0

3.3
2.7
1.8
.9
2.1
1.6
2.0
1.6
1.7

3.4
2.8
2.0
.8
2.1
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.7

1.8

1.2

2.3

2.6

2.6

1.5

2.4

4.3

5.3

5.2

4.2

4.7

4.3

3.7

3.3

3.6

3.4

2.1
2.2
1.4
2.2
3.1
1.4

1.9
1.9
1.1
2.0
3.1
1.2

2.1
2.1
.2.0
1.9
3.2
1.3

1.3
1.7
3.3
1.2
1.5
.9

1.9
2.2
2.3
1.8
2.7
1.2

2.8
4.1
3.1
2.5
3.6
1.8

3.7
6.0
10.5
2.8
3.8
2.2

3.9
6.5
7.8
3.2
4.5
2.2

3.5
5.8
2.6
2.7
4.2
2.1

3.9
6.0
1.6
3.1
4.0
3.2

2.9
3.9
1.3
3.0
3.9
2.0

2.5
2.9
.8
2.6
3.4
1.9

2.3
2.2
.9
2.3
3.3
1.6

2.5
3.4
3.2
2.2
3.1
1.7

2.5
3.5
2.9
2.0
3.2
1.8

1.8
1.5

1.8
1.2

2.1
1.2

1.3
.7

1.9
1.0

2.5
1.2

3.0
1.5

2.7
1.4

2.6
1.5

3.3
2.6

2.3
1.6

2.1
1.7

2.1
1.8

2.1
1.4

2 .4
1 .4

Nondurable goods.............................. ........
Food and kindred products...................
Tobacco manufactures........................ .
Textile mill products......................... .
Apparel and related products........... .
Paper and allied products......................
Printing, publishing, and allied in­
dustries_________________________
Chemicals and allied products_______
Petroleum refining and related indus­
tries........................................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products.................... ...................... . .
Leather and leather products________

.7

.5

.7

.4

.6

.9

1.1

1.3

1.2

2.2

1.2

.9

1.0

.9

.8

1.9
2.3

1.7
2.4

1.6
3.3

1 .1

2.5
3.1

3.3
3.2

3.0
3.9

2.3
3.7

3.1
4.1

2.6
3.2

2.1
2.5

2.0
2.7

1 .9

2.1

1.7
2.8

2.9

1 .7
2 .9

Nonmanufacturing:
M etal mining_____________________
Coal mining__________________ ____

1.3
.7

1.3
1.0

1.6
.6

1 .1
.4

1.2

1.4
.8

1.4
.7

1.3

1.3
.5

2.8
.4

2 .0

1.8
.4

1.3
.5

1 .2
.6

1 .9
.4

S ee fo o tn o te * a t e n d o f

table.


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

.6

.7

.5

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

740
T able

B -l. Labor turnover rates, by major industry group 1—Continued
[Per 100 employees]
Annual
average

1962

1963
Major industry group
M ar.8 Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr:

Mar.

1961

1960

Separations: Total *
M anufacturing:

3.4

Seasonally adjusted-------------- -----------

3.2
«? 7

3.9

gQ

3.8

5.0

5.2

4.1

S.7

3.6
5.8

4.3

4 .8

i-3

3.8

-M

4-6

3.8

4.0

3.9

3.6

S9

3.8

4.0

4.3

4.4

D urable goods........................... .....................
Ordnance and accessories................. .........
L um ber and wood products, except
furniture_____________ ____ _________
Furniture and fixtures________________
Stone, clay, and glass products________
Prim ary m etal industries_____________
Fabricated m etal products.........................
M ach inery.................. ............................... . . .
Electrical equip m ent and su p p lies.........
Transportation eq u ip m en t................... . .
Instrum ents and related products_____
M iscellaneous m anufacturing ind us­
tries________________________________

3.2
3.4

3.1
3.1

3.7
3.2

3.4
2.1

3.6
2.7

3.9
2.7

4.3
3.4

5.4
2.9

4.4
2.2

3.8
2.7

3.6
2.5

3.3
2.5

3.5
2.1

3.9
2.3

4.3
2.4

5.5
4.2
2.8
2.1
3.4
2.4
3.6
3.3
2.6

4.7
3.8
3.3
2.2
3.6
2.3
3.0
3.3
2.4

5.0
4.5
4.9
2.6
4.2
2.8
3.6
3.7
2.6

5.5
3.6
5.1
2.5
3.5
2.1
2.8
3.0
2.1

6.2
4.2
4.0
2.9
3.9
2.6
3.1
3.4
2.8

5.6
4.6
4.1
3.5
4.7
2.9
3.4
3.8
3.0

6.7
5.2
4.9
3.8
4.9
3.5
4.0
4.1
3.3

6.8
5.7
4.5
3.6
4.7
3.8
3.9
10.6
3.1

5.7
5.2
3.5
4.1
5.4
3.0
3.3
6.5
2.4

4.7
4.6
3.3
4.4
4.1
3.0
3.2
3.9
2.6

4.7
4.7
3.7
4.5
3.6
2.9
3.1
3.6
2.3

6.0
4.2
3.3
3.2
3.4
2.6
2.9
3.5
2.1

6.1
4.9
3.4
2.3
3.9
2.8
3.4
3.8
2.6

5.5
4.3
3.8
2.8
4.5
3.2
3.2
5.0
2.6

6.1

4.1

3.8

8.2

5.6

5.6

6.1

5.4

5.2

4.8

4.6

5.1

5.8

5.9

3.5
4.7
6.1
3.3
4.4
2.4

3.3
4.6
9.5
3.1
4.2
2.3

5.6
4.3
6.3
7.0
3.9
5.4
2.8

12.2

N ondurable g o o d s .._________ __________
Food and kindred products___________
T obacco m anufactures________________
T extile m ill products__________________
Apparel and related products_________
Paper and allied products_____________
Prin ting, publishing, and allied indus-

4.3
6.2
10.8
3.4
6.9
2.5

4.5
6.8
16.9
3.7
5.1
2.7

5.0
8.2
10.8
3.8
5.7
2.8

5.8
9.3
5.4
4.5
5.9
4.2

4.8
6.7
2.9
4.5
5.8
3.4

4.3
5.9
2.3
3.9
6.3
2.5

3.8
6.0
2.4
3.4
5.2
2.4

4.1
5.1
2.7
3.6
6.2
2.6

4.0
5.1
5.4
3.6
6.0
2.5

3.6
4.5
9.5
3.6
4.9
2.3

4.2
6.9
5.9
3.4
5.7
2.7

4.4

2.6
1.7

2.3
1.4

2.9
1.7

2.7
1.6

2.9
2.0

3.1
1.8

4.1
3.1

3.5
2.4

2.5
1.9

3.0
2.3

2.9
2.5

2.5
2.0

2.6
1.8

2.9
2.0

2.8
2.1

Chem icals and allied products________
Petroleum refining and related in d u s­
tries________________________________
R ubber and m iscellaneous plastic prod­
u c ts_________________________________
Leather and leather products__________
N onm anufacturing:
M etal m in ing......................................................
Coal m in in g____________________________

4.6
4.1
4.0
4.8
3.4
3.5
5.2
2.7

6.0
5.9
3.7

6.1
2.9

1.6

1.9

1.8

2.1

2.2

1.8

2.7

2.5

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.6

3.2
4.8

2.9
3.8

3.5
5.2

2.8
5.4

3.5
4.5

3.9
5.4

4.5
5.9

4.1
5.9

4.0
5.3

3.2
4.2

3.2
5.2

3.2
5.7

3.4
4.7

3.5
5.0

3.9
5.0

2.5
2.8

2.6
2.0

3.5
2.1

6.6
1.8

3.8
3.2

3.6
2.6

6.0
2.0

4.9
2.3

3.2
5.2

3.2
3.4

2.6
4.5

2.5
2.1

2.3
1.8

3.1
2.5

3.8

1.5

1.2

1.3

1.0

1.1
1.0

3.6

Separations: Quits
Manufacturing:
Actual____ ______________________

1.2

S e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d ______ ____________ _______________

1.0
\ 4

l.l
4

0.8

1.1

1 2

1 .8

1.5
1.4

2.4
1.4

2.1
1.5

1.4
1.3

1.5
1.5

1 .6

1.3
1.3

1.2
1.5

1

Durable goods______________________
Ordnance and accessories___________
Lumber and wood products except
furniture.................................... -____
Furniture and fixtures______________
Stone, clay, and glass products_______
Primary metal industries___________
Fabricated metal products__________
Machinery........................... ....................
Electrical equipment and supplies____
Transportation equipment__________
Instruments and related products____
Miscellaneous manufacturing Indus-

1.1
.9

.8
.8

.9
.9

.7
.6

.9
.8

1.2
1.0

2.0
1.7

1.8
1.5

1.2
1.1

1.3
1.3

1.3
1.0

1.2
1.2

1.1
1.0

1.0

2.1
1.9
.9
.5
1.0
.9
1.2
.8
1.2

1.6
1.5
.7
.4
.8
.7
1.0
.7

1.7
1.7
.8
.4
.9
.8

1.9
1.6
.8
.4
.9
.8

1.1

4.2
3.0
2.0
.9
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.6
1.9

3.7
3.1
1.9
.9
1.9
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.6

2.6
22
1.2
.6
1.2
.9
1.3
.9
1.2

2.5
2.1
1.2
.6
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.0
1.3

1.4
1.0
1.2

2.6
2.2
1.1
.6
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1

1.8
2.0
1.0
.6
1.1
1.0
1.3
.8
1.2

1.9
1.5
1.0
.5
1.0
.8
1.1
.8
1.0

2.3
1.7
1.1
.6

.7
1.1

2.6
2.1
1.2
.5
1.3
.9
1.3
1.0
1.4

2.6
2.5
1.3
.6
1.4

1.0

1.3
1.1
.6
.3
.6
.6
.8
.5
.8

1.5

1.3

1.3

1.0

1.6

2.2

3.0

3.0

1.9

2.2

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.8

1.9

Nondurable goods_____ _____________
Food and kindred products_________
Tobacco manufactures............................
Textile mill products_______________
Apparel and related products________
Paper and allied products....... ..............
Printing, publishing, and allied indus­
tries.......................................................
Chemicals and allied products...............
Petroleum refining and related indus­
tries____________________________
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products________________________
Leather and leather products________

1.4
1.4
.5
1.7
2.1
.9

1.2
1.2
.7
1.4
1.9
.7

1.3
1.3
.9
1.6
2.0
.8

1.0
1.1

1.8
2.1
.9
2.0
2.4

2.5
2.9
1.4
2.8
3.2
1.8

1.7
1.9
.8
2.1
2.6
1.0

1.7
1.8
.6
2.0
2.4

1.7
1.8
.6
2.1
2.5

1.1

2.9
4.0
2.1
2.6
3.1
2.5

1.1

1.1

1.5
1.4
.6
2.0
2.2
1.0

1.4
1.3
.8
1.8
2.1
.9

1.4
1.6
.9
1.6
2.0
1.0

1.6
1.7
1.0

1.4
.6

1.3
1.3
.8
1.6
1.9
.8

1.2
.6

1.1
.5

1.2
.6

.9
.5

1.3
.5

1.5
.7

2.5
1.8

2.1
1.2

1.4
.6

1.7
.8

1.5
.8

1.3
.8

1.3
.7

1.4
.7

1.5

.5

.5

.4

.4

.6

.7

1.4

1.2

.6

.7

.6

.5

.5

.5

.1

1.1
2.1

.9
1.6

1.0
2.0

.8
1.5

1.0

1.9

1.5
2.5

2.2
3.1

1.9
3.3

1.3
2.4

1.5
2.4

1.5
2.4

1.3
2.3

1.3
2.2

2.1

2.2

.9
.3

1.1
.3

1.2
.3

.8
.3

.9
.3

1.1
.4

2.2
.5

1.8
.6

1.3
.4

1.1
.3

1.2
."3

1.4
.3

.9
.3

1.0
.4

1.5
.3

Nonmanufacturing:
Metal mining_______________________
Coal mining.............................................. .
See footnotes at end of table.


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

1.0

.7

.6
1.1

1.1

1. 1

1.1

1.1

.9

1.2

.9
1.1

1.6

2.3
1.2
.8

1.1

B.—LABOR TURNOVER

741

T a b l e B - l . Labor turnover rates, b y m ajor industry group 1— Continued
[Per 100 employees]
1963

1962

Annual
average

Major industry group
M ar.2 Feb.

Jan,

Dec,

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

2.2

2.4

1960

Separations: Layoffs
Manufacturing:
Actual___ _______ ________________
Seasonally adjusted_________________
Durable goods_________ __________ . . .
Ordnance and accessories.......................
Lumber and wood products, except
furniture________________________
Furniture and fixtures................ ...........
Stone, clay, and glass products............ .
Prim ary metal industries...................
Fabricated metal products__________
Machinery....... ........................... ...........
Electrical equipment and supplies____
Transportation equipm ent.. _ _ ......
Instruments and related products____
Miscellaneous manufacturing Industries.....................................................

1.6

1.6

2.5
A0

2.3
1.9

2.3
A0

2.2
A4

1.6
A0

1.6

1 .8

1.9
A0

1.6

1 .8

2.2
A0

1.6

1 .6

1 .8

1 .6

1 .6

1.5
2.1

1.6
1.8

2.0
1.7

2.2
1.1

2.0
1.3

1.8
1.1

1.6
1.1

2.8
1.0

2.4
.5

1.7
.7

1.6
1.0

1.4
.8

1.6
.6

2.2
.7

2.6
.9

2.7
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.8
.8
1.7
1.9
.8

2.4
1.7
2.1
1.1
2.1
.9
1.4
1.9
.9

2.6
2.1
3.4
1.4
2.5
1.3
1.8
2.1
.9

3.6
1.9
40
1.7
2.3
.9
1.4
1.8
.8

3.5
2.0
2.7
2.0
2.4
1.2
1.3
1.9
1.1

2.1
1.6
2.2
2.4
2.7
1.3
1.3
1.9
.9

1.6
1.4
2.1
2.3
2.0
1.3
1.0
1.8
.7

2.2
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.6
1.2
8.3
.8

2.2
2.2
1.7
2.8
3.4
1.4
1.3
4.4
.7

1.3
1.8
1.4
3.1
1.9
1.3
.9
2.0
.7

1.3
1.3
1.7
3.2
1.5
1.1
.9
1.7
.5

1.7
1.3
1.5
1.9
1.6
.9
.9
1.7
.5

3,6
2.2
1.8
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.3
2.0
.7

2.8
2.1
2.2
1.7
2.9
1.7
1.4
3.5
.9

3.1
2.1
2.4
3.0
3.1
1.9
1.6
3.6
1.0

1.9

1.8

3.6

10.6

5.8

2.4

1.7

2.0

2.4

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.4

3.2

3.2

1.6
2.7
5.2
1.0
1.7
1.1

1.6
2.8
8.4
1.1
1.7
1.1

2.4
4.4
5.6
1.6
2.6
1.5

2.8
4.7
9.8
1.9
4.0
1.3

2.7
5.0
15.7
1.6
2.6
1.3

2.6
5.4
9.3
1.2
2.6
1.2

2.2
4.5
2.5
1.2
2.2
1.2

1.6
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.7
.9

1.9
3.2
1.1
1.2
2.9
.9

1.4
2.4
1.3
.8
2.1
.7

1.7
2.7
1.6
.9
2.9
.8

1.9
3.1
4.5
1.0
3.2
.8

1.6
2.6
8.3
1.2
2.1
.8

2.2
3.7
4.6
1.3
3.1
1.1

2.2
3.6
4.5
1.5
3.2
1.2

1.0
.6

.8
.5

1.2
.7

1.3
.8

1.2
1.1

1.1
.8

1.1
.8

.9
.7

.7
.8

.8
1.0

.9
1.2

.8
.7

.9
.6

1.0
.9

.9
.9

2.2

Nondurable goods_________ __________
Food and kindred products. . . . ___
Tobacco manufactures_________ ____
Textile mill products........ ....................
Apparel and related products________
Paper and allied products___________
Printing, publishing and allied Industries................................. ...................
Chemicals and allied products_______
Petroleum refining and related Industries............................... ......................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products...........................................
Leather and leather products________

.6

.9

.8

.9

1.0

.6

.7

.6

.5

.3

.5

.5

.7

,6

.6

1.5
2.0

1.2
1.6

1.8
2.5

1.6
3.4

1.9
2.0

1.6
2.3

1.5
2.0

1.4
1.6

1.9
1.9

1.0
1.1

.9
2.1

1.2
2.6

1.4
1.7

1.7
2.3

2.2
2.1

N onmanufacturing:
Metal mining____ ______ ___________
Coalmining................ ...............................

1.2
2.0

.9
1.3

1.4
1.4

4.2
1.1

2.3
2.2

1.8
1.7

3.0
1.0

2.4
1.4

1.2
4.2

1.4
2.6

.7
3.7

.4
1.0

.6
.9

1.4
1.7

1.6
2.9

1 Beginning with the December 1961 issue, figures differ from those pre­
viously published. The industry structure has been converted to the 1957
Standard Industrial Classification, and the printing and publishing industry
and some seasonal manufacturing industries previously excluded are now
included.
Data Include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in January 1959; this inclusion
has not significantly affected the labor turnover rates.
Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and non­
manufacturing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not com­
parable with the changes shown by the Bureau’s employment series for the
following reasons: (1) the labor turnover series measures changes during the


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

calendar month, while the employment series measures changes from mid­
month to midmonth; and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel changes
caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence of such
stoppages.
2 Preliminary.
* Beginning with January 1959, transfers between establishments of the
same firm are included in total accessions and total separations; therefore,
rates for these Items are not strictly comparable with prior data. Transfers
comprise part of “ other accessions” and “ other separations,” the rates for
which are not shown separately.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

742

C.—Earnings and Hours
T a b l e C - l . Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 b y industry
Annual
average

1962

1963
Industry
Mar.s

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings
Minin?
M etal mining_____________________
Iron ores............................................
Copper ores....... ...................... ........

$111.10 $112.88 $112. 34 $112.07
118.66 117.26 116.16 116.67
117.35 116.05 118.95 115.36
125. 99 121. 69 121.12 121.41

$110.43 $111. 78 $112.88 $111.90 $110.02 $111.10 $109.61 $110. 70 $110.84 $107.18 $105.44
116. 44 116.16 118.12 116.00 116. 88 118.86 119.28 118. 01 118.29 113.44 111.19
119. 56 117.87 122. 61 119.87 124.43 127. 51 126.28 125. 86 122.28 115. 80 114. 73
120.13 119.14 120.98 117.99 117.46 121.24 120.40 119.84 124. 52 119.03 116. 77

Coal mining............................................. 113. 93 122.46 121.29 119. 57 111. 24 114.39 113.62 113.15 102.30 115. 69 108.15 116.12 117. 69 111.34 110. 76
Bituminous..................................... 114.35 123.56 121.76 120. 71 111. 65 115.13 114.39 114.25 103.60 117.06 109.47 117. 50 118. 76 112.73 112.77
Crude petroleum and natural gas......... 110.66 110. 51 110.51 112.04 109.30 109.20 110.99 109.56 110.83 107.74 108.52 109.20 108. 52 105. 75 103.32
Crude petroleum and natural gas
fields__ ______ ___ ___________ 117. 56 117.33 120.38 118.28 114.37 113. 00 118.69 113.98 118.14 112. 72 112.31 114.37 112. 84 113.15 108.54
Oil and gas field services................ 104.25 103.76 100. 67 105. 71 104.40 105.90 103.82 104.84 103. 82 102.67 105.03 104.35 104.84 98.67 98.31
99.64 100.09

96.58

117. 71
108.83
118.48
113.40
125.11
123.08

112. 67
103.72
114. 77
110.00
119.60
118.11

Manufacturing........................................... .
98.09 97.20 97.44 98.42 97.36 96.72 97.68 95.75 96.80 97.27 96. 80 96. 56 95.91 92.34
Durable goods. ................................ 106.49 106.23 105.82 107.53 106.19 105.37 105.88 103.89 104.45 105.47 105.22 105.22 104. 45 100.10
Nondurable goods______________ 87.07 86.24 86.24 86. 94 86.72 85.72 86.80 86.18 86.80 87.02 86.37 85. 54 85.32 82.92

89.72
97.44
80.36

Quarrying and nonmetallic mining___ 102.00
Contract construction................. ..................
General building contractors_________
Heavy construction________________
Highway and street construction...
Other heavy construction________
Special trade contractors____________

121.97
113. 67
115.94
109. 98
121.66
129.60

98.77 100.14
117.29
108. 85
108.12
99.64
116.49
125.24

120.01
111.11
113.54
107.16
120.05
128.13

98.66 107.21 110.86 113.24 113.01 110.66 107.62 107.38 102.93
117.97
108. 55
109. 20
104. 24
115.63
127. 41

120. 88
113. 34
117. 61
115.02
121.13
127.45

126.82
117.12
127.20
126. 58
128. 86
133.16

128.21
117.81
129.38
128.62
129.68
134.23

127.26
116.92
130.50
129. 65
131.04
132.38

125. 57
115.92
127. 67
126. 44
128. 54
131.65

121.45
111.91
122.13
119.13
126.48
127.72

123. 44
114.14
124. 07
120. 70
128. 86
129.46

120.01
112.10
116.33
110. 09
124. 09
126.34

118. 05
109. 55
114.36
105.76
122.80
123.90

Average weekly hours
40.4
41.2
38.1
43.9

40.9
41.0
37.8
43.0

41.0
40.9
39.0
42.8

40.9
40.9
37.7
42.9

40.9
41.0
39.2
42.6

41.4
40.9
38.9
42.1

41.5
41.3
40.2
42.3

41.6
40.7
39.3
41.4

36.4
36.3

39.0
39.1

39.0
38.9

38.2
38.2

36.0
35.9

36.9
36.9

36.3
36.2

36.5
36.5

Crude petroleum and natural gas..........
Crude petroleum and natural gas
fields.............................................
Oil and gas field services..................

41.6

41.7

41.7

42.6

42.2

42.0

42.2

42.3

40.4
42.9

40.6
42.7

41.8
41.6

41.5
43.5

40.7
43.5

40.5
43.4

41.5
42.9

41.0
43.5

Mining_______________ _____ ________
Metal mining...........................................
Iron ores...........................................
Copper ores.............................. ......
C o a l m in i n g

Bituminous____

41.3
42.0
41.4
43.3

40.9
42.0
41.0
43.0

41.0
41.7
40.6
42.8

40.9
41.8
39.7
44.0

40.6
41.4
38.6
43.6

40.4
41.8
39.7
44.4

37.2
37.4

35.0
35.2

37.1
37.3

37.6
37.7

35.8
35.9

35.5
35.8

42.3

41.6

41.9

42.0

41.9

41.8

42.0

41.6
42.9

40.4
42.6

40.4
43.4

40.7
43.3

40.3
43.5

40.7
42.9

40.5
43.5

40.9
41.3
40.4
41.8

Quarrying and nonmetallic mining.......

42.5

41.5

41.9

40.6

44.3

46.0

46.6

46.7

46.3

45.6

45.5

43.8

42.4

43.9

43.7

Contract construction__________________
General building contractors............. .
Heavy construction________________
Highway and street construction...
Other heavy construction________
Special trade contractors____________

36.3
35.3
39.3
39.0
39.5
35.9

34.7
33.7
36. £
36.1
37.7
34.5

35.4
34.4
38.1
37.6
38.6
35.2

34.8
33.4
36.4
35.7
37.3
35.1

36.3
35.2
39.6
39.8
39.2
35.6

38.2
36.6
42.4
43.2
41.3
37.3

38.5
36.7
42.7
43.6
41.3
37.6

38.8
37. C
43.5
44.4
42.0
37.5

38.4
36.8
42.7
43.6
41.2
37.4

37.6
36.1
41.4
41.8
40.8
36.7

38.1
36.7
42.2
42.8
41.3
37.2

36.7
35.7
39.3
38.9
39.9
36.2

36.1
35. C
39.3
38. e
40. C
35.5

36.9
35.8
40.3
40.5
40.1
36.2

36.7
35.4
40.7
41.2
40.0
35.9

Manufacturing.............................. ................
Durable goods.................................
Nondurable goods........... ................

40.2
40.8
39.4

40.0
40.7
39.2

40.1
40.7
39.2

40.5
41.2
39.7

40.4
41.0
39.6

40.3
41.0
39.5

40.7
41.2
40.0

40.4
40.9
39.9

40.5
40.8
40.0

40.7
41.2
40.1

40.5
41.1
39.8

40.4
41.1
39.6

40.3
40.$
39.5

39.8
40.2
39.3

39.7
40.1
39.2

$2. 69
2.83
3.0$
2.80

$2.68
2. 84
3. 08
2.80

$2.70
2.83
3.1C
2.80

$2. 71
2.83
3.0$
2.83

3.11
3.13

3.09
3.11

3.13
3.15

3.13
3.15

Average hourly earnings
Mining............................................................
Metal mining____________ _________
Iron ores.......... .............. .................
Copper ores...................................

$2.75
2.88
3.08
2.87

$2.76
2.86
3.07
2.83

$2.74
2.84
3.05
2.83

$2.74
2.85
3.06
2.83

$2. 70
2.84
3.05
2.82

$2.70
2. 84
3.03
2.83

$2.72
2.86
3.05
2.86

$2. 69
2.85
3.05
2.85

Coalmining. .... .
Bituminous___________________

3.13
3.15

3.14
3.16

3.11
3.13

3.13
3.16

3.09
3.11

3.10
3.12

3.13
3.16

3.10
3.13

Crude petroleum and natural gas_____
Crude petroleum and natural gas
fields_______________________
Oil and gas field services.

2.66

2.65

2.65

2.63

2.59

2.60

2.63

2. 59

2. 62

2. 59

2.59

2.60

2.59

2.53

2.46

2.91
2.43

2.8E
2.48

2.88
2.42

2.85
2.43

2. 81
2.40

2.7S
2.44

2. 86
2.42

2.78
2.41

2.84
2.42

2. 76
2.41

2.7$
2.42

2. 81
2.41

2.8C
2.41

2.78
2.30

2.68
2.26

$2.69
2. 82
3.08
2.81

$2.64 $2.61
2.74
2.66
3. 0C 2. 89
2.73
2.63
3.11
3.14

3.12
3.15

Quarrying and nonmetallic mining___

2.40

2.38

2.39

2.43

2.42

2.41

2.43

2.42

2.39

2.36

2.36

2.35

2.35

2.28

2.21

Contract construction______ _______ ____
General building contractors
Heavy construction................... ............
Highway and street construction...
Other heavy construction................
Special trade contractors _ __ _

3.36
3.22
2.95
2.82
3.08
3.61

3.38
3.28
2.98
2.76
3.0E
3.63

3.39
3.28
2.98
2.85
3.11
3.64

3.39
3.25
3.00
2.92
3.10
3.63

3.33
3.22
2.97
2.8S
3. OS
3.58

3.32
3.2C
3.0C
2.93
3.12
3.57

3.33
3. 21
3.03
2.95
3.14
3.57

3.28
3.16
3.00
2.92
3.12
3.53

3.27
3.15
2.9S
2.9C
3.12
3.52

3.23
3.1C
2.95
2. 85
3.1C
3.48

3.24
3.11
2.94
2. 82
3.12
3.48

3.27
3.14
2.96
2. 83
3.11
3. 49

3.27
3.13
2.91
2. 74
3. 07
3.49

3.19
3.04
2.94
2.80
3.12
3.40

3.07
2.93
2.82
2.67
2.99
3.29

Manufacturing...............................................
Durable goods..................................
Nondurable goods...........................

2.44
2.61
2.21

2.43
2.61
2.20

2.43
2. 6C
2.20

2.43
2.61
2.19

2. 41
2. 59
2.19

2.40
2.57
2.17

2.40
2. 57
2.17

2.37
2.54
2.16

2.39
2. 56
2.17

2.39
2. 56
2.17

2.39
2. 56
2.17

2.39
2.56
2.16

2.38
2.56
2.16

2.32
2.49
2.11

2.26
2.43
2.06

See footnotes at end of table.


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

743

C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able C - l . Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 b y industry— C ontinued

Anim al
ave rage

1962

1963
Industry
M ar.1 Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Sept.

Oct.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods
Ordnance and accessories___________
Ammunition except for small
arms________________________
Sighting and fire control equip­
ment________________________
Other ordnance and accessories.......
Lumber and wood products, except
furniture________________________
Sawmills and planing mills.............
Millwork, plywood, and related
products___________________ _
Wooden containers........ .................
Miscellaneous wood products____

$119.19 $120.35 $120.64 $120.96 $118. 69 $117.01 $117.01 $115.34 $115.18 $116.88 $117.16 $118.43 $117.31 $113.42 $108.67
117.86 119.31 119.02 120.06 118.37 116.69 117.38 116.00 114. 97 116.00 116. 72 117.26 116.28 115.49 110.29
127.75 128.29 128.35 131.24 128. 87 125.58 125.40 122.78 122.36 126. 48 126.60 129. 60 129.33 117.27 113.10
116.18 117. 59 117. 74 116.06 113. 44 111. 79 112.06 110. 70 110. 70 112.19 111. 65 112.88 111.37 108.39 103.17
76.25
71.16

77. 03
70.80

76.83
70. 77

78.01
71.02

79.00
72.31

79. 60
72.98

82.01
75.30

81.80
74.48

80.40
73.75

80.40
73.60

79. 59
73.12

77. 82
70.59

75.08
68. 92

77. 03
68.99

73.71
67. 20

87.12
64. 78
72.72

86. 48
64.91
72.90

86.48
64.02
73.08

87.53
64.12
72.80

86.90
65. 76
73. 71

86.48
67. 06
73. 44

88.81
68. 21
74.62

88.82
68.30
73.49

87.12
68.71
72.00

87. 56
67.89
73.49

88. 81
67. 73
72.85

87.13
66.90
72. 62

85. 88
65. 44
71.91

84.03
63.12
69. 77

81.19
62.17
69.32

81.58 80.16 81.34 81. 54 80. 54 78.18 79. 95 78.38 78. 76 78. 76 76.21
78. 02 76.63 77.38 77.15 75.99 73.38 74. 85 73. 75 74.30 74. 30 71.46
95.40 91.77 91.39 92. 57 92.34 92. 52 93. 61 92.80 92. 57 92.84 90.54
99. 04 100. 65 107.01 107.87 108.38 105.16 106. 01 104.17 100. 85 101.75 100. 53
82.21 81.20 81.61 82.41 81.79 80.39 83.43 81.20 81.00 80.39 80.20

75.20
70.45
90.42
96. 72
78.78

Furniture and fixtures______________ 79.00 78. 79 78. 60
75.17 74. 96 74.19
Household furniture____________
92.92 92.29 94.07
Office furniture________________
Partitions, office and store fixtures. 100. 95 100.58 101.85
80.17 81.18 80.99
Other furniture and fixtures....... .

Average weekly hours
Ordnance and accessories-----------------Ammunition except for small arms.
Sighting and fire control equip­
ment________________________
Other ordnance and accessories___

41.1
40.5

41.5
41.0

41.6
40.9

42.0
41.4

41.5
41.1

41.2
40.8

41.2
40.9

40.9
40.7

40.7
40.2

41.3
40.7

41.4
41.1

41.7
41.0

41.6
40.8

40.8
41.1

40.7
41.0

42.3
41.2

42.2
41.7

42.5
41.9

43.6
41.6

43.1
41.1

42.0
41.1

41.8
41.2

41.2
41.0

41.2
41.0

42.3
41.4

42.2
41.2

43.2
41.5

43.4
41.4

40.3
40.9

41.0
40.3

Lumber and wood products except
furniture....................................... ........
Sawmills and planing mills.............
Millwork, plywood, and related
products.........................................
Wooden containers_____________
Miscellaneous wood products-------

39.1
39.1

39.3
38.9

39.2
39.1

39.2
38.6

39.5
39.3

40.0
40.1

40.8
40.7

40.9
40.7

40.4
40.3

40.4
40.0

40.4
40.4

39.5
39.0

38.9
38.5

39.5
39.2

39.0
39.3

40.9
39. 5
40.4

40.6
39.1
40.5

40.6
38.8
40.6

40.9
39.1
40.0

40.8
40.1
40.5

40.6
40.4
40.8

41.5
40.6
41.0

41.7
40.9
40.6

40.9
40.9
40.0

41.3
40.9
40.6

41.5
40.8
40.7

41.1
40.3
40.8

40.7
39.9
40. 4

40.4
39.7
40.1

39.8
39.6
40.3

Furniture and fixtures............................
Household fu rn itu re..---------------Office furniture________________
Partitions, office and store fixtures.
Other furniture and fixtures............

40.1
40.2
40.4
39. 9
39.3

40.2
40.3
40.3
39.6
39.6

40.1
40.1
40.9
40.1
39.7

41.2
41.5
41.3
39.3
40.3

40.9
41.2
39.9
40.1
40.2

41.5
41.6
40.8
41.8
40.4

41.6
41.7
40.6
42.3
41.0

41.3
41.3
40.5
42.5
41.1

40.3
40.1
40.4
41.4
40.6

41.0
40.9
40.7
41.9
41.3

40.4
40.3
40.7
41.5
40.2

40.6
40.6
40.6
40.5
40.1

40.6
40.6
40.9
40.7
39.6

39.9
39.7
40. 6
40.7
40.3

40.0
39.8
41.1
40.3
40.4

Average hourly earnings
Ordnance and accessories-----------------Ammunition except for small arms.
Sighting and fire control equip­
ment________________________
Other ordnance and accessories___

$2.90
2. 91

$2.90
2. 91

$2.90
2.91

$2.88
2.90

$2.86
2.88

$2. 84
2.86

$2.84
2.87

$2.82
2.85

$2. 83
2.86

$2.83
2.85

$2.83
2.84

$2.84
2.86

$2. 82
2.85

$2.78
2.81

$2. 67
2.69

3.02
2.82

3.04
2.82

3.02
2.81

3.01
2.79

2.99
2.76

2.99
2.72

3.00
2. 72

2.98
2. 70

2.97
2. 70

2.99
2.71

3.00
2.71

3. 00
2.72

2.98
2. 69

2.91
2.65

2.76
2.56

Lumber and wood products except
furniture................. .............................
Sawmills and planing mills.............
Millwork, plywood, and related
products____________________
Wooden containers_____________
Miscellaneous wood products-------

1.95
1.82

1.96
1.82

1.96
1.81

1.99
1.84

2.00
1.84

1.99
1.82

2.01
1.85

2.00
1.83

1.99
1.82

1.99
1.84

1.97
1.81

1.97
1.81

1.93
1. 79

1.95
1.76

1.89
1.71

2.13
1.64
1.80

2.13
1.66
1.80

2.13
1.65
1.80

2.14
1.64
1.82

2.13
1.64
1.82

2.13
1.66
1.80

2.14
1.68
1.82

2.13
1.67
1.81

2.13
1.68
1.80

2.12
1.66
1.81

2.14
1. 66
1.79

2.12
1.66
1. 78

2.11
1.64
1.78

2.08
1. 59
1.74

2.04
1.57
1.72

Furniture and fixtures............................
Household furniture____________
Office furniture________________
Partitions, office and store fixtures.
Other furniture and fixtures______

1. 97
1.87
2.30
2.53
2. 04

1.96
1.86
2.29
2. 54
2.05

1.96
1.85
2.30
2.54
2.04

1.98
1.88
2.31
2.52
2.04

1.96
1.86
2.30
2.51
2.02

1.96
1.86
2.24
2.56
2.02

1.96
1.85
2.28
2. 55
2.01

1.95
1.84
2.28
2.55
1.99

1.94
1.83
2.29
2.54
1.98

1.95
1.83
2.30
2.53
2.02

1.94
1.83
2.28
2.51
2.02

1.94
1.83
2.28
2.49
2.02

1.94
1.83
2.27
2.50
2.03

1.91
1.80
2.23
2.47
1.99

1.88
1.77
2.20
2.40
1.95

See footnotes at end of table.


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

744

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963
T able C - l . Gross hours and earnings of production w orkers,1 b y industry— Continued
1963

1962

Annual
average

Industry
M ar.s Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings
Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods—Continued
Stone, clay, and glass products............. $99.23 $97.36 $97.11 $97.84 $100.28 $100. 85 $101.50 $101.57 $100. 67 $100.43
F lat glass.......................................... 127.16 127.92 129.26 130. 42 133.06 127.59 126.94 125.78 126.81 127.92
Olass and glassware, pressed or
blown______________________ 100.40 100.40 100.15 99.14 99.14 98.49 97. 76 98.09 98.00 100. 37
Cement, hydraulic.......... ............... 112.87 111.63 112.16 111.50 115.21 114. 26 116. 62 115.93 117 GO 114.12
Structural clay products......... .......
86.67 84. 56 85.41 85.81 86.90 87.56 87. 34 87. 97 87. 54 88.17
Pottery and related products........ . 89.70 88. 53 88.08 89.67 90.45 90. 68 89. 82 87.64 87.69 86. 85
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster
products......................................... 98.83 93.93 94.40 95.60 102. 96 105.36 108.14 108. 66 105. 67 104. 28
Other stone and mineral products.. 100.28 100.04 98.15 99.14 99. 88 99. 55 99.80 100.12 100.60 99.87
Primary metal industries___________
Blast furnace and basic steel
products____________________
Iron and steel foundries............ .....
Nonferrous smeltingand refining...
Nonferrous rolling, drawing, and
extruding___________________
Nonferrous foundries___________
Miscellaneous primary metal in­
dustries_____ ______________ _

$99. 60 $98.16 $95. 68 $95. 24 $92.97
125.02 120. 01 123.00 122.68 127.35
99.06 98.98 97. 93 95. 44 91.94
113. 85 n o 0 2 107. 46 106. 52 102. 87
88. 60 87. 54 85. 65 84. 45 82.21
85. 58 85.80 84. 85 82. 30 81.37
103. 60
99. 29

99. 64
99 05

93. 61
97.20

97.10
96.05

93.04
93.79

122.91 122.21 120.80 120.39 117. 91 116.92 118. 80 116.23 116.62 119.10 118.50 123.11 123.41 114.95 109. 59
131.27 129.89 128.44 126.68 123.39 122.42 125.00 122. 68 121. 77
110. 56 110.83 108. 54 109.88 107. 73 106. 52 107. 45 103. 34 106.90
117.03 116.05 116.20 117.04 116. 47 114. 52 116.47 116.03 114. 80
116.20 116.34 116.47 118.00 116.62 115. 09 116.05 113.98 115.35
104.70 105.63 105.88 105.73 103. 79 103.94 103.12 101.30 101.25

123. 71 124.68 132. 84 133. 90 122.92 116.13
109. 41 106. 90 106. 37 105. 85 98.81 96. 61
116.05 113.85 113.02 112. 48 109.48 108.09
118.80 115.90 117. 85 116.18 111.76 105.01
104.42 103. 73 104. 33 103.82 100. 35 97.51

126.68 128.02 130.09 128.94 125.14 123. 60 126.12 123.49 121.88 124.38 123.19 123. 79 125. 82 116. 98 112.92
Average weekly hours

Stone, clay, and glass products............ .
Flat glass......................................... .
Glass and glassware, pressed or
blown______________________
Cement, hydraulic_____________
Structural clay products..............
Pottery and related products........ .
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster
products...................................... .
Other stone and mineral products..
Primary metal industries...... ................
Blast furnace and basic steel
products____________________
IroD and steel foundries..................
Nonferrous smeltingand refining...
Nonferrous rolling, drawing, and
extruding___________________
Nonferrous foundries..__________
Miscellaneous primary metal in­
dustries____________ ________

40.5
38.3

39.9
38.3

39.8
38.7

40.1
38.7

41.1
39.6

41.5
38.9

41.6
38.7

41.8
38.7

41.6
38.9

41.5
39.0

41.5
38.0

40.9
38.7

40.2
37.5

40.7
38.7

40.6
40.3

40.0
40.6
40.5
39.0

40.0
40.3
39.7
39.0

39.9
40.2
40.1
38.8

40.3
40.4
40.1
39.5

40.3
41.0
40.8
40.2

40.2
41.1
41.3
40.3

39.9
41.5
41.2
40.1

40.2
41.7
41.3
39.3

40.0
42.0
41.1
38.8

40.8
41.2
41.2
38.6

40.6
41.4
41.4
38.9

40.4
40.9
41.1
39.0

40.3
40.4
40.4
39.1

40.1
40.5
40.6
38.1

39.8
40.5
40.3
38.2

41.7
40.6

39.8
40.5

40.0 m io , o
39.9
40.3

42.9
40.6

43.9
40.8

44.5
40.9

44.9
41.2

44.4
41.4

44.0
41.1

43.9
41.2

42.4
41.1

40.7
40.5

42.4
40.7

42.1
40.8

40.7

40.6

40.4

40.4

39.7

39.5

40.0

39.4

39.4

40.1

39.9

40.9

41.0

39.5

39.0

39.9
41.1
41.5

39.6
41.2
41.3

39.4
40.5
41.5

39.1
41.0
41.8

38.2
40.5
41.3

37.9
40.5
40.9

38 7
40.7
41.3

38.1
39.9
41.0

37.7
40.8
41.0

38.3
41.6
41.3

38.6
40.8
41.1

40.6
40.6
40.8

40.7
40.4
40.9

38.9
38.9
40.7

38.2
38.8
41.1

42.1
40.9

42.0
41.1

42.2
41.2

42.6
41.3

42.1
40.7

41.7
40.6

42.2
40.6

41.6
40.2

42.1
40.5

43.2
41.6

42.3
41.0

42.7
41.4

42.4
41.2

41.7
40.3

40.7
39.8

41.4

41.7

42.1

42.0

41.3

41.2

41.9

41.3

40.9

41.6

41.2

41.4

41.8

40.2

39.9

Average hourly earnings
Stone, clay, and glass products............ . I $ 2 .45
Flat glass............................... ..........
3.32
Glass and glassware, pressed or
blown______________________ _
2. 51
Cement, h y d rau lic........................
2.78
Structural clay products_________
2.14
Pottery and related products..........
2.30
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster
products.........................................
2.37
Other stone and mineral products...
2.47
Primary metal industries......................
Blast furnace and baslo steel
products............................. ...........
Iron and steel foundries_________
Nonferrous smeltingand refining...
Nonferrous rolling, drawing, and
extruding..._________________
Nonferrous foundries____________
Miscellaneous primary metal In­
dustries...........................................
See footnotes at end of table.


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

$2.44
3.34

$2. 44
3.34

$2. 44
3.37

$2.44
3.36

$2. 43
3.28

$2.44
3.28

$2.43
3.25

$2.42
3.26

$2.42
3.28

$2.40
3.29

$2. 40
3.27

$2.38
3.28

$2.34
3.17

$2.29
3.16

2. 51
2. 77
2.13
2.27

2. 51
2.79
2.13
2.27

2. 46
2.76
2.14
2.27

2.46
2.81
2.13
2.25

2.45
2.78
2.12
2.25

2.45
2.81
2.12
2.24

2.44
2. 78
2.13
2.23

2.45
2.80
2.13
2.26

2.46
2. 77
2.14
2. 25

2. 44
2. 75
2.14
2.20

2.45
2.69
2.13
2.20

2. 43
2.66
2.12
2.17

2.38
2. 63
2.08
2.16

2.31
2.54
2.04
2.13

2.36
2.47

2.36
2.46

2.39
2.46

2.40
2.46

2.40
2.44

2.43
2.44

2.42
2.43

2.38
2.43

2.37
2.43

2.36
2.41

2. 35
2.41

2.30
2.40

2.29
2.36

2.21
2.31

3.02

3.01

2.99

2.98

2.97

2.96

2.97

2.95

2.96

2.97

2.97

3.01

3.01

2.91

2.81

3.29
2.69
2.82

3.28
2.69
2.81

3.26
2.68
2.80

3.24
2.68
2.80

2.23
2. 66
2.82

3.23
2.63
2.80

3.23
2. 64
2.82

3.22
2. 59
2.83

3.23
2. 62
2.80

3.23
2. 63
2.81

3.23
2.62
2.77

3.28
2.62
2.77

3.29
2.62
2. 75

3.16
2.54
2.69

3.04
2.49
2.63

2.76
2.56

2.77
2.57

2. 76
2.57

2.77
2.66

2.77
2. 55

2.76
2.56

2.75
2.54

2.74
2. 52

2.74
2.50

2. 75
2. 51

2.74
2.53

2. 76
2.52

2. 74
2. 52

2.68
2.49

2.58
2.45

3.06

3.07

3.09

3.07

3.03

3.00

3.01

2.99

2.98

2.99

2.99

2.99

3.01

2.91

2.83

745

0.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T a b l e C - l . Gross hours and earnings of production w orkers,1 b y industry— C ontinued

Mar.2
Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods—Continued
Fabricated metal products__________
Metal cans____________________
Cutlery, handtools, and general
hardware___________________
Heating equipment and plumbing
fixtures.......................................... .
Fabricated structural metal prod­
ucts..................................... ......... .
Screw machine products, bolts, etc.
Metal stampings_______________
Coating, engraving, and allied
services_____________________
Miscellaneous fabricated wire prod­
ucts............... ............................... .
Miscellaneous fabricated metal
products____________________
Machinery___ _______ ____________
Engines and turbines___________
Farm machinery and e q u ip m e n tconstruction and related machinery.
Metalworking machinery and
equipment__________________
Special industry machinery______
General industrial machinery____
Office, computing and accounting
machines____________________
Service industry machines_______
»
Miscellaneous machinery________
Fabricated metal products__________
Metal cans.......................................
Cutlery, hand tools, and general
hardware____________________
Heating equipment and plumbing
fixtures_____________________
Fabricated structural metal prod­
ucts............................................
Screw machine products, bolts, etc.
Metal stampings..............................
Coating, engraving, and allied
services_____________________
Miscellaneous fabricated wire
products____________________
Miscellaneous fabricated metal
products____________________
Machinery__ _______________ ____
Engines and turbines..................... .
Farm machinery and equipment_
Construction and related machinery..
Metalworking machinery and
equipment__________________
Special industrial machinery_____
General industrial machinery____
Office, computing, and accounting
machines____________________
Service industry machines_______
Miscellaneous machinery________
Fabricated metal products__________
Metal cans____________________
Cutlery, hand tools, and general
hardware____________________
Heating equipment and plumbing
fixtures_____________________
Fabricated structural metal prod­
ucts................. ................... ...........
Screw machine products, bolts, etc.
Metal stampings_______________
Coating, engraving, and allied
services______ ______________
Miscellaneous fabricated wire
products_________ __________
Miscellaneous fabricated metal
products____________________
Machinery_____ __________________
Engines and turbines___________
Farm machinery and equipment...
Construction and related machinery.
Metalworking machinery and
equipment__________________
Special industry machinery______
General industrial machinery____
Office, computing, and accounting
machines_______ ____________
Service industry machines_______
Miscellaneous machinery________
See footnotes at end of table.


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

Feb.

Annual
average

1962

1963

Industry

Jan.

Dec. j Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings
$105.67 $105.26 $105. 78 $106.30 $105. 63 $105. 73 $106. 66 $105.32 $104. 30 $106. 75 $105.73 $104.39 $103.48 $100.85 $98.82
121.88 120. 88 122.29 122. 48 119.99 123.26 133.11 131.50 133.15 131.67 127.02 125.28 122.54 121.80 114. 68
102.00 101. 59 102.84 103.50 103.34 101.27 100.37
99.10

98.31

98.80

98.21

96.88

98.80 100.94 101.34 100.69

97.53 101.43 100. 70

98.09

96.08

93.93

93.03

97.27

96.14

96.62

94. 56

91.26

98.65 100. 78

104. 52 104.26 103.86 105.04 104. 75 106.19 107.38 107.49 105.37 106.40 105.37 105. 01 103.31 102.47 99. 47
106. 43 107.19 108.46 108.89 106.09 104. 75 107. 60 105.00 104. 75 105.58 105.33 105.65 106.32 98. 90 95. 58
113.15 112.74 113.01 113. 40 113.13 112. 56 112. 56 111. 45 109. 21 111.72 113.25 110. 92 110.24 105.01 107. 74
94.53

91.53

92.39

93.98

92.70

93.79

92. 55

90.94

91.62

95.57

94.02

95. 49

93.94

90.32

86.43

97.34

97.34

98.06

97.70

96.17

96.64

97.29

96.64

95.94

98.65

97.53

97.11

97. 53

94.48

90.50

104.86
115. 51
123. 82
113.71
113.44

103. 83
114.82
122.70
113. 58
113.44

104.49
113.98
120.58
112.07
112.75

105.41
114. 26
121.99
110. 84
112. 48

104.75
112. 75
120.80
108.94
111. 66

105. 41
112.61
120.80
108. 81
112. 75

105.67
112. 74
120. 80
107.87
112. 61

102. 51
112.32
119. 69
107. 33
112.88

100.15
112. 59
115.34
106. 67
113.42

104.30
114.09
120. 77
107. 46
113.42

102.72
114.09
121.06
107. 45
113.42

102.82
113.67
120. 54
109. 03
111. 78

101. 50
112. 71
118.61
109.15
111.90

100.19 96.96
107.16 104. 55
114.11 109. 69
103 46 99.85
106.52 102. 66

129.49 128.33 126. 58 126. 44 123.25 122.26 123.12 123.12 125. 86 128. 04 128. 48 128. 62 127.02 116. 90 117.27
108. 88 107.94 108. 71 109.06 106.43 106.43 108.38 106. 01 106.43 108.46 108.03 106. 42 106.85 101.43 99. 72
111. 38 111. 38 110.84 112.06 111. 52 111.79 111.38 111. 24 111.37 112.86 112.17 111.49 109.21 105.04 101. 71
114.90 114.21 113.81 114.09 112.84 112.31 113.68 111.78 114. 96 112.06 111.78 111.78 112. 75 111.24 106.23
102. 56 100. 90 100. 50 100.35 100. 75 99.94 100.04 99. 55 102.01 103. 57 99.87 100.04 98. 58 95.84 93.43
110. 83 109.62 110.66 112.14 109.72 109.82 109.39 108.29 108. 45 108.29 108.63 108. 54 107. 44 104. 00 101. 26
Average weekly hours
40.9
40.5
40.5
41.3
41.1
41.3
40.9
41.7
41.5
41.3
41.0
41.2
41.1
40.8
40.8
41.9
41.4
42.0
42.2
41.4
43.5
43.4
43.6
41.5
43.8
40.9
41.1
40.4
40.9
40.7
40.8

40.8

41.3

41.4

41.5

41.0

40.8

40.2

40.3

41.4

41.1

40.7

40.2

39.8

40.1

40.1

40.8

39.7

39.4

39.6

39.4

39.0

40.2
42.7
41.6

40.5
40.7
40.7

40.6
40.5
41.6

39.8

39.8

40.0

39.6

40.0

40.7

40.7

40.6

40.2
41.9
41.6

40.1
42.2
41.6

40.1
42.7
41.7

40.4
42.7
42.0

40.6
42.1
41.9

41.0
41.9
42.0

41.3
42.7
42.0

41.5
42.0
41.9

41.0
41.9
40.6

41.4
42.4
42.0

41.0
42.3
42.1

40.7
42.6
41.7

41.1

40.5

40.7

41.4

41.2

41.5

41.5

40.6

40.9

42.1

41.6

41.7

41.2

40.5

40.2

41.4

41.3

41.0

41.8

41.5

41.5

41.5

40.9

40.4

40.9

40.9

41.2

41.4

41.1

41.3

40.8
41.7
41.0
41.2
41.1

40.4
41.6
40.9
41.3
41.1

40.5
41.6
40.6
40.9
41.0

40.7
41.7
40.8
40.6
40.9

40.6
41.3
40.4
40.2
40.9

40.7
41.4
40.4
40.3
41.3

40.8
41.6
40.4
40.4
41.4

40.2
41.6
40.3
40.5
41.5

39.9
41.7
39.5
40.1
41.7

40.9
42.1
40.8
40.4
41.7

40.6
42.1
40.9
40.7
41.7

40.8
42.1
41.0
41.3
41.4

40.6
41.9
40.9
41.5
41.6

40.4
40.9
39.9
40.1
40.5

39.9
41.0
39.6
40.1
40.1

43.6
42.2
40.8

43.5
42.0
40.8

43.2
42.3
40.9

43.3
42.6
41.2

42.5
41.9
41.0

42.6
41.9
41.1

42.9
42.5
41.1

42.9
41.9
41.2

43.4
41.9
41.4

44.0
42.7
41.8

44.0
42.7
41.7

44.2
42.4
41.6

43.8
42.4
40.6

41.9
41.4
40.4

42.8
41.9
40.2

40.6
40.7
42.3

40.5
40.2
42.0

40.5
40.2
42.4

40.6
40.3
42.8

40.3
40.3
42.2

40.6
42.1
42.3

40.5
41.1
42.6

40.5
41.0
42.4

41.0
40.4
42.3

41.2
40.1
41.6

40.7
40.1
41.5

$2. 59
2.98

$2. 58
2. 97

$2.58
2.99

$2.58
2.98

$2. 57
2.97

41.5
40.5
40.6
40.4
40.8
41.3
40.5
40.3
42.4
42.3
42.2
42.4
Average hourly earnings
$2. 56 $2. 57 $2. 55 $2.55
3.03
3.04
2. 97 3.06

$2. 56
3.02

$2.56
3.01

$2. 54
2. 99

$2.53
2. 96

$2.49
2.90

$2.44
2.77

2.50

2.49

2.49

2.50

2.49

2.42

2.45

2. 45

2.41

2.39

2.36

2.32

2.44

2.44

2.40

2.34

2.53
2.43
2.58

2.45
2. 36
2.59

2.47

2.46

2.41

2.49

2.47

2.47

2.48

2.47

2.48

2.49

2.48

2.46

2.47

2.45

2.60
2. 54
2.72

2.60
2.54
2.71

2.59
2.54
2.71

2.60
2. 55
2.70

2.58
2.52
2.70

2. 59
2.50
2.68

2.60
2. 52
2.68

2. 59
2. 50
2.66

2. 57
2. 50
2. 69

2.57
2. 49
2.66

2.57
2. 49
2.69

2. 58
2.48
2.66

2.57
2.49
2.65

2.30

2.26

2.27

2.27

2. 25

2.26

2.23

2.24

2.24

2.27

2.26

2 29

2.28

2.23

2.15

2.34

2.34

2.36

2.35

2.34

2.35

2.31

2.24

2.38

2.38

2.38

2.36

2.34

2.34

2.35

2. 57
2.77
3.02
2. 76
2.76

2.57
2.76
3.00
2.75
2.76

2.58
2.74
2.97
2.74
2.75

2.59
2.74
2.99
2.73
2.75

2.58
2.73
2.99
2.71
2.73

2. 59
2. 72
2. 99
2.70
2.73

2.59
2.71
2. 99
2.67
2.72

2.55
2.70
2.97
2.65
2. 72

2. 51
2.70
2.92
2.66
2.72

2.55
2. 71
2.96
2.66
2.72

2.53
2.71
2. 96
2. 64
2.72

2.52
2.70
2. 94
2.64
2.70

2.50
2.69
2. 90
2.63
2.69

2.48
2. 62
2. 86
2. 58
2.63

2. 43
2. 55
2. 77
2. 49
2.56

2.97
2.58
2.73

2.95
2. 57
2.73

2.93
2.57
2. 71

2.92
2. 56
2.72

2.90
2.54
2.72

2. 87
2.54
2.72

2.87
2.55
2. 71

2. 87
2.53
2. 70

2.90
2. 54
2.69

2.91
2.54
2.70

2.92
2.53
2.69

2.91
2.51
2.68

2.90
2. 52
2.69

2.79
2. 45
2.60

2.74
2.38
2.53

2.83
2.52
2.62

2.82
2.51
2.61

2.81
2. 50
2. 61

2.81
2.49
2.62

2.80
2.50
2.60

2.78
2.48
2.59

2.80
2. 47
2.58

2.76
2. 44
2. 56

2. 77
2.47
2.57

2.76
2.46
2. 56

2. 76
2. 43
2. 55

2.76
2. 44
2.56

2. 75
2. 44
2.54

2.70
2.39
2.50

2.61
2. 33
2.44

746

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963
T

able

C -l. Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1963

1962

Annual
average

Industry
Mar.2

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

$98.16
104. 81
104. 33
105.15

$97.68
102. 72
103. 57
103. 72

$97.44 $96.39 $94. 47 $90.74
100. 50 99.70 101.00 97. 77
103. 32 101. 59 99.38 95.44
104.38 102.66 101.30 96.23

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings

Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods— Continued

Electrical equipment and supplies........
Electric distribution equipment__
Electrical industrial apparatus___
Household appliances___________
Electric lighting and wiring equipm ent__________________ _____
Radio and TV receiving sets_____
Communication equipment______
Electronic components and accèssories_____ _ . . ______ _____
Miscellaneous electrical equipment
and supplies..................................

$97.84
104.78
103.12
107.71

Transportation equipment__________
Motor vehicles and equipment___
Aircraft and parts___ _______ .
Ship and boat building and repairing__ _ . _____ 1________
Railroad equipment____________
Other transportation equipm ent...

123.85 123. 55 124. 74 129.73 128. 27 126.10 124. 49 119.19 121.93 121.09 121. 96 119. 97 118.69
128. 71 127.38 129. 63 138. 40 137.33 132. 24 131.02 121. 47 127.25 125.38 128.01 124. 66 121. 06
120.89 121. 76 122.64 123.94 123.09 122.80 120.38 119.11 118. 40 118. 56 118.14 118. 71 118. 58
119. 66 118.15 118.20 119.02 115. 49 116.06 116.35 118. 49 116.28 114. 74 113. 68 111.72 112.16
122.18 115. 44 118.48 115.15 114. 07 115. 63 118. 89 119. 99 118. 60 121.99 122. 70 120. 99 119.29
89.13 87.38 85.46 86. 51 83.85 88.07 88.78 89.01 86.24 89.24 87.33 87.91 82.18

$98.33
104. 25
104. 81
104.92

$97.93
102.91
103.48
104.14

$99.96
107.12
103.35
108.36

$98. 66
104. 75
103. 65
105.41

$98. 49
104.6C
103.07
105.67

$99.22
105. 22
103.98
105. 67

$97.20
102. 97
102. 41
106.08

$96. 72
103. 94
102.16
105.04

90. 52 90.29 90. 52 92.52 92.52 91.66 93.25 90.68 89.95 91.30 90. 45 90.68 89.02 87. 91
85. 97 86. 63 85.75 87.34 85. 67 87.64 89.76 87. 67 85. 75 87. 89 84.32 85.72 83.46 82.50
105.04 106.49 106.86 108.05 106.86 107.12 107.90 105.26 103. 94 105.47 106.66 106. 40 105.98 102.31
83.3S 82. 56 82.37 83.20 82. 80 82.40 83.02 81.39 80.58 83.03

84. 71
80.11
98.82

102.14 106.19 108. 94 110.30 107.33 108. 26 105.98 100.35 105. 41 105. 92 105.41 104.08 102.09

93.93

96.32

113.81 111. 52
115.09 115.21
115.09 110.43
110. 92 103.7S
108.39 107.86
83.71 80.13

Average weekly hours
Electrical equipment and supplies........
Electric distribution equipment__
Electrical industrial apparatus___
Household appliances... ________
Electric lighting and wiring equipment_______________ . . .
Radio and TV receiving sets_____
Communication equipment___
Electronic components and accèssories_____ . . . . .
___
Miscellaneous electrical equipment
and supplies____ ___________ _
Transportation equipment__________
Motor vehicles and equipment
Aircraft and parts__ . _____
Ship and boat building and
repairing_______ _____
Railroad equipment___ _____
Other transportation equipment__

40.1
40 3
40.8
40.8

40.3
40.4
41.1
40.2

40.3
40.2
40.9
39.9

40.8
41.2
40.7
41.2

40.6
40.6
40.8
40.7

40.7
40.7
40.9
40.8

41.0
41.1
41.1
40.8

40.5
40.7
40.8
40.8

40.3
40.6
40.7
40.4

40.9
41.1
41.4
40.6

40.7
40.6
41.1
40.2

40.6
40.2
41.0
40.3

40.5
40.2
40.8
40.1

40.2
40.4
40.4
40.2

f
39.8
40.4
40.1
39.6

39.7
38.9
40.4

39.6
39.2
40.8

39.7
38.8
41.1

40.4
39.7
41.4

40.4
39.3
41.1

40.2
40.2
41.2

40.9
40.8
41.5

40.3
40.4
40.8

39.8
39.7
40.6

40.4
40.5
41.2

40.2
39.4
41.5

40.3
39.5
41.5

40.1
39.0
41. 4

39.6
39.1
40.6

39.4
38.7
40.5

39.9

39.5

39.6

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.3

39.7

39.5

40. 5

40.4

40.3

40.2

40.2

39.5

39.9

41.0

41.9

42.1

41.6

41.8

41.4

40.3

41.5

41.7

41.5

41.3

41.0

39.8

39.8

41.7
42.2
41.4

41.6
41.9
41.7

42.0
42.5
42.0

43.1
44.5
42.3

42.9
44.3
42.3

42.6
43.5
42.2

42.2
43.1
41.8

41.1
40.9
41.5

41.9
42.7
41.4

41.9
42.5
41.6

42.2
43.1
41.6

41.8
42.4
41.8

41.5
41.6
41.9

40.5
40.1
41. 4

40.7
41.0
40.9

40.7
41.0
40.7

40.6
39.4
39.9

40.9
40.3
39.2

40.9
39.3
39.5

40.1
39.2
39.0

40.3
39.6
40.4

40.4
40.3
41.1

41.0
40.4
41.4

40.8
39.8
40.3

40.4
40.8
41.7

40.6
40.9
41.0

39.9
40.6
40.7

40.2
40.3
38.4

39.9
38.3
39.3

39.3
38.8
38.9

Average hourly earnings
Electrical equipment and supplies__
Electric distribution equipment__
Electrical industrial apparatus
Household appliances... ___
Electric lighting and wiring equipment_______ _______
Radio and TV receiving sets
Communication equipment__
Electronic components and accèssories_________
Miscellaneous electrical equipment
and supplies............... ........ ..........

$2.44
2.60
2. 54
2. 64

$2.44
2. 58
2.55
2.61

$2.43
2.56
2.53
2.61

$2.45
2.60
2.54
2.63

$2.43
2.58
2.54
2.59

$2.42
2.57
2. 52
2. 59

$2. 42
2.56
2.53
2. 59

$2.40
2.53
2. 51
2.60

$2.40
2.56
2. 51
2.60

$2.40
2.55
2.52
2. 59

$2.40
2.53
2.52
2. 58

$2.40
2.50
2.52
2.59

$2. 38
2. 48
2.49
2.56

$2.35
2. 50
2.46
2.52

$2.28
2.42
2.38
2.43

2.28
2. 21
2.60

2.28
2.21
2. 61

2.28
2.21
2.60

2.29
2.20
2.61

2.29
2.18
2. 60

2.28
2.18
2.60

2.28
2.20
2.60

2.25
2.17
2.58

2. 26
2.16
2.56

2.26
2.17
2.56

2.25
2.14
2. 57

2.25
2.17
2. 57

2.22
2.14
2.56

2.22
2.11
2. 52

2.15
2.07
2.44

2.09

2.09

2.08

2.08

2.07

2.06

2.06

2.05

2.04

2.05

2.05

2.04

2.03

2.00

1.93

2. 56

2.59

2.60

2.62

2.58

2. 59

2.56

2. 49

2. 54

2. 54

2. 54

2.52

2. 49

2.42

2.36

Transportation equipment______
Motor vehicles and equipment__
Aircraft and parts____ _____
Ship and boat building and repairing_____________________
Railroad equipment........ ........
Other transportation equipment__

2. 97
3.05
2.92

2. 97
3.04
2.92

2.97
3.05
2.92

3.01
3.11
2.93

2.99
3.10
2.91

2. 96
3.04
2.91

2. 95
3.04
2.88

2.90
2.97
2.87

2. 91
2. 98
2.86

2.89
2. 95
2. 85

2. 89
2.97
2.84

2.87
2.94
2.84

2.86
2.91
2.83

2. 81
2.87
2. 78

2.74
2.81
2.70

2.94
2.98
2.19

2. 91
2. 93
2.19

2.89
2.94
2.18

2.91
2.93
2.19

2.88
2.91
2.15

2. 88
2.92
2.18

2.88
2. 95
2.16

2. 89
2.97
2.15

2.85
2.98
2.14

2. 84
2.99
2.14

2.80
3.00
2.13

2.80
2.98
2.16

2. 79
2. 96
2.14

2.78
2.83
2.13

2.64
2.78
2.06

See footnotes at end of table.


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

747

O.—EARNINGS AND HOURS

T able C -l. Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1962

1963

Annual
average

Industry
Mar. a Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Sept.

Oct.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings
M anufacturing—C ontinued
Durable goods—Continued
Instruments and related products____
Engineering and scientific Instru­
ments_____________ _________
Mechanical measuring and control
devices______________________
Optical and opthalmic goods_____
Surgical, medical, and dental
equipment.....................................
Photographic equipment and sup­
plies.................................................
Watches and docks-........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing Indus­
tries........................................................
Jewelry, silverware, and plated
ware—.............. ....................... .
Toys, amusement and sporting
goods........................................... .
Pens, pencils, and office and art
materials.......... .........-..................
Costume jewelry, buttons, and
notions.......................... ................
Other manufacturing industries___

$101.59 $101.59 $100.28 $102.18 $101.76 $100.61 $100.61 $100.04 $99. 55 $100.94 $99.80 $100.04 $98.42 $97.27 $93. 73
119. 23 120.10 117.71 118.71 119. 28 119.00 118. 43 118.44 117.03 118.02 115.79 114.39 107.20 112. 48 110.95
101.50 100.10
93.24 93.02
84.40

84.40

99.14 101. 43 100.85
92.80 92.60 90.64

99. 79
91.30

98.80
89.84

98.98
88.78

99.23
87.29

98.98
90.27

98.74
89.01

98.82
89.87

98. 58
89.01

95. 91
87.33

92.00
81.80

85.47

84.42

85.89

85.69

85.27

86.31

85.47

85.27

84.24

82.21

80.40

83.37

85.05

116.05 117.03 115.08 118.02 119.14 115. 09 115.37 114.13 115.09 116.06 116.06 116.62 117. 74 111.61 106.14
83.53 83.74 82.29 83.13 83.82 83. 79 84.00 83.41 82. 95 84.00 83.16 84.00 83.39 80. 58 76.83
80.39

80.19

79.58

80.19

78.01

78. 60

78.60

77.42

77.03

78.60

78.60

78.80

79.00

75.84

74.28

87.82

86.37

87.20

93.04

90. 20

88.51

86.88

84.77

82.68

86.27

80.67

86.24

85.24

82.62

80.40

72. 76

73.34

73.15

71.44

70. 77

72.07

71.28

70.35

69.89

70.98

71.74

72.10

71. 74

70.17

67.73

76.82

78.59

76.44

76.76

75.98

75. 55

75.52

74.61

74.07

74.82

74.58

74.99

75.39

72.86

71.92

73. 63
86.62

72.65
85. 97

71.39
84.53

72.47
86.22

69.30
84.80

70.98
85.01

71.64
85.46

71.06
84.40

72.25
83. 79

74.07
85.03

72.72
84.02

73.02
84.23

72.98
84.65

68.60
81. 78

66.13
79. 99

Average weekly hours

Instruments and related products____
Engineering and scientific instru­
ments_____ ______ ______ ___
Mechanical measuring and control
devices...... ....... ............... ..........
Optical and ophthalmic goods____
Surgical, medical, and dental
equipment—...............................
Photographic equipment and sup­
plies............................................
Watches and clocks............... .........
Miscellaneous manufacturing indus­
tries.............. .....................................
Jewelry, silverware, and plated
ware.............................................
Toys, amusement, and sporting
goods....... ...................................
Pens, pencils, and office and art
materials_____ ______ _______
Costume jewelry, buttons, and
notions_______ ____________
Other manufacturing industries__

40.8

40.8

40.6

41.2

41.2

40.9

40.9

41.0

40.8

41.2

40.9

41.0

40.5

40.7

40.4

41.4

41.7

41.3

41.8

42.0

41.9

41.7

42.0

41.5

42.0

41.5

41.0

38.7

40.9

41.4

40.6
42.0

40.2
41.9

40.3
41.8

40.9
41.9

40.5
41.2

40.4
41.5

40.0
41.4

40.4
41.1

40.5
40.6

40.4
41.6

40.3
41.4

40.5
41.8

40.4
41.4

40.3
41.0

40.0
40.1

40.0

40.0

39.7

40.5

40.7

40.2

40.9

41.0

40.8

41.1

40.7

40.8

40.5

40.3

40.0

41.3
39.4

41.5
39.5

41.1
39.0

42.0
39.4

42.4
40.3

41.4
39.9

41.5
40.0

41.5
40.1

41.7
39.5

41.9
40.0

41.6
39.6

41.8
40.0

42.2
39.9

41.8
39.5

41.3
39.0

39.6

39.5

39.2

39.7

39.6

39.9

40.1

39.7

39.3

39.9

39.9

40.0

40.1

39.5

39.3

40.1

39.8

40.0

42.1

41.0

40.6

40.6

39.8

39.0

40.5

40.5

40.3

40.4

40.3

40.2

38.7

38.4

38.3

38.0

39.1

39.6

39.6

39.3

38.4

39.0

39.2

39.4

39.2

39.2

38.7

39.6

40.3

39.4

40.4

40.2

40.4

40.3

39.9

39.4

39.8

39.8

40.1

40.1

39.6

39.3

39.8
40.1

39.7
39.8

38.8
39.5

39.6
40.1

38.5
40.0

39.0
40.1

39.8
40.5

39.7
40.0

39.7
39.9

40.7
40.3

40.4
40.2

39.9
40.3

40.1
40.5

39.2
39.7

38.9
39.6

Average hourly earnings
Instruments and related products____ $2.49
Engineering and scientific instru­
ments.............................................. 2.88
Mechanical measuring and control
devices............... ............................ 2.50
Optical and ophthalmic goods____ 2.22
Surgical, medical, and dental
equipment-............ ....................... 2.11
Photographic equipment and sup­
p lies............................................... 2.81
Watches and clocks.......................... 2.12
Miscellaneous manufacturing indus­
tries........ ............................ .................
Jewelry, silverware, and plated
w are...............................................
Toys, amusement, and sporting
goods____________ __________
Pens, pencils, and office and art
materials____________________
Costume jewelry, buttons, and
notions........... ...............................
Other manufacturing industries__
See footnotes at end oi table.


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

2.03

$2.49

$2.47

$2.48

$2.47

$2.46

$2. 46

$2.44

$2.44

$2.45

$2.44

$2. 44

$2.43

$2.39

$2.32

2.88

2.85

2.84

2.84

2.84

2.84

2.82

2.82

2.81

2.79

2.79

2. 77

2. 75

2.68

2.49
2.22

2.46
2.22

2.48
2.21

2.49
2.20

2. 47
2.20

2.47
2.17

2.45
2.16

2.45
2.15

2.45
2.17

2. 45
2.15

2.44
2.15

2.44
2.15

2.38
2.13

2.30
2.04

2.11

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.09

2.09

2.10

2.10

2.09

2.08

2.04

2.01

2.81
2.08

2.78
2.10

2. 75
2.08

2.76
2.10

2.77
2.10

2.79
2.10

2.79
2.10

2. 79
2.09

2.67
2.04

2.57
1.97

2. 78
2.10

2.82
2.12

2.80
2.11

2.81
2.11

2.03

2.03

2.02

1.97

1. 97

1.96

1. 95

1.96

1.97

1.97

1.97

1.97

1.92

1.89

2.20

2.18

2.14

2.13

2.12

2.13

2.14

2.14

2.11

2.05

2.00

2.19

2.17

2.18

2.21

1.88

1.91

1.91

1.88

1.81

1.82

1.80

1.79

1.82

1.82

1.83

1.83

1.83

1.79

1.75

1.89

1.87

1.87

1.87

1.88

1.88

1.88

1.87

1.88

1.84

1.83

1.80
2.12

1.82
2.12

1.80
2.11

1.79
2.11

1.82
2.10

1.82
2.11

1.80
2.09

1.83
2.09

1.82
2.09

1.75
2.06

1.70
2.02

1.94

1.95

1.94

1.90

1.85
2.16

1.83
2.16

1.84
2.14

1.83
2.15

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

748

T able C -l. Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued

Mar.21 Feb.

A nnual
average

1962

1963

Industry

Jan.

D ec.

N ov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

Ju ly

June

M ay

Apr. j M ar.

1961

1960

A verage w eek ly earnings

Manufacturing—Continued
N o n d u r a b le g oods

Food and kindred products.„__
Meat products___ ________
Dairy products_______________
Canned and preserved food, except
meats...................... ....................
Grain mill products___________
Bakery products______________
Sugar_______________________
Confectionery and related products.
Beverages___________________
Miscellaneous food and kindred
products______ ____ _______
Tobacco manufactures____________
Cigarettes___________ ________
Cigars______________________
Textile mill products______________
Cotton broad woven fabrics_____
Silk and synthetic broad woven
fabrics____________________
Weaving and finishing broad
woolens____________________
Narrow fabrics and smallwares___
Knitting____________________
Finishing textiles, except wool and
knit_______ _______________

$93.73
100.30
97.90

¡>92.86 $93.15 $94.12 $93.52 $91. 21 $92.80 $91. 46 $93.66 $92.70 $92. 48 $91.13 $90.45 $89.16
98. 89 .01.66 L03.34 103. 58 L00. 86 .00.04 98. 42 .01.68 .01.26 100.60 98.09 96.43 97.58
96. 37 97.29 97.10 96. 64 95. 79 98.01 95.63 98.08 96. 54 95.63 94.53 94.53 92. 65

$86.30
94.83
89.68

75.22 73.83 73.50 72.36 70.88 72.96 79.07 76.00 75. 81 71.06 74.69 75.04 72. 56
102. 42 103.81 04.28 105.23 106. 65 104. 41 [05.33 '03. 51 L04.20 101. 47 99.01 99.39 98.95
90.97 90.91 90.29 92.11 93.20 91.71 93.48 92. 21 92. 89 92. 66 91.35 89. 65 89.20
108.50 107. 53 102.09 99.89 101.23 91.76 108.36 LOS. 88 111.02 L12. 40 L04.08 102.01 98.60
77. 81 76.64 76.04 77.59 77.18 78.14 79.71 77. 78 75. 86 76.82 76.63 74.68 75. 83
104. 54 102.05 101.39 104.01 103.88 103.46 105.30 104.30 107.94 104.81 103.02 101.75 100.98

71.04
99. 46
87. 64
97. 65
73. 23
99.85

68.71
94.15
83.81
93.70
69.34
96.72

87.13

83.95
64.94
80.29
53.86
63.60
62. 56

Miscellaneous textile goods.
Food and kindred products.
Canned and preserved food, except
meats_______________________
Grain miil products____________
Bakery products_______________
Sugar________________________
Confectionery and related products.
Beverages_____________________
Miscellaneous food and kindred
products____________________
Tobacco manufactures------------------ -Cigarettes___ _________________
Textile mill products_________ ____ _
Cotton broad woven fabrics_____
Silk and synthetic broad woven
fabrics______________________
Weaving and finishing broad
woolens_____________________
Narrow fabrics and smallwares___
Knitting______________________
Finishing textiles, except wool and

88. 41
74.10
90.00
55.85

89. 45
72.01
87.17
56.76

69. 46
67.65

89.68
75.65
91.77
56.06
69.12
67.49

68.38
67.24

68. 54
67. 57

69.03
85. 72
56.02
65.04
63.20

73.53

75.17

73.70

72.76

72.16

68.72

68.31

79.06
71.10
62.24

80.89
72.98
62. 56

80. 41
70. 93
62.24

78. 62
71.28
61.76

77.11
71.21
61.60

72.28
68.11
59.21

69.83
66.07
56.93

80.97
73. 69
63. 55
80. 67

79. 55
72.16
63. 24
79. 52

79. 79
70. 75
62.99
77. 74

79.00
71.81
63.29
78.31

74.70
72.04
59. 55
75.36

71.73
70. 62
58.05
73.60

41.2
41.5
43.1

41.1
41.4
42.5

40.5
40.2
42.2

40.2
39.2
42.2

40.9
41.0
42.5

40.9
40.7
42.3

41.2
45.7
41.1
42.7
38.9
42.0

37.4
45.3
41.0
42.9
39.6
41.1

38.5
44.2
40.6
41.3
39.5
40.4

37.9
43.4
40.2
41.3
39.1
39.9

37.4
43.4
40.0
39.6
39.7
39.6

38.4
44.8
40.2
43.4
39.8
40.1

38.6
44.2
40.1
44.2
39.4
40.3

42.8
37.2
38.6
35.6
40.6
40.6

42.3
38.4
39.7
36.9
41.1
41.0

42.3
38.4
39.9
36.4
40.9
40.9

42.3
38.0
39.3
36.5
40.7
41.0

42.8
37.7
38.4
37.1
40.8
41.2

42.5

42.4

37.8
39.2
38.0
40.6
40.6

39.0
39.5
37.6
39.9
40.0

38.2
88.0
37.4
39.5
40.1

42.8

42.5

43.2

42.6

42.3

42.2

41.4

41.4

43.2
41.1
38.9

44.2
41.7
39.1

43.7
41.0
38.9

43.2
41.2
38.6

42.6
41.4
38.5

41.3
40.3
38.2

40.6
39.8
37.7

41.1
43.3
41.4
40.9
41.4
40.4
42.7
42.3
40.4
41.0
40.6
39.9
41.5
41.1
41.0
41.8
A verage h ou rly earnings
$2. 23 $2. 22 $2.22 $2. 23 $2. 25
2. 44
2. 45
2.46
2. 44
2.43
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.29

43.0
41.0
40.8
41.2

42.9
40.2
40.9
40.7

42.7
40.8
41.1
41.0

41.5
40.7
39.7
40.3

40.3
39.9
38.7
40.0

$2.25
2. 43
2.25

$2.25
2. 44
2.24

$2. 25
2. 46
2.24

$2.18
2.38
2.18

$2.11
2.33
2.12

92.00
72.35
95.94
61.23

91.37
70.72
93.03
59. 82

91.38
68.04
89.38
59. 28

91.59

68.17
86.56
60.60

73.28
88.01
55.18

90.10
76.03
91.31
57. 50

68. 45
67.16

68.45
67.16

67. 54
65.27

68. 21
66.99

68. 21
66.99

74.99

74.47

74. 47

73.35

74.04

74.80
70.69
60.32

73. 67
70.07
61.82

74. 44
70. 07
61.99

76.80
71.45
62.15

77. 96
70. 76
62.08

75.48
72. 45
60.61
79.17

80.46
75.90
61.29
80.73

80.04
77.33
61.69
81.12

77.98
76.72
62.00
79. 73

40.2
39.4
41.9

40.5
40.5
42.3

41.1
41.5
42.4

41.2
41.6
42.2

76. 59 75. 26 76.04
75. 58 74. 45 71.10
61.85 62. 52 62.22
79. 32 78. 72 80.10
A verage w eek ly hours
42.0
41.2
40.9
41.8
40.5
41.5
41.0
41.0
43.4
42.2
42.5
42.8

37.8
43.4
39.9
41.1
39.7
39.9

37.1
43.8
39.7
41.2
39.3
39.4

37.5
44.0
39.6
41.5
39.4
39.3

37.3
44.4
40.4
45.2
40.2
39.7

37.5
45.0
40.7
45.6
40.2
39.8

38.4
45.2
40.4
40.6
40.7
40.1

41.4
45.4
41.0
42.0
41.3
40.5

40.0
45.4
40.8
42.2
40.3
40.9

42.1

42.6
36.3
36.7
37.1
40.0
39.9

42.7

43.2

43.6

43.3

38.5
39.1
37.7
39.8
40.4

40.1
41.0
38.4
40.5
40.9

38.9
41.0
39.0
40.5
40.7

40.1
37.8
38.6
40.5
40.7

43.1
41.6
40.1
38.1
40.2
39.8

42.7

37.2
37.7
36.9
40.3
40.3
42.4

42.4

42.4

43.1

42.8

42.8

42.4

91.36

91.81

92.45

68. 51
66.50

92.02
69.70
85. 51
58. 99
68.00
65.84

73.15
90.32
59.57
67.26
66. 66

75.39
95.53
59.14
68.45
67.49

73.35

73.35

73.35

76.86
69. 77
61.24

76.49
70.18
60. 59

75. 35
70. 69
59.57

80.14
77. 29
62.56
79.95

79.15
75. 83
61.69
79.73

40.4
39.8
42.2

72.91
88.22
57.93

90.50

42.6
40.9
38.8

41.8
40.8
37.4

41.4
41.1
37.0

41.1
41.1
37.7

40.7
40.5
38.4

42.4
42.7
40.1
41.0

42.1
42.6
39.8
41.1

40.8
40.7
39.1
40.6

42.8
42.4
39.8
41.4

42.8
43.2
39.8
41.6

Food and kindred products.._______ $2.32
Meat products_______________ _ . 2.52
Dairy products________________. 2.32
Canned and preserved food, except
1.99
meats______________________
2.36
Grain mill products____________
Bakery products______________ . 2.28
2.64
Sugar____ ___________________
Confectionery and related products. 1.96
2.62
Beverages________ ____________
Miscellaneous food and kindred
. 2.17
products____ __________
. 1.96
Tobacco manufactures________
. 2.34
Cigarettes_______________

$2.31
2.51
2.30

$2.30
2.51
2.30

$2.29
2.49
2.29

$2.27
2.49
2.29

1.99
2.37
2.29
2. 61
1.95
2.59

1.96
2.37
2.28
2.46
1.93
2.58

1.94
2.37
2.28
2.21
1.93
2.62

1.89
2. 37
2.29
2. 22
1.92
2.61

1.90
2.31
2.27
2. 26
1.92
2.58

1. 91
2. 32
2. 28
2. 58
1.93
2.60

1.90
2.28
2. 26
2.58
1.93
2.55

1.84
2.28
2. 26
2.60
1. 95
2. 57

1.90
2. 24
2. 20
2. 62
1.94
2.55

1.94
2.24
2. 25
2. 52
1.94
2.55

1.98
2.29
2. 23
2. 47
1.91
2. 65

1.94
2.28
2. 23
2.49
1.91
2. 55

1.85
2.22
2.18
2. 25
1.84
2. 49

1.78
2.13
2.09
2.12
1.76
2.40

1.57
1.70
1.65

2.16
1.92
2.33
1.59
1.70
1.65

2.15
1.90
2.31
1. 58
1.69
1.65

2.14
1.88
2.33
1.54
1.69
1.65

2.11
1.86
2. 34
1.57
1.69
1.65

2.09
1.70
2. 29
1. 57
1.69
1.65

2.12
1.70
2.32
1. 57

2.14
1.97
2.28
1.55
1. 68
1.65

2.13
1.98
2.30
1.50

2.12
1.97
2.30
1.54

1.68
1.64

2.14
1.80
2.28
1.56
1.68
1.65

1.69
1. 65

1.69
1.65

2.09
1.95
2. 29
1.53
1.68
1.04

2.09
1.91
2.27
1.53
1.68
1.64

2.05
1.77
2.17
1. 49
1.63
1.58

1.98
1.70
2.08
1.44
1.61
1.56

Floor covering_________________
Yarn and thread___ ___________
Miscellaneous textile goods______

_

Textile mill products______________ .
.
Cotton broad woven fabrics.
Silk and synthetic broad '
fabrics____ ________________ .
Weaving and finishing broad
woolens____ ________________ .
Narrow fabrics and smallwares... .
Knitting_______ _____________ .
Finishing textiles, except wool anc
knit_______________________ .
Floor covering_______________ .
Yarn and thread______________ .
.
Miscellaneous textile goods..
See footnotes at end of table.


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

40.9
40.5
38.5

42.2
41.3
38.6

42.0
40.8
37.8

41.7
43.1
40.0
41.1

1.73

1.73

1.73

1.74

1.74

1.74

1.73

1.73

1.73

1.74

1.73

1.72

1.71

1.66

1.65

1.83
1.71
1.62

1.83
1.72
1.62

1.82
1.72
1.61

1.82
1.72
1.60

1.81
1.73
1.61

1.82
1. 73
1.61

1.82
1.73
1.61

1.83
1.73
1.60

1.83
1.73
1.60

1.83
1.75
1.60

1.84
1.73
1.60

1.82
1.73
1.60

1.81
1.72
1.60

1.75
1.69
1.55

1.72
1.66
1.51

1.89
1.81
1.56
1.95

1.88
1.78
1.55
1.94

1.85
1.78
1.55
1.95

1.88
1.79
1.54
1.95

1.87
1.79
1.55
1.95

1.87
1. 78
1.55
1. 94

1.85
1.77
1.55
1.93

1.84
1.76
1.54
1.92

1.85
1.76
1.54
1.93

1.87
1.78
1. 55
1.93

1.85
1.76
1.55
1.93

1.86
1.70
1.54
1.91

1.85
1.76
1.54
1.91

1.80
1.77
1.50
1.87

1.78
1.77
1.50
1.84

749

0 —EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able

C -l. Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1963

Annual
average

1962

Industry
Mar. 2 Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings

Manufacturing—Continued
N o n d u ra b le goods—Continued
Apparel and related products----------Men’s and boys’ suits and coats—
Men’s and boys’ furnishings...........
Women’s, misses’, and juniors’
outerwear..... ....... .......................
Women’s and children’s undergarmerits__
Hats, caps, and millinery...............
Girls’ and children's outerwear----Fur goods and miscellaneous apparel........ —............... -.............. Miscellaneous fabricated textile
products__________________
Paper and allied products---------------Paper and pulp...............................
Paperboard__________________
Converted paper and paperboard
products_______ ____ -....... .
Paperboard containers and boxes..
Printing, publishing, and allied industries__________________________
Newspaper publishing and printing.
Periodical publishing and printing.
Books_______________________
Commercial printing________ _
Bookbinding and related industries.
Other publishing and printing industries.........................................

Oct.

$61.69 $60.82 $59. 64 $60.12 $60.62 $59. 95 $61.32 $62.16 $60. 76 $61.09 $60. 59 $60. 96 $61. 49 $57. 70 $56.45
73.48 72.93 71.57 73.13 72.54 71.57 74.09 73.89 73. 53 74.09 73. 50 72.17 71.39 67. 78 68.27
53.28 53.14 52.85 53.20 53. 77 53. 77 54.48 54.81 53.58 54. 95 53.58 53.30 53. 82 49.87 48.55
68.00

63.46

62.60

63.17 62.32 65.23

54.32
64.05
54.67

55.18
65.34
52.15

57.22 56.92
62. 46 63.68
53.61 53.35

57.07 56. 47 55.12 55.02 54. 77 55.39 55.69 53.87 51.91
66. 79 69.00 68. 26 65. 70 61. 60 66.07 68. 63 63.19 60. 54
54.72 55.69 55.63 56.30 54. 51 54. 36 55.94 52. 75 51.54

61.05

61.05

64.61

64. 79 63.89

64.05

62.59

62.29

63.70

63. 96
104. 49
114.06
116. 77

63.03
103. 82
113. 36
117. 64

61.38
103. 58
114.58
116. 59

63.96
102. 96
112. 75
115.58

91.52 91.10 89.60
97.13 94. 73 94.05

90.69
94.08

108.29
109. 99
115.83
101.18
110. 54
87.30

107. 62
110. 23
114. 62
100. 00
109. 87
85.31

63.71
104.13
115. 98
117.13
91.02
93.48
110.21
109.38
117. 27
104.23
112.79
87.78

59.81

63.34 62.53
103.21 103. 64
115.02 115.46
115.02 114.93

64.73 64.90
104.68 103. 28
115.46 114.23
119.08 115. 01

90. 58 91.43 91.94
92.34 91.98 94.24
108. 20
108.06
113.37
100.98
110.87
86.56

106. 88
107.10
106.92
100. 84
109. 52
86. 71

109.24
112.85
113.83
100. 04
111. 50
87.01

64. 68
103. 28
113. 45
113.45

90. 20 90.42
94.05 95.15
108.49
113.04
111. 83
97.64
110.37
85.19

107. 82
111.08
114.11
98.11
109.70
85.63

109. 62
111.38
118. 55
102.16
111.11
88. 53

67.16

65.74

107.34
109. 87
111. 95
98. 64
109. 87
84. 75

63.64

64.73

66.72 66.85

65.93

56.36 55.23
69. 75 67.12
55.39 55.85

61.61

58.76

61. 23 62. 47 62. 78 60. 86 58.74
63.71
101. 34
111.10
112.46

61.92
101.10
110. 85
112.46

62. 04
101 15
110. 93
112.01

61.45
99. 45
109. 69
109.44

60.48
95.37
105. 46
105.16

89.60 89. 40 88. 97 87.13 83.23
92. 74 91.88 92. 77 90. 47 86.10
107.90
110. 90
108. 58
101.75
109. 87
86. 36

107.90
110. 23
110. 15
99. 54
110.04
85.58

107. 42
107. 28
111. 44
101.68
110. 21
84. 92

105. 05
107. 38
110. 09
99.06
106. 20
82.13

102. 80
105.33
109.18
95. 82
103. 88
78. 87

115. 62 114.17 113.30 111.84 110.01 108.77 110. 21 109.35 110.11 110.11 109.16 110.88 111.84 108.19 106.37
Average weekly hours
35.5
Apparel and related products_______ 36.5 36.2 35.5 36.0 36.3 35.9 36.5 37.0 36.6 36.8 36.5 36.5 36.6 35.4
36.9
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats— 37.3 37.4 36.7 37.5 37.2 36.7 37.8 37.7 38.1 37.8 37. 5 37.2 36.8 35.3
36.5
Men’s and boys’ furnishings.......... 37.0 36.9 36.7 37.2 37.6 37.6 38.1 38.6 38.0 38.7 38.0 37.8 37.9 36.4
Women’s, misses’, and juniors’
33.2
outerwear.......................- ............ 35.6 34.7 33.4 33.3 33.6 32.8 33.8 34.8 34.6 34.4 34.8 35.3 35.0 33.3
Women’s and children’s under35.8
garments...................................... 36.6 36.1 35.5 36.3 37.4 37.2 37.3 37.4 36.5 36.2 35.8 36.2 36.4 36.4
35.2
Hats, caps, and millinery_______ 37.1 35.7 35.0 36.5 34.7 34.8 36.3 37.5 36.5 36.5 35.0 36.3 37.3 35.7
35.3
Girls’ and children’s outerwear___ 36.2 36.5 35.5 35.0 35.5 35.1 36.0 36.4 36.6 36.8 36.1 38.0 36.8 35.4
Fur goods and miscellaneous ap35.6
parel............................ ............... 35.7 35.6 35.7 36.3 36.4 36.3 36.6 36.6 35.8 36.4 35.6 35.9 36.5 35.8
Miscellaneous fabricated textile
37.8
products___________________ 37.7 37.7 37.0 38.3 38.4 38.5 38.3 38.2 37.2 38.3 37.7 37.3 37.6 37.7
42.2
Paper and allied products__________ 42.5 42.3 42.3 42 9 42.5 42.5 43.0 42.9 42.8 42.9 42.4 42.3 42.6 42.5
43.4
Paper and pulp_______________ 44.1 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.6 43.3 43.7 43.6 43.9 43.7 43.4 43.3 43.5 43.7
44.1
43.6
43.1
43.3
44.4
44.8
44.1
44.1
43.7
43.4
44.9
44.5
44.2
43.9
44.6
Paperboard___ _______________
Converted paper and paperboard
40.8
41.0 40.8 41.0 41.6 41.0 41.1 41.6 41.6 41.1 41.6 41.1 41.2 41.0 41.1
products_______ ___________
41.0
Paperboard containers and boxes... 41.0 40.5 40.7 41.7 41.8 42.1 42.6 42.1 41.8 42.0 41,4 41.2 41.6 41.5
Printing, publishing, and allied indus38.5
tries--- ------- ---- -------------- -------— 38.4 38.1 37.9 38.6 38.2 38.1 38.6 38.4 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.2
36.7
Newspaper publishingand printing. 36.1 35.9 35.7 37.0 36.7 36.3 36.4 36.3 36.5 36.5 36.6 36.5 36 0 36. 4
39.7
Periodical publishing and printing. 40.3 39.5 38.6 39.8 39.1 39.9 40.6 40.5 39.7 40.5 39.2 39.2 39. 8 39.6
40.6
Books_______________________ 40.4 39.6 39.7 39.7 38.9 39.4 40.7 40.8 39.3 40.0 40.7 40.3 41.0 40.6
39.2
Commercial printing...................... 39.3 33.9 38.7 39.4 39.0 38.9 39.4 39.2 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.3 39.5 38.9
Bookbinding and related indus38.1
38.5 38.3 38.2 38.5 38.2 38.4 39.7 39.5 38.7 38.6 38.9 38.9 38.6 38.2
trips
Other publishing and printing in38.5
38.4
38.5
38.7
dustries____________________ 38.8 38.7 38.8 38.7 38.6 38.3 38.4 38.1 38.1 38.5 38.3
Average hourly earnings
Apparel and related products----------- $1.69 $1.68 $1.68 $1.67 $1.67 $1.67 $1.68 $1.68 $1.66 $1.66 $1.66 $1.67 $1. 68 $1.63 $1.59
1.85
1.97 1.95 1.95 1.95 1. 95 1.95 1.96 1.96 1.93 1.96 1.96 1.94 1.94 1.92
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats—
1.33
1.44 1.44 1.44 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.42 1.41 1.41 1.42 1.37
Men’s and boys’ furnishings...........
Women’s, misses’, and juniors’
1.77
1. 91 1.90 1.90 1.88 1.88 1.90 1.93 1.93 1.90 1.85 1.86 1.89 1.90 1.85
outerwear..................... .............
Women’s and children’s under1.45
1.54 1.53 1.53 1.52 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.51 1. 51 1.52 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.48
garments__ _________ -______
1.72
1.88 1.88 1.83 1.79 1.80 1.83 1.84 1.84 1.87 1.80 1.76 1.82 1.84 1.77
Hats, caps, and millinery_______
1.46
1.52
1.53 1.54 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.52 1.53 1.52 1.53 1. 51 1.51 1.52 1.49
Girls’ and children’s outerwear----Fur goods and miscellaneous ap1.65
1.71 1.68 1.71 1.78 1.78 1.76 1.75 1.71 1.74 1.75 1.72 1.74 1.72 1.70
parel ____________________
Miscellaneous fabricated textile
1.60
1. 69 1.68 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.68 1.67 1.65 1.65 1.67 1.69 1.66 1. 65 1.63
products......................................
2 26
2. 45 2.44 2.45 2. 44 2.43 2 43 2.43 2. 42 2. 42 2. 40 2.39 2.39 2. 38 2. 34
Paper and allied products__________
2.43
2.6c
2.62 2.63 2.63 2.62 2. 62 2.61 2. 60 2. 61 2. 58 2. 56 2. 56 2. 55 2. 51
Paper and pulp___ ___________
2. 44
2.65 2.62 2.63 2.67 2.65 2. 62 2.63 2. 62 2.62 2. 58 2. 55 2. 55 2.54 2.51
Paperboard__________________
Converted paper and paperboard
2.04
2. 22 2.22 2.23 2.21 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.19 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.17 2.17 2.12
products___________________
2.10
2.28 2.28 2.26 2.26 2.25 2.26 2.28 2. 25 2.25 2.24 2.24 2. 23 2.23 2.18
Paperboard containers and boxes...
Printing, publishing, and allied indus2. 67
2.87 2.84 2.82 2.83 2.84 2.83 2. 84 2.82 2.81 2.81 2. 81 2.81 2. 79 2.75
tries___________ _______ ______
2.87
3.03 3.01 3.00 3. 05 3.08 3.06 3.06 3.03 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.02 2.98 2.95
Newspaper publishingand printing.
2.
75
2.
80
2.
78
2. 91 2.87 2.77 2.86 2.86 2. 86 2. 92 2.86 2. 82 2. 83 2. 77 2. 81
Periodical publishing and printing.
2. 3(
2.5i
2. 55 2.54 2.52 2.51 2. 49 2. 51 2.48 2. 51 2. 50 2. 50 2.47 2. 48 2. 44
Books
. ________________
2.
65
2.
79
2.
73
2.87 2. 85 2.83 2.83 2. 83 2. 82 2. 82 2.82 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.80
Commercial printing.. ________
2.07
2.28 2.26 2.27 2.26 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.21 2.19 2.21 2.22 2.20 2.20 2.15
Bookbinding and related industries.
Other publishing and printing in2. 77
2.98 2. 95 2.92 2.89 2.85 2.84 2. 87 2. 87 2.89 2.86 2.85 2.88 2. 89 2.81
dustries----- -------------------------

See footnotes at end of table.


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

750

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 3963
T able

C -l. Gross hours

and

earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued

1963

1962

Annual
average

Industry
Mar.» Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Manufacturing—Continued
N o n d u r a b le g o o d s — Continued
Chemicals and allied products______
Industrial chemicals___ _______
Plastics and synthetics, except
glass_____ ____ ____________
Drugs............................... .......... .
Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods__
Paints, varnishes, and allied prod­
ucts______________________
Agricultural chemicals___ ______
Other chemical products________

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings
$111.1C $1 1 0 . 8a $111.1( $112.11 $111.33 $110 95 $110 81 $110 1?
126.4C 126. ie 126.05 127.6£ 126.6£ 126.05 125. 52 124.0£

1 2 4 ! 8C 1 2 5 ! 1 C I 2 3 ! 78 123.48 122.43 120.93 117.31
110. 6£ 110.15 110. OC 111. 63 109. 8C 109. 5£ 110.24 110.24 111.41 112.52 109. 62 109.6S 108. 91 107. 74 104.17
100. 7C 100.45 100.85 100. 6C 100. IS 100. IS 98.1C 98.25 97. 92 98.88 98. 57 97.1C 96.87 93. 96 90.68
103.52 102.91 103.01 103.73 103. 98 103.48 105.32 103.98 103.7E 103.73 101. 5C 101.5£ 100.53 98.98 94.77
103.38 102.21 101.71 102.31 101.65 100. 75 101. 75 102.34 102. OS 104.25 105.00 102.42 100.04 98.25 95.65
90.4a 89.8S 89.8£ 90.52 89. 46 89.68 90.3: 86. 72 88. 2( 87.77 92. 57 87.12 85.80 84.15 82.37
104.6C 105.06 106.24 107.52 105.6« 105.57 106.17 105.08 104.42 104. 75 103.09 102.67 102.09 101.19 97.00

Petroleum refining and related Indus­
tries_____ ______ _____________ 129.02 126.36 130.62 126.99 127. 71 127. IS
Petroleum refining______ ______ 135.05 132.68 137.52 132.48 132. 57 130.88
Other petroleum and coal products. 100.10 98.60 102.5C 105.59 108.03 113.48
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products....................... ...................... 101.34 100.69 101.34 103.00 101.84 101.02
Tires and inner tubes__________ 129.36 128.32 129.52 134.55 132. 75 132.11

131.09 126.35 129.44 127.68 126.05 125.55 123.32 124.42 118. 78
135.2' 129. & 133. 5' 131.65 130. 60 129. 97 127.58 129.24 123.22
115.57 113.40 113.70 111.95 106.27 104. 73 103.49 102.10 99.26
101. 76 101.02 101.84 104. 58 101.19 99.63 98.25 96.72 92.97
131. 78 131. 7C 136.88 138.18 130.19 125.83 122.45 121.88 116.33
96. 4C 94.42 93.9C 98.05 96. 05 95.17 94.07 91.53 87.82
86.53 85.28 85.89 87.36 85.90 85.08 85.08 82.82 79.40

Other rubber products__________

Miscellaneous plastic products___

96.05
86.10

95.82
85.89

96. 29
86. 51

97.47
86.10

96.5£
85.26

95.30
85.48

Leather and leather products_______
Leather tanning and finishing____
Footwear, except rubber________
Other leather products_________

64.58
88.58
61.88
63.41

65.08
88.36
62.33
63.24

65.60
88.84
63.54
62.70

65.05
88.84
62.66
62.79

64.03
87. 78
60.67
64.05

62.63
88.44
59.30
61. 79

Chemicals and allied products_______
Industrial chemicals____________
Plastics and synthetics, except
glass____ ___________________
Drugs________________________
Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods___
Paints, varnishes, and allied prod­
ucts....................................... ..........
Agricultural chemicals__________
Other chemical products_________

41.3
41.6

41.2
41.5

41.3
41.6

41.7
42.1

41.4
41.8

41.4
41.6

41.5
41.7

41.4
41.5

41.3
41.1
40.6

41.1
41.0
40.2

41.2
41.5
40.4

41.8
41.4
41.0

41.3
41.2
41.1

41.2
41.4
40.9

41.6
40.9
41.3

40.7
43.9
40.7

40.4
42.6
41.2

40.2
42.4
41.5

40.6
42.1
42.0

40.5
42.0
41.6

40.3
42.5
41.4

Petroleum refining and related indus­
tries___________________________
Petroleum refining_____________
Other petroleum and coal products.

40.7
40.8
40.2

40.5
40.7
39.6

41.6
41.8
41.0

41.5
41.4
41.9

41.6
41.3
42.7

Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products.................................... ...........
Tires and inner tubes___________
Other rubber products__________
Miscellaneous plastic products.......

40.7
40.3
40.7
41.0

40.6
40.1
40.6
40.9

40.7
40.1
40.8
41.0

41.2
41.4
41.3
41.0

Leather and leather products________
Leather tanning and finishing.........
Footwear, except rubber_________
Other leather products__________

36.9
39.9
36.4
37.3

37.4
39.8
37.1
37.2

37.7
40.2
37.6
37.1

37.6
40.2
37.3
37.6

64.36
88.26
61. 6S
62.75

65. 53
87.82
63.67
62.37

65.84
85.89
64.46
62.21

65.88
88.70
64.01
63.08

63.98
88.29
61. 66
61.55

63. 81
86.80
61.32
62.37

65.36
85.57
63.17
63.20

62.83
84.35
60.15
61.07

60.52
81.74
58.04
58.62

41.5
41.6

41.8
42.0

41.8
41.8

41.7
41.7

41.4
41.5

41.4
41.7

41.3
41.6

41.6
41.1
41.1

42.2
40.8
40.7

42.3
41.2
41.0

42.0
40.9
40.6

42.0
40.8
40.8

41.9
40.7
40.7

41.6
40.5
40.9

41.5
40.3
40.5

40.7
42.6
41.8

41.1
41.1
41.7

41.0
42.2
41.6

41.7
42.4
41.9

42.0
45.6
41.4

41.3
44.0
41.4

40.5
42.9
41.0

40.6
42.5
41.3

40.7
42.9
41.3

41.7
40.9
44.5

42.7
42.0
45.5

41.7
40.8
45.0

42.3
41.6
45.3

42.0
41.4
44.6

41.6
41.2
43.2

41.3
41.0
42.4

40.7
40.5
41.9

41.2
40.9
42.9

41.1
40.8
42.6

40.9
41.1
41.1
40.6

40.9
40.9
40.9
40.9

41.2
40.8
41.4
41.4

40.9
40.9
40.7
41.0

40.9
42.1
40.3
40.9

42.0
42.5
41.9
41.8

41.3
41.2
41.4
41.3

41.0
40.2
41.2
41.3

40.6
39.5
40.9
41.1

40.3
39.7
40.5
40.6

39.9
39.3
40.1
40.1

36.8
39.9
35.9
37.9

36.2
40.2
35.3
37.0

37.2
40.3
36.5
37.8

38.1
40.1
37.9
37.8

38.5
39.4
38.6
37.7

38.3
40.5
38.1
38.0

37.2
40.5
36.7
37.3

37.1
40.0
36.5
37.8

38.0
39.8
37.6
38.3

37.4
39.6
36.9
37.7

36.9
39.3
36.5
37.1

Average weekly hours

Average hourly earnings
Chemicals and allied products...............
Industrial chemicals____________
Plastics and synthetics, except
glass________________________
Drugs_______ ________________
Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods___
Paints, varnishes, and allied prod­
ucts.................................................
Agricultural chemicals__________
Other chemical products_________

$2.69
3.04

$2.69
3.04

$2.69
3.03

$2.69
3.03

$2.69
3.03

$2.68
3.03

$2.67
3.01

$2.66
2. 99

$2.67
3.00

$2.66
2.98

$2.62
2.96

$2. 61
2.96

$2. 61
2.95

$2.58
2.90

$2.50
2.82

2.68
2.45
2.55

2.68
2.45
2.56

2.67
2.43
2.55

2.67
2.43
2.53

2.66
2.43
2. 53

2.66
2.42
2.53

2.65
2.40
2.55

2.65
2.39
2.53

2.64
2.40
2.55

2.66
2.40
2.53

2.61
2.41
2.50

2.61
2.38
2.49

2.60
2.38
2.47

2. 59
2.32
2.42

2.51
2.25
2.34

2.54
2.06
2.57

2.53
2.11
2.55

2.53
2.12
2.56

2.52
2.15
2.56

2.51
2.13
2.54

2.50
2.11
2. 55

2.50
2.12
2.54

2. 49
2.11
2.52

2.49
2.09
2.51

2.50
2.07
2.50

2.50
2.03
2.49

2. 48
1.98
2.48

2. 47
2.00
2.49

2.42
1.98
2.45

2.35
1.92
2.35

Petroleum refining and related indus­
tries___ ________________________
Petroleum refining..................... ......
Other petroleum and coal products.

3.17
3.31
2.49

3.12
3.26
2.49

3.14
3.29
2.50

3.06
3.20
2.52

3.07
3.21
2.53

3.05
3.20
2.55

3.07
3.22
2.54

3.03
3.17
2.52

3.06
3.21
2.51

3.04
3.18
2.51

3.03
3.17
2.46

3.04
3.17
2.47

3.03
3.15
2. 47

3.02
3.16
2.38

2.89
3.02
2.33

Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products________________________
Tires and inner tubes___________
Other rubber products__________
Miscellaneous plastic products.......

2.49
3.21
2.36
2.10

2.48
3.20
2.36
2.10

2.49
3.23
2.36
2.11

2.50
3. 25
2.36
2.10

2.49
3.23
2.35
2.10

2.47
3.23
2.33
2.09

2. 47
3.23
2.33
2.09

2.47
3.22
2.32
2.08

2.49
3.25
2.33
2.10

2.49
3.25
2.34
2.09

2.45
3.16
2.32
2.08

2.43
3.13
2.31
2.06

2.42
3.10
2.30
2.07

2.40
3.07
2.26
2.04

2.33
2.96
2.19
1.98

1.75
2.22
1.70
1.70

1.74
2.22
1.08
1.70

1.74
2.21
1.69
1.69

1.73
2.21
1.68
1.67

1.74
2.20
1.69
1.69

1.73
2.20
1.68
1.67

1.73
2.19
1.69
1.66

1.72
2.19
1.68
1.65

1.71
2.18
1.67
1.65

1.72
2.19
1.68
1.66

1.72
2.18
1.68
1.65

1.72
2.17
1.68
1.65

1.72
2.15
1.68
1.65

1.68
2.13
1.63
1.62

1.64
2.08
1.59
1.58

Leather and leather p r o d u c ts ......___
Leather tanning and finishing.......I
Footwear, except rubber_________
Other leather products_____ _____
See footnotes at end of table.


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

751

0.—EARNINGS AND HOURS

T able C -l. Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
Annual
average

1962

1963
Industry
M ar. 2

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Sept.

Oct.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings
Transportation and publio utilities:
Railroad transportation:
Local and interurban passenger transit:
Local and suburban transportation.
Intercity and rural buslines______
Motor freight transportation and
storage_________________________
Pipeline transportation...........................
Communication:
Telephone communication..............
Telegraph communication4...........
Radio and television broadcasting.
Electric, gas, and sanitary services-----Electric companies and systems__
Gas companies and systems______
Combined utility systems. -------Water, steam, and sanitary systems.

$117.94 $114.26 $118.21 $116.45 $115.33 $114.65 $112.02 $113.48 $112.41 $108.84
$100.98 $100. 91 $99. 42 $100.86 $100.62 $100.38 100.20 101.01 100. 49 101.48 100. 58 100.11 99.30 98.24 94.82
118.85 122. 97 125.12 116.33 117.73 119.14 125.65 129. 44 126.62 121.80 117.85 115. 37 112.61 112.14 105.22
114.26 113.98 111. 52 114. 54 113. 30 113. 30 115. 78 115. 35 114.81 114. 39 112. 61 112.06 110.70 108.16 104.17
136.34 138.63 138.58 139.52 131.78 130.07 135.05 130.09 137.37 133.50 130.17 129.85 130. 40 131. 78 124.63
100.69
107.12
131.20
119.72
120.13
112.20
129.37
97.58

101.09
108.05
131.93
120.01
119.43
113.44
129.68
98. 47

99. 94
108. 05
134. 30
119. 60
120. 42
111. 38
128. 64
97. 64

101.35
106.97
130.93
121.18
121.60
114. 40
130.94
96.70

103.07
105. 78
132. 78
119.48
119.89
111. 11
129.27
97.34

102.06
107.74
131.14
118. 78
120.30
110. 70
128.23
95.47

102.31
109.98
130.81
118. 94
120.06
111.51
127. 82
97.29

99.29
110.08
126.10
116.85
118.82
106. 92
125. 97
95.06

99.54
111. 11
127. 53
117.14
119.11
107. 73
125.87
96.59

97.66
111.28
124.68
115.87
117.14
106.80
125.26
94.37

96.14
108. 61
126.16
115.46
116.31
107.06
125.66
93.96

95. 65
105. 42
126. 81
115.46
116.03
107. 20
125.46
94.37

95.89
105.00
124.68
115. 34
117. 58
105.18
125. 46
93.09

93.38
104.08
119. 74
112.48
112. 75
104.19
121. 77
93.02

89.50
100. 01
121.13
108.65
109. 45
100.69
117.26
89.84

Average weekly hours
Transportation and public utilities:
Railroad transportation:
Local and interurban passenger transit:
Local and suburban transportation.
Intercity and rural buslines............
Motor freight transportation and
storage_________________________
Pipeline transportation...... ........... ........
Communication:
Telephone communication_______
Telegraph communication 4____ _
Radio and television broadcasting .
Electric, gas, and sanitary services___
Electric companies and systems__
Gas companies and systems............
Combined utility systems----------Water, steam, and sanitary systems.

43.2

41.1

43.3

42.5

42.4

43.1

41.8

42.5

42.1

41.7

41.9
41.7

41.7
43.3

41.6
43.9

42.2
41.4

42.1
41.6

42.0
42.4

42.1
44.4

42.8
45.9

42.4
44.9

43.0
43.5

42.8
42.7

42.6
41.8

42.8
41.1

42.9
42.8

43.1
42.6

41.1
40.1

41.0
40.3

40.7
41.0

41.5
41.4

41.2
40.3

41.5
39.9

42.1
40.8

42.1
40.4

41.9
41.5

41.9
40.7

41.4
40.3

41.2
40.2

41.0
40.0

41.6
40.3

41.5
40.8

39.8
41.2
39.4
41.0
41.0
40.8
41.2
41.0

39.8
41.4
39.5
41.1
40.9
41.1
41.3
41.2

39.5
41.4
39.5
41.1
41.1
41.1
41.1
41.2

39.9
41.3
39.2
41.5
41.5
41.6
41.7
40.8

40.9
41.0
39.4
41.2
41.2
41.0
41.3
40.9

40.5
41.6
39.5
41.1
41.2
41.0
41.1
40.8

40.6
42.3
39.4
41.3
41.4
41.3
41.1
41.4

40.2
42.5
38.8
41.0
41.4
40.5
40.9
40.8

40.3
42.9
39.0
41.1
41.5
40.5
41.0
41.1

39.7
42.8
38.6
40.8
41.1
40.3
40.8
40.5

39.4
43.1
38.7
40.8
41.1
40.4
408
40.5

39.2
42.0
38.9
40.8
41.0
40.3
41.0
40.5

39.3
42.0
38.6
40.9
41.4
40.3
41.0
40.3

39.4
41.8
38 5
40.9
41.0
40.7
41.0
40.8

39 6
42.2
38.7
41.0
41.3
40.6
41.0
41.4

Average hourly earnings
Transportation and public utilities:
Railroad transportation:
Local and interurban passenger transit:
Local and suburban transportation. $2.41
2.85
Intercity and rural buslines______
Motor freight transportation and
2.78
storage_________________________
3.40
Pipeline transportation_____________
Communication:
2.5c
Telephone communication_______
2.6(
Telegraph communication 4______
Radio and television broadcasting— 3.3i
2.92
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.........
2.9Î
Electric companies and systems__
2.75
Gas companies and systems______
3.14
Combined utility systems_______
2.38
Water, steam, and sanitary systems.
See footnotes at end of table.


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

2.73

$2.78

$2.73

$2.74

$2.72

$2.66

$2.68

$2. 67

$2.67

$2. 61

$2.42
2.84

$2.39
2.85

$2.39
2.81

$2. 39
2.83

$2.39
2.81

2.38
2.83

2.36
2.82

2.37
2.82

2.36
2.80

2.35
2. 76

2.35
2.76

2.32
2.74

2.29
2.62

2.20
2. 47

2.78
3.44

2.74
3.38

2.71
3.37

2. 75
3.27

2.7c
3.26

2.75
3.31

2.74
3.22

2. 74
3.31

2.73
3.28

2.72
3.23

2.72
3.23

2.70
3.26

2.60
3.27

2.61
3.09

2.54
2.61
3.34
2.92
2.92
2.76
3.14
2.39

2. 5c
2. 61
3.40
2. 91
2.93
2. 71
3.13
2.37

2.54
2.59
3.34
2.92
2.93
2.75
3.14
2.37

2.52
2.58
3.37
2.90
2.91
2.71
3.13
2.38

2.55
2. 59
3.32
2.89
2.92
2. 7(
3.12
2.34

2. 52
2.60
3.32
2.88
2. 90
2. 7(
3.11
2.35

2.47
2. 59
3.25
2.85
2.87
2.6'
3.08
2.33

2. 47
2. 59
3.27
2.85
2.87
2. 66
3.07
2.35

2.46
2.60
3.23
2.84
2.85
2.65
3.07
2.33

2.44
2. 52
3.26
2.83
2.83
2. 65
3.08
2.32

2. 44
2.51
3. 26
2. 83
2.83
2.66
3.06
2.33

2.44
2.50
3.23
2. 82
2.84
2.6]
3.06
2. 31

2.37
2. 49
3.11
2.75
2. 75
2. 56
2.97
2.28

2.26
2.37
3.13
2.65
2.65
2.48
2.86
2.17

752

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963
T able

C -l. Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
1963

1962

Annual
average

Industry
M ar.2 Feb.

Jan.

Deo.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings
Wholesale and retail trad e8__________
Wholesale trade___________________
Motor vehicles and automotive
equipment....... .......................
Drugs, chemicals, and allied prod­
ucts____ _____ ____________
Dry goods and apparel................
Groceries and related products..
Electrical goods_____________
Hardware, plumbing, and heating
goods______________________
Machinery, equipment, and sup­
plies.................. ..........................
Retail trade 1__ ____ ______________
General merchandise stores______

$76. 42 $76.42 $76.23 $75.47 $75. 65 $75. 46 $76. 05 $76. 44 $76. 44 $75. 86 $74. 88 $74. 31 $74. 50 $72.94
98.17 97.93 97.36 98.74 97.44 97.03 98.09 96.87 97.10 96.87 96.22 95.82 95.18 93.56
93.15 92.74 92.96 93.83 93.41 93. 86 93.86 93. 26 93.04 92.84 93. 46 92.84 91.98 89.46
100.00 99.75 98.40 99.45 99.70 98.80 99.94 97.84 98.09 96. 96 96.47 97.04 96. 24 94.24
91.72 91.96 91.10 92.58 92. 12 92. 74 93. 25 92.74 91. 99 91.37 91.85 94. 96 94.35 92. 86
91.43 90. 98 91.05 92.20 91. 96 91.30 92. 35 91.96 91.70 90. 49 89. 66 88. 60 87. 78 87.14
102.21 102.87 102.56 103. 48 102.97 102. 97 102. 91 100. 04 101.84 100.12 100.12 100.37 100.12 97. 53
93.96 93.50 94.66 95.30 94. 54 94.60 94.83 92.92 93.79 92. 57 92.80 92.03 90. 50 89.91

$70.98
91.13

106. 75 106.08 105.93 108.65 106.19 105.37 107.38 103. 98 103.66 106.04 104.14 102.75 101.84 101. 59
66.93 66.93 67. 30 66. 85 66.38 66. 55 66. 88 67. 55 67.38 66.85 65.98 65.42 65.39 64.01
52.86 52.51 52.86 54.06 51.68 52.67 53.48 53.35 53. 55 53.09 52.48 52. 29 51.75 50. 52
57. 29 56.45 57.46 58.06 55. 61 57.80 58. 82 58.12 58.12 58.13 57. 28 56. 77 58.07 55. 04
39.36 39.16 38.96 39. 56 38. 32 38. 20 39.15 40. 00 39.98 39.12 38.16 38. 44 38.96 37. 28
Food stores...... ..........................
65.42 64. 54 64. 91 64.95 65. 66 64. 94 65. 50 66.25 60. 43 65 16 63.88 63. 35 63.00 63. 01
Grocery, meat, and vegetable
stores_________________
66. 66 66.12 66. 69 66. 36 67. 45 66. 53 66. 95 67.71 68. 26 67.15 65. 86 64. 77 64. 77 64. 44
53.85 54.19 55.36 56.05 53. 54 53. 35 54.13 54.82 54. 87 54.13 53.35 52. 88 52.63 52. 40
64.03 64.78 66. 77 67.23 64. 06 64. 59 65. 45 66.70 67.44 64. 93 65. 65 64. 75 63. 44
Women’s ready-to-wear stores.. 48.19 48.38 49.35 50.05 48.10 48.05 48.33 48.23 48. 85 48.08 47. 57 47. 24 46. 84 84.67
46.24
Family clothing stores_______ 53. 50 53. 55 53. 94 54. 96 52. 55 52. 00 53.04 63. 58 53.64 53.04 51.60 51.83 50.69 51.
98
55.59 55.61 56.45 57.61 54.28 53. 77 56. 95 56.83 57.93 56. 28 55. 23 53.80 54. 94 52.81

09.80
62.37
48. 88
53. 09
35. 53
00.98

80.53
91.20
90.68
84.67
95.11
86.36

62.95
51.30
63. 29
44.41
51.01
52.33

Average weekly hours

Wholesale aDd retail trade 8___________
Wholesale trade_________________
Motor vehicles and automotive
equipment_________________
Drugs, chemicals, and allied prod­
ucts_________ _____________
Dry goods and apparel_________
Groceries and related products___
Electrical goods_______________
Hardware, plumbing, and heating
goods..........................................
Machinery, equipment, and sup­
plies______________________
Retail trade 8........................................
General merchandise stores______
Department stores__________
Limited price variety stores...,
Food stores..____ ____________
Grocery, meat, and vegetable
stores____ _____________
Apparel and accessories stores____
Men’s and boys’ apparel stores.
Women’s ready-to-wear stores
Family clothing stores_______
Shoe stores...............................

38.4
40.4

38.4
40.3

38.5
40.4

38.9
40.8

38.4
40.6

38.5
40. 6

38.8
40.7

39.2
40.7

39.2
40.8

38.9
40.7

38.6
40.6

38.5
40.6

38.6
40.5

38.8
40.5

39.0
40.5

41.4

41.4

41.5

41.7

41.7

41.9

41.9

42.2

42.1

42.2

42.1

42.2

42.0

42.0

41.8

40.0
37.9
41.0
40.4

39.9
38.0
40.8
40.5

40.0
37.8
41.2
40.7

40.1
38.1
42.1
40.9

40.2
37.6
41.8
40.7

40.0
37.7
41.5
40.7

40.3
37.3
41.6
41.0

40.1
37.7
41.8
40. 5

40.2
37.7
41.9
40.9

39.9
37.6
41.7
40.7

39.7
37.8
41.7
40.7

40.1
38.6
41.4
40.8

40.1
38.2
41.2
40.7

40.1
37.9
41.3
40.3

40.0
38.1
41.3
40.3

40.5

40.3

40.8

40.9

40.4

40.6

40.7

40.4

40.6

40.8

40.7

40.9

40.4

40.5

40.4

40.9
37.6
34.1
33.7
32.0
34.8

40.8
37.6
34.1
33.6
32.1
34.7

40.9
37.6
34.1
33.6
32.2
34.9

41.0
38.2
35.8
35.4
34.1
35.3

41.0
37.5
34.0
33.5
32.2
35.3

41.0
37.6
34.2
34.0
32.1
35.1

41.3
38.0
31.5
34.4
32.9
35.6

41.1
38.6
35.1
34.8
33.9
36.4

41.3
38.5
35.0
34.8
33.3
36.5

41.1
38.2
34.7
34.6
32.6
35.8

41.0
37.7
34.3
34.3
31.8
35.1

41.1
37.6
34.4
34.2
32.3
35.0

40.9
37.8
34.5
34.4
32.2
35.0

40.8
38.1
34.6
34.4
32. 7
35.8

40.9
38.5
34.7
34. 7
32. 6
86 3

34.9
34.3
36.8
33. 7
35.2
32.7

34.8
34.3
36.6
33. 6
35.0
33.5

35.1
34.6
37.3
33.8
34.8
33.4

35.3
35.7
38.2
35.0
36.4
33.3

35.5
34.1
36.4
33.4
34.8
32.5

35.2
34.2
36.7
33.6
34.9
32.2

35.8
34.7
37.4
33.8
35.6
33.5

36.6
35.6
37.9
31.7
36.2
35.3

36.7
35.4
38.1
34.4
36.0
34.9

36.1
34.7
37.1
34.1
35.0
33.3

35.3
34.2
37.3
33.5
35.1
32.3

35.2
33.9
37.0
33 5
35.5
31.1

35.2
34.4
37.1
33.7
35.2
33.5

36.0
34.7
37.6
34.0
36.1
32.8

36.0
34.9
37.9
33.9
36.7
32 5

$1.95
2.38

$1.94
2.37

$1.93
2.36

$1.93
2.35

$1.88
2.31

$1.82
2.35

Average hourly earnings
Wholesale and retail trade 8____________ $1.99
Wholesale trade___________ _______ _ 2.43
Motor vehicles and automotive
equipment__________________
2.25
Drugs, chemicals, and allied prod­
ucts________________________
2.50
Dry goods and apparel__________ 2. 42
Groceries and related products____ 2.23
Electrical goods________________ 2. 53
Hardware, plumbing, and heating
goods............................................... 2.32
Machinery, equipment, and sup2. 61
Retail trade..... ........................................ 1.78
General merchandise stores______
1.55
Department stores__________
1. 70
Limited price variety stores__ 1.23
Food stores____________________ 1.88
Grocery, meat, and vegetable
stores____________________ 1.91
Apparel and accessories stores____ 1.57
M en’s and boys’ apparel stores. 1.74
Women’s ready-to-wear stores.. 1.43
Family clothing stores_______ 1.52
Shoe stores____ ____________
1.70
See footnotes at end of table.


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

$1.99
2.43

$1.98
2.41

$1.94
2. 42

$1.97
2. 40

$1.96
2.39

$1.96
2.41

$1. 95
2.38

$1.95
2.38

2.24

2.24

2.25

2.24

2. 24

2.24

2.21

2.21

2.20

2.22

2.20

2.19

2.13

Z07

2. 50
2.42
2.23
2. 54

2.46
2.41
2.21
2.52

2.48
2. 43
2.19
2.53

2. 48
2. 45
2. 20
2. 53

2. 47
2. 46
2.20
2.53

2. 48
2. 50
2. 22
2.51

2.44
2. 46
2.20
2.47

2.44
2.44
2.19
2. 49

2.43
2. 43
2.17
2. 46

2. 43
2.43
2.15
2.46

2. 42
2. 46
2.14
2. 40

2. 40
2.47
2.13
2.46

2.35
2. 45
2.11
2.42

2.28
2.38
2.05
2.30

2.32

2.32

2.33

2.34

2.33

2.33

2.30

2.31

2. 28

2.28

2. 25

2. 24

2.22

2.15

2.60
1.78
1. 54
1.68
1.22
1.86

2.59
1.79
1. 55
1.71
1.21
1.86

2.65
1.75
1.51
1.64
1.16
1.84

2.59
1.77
1.52
1.66
1.19
1.86

2. 57
1.77
1.54
1.70
1.19
1.85

2.60
1.76
1.55
1.71
1.19
1.84

2.53
1.75
1.52
1.67
1.18
1.82

2. 51
1.75
1.53
1.67
1.20
1.82

2. 58
1.75
1.53
1.68
1.20
1. 82

2. 54
1. 75
1 53
1.67
1.20
1.82

2.50
1.74
1.52
1.66
1.19
1.81

2.49
1. 73
1.50
1.63
1.21
1.80

2. 49
1.68
1.46
1.60
1.14
1.76

2.44
1.62
1.40
1.53
1.09
1.68

1.90
1.58
1.77
1.44
1. 53
1.66

1.90
1.60
1.79
1.46
1.55
1.69

1.88
1.57
1.76
1.43
1.51
1.73

1.90
1. 57
1. 76
1.44
1.51
1. 67

1.89
1.56
1. 76
1.43
1.49
1.67

1.87
1. 56
1.75
1.43
1.49
1.70

1.85
1.54
1.76
1.39
1.48
1.61

1.86
1.55
1.77
1.42
1.49
1.66

1.86
1 56
1. 75
1.41
1.49
1,69

1 86
1.56
1.76
1. 42
1.47
1. 71

1.84
1.56
1. 75
1 41
1.40
1.73

1.84
1.53
1. 71
1.39
1.44
1.64

1. 79
1.51
1. 72
1.30
1.44
1.61

1. 72
1.47
1.67
1.31
1.39
1.61

753

O.—EARNINGS AND HOURS

T able C -l. Gross hours and earnings of production workers,1 by industry—Continued
Annual
average

1962

1963
Industry
Mar.*

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Sept.

Oct.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Average weekly earnings
Wholesale and retail trade «—Continued
Retail trade »—Continued
Furniture and appliance stores___ $80.79
Other retail trade_______________ 76.63
Motor vehicle dealers________ 93.96
Other vehicle and accessory
dealers......... ........... ........ ........ 81.03
Drug stores................... ............ 57.72
Finance, insurance, and real estate:
Banking___________ ______________ 74.23
Security dealers and exchanges..... ........ 116.01
Insurance carriers__________________ 95. 77
Life insurance__________________ 100. 68
Accident and health insurance____ 81.08
Fire, marine, and casualty in­
surance_____________________ 91.89
Services and miscellaneous:
Hotels and lodging places:
Hotels, tourist courts, and motels A 47.36
Personal services:
Laundries, cleaning and dyeing
plants.................. .................. ........ 50.95
Motion pictures:
Motion picture filming and dis­
tributing____________________ 118.86
Wholesale and retail trade »—Continued
Retail trade *—Continued
Furniture and appliance stores___
Other retail trade_______________
Motor vehicle dealers...............
Other vehicle and accessory
dealers___________________
Drug stores___________ _____
Finance, insurance, and real estate:
Banking................. ...................... .........
Security dealers and exchanges....... ......
Insurance carriers__________________
Life insurance__________________
Accident and health insurance___
Fire, marine, and casualty in­
surance_______ ______________
Services and miscellaneous:
Hotels and lodging places:
Hotels, tourist courts, and motels •_
Personal services:
Laundries, cleaning and dyeing
plants_______________________
Motion pictures:
Motion picture filming and distrib­
uting_______________________

$80.40 $82.21 $83.63 $81. 39 $80.38 $81.38 $81. 56 $82.17 $80. 54 $79.90 $79. 93 $79.71 $77.64
76.63 76.82 77.19 76.63 76.22 75.76 76.68 76.49 76. 54 75.76 75.17 74.57 73.57
92.87 92.43 93.96 95.05 93.08 90.48 93.07 93.73 94.60 93.73 92.64 91.33 88.44
80.91 82.47 81.84 78. 58 79.64 80.70 81.77 81.51 80.70 80.15 79.82 79.02 78.59
57.88 58.40 58.30 57.31 57.31 57.72 58.75 58.06 57.13 56.58 56.06 56.06 55.80

$74.98
71.57
87.91

74.03 74.23 73.30 72.72 72.54 71.97 71.80 72.56 71.80 71.42 71.62 71.62 69.19
119.10 117.26 116.09 112. 66 109.10 111.25 110.68 116.29 123.73 117.09 120.03 119.37 133.35
95.79 95.41 94.60 94. 26 94.07 93.76 94.35 94.89 93.21 93.25 93.20 92.62 89.83
100.64 100.98 100.14 99. 57 99.44 98.92 100.61 100.82 98.65 98.70 98. 55 98.00 95.11
81.53 81.77 80.20 79.14 78.20 78.45 78.30 77.97 78.00 78.42 78.34 78.34 74.41
91.82 90.56 89.68 89.58 89.44 89.27 88.50 89. 71 88.32 88.09 88.23 87.72 85.14

67.15
117.12
87.41
93.32
71.33

77.26
63.34

81.96

47.62

47.36

47.62

47.99

47.72

46.05

45.89

45.94

47.64

46.77

46.29

46.53

45. 54

43.89

50.42

50.69

51.08

50.70

50.83

50.83

50.83

50.70

51.35

51.87

50.83

49.41

49.28

48.11

119.41 120.13 124.01 116.99 120.82 120.01 117.50 115.37 114.19 111.97 115.92 114.57 116.45
Average weekly hours

113.69

40.6
41.2
43.7

40.4
41.2
43.6

40.7
41.3
43.6

41.4
41.5
43.7

40.9
41.2
43.6

40.8
41.2
43.7

41.1
41.4
43.5

41.4
41.9
43.9

41.5
41.8
43.8

41.3
41.6
44.0

41.4
41.4
43.8

41.2
41.3
43.7

41.3
41.2
43.7

41.3
41.8
44.0

41.2
42.1
44.4

43.8
36.3

43.5
36.4

44.1
36.5

44.0
36.9

43.9
36.5

44.0
36.5

44.1
37.0

44.2
37.9

44.3
37.7

44.1
37.1

43.8
36.5

44.1
36.4

43.9
36.4

44.4
37.2

44.4
37.3

37.3

37.2

37.3

37.4

37.1

37.2

37.1

37.2

37.4

37.2

37.2

37.3

37.3

37.0

37.1

38.5

38.4

38.5

38.4

38.7

38.8

38.7

39.9

39.6

39.7

39.3

38.9

39.1

39.6

39.9

38.6

38.2

38.4

38.7

38.7

39.1

39.1

39.1

39.3

39.5

39.9

39.4

38.6

38.8

38.8

f

Average hourly earnings
Wholesale and retail trade »—Continued
Retail trade »—Continued
Furniture and appliance stores___ $ 1.99 $ 1.99
Other retail trade
1.86
1.86
2.13
Motor vehicle dealers
2.15
Other vehicle and accessory
1.86
dealers__________________ 1.85
1.59
1.59
Drug stores________________
Finance, insurance, and real estate:
1.99
Banking....... ... ........................................ 1.99

Services and miscellaneous:
Hotels and lodging places:
Hotels, tourist courts, and motels «_ 1.23
Personal services:
Laundries, cleaning and dyeing
plants
1.32
Motion pictures:
Motion picture filming and distrib-

$2.02
1.86
2.12

$2.02
1.86
2.15

$1.99
1.86
2.18

$1.97
1.85
2.13

$1.98
1.83
2.08

$1.97
1.83
2.12

$1.98
1.83
2.14

$1.95
1.84
2.15

$1.93
1.83
2.14

$1.94
1.82
2.12

$1.93
1.81
2.09

$1.88
1.76
2.01

$1.82
1.70
1.98

1.87
1.60

1.86
1.58

1.79
1. 57

1.81
1.57

1.83
1.56

1.85
1.55

1.84
1. 54

1.83
1.54

1.83
1.55

1.81
1.64

1.80
1.54

1.77
1.50

1.74
1.43

1.99

1.96

1.96

1.95

1.94

1.93

1.94

1.93

1.92

1.92

1.92

1.87

1.81

1.24

1.23

1.24

1.24

1.23

1.19

1.15

1.16

1.20

1.19

1.19

1.19

1.15

1.10

1.32

1.32

1.32

1.31

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.29

1.30

1.30

1.29

1.28

1.27

1.24

»^ForScomparability of data with those published in issues prior to Decem­
ber 1961, see footnote 1, table A-2. For employees covered, see footnote 1,
table,A-3.
3Preliminary.
* Based upon monthly data summarized in the M-300 report by the Inter­
state Commerce Commission, which relate to all employees who received pay
during the month, except executives, officials, and staff assistants (ICO
Group D.

6S6133—(ÎÏÏ

10


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

4 Data relate to nonsupervlsory employees except messengers.
» Excludes eating and drinking places.
• Money payments only, additional value of board, room, uniforms, and
tips not Included.

S ouece: TJ.8. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for aU
series except that for Class I railroads. (See footnote 3.)

754
T able

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

C-2. Average weekly hours, seasonally adjusted, of production workers in selected industries1
1962

1963

Industry division and group
Mar.J

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

M in in g ....................................................................................

40.8

41.6

41.3

40.6

41.1

41.1

41.3

41.2

40.9

40.6

41.0

41.5

41.3

Contract construction...................... .....................................

37.6

36.6

36.5

35.4

37.3

37.2

37.7

37.3

37.4

36.7

37.5

36.6

37.3

Manufacturing.........................................................................

40.4

40.3

40.2

40.3

40.4

40.1

40.5

40.2

40.5

40.5

40.6

40.8

40.5

Durable goods.................................................................
Ordnance and accessories........ ........ ............. ...........
Lumber and wood products except furniture.........
Furniture and fixtures................. ...........................
Stone, clay and glass products_________________
Primary metal industries..........................................
Fabricated metal products........................................
Machinery..................................................................
Electrical equipment and supplies.......... ................
Transportation equipment.......................................
Instruments and related products........................ .
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.................

41.0
41.0
39.5
40.4
41.2
40.6
41.2
41.5
40.3
41.7
40.9
39.6

41.0
41.5
40.1
40.6
40.7
40.7
41.3
41.7
40.5
41.9
41.0
39.7

40.7
41.2
40.0
40.5
40.4
40.2
41.2
41.6
40.3
41.6
40.6
39.4

41.1
41.6
39.7
40.4
40.5
40.2
40.8
41.6
40.3
42.3
41.2
39.5

41.1
41.4
39.7
40.6
40.9
40.1
41.3
41.7
40.5
42.9
40.9
39.3

40.7
41.1
39.4
40.5
41.0
39.7
41.1
41.5
40.5
42.2
40.7
39.4

41.0
41.2
40.2
40.8
41.3
39.9
41.0
41.7
40.6
42.4
40.8
40.0

40.9
41.4
40.3
40.5
41.2
39.7
41.0
41.9
40.5
41.5
41.0
39.7

41.0
40.9
40.4
40.6
41.4
39.6
41.1
41.8
40.7
42.1
40.8
39.8

41.0
41.5
39.6
41.3
41.0
39.6
41.4
41.8
40.7
41.9
41.1
39.9

41.1
41.3
40.2
41.3
41.2
39.9
41.3
41.9
40.7
42.2
41.1
40.1

41.3
41.8
39.7
41.5
41.1
40.9
41.5
42.0
41.1
42.1
41.2
40.3

41.0
41.5
39.3
40.9
40.9
40.9
41.3
41.7
40.7
41.5
40.6
40.1

Nondurable goods....... ..................... ...............................
Food and kindred products.... ........ ................... .
Tobacco manufactures...............................................
Textile mill products________________ ___ _ . .
Apparel and related products_________________
Paper and allied products....... .................................
Printing, publishing and allied industries...............
Chemicals and allied products...... .........................
Petroleum refining and related Industries...........
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products............
Leather and leather products....... ............................

39.8
41.1
39.1
40.4
36.6
42.7
38.4
41.4
40.9
41.1
36.8

39.5
40.9
37.5
40.1
36.1
42.7
38.3
41.4
41.0
41.0
36.8

39.4
40.7
38.5
40.0
35.8
42.5
38.1
41,3
41.8
40.9
36.8

39.6
40.9
39.0
40.2
36.4
42.8
38.3
41.4
41.9
41.0
37.4

39.4
41.0
39.4
39.9
36.1
42.5
38.1
41.4
41.6
40.9
36.9

39.3
40.7
38.7
40.0
35.8
42.2
37.9
41.5
41.8
40.6
36.9

39.7
41.1
39.5
40.3
36.4
42.6
38.3
41.5
42.1
41.0
37.8

39.4
40.7
37.4
40.3
36.1
42.5
38.3
41.5
41.7
40.5
37.5

39.8
41.6
37.1
40. 7
36.4
42.7
38.3
41.5
41.7
40.5
37.6

40.0
41.1
37.9
41.0
36.8
42.8
38.4
41.6
41.7
41.5
38.0

40.1
41.3
38.6
41.3
36.6
42.6
38.4
41.7
41.6
41.5
38.0

40.2
41.2
39.6
41.5
37.1
42.7
38.6
41.7
41.3
41.8
38.6

39.9
40.9
39.6
40.9
36.7
42.7
38.5
41.5
40.9
41.0
37.9

Wholesale and retail trade 8........... ........................................
Wholesale trade......... ................. ....................................
Retail trade 8................................. ................... ............. .

38.6
40.6
37.8

38.7
40.5
37.9

38.7
40.4
37.8

38.7
40.6
38.0

38.7
40.6
37.9

38.6
40.5
37.8

38.7
40.6
38.0

38.7
40.6
37.9

38.7
40.6
37.9

38.7
40.7
37.9

38.8
40.7
38.0

38.7
40.8
37.8

38.8
40.7
38.0

i For employees covered, see footnote 1, table A-3.
8 Preliminary.
8 Excludes eating and drinking places.

T able

Apr.

Mar.

N ote: The seasonal adjustment method used is described in “New
Seasonal Adjustment Factors for Labor Force Components,” Monthly Labor
Review, August 1960, pp. 822-827.
x

C-3. Average hourly earnings excluding overtime of production workers in manufacturing, by
major industry group 1
1962

1963

Annual
average

Major industry group
Mar.8 Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Manufacturing...................... ...................... $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.35
Durable goods_____________________
Ordnance and accessories....................
Lumber and wood products except
furniture______________________
Furniture and fixtures_____________
Stone, clay, and glass products.............
Primary metal industries____ ______
Fabricated metal products....................
Machinery______________________
Electrical equipment and supplies___
Transportation equipment_________
Instruments and related products____
Miscellaneous manufacturing IndusNondurable goods__________________
Food and kindred products_________
Tobacco manufactures........................
Textile mill products______________
Apparel and related products_______
Paper and allied products....................
Printing, publishing, and allied indus­
tries............................ .....................
Chemicals and allied products_______
Petroleum refining and related indus­
tries__________________________
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products__________ ___________
Leather and leather products_______

Nov.

Sept. Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

$2.31

$2.29

$2.31

$2.31

$2.31

$2.31

$2.31

$2.25

$2.20

2. 53
2.83

2.53
2.82

2.52
2.81

2.52
2.78

2.50
2.78

2.48
2. 76

2.48
2. 77

2.46
2. 75

2. 47
2. 75

2.47
2.76

2.47
2.76

2.48
2.76

2.48
2. 75

2.42
2.71

2.36
2.60

1.88
1. 91
2. 36
2. 93
2.50
2.66
2.39
2.87
2.42

1. 89
1.90
2.36
2.92
2.50
2.66
2.39
2.86
2.42

1.89
1.90
2. 36
2.91
2.49
2.65
2.38
2.86
2.40

1.92
1.90
2.36
2. 90
2.49
2.65
2.38
2. 86
2.40

1.93
1.89
2.35
2.89
2.48
2. 64
2.36
2.84
2. 40

1.91
1.89
2.33
2.89
2.47
2.63
2.35
2.83
2.39

1.93
1.88
2.33
2.89
2.48
2.62
2.35
2.83
2 38

1.91
1.88
2.32
2.88
2. 46
2.60
2.33
2.80
2.37

1.91
1.88
2.32
2.88
2.47
2.60
2.34
2.80
2.37

1. 91
1.88
2.32
2. 88
2. 46
2. GO
2.34
2.78
2.37

1.89
1.89
2.30
2.89
2.47
2.60
2.34
2. 78
2.38

1.90
1.88
2.31
2.92
2.46
2.60
2.34
2. 77
2.37

1.87
1.88
2.30
2.92
2.45
2. 59
2.32
2.77
2.36

1.88
1.86
2.25
2.84
2.42
2.54
2.30
2.72
2.32

1.82
1.82
2.20
2.75
2.36
2.47
2.23
2.65
2.26

$2,33 $2.32

1.97

1.98

1.98

1.96

1.92

1.91

1.90

1.90

1.92

1.91

1.91

1.92

1.92

1.87

1.84

2.14
2.24
1.94
1.64
1.66
2.33

2.13
2.23
1.91
1.64
1.65
2. 33

2.14
2.22
1.88
1.63
1.66
2. 33

2.12
2.20
1.85
1.63
1.64
2.32

2.11
2.17
1.83
1. 63
1.64
2.31

2.10
2.15
1.68
1.63
1.64
2.31

2.10
2.13
1.67
1.62
1.65
2.30

2.09
2.13
1.78
1.62
1.64
2.30

2.10
2.13
1.95
1.62
1.63
2.29

2.10
2.16
1.96
1.62
1.62
2.28

2.09
2.16
1.95
1.62
1.63
2.27

2.09
2.17
1.93
1.62
1.64
2.27

2.09
2.17
1.88
1.61
1.65
2.27

2.05
2.09
1.74
1. 57
1.61
2.23

1.99
2.02
1.67
1.56
1.56
2.15

(3)

2.61

(3)

(3)

2.62

2.62

3.10

3.06

3.07

2. 40
1.72

2.40
1.70

.41
1.71

(«)

2.62

m

(8)

(31

2. 61

2.60

2.59

2.99

2.98

2.96

2.41
1.70

2.39
1.71

2.38
1.70

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to Decem­
ber 1961, see footnote 1, table A-2. For employees covered, see footnote 1,
table A-3. Average hourly earnings excluding overtime are derived by as­
suming that overtime hours are paid for at the rate of time and one-half.


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

Oct.

(3)

i8)

i8)

(3)

(*)

(8)

(»)

(*)

2. 59

2.58

2.57

2. 54

2.53

2.53

2.51

2.43

2.96

2. 95

2.97

2.95

2.95

2.97

2.97

2.94

2.82

2.38
1.70

2.38
1.69

2.40
1.68

2.38
1.69

2.36
1.69

2.35
1.69

2.34

2.32
1.65

2.26
1.61

1.68

8 Preliminary.
8 Not available because average overtime rates are significantly above
time and one-half. Inclusion of data for the group in the nondurable goods
total has little effect.

755

O.—EARNINGS AND HOURS

T able C-4. Average overtime hours of production workers in manufacturing, by industry 1
Annual
average

1962

1963
Industry

Manufacturing.............................................
Durable goods----------------------------Nondurable goods________________

Mar.* Feb.

Jan.

Dee.

Nov.

Oet.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

I960

2.6
2.7
2.6

2.5
2.6
2.5

2.5
2.6
2.4

2.9
3.1
2.7

2.9
3.0
2.8

2.8
2.9
2.7

3.0
3.1
2.9

2.8
2.8
2.7

2.8
2.8
2.8

2.9
3.0
2.9

2.8
2.8
2.8

2.7
2.7
2.6

2.6
2.7
2.6

2.4
2.3
2.5

2.4
2.4
2.5

2.1
1.7
2.0
2.5

2.4
2.4
2.2
2.6

2.7
2.4
2.9
2.9

3.1
2.7
4.0
2.9

2.6
2.0
3.4
2.7

2.4
2.1
2.8
2.5

2.2
1.7
2.7
2.5

2.2
1.9
2.8
2.1

2.3
2.0
3.0
2.2

2.1
1.8
2.4
2.4

2.1
1.9
2.4
2.2

2.5
2.0
3.1
2.6

2.4
1.6
3.2
2.7

1.9
1.6
2.2
2.1

2.0
1.7
2.7
1.8

2.9
2.9

2.9
2.9

2.8
2.9

3.0
2.9

2.9
2.9

3.2
3.2

3.8
3.6

3.7
3.6

3.5
3.4

3.5
3.4

3.3
3.5

3.0
3.0

2.8
2.7

2.9
2.9

2.9
3.0

3.3
2.6
2.8
2.5
2.8
1.7
1.4
2.0
3.0
1.2
3.4
1.9
2.7
1.8
4.5
2.6
2.5
1.8
3.5
2.9

3.0
2.2
2.7
2.5
2.7
1.8
1.7
2.0
2.7
1.5
3.3
1.7
2.5
1.6
3.6
2.5
2.4
1.5
3.6
2.8

2.8
1.9
2.5
2.5
2.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.7
1.5
3.3
1.6
2.4
1.7
3.5
2.3
2.3
1.3
3.1
2.8

3.3
2.4
2.7
3.3
3.7
2.2
1.6
2.9
2.9
1.8
3.8
1.3
2.5
1.9
3.8
2.4
2.3
1.1
3.5
2.9

3.2
2.5
2.7
3.0
3.2
1.6
2.5
2.9
3.4
2.2
3.6
1.7
2.9
2.1
5.0
2.7
2.1
1.0
3.0
2.8

3.2
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.4
2.0
3.7
2.8
3.7
1.5
3.5
1.8
3.0
2.3
6.0
2.7
2.0
.9
2.9
2.3

3.8
3.2
3.1
3.4
3.4
2.4
4.6
3.2
3.9
2.0
3.4
2.3
3.1
2.0
6.4
2.9
2.2
1.3
2.7
3.0

3.7
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.2
2.0
4.0
3.4
3.9
1.6
3.4
2.1
3.2
2.1
6.7
2.8
1.9
.9
2.5
3.1

3.5
4.0
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.4
3.6
2.6
3.8
1.8
3.8
2.1
3.2
1.7
6.3
2.7
2.0
1.1
2.8
2.6

3.5
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.1
2.4
3.6
3.0
3.7
1.6
3.7
1.8
2.9
1.6
6.3
2.9
2.3
1.1
3.4
2.9

3.4
3.3
3.0
2.5
2.6
1.7
2.8
2.4
3.6
1.3
3.5
1.9
3.2
1.2
6.2
2.8
2.0
1.0
3.2
2.3

3.3
2.9
3.1
2.7
2.9
1.8
2.2
2.4
3.2
1.0
3.3
1.6
2.8
1.3
5.2
2.6
2.3
1.7
2.8
2.2

3.0
2.8
3.1
2.7
2.9
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.8
1.4
3.4
1.4
2.6
1.6
4.1
2.4
2.5
2.0
3.0
2.3

2.8
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.4
2.5
3.1
2.1
3.6
1.5
2.7
1.5
5.0
2.3
1.9
1.3
2.1
2.5

2.6
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.7
3.1
2.4
3.6
1.6
2.7
1.5
4.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
2.1
3.0

3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6

3.3
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.5

3.5
3.2
3.3
2.7
2.7

3.9
3.3
3.8
2.9
2.4

3.8
2.9
3.2
3.0
2.5

3.4
2.9
3.2
3.0
2.8

3.7
3.0
3.5
3.3
4.9

3.2
2.6
2.9
3.1
4.3

3.3
2.8
2.7
2.9
4.7

4.1
3.2
3.4
3.1
4.0

3.4
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.5

3.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.4

3.6
2.9
3.3
2.6
3.0

3.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
3.2

2.4
2.3
2.3
2.6
2.8

2.7

2.6

2.9

3.1

3.1

2.4

2.5

2.1

2.3

2.9

2.8

2.3

2.0

2.0

2.1

1.7
2.2
3.5
3.2
3.2
2.7

1.7
2.1
3.9
3.2
2.8
2.8

1.8
2.0
4.0
3.4
3.2
2.9

2.0
2.3
4.3
3.6
3.5
3.0

1.9
2.5
3.7
3.8
3.3
2.9

2.5
2.6
3.6
3.8
3.6
3.1

2.5
3.0
4.2
4.1
3.6
3.2

2.2
3.0
3.6
3.7
3.1
3.0

1.9
2.8
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.7

2.2
2.8
4.0
3.4
3.7
3.1

1.6
2.6
3.8
3.6
3.3
2.9

1.4
2.3
4.0
3.3
3.6
3.0

1.4
2.0
4.1
3.4
3.0
2.9

1.5
2.3
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.7

1.4
2.4
2.5
3.7
2.7
2.6

2.5
3.3
2.8
2.7
2.4

2.3
3.0
2.6
2.5
2.3

2.4
2.8
2.0
2.0
2.2

2.6
3.1
2.5
1.9
2.3

2.6
2.8
1.9
1.6
2.2

2.7
2.9
1.9
1.8
2.5

2.7
3.0
2.3
2.1
2.7

2.5
3.0
2.3
1.9
2.8

2.2
3.2
2.1
1.7
3.0

2.7
3.4
2.3
2.1
2.9

2.6
3.3
2.5
2.2
2.8

2.6
3.3
2.7
2.5
2.8

2.4
3.2
2.4
2.7
2.7

2.3
2.5
1.7
1.6
1.9

1.9
2.7
1.8
1.9
1.8

5.1
3.5
2.5

4.7
3.5
2.3

4.4
3.5
2.2

4.7
3.7
2.6

4.3
3.3
2.5

4.1
3.3
2.6

4.2
3.6
2.6

4.5
3.3
2.7

4.9
3.4
3.0

5.2
3.8
3.2

5.3
3.5
2.9

5.4
3.6
2.9

5.0
3.6
2.8

3.4
2.8
2.0

4.3
3.3
2.1

1.6
2.3
4.3
1.9
1.8
2.1
2.2
1.7
1.3
1.8
1.9

1.5
1.8
3.9
1.9
1.8
2.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
2.1
1.9

1.3
1.6
4.1
1.9
1.5
2.1
1.3
1.7
1.2
2.2
1.7

1.5
1.7
4.3
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.1

1.3
1.6
4.2
2.3
2.2
2.3
1.9
2.1
1.7
2.4
2.1

1.4
1.8
4.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.5
1.9

1.4
2.0
4.4
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.6
3.0
2.1

1.3
2.1
4.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
1.8
2.4
2.3
1.9

1.6
2.5
4.2
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.6
2.0
1.8
1.8

1.5
3.0
4.0
2.3
2.2
2.6
2.0
1.9
2.5
2.2
2.2

1.5
2.2
4.0
2.1
1.9
2.4
1.6
1.7
1.6
2.5
2.1

1.4
2.2
4.0
2.1
1.6
2.3
1.6
1.8
1.4
2.6
2.0

1.5
1.9
4.0
2.1
1.6
2.3
1.5
1.8
1.3
2.7
2.2

2.2
1.6
3.5
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.6
2.1
1.9

1.9
1.9
3.4
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.4
2. 5
1.6

1.8
3.0
3.6
2.2
3.1
2.4
2.9
2.3
2.3

2.6
3.0
3.3
2.6
3.3
1.6
2.6
2.2
2.3

3.4
3.3
3.8
2.8
3.1
1.6
1.8
2.2
28

3.8
4.6
6.1
3.2
3.4
1.5
2.1
2.5
3.1

3.7
4.5
5.9
3.2
3.0
1.2
1.9
2.5
2.7

3.5
3.9
4.9
3.2
2.9
1.7
2.7
2.5
2.8

2.9
3.6
4.5
3.0
2.5
1.7
3.0
2.5
2.9

2.3
3.1
3.6
2.7
3.0
2.1
3.3
2.4
2.7

3.1
3.3
4.0
2.5
2.8
1.8
2.5
2.4
2.7

3.3
3.3
3.9
2.6
2.7
2.5
3.6
2.5
2.6

3.2
3.4
4.0
2.7
2.9
2.8
3.5
2.2
2.2

3.0
3.0
3.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.0

2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.5
2.4
1.5
2.3
2.1

2.1
2.5
2.6
2.4
2. 5
.9
1.8
2.1
2.2

1.9
2.7
3.2
2.2
2.4
1.2
1.7
2.1
2.8

2.0
2.5

1.9
2.3

1.9
2.0

2.6
2.1

2.5
1.7

2.3
2.5

2.3
2.5

2.3
2.0

2.5
2.1

2.3
2.5

1.9
2.2

1.9
2.3

2.0
2.2

1.9
2.0

1.9
1.8

2.1
3.0
1.7

1.9
3.2
1.7

1.6
3.1
1.5

2.2
3.0
1.8

2.2
3.4
2.0

2.4
2.7
2.1

2.5
2.7
2.1

2.5
2.5
2.0

2.4
2.6
1.6

2.3
2.8
2.3

2.1
2.9
1.7

2.5
3.2
2.1

2.2
3. 5
1.8

2.1
2.9
1.5

2.2
2. 5
1.0

D u r a b le goods

Ordnance and accessories____________
Ammunition except for small arms----Sighting and fire control equipment---Other ordnance and accessories..........
Lumber and wood products except
furniture.............................................
Sawmills and planing mills...................
Millwork, plywood, and related prod­
ucts__________________________
Wooden containers.............................. Miscellaneous wood products______
g* Furniture and fixtures________ ____ —
Household furniture_____ ___ _____
Office furniture_________ ___ _____
Partitions; office and store fixtures.......
Other furniture and fixtures_______
Stone, clay, and glass products________
Flat glass..............................-...............
Glass and glassware, pressed or blown..
Cement hydraulic________________
Structural clay products............ ..........
Pottery and related products-----------Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products.
Other stone and mineral products__
Primary metal industries____________
Blast furnace and basic steel products...
Iron and steel foundries____________
Nonferrous smelting and refining------Nonferrous rolling, drawing, and ex­
truding................................................
Nonferrous foundries.............................
Miscellaneous primary metal industries.
Fabricated metal products___________
Metal cans................... .........................
Cutlery, hand tools, and general hard­
ware_________________________
Heating equipment and plumbing fix­
tures_________________________
Fabricated structural metal products...
Screw machine products, bolts, etc.......
Metal stampings_________________
Coating, engraving, and allied services..
Miscellaneous fabricated wire products.
Miscellaneous fabricated metal prod­
ucts............. ...........-...........................
Machinery........... ................- ----- -------Engines and turbines______________
Farm machinery and equipment------Construction and related machinery—
Metalworking machinery and equip­
ment........... ..................... -...............
Special Industry machinery..................
General industrial machinery----------Office, computing and accounting ma­
chines________________________
Service industry machines-------- ------Miscellaneous machinery......................
Electrical equipment and supplies_____
Electric distribution equipment-------Electrical industrial apparatus______
Household appliances............... ...........
Electric lighting and wiring equipment.
Radio and TV receiving sets________
Communication equipment..................
Electronic components and accessories..
Miscellaneous electrical equipment and
supplies..............................—............
Transportation equipment....... ............
Motor vehicles and equipment.............
Aircraft and parts..................... .......... Ship and boat building and repairing—
Railroad equipment..............................
Other transportation equipment.. . . .
Instruments and related products--------Engineering and scientific instruments.
Mechanical measuring and control de­
vices..................................................
Optical and ophthalmic goods..............
Surgical, medical, and dental equip­
ment________________ -............ —
Photographic equipment and supplies..
Watches and clocks..... .........................
See footnotes at end of table.


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

756

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

T able C-4. Average overtime hours of production workers in manufacturing, by industry 1—Continued
1963

1962

Annual
average

Industry
M ar.3 Feb

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr,

Mar.

1961 §1960

Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods—Continued
Miscellaneousmanufacturlngindustries
Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware.
Toys, amusement, and sporting goodsPens, pencils, office and art materials..
Costume jewelry, buttons, and notions.
Other manufacturing industries_____
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products___________
Meat products____________________
Dairy products.......................................
Canned and preserved food, except meats.
Grain mill products________________
Bakery products__________________
Sugar___ ________ _______________
Confectionery and related products__
Beverages............................................... .
Miscellaneous food and kindred prod­
ucts.......................................................
Tobacco manufactures___
Cigarettes........ ..............
Cigars___________ . . . .
Textile mill products_________________
Cotton broad woven fabrics_________
Silk and synthetic broad woven fabrics.
Weaving and finishing broad woolens..
Narrow fabrics and smallwares_____ _
Knitting____________ _____________
Finishing textiles, except wool and knit.
Floor covering____________________
Yarn and thread.....................................
Miscellaneous textile goods_________
Apparel and related products__________
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats______
M en’s and boys’ furnishings_____ . . . .
Women’s, misses’, and juniors’ outer­
w ear.._________________________
Women’s and children’s undergar­
ments__________________________
Hats, caps, and millinery______ _____
Girls’ and children’s outerwear_______
Fur goods and miscellaneous apparel__
Miscellaneous fabricated textile prod­
ucts__ __________ ______________
Paper and allied products_____________
Paper and pulp______________ _____
Paperboard.............................. ..............
Converted paper and paperboard prod­
ucts......................... ........................ .
Paperboard containers and boxes_____
Printing, publishing, and alliedindustries.
Newspaper publishing and printing__
Periodical publishing and printing____
Books___________________ ________
Commercial printing______________
Bookbinding and related industries___
Other publishing and printing indus­
tries_____ _____________________
Chemicals and allied p roducts.._______
Industrial chemicals________________
Plastics and synthetics, except glass__
D r u g s ....................................... ........... .
Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods______
Paints, varnishes and allied products..
Agricultural chemicals______________
Other chemical products____________
Petroleum refining and related industries.
Petroleum refining_________________
Other petroleum and coal products___
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic prod­
ucts.......................................................
Tires and inner tubes......... ....................
Other rubber products____ _________
Miscellaneous plastic products_______
Leather and leather products__________
Leather tanning and finishing_______
Footwear, except rubber____________
Other leather products....... ........... ........

2.1
2.5
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.3

2.0
2.5
1.7
1.9
1.7
2.3

2.4
4.1
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.5

2.3
3.4
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.5

2.6
3.4
2.3
3.1
2.0
2.6

2.6
3.2
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.9

2.3
2.7
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.5

1.9
2.2
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.1

2.3
2.9
2.0
1.6
3.0
2.4

2.4
3.1
2.2
1.9
2.5
2.3

2.2
2.9
1.8
1.9
2.5
2.3

2.3
3.0
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.6

2.1

3.1
3.2
3.3
2.2
5.1
2.6
3.0
2.2
2.7

3.0
2.9
3.0
2.2
5.6
2.7
3.2
2.3
2.4

3.1
3.4
3.0
2.2
5.7
2.6
3.4
2.3
2.3

3.4
4.2
3.2
2.2
6.1
2.9
3.2
3.0
2.5

3.6
4.5
3.2
2.1
6.4
3.3
4.5
3.1
2.5

3.4
3.8
3.2
2.3
6.9
3.1
2.9
3.3
2.5

3.9
3.8
3.7
3.4
7.0
3.7
4.9
3.4
3.2

3.4
3.1
3.4
2.6
6.9
3.3
4.4
2.6
3.1

3.9
3.9
4.0
3.5
6.9
3.4
4.6
1.7
4.0

3.6
3.8
3.8
2.5
6.5
3.4
4.7
2.0
3.3

3.5
3.9
3.6
2.5
6.2
3.1
3.9
1.9
3.2

3.1
3.3
3.3
2.3
5.4
2.8
3.6
1.7
2.6

3.0
2.9
3.0
2.1
6.1
2.9
2.6
2.1
2.6

3.3
3.7
3.1
2.4

3.8
8 .7

2.9
4.5
2.5

2.8

2.9
4.2
2 .4
2.8

3.8
.8
1.0
.8
3.1
3.0
3.9
3.6
3.0
1.8
4.6
5.1
3.1
3.3
1.4
1.3
1.1

4.0
.7
.5
1.1
3.0
2.9
3.9
3.7
3.0
1.7
4.2
4.9
2.9
3.4
1.2
1.3
1.0

3.9
.6
.5
.7
2.8
3.0
4.0
3.4
3.3
1.6
3.1
3.3
2.5
3.2
1.0
1.1
.9

4.3
1.1
1.2
1.0
3.0
3.0
4.3
3.1
3.2
1.7
4.4
4.5
2.6
3.7
1.2
1.3
1.0

4.3
1.2
1.5
1.6
3.3
3.2
4.5
3.2
3.3
2.2
4.7
5.1
2.8
3.8
1.4
1.1
1.3

4.1
1.2
1.0
1.4
3.2
3.1
4.4
3.4
3.4
2.3
4.2
5.0
3.1
3.6
1.4
1.3
1.3

4.1
1.6
1.4
1.3
3.0
2.8
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.3
3.7
4.7
2.8
3.4
1.4
1.3
1.4

4.0
1.0
.8
1.2
3.1
3.0
4.4
4.1
3.3
2.3
3.3
4.9
3.3
3.2
1.5
1.2
1.6

4.0
.6
.7
.4
3.1
2.9
4.2
4.4
3.3
2.4
3.2
3.4
3.2
3.7
1.3
1.0
1.3

3.9
.9
.9
.9
3.5
3.1
4.6
6.2
3.4
2.5
4.7
3.8
3.5
4.2
1.4
1.3
1.4

3.9
.7
.9
.5
3.3
3.3
4.3
4.9
3.3
2.3
4.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
1.3
1.2
1.2

3.7
.7
.5
.9
3.3
3.4
4.3
4.6
3.3
2.2
4.4
3.2
3.4
3.0
1.4
1.4
1.1

3.9
1.0
1.2
.9
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.6
3.4
2.1
4.5
3.8
3.5
3.3
1.4
1.2
1.2

3.9

3 .9

2.7
2.7
3.2
3.3
2.9
2.0
3.7
3.3

.9

1.0

3.0
1.9
1.8

1.9
2.2

6.2

1.1
1.2
1.0

2.8

2.9
1.1
.8

1.9
1.5
1.7
2.3

2.9
2.8

6.0

1.0
1.1

1.0
2.6
2.8
3.3
3.1
2.4
1.9
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.8
1.2
1.4

1.8

1.5

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.5

1.6

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.1

1.1

1.4
2.1
1.2
.9

1.1
1.7
1.2
.8

.9
1.1
.8
.7

1.2
1.2
.7
1.1

1.7
1.2
.9
1.3

1,7
1.5
1.1
1.4

1.6
1.2
1.2
1.2

1.5
1.6
1.6
1.1

1.2
1.3
1.5
1.1

1.1
1.2
1.5
1.1

1.0
1.1
1.2
.9

1.3
1.8
1.4
1.1

1.4
2.2
1.4
1.2

1.4
1.5
1.3
1.1

1.1

1.6
4.4
5.6
6.0

1.4
4.2
5.2
5.6

1.3
4.2
5.3
5.4

1.8
4.5
5.2
6.3

2.0
4.5
5.2
6.0

2.2
4.5
5.1
6.5

2.1
4.8
5.3
6.4

1.8
4.6
5.2
5.9

1.5
4.7
5.5
6.8

1.8
4.5
6.2
6.1

1.7
4.4
5.4
5.4

1.4
4.3
5.2
6.7

1.5
4.3
5.2
5.7

1.6
4.3
5.0
5.6

2.8
3.3
2.8
2.0
4.2
3.8
3.2
2.0

2.8
3.2
2.5
1.8
3.3
2.8
2.8
1.8

2.9
3.1
2.4
1.8
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.2

3.2
3.8
3.0
3.1
3.3
2.8
3.2
2.1

2.8
4.0
2.8
2.9
3.6
2.8
2.9
2.3

3.0
4.3
2.8
2.7
3.8
3.0
3.0
2.4

3.3
4.6
3.1
2.8
4.4
3.6
3.2
3.2

3.4
4.1
2.9
2.5
3.4
3.6
3.0
2.7

3.0
4.2
2.7
2.4
2.6
3.4
2.8
2.4

3.3
4.0
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.3
2.7
2.1

2.8
3.7
2.8
2.8
2.3
3.9
2.9
2.5

2.8
3.5
2.7
2.4
2.5
3.6
3.0
2.4

2.9
3.7
2.8
2.0
3.3
3.8
3.2
2.4

3.0
3.6
2.7
2.4
3.1
3.7
2.9
2.1

2.6
2.5
2.4
2.0
2.7
2.4
1.9
5.5
2.3
1.7
1.5
2.9

2.7
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.5
2.5
1.7
3.7
2.4
1.6
1.4
2.6

2.4
2.2
2.2
1.9
2.4
2.3
1.6
3.3
2.5
2.0
1.7
3.2

2.6
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.4
2.4
1.6
3.5
2.7
2.0
1.5
4.0

2.4
2.3
2.4
1.9
2.5
2.5
1.5
3.1
2.6
2.5
1.9
4.8

2.7
2.5
2.4
2.0
2.7
2.8
1.8
3.6
2.6
2.5
1.6
5.9

2.7
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.5
3.2
2.3
3.9
2.8
3.0
2.0
6.6

2.8
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.3
2.6
2.8
2.2
1.3
5.9

2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.4
3.2
2.6
2.6
1.7
6.2

2.4
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.8
2.8
3.3
3.0
2.5
1.6
6.1

2.2
2.7
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.3
3.1
7.2
2.8
2.2
1.6
4.7

2.5
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.3
6.0
2.4
2.0
1.6
3.8

2.5
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.6
1.7
4.4
2.5
1.6
1.2
3.7

2.5
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.9
2.6
1.9
3.8
2.5
2.0
1.5
4.5

2.9
3.1
2.5
3.3
1.4
2.3
1.2
1.4

2.9
2.9
2.6
3.2
1.5
2.5
1.3
1.7

2.7
2.8
2.6
3.0
1.2
2. 4
1.1
1.2

3.2
3.5
3.1
3.0
1.3
2.5
1.1
1.6

3.1
3.3
3.0
3.2
1.4
2.5
1.0
2.1

3.0
3.3
2.8
3.1
1.3
2.7
.9
1.8

3.3
3.6
3.2
3.3
1.4
2.8
1.0
1.8

3.1
3.5
2.9
3.0
1.5
2.8
1.2
1.8

3.0
3.6
2.6
3.0
1.4
2.3
1.3
1.5

3.7
4.4
3.5
3.5
1.5
3.0
1.2
1.8

3.2
3.3
3.1
3.3
1.2
2.8
1.0
1.3

2.9
2.5
2.8
3.3
1.4
2.6
1.1
1.7

2.7
2.3
2.6
3.0
1.6
2.4
1.3
2.0

2.6

ber 1961, see footnote 1, table A-2. For employees covered, see footnote 1,
table A-3.
These series cover premium overtime hours of production and related
workers during the pay period ending nearest the 15th of the month. Overlme hours are those paid for at premium rates because (1) they exceeded


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

2.1
2.8

2.2
2.7
1.6
1.8
2.4
2.5

2.7
2.4
2.9
1.4
2.3

1.1
1.7

1.3
1.3

1.1
1.7

4.1
5.1

5.1
2.8
3 .3

2.9
2.7
8 .6
3 .7

8.1

2.1
2.6
2 .3

2.5
2.0
1 .9

2.8
1 .9
4.8
2.5
2 .0

1.4
4.5
2.4
2.3

2.2
2.5
1.2
2.1
1.1
1.4

either the straight-time workday or workweek or (2) they occurred on week­
ends or holidays or outside regularly scheduled hours. Hours for which
only shift differential, hazard, incentive, or other similar types of pre­
miums were paid are excluded.
3 Preliminary.

757

C—EARNINGS AND HOURS

T able C-5. Indexes of aggregate weekly man-hours and payrolls in industrial and construction activities1
[1057-59=100]
Annual
average

1962

1963

Activity
Apr.2 Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1961

1960

Man-hours

Total___ __________________________
Mining----------------- ------------------------Contract construction_______ ___ _____
Manufacturing______________________

96.0
77.8
88.6
98.2

93.9
76.2
75.7
98.2

92.4
77.3
69.5
97.3

93.4
77.9
75.1
97.5

96.3
79.8
80.7
100.0

99.2
81.3
94.9
100.9

101.7
83.3
105.3
102.0

103.4
84.3
107.7
103.6

102.0
85.4
110.6
101.3

100.6
82.4
107.7
100.2

100.8
85.4
99.5
101.8

99.1
84.0
97.3
100.1

97.1
82.7
87.3
99.6

95.1
84.9
94.3
95.8

99.0
91.1
98.3
99.6

Durable goods___________________
Ordnance and accessories_______
Lumber and wood products, ex­
cept furniture___________ ___
Furniture and fixtures----- --------Stone, clay, and glass products.......
Primary metal industries......... ......
Fabricated metal products______
Machinery___________________
Electrical equipment and supplies..
Transportation equipment.............
Instruments and related products..
Miscellaneous manufacturing in­
dustries____________ ___ ___

100.0
122.8

99.0
123.4

98.4
125.8

98.7
127.9

100.7
129.9

101.2
129.5

101.8
127.4

102.4
128.0

99.0
127.4

99.8
123.1

102.2
122.4

101.2
123.8

100.5
124.6

93.9
118.1

99.4
111.7

92.8
100.2
96.4
98.6
98.8
101.5
109.8
96.5
103.0

89.5
101.0
90.5
95.9
97.8
101.5
111.0
96.6
102.8

90.0
101.1
87.3
94.1
97.5
100.5
111.8
96.4
102.4

90.6
101.7
88.2
92.2
98.4
100.2
113.1
98.2
102.0

92.5
105.7
91.7
92.2
100.2
100.2
115.8
100.7
103.8

96.2
106.0
98.0
90.0
100.7
99.1
115.8
99.5
104.1

99.6
107.9
100.8
89.8
101.9
99.6
116.4
97.9
103.3

103.1
108.0
102.1
92.5
102.7
100.2
116.9
95.7
103.0

105.0
107.3
103.0
90.5
99.6
99.6
113.4
82.9
103.1

102.3
101.6
101.6
90.3
98.8
100.4
111.8
93.9
101.0

102.7
104.5
101.3
95.2
102.6
102.8
114.5
95.2
103.1

98.2
102.1
99.2
97.5
100.8
101.9
112.2
95.6
101.6

92.9
102.1
95.1
102.8
99.2
101.7
111.4
93.4
101.7

94.0
97.7
94.8
91.6
94.1
93.2
104.1
83.8
98.8

99.2
102.6
100.4
98.0
99.9
99.7
105.8
92.1
102.8

97.1

96.9

94.5

91.8

98.9

107.6

111.2

110.7

107.2

101.5

105.1

102.6

100.6

98.8

101.4

96.0
87.1
72.9
90.9
103.2
101.6

97.1
87.0
76.7
91.5
107.8
102.9

96.0
85.6
80.9
90.6
105.6
101.7

96.0
88.1
89.7
90.2
100.7
102.6

99.1
93.3
100.0
93.2
103.5
105.0

100.6
96.8
99.6
94.4
105.8
104.4

102.2
102.5
120.5
94.8
105.4
105.1

105.2
110.0
133.2
94.6
107.8
106.6

104.3
106.4
104.1
95.7
109.5
106.1

100.8
101.8
74.0
94.2
102.7
104.1

101.2
95.9
75.6
97.7
105.5
105.8

98.8
91.3
75.4
96.4
103.3
103.0

98.4
89.1
76.3
95.9
105.1
102.8

98.2
96.5
94.4
93.5
99.1
102.0

99.8
98.0
97.1
96. 5
101.8
102.1

102.5
104.0

100.8
102.6

100.9
102.5

104.2
103.5

106.0
103.5

106.0
103.7

106.8
104.5

105.1
104.3

104.0
104.2

105.1
104.8

104.8
105.7

105.2
105.7

104.6
100.8

104.4
101.6

Nondurable goods.................................
Food and kindred products______
Tobacco manufactures__________
Textile mill products....................
Apparel and related products.........
Paper and allied products----------Printing, publishing, and allied in­
dustries____________________ 103.0
Chemicals and allied products....... 107.4
Petroleum refining and related
industries............. ....................... 81.9
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products___________________ 107.2
Leather and leather products------- 86.3

78.8

78.8

80.6

81.4

82.7

83.5

86.5

88.4

90.7

90.2

88.4

87.5

89.0

93.5

108.4
93.7

107.8
95.6

109.3
95.7

111.1
97.8

111.3
95.9

112.0
93.7

112.0
97.0

109.2
101.7

106.8
99.5

112.3
100.6

108.2
95.3

105.9
96.4

99.5
97.4

101.5
97.5

92.2
128.5
113.6

88.8
124.8
113.2

92.0
114.0
115.1

90.3
111.6
113.2

89.7
101.2
112.6

89.9
106.4
105.2

95.2
106.9
106.6

Payrolls
Mining
_________________________
Contract cnnstrnetinn
M anufacturing. .............. ............................. 113.6

84.1
90.3
113.3

85.5
83.3
112.0

85.7
90.3
112.1

87.6
96.9
115.0

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to Decernber 1961, see footnote 1, table A-2.
For mining and manufacturing, data refer to production and related workers

87.9
111.9
115.3

90.2
123.9
115.7

92.0
127.0
117.4

and for contract construction, to construction workers, as defined in footnote
1, table A-3.
3 Preliminary.

T able C -6. Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production workers in manufacturing1
[In current and 1957-59 dollars]
Annual
average

1962

1963
Item
M ar.2 Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

Mar.

1961

1960

Manufacturing
Gross average weekly earnings:
Current dollars____________________
1957-59 d o llars.._______ ___________
Spendable average weekly earnings:
Worker with no dependents:
Current dollars________________
1957-59 dollars ......... .......................
Worker with 3 dependents:
Current dollars________________
1957-59 dollars...................................

$98.09 $97.20 $97.44 $98.42 $97.36 $96.72 $97.68 $95.75 $96.80 $97.27 $96.80 $96.56 $95.91 $92.34
92.36 91.61 91.92 93.02 91.85 91.25 92.06 90.76 91. 75 92.37 92.02 91.79 91.34 88.62

$89.72
87.02

78.63
74. 04

77.91
73.43

78.11
73. 69

79.35
75.00

78. 50 77. 99 78. 76
74.06 73. 58 74.23

86.31
81.27

85.58
80.66

85.78
80.92

87.05
82.28

86.19
81.31

1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to Decem­
ber 1961, see footnote 1, table A-2. For employees covered, see footnote 1,
table A-3.
Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly
earnings as published in table C -l less the estimated amount of the workers’
Federal social security and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax
liability depends on the number of dependents supported by the worker as
well as on the level of his gross income, spendable earnings have been com­


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

85.66
80. 81

86.45
81.48

78.05
73. 98

78.43
74. 48

78.05
74.19

77.86
74.01

77.34
73.66

74.60
71. 59

72. 57
70.39

84.87 85.73
80. 45 81.26

86.11
81.78

85. 73
81.49

85. 53
81.30

85.00 82.18
80. 95 78. 87

80.11
77.70

77.21
73.18

puted for 2 types of income receivers: (1) A worker with no dependents,
and (2) a worker with 3 dependents.
The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes
in purchasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index.
2 Preliminary.
N ote: These series are described in “ The Calculation and Uses of the
Spendable Earnings Series,” Mo-nthly Labor Review, January 1959,{pp. 50-54.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

758

D .—Consumer and Wholesale Prices
T able D -l. Consumer Price Index.1—All-city average:

*A11 items, groups, subgroups, and special

groups of items
[1957-59-100]

Annual
average

1962

1963
Group
Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1962

1961

106.2 106.1

106.0

105.8

106.0

106.0

100.1

105.5

105.6

105.3

105.2

105.2

105.4

104.2

Food8_____________________________
Food at home............................. ...........
Cereals and bakery products..........
Meats, poultry, and fish__..........
Dairy products_____ __________
Fruits and vegetables......................
Other foods at home8......................

104.3
102.6
109.2
98.3
102.9
112.0
96.2

104.6
103.0
109.1
100.7
103.5
109.6
96.7

105.0
103.5
109.2
102.1
103.6
109.4
97.1

104.7
103.2
108.7
102.5
103.8
106.4
97.6

103.5
101.9
108.2
102.5
103.9
100.2
97.2

104.1
102.6
108.4
103.5
104.2
102.1
97.2

104.3
102.9
108.0
101.1
104.3
102.0
98.1

104.8
103.5
107.9
108.3
104.2
102.2
97.8

103.8
102.3
107.8
102.6
103.9
105.2
95.2

103.8
102.4
107.9
100 8
103.5
109.9
94.1

103.5
102.1
107.4
99.7
102.7
111.9
93.4

103.2
101.9
107.6
99.6
103.0
109.4
94.4

103.4
102.1
107.3
100.1
103.7
108.6
95.1

103.6
102.2
107.6
101.7
104.1
105.0
96.1

102.0
101.5
105.4
99.3
104.8
104.2
97.6

Housing4.....................................................
Kent______ ___ ________________
Gas and electricity................................
Solid and petroleum fuels............ ........
Housefumishings_________________
Household operation________ ______

105.8
106.5
107.5
104.2
98.5
109.9

105.7
106.4
108.0
104.8
98.6
109.7

105.4
106.4
108.0
104.8
98.3
109.3

105.4 105.2
106.3 106.2
108.2 108.1
104.9 104.8
97.9 98.6
109.3 108.1

105.1
106.2
108.1
103.6
98.7
107.8

105.0
106.1
108.0
102.4
98.8
107.6

104.9
105.9
108.0
101.3
98.7
107.6

104.8
105.8
108.0
100.1
98.5
107.4

104.8
105. 7
108.0
99.7
99.0
107.5

104.8
105.6
107.7
99.4
99.1
107.4

104.7
105.5
107.7
100.1
99.0
107.4

104.6 104.8
105. 4 105.7
107.8 107.9
102.4 102.1
99.3 98.9
107.1 107.4

103.9
104.4
107.9
101.6
99.5
105.9

Apparel........ ...... ....... ................. — ...........
Men’s and boys’_________________
Women’s and girls’_______________
Footwear_______________________
Other apparel •......................................

103.8
104.1
101.4
110.2
100.9

103.6
103.9
101.1
110.0
101.1

103.3
103.7
100.7
109.9
100.9

103.0 103.9 104.3
103.5 104.3 104.3
100. 2 101. 5 102. 5
109.8 109.9 109.7
100.3 101.3 101.1

104.9
104.2
104.0
109.6
101.6

104.6
104.0
103.6
109.5
101.2

102.5
102.9
99.9
109.3
100.3

102.9
103.2
100.4
109.2
100.8

102.8
103.1
100.5
109.1
100.4

102.7
103.1
100.0
109.1
100.6

102.7
102.9
100.3
109.2
100.3

103.2
103.3
100.9
109.3
100.6

102.8
102.8
101.0
107.8
100.9

108.3
107.2
115.4

108.1
108.9
116.0

107.8
106.7
115.7

107.4
106.2
115.7

106.8
105.4
115.6

107.3
106.0
115.6

107.3
106.0
115.6

107.2
106.0
115.6

107.2
105.9
115.4

105.0
104.0
111.7

All Items.............................................. ....... 106.2

Transportation______________________ 107.0
Private_________________________ 105.5
Public.................................................... 116.5

107.0 106.8
105.6 105.3
116.4 116.3

106.6
105.3
115.7

108.0
106.8
115.7

Medical care________________________ 116.1

115.8

115.6

115.5

115.3

115,0

114.9

114.7

114.6

114.6

114.4

114.1

113.9

114.2

111.3

Personal care_______________________

107.6

107.3

107.3

107.4

107.6

107.1

106.9

106.8

106.8

106.8

106.1

106.4

106.3

106.5

104.6

Reading and recreation_______________

111.0

110.1

110.0

110.2

110.0

110.1

109.5

110.0

110.3

110.0

109.2

109.5

109.4

109.6

107.2

105.1

105. 3

104.6

Other goods and services....... ..................... 105. 8 105.7 105.7

105.7

105.6

105.6

105.6

105.6

105.5

105.6

105.2

105.1

Special groups:
All items less food................................ 107.0
All items less shelter.............. ............. 106.1
All commodities less food__________ 103.0

106.8 106.6
106.1 106.1
102.9 102.7

106.5
105.9
102.6

108.7
105.8
103.4

106.7
106.0
103.5

106.7
106.1
103.6

106.6
106.1
103.4

106.2
105.5
102.6

106.1
105.4
102.5

106.1
105.3
102.6

106.0
105.2
102.6

106.0
105.2
102.8

106.1
105. 4
102.8

104.8
104.2
102.1

All commodities............................ .......
Nondurables 8________________
Nondurables less food__________
Non durables less food and apparel-.
Durables 7___________________
Durables less cars.....................

103.6
104.2
104.3
104.7
100.9
98.4

103.7
104.4
104.2
104.7
100.8
98.5

103.8
104.5
104.1
104.6
100.6
98.4

103.6
104.3
104.0
104.7
100.4
98.5

103.6
104.0
104.6
105.1
101.7
98.6

103.9
104.2
104.4
104.5
102.2
98.6

104.0
104.4
104.6
104.5
102.0
98.6

104.1
104.7
104.6
104.6
101.6
98.6

103. 2 103.1
103.5 103.5
103.2 103.3
103.7 103.5
101.7 101. 5
98.7 98.7

103.1
103.4
103.4
103.8
101.6
98.8

103.0
103.2
103.5
104.0
101.5
98.9

103.1
103.6
103.8
104.4
101.4
98.9

103.2
103.6
103.8
104.2
101.5
98.8

102.4
102.8
103.2
103.3
100.6
98.6

All services 8..... ....................................
All services less rent........................
Household operation services,
gas, and electricity________
Transportation services______
Medical care services________
Other services_____ ___ ___

111.1

110.8 110.5
111.6 111.2

110.5
111.2

110.1
110.8

110.0
110.6

109.8
110.5

109.8
110.5

109.9
110.6

109.8
110.5

109.5
110.2

109.4
110.1

109.2
109.8

109.6
110.2

107.6
108.3

110.2 110.2 109.9
112.0 111.8 111.4
119.2 118.9 118.7
110.5 110.0 109.6

109.9
118.5
109.7

109.1
110.9
118.2
109.3

108.8 108.7
110.7 110.8
118. 0 117.8
109.3 109.1

108.6
110.5
117.5
109.3

108.5
111.7
117.3
109.3

108.6
111.7
117. 2
109.1

108.5
111.5
116.9
108.7

108.4
111.5
116.6

108.2
111.5
116. 2
108.2

108. 5
111.2
116.8
108.7

107.2
109.5
113.1
106.8

111.9

111.1

*T he Consumer Price Index for April 1963 calculated from a 1947-49
—100 base was 130.3.
i T he Consum er Price Index measures the average change in prices of
goods and services purchased b y urban wage-earner and clerical-worker
fam ilies. D ata for 46 large, m edium -size, and sm all cities are com bined for
the all-city average.
1 In add ition to subgroups show n here, total food includes restaurant m eals
and other food bought and eaten aw ay from hom e.
* Includes eggs, fats and oils, sugar and sw eets, beverages (nonalcoholic),
and other m iscellaneous foods.
4 In addition to subgroups show n here, total hou sin g includes the purchase
price of hom es and other hom eow ner costs.
* Includes yard goods, diapers, and m iscellaneous item s.
* Includes food, house pain t, solid fuels, fuel oil, textile hou sefum ish ings,
household paper, electric ligh t bu lbs, laun dry soap and detergents, apparel


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

108.7

(except shoe repairs), gasoline, m otor oil, prescriptions and drugs, toilet
goods, nondurable toys', new spapers, cigarettes, cigars, beer, and w h isk ey.
7 Includes w ater heaters, central heating furnaces, k itch en sinks, sink
faucets, porch flooring, household appliances, furniture and bedding, floor
coverings, dinnerware, autom obiles, tires, radio and television sets, durable
toys, and sporting goods.
9 Includes rent, hom e purchase, real estate taxes, m ortgage, interest, prop­
erty insurance, repainting garage, repainting room s, reshingling roof, re­
finishing floors, gas, electricity, dry cleaning, laun dry service, dom estio
service, telephone, water, postage, shoe repairs, auto repairs, auto insurance,
auto registration, transit fares, railroad fares, professional m edical services,
hospital services, hospitalization and surgical insurance, barber and beauty
shop services, television repairs and m otion picture adm issions.

759

D.—CONSUMER AND WHOLESALE PRICES

D-2. Consumer Price Index 1—A ll items and food indexes, by city

T able

1957-59-100]

Apr.

Mar.

Annual
average

1962

1963

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Oct.

Nov.

Sept.

Aug.

July

June

May

Apr.

1962

1961

1963
(194749=100)
Apr.

All Items
All-city average *.......

106.2

106.2

106.1

106.0

105.8

106.0

106.0

106.1

105.6

105.5

105.3

105.2

105.2

105.4

104.2

130.3

A tlanta, Ga
B altim ore, M d
B oston , M a ss_______
Chicago, 111__
C incinn ati, O hio____

(»)
(3)
109.2
105.0
(3)

104.9
106.2
(3)
105.2
104.5

(»)
(»)
104.7
(•)

(3)

(3)
(3)
108.6
104.7
(3)

104.5
105.7
(3)
104.7
104.0

(3)
(s)
(s)
105.0
(3)

(3)
(3)
108.2
105.0
(3)

104.7
106.0
(*)
105.2
104.3

(3)
(»)
(3)
104.4
(3)

(»)
(3)
107.2
104.5
(3)

104.0
104.8
(3)
104.5
103.3

(»)
(3)
(3)
104.6
(3)

(»)
(3)
107.1
104.8
(3)

104.1
105.2
107.4
104.6
103.6

103.2
104. 4
105.1
103. 6
102.6

(3)
(3)
135.3
132.4
(3)

CllevelaTid, O h io
D etroit, M ich _
TTnnst.nn, T at
K ansas C ity , M n
Los A ngeles, C alif___

(3)
102.1
(3)
106.4
108.0

(«)
102.6
(3)
(3)
107.7

104.3
102.6
105.0
(3)
107.8

(3)
102.5
(«)
105.9
107.3

(3)
102.5
(3)
(3)
107.2

103.7
102.6
104.5
(3)
107.1

(3)
102.8
(3)
107.1
107.2

(3)
102.8
(3)
107.2

103.8
102.3
104.6
(3)
106.6

(3)
101.9
(3)
106.0
106.8

(3)
101.8
(3)
(3)
107.0

103.5
102.0
104.7
(3)
106.9

(«)
102.2
(3)
1Ù5. 7
106.3

103.6
102.2
1U4. 6
106.1
106.6

103.2
101.9
102. 6
104. 5
105.4

(3)
125.9
(3)
131.6
134.7

M inneapolis, M in n ..
N e w Y ork, N .Y
P h ilad elp h ia, P a ___

106.5
107.9
106.4
106.3
106.2

(3)
107.6
106.4
(3)

(»)
107.6
106.2
(»)
(*)

106.0
107.5
105.9
106.5
105.7

(3)
106.9
105.7
(3)

(3)
107.1
105.8

105.9
107.2
105.8
106.3
105.3

(«)
107.3
106.0

(3)
106.6
105.2

(3)
105.8
104.9

(«)
105.7
104.7

(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)

105.7
106.4
105.3
106.0
104.8

(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)

105.5
106.0
105.1
105.7
103.9

105.5
106.4
105.2
105. 9
104.6

104.2
104.8
104.4
105.0
104.1

131.7
130.0
130.7
131.0
131.6

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

105.8
108.4
(3)
(3)

(»)
(3)
106.9
107.2
105.6

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

106.0
107.8
(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

105.6
107.5
(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)
106.0
106.7
104.8

(3)
(3)
(3)

104.4
107.5
(3)

(3)
(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)

105.1
107.4
105.9
106.5
104.6

103.9
105.8
104.1
104. Ô
103.7

(3)
(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)

(3)
(*)
105.7
106.3
104.2

P itts b u rg h ,

Pa

P ortland, Oreg...........
S t. T o n is , M o

San Francisco, C aliL .
S c ra n to n , P a
S e a tt l e , W a s h

W ashington, D .C___

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
106.5
107.0
105.3

(3)

(3)

(3)

(8)
(3)

Food

All-city average 3.......

104.3

104.6

105.0

104.7

103.5

104.1

104.3

104.8

103.8

103.8

103.5

103.2

103.4

103.6

102.6

Atlanta, Ga

102.7
103 5
106.6
105.0
102.2

103.8
103 7
106.5
105. 7
102.6

104.2
103 9
106.3
105.4
103.7

104.0
104.6
106.4
105.6
103.1

102.7
103.4
105. 7
104.3
101.7

103.1
103.6
106.4
105.7
102.8

103.9
104.2
105.7
105.7
103.0

104.3
104.5
105.7
106.7
103.7

103.4
104.2
105.0
105.8
102.2

102.9
103.4
104.3
105.7
102.4

103.0
103.0
104.2
105.2
101.5

103.1
102.7
103.7
104.6
101.2

102.7
102.7
103.5
105.6
101.5

103.0
103.3
104.6
105. 3
101.9

101.8
102.4
102.4
103.2
101.8

100.8
100 8
103.3
10fi fi

101.7
101.1
102.3
103.6
106. 8

102.2
101. 7
103.0
104.3
107.8

101.7
101.3
103.2
103.2
106.8

100.8
100.6
102.4
103.2
105.6

101.3
101.6
102.8
104.4
105.3

101.7
101.5
103.6
104.5
105.6

102.4
101.6
104.0
105.1
105.9

101.5
100.8
102.9
104.2
104.7

101.4
101.2
103.1
103.7
105.0

101.2
100.9
102.2
103.0
106.1

101.1
101.4
103.1
102.6
106.2

100.6
101.2
102.9
101.8
105.4

101.0
101.1
102.9
103.3
105. 6

100.9
101.4
101.3
101.9
104. 5

102.0
106.3
103.1
103 1
104 5

1 0 1 .8

106.6
104.1
104 1
104 6

101.7
106.8
104.4
104.3
105.2

101.5
106.6
104.5
103. 2
105.3

100.8
104.9
103.0
101.7
103.9

100.9
105.8
103.5
102.5
104.1

101.5
106.3
104.8
102.8
104.5

102.5
107.0
104.8
103.4
104.8

101.8
105.7
103.6
102.5
103.4

102.5
104.8
103.8
102.4
103.6

102.3
103.7
102.6
102. 5
104.2

102.4
103.5
102.3
102.4
104.3

102.4
104.5
102.6
101.7
103,0

101.8
104.9
103.1
102.4
103.6

101.2
102.9
101.9
102.3
103.0

104 0
106.5
103 1
107 3
102! 9

104 5
106.9
103. 3
107.3
103.6

105.0
107.0
104.4
106.9
103.2

104.9
106.7
104.1
106.3
103.9

104.6
105.6
102.9
105.9
101.8

104.5
105.8
103.6
105.9
102.1

103.8
105.6
104.1
105.9
103.4

104.2
105.0
103.8
106.6
103.0

102.7
104.3
102.3
106.0
102.6

102.8
105. 5
103.1
106.1
102.2

102.3
105.9
103.5
106.5

102.3
105.4
103.2
105.5
101.5

102.2
105.4
102.9
106.3

103.0
105.4
103.1
105.7

102.0
104.0
101.3
104.5

_____

-L>Ctil/liXiUI tJ, 1Y-LU.___

Boston, M a ss_____
Chicago, Til
Cincinnati, Ohio___
nifly p l^n d Ohio
r> o tro |t A/Tioh
TTonston T pt
K a n s a s City, M n

Los Angeles, Calif

Minneapolis, M in n
New York, N.Y _ .
Philadelphia, Pa _
TMttcl-mro-h
X
ltto U U lg ll, P
I a
Cl.. . . . . .

Portland, Oreg-------Of L/UUIS,
T<nn1a A
TV
Db.
VTo
X4J.. . . . . . .

Ran Francisco, Calif

DCdttlp, V
VctoU__.

.....

Washington, D.C__

101 8

i See fnntnotA 1. ta b le D - l . Indexes measure time-to-time changes in
prices of goods and services purchased by urban wage-earner and clericalworker families. They do not indicate whether it costs more to live in one
city than in another


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

101.1

101.6

102.0

101.6

* Average of 46 cities.
1 All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 cities and once every
month on a rotating cycle for 15 other cities.

760

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963
T able

D-3. Indexes of wholesale prices,1 by group and subgroup of commodities
[1957-59-100, unless otherw ise specified] *

A p r .8 M ar.

F eb .

Jan.

D ec.

N ov.

Oct.

Sept.

A ug.

J u ly

June

M ay

Apr.

1962» 1961

A ll com m od ities__________________________

99.8

99.9

100.2

100.5

100.4

100.7

100.6

101.2

100.5

100.4

100.0

100.2

100.4

100.6

100.3

Farm products and processed foods_______

97.6

497.4

98.7

99.8

99.3

100.4

100.3

102.1

99.8

98.9

97.7

98.0

98.7

99.6

98.6

95.4
95.4
99.5
99.0
105.1 103.7
88.2
85.6
102.0 101.8
98.5 4 99.6
81.3
99.8
110.7 113.8
89.4
89.0
99.4 4 99.0
108.1 4108.0
90.4
91.8
106.9 4107.1

96.5
96.5
103.0
89.5
100.8
101.1
99.1
113.5
89.1
100.5
108.6
95.6
108.0

98.5
104.0
102.0
94.1
99.3
101.3
100.1
111.9
87.4
100.8
107.4
97.9
107.8

97.3
88.5
101.1
96.2
98.1
101.9
99.3
108.2
89.0
100.9
107.6
99.4
108.1

99.3
96.4
99.5
98.3
97.6
102.1
112.4
106.9
90.1
101.3
107.7
100.1
108.0

98.7
97.5
98.5
98.6
97.5
102.5
103.1
103.1
89.7
101.5
107.6
100.0
107.7

100.6
94.9
98.6
104.4
97.4
101.6
110.7
99.8
90.8
103.3
107.6
106.8
106.0

97.6
90.9
98.1
98.5
98.4
100.8
98.0
105.2
89.9
101.5
107.8
101.0
100.1

96.5
92.2
99.1
95.8
99.3
99.8
86.2
105.3
92.5
100.8
107.9
99.0
105.7

95.3
98.7
99.9
91.6
99.6
97.0
80.0
106.3
92.5
99.8
107.6
95.7
105.0

96.2
107.1
101.0
91.4
98.9
96.7
75.3
107.6
93.4
99.6
107.4
95.5
104.5

96.9
99.0
98.5
94.1
98.9
98.8
91.7
107.4
93.2
100.2
108.0
95.6
106.0

97.7
97.7
98.8
96.2
98.4
101.2
95.2
105.4
91.8
101.2
107.6
99.1
106.9

96.0
93.7
95.6
92.5
94.8
103.9
99.0
107.2
93.2
100.7
105.1
95.4
107.6

103.0 4101.3
113.9 106.1
81.2 4 79.1
79.3 4 80.0
83.3 4 83.8
84.1
90.0
87.2
90.5
101.9 101.5
100.3 100.4
100.4 100.6
100.1 4100.2
100.1 100.2
100.8 100.8
93.8 «93.8
150. 9 150. 9
101.3 101.4
117.7 114.9

4 99.8
105.1
479.1
86.0
82.5
89.2
91.9
101.5
100.6
100.6
100.3
100.5
100.7
93.7
151.1
101.4
118.2

100.0
105.0
479.1
82.8
81.0
88.4
91.9
100.2
100.7
100.7
100.4
100.6
100.7
93.7
149.8
101.3
123.3

95.7
102.8
4 79.1
85.2
78.9
90.0
91.8
100.4
100.8
100.7
100.6
100.8
100.2
93.7
143.3
101.7
127.9

96.3
102.5
<79.1
92.2
79.8
88.7
91.8
101.2
100.8
100.7
100.5
100.7
100.1
93.6
130.3
101.7
127.8

96.4
103.0
4 79.1
95.2
80.9
86.2
90.9
104.6
100.8
100. 7
100.5
101.0
99.6
93.6
129.6
101.7
121.6

96.6
102.1
82.4
91.4
76.7
84.6
92.6
102.8
101.2
100.8
100.6
101.3
99.4
94.0
125.2
101.6
122.1

97.1
102.7
82.6
89.5
77.9
85.2
92.9
101.1
100.8
100.6
100.8
101.7
99.3
94.3
132.4
101.8
119.4

98.7
102.2
82.6
85.8
78.2
85.2
94.5
101.0
100.8
100.8
100.9
101.9
99.3
94.7
130.2
101.8
121.6

99.1
102.4
82.6
85.7
80.8
88.8
100.1
101.8
100.6
100.7
100.8
102.0
99.1
94.6
130.7
101.5
123.9

98.6
102.1
82.6
87.7
87.1
89.9
101.9
100.7
100.7
100.9
100.7
102.1
98.9
94.5
126.4
101.4
119.7

99.0
102.3
82.6
86.2
91.4
94.9
101.9
101.2
100.8
100.9
100.5
102.4
98.6
93.7
121.6
101.3
118.6

98.0
102.2
81.9
88.4
84.5
93.1
97.3
101.8
100.9
100.8
100.6
101.7
99.1
93.9
125.9
101.5
122.4

101.7
101.3
83.7
94.4
102.6
108.3
102.7
105.8
100.8
100.8
99.7
100.4
97.1
93.4
113.2
101.0
*123.3

4105.1 105.1 106.0 106.9 107.3 107.4
85.9
88.4
95.2 101.6 107.1 108.8
103.7 104.7 105.2 106.1 106.8 106.5
4108.3 4108. 3 4108.3 4108. 5 4108. 4 4108. 4
104.7 104.8 104.9 105.5 105.0 104.8
100.8 100.3 100.4 100.8 100.8 100.8
98.4
98.1
98.3
98.3
97.7
97.2
103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6
4127.8 127.8
120.8 123.1 122.3 122.7
102.4 102.5 102.5 102.7 102.7 102.7
98.1
98.1
98.1
(»)
(8)
(8)
97.1
98.2
98.2
98.6
98.9
98.9
96.7
96.8
96.9
97.0
97.1
96.8
95.2
95.4
95.9
96.1
96.0
95.9
103.7 103.8 103.8 103.8 103.8 103.8
93.0
93.0
93.0
92.9
93.9
93.9
95.1
95.2
95.1
95.2
94.8
95.1
72.7
4 74.5
71.7
72.8
76.7
75.9
4103.6 103.6 103.0 102.8 103.1 103.4
102.3 102.3 100.8
99.2
99.0
99.6
4 99.5
99.5
99.6
99.5
99.5
99.5
94.2
94.1
94.3
94.4
93.7
93.1
93.7
92.7
94.1
92.8
94.7
92.7
89.0
89.0
89.0
88.0
89.0
86.4
99.7
99.8
99.7
99.7
99.7 100.0
96.1
4 96. 5
95.9
95.8
96.3
96.6
4 96. 6
96.2
95.9
95.8
96.3
96.7
102.5 102.3 102.3 102.1 102.3 102.3
90.5
4 91.2
90.5
90.4
91.5
91.9
4 99.0
99.1
99.0
99.0
99.1
99.3
89.4
89.4
89.4
89.4
89.4
91.3
96.1
96.6
94.7
96.0
94.6
96.1
102.2 102.2 102.2 102.2 102.2 102.3
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.1
94.0

107.5
110.8
106.6
108.8
104.0
100.8
96.6
103.6
120.1
102.8
98.2
99.2
96.9
95.9
103.8
94.5
95.0
72.3
103.9
98.6
99.5
92.8
92.0
86.4
99.4
97.0
97.2
102.3
92.2
99.5
93.6
96.4
102.4
94.0

107.0
105.1
106.9
108.8
103.9
99.5
95.0
103.6
117.8
102.8
98.2
97.2
97.0
95.9
103.8
95.3
95.0
73.0
103.9
98.4
99.4
92.7
92.3
86.4
99.1
97.4
97.7
102.7
92.1
99.7
93.6
95.1
102.6
94.0

107.5
104.2
108.4
108.8
105.0
100.0
95.3
103.6
119.7
102.8
98.2
98.0
97.2
96.1
103.8
96.0
95.1
73.5
103.9
101.0
99.4
92.7
92.4
86.4
99.1
97.5
98.0
102.3
92.4
100.0
93.0
96.8
102.6
94.0

108.0
108.5
110.0
108.7
104.9
99.6
94.6
103.6
113.8
102.8
98.2
98.1
97.0
96.2
103.8
96.2
97.0
73.4
103.9
103.6
99.4
93.0
93.5
86.4
99.4
97.3
97.6
101.9
92.9
100.5
93.6
96.4
103.1
93.8

107.2
105.4
110.6
108.7
101.7
99.7
94.6
103.6
116.6
102.9
98.2
97.9
97.7
96.3
103.8
96.4
97.0
77.1
103.9
103.6
99.4
93.2
94.9
86.4
99.4
97.1
97.5
101.8
92.2
100.8
93.6
96.2
103.1
93.8

106.9
103.3
109.5
108.7
102.6
100.2
95.3
103.6
115.3
103.0
98.2
98.9
97.9
96.5
103.7
96.6
97.0
79.3
104.3
103.7
99.3
92.9
94.1
86.1
99.1
96.8
96.8
101.3
94.2
101.3
95.0
98.0
103.1
93.8

107.4
106.2
108.5
108.7
104.3
100.2
96.8
103.6
119.2
102.8
98.1
98.2
97.5
96.3
103.8
95.6
96.0
76.3
103.8
101.9
99.4
93.3
93.6
87.1
99.4
96.5
96.5
101.8
92.4
100.0
93.2
97.5
102.6
93.1

100.2
107.9
106.0
107.4
103.2
100.7
97.7
103.6
118.7
102.4
98.0
99.3
99.1
98.4
103.6
99.6
98.3
87.5
102.6
104.3
99.2
96.1
96.3
92.4
100.0
95.9
94.7
101.9
95.7
98.8
95.0
80.5
102.2
92.5

100.0
97.1

100.4
97.1

101.0
96.3

101.6
95.5

102.1
97.7

103.0
97.9

101. A
97. 2^

99.5
100.8

Farm products...........................................
F resh and dried fruits and v e g eta b le s..
G rains........................................................ .......
L ivestock and liv e p ou ltry
—
P la n t and anim al fibers___
F lu id m ilk ...................... .............. .................
E ggs.......................... ................................. .......
H a y . havseed s. and o ils e e d s ______ . _
Other farm products
...... ... . . .
Processed foods......................... ..........
Cereal and bakery products_____
M eats, pou ltry, and fish............
D a iry products and ice cream ...................
C anned and frozen fruits and vegetab les.................................. ...........................
Sugar and confectionery_____ _________
Packaged beverage m aterials____ _____
A nim al fats and oils___
Crude vegetable o ils__________________
R efined vegetable o i l s ...................
V egetable oil end products.......................
M iscellaneous processed foods 5
A ll com m odities except farm products___
A ll com m odities except farm and foods___
T ex tile products and apparel
C otton products ... ___
W ool products________________
M anm ad e fiber textile products_______
S ilk produ cts______________ __________
A pparel____ _________ ________________
M iscellaneous textile products 8_______
H id es, skins, leather, and leather produ cts.......... .............. .......................................
H ides and skins______________
L eather____________________________
F ootw ear......................................... ...............
O ther leather products________________
F u el and related products, and pow er—
C oal___________________________
C oke...............................................................
Gas fuels ' _
... .
E lectric p o w e r 7....................................
Crude petroleum and natural gasoline.Petroleum products, refined
Chem icals and allied produ cts__________
Industrial chem icals___________
Prepared p ain t_______________________
P a in t m aterials__ ____________________
D rugs and pharm aceuticals....... ........... ..
F ats and oils, inedihle
M ixed fertilizer______________
Fertilizer m aterials.............................
Other chem icals and allied produ cts___
R ubber and rubber products____ _______
Crude rubber_________________________
T ires and tu b es___________
M iscellaneous ruhher products *
Lum ber and w ood products___________
L um b er....................................... ..............
M illw ork ______________ ______________
P ly w o o d ................ ............... ........... .............
P u lp , paper, and allied products.................
W o o d p u lp ................................................. .
W aste paper______________ ___________
P ap er.......... .............................................
Paperboard_________ ______ __________
C onverted paper and paperboard produ cts_____ ____ ________________
B uildin g Daper and hoard_______ __
8ee footnotes at end of tab le;


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

104.6
85.0
102.8
108.3
104.6
100.4
95.8
103.6
124.1
102.4
(8)
98.2
96.5
95.3
103.7
91.5
95.2
77.7
103.6
102.3
98.6
94.1
92.8
89.0
99.8
97.0
97.6
102.4
91.0
99.0
91.3
92.5
102.2
94.1
99.7
95.5

4 99.7
4 94.1

99.9
95.5

99.6
95.6

99.6
96.2

99.7
96.6

100.0
96.3

761

D.—CONSUMER AND WHOLESALE PRICES
T able

D-3. Indexes of wholesale prices,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued
[1957-59 »»100, unless otherwise specified] *
Annual
Average

1962

1963

Commodity group
Apr.* Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Sept.

Aug.

July

Apr.

1962*

1961

99.5
98.8
98.0
104.5
103.8
97.5
92.5
98.1

99.3 99.3 99.4 99.7
98.7 98.4 98.7 99.0
97.7 98.3 97.9 98.9
103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7
103.8 103.8 103.7 103.7
97.6 97.5 97.2 96.8
93.3 92.8 92.7 92.6
98.1 98.1 98.2 98.2

99.8
99.1
99.0
103.7
103.7
96.8
92.9
98.3

99.7 99.8 100.2 100.3
98.9 98.9 99.2 99.6
99.0 99.3 99.9 99.8
103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7
103.7 104.2 104.1 104.1
97.1 98.5 103.8 103.7
92.9 92.9 93.1 93.7
98.3 98.3 98.3 98.1

100.0
99.3
99.2
103.7
104.0
100.1
93.2
98.2

100.7
100.7
100.4
102.0
103.8
103.1
94.6
99.0

104.4 103.9
102 3 102.3
109.2 109.5

103.1
102.3
107.4

NOV.

Oct.

June

May

A ll com m odities except farm and foods—
C ontinued
M etals and m etal products______________
Iron and ste el_________________________
Nonferrous m etals_______________ — —
M etal containers______________________
H ardw are_____________________________
P lu m b in g fixtures and brass fittin g s—
H eatin g eq u ip m en t.................................. ..
Fabricated structural m etal p r o d u c ts..
Fabricated nonstructural m etal prod­
u cts............ .................... - ---------------------M achinery and m otive products------------Agricultural m achinery and eq u ip m en t.
C onstruction m achinery and e q u ip ­
m e n t_______________________________
M etalw orking m achinery and e q u ip ­
m e n t.................... .....................
General purpose m achinery and eq u ip ­
m e n t................... ........... ......................... —
M iscellaneous m achin ery-------------------Special in d u stry m achinery and eq u ip ­
m ent 10................................................... ........
E lectrical m achinery and e q u ip m e n t...
M otor vehicles________________________
Transportation eq u ip m en t, railroad
rolling stock w.............................................
Furniture and other household durab les.
H ousehold furniture------------------------ . . .
C om m ercial furniture_________________
Floor coverings------------- ---------------------H ousehold appliances-------------------------T elevision , radio receivers, and ph ono­
graphs............................................................
Other household durable goods-----------N o n m etallic mineral produ cts---------------F la t glass.............................. ........... ...............
Concrete ingredients__________________
Concrete produ cts------------------------------Structural clay p ro d u cts.-------------------G ypsum products____________________
Prepared asphalt roofing---------------------O ther nonm etallic m inerals___________
T obacco products and b ottled beverages.
T obacco products-------------------------------A lcoholic beverages___________________
N onalcoholic beverages-----------------------M iscellaneous produ cts--------------------------T o y s, sporting goods, sm all arms, am ­
m u n itio n ___________________________
M anufactured anim al feeds----------------N o tio n s and accessories_______________
Jew elry, w atches, and photographio
eq u ip m en t_________________________
Other m iscellaneous products--------------

99.4
98.5
98.2
104. 5
103. 9
100.8
92.9
97.6

99.4 99.4
«98.4 98.6
98.1 98.0
104 5 104.5
<103.9 104.0
101.3 101.1
«92.6 92.4
<97.8 98.0
103.7
102.0
111.0

103.7 103.7
102.2 102.3
110.8 110.8

103.8 103.9 103.8 103.9
102. 3 102.2 102.2 102.3
110.5 110.2 109.6 109.4

103.9 103.9
102.3 102.3
109.4 109.5

103.9
102.4
109.5

108.8

108.8

108. e 108.3

108.3 108.2 108.0 107.7

107.7

107.0

107.7

107.7

107.7

107.8

107.6

109.7

109.5

109.4

109.3

107.0

103.6 103.3 102.9 103.1 103.2 103.1
103.2 103.5 103.4 103.2 103.1 103.1
102.0 102.0 102.0 101.8 101.8 101.7
98.4 98.0 98.1 98.4 98.6 98.6
100.9 100.9 100.9 100.9 100.1 100.1

103.3
103.4

102.8
102.8

101.9
98.4
100.5

100.4
100.0
100.7

100.5 100,5 100.5
98.9 99.0 98.9
103.9 103.7 103.4
102.2 102.2 102.2
96.9 97.0 97.0
94.3 94.3 94.7

100.5
98.8
103.8
102.3
97.0
94.0

100.2
99.5
102.8
101.8
99.3
95.2

92.3
103.2
102.1
98.0
103.2
102.5
103.6
105.0
99.0
102.0
104.1
102.0
101.1
116.7
106.0

91.1
103.1
101.8
97.0
103.2
102.6
103.5
105.0
94.8
102.2
104.1
102.1
101.0
116.9
107.3

95.3
102.5
101.8
96.8
102.8
102.5
103.2
103.8
98.6
102.2
103.2
102.0
100.6
112.8
103.9

100. 5 100.8
108.3 110.6
98.7 98.7

100.9
104.0
98.9

104.2
101.3

103.5
101.

109.4 «109.1

109.1

109.2

109.3 109.3

109.3

103.9
103.4

103.8 103.7 103.7
103.4 103.3 103.3

103.1 103.1 103.1 102.9
97.0 <97.1 97.8 98.0
100.2 100.3 100.4 100.4

102.8 102.5 102.2
98.1 98.1 98.4
100.4 100.4 100.4

103.4
103.7

103.4
103.7

103.6
103.4

109.3 109.5

109.6

100.5 100.5
98.2 98.2
104.7 «104.6
102.3 102.3
95.9 96.0
92.2 92.3

100. 5 100.5
98.2 98.3
104.5 104.5
102.3 102.3
95.9 96.2
92.3 92.3

100.5 100.5
98.4 98.6
104.2 104.1
102.3 102.5
96.4 96.8
93.0 93.1

100.5
98.5
104.0
102.5
96.8
93.0

100.5 100.5 100.5
98.6 98.7 98.8
103.9 104.0 104.1
102.5 102.5 102.4
96.7 96.7 96.7
93.2 93.6 93.9

89.4
103.0
101.5
96.6
103.0
102.2
103.6
105.0
94.1
101.4
104. 3
102. 2
101.1
117.4
108.0

90.1 90.1
102.8 102.8
101.5 101.4
96.6 96.6
103.0 102.7
102.2 102.5
103.6 103.7
105.0 105.0
94.1 89.4
101.5 102.2
104.3 104.3
102.2 102.2
101.1 101.1
117.4 117.4
111.5 111.6

90.4
102.8
101.5
96.6
103.2
102.6
103.5
105.0
89.4
102.4
104.3
102.2
101.1
117.4
110.2

90.4
102.9
101.6
96.6
103.8
102.8
103.4
105.0
89.4
102.4
104.5
102.2
101.5
117.4
109.8

90.7
102.9
101.6
96.6
103.3
102.7
103.4
105.0
89.4
102.2
104. 5
102.2
101.5
117.4
108.7

90.7
103.1
101.5
96.6
103.3
102.6
103.6
105.0
89.4
101.5
104.2
102.0
101.1
117.1
109.1

89.4
102.8
101. 5
96.6
103.0
102.2
103.6
105.0
94.1
101.5
104.3
102.2
101.1
117.4
«110.8

100.7 «100.5
111.9 117.1
98.7 98.7

101.1
118.2
98.7

103.8 «103.9
101.4 101.7

104.0
101.7

101.3 101.2 101.2 101.1
115.7 114.9 112.8 113.7
98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7
104.0 104.4 104.4 104.4 104.4
101.8 101.6 101.7 101.6 101.2

101.3
118.3
98.7

i As of January 1961, new weights reflecting 1958 values were introduced
Into the index. See “Weight Revisions in the Wholesale Price Index 18901960,” M o n th ly La b o r R e v ie w , February 1962, pp. 175-182.
3 As of January 1962, the indexes were converted from the former base of
1947-49=100 to the new base of 1957-59=100. Technical details and earlier
data on the 1957-59 base furnished upon request to the Bureau.
* Preliminary,


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

104.1
102.3
109.3

103.8
102.0
110.9

90.8
102.9
101.6
96.6
103.3
102.6
103.6
105.0
89.4
101.7
104.2
102.0
101.1
117.1
107.2

90.8
103.0
101.6
98.0
103.3
102.7
103.6
105.0
89.4
101.7
104.0
102.0
100.7
116.7
107.6

90.9
103.2
101.9
98.0
103.2
102.5
103.6
105.0
95.3
102.0
104.1
102.0
101.1
116.7
105.4

91,2
103.2
102.4
97.9
103.1
102.6
103.6
105.0
101.4
102.8
104.0
102.0
100.8
116.7
106.0

101.0 101.0
110. 2 111.0
98.7 98.7

100.7 100.6
107.2 108.2
98.7 98.7

104 4 104.3
101.0 101.0

104.2 104.1 104.1
100.9 100.9 101.3

* Revised.
* Formerly titled “other processed foods."
t Formerly titled “other textile products.”
i January 1958=100.]
<Discontinued.
» Formerly titled "other rubber produets."
January 1961=100.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1963

762

T able D-4. Indexes of wholesale prices for special commodity groupings 1
[1957-69««100, u n le s s o th e r w is e specified ]»

1962

1963

Annual average

Commodity group
Jan.

Dec. Nov. Oct.

101.1
121.9
100.7
98.4
101.5
98.2
98.9
94.4
97.9
91.7
97.6
103.5

99.9
120.9
100.8
98.5
101.5
98.6
100.1
97.5
97.4
91.7
97.7
103.5

101.3
118.3
1008
98.3
100.4
98.6
98.9
101.4
95.6
91.7
98.3
103.5

101.2
119.0
100.8
98.4
99.1
98.9
97.8
101.4
97.9
91.4
97.2
103.5

Pulp, paper, and allied products (excluding building
paper and board)_____________ ______________ 99.2 499.2 99.3 99.1
Special metals and metal products4______________ 100.1 100.1 100.2 100.2
Steel mill products_____1______________________ 101.3 4101.1 101.3 101.3
Machinery and equipment______________ _______ 102.7 102.6 102.9 103.0
Agricultural machinery (Including tractors) __
112.1 112.0 111.9 111.8
Metalworking machinery_____________ __________ 108.8 4108.4 108.5 108.6
All tractors
...............' __ _ __
... ............ 110.7 110.6 100.5 110.4
Industrial valves ............... ................... ..............
107.4 107.4 107.4 107.8
Industrial fittings_____________________ _______ 90.9 90.9 94.6 94.6
Antifriction hearings and component* ~
.
90. 8 90.8 90.8 90.8
Abrasive grinding wheels______________________
96.4 97.7 97.7 97.7
Construction materials________________________
97.8 97.7 97.6 97.7

99.1
100.1
101.3
103.0
111.4
108.7
110.2
108.0
94.6
90.8
97.7
97.7

99.2
100.1
101.3
102.8
111.3
108.7
110.0
108.0
94.6
90.8
97.7
97.9

Apr.3 Mar. Feb.

Allf<WMta
98.8 4 99.0 100.1
113.6 117.3 118.4
All commodities except farm product* , ... ........... 100.3 100.4 100.6
Textile products, excluding hard fiber prodnats
98.2 98.3 98.4
96.4 4100.6 101.5
Bituminous coal—domestic s iz e s ......_____ . . . ____
Refined petroleum products_______________ . . . ____ 98.2 98.2 97.1
98.9 98.9 98.9
E ast Coast markets________ . . . . . _____ _______
__ _
Mid continent, markets
99.7 98.6 88.6
Gulf Coast markets____ ______ _____ ___ ______ 97.7 97.7 97.9
90.7 90.7 90.7
Pacific Coast markets________________ . . . ___
94.5 95.5 98.0
Midwest m ark ets!__________________________
.........................
_ ......
Soaps
103.5 103.5 103.5
Synthetic detergents_______________ _________
Pharmaceutical preparations______________ _____

Anti-infectives5_______ ________________
Antl-arthritics *________________________
8edatlves and hypnotics *________________
Ataractics 8___________________________
Anti-spasmodlcs and antl-chollnerglcs *_____
Cardiovasculare and anti-hypertensives •____
Dorm ones *
.....................
Diuretics*
............ ..... _
_ ..
Dermatologicals1______________________
Hermatinics5_________________________
Analgesicss___________________________
Anti-obesity preparations5_______________
Cough and cold preparations *____________
Vitamins1____________________________
Proprietary preparations •___________________
Vitaminss____________________________
Cough and cold preparations <

. ..

Laxatives and elimination aids *______ __
Internal analgesics4_____________________
Tonics and alteratives *__________________
External analgesics4____________________
Antiseptics4__________________ ______
Antacids4____________________________
Lumber and wood products (excluding millwork)___

Softwood lnmhar

1 See footnote 1, table D-3.
a See footnote 2, table D-3.
* Preliminary.
‘ Revised.


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

99.6 99.6
96.8 96.8
95.7 95.7
88.5 88.5
100.6 100.6
112.5 112.5
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.7 100.7
103.8 103.8
99.6 99.6
100.0 100.0
100.8 100.8
108.8 108.8
101.8 101.8
100.0 100.0
100.7 100.7
88.1 88.1
101.6 101.6
100.3 100.3
100.1 100.1
103.8 103.8
101.9 101.9
100.0 100.0
102.3 102.3
102.9 <102.9
100.1 100.1
96.1 495.4
96.5 4 95.6

99.6
96.6
95.7
88.5
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
100.7
103.8
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.8
101.8
100.0
100.7
88.1
101.0
100.3
100.1
101.7
101.3
100.0
102.3
101.7
100.1
94.9
95.3

99.6
96.6
95.7
88.5
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
100.7
103.8
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.8
101.8
100.0
100.7
88.1
100.9
100.3
99.5
101.7
101.3
100.0
102.3
101.7
100.1
94.6
95.0

99.6
96.1
95.0
86.6
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
98.7
103.8
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.5
101.8
100.0
100.6
88.1
100.7
100.3
100.1
101.6
101.3
100.0
101.3
100.9
98.9
94.6
95.0

99.6
96.4
95.4
87.6
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
101.6
103.8
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.5
101.8
100.0
100.6
88.1
100.7
100.3
100.1
101.6
101.3
100.0
101.3
100.9
98.9
95.2
95.6

Sept. Aug. July June May Apr.
99.6
119.0
100.8
99.2
95.0
98.0
97.8
101.4
99.2
91.4
90.8
102.2

98.9 99.3 99.7
118.3 119.4 118.9
100.6 100.7 100.8
99.2 99.2 99.0
94.0 93.6 95.4
98.1 97.9 98.9
97.8 99.0 100.0
101.4 98.6 99.4
97.2 96.0 97.9
92.9 92.9 89.3
93.4 95.9 98.4
102.2 102.1 102.1

99.8
96.3
95.4
87.6
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
100.9
103.8
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.5
101.8
100.0
100.6
88.1
100.5
99.6
100.1
101.6
101.3
100.0
100.8
100.1
98.9
95.6
96.1

102.9
119.8
101.2
98.7
98.1
99.2
97.8
101.4
99.2
91.4
97.2
103.5

99.8
96.3
95.4
87.7
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
100.9
103.8
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.6
101.8
100.0
100.6
88.1
100.5
100.3
100.1
101.6
101.1
100.0
100.7
100.1
98.9
96.1
96.8

100.5
121.6
100.8
99.0
95.9
97.2
97.8
101.4
99.2
91.4
87.0
102.2

99.8
96.3
95.4
87.7
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
100.9
103.8
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.5
101.8
100.0
100.6
88.1
100.5
100.3
100.1
101.6
101.1
100.0
100.7
100.1
98.9
96.4
97.3

99.8
96.4
95.5
87.9
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
100.9
104.2
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.5
101.8
100.0
100.6
88.1
100.5
100.3
100.0
101.5
101.1
100.0
100.7
100.0
98.9
96.8
97.6

99.8
98.5
98.4
98.7
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
100.9
104.2
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.5
101.8
100.0
100.6
88.1
100.7
100.3
100.0
102.0
101.1
100.0
101.2
100.0
100.6
96.6
97.1

99.8
98.4
98.4
98.7
100.6
112.6
100.0
100.0
100.9
104.2
99.6
100.0
100.8
108.5
101.8
100.0
100.6
88.1
100.7
100.3
lOOO,
102.0
101.1
100.0
101.2
100.0
100.6
96.4
67.0

99.4
100.1
101.4
4103.0
110.7
108.8
109.5
108.0
94.6
90.8
97.7
98.0

99.6
100.4
101.3
102.8
110.5
108.7
109.2
107.7
93.9
90.8
97.7
98.1

99.9
100.5
101.3
102.8
110.4
109.0
109.1
107.3
93.9
90.8
97.7
98.3

100.2
100.5
101.4
102.9
110.5
109.1
109.3
104.6
93.9
90.8
97.7
98.4

100.7
100.5
101.5
103.0
110.5
109.2
109.4
106.6
92.7
90.8
97.7
98.5

101.0
100.5
101.5
103.1
110.3
109.0
109.4
107.2
92.7
90.8
98.3
98.9

1962»

1961

100.6
119.2
100.9
98.8
98.3
98.2
99.4
98.2
98.6
90.9
94.2

100.0
107.9
100.8
97.7
99.9
69.3
100.9
99.6
101.2
89.9
93.5

99.8
98.3
98.3
98.7
100.6
112.5
100.0
100.0
100.9
104.2
98.5
100.0
100.6
108.5
101.8
100.0
98.9
88.1
100.4
100.0
100.0
101.2
101.1
100.0
101.2
100.0
100.6
96.2
96.1

102.6 101.4
99.7 100.8
98.9
97.3
99.3
96.9
99.3
93.1
100.6 100.3
112.5 102.6
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.5 100.5
104.0 101.9
99.6 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.7 100.2
108.5 1106.1
101.8 100.9
100.0 100.0
99.4
100.0
88.1
95.0
100.5 100.1
100.1 100.0
100.0 100.0
99.8
101.1
101.2 100.4
100.0 100.0
100.8 100.0
100.2 100.0
99.6 100.0
95.6
94.7
95.9
93.5

101.5
100.6
101.5
103.1
110.2
109.0
109.3
107.9
92.7
90.8
98.3
98.9

100.1
100.5
101.4
102.9
110.5
108.8
109.4
107.4
93.0
90.8
98.5
98.3

98.7
101.0
101.7
102.9
108.3
106.6
108.0
108.7
88.2
92.5
96.2
98.6

' New series. January 1961 = 100.
« Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and
motor vehicles.

763

D.—CONSUMER AND WHOLESALE PRICES
T able

D-5. Indexes of wholesale prices,1 by stage of processing and durability of product
[1957-59=100] »
A nnual
averag e

1962

1963
C o m m o d ity g roup
A p r.3 M a r.
A ll co m m o d ities______ ____ _____ ___________________

F eb .

Jan.

D ec.

N ov.

O ct.

S ept. A ug.

J u ly

Ju n e

M ay

A p r.

1962»

1961

99.8

99.9 100.2 100.5 100.4 100.7 100.6 101.2 100.5 100.4 100.0 100.2 100.4

100.6

100.3

95.0
93.9
96.5

94.5
92.8
96.7

97.1
96.8
9 7 .4

96.1
94.9
97.9

S ta g e o f p r o c e s s in g

C ru d e m a te ria ls for fu rth e r processing............................. C ru d e foodstuffs a n d feedstuffs__________________
C ru d e n onfood m a terials except fu el_____________
C ru d e nonfood m a terials, except fuel, for
m a n u fa c tu rin g _____________________________
C ru d e nonfood m a te ria ls, except fuel, for eons tru c tio n ___________________________________
C ru d e fu e l__ _ __________________________________
C ru d e fuel for m a n u fa c tu rin g _________ _______
C ru d e fuel for n o n m a n u fa c tu rin g ____________
In te rm e d ia te m a terials, s u p p lie s, a n d c o m p o n e n ts___
In te rm e d ia te m a te ria ls a n d co m p o n en ts for m a n u fa c tu rin g __________________________________
In te rm e d ia te m a te ria ls for food m a n u fa c tu rin g .
I n te rm e d ia te m a te ria ls for n o n d u ra b le m a n u fa c tu rin g ___ ____________ ______ ______ __
In te rm e d ia te m a te ria ls for d u ra b le m a n u fa c tu rin g ___________________________________
C o m p o n e n ts for m a n u fa c tu rin g ______________
M a te ria ls an d co m p o n en ts for c o n stru c tio n
P ro cessed fuels a n d lu b ric a n ts ___________________
P ro cessed fuels a n d lu b ric a n ts for m anufactu r in g ___ _________________________________
P rocessed fuels a n d lu b ric a n ts for n o n m a n u f a c t u r in g __________________________________
C o n ta in ers, n o n re tu rn a b le _______________________
S u p p lies
___ _______________________________
S u p p lies for m a n u fa c tu rin g __________________
S u p p lies for n o n m a n n fa e tn rin g
M a n u fa c tu re d a n im a l feeds______________
O th e r su p p lie s ___________________________

95.6
94.7
96.4

96.8
97.1
95.8

96.8
97.1
95.8

97.6
98.2
95.9

97.4 99.2
97.9 100.6
96.0 96.3

95.2

95.1

95.3

95.3

97.2
97.4
96.6

96.5
96.0
97.0

95.2
94.0
97.3

95.8
94.7
97.9

96.5
95. 5
98.3

96.5

96.8

97.4

97.9

96.9

97.4

103.3 103.2 103.3 103.1
101.0 98.7 99.6 99.7
101.0 98.8 99.6 99.7
101.2 98.8 99.7 99.7

103.2
101.8
101.8
102.0

102.8
102.3
102.2
102.4

100.0 100.0 100.1 100.2 100.1 100.1 100.1 100.2 100.1 100.3 100.2 100.4 100.5

100.2

100.3

99.2
100.5

99.8
102.6

95.9

96.2

95.8

103.0
102.8
102.7
103.1

103.1
105.4
105.3
105.8

103.0
105.6
105.5
106.0

95.7

96.0

102.7 103.2 103.3 103.3 103.3
103.3 104.0 103.4 103.2 102.0
103.2 [103.9 103.4 103.2 102.0
103.5 U04.3 103.7 103.5 102.2

103.3
100.6
100.6
100.8

98.8 98.6 98.7 98.8
103.7 101.2 101.2 101.0

98.7 98.8 98.9 99.0
99.9 100.2 100.8 100.4

99.1
99.8

99.2
99.4

99.3
99.5

98.8 99.4
99.6 100.4

97.7

97.8

98.1

98.3

98.4

98.5

98.0

98.8

99.6 99.7 99.8 100.0
98.3 98.2 98.5 98.6
99.0 99.0 98.9 98.8
100.8 100.8 100.3 100.6

■99.9 100.1 100.1 100.4 100.5 100.6 100.6 100.7 100.7
98.8 98.6 98.6 98.7 98.7, 98.7 98.9 98.8 98.9
98.9 99.0 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.3 99.5 99.7 99.8
101.4 101.7 102.0 102.1 100.8 101.4 101.2 101.2 101.5

100.4
98.8
99.3
101.2

100.6
99.6
99.7
101.6

102.0 102.2 101.9 101.9

102.6 102.7 102.9 102.9 100.9 102.4 102.1 102.2 102.4

102.3

102.6

97.1

97.1

97.2

97.3

97.3

97.4

97.6

98.6
100.9
105.1
106.0
104.2
105.4
101.6

98.4
101.1
106.4
105.7
106.1
110.5
101.5

97.6
101.4
106.7
105.8
106.5
111.4
101.5

98.4
101.6
106.6
105.7
106.4
111. 5
101.3

99.4
101.5
105.9
105.9
105.3
109.1
101.1

100.0
101.6
105.6
105.9
104.9
108.3
101.0

100.4
101.4
105.0
106.1
104.0
106.2
100.9

100.6
101.4
105.2
106J)i
104.3
107.0
100.8

99.0
101.6
104.3
105.8
103.2
103.7
101.1

99.6
102.1
104.7
105.9
103.7
104.5
101.3

99.7
102.6
103.8
105.9
102.4
100.8
101.6

99.5
102.7
104.2
105.7
103.0
101.8
101.9

100.8
100.0
98.3
94.2
98.9
101.7
99.7
102.9
104.6
101.3

101.0
100.3
99.0
99.5
98.9
101.8
99.7
102.9
104.5
101.4

101.5
100.9
100.4
98.9
100.7
101.7
99.8
103.0
104.6
101.4

101.8
101.2
101.4
103.4
101.1
101.7
99.8
103.0
104.7
101.5

101.6
101.0
100.7
95.9
101.4
101.8
99.9
103.0
104.7
101.4

102.0
101.5
102.1
102.8
101.9
101.7
100.0
102.9
104.6
101.3

101.9
101.5
101.9
100.9
102.0
101.8
99.9
102.8
104.5
101.3

102.6
102.3
103.9
101.5
104.3
101.7
100.1
102.9
104.5
101.3

101.7
101.1
101.3
96.3
102.1
101.4
100.1
103.0
104.5
101.5

101.5
100.8
100.3
93.4
101.4
101.5
100.2
103.0
104.6
101.5

101.1
100.4
99.3
93.7
100.2
101.4
100.0
102.8
104.4
101.3

101.2
100.5
99.5
96.7
99.9
101.5
100.0
102.9
104.4
101. 4

T o ta l d u ra b le goods
___
100.7 100.6 100.7 100.7 100.7
99.0 99.2 99.7 100.2 100.0
T o ta l n o n d u ra b le goods______________________________
T o ta l m a n u faetn re s
100.0 100.2 100.4 100.6 100.6
D u ra b le m a n u fa c tu re s ___________________________ 101.0 100.9 101.0 101.1 101.1
99.1 99.3 99.7 100.0 100.0
N o n d u ra b le m a n u fa c tu re s _______________________
98.4 98.3 99.1 100.2 99.4
T o ta l ra w or s lig h tly processed goods________________
D u ra b le ra w or s lig h tly processed goods__________
89.4 88.7 88.6 87.9 86.4
N o n d u ra b le ra w or s lig h tly processed goods............. 98.9 98.9 99.7 100.9 100.1

100.7
100.5
100.7
101.1
100.2
100.5
85.4
101.4

100.7
100.4
100.7
101.1
100.2

100.9
101.2
101.1
101.3
100.9

101.0 101.0 101.0 101.1 101.2

F in is h e d goods (goods to u sers, in c lu d in g ra w foods
a n d fuels) ________________________________________
C o n su m er finished goods_________________________
C o n su m er foods_____________________________
C o n su m er cru d e foods
C o n su m er processed foods________________
C o n su m er o th e r n o n d u ra b le goods___________
Consumer d u ra b le goods_____________________
P ro d u c e r fin ish ed goods___________ _____________
P ro d u c e r finished goods for m a n u fa c tu rin g ___
P ro d u c e r finished goods for n o n m a n u fa c tu rin g .

99.9
103.4
104.2
105.5
103.1
101.9
102.1

99.4
102.2
104.5
105.7
103.5
104.1
101.3

100.1
100.9
102.3
105.2
100.6
97.5
100.5

101.4
100.7
100.1
97.6
100.4
101.6
99.9
102.9
104.4
101. 4

101.7
101.2
101.3
98.6
101.7
101.6
100.0
102.9
104.4
101.4

101.4
100.9
100.4
97.6
100.8
101.5
100.5
102.5
103.8

101.2

D u r a b ility o f p r o d u c t

i See footnote 1, table D-3.
* See footnote 2, table D-3.
* Preliminary.


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

100.0 99.8 99.3 99.5 99.7
100.7 100.8 100.6 100.7 100.7
101.3 101.4 101.4 101.5 101.5
100.0 100.1 99.8 99.8 99.9
100.2 101.1 99.2 98.4 97.3 98.1 98.8
86.3 87.8 88.3 86.8 86.7 89.1 90.8
101.0 101.9 99.9 99.0 97.9 98.6 99.2

101.0
100.1
100.8
101.3
100.1
99.5
89.2

100.1

101.3
99.6
100.7
101.4
100.0
98.3
95.2
98.5

N ote: For description of the series by stage of processing, see “ New BLS
Economic Sector Indexes of Wholesale Prices,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w ,
December 1955, pp. 1448-1453; and by durability of product and data be­
ginning with 1947, see W h o le s a le P r i c e s a n d P r i c e I n d e x e s , 1 9 5 7 , BLS Bul­
letin 1235 (1958)

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, JUNE 1963

764

E.—Work Stoppages
T able

E -l. Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1
Workers Involved in stoppages

Number of stoppages
Month and year

193K-39 (fivfirftgft)
_
_ ___________________
1947-49 (average)
__ ___________________
1Q4fi
........................................ ................................. ..
194«
______________________________________
1947
________________________________________
1943
_ ________________ _____ ___________
1949
________________________________________
1950
„
________________________________________ _____
1951
________________________________________
1952
, ___ . . . . . . . .
1953
_ ______________ _______ ________ ________
1954
_______ _______ ________________________________
1955
________________________________________
195«
_ ________________________________________
1957
_ __________________________________________
1958

1959
19«0
19«1
19«2

_ _ _ _ _ ______________

________________________________________
________________________________________
______________________________________________
__ ____ ______ __________________________

1962: April................................................................................
M ay _______________________ _______________________
June _______________________________________________
July _______________________________________________

'

August______________________________________
September___________________________________
October_____________________________________
November___________________________________
December____________________________________

1963: January 1__________________________ __________

February *___________________________________
M arch J_____________________________________
A p rilJ______________________________________

Beginning in
month or year

537
653
695
621
617
541
506
442
331

230

360
320
350
475

200

In effect dur­
ing month

114,000

212,000

151,000
98,100
129,000
91,700
98,800
81,000
45,200
75,000
60,000
45,000

100,000

Number

Percent of
estimated
working time

16,900,000
39,700,000
38,000,000
116,000,000
34,600,000
34,100,000
60, 500,000
38,800,000
22,900,000
59,100,000
28,300,000
22,600,000
28,200,000
33,100,000
16, 500,000
23, 900,000
69,000, 000
19,100,000
16,300,000
18,600,000

2

340
442
436
355
352
297
261
230
133

225
350

Beginning in
month or year

1,130,000
2,380,000
3,470,000
4,600,000
2,170,000
1,960,000
3,030,000
2,410,000
,220,000
3,540,000
2,400,000
1, 530,000
2,650,000
1,900,000
1,390,000
2,060,000
1,880,000
1,320,000
1,450,000
1,230,000

2,862
3', 573
4,750
4,985
3; 693
3,419
3,606
4,843
4, 737
5,117
5,091
3,468
4,320
3,825
3,673
3,694
3,708
3,333
3,367
3,614

i The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 or more
workers 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 1 shift in estab­
lishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect


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

In effect dur­
ing month

Man-days idle during month
or year

146,000
262,000
311,000
195,000
196,000
181,000
155,000
171,000
146, 000

1,130,000
2,520, C00
3,020,000
,020,000
1,940,000
1, 590,000
1,350,000
981,000
1,330,000

185,000

2,340,000
,100,000
,110,000
1,050,000

120,000

90,000
130,000

2

1
1

0.27
.46
.47
1.43
.41
.37
.59
.44
.23
.57
.26

.21
.26
.29
.14

.22

.61
.17
.14
.16

.12

.25
.31

.21
.18
.18
.13

.10

.14

.23

.12
.12
.10

or secondary effect on other establishments or industries whose employees
are made idle as a result of material or service shortages.
* Preliminary.

U . S . SOVfiüMMiNT PKIKTINS 0 F F I C E » I 9 8 3

New Publications Available
For Sale
Order sale publications from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,
Washington 25, D.C. Send check or money order, payable to the Superintendent of Documents.
Currency sent at sender’s risk. Copies may also be purchased from any of the Bureau’s regional offices.
(See inside front cover for the addresses of these offices.)

BLS Bulletin 1344: Employment and Changing Occupational Patterns in the Railroad
Industry, 1947-60. 32 pp. 30 cents.
Occupational Wage Surveys:
BLS Bulletins—
1345-25: Salt Lake City, Utah, December 1962. 26 pp. 25 cents.
1345-29: Trenton, N.J., December 1962. 28 pp. 25 cents.
1345-30: Buffalo, N.Y., December 1962. 32 pp. 25 cents.
1345-32: Denver, Colo., December 1962. 22 pp. 25 cents.
1345-35: Dayton, Ohio, January 1963. 20 pp. 20 cents.
1345-36: Memphis, Tenn., January 1963. 22 pp. 25 cents.
1345-37: New Haven, Conn., January 1963. 20 pp. 20 cents.
BLS Bulletin 1352: Industry Wage Survey, Machinery Manufacturing, March-June
1962. 61 pp. 40 cents.

For Lim ited Free Distribution
Single copies of the reports listed below are furnished without cost as long as supplies permit.
Write to Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington 25, D.C., or to any of the
Bureau’s regional offices. (See inside front cover for the addresses of these offices.)

BLS Report 232: Wage Chronology: Martin-Marietta Corp. (Baltimore Plant), 1944-61.
19 pp.
BLS Report 235: Deferred Wage Increases and Escalator Clauses, 1952-63.

61 pp.

BLS Report 237-14: Consumer Expenditures and Income, Portland, Maine, 1960.
12 pp.
Income, Education, and Unemployment in Neighborhoods:
New York City; Queens. 71 pp.
Baltimore, Md. 32 pp.
Oakland, Calif. 26 pp.
Buffalo, N.Y. 22 pp.
Oklahoma City, Okla. 22 pp.
Cleveland, Ohio. 34 pp.
St. Louis, Mo. 30 pp.
Memphis, Tenn. 22 pp.
San Francisco, Calif. 34 pp.
Milwaukee, Wis. 32 pp.
Tampa-St.
Petersburg, Fla. 24 pp.
New Orleans, La. 34 pp.
Washington,
D.C. 34 pp.
New York City; Brooklyn. 84 pp.


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

H A N S O N -B E N N E T T

l3o

M A G A Z IN E AGENCY

NO W A3ASH AVE

C H IC A G O
L R -D E C

I

IL L

H

U n it e d S t a t e s
G o v e r n m e n t P r in t in g O f f i c e
D IVISIO N O F P U B L I C D O C U M EN TS

W

a s h in g t o n

2 5 , D.C.

O F F IC IA L B U S I N E S S


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