Full text of Monthly Labor Review : March 1983, Volume 106, Number 3

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
March 1983

In this issue:
Employment in construction


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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year —
$26 domestic; $32.50 foreign.
Single copy $3.50.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402
Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through April 30, 1987. Second-class
postage paid at Washington, D.C. and at additional mailing addresses.
ISSN 0098-1818

Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I- Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II — New York: Samuel M. Ehrenha/t
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944-3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margul/s
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596-1154
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Phone: (404) 881-4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: W iliam £ Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Bryan Richey
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6971
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and VIII — Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

March cover:
Detail from “ Snow S h o v e lle rs” (1934)
an o il painting by Ja c o b G etla r Sm ith,
courte sy N atio nal C o lle c tio n of F in e Arts,
W ash ington , D.C.
Cover d esig n by M elvin M oxley,
D ivisio n of A ud io -V isu al C o m m u n icatio n Services,
U.S. Departm ent of Labor.


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

Regions IX and X — San Francisco: D. Bruce Hanchett
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-4678
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
MARCH 1983
VOLUME 106, NUMBER 3

LIBRARY

Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor

MAR 2 8 1983

Robert Guttman

3

Job Training Partnership Act: new help for the unemployed
The law replacing CETA is designed to spur business, State and local governments
to work together to train disadvantaged or dislocated workers for private sector jobs

J. Tschetter, J. Lukasiewicz

11

Employment changes in construction: secular, cyclical, seasonal
Construction employment growth roughly paralleled total employment during 1950-80;
industry demand for labor declined more during recessions and took longer to recover

D. Quinn Mills

18

Reforming the U.S. system of collective bargaining
Negotiations and relationships between labor and management must reflect less conflict,
more cooperation as the Nation’s economy struggles to meet international competition

S. B. Goldberg, J. M. Brett

23

An experiment in the mediation of grievances
Under the aegis of the Labor Department, analysts examined grievance mediation
relative to arbitration in the coal mining industry, a frequently combative labor arena

IRRA PAPERS

Daniel J. B. Mitchell
Everett M. Kassalow
David Lewin


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

31
32
33

Did 1982 concessions by unions mark a turning point in bargaining?
Will union concessions expand areas for bargaining?
Implications of concession bargaining: lessons from the public sector
REPORTS

Harry B. Williams
Norma W. Carlson

36
37

Pay levels in hosiery manufacturing
Hourly pay of contract cleaners sweeps past weekly gains
D EPA R TM EN TS

2
31
36
41
43
46
53

Labor month in review
Conference papers
Research summaries
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics

Labor M onth
In Review

CPI’S FOR LOCAL AREAS. Commis­
sioner of Labor Statistics Janet L.
Norwood discussed the limitations of
Consumer Price Indexes for local areas
at a January 28 meeting of the City Club
of Cleveland, Ohio. The following is
based on her remarks, which also
reported on the change in the way bls is
measuring homeownership costs.
Small samples. We in the Bureau of
Labor Statistics are well aware of the
pronounced variability of consumer
price indexes for local areas. The local
CPI’s are a part of the national cpi pro­
gram. Because the samples for each of
the 85 individual areas in which prices
are collected are very much smaller than
in the national index, which represents
an aggregate of all local areas, substan­
tial variability of the local CPI’s is a result.
It is for these reasons that we urge all
those using the c pi in indexation, where
point estimates need to be based on a
single month, to use the national index.
Given the limited budget for the pro­
gram, the local area c p i ’s have a much
larger sampling variability than the
larger more broadly based national in­
dex for all urban consumers (c p i -u ). In
fact, problems of this sort were among
those responsible for the decision to
change the method of calculating the
homeownership component of the Con­
sumer Price Index.
Homeownership change. In the past,
our approach to measuring homeowner­
ship costs included the asset value as well
as the cost of shelter provided by owned
houses. The house prices used in
calculating the homeownership portion
of the CPI create additional difficult
statistical problems because the number
of prices varies significantly from one
month to the next, and the data base us­
ed (from the Federal Housing Adminis­
2

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

tration) is not fully representative of all
houses sold. In local areas, these pro­
blems are aggravated because of the
small area sample. For example, in the
case of Cleveland, the sample is par­
ticularly small and the compilation
guidelines require “ imputation;” that is,
use of a broader-based set of prices from
the region as a whole to represent results
in the local area.
The new m ethod of measuring
homeownership uses rental equivalence
as a proxy, effective with release of the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (c p i -u ) for January 1983.
The c pi for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers (C Pi-w ) will begin using
the rental equivalence approach in 1985.
The new homeowners’ cost compo­
nent is similar to the one used in the ex­
perimental c p i -U-x i , with four impor­
tant refinements. First, bls calculated a
set of owner weights for the individual
units in the cpi rent sample. These new
weights make the rent sample represent
owner-occupied housing and permit the
calculation of a rent change estimate for
homeowners.
Second, bls has augmented the rent
sample to enhance the rental equivalence
measure. This new sampling is concen­
trated in areas where housing is
predominantly owner-occupied in order
to increase the proportion of rental units
that have characteristics similar to
owner-occupied units.
Third, the expenditure weight for ren­
tal equivalence, which for the ex­
perimental index (xi) was calculated by
means of a short-cut method, has been
recalculated using the complex statistical
estimating procedure used for weights in
the official c p i . In addition, the weights
associated with other homeowner expen­
ditures for such things as insurance, ap­
pliances, and maintenance and repairs
have been modified to be consistent with

the rental equivalence concept. This
enhancement has improved the quality
of the national c p i ’s rental equivalence
weight and provides weights for com­
putation of local area c pi -U’s using the
rental equivalence approach.
Finally, the computer system which
produces the price index each month has
been expanded to accommodate the
calculation, with complete item and
geographic detail, and with proper
geographic weighting for the rental
equivalence approach, bls will continue
to work on other refinements in the
statistical estimating techniques used in
the rental equivalence measure.
Overlap. The new homeownership
component was introduced into the cpi
in such a manner that the indexes using
the old and new methodologies were
equal in the so-called link month
— D ecem ber 1982 for the CPI-U
(December 1984 for the c p i -W). In accor­
dance with historical practice, bls will
make available to users, for a 6-month
overlap period after the change in the
two indexes, calculations based on the
previous treatment of homeownership.
In the case of the c p i -u , the overlap
period runs from January to June 1983;
for the c p i -w , the overlap period will run
from January to June 1985.
Monthly publication of the c p i -u ex­
perimental alternative homeownership
measures xi through X5 ceased with con­
version to a rental equivalence measure
in the c p i -u .
A detailed description of the
homeownership change appears in the
January 1983 c p i Detailed Report,
available from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The
report is available by subscription for
$28 a year ($35 outside the U.S.). Single
copy price, $5.
□

Job Training Partnership Act:
new help for the unemployed
A result o f broad bipartisan support,
the law that replaces CETA is designed
to encourage business and State and
local governments to work together
to train disadvantaged or dislocated workers
for employment in the private sector
R obert G uttm a n

The enactment of the Job Training Partnership Act,
which takes effect October 1, comes just 21 years after
passage of the first “manpower” (currently called “job
training”) program of the modern era in the Area Rede­
velopment Act.
From that modest beginning in 1961, statute suc­
ceeded statute and amendment succeeded amendment.
The Manpower Development and Training Act was
enacted in 1962 and was constantly amended until its
repeal by the Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act ( c e t a ) in 1973.1In the same decade, the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964 began a series of manpower
programs which were also steadily revised prior to their
repeal by CETA. While the enactment of CETA was a
major restructuring of the numerous manpower pro­
grams that had resulted from this spate of legislation,
the c e t a program had no more stability than its prede­
cessors.
In its brief history, from 1973 to 1982, CETA was
amended eight times and proliferated 12 separate pro­
grammatic titles, parts, and subparts. The instability of
program design resulting from the constant legislative
changes was exacerbated by even more severe funding
instabilities. In 8 fiscal years, there were 26 separate ap­
propriations for the program including regular, suppleRobert Guttman is counsel to the Subcommittee on Employment and
Productivity, U.S. Senate.


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

mental, and emergency appropriations, plus a plethora
of continuing resolutions, that culminated with the en­
actment of the Job Training Partnership Act. It will be
interesting to see whether, on the 21st anniversary of
these programs, a new era of stability and maturity has
been ushered in.
The constant revision of manpower programs was
largely caused by the diversity of goals and objectives
that have been sought to be achieved through these pro­
grams. They have, at various times, been designed to re­
train the experienced labor force, to remedy the adverse
effects of automation, to relieve poverty, to create jobs,
to serve as a backstop for income maintenance pro­
grams, to encourage high school completion, to reduce
juvenile delinquency, to convert welfare recipients into
wage earners and to conserve natural resources. Virtual­
ly all worthwhile social goals have at some time been an
objective of manpower policy.
Combined with this unrelenting redirection of the ob­
jectives of manpower policy has been an incessant power
struggle. The original Manpower Development and
Training Act was described as a careful treaty between
the Employment Service and the vocational education
system. Since then, new contenders for control have in­
cluded community action agencies, counties, cities,
States, and the business community. The major issues in
the development of manpower programs, from the Man­
power Development and Training Act of 1962 up to and
3

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Job Training Partnership Act
including the Job Training Partnership Act, have been
as much the power relationships among these contend­
ing parties as the program’s substance itself.
In an article following the enactment of CETA, I
wrote that “though all agreed on the need to decentral­
ize not all agreed on who would control under decen­
tralization.” That statement is just as applicable to the
development of the Job Training Partnership Act. The
broad objectives of decategorization and decentraliza­
tion, which were the agreed-upon parameters of the
CETA legislation, were also those of the Job Training
Partnership Act. Thus, the issues that needed to be re­
solved in 1973 also needed to be resolved in 1982.
In the development of the new act, there were three
basic issues: first, the appropriate relationship among
Federal, State, and local government; second, the ap­
propriate relationship between the business sector and
local government in the planning and administration of
training programs; and third, the appropriate relation­
ship between training and income and other support.

Intergovernmental relations
In the development of CETA, everyone agreed on the
need to decentralize, but there was an unremitting con­
troversy as to whom it should be decentralized to.
There were several major contenders but, ultimately,
the struggle was one between local and State govern­
ments. Resolution came through the definition of the
term “prime sponsor,” who was the direct recipient of
Federal grants with basic programmatic responsibility.
Local governments were “prime sponsors” and received
direct grants from the Federal Government for all ma­
jor urbanized areas, that is, for cities and counties with
populations of 100,000 or more, and the State was de­
fined as the “prime sponsor” for all other areas. Thus,
State and local governments were both “prime spon­
sors” with identical functions. The distinction between
them was geographical, not functional. In essence, the
Governor was treated as the local government for rural
areas and, as a result, received approximately one-third
of basic grant funds for the so-called “balance-of-State.”
Therefore, local government played barely any role in
the balance-of-State, and the State played hardly any
role in the areas where prime sponsors were local gov­
ernments.
The solution to the State and local government con­
flict resolved one of the major issues between the
Democratic Congress and the Republican Administra­
tion concerning the implementation of “special revenue
sharing.” The legislative history is unclear as to whether
CETA should have been considered a special revenue
sharing program, but it is clear that it was a form of
decentralization that left no role for State government
in those areas where Federal grants were made directly
to local government.
4


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

The development of the relative roles of State and lo­
cal governments in the Job Training Partnership Act is
quite different. One of the major program goals of the
current Administration is the development of a “New
Federalism.” Whether the Job Training Partnership Act
is indeed the first example of new federalism in action
remains to be seen, but it is clear that the intergovern­
mental relationships contemplated by this act are vastly
different from those under c e t a .
Under the Job Training Partnership Act, the distinc­
tion between the role of local and State governments is
not based on geography but rather on function. The
Governor has the same role with respect to all areas of
the State instead of having a commanding voice in rural
areas and none in urban. Under the act, Federal grants
are made to the States with a mandatory suballocation
formula to the service delivery area into which the State
is divided. The basic design and administration of job
training programs occurs at the local (service delivery
area) level through a partnership between local govern­
ment and business organizations.
The State’s role is not that of the design and imple­
mentation of the details of the training programs; but is
coordination, supervision, review, monitoring and as­
signment of performance goals and sanctions for non­
performance. The basic role of the State in this act has
not been achieved by transfer of functions from the lo­
cal government, rather it has been accomplished by
transfer of functions in the Federal Government.
The basic functions of the State are the designation of
service delivery areas, approval of local plans, fiscal and
management controls, application and enforcement of
performance standards, and coordination of programs.
A word should be said about the first and last of these.
Federal legislation no longer mandates service delivery
areas, but instead gives the Governor considerable dis­
cretion to relate service delivery areas to the economic
realities in his or her State or to areas in which related
services are performed. Of course, there are substantial
limits to the Governor’s discretion because localities
with populations of 200,000 or more do have a statuto­
ry right to form service delivery areas on their own.
However, one may hope that, in the long run, the ad­
vantages of rationalizing the Governor’s areas will dis­
courage this choice.
Another major and new role at the State level is the
authority to achieve coordination among job training
programs. Prior attempts to mandate coordination at
the local level have not been generally effective, while
coordination at the Federal level has been no more suc­
cessful. The State government seems the most logical
place to bring the variety of interrelated programs to­
gether and thus, under the Job Training Partnership
Act, the State is authorized to prescribe coordination
criteria which are mandatory on the local delivery sys-

terns. It should also be noted that the act also amends
the Wagner-Peyser Act, which had for practical pur­
poses remained unamended since its enactment 50 years
ago, with the major objective of promoting coordina­
tion between the training and the Employment Service
systems.
It should be emphasized that the act also leaves a
strong and, one would hope, more effective role for the
Federal Government. In past training programs, the
Federal role has been substantial, but it has focused on
methods of achieving goals rather than on execution.
The new training act removes that detailed regulatory
authority from the Labor Department. The department
is also removed from day-to-day oversight and instead
is given the primary function of prescribing effective
and enforceable performance goals, though retaining
functions related to the appropriate expenditure of
funds. However, the whole thrust of the new Federal,
State, and local relationship is to give appropriate func­
tions to each governmental level. The Federal Govern­
ment provides the definition of the objectives, that is,
increased earnings, employment, and reduction of wel­
fare dependency; the State government has the basic
managerial and coordinating functions, and the design
and implementation of programs is placed at the local
level.

Business and local government’s relations
The original CETA did not give any statutory recogni­
tion to the role of the business community. Though it
has always been known that most graduates of the
training programs are destined to be hired by the pri­
vate sector, business was not given any statutory role in
the design or implementation of programs. This vacuum
was occasionally addressed by administrative initiatives,
such as the jobs program during the Johnson Adminis­
tration, and various other attempts to promote coordi­
nation and interlocking between the public training
system and the private sector. The first statutory move
in that direction, though, came in 1978 with the Title
VII amendment to CETA, which provided for a private
industry council. However, the role of the council was
seen by many business people as too weak, both be­
cause Title VII was a fairly small part of the total ap­
propriation under the act and because the council was
effectively under the domination of the chief elected
official, who appointed and could dismiss members.
There was a surprising degree of unanimity during
the development of the new statute that effective train­
ing programs require business and local government to
work in partnership. The Senate bill gave the private in­
dustry council a lead role in planning and administering
job training programs, but the plan required the con­
currence of the local official. If such concurrence could
not be reached, the Governor was to be arbitrator. The


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

House bill gave the lead role to the local government
officials but again with the concurrence of private indus­
try required, and disputes were to be resolved by the
Secretary. In the conference committee, it was agreed
that the partnership in each of the bills was not equal,
and it was further agreed that there was to be a true
and equal partnership between local government and
the business community. That agreement was translated
into legislation as follows: a private industry council is
to be established for each service delivery area based on
nominations from general-purpose business and govern­
ment so as to ensure that the elected official chooses
truly representative persons of the business community.
However, nominations are required to be in excess of
the number of vacancies to provide some choice to the
local government. After a council is established, it is
given a planning grant from the Department of Labor
so that it can deal on an equal basis with the local gov­
ernment, which, of course, has an available staff. The
conference report describes the relationship as follows:
After the PIC is certified and has its first meeting convened by
the chief elected official, it will elect its chairperson, provide
for operational rules, and select necessary staff to assist it in
determining how to exercise its functions. After the P ic has
had an opportunity to review the operation of current training
programs in the area and to formulate its general policy posi­
tions, it will then enter into negotiations with the appropriate
local government officials for the agreements specified in the
bill. The first such subject of negotiations will concern the
method for developing the plan, which may be an agreement
to have the PIC or the local government or such other method
or institutions specified in the agreement prepare the plan.
Further, either as part of the same agreement or in a later
one, the PIC and local governments will decide on the grant
recipient and administrator of programs in the area. The con­
ference agreement makes plain that these may be the same or
separate entities and that either or both may be the p i c , the
local government or any other entity or entities provided in
the agreement.

The above clarifies that business communities and lo­
cal government are free to negotiate the terms of any
agreement they see fit. They are brought to the
bargaining table as equal partners and thereafter their
decisions will be influenced by the needs of the locality
and the degree of involvement that each of the parties
wants. It is, perhaps, one of the most complete forms of
decentralization in Federal legislation in terms of local
administrative and planning requirements.

Programmatic issues
It is a surprising fact that, throughout the consider­
ation of manpower training programs from the early
1960’s through the early 1980’s, there has been remark­
ably little controversy about the substance of training
programs. Legislation has continued to authorize the
basic forms of institutional and on-the-job training,
5

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Job Training Partnership Act
placing remarkably few Federal mandates on how these
services are to be performed. There have been expan­
sions of the kinds of training activities authorized for
youth, but it is fair to say that the core of the argument
has related more to who shall deliver the services and
what level of government shall be involved rather than
to the specifications of the kinds of training. This was
true in the. development of CETA, which, in essence,
merely reauthorized all the forms of training that had
been permitted under predecessor legislation. The
“decategorization” that was the hallmark of CETA did
not eliminate the previous categorical programs. In­
stead, it meant that the prime sponsor, rather than the
Federal Government, chose the mix of categorical pro­
grams within its local area. However, in the case of
CETA there was one major argument concerning pro­
grammatic issues and that concerned public service em­
ployment. Likewise, during the development of the new
bill, there was one major programmatic issue; and that
was the relation between training and income and other
support.
In a sense, this was an update of the public service
employment issue of 1973. Public service employment is
probably the extreme example of income support to
participants in training programs. Once public service
employment was labeled as “transitional” it acquired,
at least in theory, a characteristic of a training program
because it was designed to lead from the subsidized
public service employment jobs to a regular job, thus
promoting the same objectives as training programs.
However, while participating in the public service em­
ployment programs, the individual received income
through the wage payment far in excess of the support
available under any other training program. Also in­
cluded in the income available under CETA were the
mandatory allowance payments to persons who were in
institutional training and the wage payments made in
work experience programs, which encompassed a wide
variety of programs from those with heavy training
components to others which were little more than a dis­
guised form of income maintenance.
Under the Job Training Partnership Act, it was
agreed upon early that there would be no public service
employment. Proponents of public service employment
programs made no concession on the merits of such
programs, but agreed they would fight the battle on a
separate piece of legislation, rather than endanger the
passage of a bill authorizing training programs. Howev­
er, the availability of wages under work experience pro­
grams and allowances and supportive services for
persons in other training programs remained a major is­
sue throughout the consideration of the bill. The Ad­
ministration bill prohibited all wage and allowance
payments to participants and limited the combined
costs of administration and supportive services to 30
6

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

percent, with the remaining 70 percent required to be
spent for training. This proposal was not adopted in
full in either the House or the Senate bill, but each bill
did provide that 70 percent of the funds should be
spent for “training.”
The Administration’s proposal directly raised a major
question, could work experience programs legitimately
be classified as “training?” While all the conferees rec­
ognized the need to concentrate funds on training, they
differed philosophically on what constituted training,
thus making the resolution of this isssue one of the
most difficult faced by the conference.
The outcome is instructive: it is a compromise that
all sides could live with, though perhaps difficult to de­
fend philosophically. The new act excludes the summer
youth program from the 70-30 restriction altogether,
treats the costs of tryout employment and 50 percent of
the costs of a training-related work experience program
as training costs (thus counting as part of the 70 rather
than 30), and permits localities to exceed the 30 percent
limitation when specified conditions are met. Thus, it
provides for a concentration of funds on training with­
out sacrificing local flexibility or making it impossible
to meet the needs of those who cannot participate in
training without income support.

Conclusion
I have sketched very briefly, the major issues that
were in dispute, their historical development, and the
method of their resolution in the Job Training Partner­
ship Act. However, I think it is important to point out
that there were several issues that were not in dispute
but that may be of more long-run significance than the
matters discussed so far. I want to mention three in
particular. First, the act contains a permanent authori­
zation, thus relieving the program of the constant
reexamination which was required by the limited dura­
tion of authorizations in past legislation. Second, it pro­
vides for advance funding which may relieve the
program from the burden of receiving allocations only
after the start of the program year. Third, the act relies
on performance standards rather than on process re­
quirements. With these reforms in place, the training
programs have an opportunity for rational planning and
for evaluation that may give them the stability
previously lacking.
The development of the Job Training Partnership Act
was a broad bipartisan effort. On the Senate side,
S.2036 was introduced by Senator Dan Quayle and
cosponsored by Senators Edward Kennedy, Paula
Hawkins, and Claiborne Pell. On the House side, H.R.
5320 was introduced by Representative Augustus
Hawkins and was cosponsored by a large bipartisan
group, including Representative James Jeffords, the
ranking minority member of the subcommittee. Yet de-

spite this effort, the Act’s passage was in doubt
throughout the process because the pressures for divi­
siveness were almost as great as those for consensus.
The fact that both Speaker Thomas O’Neill and Presi­
dent Ronald Reagan held signing ceremonies, in which
each claimed credit for the bill and accused the opposite
party of obstructionism, shows both the consensus on
the substance and the political confrontation.
The reasons for this combination of consensus and
confrontation are lengthy, but a word on the context in
which the act was developed is important to its under­
standing. It was a time when the prior program ( c e t a )
had become a political symbol and even the need to
change the title of the program was a matter of intense,
and largely partisan, dispute while public service em-

ployment had only ardent advocates and harsh critics.
The intense feeling surrounding the prior program was
exacerbated by the political heat arising from the imple­
mentation of major budget reductions through the rec­
onciliation process period and the increase of unem­
ployment to its postwar peak. Thus, the factors making
for confrontation were numerous—though insufficient
to overcome the basic consensus that the Federal Gov­
ernment has the obligation to provide for training of
the disadvantaged in order to enable them to enter the
mainstream of the American economy.
□
--------- FOOTNOTE---------1
See Robert Guttman, “Intergovernmental relations under the new
manpower act,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1974, pp. 10-16.

APPENDIX: A Summary of the Job Training Partnership Act
The act provides for an open-ended authorization for
the basic program for the economically disadvantaged
(Title ILA) and the Federally administered programs
(Title IV, excluding Job Corps). There are also separate,
open-ended authorizations for the Summer Youth Pro­
gram (Title II.B) and the Dislocated Workers Program
(Title III). For Job Corps (Title IV.B), there are autho­
rized to be appropriated $618 million, in fiscal year
1983, and such sums as may be necessary for each
succeeding fiscal year.
Not more than 7 percent of the total amount appro­
priated for the Act shall be available to the Secretary
for Federally administered programs. (Of that amount,
5 percent shall be available for Veterans’ Employment
Programs.)

Title I. Job Training Partnership
Service delivery system. After receiving the proposal of
the State Job Training Coordinating Council, the Gov­
ernor will publish proposed service delivery areas for
the State. The Governor must approve any request to
be a service delivery area from: 1) any unit of general
local government with a population of 200,000 or more
and 2) any consortium of contiguous units of general
local government, with an aggregate population of
200,000 or more. After reviewing comments from local
government, business organizations, and other affected
groups, the Governor will make a final designation of
service delivery areas.
Establishment of private industry council. There will be a
private industry council for each service delivery area.
The majority of the membership will be representative
of the private sector, one of whom will be selected to be
chairperson. The remaining members will be representa­
tives of educational agencies, organized labor, rehabili­
tation agencies, community-based organizations, eco­
nomic development agencies, and the Employment
Service. After the members have been appointed by the


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

chief local elected official, the Governor will certify the
private industry council.
Functions of the private industry council. The private in­
dustry council will provide policy guidance for, and ex­
ercise oversight with respect to, activities under the job
training plan for the service delivery area, in partnership
with the appropriate local official. The private industry
council, in accordance with agreements with the local
official, shall determine the procedures for the develop­
ment of the plan and select the administrative entity.
After the plan is approved by the private industry coun­
cil and the local official, it must be jointly submitted to
the Governor.
Job training plan. The job training plan is for 2 pro­
gram years and must include: 1) identification of the ad­
ministrative entity, 2) a description of services to be
provided, 3) procedures for identifying and selecting
participants and for eligibility determination, (4) perfor­
mance goals, 5) procedures for selecting service provid­
ers, 6) the budget for the program years, 7) a des­
cription of methods of complying with the Governor’s
coordination and special services plan, 8) coordination
provisions, if there is more than one service delivery
area in a single labor market area, 9) fiscal control, ac­
counting, audit, and debt collection procedures, and 10)
procedures for preparation of submission of an annual
report to the Governor. Modifications of the plan may
be submitted when required.
Review and approval o f plan. At least 4 months prior to
the beginning of the first 2 program years covered by
the job training plan, the proposed plan, or a summary
of it, must be published and made available to the State
legislature, local educational and other public agencies,
and labor organizations. The final plan, or a summary
of it, must be published and submitted to the Governor
for approval, not less than 80 days before the beginning
7

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Job Training Partnership Act
of the first 2 program years. The Governor will approve
the plan unless he or she finds that it does not comply
with the following criteria, which are specified in the
act: (1) corrective measures for deficiencies found in au­
dits or in meeting performance standards from previous
years have not been taken or are not acceptably under­
way, (2) the entity proposed to administer the program
does not have the capacity to administer the funds, (3)
there are inadequate safeguards for the protection of
funds, (4) the plan does not comply with a particular
provision of the act or of regulations of the Secretary,
or (5) the plan does not comply with the Governor’s
Coordination and Special Services Plan. Any disapprov­
al by the Governor may be appealed to the Secretary,
who shall make a final decision within 45 days after re­
ceipt of the appeal.
In order to receive funds for planning and operating
job training programs, the Governor must submit to
the Secretary a Governor’s Coordination and Special
Services Plan for 2 program years. The Secretary will
approve the plan unless he or she determines that the
plan does not comply with specific provisions of the act.
State Job Training Coordinating Council. The State Job
Training Coordinating Council will be appointed by the
Governor, who will designate one nongovernmental
member to be chairperson. One-third of the membership
will be representatives of the private sector and no less
than 20 percent of the members must be representatives
from each of the following categories: State agencies; lo­
cal governments; and others, including labor, education,
community-based organizations, and the general public.
State education coordination grants. Funds are available
to the Governors to provide financial assistance to any
State education agency responsible for education and
training, to be used for eligible participants and to pro­
mote coordination, through cooperative agreements be­
tween State education agencies and administrative
entities.
At least 80 percent of the funds available for cooper­
ative agreements must be used to provide services for
eligible participants and these funds must be equally
matched from other resources. At least 75 percent of
the funds must be used for activities for the economical­
ly disadvantaged.
Training programs for older individuals. Funds are avail­
able to the Governor to be used for job training
programs for older workers. Individuals eligible to par­
ticipate must be economically disadvantaged and be age
55 or older.
Program year. Beginning in fiscal year 1984, the pro­
gram year will be from July 1 to June 30, rather than
the current program year which is October 1 to Septem­
ber 30. Funds obligated for any program year may be
expended during that program year and the 2
succeeding program years.
If a private industry council and the local elected offi­
cial fail to reach agreement on a job training plan,
8

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

and, as a consequence, funds are not available to the
service delivery area, the Governor shall redesignate the
service delivery areas in the State. The Governor may
merge the affected area into one or more other service
delivery areas, in order to promote the reaching of
agreement.
Performance standards. The Secretary of Labor will de­
velop performance standards for evaluating job training
programs. The basic measure of performance for adult
training programs is the increase in employment and
earnings and the reductions in welfare dependency re­
sulting from the program. There will be separate perfor­
mance standards for youth, based on competencies
acquired and on placements and retention in employ­
ment. The Secretary will also prescribe variations in
performance standards for special populations to be
served, including Native Americans, Migrant and Sea­
sonal Farmworkers, and ex-offenders, taking into ac­
count their special circumstances.
Each Governor may prescribe, within parameters
established by the Secretary, variations in the standards,
based upon local conditions. Programs failing to meet
performance standards for 2 years, after receiving tech­
nical assistance, must be reorganized or replaced.
Limitation on certain costs. Of the funds available to ser­
vice delivery areas for the basic program for the
economically disadvantaged (Title II.A), not more than
30 percent may be spent for the costs of administration,
supportive services, needs-based payments to partici­
pants, and all costs of work experience. Except that,
only 50 percent of the costs of work experience must be
counted within the limitation, if the work experience
program is combined with training, limited to 6 months
duration, and the participant is prohibited from further
participation in such a program.
Expenditures in excess of the 30 percent limitation
are permissible under certain circumstances, if the pri­
vate industry council requests such excess, the excess is
included in the plan for the service delivery area, and
the justification for the excess must meet specific crite­
ria. No funds may be used for public service employ­
ment.
Governor's coordination and special services plan.
Annually, the Governor will prepare a statement of
goals and objectives for job training and placement pro­
grams within the State to assist in the preparation of
the plans for the service delivery areas and the locally
developed plans for the Employment Service.

Title II. Training Services for Disadvantaged
Allotment. The Secretary shall distribute funds available
for the basic program (Title II.A) among the States on
the basis of the following formula: 33^ percent on the
basis of the relative number of unemployed individuals
residing in areas of substantial unemployment; 33-j per­
cent on the basis of the relative excess number of unem­
ployed individuals; and 33-3 percent on the basis of

the relative number of economically disadvantaged indi­
viduals. No State will receive less than one quarter of 1
percent of the amount available for allotment. No State
will receive less than 90 percent of its share from the
prior year.
Within state allocation. The Governor shall distribute 78
percent of the funds to service delivery areas on the ba­
sis of the same formula as the Secretary uses to distrib­
ute funds to the States. Of the funds available to each
State, 8 percent will be available for State Education
Coordination Grants (Sec. 123), 3 percent will be avail­
able for Training Programs for Older Workers (Sec.
124), 6 percent will be available for incentive grants for
programs exceeding performance standards, and 5 per­
cent will be available to the Governor for program ad­
ministration and State services.
Eligibility for services. Only economically disadvantaged
persons are eligible to participate in the basic program,
except that up to 10 percent of the participants may be
individuals who are not economically disadvantaged, if
such individuals have encountered employment barriers.
At least 40 percent of the funds are reserved to serve
youth under age 22. Aid to Families with Dependent
Children recipients and school dropouts must be served
on an equitable basis, taking into account their propor­
tion of economically disadvantaged persons, 16 years of
age and over, in the service delivery area. In each ser­
vice delivery area, the ratio of participants in on-the-job
training in the public sector to participants in such
training in the private sector shall not exceed the ratio
between the civilian government employment and non­
government employment in the service delivery area.
Use o f funds. Funds may be used for basic and remedial
education, institutional and on-the-job training, counsel­
ing, occupational training, preparation for work, job
search training, supportive services, and other activities
designed to prepare the disadvantaged for and place
them in unsubsidized jobs. Funds may be used for
needs-based payments, necessary for participation in ac­
cordance with a locally developed formula or proce­
dure. Although traditional forms of job training
activities have been listed, services are not limited to
those specified, however, funds may not be used for
public service employment.
In addition to the other services for youth, the job
training plan may include one or more of the exemplary
youth programs described in the act, which may be
modified to suit local conditions.
Summer Youth Employment and Training Programs. A
Summer Youth Employment and Training Program is
authorized under this act and is not subject to the
30-percent cost limitation applicable to the basic pro­
gram. Participants must be economically disadvantaged
and under age 22. Eligible individuals aged 14 or 15
may participate in the Summer Youth Program, if ap­
propriate.

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

Title III. Assistance for Dislocated Workers
There is an open-ended authorization for a program
to identify displaced workers, job opportunities, and
training available. The program will match the worker
with the training and ultimately with the job. The Sec­
retary shall distribute funds to the States for the Dislo­
cated Workers Program according to the following
formula: one-third on the basis of the relative number
of unemployed individuals, one-third on the basis of the
relative excess number of unemployed individuals, and
one-third on the relative number of individuals who
have been unemployed for 15 weeks or more. Funds
may be used to pay 50 percent of the program’s cost
and the remaining 50 percent must consist of non-Federal matching, with a smaller matching requirement for
States with above average unemployment. Unemploy­
ment insurance benefits, paid by the State to partici­
pants, may be credited for up to 50 percent of the
matching requirement.

Title IV. Federally Administered Programs
The Native American Program, the Migrant and Sea­
sonal Farmworker Program, Job Corps, and the Na­
tional Commission for Employment Policy are all
retained under this act.
In addition, a new Veterans’ Employment Program
has been added which will be administered by the As­
sistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment. Eligible in­
dividuals include service-connected disabled veterans,
veterans of the Vietnam era, and veterans who are re­
cently separated from military service.
National activities. The Secretary is authorized to con­
duct Multi-State Programs which are job training
programs or services that are most appropriately ad­
ministered at the national level and are operated in
more than one State.
In addition, the Secretary is authorized to conduct re­
search and demonstration activities, pilot projects, evalu­
ations, and to provide training and technical assistance.
Affirmative action. Contracts subject to affirmative
action obligations under Executive Order 11246 may es­
tablish or participate in training programs for eligible
participants under this act designed to assist in the
training and placement of eligible participants. If such
programs meet the criteria established in the act as well
as criteria established for such programs by the Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the contrac­
tor may maintain an abbreviated affirmative action plan
and the successful performance of such a contractor’s
training program shall create a presumption of goodfaith effort by such contractor to meet the affirmative
action obligations.

Title V. Miscellaneous Provisions
Amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act. The Employ­
ment Service will develop jointly, with the private in9

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Job Training Partnership Act
dustry council and the local official for each service de­
livery area, those components of the plan which are ap­
plicable to the area. The plan will be submitted to the
State Job Training Coordination Council, which will
certify the plan if it determines that the plan has been
agreed upon by those officials affected and the plan is
consistent with the Governor’s Coordination and Spe­
cial Services Plan. If the plan is not certified, the Em­
ployment Service will be given an opportunity to
modify it. If agreement cannot be reached, the plan will
be transmitted to the Secretary along with modifications

recommended by the officials concerned, including the
Governor.
Funds available to the Secretary for the Employment
Service will be distributed according to this formula:
two-thirds on the basis of the relative number of indi­
viduals in the civilian labor force and one-third on the
basis of the relative number of unemployed individuals.
There is a 90-percent hold-harmless provision that will
bring each State’s share up to 90 percent of the portion
it received during the prior year. No State will receive
less than 0.28 percent of the total amount available.

Innovative bargaining aids productivity
We most frequently speak of competition as being between
countries or between domestic companies. In a larger sense, however,
American workers are in* competition with foreign workers for jobs:
jobs in steel, electronics, auto, and every other product which can be
produced abroad and sold here. By this, I don’t mean that they must
work for wages that are strictly competitive. I do mean that they
should be given the opportunity (and to use the opportunity) to work
smarter. If workers are to succeed in this global competition, they
must have the opportunity of making greater cognitive contribution
relating to achieving price and quality superiority of the products they
are engaged in producing as well as over their own job opportunities
in the domestic job market.
There is already evidence of such joint efforts accomplished through
the negotiating process. The steel industry and the Steelworkers have
acknowledged workers as a valuable resource for years. Most recently,
the parties have negotiated inplant participation teams to work on im­
proving product quality, unit performance, and employee morale. Bell
Telephone and the Communications Workers have also understood
the collaborative role that management and labor can play. They have
tailored a negotiated quality of work-life process in their most recent
contract to meet goals of economic efficiency and human satisfaction
and have carefully and cautiously moved towards its implementation.
In the process, they have overcome elements of distrust that were
undermining the relationship.
These innovative approaches, each different, bring management and
labor into the kind of partnership of common need that potentially
serves the goals of productivity improvement and those of increasing
the worker’s contribution toward his own job security.
— M alcolm R. Lovell, J r .

“A Reagan Official Views a Changing Labor Management Relationship, ”
Speech before the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the
Industrial Relations Research Association, December 1982.

10

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

Employment changes in construction:
secular, cyclical, and seasonal
Construction employment growth
roughly paralleled that of total employment
during 1950-80; but, compared with the
total economy, the demand for labor
takes longer to recover from recessions
Jo h n T s c h e t t e r

and

Jo h n L u k a s ie w ic z

About 5.8 million persons, or 5.8 percent of the U.S.
work force were employed by the construction industry
in 1982. Their unemployment rate was 16.5 percent of
the construction labor force (or 1.1 million persons), a
rate double that for all industries combined. Have these
workers traditionally had such high unemployment
rates? What are the trends in the industry? And, how
do business cycles and seasonal patterns affect construc­
tion activity?
Over the 1950-80 period, construction employment
grew at about the same rate as total employment. How­
ever, during recessions, construction employment de­
clined more than total employment, and during recove­
ries, it generally took longer to recoup. Seasonality, an
important factor in construction activity, could cause
employment to rise and fall by as many as 1 million
workers over a 12-month period. However, the move­
ment of jobs to the Sun Belt over the last three decades
has helped to alleviate the effects of seasonality on un­
employment in the industry.
John Tschetter and John Lukasiewicz are economists in the Office of
Economic Growth and Employment Projections, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Anna Hill of the Review staff provided special editorial as­
sistance.


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

This article evaluates labor problems in the construc­
tion industry by examining the industry’s long-term
employment trends and its reaction to business cycles
and seasonality. For this article, construction industry
and occupational employment data include wage-andsalary, self-employed, unpaid family, and government
workers.1 In addition, construction occupations include
workers outside the construction industry as well as
those in the industry. For some construction occupa­
tions, more than 50 percent of the workers are em­
ployed outside the construction industry. (See table 1.)

Secular trends, 1950-80
Employment growth in the construction industry
matched the general employment growth of the econo­
my during each decade of the 1950-80 period. (See ta­
ble 2.) But, the growth in expenditures for new
construction (2.5 percent per year in constant dollars)
lagged behind the growth of the U.S. economy, as mea­
sured by real gross national product (3 percent per
year). And during the 1970’s, construction expenditures
grew only 0.3 percent per year, while gross national
product grew 3.2 percent. Many factors contribute to
the growth difference between construction employment
and construction expenditures, including difficulties in
11

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Employment Changes in Construction
measuring real expenditures and changes in labor pro­
ductivity.2
The construction industry has three major compo­
nents: private nonresidential, private residential, and
government.3 The percentage of construction expendi­
tures attributable to each activity has changed over the
decades. The following tabulation shows the percent of
expenditures (in constant 1972 dollars) for each compo­
nent of the industry during 1950-80:4
1950

1960

1970

1980

Private nonresidential . . . . 29.0
Private residential.......... . . 49.2
Governm ent.................... . . 21.9

32.8
37.5
29.7

37.4
33.9
28.6

40.2
38.3
21.6

During the 30-year period, expenditure growth was
fairly steady in the construction of industrial and com­
mercial buildings and in other private nonresidential
structures. However, the share for housing (private resi­
dential) expenditures declined: almost half of all con­
struction expenditures in 1950 was for housing,
compared with slightly more than 38 percent in 1980.
And even though housing boomed in the 1970’s, expen­
ditures for housing were still lower than those for pri­
vate nonresidential structures. Government expenditures
for highways and educational facilities increased sharply
over the 1950-70 period, but declined in both relative
and absolute terms over 1970-80. In addition, construc­
tion of other government structures was deferred in the
recent decade because of budget problems.
Employment in the construction industry during the
1960’s and 1970’s benefited from a modestly upward
trend in expenditures for maintenance and repair of
Table 1. Employment in all industries and in the
construction industry, by occupation, 1982
[In thousands]

Occupation

Total employed

Total
employ­
ment

Construc­
tion
employ­
ment

Construction
employment
Percent of
as a
percent of construction
employment
total
employment

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

99,526

5,756

5.8

100.0

Craft and kindred occupations ..
Carpenters .................................
Brickmasons and stonemasons ..
Cement and concrete finishers ..
Electricians .................................
Excavating, grading, and road
machinery operators...............
Painters, construction and
maintenance ...........................
Plumbers and pipefitters.............
Structural metal craftworkers . . .
Roofers........................................
Paperhangers, plasterers, and
other construction c ra fts .........
Laborer occupations, except
farm ........................................
Construction laborers..................
Carpenters’ helpers....................
Other construction laborers . . . .

12,272
1,082
145
55
628

3,167
860
129
52
309

25.8
79.5
89.0
94.5
49.2

55.0
14.9
2.2
0.9
5.4

399

266

66.7

4.6

473
482
81
133

334
301
58
130

70.6
62.4
71.6
97.7

5.8
5.2
1.0
2.3

113

96

85.0

1.7

4,518
786
51
735

722
691
45
646

16.0
87.9
88.2
87.9

12.5
12.0
0.8
11.2

S o urce :

Current Population Survey.

12

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

Table 2. Employment trends in the construction industry
and occupations, 1950-80
[Average annual percent change]
Industry or occupation

1950-60

1960-70

1970-80

All industries .................................
Construction Industry ....................

1.5
1.2

1.7
1.8

2.4
3.1

Occupations1
Carpenters ...................................
Brickmasons .................................
Electricians ...................................
Painters..........................................
Plumbers........................................
Construction laborers....................

-0.9
1.3
1.1
-0.4
1.1
-0.9

0.2
-1.4
3.3
-1 .4
2.2
1.0

3.7
0.5
3.6
3.9
2.5
3.8

11ncludes workers outside the construction Industry,

existing structures.5However, this trend stopped abrupt­
ly in 1980, as high interest rates and financing diffi­
culties affected maintenance construction, as well as
new construction.
Occupational changes. Construction occupations include
craftworkers (such as carpenters, brickmasons, electri­
cians, painters, and plumbers) and laborers (such as
carpenters’ helpers and electricians’ helpers). In 1982,
these workers accounted for about two-thirds of total
employment in the construction industry; the remaining
one-third were mostly managerial and clerical workers.
(Employment trends in construction occupations are
shown in table 2.)
Over the 1950-80 period, the employment of carpen­
ters, painters, and construction laborers paralleled ex­
penditures growth in residential construction. Housing
declined as a percentage of expenditures for new con­
struction during 1950-70, as did the number of carpen­
ters in the construction industry as a percent of total
industry employment. During 1970-80, when housing
increased modestly as a proportion of new construction,
the employment growth rate of carpenters exceeded that
of the construction industry. Throughout the 1950-80
period, about 75 to 80 percent of the carpenters (1.1
million in 1981) were employed in the construction in­
dustry; the remaining 20 to 25 percent were employed
in manufacturing, trade, and service industries.
About half of the 628,000 electricians are employed
in the construction industry; most of the others work in
manufacturing. Therefore, the employment of electri­
cians depends on trends in construction and in manu­
facturing. However, during the 1950-70 period,
employment growth for electricians occurred almost
solely in the construction industry; since 1970, their
growth has been equally divided between construction
and manufacturing.
A notable characteristic of the construction industry
is the number of self-employed workers— they account
for a larger percent of employment in construction than
in other nonagricultural sectors. In 1982, the industry

had 1.1 million self-employed persons, or 19 percent of
all employment in the construction industry, and 13
percent of all self-employment in nonagricultural indus­
tries. Self-employment in the construction industry in­
creased 5.5 percent per year between 1970 and 1980,
about twice the rate of increase in total construction
employment, and in self-employment for all industries.
The growing number of self-employed workers in
construction reflects several factors, such as the in­
creases in the number of residential construction addi­
tions and in maintenance and repair of all existing
structures. Self-employment is more suited to these ac­
tivities than to those involving the larger and more
complex nonresidential structures. The recent growth
(during the 1980 and 1981-82 recessions) in the number
of self-employed also reflects the traditionally counter­
cyclical nature of self-employment.
The likelihood of being a self-employed construction
worker varies by occupation. About 30 percent of paint­
ers, carpenters, and brickmasons were self-employed in
1982, but only 8 percent of electricians were selfemployed.
Slower growth for suppliers. The influence of the con­
struction industry extends to industries which supply
materials and components needed for buildings, roads,
and other structures. Major suppliers of the construc­
tion industry include the producers of stone, clay, and
glass products, lumber products, and selected fabricated
metal products (for example, heating and plumbing fix­
tures).6 (See table 3.) In 1981, the 11 industries which
Table 3. Employment in major suppliers of materials and
services to the construction industry, 1981, and average
annual percent change 1960-80
Employment in
1981
Industry

Total
(in
thousands)

Percent
generated
by
construction
expenditures

Average annual
percent change

1960-70

1970-80

Construction Industry.........
Supplier Industries, to ta l. . .

4,176
1,766

—

2.0
.4

1.9
.9

Structural clay products ...........
Cement and concrete products .
Stone and clay mining .............
Millwork, plywood, and
wood products, not elsewhere classified ....................
Fabricated structural metal
products ...............................
Heating apparatus and
plumbing fixtures ..................
Sawmills and planing mills . . . .
Paints and allied products.........
Stone and clay products, not
elsewhere classified .............
Pottery and related products . . .
Logging......................................

41
233
92

97
95
80

-2.7
.9
-.5

-2.3
.6
-.2

292

77

2.3

1.5

508

76

2.3

1.8

69
206
63

73
63
54

.4
-2.9
1.1

-.1
.0
- .6

147
43
82

52
50
50

1.1
-.7
-2.6

1.1
.4
2.0

S o urce :
The Detailed Input-Output Structure o f the United States, 1972, Volume I (U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1972), and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Office of Economic Growth.


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

sold at least 50 percent of their products to the con­
struction industry employed more than 1.8 million
workers.
Employment growth in the major supplying indus­
tries was slower than that in the construction industry
over the 1960-80 period, reflecting, among other things,
different rates of productivity growth. However, em­
ployment trends vary by supplying industry: over the
last 20 years, employment in structural clay products
declined, employment in cement and concrete products
grew modestly, and employment in fabricated structural
metal products, the largest supplier, grew the fastest.
Jobs moved to Sun Belt. Over the last three decades,
construction industry employment has shifted from the
Midwest and Northeastern States to the “Sun Belt”
States— Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tex­
as, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The following
tabulation shows construction employment in selected
Sun Belt States as a percent of national construction
employment:
1980
1960
1970
1950
Sun Belt S ta te s ............
Florida .........................
Texas ...........................
California ....................
Other Sun Belt States .

23.9
2.9
5.9
9.9
5.2

26.1
4.3
5.8
10.1
5.9

25.9
4.9
6.6
8.4
6.0

34.4
6.1
9.7
10.2
8.4

The Sun Belt’s share of construction employment in­
creased about 10 percentage points from 1950 to 1980,
as did its share of total employment. During 1970-80,
construction employment grew faster than the national
in Nevada, Washington, and Alaska. In States which
are growing faster than the Nation as a whole, con­
struction typically accounts for a larger share of total
employment. Many of the fastest growing standard
metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’s) during 1970-80
were in the Sun Belt— Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth,
San Diego, San Francisco-Oakland, and Los AngelesLong Beach.
The 1970-80 increase in construction employment in
several States reversed earlier downward trends. In
Massachusetts, the reversal reflected— at least in part—
the growth of high-technology and manufacturing in­
dustries in the region. In New York, the reversal reflect­
ed, among other things, the easing of New York City’s
budget problems.

Response to recessions
During recessions, employment declines more sharply
in the construction industry than in most other indus­
tries. Construction employment parallels swings in ex­
penditures for residential structures, especially housing.
Expenditures for housing, including mobile homes, de­
clined by more than 40 percent between 1973 and 1975,
and by about 45 percent between 1978 and 1982. The
13

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Employment Changes in Construction
housing industry has yet to recover from the 1980 re­
cession, although it traditionally has led the peaks and
troughs of the economy.
Construction employment also follows swings in ex­
penditures for private nonresidential structures, particu­
larly commercial buildings. During 1973-75, nonresi­
dential construction expenditures declined by nearly 20
percent and did not recover their prerecession level until
1979. Expenditures for such structures increased to his­
torically high levels in the 1980 recession and much of
the 1981-82 recession. Hence, nonresidential construc­
tion expenditures helped to offset the decline in expendi­
tures for private residential construction, thereby
sustaining construction employment during the 1980-82
period.
Employment changes in a construction occupation
depend on the occupation’s concentration in the various
construction activities. Carpenters, brickmasons, and
construction laborers are concentrated in the housing
segment of the construction industry. About a third of
all carpenters and brickmasons are employed either by
residential building contractors or by special trade con­
tractors whose activities are closely tied to housing con­
struction. Electricians, plumbers, and many other
construction craftworkers are less concentrated in hous­
ing. Only about 12 percent of the electricians are depen­
dent on residential construction activity.
During the first 12 months of the 1973-75 recession,
the numbers of electricians and plumbers rose, as
nonresidential construction activity declined only slight­
ly. However, employment of these workers declined
during the remainder of the recession when nonresi­
dential construction fell. The number of carpenters de­
clined throughout the 1973-75 recession, as housing
declined quickly and sharply.
Between 1979, the last year of high levels of construc­
tion activity, and 1982, employment among carpenters
has declined 17 percent; employment among electricians
has declined 4 percent, and employment among plumb­
ers has risen 5 percent. The decline for carpenters
paralleled the sharp decline in housing; the modest
change for electricians and plumbers paralleled the posi­
tive trends in private nonresidential construction. In
fact, about half of the decline among electricians oc­
curred in the manufacturing sector.
A relationship also exists between the employment
stability of an occupation and its skill level. For exam­
ple, carpenters’ helpers experienced wider swings in em­
ployment than carpenters, a situation which arises when
firms hold on to skilled workers.
During recovery periods, the rate of construction em­
ployment growth is faster than for other employment,
but construction takes longer than most other industries
to regain prerecession levels. For example, the construc­
tion industry did not return to its November 1973 em­
14


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

ployment level until 1978-more than 2 years after other
industries had returned to their November 1973 em­
ployment level.
In the past, housing has picked up rapidly during re­
covery phases while large-scale projects, such as com­
mercial buildings, have taken longer to recover.
Consequently, the numbers of carpenters, brickmasons,
painters, and construction laborers increase sharply in a
recovery, while the number of electricians increases only
slightly.
Although national construction employment declined
between January 1980 and January 1982, seven States
— Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico,
New York, and Texas—had increases. Florida’s growth
reflects, in part, inmigration from other States and from
abroad; the growth in Texas, Montana, Alaska, and
Louisiana are related to population movements and the
development of energy resources. Construction employ­
ment grew more slowly or declined more than total em­
ployment in all States, except Alaska and Montana.
The sensitivity of supplying industries to the business
cycle depends on the construction activity upon which
the industries are dependent. To illustrate, employment
in fabricated structural metal products (which are used
largely in nonresidential construction) did not decline
until the latter part of the 1973-75 recession, and de­
clined only modestly during the 1980 and 1981-82 re­
cessions. In contrast, employment in the lumber
industry (which is associated primarily with housing
construction) declined sharply in all three recessions.

Effects of seasonality
Seasonality is a notable characteristic of the construc­
tion industry. During a 12-month period, employment
in the industry can rise and fall by more than a million
workers. (See table 4.) The change is concentrated
among private wage-and-salary workers— self-employed
and government construction workers show far less
seasonality. Construction laborers and painters are oc­
cupations most affected by seasonal factors, followed by
carpenters and brickmasons. Electricians and plumbers
are the least affected. The patterns for managers and
clerical workers are only slightly different than that for
their counterparts in other industries.
Construction seasonality reflects both the weather
and the timing of projects. Outdoor activities such as
new housing and highway construction decline during
the winter in northern States. Housing is probably the
most seasonal construction activity because it employs a
considerable number of construction laborers, carpen­
ters, and painters— three occupational groups most af­
fected by seasonality. Builders can adjust the timing of
many other construction projects to minimize the im­
pact of cold weather. Commercial building construction
continues without significant interruptions during cold

Table 4. Seasonal patterns in the construction industry
and selected occupations
[In percent]
Industry or occupation

1978-111 to 1979-1

1979-1 to 1979-111

All industries ..........................................
Construction in dustry.............................

-0.1
-14.5

3.5
18.8

Occupations'
Carpenters ............................................
Brickmasons..........................................
Electricians............................................
Painters .................................................
Plumbers ...............................................
Construction laborers.............................

-13.2
-18.2
3.4
-29.2
-3.4
-29.6

18.3
23.4
6.3
36.3
6.5
36.6

' Includes workers outside the construction industry.

weather in many colder sections of the country.
Because of its seasonal nature, construction is an im­
portant source of summer jobs for students. About 80
percent of the employment decline for construction la­
borers in winter months consists of persons leaving the
labor force. The decline is concentrated among persons
age 16 to 24.
The population shift to States and cities in the Sun
Belt has implications for seasonality in the construction
industry. The seasonal change in construction employ­
ment in Arizona, California, and Florida, and in Hous­
ton, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Los Angeles-Long Beach
is about half the nationwide average; in contrast, Illi­
nois, Minnesota, and Michigan have about twice the na­
tionwide average. Most of the seasonal variations are re­
lated to weather, although weather alone is not always
a good indication of seasonality. For example, New
York City has only slightly more seasonal variations
than Dallas-Fort Worth. This is because of New York
City’s mix of construction activity—more new office
structures, and additions and alterations to existing
nonresidential structures, and fewer single-family
homes.
Less variation in supplying industries. The major indus­
tries supplying the construction industry have consider­
ably smaller seasonal employment variations than the
construction industry. However, manufacturing indus­
tries which supply the construction industries have a
slightly greater seasonal pattern than manufacturing in­
dustries that do not. Among the major suppliers, the
concrete, gypsum, and plaster products industry has the
greatest seasonal variation in employment.
The seasonal patterns of construction and its supply­
ing industries reflect their production characteristics.
There are two characteristics which minimize the sea­
sonal patterns for the major suppliers relative to the
construction industry. First, it is less expensive for a
supplying industry to build up and draw down its in­
ventory of finished goods than to start and stop its pro­
duction line; it is very difficult for a construction


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

industry to maintain an inventory of finished goods.
Second, work tasks in the supplying industries are es­
sentially the same throughout the year and, thus, they
can employ the same persons year round. In contrast,
tasks at a construction site vary as work progresses,
with electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and brickmasons
working at different stages of the project. Thus, these
craftworkers are not likely to be continuously employed
at one site.

Assessing the sensitivity
As noted, the sensitivity of the construction industry
to the business cycle and to seasonal patterns affects the
prospects for continuous employment in the industry.
The unemployment rate in the construction industry
has consistently been higher than that in other nonagricultural industries. Unemployment among construc­
tion workers varies by sector and by occupation. (See ta­
ble 5.) The rate for private wage-and-salary construction
workers is nearly three times higher than that for govern­
ment construction workers. The rate for construction la­
borers is always higher than that for the industry as a
whole, and the rate for electricians is always lower.
Other differences in unemployment between the con­
struction industry and other nonagricultural industries
include: more construction workers than nonagricultural
workers experience at least one spell of unemployment
during a 12-month period (for example, 38 versus 18
percent in 1981, the latest data available); more have
two or more spells of unemployment (45 versus 32 per­
cent); and more work for two or more employers during
a 12-month period (25 versus 13 percent). These charac­
teristics vary among the construction occupations. For
example, fewer electricians than carpenters experience
multiple spells of unemployment during a 12-month pe­
riod; more plumbers than carpenters work year round.
Regional unemployment rates for construction work­
ers range from being nearly equal to that for all
nonagricultural workers to being three or more times

Table 5. Unemployment rates for the construction
industry and selected occupations, 1982
Industry or occupation

Unemployment rate

All industries ............................................................

8.7

Construction industry ..............................................
Private wage and salary workers.............................
Government wage and salary workers....................

16.5
20.0
6.8

Occupations1
Construction laborers..............................................
Brickmasons ............................................................
Carpenters ..............................................................
Painters.....................................................................
Plumbers..................................................................
Electricians ..............................................................

28.9
21.4
18.6
17.0
10.6
8.5

11ncludes workers outside the construction industry.

15

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Employment Changes in Construction
varying unemployment rates can be detected for electri­
cians, who experience low unemployment, and carpen­
ters, who experience relatively high unemployment.
Most electricians who had full-time jobs work year
round (71 percent in 1981), while fewer carpenters who
worked primarily at full-time jobs were employed year
round (45 percent in 1981). As a consequence, there
was relatively little difference between the earnings of
the average electrician and those of an electrician who
worked year round. (See table 6.) But there was a rela­
tively large difference between the annual average earn­
ings of a carpenter who worked year round and those
of the average carpenter.

Table 6. Average annual earnings of persons whose
primary job was in construction occupations, 1981
All workers

Year-round
workers only

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

$15,800

$18,900

Construction occupations:1
Electricians ........................................
Plumbers............................................
Brlckmasons ......................................
Painters..............................................
Carpenters..........................................
Construction laborers ........................

20,900
18,900
14,800
12,100
13,100
9,200

23,200
21,000
19,000
17,800
17,000
13,600

Occupation

All occupations

11ncludes workers outside the construction industry.

higher. In Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth, 1981 unem­
ployment rates for construction workers were only
slightly higher than those for all workers. In these two
cities, laid-ofF construction workers apparently were
able to find jobs in other industries because construc­
tion employment declined during the 1980 and 1981-82
recessions, while total employment grew. In Milwaukee,
Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, construction workers had
1981 unemployment rates more than three times the
rate for all workers. The following tabulation shows
1981 unemployment rates in the construction industry
and in all industries combined:

U.S. average ...........................
Houston ..............................
Dallas-Fort Worth ............
Boston ................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach . .
Milwaukee...........................
New Y o r k ...........................
P ittsb u rg h ...........................
Chicago................................

All
industries

Construction
industry

6.8
3.7
4.1
5.3
6.1
6.6
7.0
7.3
7.5

12.8
4.1
5.0
11.7
12.0
21.6
11.5
23.0
17.3

In 1981, supplying industries, except for housing-de­
pendent lumber mills, had unemployment rates close to
that for manufacturing. As the recession deepened in
1982, the supplying industries’ unemployment rates rose
closer to that for construction.
Earnings. Periodic spells of unemployment affect the an­
nual earnings of construction workers. The impact of

Growth and unemployment ahead
In 1982, there were numerous problems for construc­
tion-related employment. High interest rates and the
uncertainties related to the 1981-82 recession continued
to dampen expenditures for new and for maintenance
and repair construction, causing high unemployment
rates in the industry and in construction. However, as
demonstrated during 1950-80, and particularly during
the 1975-77 recovery period, the industry is capable of
recovery from a recessionary downturn. Once the recov­
ery from the 1981-82 recession occurs, an aging infra­
structure of highways and sewer lines and the need to
repair and replace buildings constructed after World
War II indicate a positive growth trend in construction
expenditures. However, because construction employ­
ment is significantly affected by housing, the exact tim­
ing and year-to-year pattern of the growth is difficult to
predict. Bureau of Labor Statistics projections show
construction employment growth of 1.8 percent per
year over the 1980-90 period, about the same rate as
that for total employment (1.5 percent per year).7 Cer­
tainly, future construction growth trends are subject to
uncertainties such as inflation rates, regional growth
patterns, unemployment levels, and Federal fiscal and
monetary policies. Despite the projected growth, one
would expect the higher than average unemployment
rates and the repeated episodes of unemployment to
continue because there have not been any institutional
changes to mitigate the seasonal and cyclical factors
which cause the industry’s high unemployment rates. □

FOOTNOTES
1This article uses numerous data sources. The principal source for
the construction industry and construction-related occupations is the
monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) which is compiled from
household interviews and which provides details on the characteristics
of persons employed and unemployed during a given month. These
employment and unemployment data are tabulated both by industries
and by occupations. The CPS, in its March supplement, provides in­
formation on the number of weeks worked, the number of employers,
and the number of spells of unemployment during a 12-month period.
The principal source for the supplying industries and for regional
16


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

trends is the Bureau of Labor Statistics establishment survey. This
survey, which is compiled from employer records, provides current in­
formation on wage-and-salary employment in the private and public
sectors.
There are several important differences between the CPS and the es­
tablishment survey in the measurement of employment. First, the CPS
counts the number of persons who are employed; the establishment
survey counts jobs. Because of this difference, a person holding two
or more jobs would be counted two or more times in the establish­
ment survey but only once, in his or her primary job, in the CPS. A

second difference is that the CPS provides estimates of persons
employed as private wage-and-salary workers, government wage-andsalary workers, self-employed workers, and unpaid family workers for
all industries and for all occupations, while the establishment survey
provides estimates of only private wage-and-salary workers for the
construction industry. Estimates of private wage-and-salary workers
from the two surveys differ in the short run but are comparable in the
long run.
2 For discussions of productivity measurement and other issues in
the construction industry, see National Commission on Productivity,
Measuring Productivity in the Construction Industry (Conference spon­
sored by the National Commission on Productivity and the Construc­
tion Industry Collective Committee), September 1972; H. Kemble
Stokes, “An Examination of the Productivity Decline in the Construc­
tion Industry,” Construction Productivity Frontiers, April 1980; and
J.E. Cremeans, “Productivity in the Construction Industry,” Construc­
tion Review, May-June 1982.
3Residential structures include new permanent housing units, mo­
bile homes, and additions and alterations to existing homes.
Nonresidential buildings include business structures, such as industri­
al, commercial, and hospitals; public utilities, such as electric generat­
ing plants, telephone facilities, and pipelines; farm structures; and
mining exploration, such as petroleum and natural gas wells. Govern­
ment structures include educational and other buildings, highways
and streets, and sewer and water facilities. Government structures
also include force-account construction, that is, construction done by
government employees.


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

4 Data are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Eco­
nomic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts.
5Maintenance and repair expenditures include both the activity
performed by nonconstruction industries and government agencies
(force-account construction), the value of materials in residential
maintenance and repair which is performed by households on a do-ityourself basis, and the activity by the construction industries them­
selves.
‘ These data are based on the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ 1972
input-output study. “Construction” as defined by the Bureau of Eco­
nomic Analysis (BEA), is not confined to contract construction. As
stated in the BEA’s Definitions and Conventions of the 1972 InputOutput Study, “The output of the construction industries, whether
new or maintenance and repair, includes both construction work
performed on a contract basis for an industry or for a final demand
sector and work achieved through the utilization of the work force of
the industry or the final demand sector (for example, government).
The construction work performed by the work force of the consuming
industry or final demand sector is called force-account construction.
“The addition of force-account construction to each type of contract
construction makes total construction for each type become an activity
as well as an industry. Construction has no secondary products and
the inclusion of force-account construction means that no other indus­
try has any secondary output of construction. The commodity and the
industry are identical and each type is then an activity.”
See Economic Projections to 1990, Bulletin 2121 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1982).

A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supple­
ment, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be
considered for publication, communications should be factual and an­
alytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed
to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.

17

Reforming the U. S. system
of collective bargaining
Collective bargaining procedures
and relationships between labor and management
must reflect less conflict, more cooperation
as the Nation !s economy struggles to meet
international competition and domestic needs
D.

Q u in n M

il l s

Can collective bargaining in the United States meet the
challenge of the 1980’s by tempering traditional con­
frontation with new cooperative approaches? Can man­
agement and labor modify their adversarial, rulemaking
relationship by exploring and recognizing mutual needs?
This article examines some recent events that suggest
affirmative answers to both of these questions.
Labor unions developed in the United States within a
generally hostile business and legal environment. As
early as 1806, unions in major eastern cities were being
prosecuted in court as “combinations in restraint of
trade.” During the economically turbulent 1870’s, in­
dustrial workers seeking better pay and conditions of
work attempted strikes and public protests, only to be
dispersed by police. In 1877, railway strikers through­
out the country were repulsed by Federal troops. Dur­
ing the depression of the 1890’s, martial law was
declared to break strikes in the western mines. And the
Federal Government intervened at the railroads’ request
to defeat the 1894 strike by the American Railway
Union against the Pullman Co.; to further assist the

Ambiguous national labor policy

D. Quinn Mills is Albert J. Weatherhead, Jr., Professor of Business
Administration at Harvard University. This article is an adaptation of
a paper presented at the National Labor-Management Conference in
Washington, D.C., last fall.

Some have argued that the purpose of our system of
collective bargaining no longer commands a national
consensus. When the Wagner Act was passed, it includ­
ed a statement endorsing collective bargaining and the
right of workers to join unions as being in the national

18

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

company, a Federal court enjoined the railway workers
from interfering with interstate commerce.
Following World War I, strong opposition by em­
ployer associations and further unfavorable court deci­
sions contributed to a dramatic decline in the labor
movement. Revitalization of the unions occurred during
the 1930’s, but only after lengthy strikes, and the enact­
ment of Federal legislation—the Norris-Laguardia Act
(1932) and the Wagner Act (1935)— favorable to the
organizing rights of workers.1
Born in turmoil, and victorious over adamant em­
ployer opposition, U.S. unions view themselves essen­
tially as adversaries to management, a role which their
legislative successes during the 1930’s appeared to legiti­
mize. And during organizing campaigns in recent de­
cades, employers have tended to force unions ever more
strongly into an overall anti-management posture. The
turbulence of labor relations in the construction and
textile industries exemplifies this phenomenon.

interest. It appeared that the United States was commit­
ted to incorporating unions among the institutions of its
pluralist democracy and to making its economic system
work by and through their addition. But with passage
of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, the mood of the Con­
gress and of the public seems to have shifted somewhat:
the right of employees not to join unions in effect be­
came enshrined with their right to join unions. When,
by decisions of the courts in subsequent years, employ­
ers were permitted to attempt to persuade employees
not to join unions, the national policy had come full
circle. For all practical and legal purposes, government
has ceased to favor a specific industrial relations policy,
and seeks rather to serve as an unbiased umpire in the
choice which employees make as to union affiliation.
The result of this apparent shift in public policy is, as
might be expected, that labor relations in the United
States is now best described as a series of disconnected
events. There is no overall pattern or purpose. The na­
tional policy is one of free choice for individual employ­
ees, and the choices vary considerably among individ­
uals and over time. The energies of business and labor
are channeled into the struggle over union recognition
rather than into making collective bargaining an institu­
tion which contributes to national economic objectives.
Within this environment, which might best be termed
“benign neglect” by government, collective bargaining
has stagnated.
In practice, then, collective bargaining in the United
States involves open economic conflict over the rights of
employees, unions, and management in the workplace.
Under U.S. law, employees who strike for better wages
and benefits, or to preserve existing levels of wages and
benefits, are gambling with their jobs. Managers are
free to replace the strikers either on a temporary or per­
manent basis. Thus it is that economic strikes by longestablished unions in our country often quickly become
struggles over the continued existence of the union.

The result: a law of the shop
Some management and union representatives have de­
scribed collective bargaining in our country in terms of a
fistfight: the question is which side will be knocked
down, or out, first. Given such a relationship, it is not
surprising that there is little trust between the two sides.
Where there is little trust, conflicts over the terms of the
employment relationship are resolved not through mutu­
al understanding but with specific, written contractual
arrangements which the Congress has chosen to make
legally enforceable.
The American collective bargaining agreement conse­
quently reflects the importation of much of the adver­
sarial system of U.S. law into the workplace. The agree­
ment sets forth rules which are legally binding on the
parties and establishes a grievance procedure as the


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

mechanism by which the rules are enforced. The union
and management take the roles of contending parties, as
in a lawsuit, whenever there is a dispute in the plant.
And increasingly, the parties bring attorneys into the
grievance procedure to conduct what is virtually,
though not yet entirely, a formal court proceeding to
resolve their differences.
Many of the requirements of due process in our legal
system have been incorporated directly into the contract
grievance procedure. (The major exception is that the
strict rules of evidence do not apply.) Thus, the griev­
ance procedure involves several steps with appeals to
higher levels, ending in a quasi-judicial proceeding be­
fore an arbitrator. To ensure that a disciplinary action
will survive the oversight of an arbitrator, the employer
must have established clear rules of conduct in the
workplace; have communicated them to employees; and
have documented transgressions. At some plants, for
example, groups of managers (for arbitrators insist that
there be more than one witness of an employee’s infrac­
tion of a company rule) assemble to watch workers
punch out at the timeclock at the end of the workday.
Employees seen punching out early or punching more
than one card are subject to disciplinary action by man­
agement.
Due process is a treasured right of U.S. citizens and
is not to be disparaged. But its incorporation in the in­
dustrial relations world has given us a “law of the
shop” that has become more and more burdensome to
our economic enterprises. For, like U.S. law generally,
collective bargaining agreements have grown increasing­
ly complex. What began as one-page documents estab­
lishing that the union and the company would deal with
each other have become contracts, hundreds of pages
long, specifying in minute detail rules for the operation
of economic enterprises. In some agreements, for exam­
ple, many pages of rules are devoted solely to the ques­
tion of how management is to make temporary
assignments of employees to cover for other workers
who are absent. But, because neither managers nor
union officials really know what all the rules mean in
certain instances, each noncustomary assignment made
by the company tends to find its way into the grievance
procedure.

Rules as a productivity drain
Rules alone cannot ensure that an organization will
perform well. They may keep it from dissolving into
self-defeating open warfare, but often do not permit it
to achieve its potential. An organization which depends
upon adherence to a myriad of rules will always be vul­
nerable to competition from other organizations which
operate in a more consensual and cooperative fashion,
even when the latter have fewer resources. And, al­
though an organization of rules may sometimes pull it19

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Reforming U.S. Collective Bargaining System
self together to respond to an emergency, this need not
necessarily occur.
It follows, then, that primary dependence on estab­
lishing and enforcing rules is a very poor way to run an
economic enterprise. The existence of a multitude of
rules, many of which attempt to “stretch the work” to
maintain jobs in ways reminiscent of depression-era tac­
tics, constrains productivity and raises costs. For exam­
ple, maintenance classifications may prohibit an em­
ployee from doing incidental work outside the strict
limits of his or her trade; multiple job classifications
may exist even where a person in a single combined
classification could do the work effectively, without un­
due effort and stress; and, job classifications may be
perpetuated although technological change has rendered
the incumbents’ work trivial. Other restrictions may
limit the amount of work a person may be assigned,
such as permitting a mechanic to open only two flanges.
The location of materials and inventory may be restrict­
ed by contract or past practice to retain jobs in now-in­
efficient areas of the plant. In some cases, rules may
prohibit employees being assigned work during breaks,
and simultaneously prohibit supervisors from doing the
employees’ work, so that emergencies occurring at coffee
breaks or lunchtime cannot be legally handled under
the agreement.
Over time, rules tend to become increasingly costly
and constraining as technology, materials, products,
and other aspects of production change. Even rules
which made great sense at first become out-of-date un­
der changing conditions. But the rules are difficult to
change, and particular employees may be further bene­
fited the more outdated the rules become. Sometimes a
company can pay a high price and “buy the rules out,”
or a union can persuade some workers to give up fa­
vored positions for the good of the membership as a
group. But often, change cannot be accomplished with­
out a bitter struggle between management and labor.
Furthermore, the rulemaking process promotes a set
of attitudes which are inimical to successful enterprise.
The existence of the rulebook encourages both manage­
ment and labor to assert their rights under the contract,
rather than to attempt to work out problems. It gives
rise to “shop-floor lawyers,” rather than problemsolvers. It fosters conflict and controversy. It undermines
trust.
To a large degree, it seems that unions have become
captives of their origins. Born in adversity and conflict,
they continued to act as opponents of management even
when their strength had become much greater. In some
instances, unions have created thickets of rules in which
to immobilize management, just as spiders build webs
to ensnare prey. But when the thickets of rules have
crippled productivity, the unions have discovered them­
selves to be caught alongside management in the trap.
20

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

Plants have declined in competitiveness, and jobs have
been lost. The unions have discovered too late that a
snare is no less a snare because they have set it them­
selves.

A prescription for change
In a recent survey conducted by the Harris organiza­
tion, a majority of the general public professed the
belief that unions contribute less than they once did to
the growth and efficiency of business. Not surprisingly,
only 15 percent of union leaders agreed with this judg­
ment.2 The need for unions to assist companies in the
light of increased foreign competition is apparent to the
public. To the inhabitants of the Snow Belt, it is simi­
larly evident that unions should cooperate with local
business to stem the outflow of industry and jobs to the
South and West. Public perceptions of a productivity
problem are supported by Bureau of Labor Statistics es­
timates, which show particularly sluggish growth in
output per labor hour after 1973.3
Collective bargaining practiced primarily as rulemaking has become self-defeating for both unions and
management. It interferes with management’s efficient
operation of the enterprise, and ensnares employees
with legitimate grievances in a web of red tape. It also
contributes to the vehemence of employer attempts to
resist union organization drives. Study after study of
U.S. managers has shown that managers fear the impo­
sition of restrictive work practices far more than the
higher wages and benefits which unionization may
bring. Companies’ efforts to make competitive opera­
tions out of older plants often fail because changes in
current work rules take the form of additional complex
rules which do not provide the flexibility needed to turn
a facility around. What management really needs is few­
er rules altogether, and willing cooperation from the
work force. The union, for its side, needs a management
sensitive to the needs of people. Both are very difficult
to obtain in the U.S. labor relations environment.
There are, of course, many reasons for this. The
unions cite a long list of management actions and inac­
tions which they feel justify an emphasis on protected
rules and challenges to management action. Among the
accusations frequently leveled at management are its
failure to update the equipment in union plants; its lo­
cation of new and more profitable products in nonunion
facilities; and its burdening of unionized facilities with
unfairly heavy overhead charges. Such actions call into
question the good faith that management would show
in any more cooperative relationship.
Managers have also helped to shore up the archaic la­
bor relations system. American management has often
proved unsympathetic to the problems of workers. For
example, U.S. firms are quick to turn to layoffs during
business downturns in an effort to maintain profit lev-

els. (In contrast, many firms abroad and some few U.S.
firms attempt to preserve employment at the cost of
short-term fluctuations in profits.) It should be ac­
knowledged, however, that U.S. unions often contribute
to the problem by insisting upon layoffs by seniority in
preference to worksharing among employees during
business declines, and that the U.S. unemployment in­
surance system encourages this preference by generally
denying benefits to workers on short workweeks due to
economic conditions.
Because of the substantial inefficiencies created by
outdated rules, and the risk of resulting job losses,
managers and union officials should always have at the
top of their agenda the minimizing of rulemaking and
the broadening of cooperation and consensus. This is
the only method by which the flexibility needed to meet
changing conditions and the ability to call forth the full
potential of people can be obtained. In some instances,
the relaxation of restrictive rules will cause employees
to lose jobs, or to be assigned to less desirable jobs. But
it is an illusion in most situations to think that jobs can
be preserved in the long term by restrictive practices.
Instead of preserving the few jobs at risk, high costs
imperil the jobs of all persons in a plant.
Collective bargaining should be more than a fistfight,
more than rulemaking. It must be more than merely
adversarial. And there is ample evidence that it can be.
A great irony of history may serve as an example. At
the end of World War II, the U.S. occupation authori­
ties, under General Douglas MacArthur, reorganized
the Japanese economy. The great trading companies, or
zaibatsu, were broken up. Trade unions were established
to add a dimension of social responsibility to Japanese
political life. But the occupation authorities did not sim­
ply copy the U.S. industrial relations system. Instead,
they imposed what they thought would be a better sys­
tem, of which company-specific unions were to be the
building blocks. And in West Germany, British occupa­
tion authorities with similar purposes in mind reorga­
nized German industrial relations. In the British zone of
occupation they introduced three major reforms: elected
work councils, union representation on the boards of di­
rectors of companies (initially in the coal and steel in­
dustries only), and a few national industrial unions to
bargain at the industry level with companies on behalf
of the workers. In later years, a reunited Western Ger­
many adopted the British innovations on a nationwide
basis. In Japan, MacArthur avoided the adversarial and
rulemaking obsession of U.S. labor relations. In Germa­
ny, the British avoided the multiplicity of trade union
organizations that contributes to decentralized and dis­
orderly industrial relations in Great Britain.
The reforms in Germany and Japan were largely a
dramatic break with prewar institutions in both
countries. Such substantial change was made possible


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

by the virtually total devastation which war had im­
posed on the industrial and social fabric of both na­
tions. But over the years since the war, managers and
unions in Japan and Germany have, by and large, built
successfully upon the reforms instituted by occupation
authorities. Many observers believe that these reforms
in industrial relations have had as much to do with the
economic success of the two nations as did any material
assistance they were given in the postwar period.
The irony is that neither the United States nor Brit­
ain has been able to implement domestically the sorts of
reforms in industrial relations practices that were im­
posed on the defeated powers. The result is that both
Germany and Japan today have systems of collective
bargaining which are much better suited to the needs of
a competitive international economy than that of Brit­
ain or the United States. We in the United States appar­
ently have known for many years the direction in which
we should move, but we do not know how to get there
from here.
Of course, there is no “clean slate” in this country as
there was in the defeated powers at the end of World
War II. We are not in a position to abandon collective
bargaining as rulemaking, or simply to dispense with
the adversarial element of our collective bargaining pro­
cess. But we must move beyond these obsessions in sub­
stantial ways if a major new contribution to U.S.
economic performance is to be made. Rulemaking may
be replaced by a greater degree of employee participa­
tion and commitment in the workplace, but unless the
adversarial posture also changes, increased participation
may be of no use. Instead of resolving production prob­
lems, participatory schemes may simply add delays to
management decisionmaking. And if the parties insist
on treating earlier participatory decisions as precedents
for further matters, the problemsolving mechanism may
itself become yet another source of conflict and rigidity
in the bargaining relationship.
Fortunately, a concept of collective bargaining that
goes beyond rulemaking has deep roots in the U.S. la­
bor movement. Before the 1930’s, unions ordinarily
envisioned themselves becoming involved in a broad
range of problems associated not only with the difficul­
ties of employees on the job, but also with the perfor­
mance of the business enterprise. In union meetings,
skilled trades workers debated what we would today
call management issues. The dividing line between pre­
rogatives of management and those of labor was far less
well-defined than it is now.
It is time to draw on this older tradition of the U.S.
labor movement, and leave behind the concept of col­
lective bargaining as primarily a rulemaking process.
This should be accomplished by putting far more flexi­
bility into the collective bargaining agreement—making
provisions less detailed, reorganizing work arrange21

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Reforming US. Collective Bargaining System
ments, and designing different incentives for both man­
agement and labor. Some rulemaking and the legal en­
forceability of contracts are not to be abandoned. But
they must take a back seat to attempts to move the col­
lective bargaining process beyond continual confronta­
tion and into a more constructive mode.
A commitment to enhancing productivity is not
easily made by the U.S. unionist. Too often, past at­
tempts to boost productivity have simply meant speed­
ing up the pace at which managers require employees to
work. But there is far more to improving productivity
than speed-ups; and the failure to seek productivity im­
provement in a company threatens the continued exis­
tence of jobs that the company provides. Unions must
become more sophisticated in their response to manage­
ment efforts to improve productivity. Some efforts, per­
haps, should be opposed, but others must be supported.
And the goal of improving productivity should be ac­
cepted.
Today, the United States is full of experimental ef­
forts to extend collective bargaining beyond the
concepts of the 1930’s— to increase the participation of
the worker in his or her job and to help preserve jobs
by keeping business viable. These efforts extend across
many industries and various sectors of the economy,
and take many forms, including quality circles, Scanlon
plans, and job enrichment programs. They cannot yet
be described as successes, although many have shown
promise. These endeavors are of great significance for
the future— they are steps that are being taken today to
meet tomorrow’s needs. If successful, these innovations
may provide the basis for a new system of collective
bargaining which will help preserve jobs, increase the
number of U.S. businesses that successfully meet the

challenge of foreign competitors, and enhance the con­
tribution and satisfaction of employees in the American
workplace.
T h e e c o n o m i c r e v i t a l i z a t i o n of the United States
in the 1980’s is getting off to a start, though slow and
uneven. With recent tax legislation, the Government has
provided certain economic incentives which may help to
restore the U.S. goods-producing sector to long-term vi­
ability, although much remains to be done in the impor­
tant area of job creation for the next decade.
Within this broad economic context, both business
and labor have their separate obligations. Business
should be prepared to assist our work force in adjusting
to the substantial production and employment changes
which the 1980’s are going to bring, both by providing
workers with more advance notice of planned innova­
tions, and by implementing changes in ways that mini­
mize adverse effects on employees. The unions, for their
part, should be ready to work with management toward
a broader concept of collective bargaining than has
been common in recent decades— one which is based
on the participation of employees and union officials in
the business process and which includes their commit­
ment to the success of the individual enterprise.
The transition to a new cooperative mode of collec­
tive bargaining will be a difficult one, given the
traditionally antagonistic atmosphere of U.S. labormanagement relations and the fact that the change will
probably have to be accomplished within a generally
unfavorable business environment. But the alternative is
a degree of economic and social unrest which cannot be
in the best interests of management, workers, or, in­
deed, of the Nation as a whole.
□

FOOTNOTES
1
For an interesting discussion of the history of U.S. labor relations,
2Louis Harris, quoted in Daily Labor Report (Washington, Bureau
see A Brief History o f the American Labor Movement, 1970 Edition,
of National Affairs), June 3, 1981, pp. A14-A16.
BLS Bulletin 1000 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1970), and the 1976
3See Productivity and the Economy: A Chartbook, BLS Bulletin 2084
supplement to that bulletin (also BLS Bulletin 1000).
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1981), p. 4; and p. 83 of this issue.


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

22

An experiment in the
mediation of grievances
Under the aegis o f the US. Department of Labor,
analysts examined the merits of
grievance mediation relative to arbitration
in the coal mining industry,
a frequently combative labor relations environment
St e p h e n B. G o l d b e r g

and

Je a n n e M . B r e t t

Grievance mediation proved substantially faster and less
expensive than arbitration, according to a 1980 test of
the mediation procedure in the Appalachian coal fields.
Of 37 grievances submitted to mediation during the
6-month experimental period, 32 were resolved—a suc­
cess rate of 86 percent. And, on average, mediation
consumed only about one-fourth of the time and cost
normally required to obtain the final resolution of a
grievance in binding arbitration.
For these and other reasons, persons directly in­
volved in the test were positive about the experience. A
majority of company labor relations personnel, union
grievance representatives, and rank-and-file miners
expressed satisfaction with every aspect of mediation,
and a preference for mediation over arbitration as a
means of dispute resolution.

Rationale for the test
A high rate of grievance arbitration imposes substan­
tial burdens on both employers and unions. In the coal
mining industry, for example, the costs of arbitration
under the 1974 contract have been estimated at approx­
imately $2 million per year.1A heavy volume of arbitra­
tion also leads to substantial delay in the resolution of
those grievances that are arbitrated. At four coal mines
previously studied by the authors, the average time
Stephen B. Goldberg is a professor of law, and Jeanne M. Brett is an
associate professor of organization behavior at Northwestern Univer­
sity.


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

from grievance filing to the arbitrator’s decision ranged
from 138 to 204 days.2
Outside the coal mining industry, those employers
and unions which have been concerned about the excess
cost and delay resulting from a heavy volume of arbi­
tration have predominantly turned to expedited arbitra­
tion as the solution. Pioneered in the steel industry in
1971,3 expedited arbitration procedures normally pro­
vide that the arbitration hearing shall be informal in na­
ture, that the rules of evidence shall not apply, that
there shall be no stenographic transcript, and that
posthearing briefs may not be filed. The arbitrator is re­
quired to decide the grievance either immediately or
within a brief period of time, and that decision is usual­
ly without precedential effect. However, because of the
parties’ concern with hasty decisions of a final and
binding nature, access to expedited arbitration has nor­
mally been limited to grievances of little contractual
significance, primarily those involving minor discipline.4
Grievance mediation is another device sometimes
used to reduce the cost and delay associated with a
heavy volume of arbitration.5 The grievance mediator
seeks to assist the parties to resolve their differences in
a mutually satisfactory fashion, without resort to arbi­
tration. If successful, mediation can be comparatively
fast and inexpensive because it eliminates the delay and
cost associated with a written arbitration decision.
Mediation can also reduce the frequency of resort to
arbitration in more fundamental ways. Often, a heavy
volume of arbitration reflects a combative relationship
23

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Experiment in Grievance Mediation
in which the parties approach grievances in a highly
adversarial fashion. The mediation process, however,
compels a different approach by eliminating the concept
of “winning” a grievance, and substituting the concept
of resolving the grievance in a mutually satisfactory
manner. Because the procedure requires each party to
consider, and attempt to satisfy, the legitimate interests
of the other, it is possible that experience with media­
tion will so accustom the parties to dealing with griev­
ances as problems to be resolved, rather than disputes
to be won, that they will resolve a higher proportion of
grievances without resort to either arbitration or media­
tion. It is also possible that the mediation approach, be­
cause it focuses on the problem underlying the
grievance as well as on the grievance itself, will some­
times lead to a resolution of the underlying problem
that is both broader and more satisfactory than could
be achieved in arbitration.
Another advantage of mediation over arbitration,
even expedited arbitration, is that mediation is less for­
mal. At a minimum, expedited arbitration procedures
require that the facts giving rise to the grievance be
elicited by the traditional means of examination and
cross-examination.6 This can be exceedingly frustrating
to a worker or foreman who only wants to tell the story
in his or her own fashion. Mediation allows for just
this.
Whether grievance mediation will provide any or all
of the benefits mentioned above depends upon its suc­
cess in two fundamental respects. First, the mediation
process must be capable of bringing about the final res­
olution of a substantial proportion of those grievances
that are mediated. If mediation is simply a stopping off
point on the way to arbitration, it will only add to the
total cost and delay of grievance resolution, and might
even persuade the parties that there is little to be gained
from serious efforts to attain a mutually satisfactory res­
olution. Second, the availability of grievance mediation
should not substantially lower the frequency with which
grievances are settled within the firm at internal steps of
the grievance procedure. The risk of a decreased inter­
nal settlement rate is obvious. A party which might set­
tle a grievance internally on terms proposed by the
other, rather than incur the substantial cost and delay
of arbitration, might reject that same proposal if media­
tion were available, calculating that the prospect of a
more favorable outcome warrants the comparatively
brief delay and low cost associated with mediation. De­
spite the savings expected from mediation relative to ar­
bitration, any substantial shift from internal settlement
to mediation might actually drive up the overall cost
and time of grievance resolution.
There is some evidence from Canada, from the rec­
ords of some U.S. State mediation agencies, and for in­
dividual firms that grievance mediation is capable of re­
24


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

solving a high proportion of grievances without resort
to arbitration.7 Evidence as to the effect of mediation on
the internal settlement rate is more sparse, but suggests
that the availability of inexpensive mediation does not
result in a substantial shift away from internal settle­
ment efforts.8 Until now, however, there has been no
systematic study of the effect of grievance mediation on
the internal settlement rate, or of the capacity of media­
tion to resolve grievances short of arbitration.

The mediation experiment
The coal mining industry provides an ideal setting for
further experimentation in the use of grievance media­
tion. The frequency of arbitration is great, labor rela­
tions are often highly combative, and expedited arbi­
tration is not used except in the case of grievances
protesting the discharge of an employee.
Accordingly, in November 1980, the authors began
an experiment in grievance mediation in the coal indus­
try. The project, which was jointly funded by the U.S.
Department of Labor and by a J.L. Kellogg Research
Professorship at Northwestern University, was designed
to determine whether mediation could resolve a sub­
stantial proportion of grievances more promptly, less
expensively, and more satisfactorily than arbitration;
how the availability of mediation would affect the settle­
ment rate at the final step (“step three”) of the internal
grievance procedure; and how employers, union repre­
sentatives, and workers would react to a radical change
in dispute resolution procedures.
Mediation procedure. As presented to potential partici­
pants, the mediation procedure was to be this: after the
final step of the internal grievance procedure, the
parties would have the option of going to mediation
rather than directly to arbitration. The mediation proce­
dure would be as informal as possible, eliciting relevant
facts in a narrative fashion, rather than through exami­
nation and cross-examination of witnesses. The rules of
evidence would not apply, and no record of the pro­
ceedings would be made. The grievant would be encour­
aged to participate fully in the proceedings, stating his
or her views and asking questions of other participants
in the hearing.
The mediator’s primary purpose would be to assist
the parties to settle the grievance in a mutually satisfac­
tory fashion. If no settlement were possible, the media­
tor would give the parties an immediate oral advisory
opinion, based on their collective bargaining agreement,
as to how the grievance would be decided if it went to
arbitration. The advisory opinion could be used as the
basis for further settlement discussions or for granting
or withdrawing the grievance. The parties would be free
to arbitrate grievances not resolved in any of these
ways. If they did so, the mediator could not serve as ar-

bitrator, nor could anything said or done by the parties
or the mediator during mediation be used against a par­
ty at arbitration.
Choosing the participants. United Mine Workers of
America ( u m w a ) Districts 28 (Virginia) and 30 (eastern
Kentucky), and the nine major coal mine operators9 in
those districts, were invited to participate in the media­
tion experiment. The two districts were selected because
they were both in the Appalachian coal fields, and simi­
lar in that respect, yet quite different in their relations
with employers. Labor relations in District 28 have
been comparatively tranquil in recent years, while those
in District 30 have been turbulent, marked by a high
rate of arbitration and by frequent wildcat strikes. Us­
ing both districts in the study would provide some evi­
dence of the capacity of grievance mediation to succeed
in substantially different labor relations climates.
The parties accepted the experiment proposal, and
agreed, in principle, to mediate unresolved grievances
for a 6-month period, subject to the qualification that
no grievance would be submitted to mediation without
the mutual consent of the employer and the union. The
participants also agreed on a detailed set of rules to
govern the mediation procedure.10The project directors
then met with the grievance representatives of the par­
ticipating u m w a districts and employers to familiarize
them with the rules and procedures of mediation, thus
lessening the likelihood of subsequent disputes as to
proper interpretation of the rules.
Mediator selection and training. Four mediators were se­
lected by the project directors, with the advice and con­
sent of the participants, to serve in both participating
districts. All four had substantial experience in arbitra­
tion, both in the coal industry and elsewhere, and two
also had mediation experience.11 In October 1980, the
mediators met in Washington, D.C., with the project
directors and an experienced mediator from the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service for a 1-day training
and familiarization session. At this meeting, they dis­
cussed mediation techniques and agreed upon responses
to anticipated problems.12
Mediation charges and scheduling. To minimize the cost
and increase the speed of mediation, the parties were
told that up to three grievances would be scheduled for
mediation each day, but that, on request, a particular
grievance could be scheduled to take up to an entire
day. The mediator’s fee was to be $375 per day, plus
travel expenses, divided among the parties presenting
grievances on that day. Contrary to the practice in arbi­
tration, the mediator was not to charge for travel time,
and because he was not required to provide a written
decision, there would be no fee for study or writing


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

time. Thus, the average charge for mediating a griev­
ance was expected to be $125, plus one-third of the me­
diator’s travel expenses.
To increase the speed of mediation, conferences were
scheduled regularly so that the parties would not have
to wait until a mediator had a day available to consider
their grievance. Based on the anticipated volume of
grievances, conferences were scheduled 1 day per week
in District 30 and 1 day every other week in District
28. To ensure that mediators would be available on the
scheduled conference dates, they were guaranteed pay­
ment for those dates, whether or not their services were
needed. This guarantee was provided by the funding
agencies to encourage the parties to use the mediation
process, without subjecting them to liability for the
payments if the frequency of mediation were not as
great as anticipated.
The mediators were assigned to the scheduled media­
tion dates on a random basis, and the identity of the
mediator was kept secret until the date of the confer­
ence. The secrecy was at the request of the parties, who
wished to guard against scheduling maneuvers by any
party to bring a grievance before a particular mediator
it believed to be sympathetic to its position.13 The
parties telephoned requests for mediation to the project
staff, and were provided with the first available date
and time for mediation. The staff was also responsible
for notifying the mediators of their assignments, and for
collecting the data that the parties had agreed to pro­
vide for purposes of evaluating the mediation procedure.
The experimental period. The mediation of grievances
began on November 1, 1980, and continued until
March 27, 1981, when the 1978-81 contract expired,
and the UMWA called a nationwide strike. A new con­
tract was signed on June 6, 1981, but the parties did
not begin mediating again until September. At the end
of September, the 6-month experiment in grievance me­
diation was concluded.
During the experimental period, the following data
were collected for the participating employers in Dis­
tricts 28 and 30: rate of final resolution at mediation;
nature of the final resolution (compromise settlement or
acceptance of the mediator’s advisory decision); congru­
ence between the mediator’s advisory decision and the
arbitrator’s final and binding decision in those griev­
ances that went both to mediation and arbitration; me­
diator techniques; cost and time of mediation; nature of
the issues involved; and attitudes towards mediation of
the parties’ grievance representatives and of miners
whose grievances had been mediated. To compare medi­
ation with arbitration, similar data relevant to arbitra­
tion were collected from both participating and nonpar­
ticipating employers in the experimental districts both
during the experimental period and for the two 6-month
25

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Experiment in Grievance Mediation
periods that preceded it.14
Finally, to determine if any of the changes observed
in Districts 28 and 30 with respect to step-three settle­
ment rates and the time and cost of arbitration were
taking place elsewhere as well, and so might not be at­
tributable to the availability of mediation, pertinent data
were collected in District 29 (southern West Virginia)—
where mediation was not available—both during the ex­
perimental period and for 6 months preceding it.

The findings
Results o f mediation. The vast majority of grievances
that were submitted to mediation were finally resolved
in the mediation process. A total of 37 grievances was
submitted to mediation, 21 in District 28, 16 in District
30. Of those, five went on to arbitration, four in District
28, one in District 30. Thus, mediation succeeded in
bringing about the final resolution of 32 out of 37 griev­
ances, an overall success rate of 86 percent— 81 percent
in District 28 and 94 percent in District 30.
Approximately 70 percent of the grievances that were
mediated were settled by the parties without the need
for an advisory decision by the mediator; 54 percent of
the conferences resulted in a compromise settlement,
and another 16 percent ended in a noncompromise set­
tlement, in which the grievance was either withdrawn
by the union or granted in its entirety by the employer.
Twenty-four percent of the conferences resulted in the
issuance of an advisory decision, and another 5 percent
concluded with neither a settlement nor an advisory de­
cision, a situation permitted by the mediation rules at
the joint request of the parties only when a possible set­
tlement was being negotiated which might have been
adversely affected by the issuance of an advisory deci­
sion.
In those instances in which the mediator did issue an
advisory decision, that decision was nearly always that
the grievance would be denied if it went to arbitration.
In 3 of 5 such cases which the union took on to arbitra­
tion, the arbitrator denied the grievance as the mediator
had predicted.
Speed o f mediation. Mediation proved substantially
faster than arbitration. The average time between the
request for mediation and the mediation conference was
13 days, compared to an average of 49 days between a
request for arbitration and the arbitrator’s decision.15
The time saving achieved through mediation was the
result of two factors. Initially, the regular scheduling of
mediation conferences resulted in an average time of 13
days from the request for mediation to the mediation
conference, compared to 25 days from the request for
arbitration to the arbitration hearing. Additionally, an
average of 23 days after the arbitration hearing was re­
quired for the issuance of the arbitrator’s written deci­
26


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

sion, while no written decision was issued after a media­
tion conference.16
To be sure, the time lost in unsuccessful mediation
should be taken into account in determining the overall
time savings of mediation. If the days lost in unsuccess­
ful mediation are subtracted from the days saved in suc­
cessful mediation, there is still an average saving of 28
days for mediation compared to arbitration.17
Cost of mediation. The average cost (mediator’s fee and
expenses) of mediation was $250 per grievance, com­
pared to an average arbitration cost (arbitrator’s fee and
expenses) of $1,025. Thus, each grievance that was re­
solved through mediation saved the parties an average
$775 over arbitration.
Mediation was relatively inexpensive, in part because
the mediators could consider up to three grievances per
day, rather than one as is the practice in arbitration,
and also because no written decision was required.18
This was true despite the fact that the mediator’s daily
fee of $375 was substantially greater than the average
daily arbitrator’s fee of $275.19
Again, it is appropriate to take into account the cost
of those grievances which were not successfully resolved
in mediation. When the amount so lost was subtracted
from the amount saved in successful mediation, media­
tion was still found to have saved the participating
union districts and employers $23,550, an average $636
per grievance.20
The payments to mediators for those dates when me­
diation was scheduled but did not take place has not
been included in calculating the financial saving of me­
diation over arbitration because those payments were
borne by the funding agencies to encourage the parties
to employ mediation during the experimental period.
However, because the parties in District 28 chose to
continue the mediation arrangement at their own ex­
pense after the experiment was completed, it is possible
to measure that portion of the district’s current costs of
mediation accounted for by the fees paid to mediators
for scheduled, but unused, mediation dates. At this
writing, the amount of those fees has been $1,275, and
the saving otherwise attributable to mediation has been
$8,400. The net savings have thus been $7,125 for the
12 grievances mediated to date, an average of $594 per
grievance.21
Effect on the step-three resolution rate. The availability
of mediation does not appear to have lowered the fre­
quency with which grievances were settled at step three.
As shown in table 1, the step-three settlement rate
among those companies participating in the experiment
was 75 percent between October 1979 and March 1980,
73 percent during the 6-month period immediately pre­
ceding the experimental period (April-September 1980),

and 76 percent during the experimental period. Thus,
there is no evidence that the availability of high-speed,
low-cost mediation would result in the mediation of
grievances that otherwise would have been settled at
step three. To the contrary, table 1 shows that, during
the experimental period, the number of grievances taken
to arbitration declined by approximately the number of
grievances taken to mediation. It thus appears that
those grievances which went to mediation were those
which would otherwise have gone to arbitration.22
Attitudes towards mediation and arbitration. Attitudes
towards mediation and arbitration were tested among
three groups: company personnel who had represented
their companies in both arbitration and mediation,
union personnel who had performed the same function
for the u m w a , and miners who had had a grievance
processed through mediation, arbitration, or in a few in­
stances, both.
As shown in table 2, a higher proportion of both
union representatives and miners were satisfied with me­
diation than with arbitration, while company represen­
tatives were equally satisfied with both. Turning to
specific aspects of the two procedures, a higher propor­
tion of each of the three groups preferred mediation to
arbitration, in every respect but one: a slightly higher
percentage of company representatives thought that ar­
bitrators understood the grievances presented to them
than thought that mediators did. When directly asked
which procedure they preferred, all three groups pre­
ferred mediation over arbitration.
In giving the reasons for their preference of proce­
dures, 50 percent (7 of 14) of the miners referred to the
speed of mediation compared to arbitration, as did 50
percent of the union representatives (4 of 8), and 33
percent (4 of 12) of the company representatives. Other
characteristics of mediation referred to favorably were
its low cost (company representatives, 42 percent; union
representatives, 38 percent; miners, 21 percent); infor­
mality (company representatives, 42 percent; union rep­

Table 1. Distribution of grievances by method of
resolution before and during the grievance mediation
experiment
Number of grievances
Method of resolution

Step three ...........................

Oct. 1 , 1979Mar. 31,1980

Apr. 1 , 1980Sept. 30,1980

Oct. 1 ,1980Mar. 31,1981

216

226

260

Mediation.............................

0

0

’ 28

Arbitration ...........................

72

82

57

Percentage of grievances
resolved at step three . . .

75

73

76

1This number does not reflect the 4 grievances which were resolved at mediation in Sep­
tember 1981.


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

resentatives, 63 percent; miners, 14 percent); oppor­
tunity for full discussion of the problem that led to the
grievance (company representatives, 25 percent; union
representatives, 50 percent); opportunity for the parties
to resolve the problem by negotiation, rather than sub­
mit to the directed resolution of a third party (company
representatives, 17 percent; union representatives, 25
percent; miners, 15 percent); and the chance for the
grievant to be fully heard (company representatives, 8
percent; union representatives, 25 percent; miners, 14
percent).
Only two criticisms of mediation were voiced with
any frequency. Twenty-five percent of the company rep­
resentatives complained that mediation did not ensure a
final resolution of the grievance, as did 12 percent of
the union representatives and 28 percent of the miners.
Twenty-five percent of the company representatives and
7 percent of the miners also commented that the media­
tor sometimes encouraged the parties to compromise
without regard to the contractual merits of their respec­
tive positions.
Mediation techniques. The techniques used by the medi­
ators to obtain grievance settlements were, for the most
part, the same as those typically used in mediating con­
tract negotiation disputes. Thus, in 30 of the 37 cases,
the mediator met separately with union and company
representatives, and in 26 of the cases, the mediator
both encouraged the parties to work out a compromise
settlement and suggested the terms of such a settlement.
However, there were some respects in which the me­
diators employed techniques not typically used in con­
tract negotiations. One such technique was the advisory
decision, in which the mediator advised the parties of
the likely outcome if the grievance were arbitrated. The
advisory decision was usually given at the close of the
conference, after all efforts to work out a settlement had
proven unsuccessful. The advisory decision did not nor­
mally lead to further negotiations, but to a decision by
the “loser” either to accept the advisory decision or to
proceed to arbitration. As previously noted, the adviso­
ry decision was accepted in four cases, while in five
cases the grievance was taken to arbitration.
There were some grievances in which the mediator
did not issue an advisory decision, but did advise the
parties privately of the likely outcome in arbitration.
This technique enabled the parties to adjust their nego­
tiating position in light of their contractual strength,
and was reported by several of the mediators to have
been quite successful in bringing about settlements.23
In 31 of the cases, the mediator discussed with the
parties the nature of the underlying problem that had
led to the grievance, and how that problem might be
dealt with in the future. In some of these cases, this
technique resulted in a mutually satisfactory resolution
27

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Experiment in Grievance Mediation
Table 2. Results of the attitude survey taken among
participants in the mediation experiment
Query and response

Company
representatives

Union
representatives

Miners

Were you generally satisfied with
mediation (arbitration)?
Percent satisfied:
Mediation....................................
Arbitration .................................

83
83

100
25

72
48

83
92

100
38

54
49

92
83

100
38

65
33

Do you think the mediators
(arbitrators) generally under­
stood the grievance(s)?
Percent "Yes” :
M ediation...................................
Arbitration .................................
Do you think that in general a ll the
im portant facts came out in the
mediation conferences
(arbitration hearings)?
Percent “ Yes” :
Mediation....................................
Arbitration .................................

92
42

100
37

81
72

92
84

87
50

77
63

100
50
33
17

100
75
12
12

100
64
14
21

Do you think the mediators
(arbitrators) were in any way
dishonest or unfair?
Percent “ No” :
Mediation...................................
Arbitration .................................
AH things considered, which
procedure do you like better—
mediation or arbitration?1
Total (percent)...............................
M ediation...................................
Arbitration ..................................
Undecided .................................

1This question was asked only of miners with experience in both procedures.
Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 100.

of both the grievance and the problem which had led to
that grievance. For example, a number of grievances
concerned the assignment of idle-day work, and in some
of those, the parties entered into a settlement which
substantially restructured their idle-day work assign­
ment procedure. One grievance, which originated as a
dispute over shift starting time, led to a discussion of
the procedure by which management decisions affecting
employees were made and communicated to the em­
ployees, and culminated in the settlement dealing with
both of those matters as well as the original dispute.
Still another grievance, which was filed to protest the
employer’s failure to assign the grievant to a temporary
vacancy, resulted in an agreement with respect to the
filling of all temporary vacancies occurring in the next 6
months. The device of an agreement to try a particular
approach for a limited time, with the option of aban­
doning it if it proved unsuccessful, was frequently used
28


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

Issues mediated. The issues presented by those griev­
ances that were mediated were essentially the same as
those presented by those grievances that were arbitrat­
ed. Thus, during the experimental period, grievances
presenting the following issues were arbitrated: dis­
charge, discipline less than discharge, vacation pay, per­
sonal or sick leave, job bidding, idle-day or overtime
work assignments, layoff or realignment, supervisor do­
ing classified work, contracting out, and the “wrong”
employee doing classified work (jurisdictional disputes).
Grievances presenting these issues were also mediated,
with the exception of personal or sick leave, jurisdic­
tional disputes, and discharges.

Directions for further research

Do you think the mediation confer­
ences (arbitration hearings)
were too formal, not form al
enough, o r ju s t about right?
Percent "Just about right” :
Mediation...................................
Arbitration .................................

by the mediators to encourage the parties to enter into
a settlement that appeared to satisfy the concerns of
each, but that one or both were reluctant to agree to on
a permanent basis.

Despite the apparent success of the mediation experi­
ment, there remain some unanswered questions about
the value of mediation as a means of grievance resolu­
tion. Because the number of grievances mediated and
the number of persons who participated in mediation
during the experimental period were not great, it is pos­
sible that with more experience, problems will develop
that are not presently apparent. Furthermore, the only
grievances that were mediated during the experimental
period were those which both the employer and the
union agreed to submit to mediation. This requirement
of mutual consent maximized the likelihood of settle­
ment by bringing to mediation only those grievances for
which both parties contemplated the possibility of a set­
tlement. It also minimized the risk that the availability
of mediation would result in a decrease in the step-three
settlement rate, because either party could respond to a
refusal to settle at step three by refusing to agree to me­
diation. Thus, it cannot be determined whether griev­
ance mediation, if available on a basis other than
mutual consent, would achieve comparable results.
This is a question of considerable importance, be­
cause there are substantial advantages to providing for
mediation on a basis other than mutual consent. Under
a mutual consent approach, mediation would be pre­
cluded whenever one party believes its position to be so
clearly right, and not susceptible to compromise, that
mediation would be a waste of time. Similarly, media­
tion could not be used whenever discussion of a particu­
lar subject is sufficiently acrimonious that one party
reacts to any suggestion of the other—including the
suggestion that mediation be attempted—with a nega­
tive response. To the extent that mediation is preferable
to arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, any
procedure that increases the proportion of unresolved

grievances going to mediation, rather than to arbitra­
tion, is desirable.
Data collected after the experimental period shed
some light on the effect of providing for mediation on a
basis other than mutual consent. Since the end of the
project, UMWA Districts 11 and 12 and three employers
operating in those districts have begun a self-funded ex­
periment in the mediation of grievances. Two of the em­
ployers and the union districts agreed to substitute for
the mutual consent requirement a provision that either
party could submit a grievance to mediation. During
the first 5 months under that procedure, 21 of 25 griev­
ances were successfully resolved in mediation, a settle­
ment rate of 84 percent.
Additional evidence is provided by UMWA District 28
and the participating employers in that district, who
agreed to continue experimenting with grievance media­
tion on a self-funded basis after their role in our project
was ended. Their agreement provided that, for a period
of 6 months, all grievances not settled at step three
would be submitted to mediation, except for discharge
grievances and those grievances that both parties agreed
not to mediate.24 During the first 3 months under that
provision, 12 grievances were submitted to mediation,
all of which were finally resolved, a settlement rate of
100 percent. Thus, initial indications are that easier ac­

cess to mediation will not drive down the frequency
with which grievances are resolved in mediation. How­
ever, data are not yet available on the effects on the
step-three settlement rate.
In sum, our test of the grievance mediation procedure
has demonstrated that, at least under a provision for
mutual consent to mediation, the mediation procedure
is capable of resolving a high proportion of grievances
more promptly and less expensively than can conven­
tional arbitration, without a substantial decrease in the
internal settlement rate. And, followup evidence sug­
gests that mediation can be successful in resolving dis­
putes even if it is available on a basis other than mutual
consent.
The implications of these findings are profound. Ini­
tially, they indicate the desirability of further experi­
mentation with grievance mediation in the coal mining
industry. Our results also suggest the desirability of fur­
ther experimentation with mediation in other industries.
The coal industry is not unique in having a high volume
of arbitration, and there appears to be no reason why a
carefully designed grievance mediation procedure, tai­
lored to fit the needs of employers and unions in other
industries, should not be equally successful in resolving
grievances promptly, inexpensively, and to the mutual
satisfaction of the parties.
□

FOOTNOTES
1The total cost of arbitrating 2,700 cases per year for a 3-year peri­
od starting in 1974 would be approximately $5,550,000. See Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service, 33d Annual Report (Washington,
1981), p. 37.
2Jeanne M. Brett and Stephen B. Goldberg, “Wildcat Strikes in Bi­
tuminous Coal Mining,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July
1979, p. 477.
3See Ben Fischer, “Arbitration: the steel industry experiment,”
Monthly Labor Review, November 1972, pp. 7-10.
4 Marcus Sandver, Harry Blaine, and Mark Woyar, “Time and Cost
Savings Through Expedited Arbitration Procedures: Evidence From
Five Industrial Settings,” Arbitration Journal, December 1981, pp.
11- 20.
5See Gordon Gregory and Robert Rooney, “Grievance Mediation:
A Trend in the Cost-Conscious Eighties,” Labor Law Journal, August
1980, p. 502; James O’Grady, “Grievance Mediation Activities by
State Agencies,” Arbitration Journal, June 1976, p. 125; and William
McPherson, “Grievance Mediation Under Collective Bargaining,” In­
dustrial and Labor Relations Review, January 1956, p. 200.
6Sandver, Blaine, and Woyar, “Time and Cost Savings.”
7The most powerful evidence comes from British Columbia, where
grievance mediation is made available by the Labour Board. Since
1976, slightly more than 600 grievances per year have gone to media­
tion, with an average settlement rate of 71 percent. See Paul Weiler,
“The Role of the Labour Board as an Alternative to Arbitration,”
Avoiding the Arbitrator: Some New Alternatives to the Grievance Proce­
dure, Proceedings, 30th Annual Meeting (National Academy of Arbi­
trators, 1977), pp. 72-80; and, letter to the authors from the Labour
Relations Board of British Columbia, Mar. 11, 1981.
Data from State mediation agencies, which show settlement rates of
75 percent or more, are reported in O’Grady, “Grievance Mediation
Activities,” pp. 125-28; Gregory and Rooney, “Grievance Mediation:
A Trend,” p. 502; and, letter to the authors from Edward W. Allen,


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

Supervisor, California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, May
18, 1981. Reports on the results of mediation procedures used by in­
dividual firms are contained in Arnold Zack, “Suggested Approaches
to Grievance Arbitration,” Avoiding the Arbitrator: Some New Alterna­
tives to the Grievance Procedure, Proceedings, 30th Annual Meeting
(National Academy of Arbitrators, 1977), pp. 105—12; and, William
McPherson, “Grievance Mediation,” pp. 200-04.
8See Weiler, “The Role of the Labour Board,” pp. 117-20.
9The firms participating in the experiment were: Beth-Elkhom
Corp., Carbon Fuel Co., Clinchfield Coal Co., Eastern Coal Corp.,
Kentland-Elkhom Coal Corp., Rebel Coal Co., Robert Coal Co.,
Scotts Branch Co., and Westmoreland Coal Co..
10Those rules are presented in the appendix to the complete report
on the study, on which this article is based. See Stephen B. Goldberg
and Jeanne M. Brett, An Experiment in the Mediation o f Grievances,
Final Report to the U.S. Department o f Labor under Contract No. J-9P-l-0034 (January 1982), pp. 53-57.
" The mediators selected to participate in the experiment were Da­
vid Beckman, James Scearce, Rolf Valtin, and Stephen Goldberg.
12 During the experimental period, a similar meeting was held to
discuss common problems that had arisen, and to exchange ideas for
possible solutions.
13The mediator’s lack of power to impose a settlement would ap­
pear to make his views of little importance, but the parties, perhaps
because their prior experience was exclusively with arbitration, were
concerned about the mediator’s perceived sympathies.
14We collected data on step-three settlement rates beginning on
Oct. 1, 1980, on the theory that those grievances that were ready for
mediation by November 1 would probably have reached step three
some time in October. We terminated the data collection period for
step-three settlement rates on Mar. 31, 1981, because the u m w a strike
of April-June rendered the April-September 1981 period atypical.
29

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Experiment in Grievance Mediation
13These statistics do not include discharge grievances because the
wage agreement provides an expedited procedure for the arbitration of
such grievances.
“ If mediation were as successful in other industries as it has been
in coal, the time saved in resolving grievances through mediation,
rather than arbitration, would average 108 days. The average time
from the request for arbitration to the arbitration hearing for the ex­
perimental districts (25 days) was achieved at least partially because a
permanent arbitration panel is provided for in the u m w a -b c o a con­
tract. The comparable time for U.S. industry in general was 69 days.
Similarly, while the average time from the arbitration hearing to the
issuance of the arbitrator’s decision in the experimental districts was
23 days, the average for all industries was 52 days. See Federal Medi­
ation and Conciliation Service, 33rd Annual Report (Washington,
1981), p. 39.
17The total time lost in unsuccessfully mediating five grievances was
115 days. Subtracting the 115 days lost from the 1,152 days saved in
the 32 successfully mediated grievances results in an overall saving of
1,037 days for 37 grievances.
" No data are available for the coal mining industry on the propor­
tion of the arbitrator’s fee that is attributable to the time necessary to
write a decision. However, nationwide data show that in 1980 the av­
erage arbitrator charged 1.33 days per grievance for travel and hear­

ing, and 1.88 days for study and decision writing. Because the nation­
wide data also show that the average daily arbitrator’s fee was $275,
the average charge for a written decision was $517. See Federal Medi­
ation and Conciliation Service, 33d Annual Report (Washington,
1981), p. 37.
19Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 33d Annual Report,
p. 37.
“ This result is calculated by the same method as the time saving
result calculated in note 17: subtracting the $1,250 cost of unsuccess­
ful mediation of five grievances from the $24,800 saved in the 32 suc­
cessfully mediated grievances results in overall financial savings of
$23,550 for 37 grievances.
21 This figure also takes into account an increase in the mediator’s
fee from $125 to $200 per grievance.
22Just as for the participating companies, step-three settlement rates
of a control group of nonparticipating companies remained remark­
ably constant during the 18-month period preceding and including the
experimental period.
23The frequency with which private outcome prediction was used,
and the effect of this technique, was, unfortunately, not measured. It
will be measured in future experiments.
24 Discharges may be submitted to mediation by mutual agreement.

Settlements are the norm
To many Americans, the strike epitomizes the union. Headlines are
made in industrial disputes. They are the sensational aspects of union
policies and managerial counterpolicies. Yet, strikes are surprisingly
few in comparison to either man-days worked or the number of col­
lective agreements negotiated. For example, the average annual num­
ber of man-days lost in the United States because of strikes during
1935-36—a period of great labor unrest— was 16.9 million, or 0.27
percent of the total annual estimated working time. In 1946, the
worst strike year in our history, man-days lost totaled 116 million, or
1.43 percent of the annual estimated working time. In 1959, despite
the impact of a steel strike that shut down that industry for several
months, man-days lost totaled 68 million, or only 0.61 percent of the
annual estimated working time. Almost every hour while strikes oc­
cur, a collective bargaining agreement is being peacefully negotiated
by a union and a company.
— G o r d o n F. B loom

and

H erbert R. N

orthrup

Economics of Labor Relations,
9th ed. (Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin,
Inc., 1981), p. 171.

30

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

Conference Papers
The following excerpts are adapted from papers present­
ed at the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Industrial
Relations Research Association, December 1982, in
New York.
The full text of all papers appears in the copyrighted
IRRA publication, Proceedings o f the Thirty-Fifth Annual
Meeting, available from IRRA, Social Science Building,
Madison, Wis. 53706.

Do the 1982 concessions by unions
mark a turning point in bargaining?
D

a n ie l

J. B . M

it c h e l l

In early 1982, it seemed as though the labor market
was splitting into two camps. Certain employers were
on the verge of bankruptcy or, at least, large-scale plant
closings and mass layoffs. Such developments threat­
ened the job security of senior union members who
have special influence on the union policymaking pro­
cess.1 Such threats created more wage responsiveness
than the normal ups and downs of the business cycle.
The contracts negotiated under these circumstances
varied. A common feature, however, was a freeze on ba­
sic wages (sometimes including the escalator, sometimes
with delays or “diversion” of escalator money) or a de­
crease in wages.
Accompanying the concessions was an increased will­
ingness, in some bargaining units, to experiment with
worker participation in management, quality circles,
and other innovative reforms. In addition, the most tan­
gible measure of labor-management friction— strike in­
cidence— showed a marked decline. But, in the past,
such a cooperative spirit tended to erode when the eco­
nomic crisis ended.

Daniel J.B. Mitchell is director of the Institute of Industrial Rela­
tions, and professor at the Graduate School of Management,
University of California at Los Angeles. The title of his full IRRA
paper is, “Is Union Wage Determination at a Turning Point?”


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

Several views surfaced during the discussion of union
wage concessions early in 1982. There is the Audrey
Freedman-William Fulmer view that Humpty-Dumpty
(which to them is industrywide union wage targets and
resulting wage rigidity) has fallen off the wall and will
never be put together again. At the other end of the
spectrum is the John T. Dunlop view that Humpty is
merely repositioning himself and that 1982 bargaining
(including the concessions) is within the range of nor­
mality.2 Closer to Dunlop’s is my opinion that Humpty
falls off the wall from time to time, but has not broken
in the past and has always climbed back. Thus, there is
reason to believe that 1982 will not be an exception.
Is union wage determination at a turning point?
“No,” not in a fundamental way. Union wage settle­
ments were low in 1982. But this fact says little about
permanent changes in institutional structures. In my
view, the primary structural characteristic of modern
union bargaining associated with wage insensitivity is
not the industrywide pattern but rather the long-dura­
tion contract, often supported with an escalator. Con­
cession bargainers took pains to preserve the escalated
long-term contract and to label deviations as tempo­
rary. Pattern bargaining has long been an elusive and
ephemeral concept in the industrial relations literature,
especially when it is thought of as connecting totally
unrelated industries. Wage changes throughout the
economy (union and nonunion) tend to be correlated,
but statistical attempts to determine if the correlations
are due to patterning (conscious imitation) or common
determining factors have not been successful.3 Even
where it is obvious that patterning has occurred in the
past, the significance of its dissolution for wage flexibili­
ty is unclear.
The main structural reform which could increase
wage sensitivity to demand is gain sharing (including
profit sharing) which appeared as part of some conces­
sion packages. These plans are modest in scope, howev­
er, and might be abandoned unless reinforced by public
policy. Unless gain sharing is externally stimulated by
appropriate tax incentives, it is unlikely to encompass a
substantial fraction of the work force or a substantial
portion of compensation.4 The greater wage sensitivity
to demand that gain sharing could bring would help to
ensure that future episodes of inflation fighting would
be less painful than the 1979-82 experience.
Q

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Conference Papers
------------ FOOTNOTES------------' Daniel J. B. Mitchell, “Recent Union Contract Concessions,”
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1:1982, pp. 165-201.
2Audrey Freedman and William E. Fulmer, “Last Rites for Pattern
Bargaining,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1982, pp. 30-48;
John T. Dunlop, “Remarks by Former Secretary of Labor Dunlop on
1982 Wage Developments Before Conference of Business Econo­
mists,” Daily Labor Report, Feb. 23, 1982, pp. D1-D2.
3Daniel J. B. Mitchell, “How to Find Wage Spillovers (Where
None Exist),” Industrial Relations, Fall 1982, pp. 392-97.
4 In March 1982, Congressman John F. Seiberling introduced a bill
(HR 5682) to provide tax incentives for certain types of gain-sharing
plans.

Will union concessions expand
areas for bargaining?
Everett

M.

K

a ssa lo w

Recent union economic concessions have not been a
one-way street, particularly in the case of the larger
companies. In some instances, unions have been able to
bargain their way into wholly new areas, in return for
yielding some economic ground. For example, in auto
and meatpacking negotiations, new rights have been
gained on the matter of plant closings or outsourcing to
nonunion companies. These new rights are by no means
comprehensive, but they represent an important break­
through in an area where companies in those industries
have not yielded ground in the past. Even where the
newly gained rights are not extensive, a foot in the door
in these areas almost inevitably means the union is enti­
tled to flows of companies’ internal information which
they did not have in the past. The same goes for the
various profit-sharing plans which are being offered to
unions in lieu of wage adjustments—their information
value could be far-reaching.
Union members in the auto industry also seem to be
achieving a variety of new job and income security ben­
efits, as a tradeoff for some present economic benefits.
Experiments with “lifetime seniority” at a few plants
and a “guaranteed income stream” to protect workers
“with 10 or more years of seniority in plants which are
permanently closed, and to workers with 15 or moreyears of seniority in all other cases” are notable ad­
vances.1 Prepaid legal services, a new benefit for most
auto workers, were also gained in a number of compa­
nies. The extension of health insurance to laid-off em­
ployees for 1 year, and in some cases, 2 years, has also
Everett M. Kassalow is a professor in the Department of Economics,
University of Wisconsin. The title of his full IRRA paper is, “Conces­
sion Bargaining, Something Old, But Also Something Quite New.”
32


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

been negotiated in the concession framework in a num­
ber of companies.
In the light of these new gains, it is surprising that
public attention has been devoted almost exclusively to
the unions’ economic concessions. Unions have also
been able to strengthen already existing severance pay
plans, employees’ rights to transfer from shutdown
plants to still open company plants, and early retire­
ment benefits, as part of bargaining in a recession era.2
Some of the companies’ concession tradeoffs which
did not quite come off are even more revealing of how
far changes might go. Thus, General Motors in its first
(unsuccessful) round of negotiations with the UAW in
1982 apparently offered to link any worker economic
concessions directly to temporary price reductions. This
linkage of wage and price bargaining is something that
the UAW had proposed on several occasions after
World War II, but which the auto companies had indig­
nantly rejected. Further, according to Steelworkers’
President Lloyd McBride, steel industry negotiators
(also in negotiations which “failed”) had indicated their
readiness to guarantee “spending all their returns and
labor cost relief in basic steel,” if the negotiations for
concessions succeeded.3In an industry where a few steel
companies have recently invested billions of dollars out­
side the steel industry, such an offer might have great
significance.
In addition to obtaining a moratorium on plant shut­
downs, the United Food and Commercial Workers, un­
der their agreement with the Armour & Co., are to
receive a copy of the company’s “capital investment
plan for the next 5 years and [the company] promised
to reveal its actual expenditures each year.”4
One management counselor argues that unions have
not really made significant concessions, but only tem­
pered their demands, while the concessions they
obtained from management were a “shrewd tradeoff re­
vealing a pattern of erosion in managerial rights and en­
trepreneurial freedom.”5 Another counselor has warned
about the possible consequences of widespread informa­
tion sharing with the unions. Once “the spigot of confi­
dential information is turned on, it cannot easily be
turned off.” Opening the books in hard times may mod­
erate union demands, but it can be employed against
“the company in collective bargaining when profit be­
comes more buoyant,” because management “loses its
ability to edit the data provided to unions.” The same
counselor also seem to fear such concessions as allowing
UAW President Douglas Fraser to sit on the Chrysler
Board, or permitting the Rubber Workers’ President
Milan Stone to appear before the Uniroyal board twice
a year. He sees these in a pattern similar to the growth
of workers’ access to information and board representa­
tion in Western Europe, though in Europe these matters
generally proceed under a legislative umbrella.6 My own

feeling is that this kind of union sharing in manage­
ment’s fiscal power is generally so foreign to the ideolo­
gy of American workers (and union leaders with a few
notable exceptions) and to management tradition, that
it may not advance rapidly. There are few signs that
employers outside of the most economically besieged in­
dustries are prepared to yield any important new share
in management to unions. In those companies which do
not regain economic viability, the newly gained union
rights at the expense of traditional management prerog­
atives could become more or less moot. Still, on balance
what may be significant is that important managerial
prerogatives have been (or may be) breached by unions
in several large companies, and this will be an area
commanding close observation and research in the next
few years.
□
--------- FOOTNOTES---------1See The UA W-GM Report (Detroit, Mich., United Auto Workers,
1982), p. 21, which includes an extensive summary of the contracts
negotiated with General Motors. Similar benefits were negotiated at
Ford. Both agreements also include provisions to strengthen the sup­
plementary unemployment benefit funds at these companies.
2See, for example, the description of the “Closure Settlement,”
agreed to in June 1979 by Brown and Williamson Co. and the unions
it bargains with in Labor Relations in an Economic Recession (Wash­
ington, D.C., Bureau of National Affairs, 1982), p. 10.
3Daily Labor Report, Sept. 29, 1982 (Washington, D.C., Bureau of
National Affairs). The union had apparently pressed the companies to
reinvest all savings in modernization of facilities. Although the com­
panies’ counteroffer did not go that far, they did seemingly accept the
principle of keeping the funds saved within the steel industry.
4Daily Labor Report, Sept. 29, 1982.
5See Daily Labor Report, June 16, 1982, for a summary of remarks
by former National Labor Relations Board Chairman Edward B.
Miller, at the 35th National Conference on Labor, held at New York
U niversity.

‘ Richard A. Beaumont, The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 18, 1982.

Implications of concession bargaining:
lessons from the public sector
D

a v id

L e w in

A lively debate is emerging about the significance of re­
cent developments in collective bargaining, especially
so-called concession bargaining. Some analysts believe
that these concessions mark the beginning of a new era
of labor-management relations, while others view them
merely as a conventional response to economic recession

David Lewin is a professor of business at Columbia University. The
title of his full IRRA paper is “Public Sector Concession Bargaining:
Lessons for the Private Sector.” Joan Horning provided research as­
sistance in the preparation of this paper.


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

and still others take a “middle-ground” position on the
issue.1The question posed in this paper is, “To what ex­
tent can the significance of private-sector concession
bargaining be adduced from recent concession bar­
gaining in the public sector?”
At first glance, this question may seem ill-formed.
For example, writing in mid-1982, Robert McKersie
and Peter Cappelli contended that because “ . . . con­
cessions have no possibility of increasing revenue . . .
unions in the public sector are not engaging in conces­
sion bargaining.”2 Further, Bureau of Labor Statistics
data for the first half of 1982 show that pay and benefit
changes in major bargaining agreements were considera­
bly larger in the public than in the private sector, im­
plying that concessions are not a fact of life in the
former sector.3 Nevertheless, it is the case that conces­
sion bargaining has occurred in some portions of the
public sector, and an analysis of these concessions may
be instructive for interpreting private-sector bargaining
developments.

The public-sector experience
The following discussion is based on a study of eight
instances of concession bargaining, together covering
more than 103,000 State and local government employ­
ees, that have been reported for the first half of 1982.
Most of these actions occurred in States with economies
that are, in general, very sensitive to business cycles and
which have experienced severe economic declines and
high unemployment during the current recession. Typi­
cally, the concessions will be in effect only for the 198283 fiscal year that prevails in these jurisdictions, al­
though a few apply to longer periods.
The dominant response of the public-sector employ­
ers and unions to economic pressures has been to freeze
wages and salaries. Such freezes were in effect in
all of the Michigan, Philadelphia, and Washington State
bargaining situations studied, and covered almost
100,000 employees. In most cases, existing contracts
were extended for 1 year, but several jurisdictions nego­
tiated longer-term agreements, some of which provide
for pay or benefit improvements in the second or third
years. However, and as has occurred previously in some
of these jurisdictions,4 contracts may be reopened and
scheduled pay increases may be deferred or cancelled if
economic conditions do not improve.
It is also clear that public-sector pay freezes are in­
tended to preserve jobs and prevent layoffs. As exam­
ples, contracts negotiated in Philadelphia and Memphis
include explicit no-layoff provisions; Maryland officials
provided municipal employees with no-layoff “assur­
ances”; scheduled layoffs by the Detroit Public Library
were cancelled as a result of a pay freeze for 1982-83; and
worksharing was incorporated into 1982-83 bargaining
agreements in several Michigan school districts.
33

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Conference Papers
Other notable bargaining actions and contract provi­
sions in these jurisdictions that might properly be la­
beled concessions include the substitution of compen­
satory time off for overtime pay and unpaid holidays
for work leave credit (Michigan State troopers); unpaid
work days (Detroit librarians); and cost-sharing for
health insurance coverage (Baltimore municipal employ­
ees). Of particular note are actions taken in the State of
Washington that eliminate the accrual and application
of annual leave time to the calculation of public em­
ployees’ retirement pay, require future pay increases to
be based on employee performance rather than seniori­
ty, and extend probationary periods for new employees
from 6 months to 1 year.
Do such concessions portend a new era of public-sec­
tor bargaining in the United States? Perhaps not, for
the following reasons. First, the concessions apply to
only about one-fourth of all public employees represent­
ed by collective bargaining units in negotiations during
the first half of 1982; the large majority of such employ­
ees are not operating under concession-type contract
provisions.5 Second, governments at all levels have
grown much more slowly since the 1973-75 recession
than they did prior to that time, and personnel layoffs,
budget reductions, and various productivity improve­
ment schemes have become commonplace. For example,
the Federal Goverment, 44 of the 50 State governments,
and 59 of the Nation’s 100 largest cities reported per­
sonnel layoffs during fiscal 1981 and 1982 and had
planned some layoffs for fiscal 1983.6Most of these lay­
offs were not formally subject to collective bargaining,
but where they were, the most common union response
was to press for seniority clauses to guide layoffs. Only
where reductions in force could not be accomplished via
attrition and where major layoffs seemed imminent have
some organized public employees been willing to agree
to concessions in collective bargaining.
Finally, present day concessions in public-sector
bargaining appear mild in comparison with the conces­
sions that characterized some public-sector bargaining
relationships in the late 1970’s. For example, in the
wake of New York City’s mid-1970’s fiscal crisis, no
general wage increases were granted between 1976 and
1980, various fringe benefits were reduced or eliminated,
and municipal unions were called upon to invest $2.3
billion of pension funds in city notes so as to prevent
municipal bankruptcy.7 Further, such productivity im­
provement measures as one-person police patrol cars,
two-man sanitation crews, and “broad-banding” were
introduced during this period.8 Similar, if not as severe,
measures emerged from collective bargaining in other
local and State governments during the late 1970’s.9
But, as economic conditions improved for some of these
governments, including New York City, during the ear­
ly 1980’s, pay increases were negotiated and other— but
34


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

not all—characteristics of more “normal” bargaining
re-emerged.

Implications for private-sector pacts
What lessons for private-sector collective bargaining
can be learned from recent bargaining experiences in the
public sector? Perhaps the main point is that the con­
cept of a “sector” is overly encompassing, for it in­
cludes a wide range of bargaining experiences, rela­
tionships, and outcomes. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the median first-year wage change in
public-sector contracts negotiated during the first half
of 1982 was 9.0 percent; yet we have seen that well over
100,000 public employees were parties to contracts that
featured bargaining concessions, most notably pay
freezes. (In the private sector during the same period,
the median first-year wage change in major bargaining
settlements ranged from zero in manufacturing, to 3.6
percent in nonmanufacturing, and to 7.2 percent in con­
struction.)10
Another lesson is that the collective bargaining struc­
ture of a sector, while not immutable, is relatively
stable. Almost no multi-employer bargaining takes
place in the public sector, and this is as true today as it
was before the mid-1970’s slowdown in the growth of
government in the United States. Coalition bargaining
has emerged in New York City’s government and in a
few other jurisdictions, and this would appear to be a
logical consequence of fiscal crisis;11 but the over­
whelming proportion of public-sector contracts are still
negotiated on a single-employer, single-union basis.
Similarly, in the private sector, where single-employer
agreements slightly outnumber multi-employer agree­
ments,12 concession bargaining does not seem to have
featured major changes in bargaining structure. This is
not to deny that some changes in bargaining structure
have occurred in U.S. industry13 or that “wage pattern­
ing” is becoming diluted as the parties weight produc­
tivity and ability to pay at the individual plant level
more heavily than cost of living and pay comparability
in making wage and benefit decisions. Rather, it is to
underscore that, in 1982, private-sector labor agree­
ments, including those containing concessions, have
been reached largely through the same structural ar­
rangements that characterized previous bargaining
rounds.
A final lesson concerns the somewhat slippery matter
of labor-management cooperation. In times of severe fis­
cal strain, numerous public employers have expanded
the scope of bargaining, formed joint labor-management
committees, and, in general, “invited” organized work­
ers to play a larger role in management policy-making.
The same seems to have occurred in 1982 in the private
sector, especially in severely depressed industries, and
has taken such specific forms as widened information

sharing, companywide quality-of-worklife and joint pro­
ductivity committees, and profit-sharing arrangements.14
Perhaps the key analytical question here is whether the
“expanded” union role in management that is implied
by these practices and arrangements will persist, in­
crease, or diminish over time. What little public-sector
experience exists in this regard suggests that employers
draw back from an expanded union role in management
as fiscal strain eases.15 Further, one might expect that
the U.S. labor movement, which today represents a
shrinking proportion of the work force, loses more rep­
resentation elections than it wins, and faces numerous
employers and consultants bent on achieving a unionfree environment, would oppose rather than support the
concept of labor-management cooperation.
Nevertheless, through their contractual agreements,
particularly those reached in 1982, private-sector union
members have shown support (albeit limited) for coop­
erative arrangements with employers. Thus, it primarily
rests with management to demonstrate that labor-man­
agement cooperation is not a passing, recession-associat­
ed fancy. Given that, in less than two decades, publicsector employers and managers have shown that they
can accommodate unions and collective bargaining, ne­
gotiate concessions when circumstances warrant, and
occasionally pursue cooperative arrangements with or­
ganized employees, it may be that private-sector em­
ployers are also capable of pursuing labor-management
cooperation irrespective (and not solely because) of eco­
nomic circumstances. However, only time can provide
the empirical evidence of a link between contemporary
concession bargaining and a lasting shift to a more con­
sensual system of labor-management relations.
□

tary of Labor Dunlop on 1982 Wage Developments Before Confer­
ence of Business Economists,” Daily Labor Report, Feb. 23, 1982, pp.
D1-D2; and, Audrey Freedman and others, Labor Outlook 1983 (New
York, The Conference Board, 1982).
2 Robert B. McKersie and Peter Cappelli, “Concession Bargaining,”
Working Paper (Cambridge, Mass., Massachusetts Institute of Tech­
nology, Sloan School of Management, 1982), p. 20.
3See U.S. Department of Labor, “BLS Introduces Data on the Size
of Collective Bargaining Settlements Covering State and Local Gov­
ernment Employees,” News, Aug. 18, 1980.
4 For example, the State of Washington deferred salary increases for
higher-education employees that were scheduled to take effect in 1981.
5See Current Wage Developments, September 1982, pp. 49-55. Little
more than 300,000 public employees were in major bargaining units
that negotiated new agreements with employers during the first half of
1982. I estimate that another 100,000 employees were in “minor”
bargaining units.
6 See Layoffs, RIFs and EEO in the Public Sector, BNA Special Re­
port (Washington, Bureau of National Affairs, 1982).
7See David Lewin and Mary McCormick, “Coalition Bargaining in
Municipal Government: The New York City Experience,” Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, January 1981, pp. 175-90.
8See David Lewin, Peter Feuille, and Thomas A. Kochan, eds.,
Public Sector Labor Relations: Analysis and Readings, 2d ed. (Sun
Lakes, Ariz., Horton and Daughters, 1981), pp. 177-78. The term
“broad-banding” refers to the establishment of wider job classificat­
ions that permit greater flexibility and skill interchangeability.
’ Ibid., pp. 17-24.
10 Current Wage Developments, August 1982, pp. 52-54. The median
first-year wage settlement for all industries was zero during the first
half of 1982.

11 See Lewin and McCormick, “Coalition Bargaining.”
12 See Characteristics o f Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, July
1, 1980, BLS Bulletin 2095 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982).
13See, for example, Wallace E. Hendricks and Lawrence A. Kahn,
“The Determinants of Bargaining Structure in U.S. Manufacturing In­
dustries,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, January 1982, pp.
181-95.
14See David Lewin and Audrey Freedman, Information Sharing in
Collective Bargaining (New York, The Conference Board, 1983), forth­
coming. The 1982 General Motors-UAW agreement provides for
companywide quality-of-worklife and joint labor-management com­
mittees, and the Ford Motor Co.-UAW agreement contains a profit--------- FOOTNOTES---------sharing provision.
1
See, for example, Audrey Freedman and William E. Fullmer,
15 See, for example, Melvin H. Osterman, Jr., “Productivity
“Last Rites for Pattern Bargaining,” Harvard Business Review, MarchBargaining in New York— What Went Wrong?” in Lewin, Feuille,
April 1982, pp. 30-48; John T. Dunlop, “Remarks by Former Secre­
and Kochan, Public Sector Labor Relations, pp. 162-74.


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

35

Research
Summaries

Pay levels in
hosiery manufacturing
H a r r y B. W il l ia m s

Average earnings in women’s hosiery mills in August
1981 were 57 percent above the level recorded in an
earlier study in July 19761—a 9.3-percent annual rate
of increase. Earnings in mills making other hosiery
products rose 50 percent during the same period, or by
8.3 percent a year. In comparison, the Bureau’s Em­
ployment Cost Index for nondurable goods manufactur­
ing rose at an average annual rate of 8.4 percent
between the third quarters of 1976 and 1981.
Straight-time earnings of production workers in ho­
siery mills averaged $4.62 an hour in August 19812 ac­
cording to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics survey.
Workers in mills producing women’s full-length and
knee-length hosiery averaged $4.70; those in mills mak­
ing other hosiery products averaged $4.56.3 (See table
1.) Workers also commonly received paid holidays, va­
cations, various health and insurance plans, and retire­
ment pension benefits.
Hosiery manufacturing is concentrated in the South­
eastern States, which employed just over 90 percent of
the 48,150 workers covered by the survey. Most of the
remaining workers were in the Middle Atlantic States.
Workers in these two regions averaged $4.60 and $4.79
an hour, respectively. Within regions, earnings varied by
type of mill (commission or own account), size of com­
munity, location, product, and occupation.
Hourly earnings of virtually all workers covered by
the survey were between the Federal minimum wage of
$3.35 and $7 an hour. The middle 50 percent of the
workers earned between $3.91 and $5.27 an hour in
women’s hosiery mills and between $3.78 and $5.10 in
other hosiery mills.
Among the occupational classifications selected for
separate study, average earnings in women’s hosiery

Harry B. Williams is a labor economist in the Division of Occupation­
al Pay and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


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

a

mills ranged from $4.21 an hour for boxers of hosiery
products to $6.28 for knitting-machine adjusters and
fixers. Job averages above $5 an hour also were record­
ed for preboarders ($5.20), baggers ($5.26), folders
($5.32), and sewing-machine repairers ($5.86). Sewingmachine operators joining parts of panty hose—numer­
ically the most important job studied in women’s ho­
siery mills— averaged $4.78 an hour. Knitters of
seamless hosiery averaged $4.69.
Occupational averages in other hosiery mills ranged
from $3.65 for hand-finish menders to $6.15 for knit­
ting-machine adjusters and fixers. Sewing-machine re­
pairers, at $5.75, was the only other occupation in this
industry averaging over $5 an hour. Averages for the
other occupations studied ranged between $4.06 for
preboarders and $4.68 for dyeing-machine tenders. Au­
tomatic knitters and toe seamers accounted for the larg­
est numbers of workers— slightly over 3,100 each;
hourly earnings averaged $4.43 and $4.47, respectively.
Straight-time hourly earnings of individual workers
within the same job and area varied widely, with hourly
earnings of the highest paid workers frequently exceed­
ing those of the lowest paid by $2.50 or more. Thus,
there was substantial overlap of individual earnings
among jobs with disparate pay levels, a reflection of the
widespread use of incentive wage systems in hosiery
mills.
Almost three-fifths of the production workers were
paid on an incentive basis, nearly always under individ­
ual piecework plans. Among the occupations studied,
incentive pay plans applied to at least nine-tenths of
the boarders, automatic-packaging-machine operators,
baggers, folders and boxers, pairers, toe seamers, and
sewing-machine operators in women’s hosiery mills; and
to at least nine-tenths of the boarders, folders, pairers,
and toe seamers in other hosiery mills. Within the same
occupation, workers paid on an incentive basis typically
had higher average earnings than those paid time rates.
The earnings advantage for incentive workers, however,
was generally less than 15 percent.
Paid holidays were granted to seven-eighths of the
workers in women’s hosiery mills and to three-fourths
of the work force in other hosiery mills. In women’s ho­
siery mills, workers typically received 6 or 7 days annu­
ally; in other hosiery mills, provisions for between 3

Table 1. Average hourly earnings and number of
production workers in hosiery mills, by selected
characteristics, August 1981
Women’s hosiery
Characteristics

United States2 ....................................

Workers Earnings1

20,089

Other hosiery
Workers

Earnings1

$4.70

28,035

$4.56

Region and locality
Middle A tla n tic........................................
Southeast3 ...............................................
North Carolina ....................................
Winston-Salem-High Point, N.C...........
Hickory-Statesville, N.C........................
Tennessee ..........................................

—

—

18,633
13,126
6,459
—
—

4.68
4.64
4.74
—
—

1,026
25,923
19,026
9,045
4,628
3,054

4.81
4.54
4.57
4.56
4.70
4.40

9,394
10,695

4.69
4.71

8,699
19,336

4.60
4.54

1,353
2,174
16,562

4.34
4.37
4.77

5,755
11,582
10,698

4.35
4.49
4.75

1,101
69
408
343
394
49
232
1,419
1,223
635
214
2,152
80
—
511
80
—
107
129
1,494
4,539
39

6.28
4.98
5.26
4.60
4.34
4.21
4.67
4.75
4.74
4.70
5.32
4.28
4.37
—
4.69
4.41
—
4.77
5.86
4.66
4.78
4.44

2,803
—
168
2,474
320
123
611
998
642
308
268
1,592
3,147
586
—
105
70
1,916
66
3,134
—
191

6.15
—
4.36
4.39
4.23
4.26
4.68
4.34
4.40
4.24
4.16
4.32
4.43
4.59
—
3.65
4.18
4.47
5.75
4.47
—
4.37

Size of community
Metropolitan areas4 ...............................
Nonmetropolitan areas ...........................
Size of establishment
Less than 100 workers6 ........................
100-249 workers ....................................
250 workers or more .............................
Selected occupations
Adjusters and fixers, knitting machines ..
Automatic-packaging-machine operators.
Baggers...................................................
Boarders, automatic ...............................
Boarders, other than automatic .............
Boxers.....................................................
Dyeing-machine tenders ........................
Examiners (hosiery inspectors)6 .............
Grey (greige) examiners ....................
Finished exam iners.............................
Folders ...................................................
Folders and boxers.................................
Knitters, automatic .................................
Knitters, string ........................................
Knitters, women’s seamless hosiery . . . .
Menders, hand, finish .............................
Menders, hand, g re y ...............................
Pairers.....................................................
Repairers, sewing machine ....................
Seamers, t o e ..........................................
Sewing-machine operators, panty hose .
Transfer-machine operators....................

1Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts.
2 Includes data for regions in addition to those shown separately.
3 Includes data for States and localities in addition to those shown separately.
4 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget through February 1974.
5 Includes data for establishments employing 50 workers or more in women’s hosiery and
20 workers or more in other hosiery mills.
6 Includes data for workers in classifications in addition to those shown separately.
N ote :

than Federal social security— applied to two-thirds of
the workers in women’s hosiery mills and to two-fifths
in other hosiery mills.
The study included establishments engaged primarily
in knitting, dyeing, or finishing full-fashioned or seam­
less hosiery. These establishments were classified into
two broad categories: (1) those primarily making wom­
en’s full-length or knee-length hosiery, and (2) those
primarily making hosiery, except women’s full-length
and knee-length. In August 1981, the 313 hosiery mills
within the scope of this survey employed 20,107 pro­
duction workers in women’s hosiery mills and 28,032
production workers in other hosiery mills. Less than 5
percent were in mills operating under labor-manage­
ment agreements.
Separate releases for selected States and areas of ho­
siery industry concentration (Tennessee; North Carolina;
Hickory-Statesville and Winston-Salem-High Point,
N.C.) are available from the Bureau or any of its re­
gional offices. A comprehensive bulletin, Industry Wage
Survey: Hosiery, August 1981, is for sale by the Superin­
tendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402.
□
--------- FOOTNOTES---------1See “BLS examines pay in hosiery mills,” Monthly Labor Review,
August 1978, pp. 44-45. For full details of the survey, see Industry
Wage Survey: Hosiery, July 1976, Bulletin 1987 (Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics, 1977).
2Earnings data in this article exclude premium pay for overtime
and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts.
3The survey excluded women’s hosiery mills employing fewer than
50 workers and other hosiery mills employing fewer than 20 workers.

Hourly pay of contract cleaners
lags but sweeps past weekly gains

Dashes indicate no data reported or data that do not meet publication criteria.

N

and 6 days were common. Slightly more than nine-tenths
of the workers in women’s hosiery and four-fifths of
those in other mills were in establishments providing
paid vacations after qualifying periods of service. Typi­
cal provisions for women’s hosiery workers were 1 week
after 1 year of service, 2 weeks after 3 years, 3 weeks af­
ter 10 years, and 4 weeks after 20 years or more. In
other hosiery mills, typical provisions were 1 week’s pay
after 1 year and 2 weeks after 4 years or more of ser­
vice. Various health and insurance plans also were
available to large proportions of workers, although the
incidence of the plans varied by type of hosiery mill and
geographic location. Retirement pension plans— other


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

orma

W.

Ca rlso n

Average hourly earnings of service workers in contract
cleaning establishments rose more rapidly between 1977
and 1981 than their average weekly earnings because of
widespread declines in hours worked. Nevertheless, in­
creases in hourly earnings for cleaning workers
generally lagged behind gains in the service worker
component of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employ­
ment Cost Index.
These findings resulted from a comparison of two Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics surveys of occupational wages
and employee benefits in contract cleaning services.1The
Norma W. Carlson is a labor economist in the Division of Occupa­
tional Pay and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
37

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Research Summaries
survey taken in July 1977 covered approximately
151,000 service workers in 24 metropolitan areas; the
survey conducted in July 1981 involved about 160,000
service workers in the same areas.2 Both surveys devel­
oped separate wage information for five key industry
occupations: light cleaners, heavy cleaners, floor waxers,
exterminators, and window cleaners.3These occupations
accounted for at least nine-tenths of the regularly
employed service workers in 19 of the 24 areas studied
in 1981. In the remaining five areas, at least four-fifths
of the workers were represented by these jobs.
Between 1977 and 1981, the average annual rate of
increase in average hourly earnings in contract cleaning
establishments ranged from 2.5 percent in Detroit to
11.7 percent in Baltimore (table 1). In most areas, aver­
age annual gains were within a 6 to 8 percent band. Be­
tween the second quarters of 1977 and 1981, the
Bureau’s Employment Cost Index for service workers
rose at an 8 percent average annual rate.
At the same time, the growth in average weekly earn­
ings of cleaning workers lagged behind the rise in hour­
ly earnings in 14 of the 24 areas because hours worked
per week declined (table 1). In Detroit, average weekly
earnings actually fell— from $125 to $113.50— as the
average workweek dropped from 31 to 25 hours. How­
ever, average weekly earnings in eight areas grew faster

T a b le 2 .
S e r v i c e w o r k e r s in c o n t r a c t c l e a n i n g
e s t a b lis h m e n t s e a r n in g w it h in 1 0 c e n t s a b o v e t h e F e d e r a l
m in im u m , 2 4 m e t r o p o lit a n a r e a s , 1 9 7 7 a n d 1 9 8 1
[In percent]
Workers with straight-time hourly earnings of —
Area

[In percent]
Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Northeast:
Boston ............................................
Nassau-Suffolk ...............................
Newark............................................
New Y o rk ........................................
Philadelphia ....................................
Pittsburgh........................................

5.9
8.3
4.4
6.7
6.0
10.7

3.8
7.5
2.9
7.9
3.2
11.4

-1 .6
- .5
-1 .8
+ 1.2
-2 .6
+ .6

South:
A tla n ta ............................................
Baltimore ........................................
Dallas-Fort Worth ...........................
Houston ..........................................
Memphis..........................................
M iam i...............................................
New Orleans...................................
Washington......................................

8.6
11.7
8.1
9.8
10.5
7.3
11.0
7.9

11.6
12.7
8.6
12.5
7.7
3.8
11.1
6.9

+2.8
+ 1.1
+ .6
+2.6
-2.4
-3 .2
0
- .5

North Central:
Chicago ..........................................
Cleveland........................................
Detroit ............................................
Kansas City ....................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul ......................
St. Lou is..........................................

7.5
6.7
2.5
5.4
7.2
6.5

6.8
5.4
-2.4
2.5
5.0
5.3

- .7
- .9
-5 .2
-2 .7
-2 .5
-1 .5

West:
Denver-Boulder...............................
Los Angeles-Long B e ach...............
San Francisco-Oakland ..................
Seattle-Everett ...............................

6.9
7.3
9.9
7.7

4.2
8.1
10.0
8.2

-2 .8
+ .8
0
+ ( ')

Area

1Less than 0.5 percent.

38


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

$3.35 to $3.45
(1981)

Northeast:
Boston ......................................
Nassau-Suffolk ........................
Newark.....................................
New York .................................
Philadelphia...............................
Pittsburgh .................................

4.5
1.0
—
.2
1.8
28.9

4.7
12.2
18.5
4.5
19.1
29.4

South:
Atlanta ......................................
Baltimore .................................
Dallas-Fort Worth ....................
Houston ...................................
Memphis...................................
Miami ........................................
New O rleans.............................
Washington...............................

54.9
65.3
47.2
49.1
76.5
32.3
22.1
14.1

67.4
56.7
49.2
70.0
81.5
53.2
42.4
25.4

North Central:
Chicago ...................................
Cleveland .................................
Detroit ......................................
Kansas C ity ...............................
Minneapolis-St. Paul..................
St. L o u is ...................................

1.5
1.9
2.1
.2
1.9
16.5

6.7
10.9
24.0
12.4
.3
36.2

West:
Denver-Boulder........................
Los Angeles-Long Beach .........
San Francisco-Oakland ...........
Seattle-Everett ........................

5.6
—
—
1.6

22.6
8.3
.6
—

Note:

Table 1. Annual change in average earnings and hours of
service workers in contract cleaning establishments, July
1977-July 1981, 24 metropolitan areas

$2.30 to $2.40
(1977)

Dashes Indicate no data available.

than hourly rates because of longer workweeks in 1981.
In two areas, average workweeks remained the same.
Pay rates of contract cleaning workers traditionally
have clustered in narrow bands, often near the Federal
minimum wage. This concentration shows the relatively
low level of skills and the narrow range of tasks typical­
ly required of these workers. For example, light and
heavy cleaners accounted for five-sixths of the July 1981
service work force in the 24 areas combined. The Feder­
al minimum wage advanced more rapidly than average
hourly earnings of contract cleaning workers, and many
individuals found their wages closer to the Federal floor
in 1981 than in 1977.4The increase in the proportion of
workers whose pay clustered just above the minimum is
shown in table 2.
Between 1977 and 1981, nearly all of the metropoli­
tan areas studied (21 of 24) experienced an increase in
the proportion of service workers in contract cleaning
establishments who were earning no more than 10 cents
above the minimum wage. In some areas, the rise was
modest. For example, in Dallas-Fort Worth, the per­
centage of workers falling within the 10-cent band
moved up to 49.2 percent in 1981 from 47.2 percent in
1977. But in Detroit, about 24 percent of the service
workers earned no more than 10 cents above the mini­
mum in 1981, up from 2.1 percent in 1977.

Occupational earnings in 1981

Benefits vary by area

Light cleaners— who perform duties such as sweep­
ing and dry mopping floors, dusting furniture, and emp­
tying waste baskets—and heavy cleaners— who operate
motor-driven cleaning equipment, move furniture, and
wash walls— accounted for the bulk of the workers in
the contract cleaning establishments surveyed in 1981.
Exterminators, floor waxers, and window cleaners, com­
bined, usually accounted for one-tenth or less of the ser­
vice workers in each area.
On an hourly basis, light cleaners generally were the
lowest paid, while window cleaners were the highest
paid (table 3). Light cleaners, typically averaging less
than 25 hours per week, usually worked fewer hours
than workers in the other jobs studied. Heavy cleaners
typically averaged 10 to 18 percent an hour more than
light cleaners. Their weekly wage advantage was even
larger because of longer hours. In 11 areas where com­
parisons could be made, window cleaners averaged
more per hour than exterminators; but longer hours for
exterminators— often 40 and over per week—reversed
this relationship on a weekly basis.

A majority of the service workers in all but five areas—
Atlanta, Dallas, Memphis, Miami, and Minneapolis—
were in establishments providing paid holidays, usually
6 to 10 days annually. Establishments also provided
paid vacations, after qualifying periods of service, for a
majority of workers in all but seven areas. Typical pro­
visions included at least 1 week of pay after 1 year of
service, 2 weeks after 2 or 3 years, 3 weeks after 10
years, and 4 weeks or more after at least 15 years.
A majority of the service workers in one-half of the
areas studied were in contract cleaning establishments
providing various health and insurance benefits. Typi­
cally financed solely by the employer, these benefits
most frequently included life, hospitalization, surgical,
and basic medical insurance. Sickness and accident
insurance or paid sick leave, or both, applied to a ma­
jority of the workers in nine areas. Major medical in­
surance was available to at least a majority in six areas,
and to between one-fifth and one-half of the workers in
five areas.
Retirement pension plans, other than social security,

Table 3.
1981

Average earnings and hours: selected occupations in contract cleaning establishments, 24 metropolitan areas, July
Light Cleaners;

Heavy Cleaners

Floor Waxers

Window Cleaners

Exterminators

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Northeast:
Boston......................
Nassau-Suffolk.........
Newark ....................
New Y o rk ..................
Philadelphia .............
Pittsburgh..................

$4.00
4.02
3.88
5.96
4.18
3.99

21.0
22.5
24.5
30.5
25.0
22.0

$83.50
90.00
95.50
180.50
103.50
88.00

$3.88

$116.00
—
116.00
236.50
133.00
147.50

—

4.63
4.47
6.23
4.22
3.76

—
30.5
28.5
33.5
24.5
24.0

—

142.00
126.50
209.50
103.00
90.50

$6.53
5.45
6.84
6.39

44.0
41.5
—
39.0
41.0

$287.00
226.00

4.27
6.72
4.75
4.72

30.0
—
27.0
35.0
28.0
31.5

—

—

—

South:
A tla nta......................
Baltim ore..................
Dallas-Fort Worth . . .
H ouston....................
Memphis ..................
M iam i........................
New Orleans ...........
Washington .............

3.48
4.26
3.58
3.42
3.40
3.50
3.92
3.76

23.5
24.0
19.5
23.5
17.5
22.5
24.5
20.5

81.50
101.50
70.50
81.00
59.00
79.00
96.50
76.00

3.50

21.0

73.00

4.47

34.0

152.00

—

—

—

—

—

3.86
3.62

20.0
30.5

4.06
3.87
4.01
3.98

24.0
25.5
24.0
26.5

98.50
99.00
95.50
106.00

—

—

—

4.24

24.5

104.50

5.34
6.09
6.39T
6.34
6.43
6.90
7.37
5.78

42.0
39.0
41.5
41.0
40.5
41.0
40.5
40.5

223.50
236.00
265.00
258.50
261.00
284.50
297.50
233.00

North Central:
C hicago....................
Cleveland..................
D e tro it......................
Kansas City .............
Minneapolis-St. Paul .
St. Louis....................

5.12
4.72
4.26
3.90
4.29
3.56

25.0
25.0
24.5
18.5
16.0
22.0

43.0
39.0
41.5

287.00
247.50
281.00

Area

West:
Denver-Boulder.........
Los Angeles-Long
Beach ..................
San FranciscoO aklan d...............
Seattle-Everett.........

—

—

—

—

77.50
110.50
—

3.79
3.46
4.32

33.5
19.5
27.0

126.50
67.00
116.50

128.00
118.50
104.00
72.00
69.50
79.00

5.93
5.25
4.87
3.88
5.75

35.0
29.0
26.0
27.0
25.5

—

—

209.00
151.50
126.50
105.50
145.50
—

4.79
5.45
3.69

108.50

—

267.00
262.50

—

—

—

4.62

28.5

130.50

—

—

6.66
6.34
6.74

31.5
32.5
25.5

152.00
178.00
94.50

—

—

—

6.30
5.25

45.0
40.0

283.50
211.00

—

$6.99
—
5.52
8.53

Average
weekly
hours

Average
weekly
earnings

32.5

$226.00

—

37.5
38.5

—

—

6.13

35.5

—

207.00
329.00
—

216.50

—

—

—

—

—

—

6.81
7.04

36.0
36.5

—

—

—

243.50
257.00
—
—

—

—

—

—

—

—

8.84
8.20
7.06
6.70
6.78
6.83

37.5
40.5
32.5
24.0
33.0
36.0

331.50
332.50
230.50
162.00
225.50
246.50

3.90

19.0

73.00

4.29

25.5

4.37

19.5

85.00

5.24

41.0

215.50

6.71

30.0

201.50

4.95

31.5

155.50

—

—

—

5.94

35.0

209.50

8.68

40.0

349.00

7.88

37.0

292.00

8.07
5.70

35.5
28.5

288.50
163.00

7.73

36.5

282.00

8.99
6.27

37.5
28.0

337.00
176.00

9.18

40.0

367.00

—

—

—

9.99
9.03

37.5
36.0

376.00
326.50

—

—

—

N ote : Earnings information excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends
and holidays, but includes premium pay for late shift and hazardous work, if any. Average hourly earnings were obtained by dividing aggregated weekly earnings by aggregated weekly hours.
Average weekly earnings were obtained by dividing aggregated weekly earnings by the total


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

—

Average Average
weekly
hourly
earnings earnings

number of workers. Weekly earnings were rounded to the nearest half dollar and weekly hours
to the nearest half hour,
Dashes indicate no data or data do not meet publication criteria.

39

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Research Summaries
were available to one-half or more of the workers in
seven areas, to between one-fourth and one-half in four
areas, and to less than one-fifth in the remaining thir­
teen. Such plans were nearly always financed solely by
the employer.

Janitorial services predominate
Of the various types of contract cleaning establish­
ments, those providing primarily janitorial services
accounted for at least 86 percent of the workers in ev­
ery area, with the proportion reaching 95 percent or
more in 14 areas. Virtually all workers in 15 areas were
employed by contractors doing business principally
with private firms or individuals. Establishments whose
contracts were mainly with government agencies—
whether Federal, State, or local—employed between
one-tenth and about one-fifth of the workers in
Baltimore, Newark, New Orleans, and Washington, and
less than one-tenth in the remaining areas.
Cleaning establishments employing at least 100 work­
ers accounted for only one-seventh of the contractors
covered by the 1981 survey. However, they employed at
least one-half of the service workers in 20 of the 24
areas. In three areas— Chicago, Houston, and New
York—at least six-tenths of the workers were in estab­
lishments with 500 workers or more.
Contract cleaning establishments traditionally have
hired large numbers of workers on a regular part-time
basis, generally to perform routine janitorial tasks.
Slightly under three-fifths of the 1981 work force in the
24 areas combined were regularly employed part time.
The ratio varied by location, from just over one-tenth in
San Francisco to nearly nine-tenths in Memphis. Twelve
areas reported more than two-thirds of the workers on
part-time schedules.
In 10 of the areas studied, a majority of the service
workers were in establishments where labor-manage­
ment agreements covered at least 50 percent of the
workers. In 10 other areas, 15 to 45 percent of the

40


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

workers were employed where agreements covered onehalf or more of the workers. None of the establishments
visited in four areas— Dallas, Houston, Memphis, and
Miami—had contracts covering a majority of all service
workers. Nearly all agreements were with the Service
Employees’ International Union ( a f l -CIO).
Separate releases on wages and benefits for each of
the 24 areas studied are available from the Bureau or its
regional offices. A comprehensive bulletin, Industry
Wage Survey: Contract Cleaning Services, July 1981, is
for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washing­
ton, D.C. 20402.
□
--------- FOOTNOTES---------' For a summary account of the 1977 study, see “Area pay differen­
tials pinpointed in cleaning services,” Monthly Labor Review,
February 1979, pp. 64-65. For full details of both studies, see Indus­
try Wage Survey: Contract Cleaning Services, July 1981, Bulletin 2152,
and July 1977, Bulletin 2009 (Bureau of Labor Statistics). The surveys
in 1981 and 1977 included establishments employing eight workers or
more which were classified in Industry Group 734, as defined in the
1972 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual prepared
by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. This group included
SIC 7341 (Window Cleaning), SIC 7342 (Disinfecting and Extermi­
nating Services), and SIC 7349 (Cleaning and Maintenance Services to
Dwellings and Other Buildings).
2Service workers, as defined for the industry study, include working
supervisors and all regularly employed full- and part-time nonsupervisory workers engaged in performing nonoffice functions. Casual
workers— those hired on a job basis— were excluded.
3Information on wages relates to straight-time hourly earnings, ex­
cluding premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends and
holidays. Premium pay for late-shift work and for hazardous work
was included in straight-time earnings for workers receiving such pay­
ments. Group average hourly earnings were obtained by dividing ag­
gregate weekly earnings by aggregate weekly hours. For earnings
distributions (table 2), however, workers were distributed among spec­
ified earnings classes according to their individual hourly rates. Aver­
age weekly earnings were obtained by dividing aggregate weekly
earnings by the total number of workers.
4 A $2.30 minimum wage became effective July 1, 1976, under 1974
amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The 1977 amendments
to the act provided for the following hourly minimum wage standards
and effective dates: $2.65 (Jan. 1, 1978); $2.90 (Jan. 1, 1979); $3.10
(Jan. 1, 1980); and $3.35 (Jan. 1, 1981).

M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in April is based on contracts on file in the Bu­
reau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers
or more.

Employer and location

Industry

Labor organization1

Number of
workers

Machinists............................................
Food and Commercial Workers .........
Food and Commercial Workers .........
Electrical Workers (IU E ).....................
Food and Commercial Workers .........

1,050
1,700
5,000
1,200
1,500

Construction............................ Carpenters............................................
Construction............................ Laborers..............................................
Construction............................ Building and Construction Trades

3,350
2,000
1,000

Construction............................
Construction............................

Laborers..............................................
Laborers and Operating Engineers . . .

2,600
14,300

Hospitals ................................
Construction............................

Service Employees ..............................
Plumbers..............................................

1,100
1,300

Bendix Corp., Master Agreement (Interstate) ............................................
Bergen-Passaic Building Contractors Association (New Jersey) ................
Builders Association of Tazewell County and 5 others (Peoria, 111.) .........

Transportation equipment . . . . Auto Workers .....................................
Construction............................ Carpenters............................................
Construction............................ Carpenters............................................

6,100
1,000
3,500

Carrier Corp., BDP Co., La Puente Operations Division (California) . . . .
Chicago Lithographers Association (Illinois)...............................................
Clark Equipment Co., Transmission Division (Jackson, Mich.) ................
Clark Equipment Co., Industrial Truck Division (Battle Creek, Mich.) . . .
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (O hio).................................................
Construction Contractors Council, Inc., 2 agreements (Maryland,
District of Columbia, and Virginia)
Construction Contractors Council, Inc. (Maryland, District of Columbia,
and Virginia)
Construction Industries of Massachusetts...................................................
Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania........................................

Machinery.................................
Printing and publishing............
Transportation equipment . . . .
Machinery................................
Utilities ...................................
Construction............................

Laborers..............................................
Graphic A r ts.......................................
Allied Industrial Workers ..................
Allied Industrial Workers ..................
Utility Workers ...................................
Laborers..............................................

1,000
4,200
1,000
1,550
2,700
4,800

Construction............................ Operating Engineers ............................

1,000

Construction............................
Construction............................

Operating Engineers ............................
Carpenters, Laborers, and Teamsters
(Ind.)

4,300
4,500

Dana Corp., Weatherhead Division (Ohio and Indiana) ............................
Dayco Corp., Southern Division (Waynesville, N.C.) ................................
Denver Retail Grocers (Colorado)2 ............................................................

Transportation equipment . . . .
Rubber.....................................
Retail trade..............................

Auto Workers .....................................
Rubber Workers...................................
United Food and Commercial Workers

1,700
1,500
2,000

E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (Martinsville, Va.) ..............................

Chemicals....................... !. . . . Martinsville Nylon Employees Council
1
Corp. (Ind.)
Chemicals....................... r-r'T". United Workers, Inc. (Ind.) ................
Petroleum................................ Gulf Coast Industrial Workers Union
(Ind.)

3,200

Independent Union of Rotameter
Workers
Construction............................ Operating Engineers
; .

1,500

ACF Industries, Inc., W-K-M Valve Division (Missouri City, T e x .).........
Allied Employers, Inc. (Washington)..........................................................
Allied Employers, Inc. (King-Snohomish Counties, Washington)..............
Ambac Industries, Inc., American Bosch Division (Springfield, Mass.) . . .
Area Grocers Association (Wisconsin and Minnesota) ..............................
Associated General Contractors of America:
Central Illinois Builders Chapter ............................................................
Lake Charles Chapter (Louisiana) ..........................................................
Mississippi Chapter (Central Mississippi).................................................

Machinery................................
Retail trade..............................
Retail trade..............................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Retail trade..............................

St. Louis Chapter (Missouri)...................................................................
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts, Inc. and 1 other,
2 agreements
Associated Hospitals of East Bay, Inc. (San Francisco, Calif.)..................
Associated Mechanical Contractors of Chattanooga, Inc. (Interstate) . . . .

E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (Waynesboro, Va.) ..............................
Exxon Corp., Exxon Co., U.S.A. (Baytown, Tex.) .....................................
Fischer & Porter Co. and 2 others (Pennsylvania) .....................................
Foundation-Marine Contractors Association of New England
(Interstate)

Instruments..............................

1,450
1,500

4,300

General Building Contractors Association, Inc. (Pennsylvania)..................
General Public Utilities Corp., Metropolitan Edison Co. (Pennsylvania) . .
Gould, Inc. (Interstate) ................ ........................................... ..................
Gould, Inc. (Philadelphia, Pa.) ...................................................................
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. Bakery/Grocery Division
(Horseheads, N.Y.)
Greater Peoria Contractors and Suppliers Association, Inc. (Illinois) . . . .

Construction............................
Utilities ...................................
Electrical products..................
Electrical products...................
Food products.........................

Carpenters................ ............. .............
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) .................
Auto Workers . . . . ............................
Teamsters (Ind.)...................................

6,000
1,550
2,000
2,800
1,250

Construction............................

Laborers.....................1.......................

1,450

Heavy Constructors Association of Greater Kansas, 2 agreements
(Interstate)
Home Builders Association (St. Louis, M o .)..............................................
Hoover Co. (Canton, Ohio) ........................................................................

Construction............................

Laborers and Operating Engineers . . .

1,850
3,250

Construction............................ Carpenters............................................
Electrical products................... Electrical Workers (IBEW) ................

3,000
3,400

See footnotes at end of table.


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

41

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Employer and location
J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc. (North Carolina)..............................................
J. R. Simplot Co., Food Processing Plant, (Caldwell, Idaho).....................

Industry

Labor organization1

2 600
1 100

Food products..........................

Keystone Consolidated Industries, National Lock Division (Rockford, 111.)
Kroger Co., Detroit Branch (Michigan) .....................................................

Fabricated metal products . . . .

Latchford Glass Co. (Interstate) .................................................................

Stone, clay, and glass products . Glass, Pottery, Plastics and Allied
Workers

Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Rhode Island).......................................
McCall Corp., McCall Printing Co. (Ohio).................................................
Mechanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc...............
Mechanical Contractors Association of Pennsylvania ................................
Milwaukee Area Retail Meat Industry (Wisconsin)2 ...................................
Minneapolis Area Hotels and Motels (Minnesota).....................................

Number of
workers

Auto Workers .....................................

1,100
1,100
1 600
1 200
1,000
1 800
2 200

Construction............................

Employees
Minneapolis Automobile Dealers Association (Minnesota) .......................

Retail trade..............................

1 200

National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., Nassau and Suffolk
Chapter (New York)
National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Chapter
New York Druggists Association (New Jersey and New York) ................
Nevada Resort Association (Las Vegas, N ev.)............................................
North Texas Contractors Association, 2 agreements...................................

Construction............................

2,200

Construction............................

2,200

Construction............................

Carpenters and Laborers.....................

~K SO
O
? 500
7,000

Construction............................

Bricklayers and Laborers.....................

Ohio Contractors Association (Ohio and Kentucky)...................................
Ohio Contractors Association and 1 other, 2 agreements (Ohio and
Kentucky)
Ohio Contractors Association and 1 other (Ohio and West Virginia) . . . .
Owens-Illinois, Inc. (Interstate).................................................................

Construction............................ Teamsters (Ind.)...................................
Rubber..................................... Glass, Pottery, Plastics and Allied
Workers

11 000
13,600
1,400
1,300

Pierce County Grocery Agreement (Washington).......................................
Pipe Line Contractors Association, National Agreement (Interstate).........
Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning Contractors (Pennsylvania) . . . .
Printing Industry of Twin Cities (Minnesota)2 ............................................

Retail trade..............................
Construction............................
Construction............................
Printing and publishing............

Food and Commercial Workers .........
Plumbers..............................................
Plumbers..............................................
Graphic A r ts.......................................

1,450
10,000
1,500
1,700

Retail Meat Markets (Michigan)2 ..........................................................
Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors Association of Philadelphia
(Pennsylvania)
Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors Association (Interstate)..................

Retail trade..............................
Construction............................

Food and Commercial Workers .........
Sheet Metal Workers............................

3,000
1,500

Construction............................ Sheet Metal Workers............................

2,000

Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Inc.
(St. Louis, Mo.)
Store Fixture and Architectural Woodwork Institute (California)..............

Construction............................

Sheet Metal Workers............................

1,200

Furniture ................................. Carpenters............................................

1,300

Television and Radio Commercial Announcements Agreement (Interstate)2

Amusements............................

Musicians ............................................

5,000

United Aircraft Corp., Hamilton Standard Division (Connecticut)............

Transportation.......................... Machinists............................................

3,000

Virginia Association of Contractors, Inc................................................

Construction............................ Laborers..............................................

3,000

Washington Metal Trades, Inc. (Seattle, Wash.)..........................................
Washington Metal Trades, Inc. (Seattle, Wash.)..........................................
West Penn Power Co. (Pennsylvania)..........................................................
West Tennessee Bargaining Group, Inc. (Memphis, Tenn.) .......................
Western Illinois Contractors Association, Peoria and Tazewell Counties
(Illinois)

Machinery................................ Machinists............................................
Fabricated metal products . . . . Boilermakers .......................................
Utilities ................................... Utility Workers ...................................
Construction............................ Carpenters............................................
Construction............................ Laborers..............................................

3,000
2,500
1,100
1,500
1,450

1Affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
industry area (group of companies signing same contract).

42


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

Developments in
Industrial Relations

Contract talks start again in steel industry
After a January meeting of the Steelworkers’ wage
policy committee, union president Lloyd McBride an­
nounced that he would again seek early negotiations
with the eight Coordinating Committee Steel Compa­
nies, despite unsuccessful bargaining in July and No­
vember of 1982. His goal was to have a settlement by
March 1.
The union’s determination to attain a settlement was
intensified by the possibility that U.S. steel consumers
might turn to foreign producers to assure an uninter­
rupted supply of steel. For example, General Motors
Corp. had announced that it could not wait beyond
March to award steel contracts for its 1984 models.
In a move that will apparently increase the possibility
of winning approval of any concessionary accord with
the eight Coordinating Committee Steel Companies, the
Steelworkers’ 29-member executive board substantially
reduced the membership of the Basic Steel Industry
Conference which, since 1966, has had the final decision
on all settlements in the industry. Now, the final vote
on an accord will be cast by local union presidents from
the eight companies and by district directors and mem­
bers of the executive board, or a total of about 333 peo­
ple. Previously, some 300 local union presidents from
other steel companies also were eligible to vote. The ex­
ecutive board did not extend the voting exclusion to the
90 local union presidents of nonsteel operations of the
eight companies, although they played an important
role in the defeat of the November accord. They op­
posed that settlement because it would have excluded
their 9,000 members from coverage under agreements
for the companies’ steel-producing employees.
Operations in the steel industry continued at about
one-third of capacity. McBride contends that the indus­
try’s financial difficulty was a “temporary cash-flow
problem” that will disappear when the recession ends.
However, this view contrasted with that of some steel
industry officials who contend that the industry is beset
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
of the Division of Developments in Labor-Management Relations,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from
secondary sources.


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

by high labor costs which prevent it from competing ef­
fectively with foreign producers.
In a related development, Eastmet Corp.’s Eastern
Stainless Steel Co. and the Steelworkers agreed that the
Baltimore plant’s 1,100 employees would continue to
work through any work stoppage that might occur
when the union’s agreements with the Coordinating
Committee Steel Companies expire. In return, Eastmet
agreed to match any wage-and-benefit changes the
union negotiates with the coordinating committee. For
the year ending June 30, 1982, Eastern Stainless had a
loss of $12.9 million on sales of $216 million.

Steel producers still pressing for wage cuts
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. and the Steelworkers
agreed on a 3 Vi-year contract that superseded the bal­
ance of a contract that had been scheduled to expire in
November. Terms included an immediate wage-andbenefit reduction reportedly averaging about $3.65 an
hour, which will be restored by the end of the contract;
a new fund to aid laid-off workers who have exhausted
their regular Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (the
fund will be financed using some of the lost wages); es­
tablishment of a profit-sharing plan; additional restric­
tions on contracting out of work; and a guarantee that
the company will not close any covered plants during
the agreement term. The concession accord, which cov­
ered more than 10,000 workers, followed an April 1982
settlement in which the workers gave labor cost conces­
sions in exchange for shares of preferred stock. (See
Monthly Labor Review, June 1982, p. 64.)
Laclede Steel Co. of St. Louis also was pressing the
Steelworkers for additional wage-and-benefit conces­
sions. In June 1982, the union had agreed to a 4-month,
15 percent reduction in pay, and to defer until January
1983 a wage increase and automatic cost-of-living pay
increase scheduled for August 1982. Company president
John B. McKinney said that further aid was necessary
because the company had lost $5.6 million during the
first 9 months of 1982 and that the “situation had
worsened greatly” since then.
In a cost-cutting move that could help persuade
Steelworkers’ members to accept concessions, U.S. Steel
43

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Developments in Industrial Relations
Corp. cut the pay of 28,000 nonunion management, sal­
aried, and hourly workers. This was in addition to payand-benefit reductions and a freeze on cost-of-living al­
lowances imposed in July. (See Monthly Labor Review,
August 1982, p. 56.) Earlier in 1982, other steel compa­
nies also had imposed pay-and-benefit cuts for non­
union employees.

Early settlement at Rockwell International
Rockwell International Corp. and three unions set­
tled more than 3 months in advance of the scheduled
March 31, 1983, expiration date of their current agree­
ments. The new contracts were effective immediately
and will run to February 28, 1986. Rockwell, which
had reported losses for the past 2 years, had sought
wage concessions. The accords did not provide for any
specified wage increases over the term, but the 8,000
workers received a $500 lump-sum payment immediate­
ly, and they will receive an additional $500 on Decem­
ber 1, 1983, and $250 on December 1, 1984.
The unions agreed to suspend operation of the
automatic cost-of-living pay adjustment formula until
February 1, 1984, when quarterly adjustments will re­
sume at the rate of 1 cent an hour for each 0.3-point
movement in the Consumer Price Index for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (1967=100). There
also were improvements in insurance and an increase in
second shift premium.
The coordinated bargaining approach by the three
unions— the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, the Machinists, and the International Union
of Electrical Workers— was part of the drive the AFLClO’s Industrial Union Department began in the
mid-1960’s to strengthen its member unions’ ability to
deal with employers. The settlement covered Rockwell
plants in Texas, California, Iowa, and Canada.

American Home Products settle with five unions
Using a coordinated bargaining approach, five unions
settled with American Home Products Corp. for 4,900
workers at 13 plants. The 3-year contracts provided for
wage increases of 7 percent in the first and second
years, and 5 percent in the third. Pension improvements
included a three-step $3.50 increase in the benefit rate,
bringing it to $18.50 a month for each year of credited
service in January 1985; a 9-percent reduction in bene­
fits for employees retiring at age 62, instead of the pre­
vious 15 percent; and an increase in benefits for pre1980 retirees.
The unions involved in the settlement were the Food
and Commercial Workers; the Chemical Workers; the
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers; the Steelworkers;
and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union.
44

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

Trans World, Hawaiian Airlines accords
A threatened end-of-the-year holiday strike was
averted when Trans World Airlines and the Machinists
union settled on a 3-year contract. Terms for the 10,000
mechanics and other ground service workers included
pay increases of 10 percent retroactive to November 1,
1981, 10.1 percent retroactive to November 1, 1982, 3.7
percent on September 1, 1983, and 4.5 percent on June
1, 1984. Shift and license premiums were increased and
the pension rate was raised to a range of $22 to $27 a
month for each year of credited service.
Elsewhere, Hawaiian Airlines decided to stay in busi­
ness after its three unions agreed to contract conces­
sions to aid the inter-island carrier. Company head
John H. Magoon, Jr. said, “We needed those conces­
sions in order to be competitive in this deregulation cli­
mate we’re in, and to meet our competition squarely.”
The airline lost $12.9 million during the first 9 months
of 1982. Much of the airline’s financial difficulties began
when mid-Pacific Airlines, a nonunion carrier with low­
er operating costs, entered the market and offered lower
fares than Hawaiian Airlines.
The contract changes accepted by the 1,100 members
of the three unions were expected to total about $10
million in 1983. The concessions for members of one of
the unions, the Air Line Pilots Association, included a
15-percent reduction in pay. The other unions involved
were the Machinists and the Association of Flight At­
tendants. Despite the concessions, there were expected
to be additional layoffs, along with those implemented
prior to the settlements.

Hatters Union to merge with Clothing Workers
The 160-year-old, 10,000-member United Hatters,
Cap and Millinery Workers Union voted to become a
division of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union. Murray H. Finley, president of the
Clothing Workers, explained that “. . . with the de­
pressed economy, it makes sense to join our forces and
mobilize for the future.”

Labor cost concessions save newspaper
Continued operation of the Boston Herald American
was assured when members of 11 unions approved la­
bor cost concessions sought by publishing magnate Ru­
pert Murdoch as a condition to buying the ailing
morning newspaper from the Hearst Corp. The Hearst
Corp. had indicated that it would close the paper if a
settlement was not reached.
The expected $7 million a year reduction in costs will
be attained primarily by reducing the number of employ­
ees by about one-third. The 275 affected employees will

receive severance payments averaging about $20,000.
The balance of the $7 million savings will be attained
through changes in work rules.
Murdoch, who owns newspapers in Great Britain and
Australia, and several in the United States, agreed to
spend $12 million over 2 years to improve the Herald
American. The paper’s daily circulation had dropped 22
percent, to 230,000, during the last 5 years and, at the
end of 1981, the rival Boston Globe had more than
three times as much advertising, the major source of
newspaper income.

for his help in stopping legislation to deregulate the
trucking industry. As it turned out, the property was
sold to someone else and Senator Cannon introduced
the trucking deregulation legislation that the Congress
enacted.
The defendants also were found guilty of traveling in­
terstate in furtherance of a bribe and of scheming to de­
fraud the pension fund, which owned the land in
question.
Williams plans to appeal the decision. If he loses on
appeal, he will be subject to removal under provisions
of the Landrum-Griffin Act.

Kodak plan encourages employees to quit
Faced with a continuing decline in profits, the East­
man Kodak Co. laid off 1,100 employees and an­
nounced a new plan to induce employees to voluntarily
leave the company. One part of the voluntary separa­
tion plan permits employees age 55 to begin drawing
pensions ranging from 55 percent of normal rates for
those with 21 years of service to 100 percent for those
with 30 years of service. Kodak estimated that 8,000 of
its 93,200 U.S. employees were eligible for early retire­
ment. As before, 55-year-old workers with as few as 10
years of service can also retire early, but their benefit
rate was not increased.
The eligible workers age 55 and over who retire also
receive severance pay under the second part of the plan,
which was offered to about 80 percent of the employees.
Employees who leave the company receive 1 week of
serverance pay, plus 1 week for each year of service to a
maximum combined total of 26 weeks of pay.
The voluntary separation offer did not apply to
17,500 employees in the chemical division, or to the
1,000 employees of the company’s Atex, Inc. subsidiary
in Bedford, Mass.

Teamsters’ president indicted
In Chicago, a Federal jury convicted Teamsters’
union President Roy Williams of conspiring to bribe
Senator Howard W. Cannon (D.-Nev.). Also convicted
were Allen M. Dorfman, a Chicago insurance executive
(who was later murdered); Joseph Lombardo, an al­
leged mobster; and Amos Massa and Thomas G.
O’Malley, both officials of the union’s Central States
Pension Fund.
In the case, the Government had charged Williams
and the others with conspiring to bribe Senator Cannon
by selling him property at below market price in return


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

Supreme Court says union liable for back wages
The Supreme Court held that a union failing to
properly represent a member illegally fired from a job is
liable for part of the lost wages. The case arose in 1976,
when Charles V. Bowen, a member of the American
Postal Workers Union, asked the union to initiate arbi­
tration proceedings to prevent the U.S. Postal Service
from firing him for allegedly fighting with a fellow em­
ployee. The union refused, and Bowen then sued the
Postal Service for firing him and the union for failing to
properly represent him. A U.S. District Court judge or­
dered Bowen reinstated and awarded him $52,954 for
lost benefits and wages— $22,954 to be paid by the
Postal Service and $30,000 by the union because it in­
creased Bowen’s losses by refusing to take his grievance
to arbitration. However, the appeals court held that lost
wages can be charged only to an employer, and
dismissed the $30,000 judgment against the union, lead­
ing Bowen to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Speaking for the 5-member majority, Justice Lewis
Powell wrote, “By seeking and acquiring the exclusive
right and power to speak for a group of employees, the
union assumes a corresponding duty to discharge that
responsibility faithfully—a duty which it owes to the
employees whom it represents and on which the em­
ployer with whom it bargains may rely.” The majority
opinion further stated that apportionment of damages
between the employer and the union was proper be­
cause it would be unjust to require the employer to
bear the increase in damages resulting from a union’s
wrongful conduct.
The four dissenting members of the court maintained
that employers should be primarily responsible for all
back pay, and that a union should be held liable only if it
aided in the firing or if union inaction made it impossible
for a worker to collect lost wages from an employer. □

45

Book Reviews

Industrial relations— American style
Labor-Management Cooperation: The American Experi­
ence. By Irving H. Siegel and Edgar Weinberg.
Kalamazoo, Mich., The W. E. Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, 1982. 316 pp. $13.95,
cloth; $9.95, paper.
An increasing number of employers and unions are
jointly exploring ways of incorporating a cooperative
dimension into what heretofore has been primarily an
adversarial relationship. Frequently, though not exclu­
sively, this search has taken the form of crisis response
to exigencies created by intense international competi­
tion. A recently completed study by the New York
Stock Exchange revealed that 1 in 7 companies with
100 employees or more has some form of quality-ofworklife program. Of the companies surveyed with
more than 500 employees, 25 percent had labor-man­
agement committees. Despite the continuing prolifera­
tion of these programs, many of the books written
about labor-management cooperative efforts have fo­
cused on experiences outside the United States and have
had marginal utility to American labor and manage­
ment practitioners. Irving Siegel and Edgar Weinberg
have done much to remedy this situation.
The authors examine the wide range of cooperative
arrangements and present a thoughtful discussion of
their attendant benefits and shortcomings. This book of­
fers much information and insight, as well as an under­
tone of encouragement to labor leaders, managers, and
government policymakers.
The authors’ discussion of the various forms of labormanagement cooperation is divided into what they see
as the five principal levels of cooperation—national, in­
dustry, community or regional, company, and the pub­
lic sector. Each level is discussed within its historical
context, with frequent reference to significant cases. The
descriptions are comprehensive, yet do not bore or
overwhelm the reader. The writing style is clear and un­
derstandable to both experts and those less informed
about the complexities of labor relations and organiza­
tional development.
The introductory chapter provides a conceptual
46


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

framework for the review of the American experience in
cooperative labor-management programs. This frame­
work distinguishes between those efforts considered to
be within the scope of the authors’ inquiry and the
many varied types of cooperation which are not. It also
addresses distinctions between American and foreign
models of cooperation. But the discussion of these dif­
ferences is focused almost exclusively on the contrast
between American and Japanese experiences. The book
may have been strengthened by examining more exten­
sively European experiences, particularly those of Swe­
den. Although the Japanese have adopted our legal
model for labor relations, its application has been sig­
nificantly conditioned by cultural factors and “enlight­
ened management techniques.” The Swedes, on the
other hand, operated within a more similar cultural
view, but with a different legal framework. Both
countries have successfully achieved widespread worker
participation and may offer important lessons for the
United States.
Chapter 2 is concerned with the national scene and
includes discussions of national committees and com­
missions, normally established to provide public policy­
makers with advice on major issues. The impetus for
these joint efforts has tended to come from either war­
time emergencies, during which the parties understood
the need for mutuality, or peacetime economic challen­
ges such as the maintenance of price stability or full
employment. The role of government and the various
national commissions is traced chronologically in this
chapter. As already indicated, each chapter provides a
historical backdrop for the specific level of cooperation
being discussed. This approach has shortcomings, inso­
far as it requires the reader interested in a historical
overview among the various levels to read the entire
text to glean the necessary information. Furthermore,
the analysis of the national scene contains too little in­
sight as to the factors impeding the development of a
national initiative for encouraging labor-management
cooperation in this country. Government efforts to ei­
ther foster or ignore cooperative relations have been
based primarily on the perceived interest or disinterest
of organized labor and management. When, for exam-

pie, the authors describe the demise of the National
Center for Productivity and Quality of Working Life
under the Carter Administration in 1978, there is no
mention of the fact that these key constituencies were
generally lukewarm at best to the continuation of the
Center’s activities. Lacking support from either party, it
was relatively risk-free for the Carter Administration to
withdraw. This is an important point. Government poli­
cy typically reflects the political pressures exerted by
primary interest groups.
Chapter 3 examines labor-management committees at
the industry level by focusing on five major industries
— steel, construction, retail food, railroads, and men’s
clothing. The descriptions of these are usefully supple­
mented by excerpts of agreements and memoranda of
understanding included in the documentary appendix.
Chapter 4 focuses on communitywide cooperative ef­
forts by examining six case studies of area labor-man­
agement committees. A list of 28 such committees is
provided, although, given the mortality rates of these
committees, any such list becomes quickly dated. The
six cases selected are excellent choices for review. Most
have been in existence for substantial lengths of time
and have made significant contributions to their respec­
tive communities. The selected committees represent
large and small cities and have utilized a variety of
methods to accomplish sometimes distinctive goals. Cu­
riously omitted, however, is a discussion of the LaborManagement Cooperation Act of 1978, which has pro­
vided a principal and, in some cases, sole source of
funds for these efforts through the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service. This act is briefly mentioned
in the following chapter on company-level arrange­
ments, but it seems misplaced here, insofar as its major
focus has been community and regional activities with
only a minor portion of its appropriated funds going to
support in-plant committees.
The next four chapters, and the primary focus of the
book, concern company-level efforts. In the American
experience, it is at this level that the vast majority of
cooperative efforts are to be found. However, to the ex­
tent that the authors do not distinguish between plantlevel arrangements and enterprise-level activities, the
reader may come away with some degree of mispercep­
tion. Many enterprises are multiplant with some orga­
nized and some not, some with meaningful programs
and others with none. It may have been preferable,
therefore, to focus more pointedly on the worksite rath­
er than the company or enterprise as a whole.
In chapters 6, 7, and 8, the authors discuss companylevel arrangements through the use of a curious typolo­
gy: (1) consultation, productivity, and quality; (2) satis­
faction, well-being, and security; and (3) monetary
supplements.
The first of these three chapters concentrates on co­


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

operative programs directed towards the improvement
of organizational performance. It provides an excellent
description of labor-management initiatives aimed at as­
suring the continuity of production, increasing produc­
tivity, or improving product quality. Examples of such
cooperative efforts are described in some detail.
Chapter 7 covers programs focusing on employee
welfare issues such as safety and health, alcoholism,
quality of working life, flexible schedules, and employee
ownership. The discussion of quality-of-worklife pro­
grams is particularly insightful.
The last of these chapters reviews various forms of
incentive programs— group bonuses, profit-sharing,
stock ownership, and pensions. Although these pro­
grams supposedly provide inducements to employees to
cooperate with management, few offer real opportunities
for worker participation in decisionmaking and most
involve the mechanistic application formulas for
gainsharing approaches.
The utility of the authors’ overall typology of pro­
grams is limited. Many of the cooperative efforts over­
lap the specified categories or defy categorization
entirely. Readers may find the three divisions more ar­
bitrary and confusing than enlightening. For example, a
committee created to deal primarily with issues involv­
ing worker “satisfaction, well-being and security” will,
in most cases, have to address issues of work perfor­
mance, cost, and productivity if it is to survive. Most
labor-management initiatives have to cover a wide range
of issues to be effective and retain the support of both
parties. Distinguishing among programs on the basis of
scope, structure, and process might have been more use­
ful to the authors’ examination.
Chapter 9 scans the variety of cooperative approaches
used in the public sector for both consultation and
problem-solving. Federal, State, and local governmental
examples are provided.
The concluding chapter entitled “Looking Ahead” is
a brief section on what the authors refer to as the “near
term outlook.” This might have been the key chapter of
the book, given the growing interest in cooperative ar­
rangements. A broad analysis of these developments
and the authors’ view of the dispositions of policymak­
ers, would have been a useful ending, especially given
the credentials of the authors and their knowledge of
the field.
This book has an excellent documentary appendix
which includes: sample contract language, proposed and
enacted legislation, reports of various committees and
commissions and their recommendations, and other re­
lated information. This should be useful to the practi­
tioner as well as the general audience. Also included is
a listing of agencies and institutions involved in the area
of labor-management cooperation, a useful reference for
those interested in further information or assistance.
47

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Book Renews
The authors might have included a subject index as
well, which may have increased the book’s utility as a
reference book.
On the whole, the authors have produced a compre­
hensive, well-written, and useful overview of labor-man­
agement • cooperation. The book assuredly makes a
significant contribution to the existing store of informa­
tion available to industrial relations practitioners and
others interested in learning the basics of labor-manage­
ment cooperation in the United States. Labor relations
in the United States is in a state of transition. Siegel
and Weinberg have provided us with a much-needed
tool for effectively dealing with these changing condi­
tions.
— J o h n R. Stepp
Director, Office of Labor-Management
Relations Services
U.S. Department of Labor

The Appalachian fall
Miners, Millhands, and Mountaineers: Industrialization
of the Appalachian South, 1880-1930. By Ronald
D. Eller. Knoxville, The University of Tennessee
Press, 1982. 272 pp. $23.50, cloth; $12.50, paper.
Between the Civil War and the Great Depression, the
Appalachian South underwent a turbulent transforma­
tion as the forces of modern, industrial society penetrat­
ed the region. First came the railroads, then the timber
and textile industries, but mainly bituminous coal min­
ing, with capitalists and adventurers and their variety of
“New South’’ boosterism. Ronald D. Eller chronicles
their coming and the results thereof, giving a vivid por­
trait of the dark side of American economic progress.
On the eve of the great transition, Appalachia was a
land of scattered, loosely integrated, and self-sufficient
island communities, with the family farm its backbone
and the family the organizing force of its social life. The
end of the war released the engine of development and
progress, opening the area to the depredations of capi­
talists from Atlanta, Louisville, and Richmond, as well
as Philadelphia, New York, and London.
In frenzies of economic expansionism, the outlanders
and local speculators laid the tracks, felled the timber,
and sank the mine shafts. At times, it seemed the Fed­
eral Government itself helped move the mountaineer off
his land. Corporate interests and local business boosters
increasingly dominated political life, enforcing their
brand of economic conservatism which mixed paternal­
ism with social darwinism.
In the process, integration into the broader economy
48

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

rendered the region much more vulnerable to fluc­
tuations in national and international markets. More­
over, the mix of industries was weak. Timber declined
after World War I, bituminous coal went bust after
1923, agriculture suffered all during the 1920’s, as did
textiles. Thus, the southern mountains felt the hardship
of the Great Depression long before other parts of the
country. By 1936, more than 47 percent of all mountain
families were on Federal relief rolls.
Industrialization left the mountains scarred and ugly
and the streams polluted, the author asserts. Moreover,
it destroyed the self-sufficient economy of farms and lo­
cal regional markets, leaving the mountaineers individu­
ally at the mercy of the wage system, and the operator’s
ledger sheet. As Eller concludes, “The mountaineers
had lost the independence and self-determination of
their ancestors, without becoming full participants in
the benefits of the modern world.”
This penetration and consolidation by the forces of
industrial development formed, as the author notes,
“part of a larger drama taking place in the Nation as a
whole.” Indeed, that phrase capsules the weakness of
this book—the wider content receives little attention.
Nationally, during those same eventful years, the urban
northeast colonized the whole of the country south of
the Potomac and west of the Mississippi. After all,
Appomattox had established the ascendancy of the
modern urban, industrial, wage economy. International­
ly, Europeans extended their imperial-industrial do­
mains into Africa, India, and Asia, but the author gives
such actions—then or more recently—only a few token
glances.
A reader accepting the author’s tragic version regrets
the gaps in the story and the lack of analysis. For ex­
ample, the reader finds no mention of the railroad
frenzies, whether over transcontinentals or regionals
such as the Southern Railway. Nor does the reader find
mention of the wars fought in the western mining coun­
try, or the agrarian protest flaming throughout the
South and Middle West. Nor does the author cover
events in the industrial heartland itself, the Pullman
eruption, for instance. Thus, the author never
establishes significant differences from— or similarities
to— other aspects of the “larger drama.”
Regional history is often overlooked in the overall
story, and Eller provides a valuable reminder of its im­
portance. Moreover, Eller has done much to build up
regional archives. Nevertheless, to avoid excessive pro­
vincialism and antiquarianism, regionalists must cast
their efforts in the broad and comparative context, and
Eller fails that test.
— W il l ia m T. M oye
Historian
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Guidelines for dealing with conflict

Managing Conflict— A Complete Process-Centered Hand­
book. By Roy W. Pneuman and Margaret E.
Bruehl. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc.
Publishers, 1982. 128 pp. $6.95.
Whether you are a rank novice or seasoned profes­
sional, you are likely to experience some anxiety when
confronted with a situation involving conflict. The main
reason for this is probably the time-honored perception
of conflict situations, that is, as strictly win or lose
propositions. But what if this isn’t necessarily true?
What if it’s possible to have a conflict situation in
which nobody loses? If this idea is new to you or you
are tired of reacting to conflict situations by hiding,
fighting, submitting, or running away, a careful reading
of Roy W. Pneuman’s and Margaret E. Bruehl’s “Man­
aging Conflict” is likely to reward your effort. Begin­
ning with the first paragraph, it’s as though the authors
have taken a seat beside you and are urging, probing,
and guiding your thought processes.
Unlike most publications on management, collective
bargaining, and tactics, this book is geared toward
problem-solving rather than gamesmanship. Although
the authors start with the premise that conflict is inevi­
table, they argue that it can and should be searched
out, respected, encouraged, and managed. Toward that
end, they have developed a general model for dealing
with conflict situations and have provided step-by-step
instructions to follow as we work through some mana­
gerial, personal, or other conflict situation. Of special
help are the conflict source checklist, critical (that is,
strategic) issues analysis form, viable choices evaluation
form, capsule outline of the entire process, and an
abundance of anecdotes and illustrations (graphic and
narrative) sprinkled throughout the text.
The book fails to provide information on what to do
when the preventive measures fail? However, that defi­
ciency is somewhat compensated for by the fact that the
authors’ illustrations and anecdotes portray the type of
real-life situations to which we can relate.
For example, the point is made that, as individuals, a
significant shortcoming is our tendency to assume that
the way we see things is the way they are and, there­
fore, others see (or should see) them the same way. To
illustrate the point, they relate the following story: A
high relationship-oriented, low task-oriented young min­
ister accepted a position on the staff of a large church.
During the first year, she found much satisfaction in de­
veloping relationships among the people with whom she
worked, but neglected a number of her important tasks
and goals. The senior minister, who related positively to
the young minister, was both relationship-oriented and
task-oriented. So, he kindly called her to accountability


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

for her neglected tasks. At her annual evaluation, she
was shocked when the church council was highly criti­
cal of her performance. She claimed that throughout the
year, no one had told her they were dissatisfied. She lat­
er recognized that she had “projected” her own views
onto the senior minister and, therefore, when he called
her to accountability, she experienced only his kindness
and failed to notice the call to be responsive to assigned
goals and tasks.
The authors place strong emphasis on the communi­
cation process and the role it plays in the creation and
escalation of conflict. To assist the reader in under­
standing this interaction, they discuss and illustrate
problems created by the message sender, the media by
which the message is transmitted, and the receiver of
the message. In this regard, the following story is both
entertaining and instructive. Alice, a clinical psycholo­
gist, when trying to help a counselee understand the
connection between a current behavior and the words
used to describe it, would often ask, “Where are you?”
This is a jargon they understood and found helpful.
One evening at home, her 10-year-old son, Brian, began
a long, rambling, and unclear, but highly emotional
tale. Finally, Alice asked, “Brian, where are you?”
Brian’s quick, but quizzical, reply was, “Mom, I’m
right here in the kitchen.”
As previously noted, this book is problem-solving ori­
ented. Like all treatises concerned with problemsolving
methodologies and techniques, it uses as its framework
the following basic steps: (1) recognizing, that is, identi­
fying the problem; (2) understanding and classifying the
problem; (3) analyzing and evaluating the problem; (4)
deciding whether to attempt to solve the problem; (5)
devising a plan for solving the problem; (6) carrying out
the plan, and (7) checking the results. Thus, it provides
a model that, with some relatively minor modifications,
should prove useful in many problem situations, wheth­
er or not they involve conflict as traditionally perceived.
— J o h n O. C o l e m a n
Mathematical Statistician
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources
“Stability and Change in Farming Plans: Results from a Lon­
gitudinal Study of Young Adults,” Rural Sociology, Fall
1982, pp. 544-56.
Norrie, K. H. and M. B. Percy, Energy Price Increases, Eco­
nomic Rents, and Industrial Structure in a Small Regional
Economy. Ottawa, Ontario, Economic Council of Canada,
1982, 103 pp. (Discussion Paper, 220.)
49

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Book Reviews
Economic growth and development
Hirschman, Albert O., “Rival Interpretations of Market Soci­
ety: Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble?” Journal o f Eco­
nomic Literature, December 1982, pp. 1463-84.
Plott, Charles R., “Industrial Organization Theory and
Experimental Economics,” Journal of Economic Litera­
ture, December 1982, pp. 1485-1527.
Schumpeter, Joseph A., “The ‘Crisis’ in Economics— Fifty
Years Ago,” Journal o f Economic Literature, September
1982, pp. 1049-59.

Economic and social statistics
Bernstein, Jeffrey I. and M. Ishaq Nadiri, Research and Devel­
opment, Utilization and Labor Requirements: A Dynamic
Analysis. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Econom­
ic Research, Inc., 1982, 25 pp. (nber Working Paper Se­
ries, 1016.) $1.50.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, B L S Handbook o f Methods:
Vol. 1. Prepared for publication by Rosalind Springsteen
and Rosalie Epstein. Washington, 1982, 154 pp. (Bulletin
2134-1.) Stock No. 029-001-02729-0. $6.50, Superinten­
dent of Documents, Washington 20402.
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Transportation
Statistics: Annual Report, 1982. Cambridge, Mass., U.S.
Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems
Center, Office of Information Resources, Center for
Transportation Information, 1982, 202 pp., bibliography.
(Stock No. 050-000-00472-4.) $7, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington 20402.

Industrial relations
“A Year of Settling for Less— and Breaking Old Molds,”
Business Week, Dec. 20, 1982, pp. 72-74.

Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Chi­
cago, 111., 1982, 104 pp.
U.S. Department of Labor, The Operation o f Area Labor-Man­
agement Committees. Washington, U.S. Department of
Labor, Labor-Management Service Administration, 1982,
288 pp.

Industry and government organization
Diebold, John, The Role of Business in Society. New York,
amacom , A division of American Management Associa­
tions, 1982, 134 pp. $12.95.
Oster, Sharon, “The Strategic Use of Regulatory Investment
by Industry Sub-Groups,” Economic Inquiry, October
1982, pp. 604-18.

International economics
“Monetary Trends in the United States and the United King­
dom: A Review Article,” by Thomas Mayer; “A British
Review,” by Charles A. E. Goodhart; “A Review from
the Perspective of New Developments in Monetary Eco­
nomics,” by Robert E. Hall, Journal o f Economic Litera­
ture, December 1982, pp. 1528-56.
Williams, Maurice J., “Prospects for Eliminating Hunger in
the Face of World-Wide Economic Recession,” Interna­
tional Labour Review, November-December 1982, pp.
657-69.

Labor and economic history
Brecher, Jeremy, Jerry Lombardi, Jan Stackhouse, comps, and
eds., Brass Valley: The Story of Working People's Lives
and Struggles in an American Industrial Region. Phila­
delphia, Pa., Brass Workers History Project, 1982, 284
pp. $29.95, cloth; $14.95, paper, Temple University Press,
Philadelphia, Pa.

Boehn, Randolph H. and Dan C. Heldman, Public Employees,
Unions, and the Erosion o f Civic Trust: A Study o f San
Francisco in the 1970's. Frederick, Md., University Publi­
cations of America, Inc., 1982, 265 pp.

Daniel, Cletus E., Bitter Harvest: A History o f California
Farmworkers, 1870-1941. Berkeley, University of Califor­
nia Press, 1981. $8.95, paper.

Denker, Joel, Unions and Universities: The Rise o f the New La­
bor Leader. Montclair, N.J., Allanheld, Osmun & Co.,
Publishers, Inc., 1981, 177 pp., bibliography. $20.

Goldin, Claudia and Kenneth Sokoloff, “Women, Children,
and Industrialization in the Early Republic: Evidence
from the Manufacturing Censuses,” The Journal o f Eco­
nomic History, December 1982, pp. 741-74.

Farber, Henry S., The Determination o f the Union Status o f
Workers. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Econom­
ic Research, Inc., 1982, 33 pp. (nber Working Paper Se­
ries, 1006.) $1.50.
Fulmer, William E., Union Organizing: Management and
Labor Conflict. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1982, 228
pp. $22.95.
Lewis, Paul, “Ten Years of Unfair Dismissal Legislation in
Great Britain,” International Labour Review, NovemberDecember 1982, pp. 713-30.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Directory o f U.S. Labor
Organizations, 1982-83 Edition. Edited by Courtney D.
Gifford. Washington, 1982, 99 pp. $15.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Tables o f Working Life: The
Increment-Decrement Model. Prepared by Shirley J.
Smith. Washington, 1982, 66 pp. (Bulletin 2135.) Stock
No. 029-001-02728-1. $5, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Business Incentives and Mi­
nority Employment. Prepared by the Wisconsin Advisory
50


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

Labor force
Bowman, Phillip J. and others, “Joblessness and Discourage­
ment Among Black Americans,” Economic Outlook U S A ,
Autumn 1982, pp. 85-88.
Dauffenbach, Robert C., “The Determinants of Occupational
Mobility Patterns Among Blue-Collar Jobs,” Journal of
Economics and Business, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1982, pp. 36775.
Papier, William, Perspectives on Employment and Unemploy­
ment in Ohio. Reprinted from the Southern Ohio Business
Review, Winter 1982, pp. 1-9. Columbus, Ohio, Bureau
of Employment Services, Division of Research and Statis­
tics.
Roy, Arun S., Supply and Demand for Engineering Technolo­
gists and Technicians. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Employ­
ment and Immigration Canada, Strategic Policy and
Planning, Labour Market Supply and Demand Analysis
Division, 1981. 37 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, New Worklife Estimates. Pre-

pared by Shirley J. Smith. Washington, 1982, 19 pp.
(Bulletin 2157.) Stock No. 029-001-02730-3. $3.25, Su­
perintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.

Monetary and fiscal policy
“Deregulation of the Financial Sector,” Economic Perspectives,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Fall 1982, pp. 26-36.

Management and organization theory

Gooding, Thompson H., Jr., “erta and Your Business Tax­
es,” Business, July-Aug.-Sept. 1982, pp. 14-17.

Beyer, Janice M., ed., “Special Issue: Part I, The Utilization of
Organizational Research,” Administrative Science Quarter­
ly, December 1982, beginning on p. 588.

Kasriel, Paul L. and Randall C. Merris, “Reserve Targeting
and Discount Policy,” Economic Perspectives, Federal Re­
serve Bank of Chicago, Fall 1982, pp. 15-25.

Brightman, Harvey J. and Sidney E. Harris, “The Planning
and Modeling Language Revolution: A Managerial Per­
spective,” Business, October-December 1982, pp. 15-21.

Key, Sydney J., “Activities of International Banking Facilities:
The Early Experience,” Economic Perspectives, Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago, Fall 1982, pp. 37-45.

Campbell, John H., “The Manager’s Guide to Computer
Modeling,” Business, October-December 1982, pp. 10-14.

“Monetary Policy Objectives for 1982,” Economic Perspectives,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Fall 1982, pp. 3—14.

Gomez-Mejia, Luis R., Ronald C. Page, Walter W. Tornow,
“A Comparison of the Practical Utility of Traditional,
Statistical, and Hybrid Job Evaluation Approaches,”
Academy o f Management Journal, December 1982, pp.
790-809.
Henderson, Richard L, “Designing a Reward System for To­
day’s Employee,” Business, July-Aug.-Sept. 1982, pp.212.

Kaiser, Kate and Ananth Srinivasan, “User-Analyst Differ­
ences: An Empirical Investigation of Attitudes Related to
Systems Development,” Academy of Management Journal,
September 1982, pp. 630-46.
Kallman, Ernest A. and James C. Krok, “Micros— Personal
Computers With Power,” Business, October-December
1982, pp. 2-9.
Langer, Judith, “A Typology of Working Women,” Manage­
ment Review, October 1982, pp. 19-21.
Lee, Sang M., Fred Luthans, David L. Olson, “A Manage­
ment Science Approach to Contingency Models of Orga­
nizational Structure,” Academy o f Management Journal,
September 1982, pp. 553-66.
McElroy, James C. and H. Kirk Downey, “Observation in
Organizational Research: Panacea to the Performance-At­
tribution Effect?” Academy of Management Journal, De­
cember 1982, pp. 822-35.
O’Reilly, Charles A. Ill, “Variations in Decision Makers’ Use
of Information Sources: The Impact of Quality and Ac­
cessibility of Information,” Academy of Management
Journal, December 1982, pp. 756-71.
Schneider, Benjamin, Arnon E. Reichers, Thomas M.
Mitchell, “A Note on Some Relationships Between the
Aptitude Requirements and Rewards Attributes of
Tasks,” Academy o f Management Journal, September
1982, pp. 567-74.
Seitz, Christine and Dale L. Gifford, Flexible Compensation: A
Forward Look. New York, American Management Asso­
ciations, 1982, 44 pp. $7.50, AMA members; $10, non­
members.
Sigelman, Lee, H. Brinton Milward, Jon M. Shepard, “The
Salary Differential Between Male and Female Adminis­
trators: Equal Pay for Equal Work?” Academy o f Man­
agement Journal, September 1982, pp. 664—71.
Steger, Joseph A., George E. Manners, Jr., Thomas W.
Zimmerer, “Following the Leader: How to Link Manage­
ment Style to Subordinate Personalities,” Management
Review, October 1982, beginning on p. 22.


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

Prices and living conditions
Community Council of Greater New York, A Family Budget
Standard: Components of a Moderate Level of Living in
New York City. New York, Community Council of
Greater New York, Research and Program Planning In­
formation Department, 1982, 64 pp.
Sauber, Mignon and Anne Perzeszty, eds., How Much Is
Enough: Issues in Measuring the Adequacy of Family In­
come, Proceedings of a Conference held March 11, 1982.
New York, Community Council of Greater New York,
Research and Program Planning Information Depart­
ment, 1982, 36 pp. $3, paper.
Van Duyne, Carl, “Food Prices, Expectations, and Inflation,”
American Journal o f Agriculture Economics, August 1982,
pp. 419-30.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Relative Importance o f Com­
ponents in the Consumer Price Indexes, 1981. Washington,
1982, 35 pp. (Bulletin 2141.) $4.50, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington 20402.

Productivity and technological change
Faltermayer, Edmund, “Solar Energy Goes Underground,”
Fortune, Dec. 27, 1982, pp. 91-96.
Griliches, Zvi and Jacques Mairesse, Comparing Productivity
Growth: An Exploration o f French and U.S. Industrial and
Firm Data. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Eco­
nomic Research, Inc., 1982, 51 pp. (nber Working Paper
Series, 961.) $1.50.
Shetty, Y. K. and Joe Barrett, compilers, Productivity: A Re­
source Guide. Roy, Utah, Barrett Management Services,
1981, 70 pp.
Sircar, Sumit, “Office Information Systems— The New Work
Environment,” Business, July-Aug.-Sept. 1982, pp. 2734.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Productivity Measures for Se­
lected Industries, 1954-81. Washington, 1982, 246 pp.
Stock No. 029-001-02732-0. $7.50, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington 20402.

Wages and compensation
Brown, Charles, Curtis Gilroy, Andrew Kohen, The Effect of
the Minimum Wage on Employment and Unemployment.
Reprinted from the Journal o f Economic Literature, June
1982, pp. 487-528. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau
of Economic Research, Inc., 1982. (nber Reprint Series,
330.) $1.50.
51

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Book Reviews
Brunker, Gerald P., “The Potential for Performance-Based
Benefit Plans,” Compensation Review, Vol. 14, No. 3,
Third Quarter, 1982, pp. 23-32.
Cox, James C. and Ronald L. Oaxaca, “The Political Econo­
my of Minimum Wage Legislation,” Economic Inquiry,
October 1982, pp. 533-55.
Ferris, J. Stephen, “Information and Search: An Alternative
Approach to the Theory of Minimum Wages,” Economic
Inquiry, October 1982, pp. 490-510.
Great Britain, Department of Employment, Homeworking in
Wages Council Industries: A Study Based on Wages In­
spectorate Records o f Pay and Earnings. By Catherine Ha­
kim and Roger Dennis. London, England, Department of
Employment, Research Administration, 1982, 59 pp. (Re­
search Paper, 37.)

Sandra L. King (Bulletin 2106, 73 pp., $5); Structural
Clay Products, September 1980. Prepared by Jonathan W.
Kelinson. (Bulletin 2139, 61 pp., $5). Washington, 1982.
Available from Superintendent of Documents, Washing­
ton 20402.
---------- National Survey of Professional, Administrative Techni­
cal, and Clerical Pay, March 1982. Prepared by Mark S.
Sieling. Washington, 1982, 80 pp. (Bulletin 2145.) $4.75,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
William M. Mercer, Inc., Employer Attitudes Towards Com­
pensation and Benefits in the 1982 Economic Environment.
New York, William M. Mercer, Inc., 1982, 33 pp.

Welfare programs and social insurance

“Shorter Hours Through National Agreements,” by Michael
White, Employment Gazette, September 1982, beginning
on p. 385.

Berger, Jason, ed., Saving Social Security. Bronx, N.Y., The
H. W. Wilson Co., 1982, 158 pp., bibliography. (The
Reference Shelf, Vol. 54, No. 4.) $6.25, U.S. and Canada;
$8, other countries.

Hills, Frederick S., “Comparable Worth: Implications for
Compensation Managers,” Compensation Review, Vol. 14,
No. 3, Third Quarter 1982, pp. 33-43.

Juster, F. Thomas, “Social Security Entitlements: The Eco­
nomics and the Politics,” Economic Outlook USA, Au­
tumn 1982, pp. 82-84.

Hunt, H. Allan, Workers' Compensation System in Michigan:
A Closed Case Survey. Kalamazoo, Mich., The W. E. Up­
john Institute for Employment Research, 1982, 225 pp.

King, Francis P., “Benefits and Costs of Continuing Pension
Accruals Past Normal Retirement Age,” Aging and
Work, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1982, pp. 31-36.

Kumar, Pradeep and Mary Lou Coates, “Occupational Earn­
ings, Compensating Differentials, and Human Capital:
An Empirical Study,” The Canadian Journal o f Econom­
ics, August 1982, pp. 442-57.

Kingson, Eric R., “The Health of Very Early Retirees,” Social
Security Bulletin, September 1982, pp. 3-9.

Riddell, W. Craig and Philip M. Smith, “Expected Inflation
and Wage Changes in Canada, 1967-81,” The Canadian
Journal o f Economics, August 1982, pp. 377-94.

North, David S., with the assistance of Jennifer R. Wagner,
Immigration and Income Transfer Policies in the United
States: An Analysis of a Non-relationship. 3d ed. Washing­
ton, New TransCentury Foundation, Center for Labor
and Migration Studies, 1982, 74 pp. $9, paper.

Sontag, Howard V., “codas (cash or deferred arrangement):
Better Than IRAS?” Compensation Review, Vol. 14, No. 3,
Third Quarter 1982, pp. 14—22.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Surveys: Toledo,
Ohio— Michigan, Metropolitan Area, June 1982 (Bulletin
3015-21, 30 pp., $3.75); Poughkeepsie, New York, Metro­
politan Area, May 1982 (Bulletin 3015-22, 23 pp., $3.25);
Greenville— Spartanburg, South Carolina, Metropolitan
Area, June 1982 (Bulletin 3015-23, 39 pp., $4.50); New
York, New York— New Jersey, Metropolitan Area, May
1982 (Bulletin 3015-24, 43 pp., $4.50); Richmond, Virgin­
ia, Metropolitan Area, June 1982 (Bulletin 3015-25, 29
pp., $3.75); Norfolk— Virginia Beach— Portsmouth and
Newport News— Hampton, Virginia— North Carolina,
Metropolitan Areas, May 1982 (Bulletin 3015-30, 40 pp.,
$4.50); Portland, Oregon— Washington, Metropolitan
Area, June 1982 (Bulletin 3015-31, 32 pp., $3.75); Cincin­
nati, Ohio— Kentucky— Indiana, Metropolitan Area, July
1982 (Bulletin 3015-32, 53 pp., $4.75); Green Bay, Wis­
consin, Metropolitan Area, August 1982 (Bulletin 3015-33,
25 pp., $3.50). Available from the Superintendent of Doc­
uments, Washington 20402, gpo bookstores, or bls re­
gional offices.
---------- Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1981.
Washington, 1982, 47 pp. (Bulletin 2140.) Stock No. 029
-001-02711-7. $4.75, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
---------- Industry Wage Surveys: Savings and Loan Associations,
February 1980. Prepared by Jonathan W. Kelinson and

52


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

Myers, Robert J., “Why Do People Retire From Work Ear­
ly?” Social Security Bulletin, September 1982, pp. 10-14.

Osgood, Nancy J., ed., Life After Work: Retirement, Leisure,
Recreation, and the Elderly. New York, Praeger Publish­
ers, 1982, 367 pp. $29.95.
Schieber, Sylvester J., Social Security: Perspectives on Preserv­
ing the System. Washington, Employee Benefit Research
Institute, 1982, 302 pp. $15, paper.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Annual Sta­
tistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin, 1981.
Washington, U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser­
vices, Social Security Administration, 1982, 272 pp. $7,
Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.

Worker training and development
Boms, Michael E., ed., Tomorrow's Workers. Lexington,
Mass., D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington Books, 1983, 193
pp., bibliography.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment in
Manufacturing Industries. Prepared by Wanda L. Bland
and Barbara L. Keitt, Washington, 1982, 92 pp. (Bulletin
2133.) Stock No. 029-001-02724—9. $5.50, Superinten­
dent of Documents, Washington 20402.
---------- Occupational Projections and Training Data, 1982 Edi­
tion: A Statistical and Research Supplement to the 1982-83
Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, 1982, 123
pp. (Bulletin 2202.) Stock No. 029-001-02733-8. $6, Su­
perintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
□

Current
Labor Statistics
N o te s on C u rren t L a b o r S ta tis tic s

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

S c h e d u le o f r e le a s e d a te s fo r m a jo r B L S s t a t is t ic a l s e r ie s

54

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

54

E m p lo y m e n t d a ta fr o m h o u s e h o ld s u r v e y . D e f in it io n s a n d n o te s
...............................................................
1. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-82 ...........................................................
2. Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex,seasonally adjusted .
3. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonallyadjusted .............
4. Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted ..........................................................................................................
5. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................................................
6. Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................
7. Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................
8. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ..................................................................................................................

55

55
56
57
58
59
60
60
60

E m p lo y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a ta fr o m e s t a b lis h m e n t s u r v e y s . D e f in it io n s a n d n o t e s .
9. Employment by industry, selected years, 1950-81 ................................................................................................................
10. Employment by State ..................................................................................................................................................................
11. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ..........................................
12. Hours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-81 ..................................................................................
13. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ........................................
14. Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
15. Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division ........................................................................................................................
16. Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................

6i
62
62
63
64
65
66
66
67

U n e m p lo y m e n t in s u r a n c e d a ta . D e f in it io n s
..................................................................................................................
17. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations ..........................................................................................

68
68

P r ic e d a ta . D e f in it io n s a n d n o te s
..........................................................................................................................................
18. Consumer Price Index, 1967-82 ...............................................................................................................................................
19. Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items ..........................................................
20. Consumer Price Index, cross-classification of region and population size class .............................................................
21. Consumer Price Index, selected areas .....................................................................................................................................
22. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing .....................................................................................................................
23. Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings ................................................................................................................
24. Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ................................................................................................
25. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product . . . ........................................................................................................
26. Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
..................................................................................

69
70
70
76
77
78
79
81
81
82

P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a . D e f i n i t i o n s a n d n o t e s ..........................................................................................................................
27. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,selected years, 1950-82 ....................
28. Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1972-82 ...............................................
29. Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted .....................
30. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices . .

83
83
84
84
85

W a g e a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n d a t a . D e f i n i t i o n s a n d n o t e s .............................................................................................
31. Employment Cost Index, total compensation, by occupation and industry g r o u p ........................................................
32. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry grou p ...........................................................
33. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area s i z e ................................
34. Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1978 to date .............................................
35. Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1978 to d a te ................

86
87
88
89
90
90

W o r k s t o p p a g e d a t a . D e f i n i t i o n ...............................................................................................................................................
36. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date ..................

91
91


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

53

NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

This section of the Review presents the principal statistical se­
ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi­
nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually
found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to
consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov­
er of this issue of the Review. Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying
periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short­
term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated
on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com­
puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev­
eral preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 3-8 were revised in
the February 1983 issue of the Review, to reflect experience through
1982.
Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifi­
cations in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data.
First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure
called X -11 / ARIMA, which was developed at Statistics Canada as an
extension of the standard X -ll method. A detailed description of the
procedure appears in The X - ll ARIMA Seasonal Adjustment Method
by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, Feb­
ruary 1980). The second change is that seasonal factors are now being
calculated for use during the first 6 months of the year, rather than for
the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-December period. Revisions of historical data continue to be made only
at the end of each calendar year.
Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in
tables 10, 12, and 14 were made in August 1981 using the X -ll
ARIM A seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for
productivity data in tables 28 and 29 are usually introduced
in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent
changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are

published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series.
However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S.
average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are
available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information
published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. More information from house­
hold and establishment surveys is provided in Employment and Earn­
ings, a monthly publication of the Bureau. Comparable household in­
formation is published in a two-volume data book -Labor Force
Statistics Derived From the Current Population Survey, Bulletin 2096.
Comparable establishment information appears in two data booksEmployment and Earnings, United States, and Employment and Earn­
ings, States and Areas, and their annual supplements. More detailed
information on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining ap­
pears in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More
detailed price information is published each month in the periodicals,
the CPI Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes.

Symbols
p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series,
preliminary figures are issued based on representative
but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability
of later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.

Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Series

Employment situation ..............................
Producer Price Index................................
Consumer Price Index..............................
Real earnings..........................................
Productivity and costs:
Nonfarm business and manufacturing . . .

Release
date

Period
covered

April 1
April 15
April 22
April 22

March
March
March
March

April 27

1st quarter 1983

April 27

1st quarter 1983

Release
date

February 4
February 11
February 25
February 25

Period
covered

January
January
January
January

Release
date

Period
covered

MLR table
number

March 4
March 18
March 23
March 23

February
February
February
February

1-10
21-25
17-20
11-15

4th quarter
Major collective bargaining settlements
Employment Cost Index ..........................


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

February 3

4th quarter 1982

26-29
26-29
33-34
30-32

EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

m p l o y m e n t
d a t a
in this section are obtained from the
Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews
conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 60,000
households selected to represent the U.S. population 16 years
of age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating
basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2
consecutive months.

employed as a percent of the civilian labor force.
The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians
plus members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
Persons not in the labor force are those not classified as employed or
unemployed; this group includes persons retired, those engaged in
their own housework, those not working while attending school, those
unable to work because of long-term illness, those discouraged from
seeking work because of personal or job market factors, and those
who are voluntarily idle. The noninstitutional population comprises all
persons 16 years of age and older who are not inmates of penal or
mental institutions, sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or
needy, and members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United
States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion of the
noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The
employment-population ratio is total employment (including the
resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional
population.

E

Definitions
Employed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any
time during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or
who worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated
enterprise and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their
regular jobs because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar
reasons. Members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States
are also included in the employed total. A person working at more
than one job is counted only in the job at which he or she worked the
greatest number of hours.

Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census,
adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These
adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of Employment
and Earnings.
Data in tables 2-8 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1982.

Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and
had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new
jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed.
The overall unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as
a percent of the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The
unemployment rate for all civilian workers represents the number un­

1.

Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-82

[Numbers in thousands]

Labor force
Unemployed

Employed
Year

Noninsti­
tutional
population

Number

Percent of
population

Civilian
Total

Percent of
population

Resident
Armed
Forces

Total

Agriculture

Nonagricultural
industies

Number

Percent of
labor
force

Not in
labor force

1950 ..........
1955 ..........
1960 ..........

106,164
111,747
119,106

63,377
67,087
71,489

59.7
60.0
60.0

60,087
64,234
67,639

56.6
57.5
56.8

1,169
2,064
1,861

58,918
62,170
65,778

7,160
6,450
5,458

51,758
55,722
60,318

3,288
2,852
3,852

5.2
4.3
5.4

42,787
44,660
47,617

1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

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

128,459
130,180
132,092
134,281
136,573

76,401
77,892
79,565
80,990
82,972

59.5
59.8
60.2
60.3
60.8

73,034
75,017
76,590
78,173
80,140

56.9
57.6
58.0
58.2
58.7

1,946
2,122
2,218
2,253
2,238

71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902

4,361
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606

66,726
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296

3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832

4.4
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4

52,058
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

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

139,203
142,189
145,939
148,870
151,841

84,889
86,355
88,847
91,203
93,670

61.0
60.7
60.9
61.3
61.7

80,796
81,340
83,966
86,838
88,515

58.0
57.2
57.5
58.3
58.3

2,118
1,973
1,813
1,774
1,721

78,678
79,367
82,153
85,064
86,794

3,463
3,394
3,484
3,470
3,515

75,215
75,972
78,669
81,594
83,279

4,093
5,016
4,882
4,365
5,156

4.8
5.8
5.5
4.8
5.5

54,315
55,834
57,091
57,667
58,171

1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

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

154,831
157,818
160,689
163,541
166,460

95,453
97,826
100,665
103,882
106,559

61.6
62.0
62.6
63.5
64.0

87,524
90,420
93,673
97,679
100,421

56.5
57.3
58.3
59.7
60.3

1,678
1,668
1,656
1,631
1,597

85,846
88,752
92,017
96,048
98,824

3,408
3,331
3,283
3,387
3,347

82,438
85,421
88,734
92,661
95,477

7,929
7,406
6,991
6,202
6,137

8.3
7.6
6.9
6.0
5.8

59,377
59,991
60,025
59,659
59,900

1980 ..........
1981 ..........
1982 ..........

169,349
171,775
173,939

108,544
110,315
111,872

64.1
64.2
64.3

100,907
102,042
101,194

59.6
59.4
58.2

1,604
1,645
1,668

99,303
100,397
99,526

3,364
3,368
3,401

95,938
97,030
96,125

7,637
8,273
10,678

7.0
7.5
9.5

60,806
61,460
62,067


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

55

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.

Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Annual average

1982

1983

Employment status and sex
1981

1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept

O ct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

171,775
110,315
64.2
102,042
59.4
1,645
100,397
3,368
97,030
8,273
7.5
61,460

173,939
111,872
64.3
101,194
58.2
1,668
99,526
3,401
96,125
10,678
9.5
62,067

172,991
110,690
64.0
101,344
58.6
1,656
99,688
3,379
96,309
9,346
8.4
62,301

173,153
111,028
64.1
101,359
58.5
1,664
99,695
3,367
96,328
9,669
8.7
62,125

173,338
111,149
64.1
101,268
58.4
1,671
99,597
3,367
96,230
9,881
8.9
62,189

173,512
111,408
64.2
101,152
58.3
1,668
99,484
3,356
96,128
10,256
9.2
62,104

173,691
112,043
64.5
101,659
58.5
1,665
99,994
3,446
96,548
10,384
9.3
61,648

173,854
111,811
64.3
101,345
58.3
1,664
99,681
3,371
96,310
10,466
9.4
62,043

174,038
112,090
64.4
101,262
58.2
1,674
99,588
3,445
96,143
10,828
9.7
61,948

174,200
112,303
64.5
101,372
58.2
1,689
99,683
3,429
96,254
10,931
9.7
61,897

174,360
112,528
64.5
101,213
58.0
1,670
99,543
3,363
96,180
11,315
10.1
61,832

174,549
112,420
64.4
100,844
57.8
1,668
99,176
3,413
95,763
11,576
10.3
62,129

174,718
112,702
64.5
100,796
57.7
1,660
99,136
3,466
95,670
11,906
10.6
62,016

174,864
112,794
64.5
100,758
57.6
1,665
99,093
3,411
95,682
12,036
10.7
62,070

175,021
112,215
64.1
100,770
57.6
1,667
99,103
3,412
95,691
11,446
10.2
62,806

82,023
63,486
77.4
58,909
71.8
1,512
57,397
4,577
7.2

83,052
63,979
77.0
57,800
69.6
1,527
56,271
6,179
9.7

82,599
63,568
77.0
58,187
70.4
1,520
56,667
5,381
8.5

82,673
63,683
77.0
58,197
70.4
1,527
56,670
5,486
8.6

82,763
63,693
77.0
58,031
70.1
1,532
56,499
5,662
8.9

82,844
63,829
77.0
57,973
70.0
1,529
56,444
5,856
9.2

82,929
64,172
77.4
58,251
70.2
1,527
56,724
5,921
9.2

83,006
63,851
76.9
57,775
69.6
1,526
56,249
6,076
9.5

83,097
63,898
76.9
57,664
69.4
1,537
56,127
6,234
9.8

83,173
64,055
77.0
57,710
69.4
1,551
56,159
6,345
9.9

83,231
64,301
77.3
57,598
69.2
1,526
56,072
6,703
10.4

83,323
64,300
77.2
57,456
69.0
1,524
55,932
6,844
10.6

83,402
64,414
77.2
57,408
68.8
1,516
55,892
7,006
10.9

83,581
64,384
77.0
57,338
68.6
1,529
55,809
7,046
10.9

83,652
63,916
76.4
57,283
68.5
1,531
55,752
6,633
10.4

89,751
46,829
52.2
43,133
48.1
133
43,000
3,696
7.9

90,887
47,894
52.7
43,395
47.7
139
43,256
4,499
9.4

90,392
47,122
52.1
43,157
47.7
136
43,021
3,965
8.4

90,480
47,345
52.3
43,162
47.7
137
43,025
4,183
8.8

90,576
47,456
52.4
43,237
47.7
139
43,098
4,219
8.9

90,668
47,579
52.5
43,179
47.6
139
43,040
4,400
9.2

90,762
47,871
52.7
43,408
47.8
138
43,270
4,463
9.3

90,848
47,960
52.8
43,570
48.0
138
43,432
4,390
9.2

90,941
48,192
53.0
43,598
47.9
137
43,461
4,594
9.5

91,027
48,248
53.0
43,662
48.0
138
43,524
4,586
9.5

91,129
48,227
52.9
43,615
47.9
144
43,471
4,612
9.6

91,226
48,120
52.7
43,388
47.6
144
43,244
4,732
9.8

91,316
48,288
52.9
43,388
47.5
144
43,244
4,900
10.1

91,283
48,410
53.0
43,420
47.6
136
43,284
4,990
10.3

91,369
48,299
52.9
43,486
47.6
136
43,350
4,813
10.0

Total

Noninstitutional population12 ......................
Labor force 2
Participation rate3 ......................
Total employed2 ................................
Employment-population ratio “ . . . .
Resident Armed Forces1 ................
Civilian employed............................
Agriculture..................................
Nonagricultural industries ............
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate5 ..................
Not in labor force....................................
Men, 16 years and over

Noninstitutional population 12 ......................
Labor force2 ..........................................
Participation rate3 ......................
Total employed2 ................................
Employment-population ratio“ ___
Resident Armed Forces1 ................
Civilian employed............................
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate5 ..................
Women, 16 years and over

Noninstitutional population12 ......................
Labor force2 ......................................
Participation rate3 ......................
Total employed2 ................................
Employment-population ratio“ ___
Resident Armed Forces1 ................
Civilian employed............................
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate6 ..................

1The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.
2 Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population.

56

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

“ Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including the resident Armed Forces).

3.

Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Annual average

1983

1982

Employment status
1981

1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

170,130
108,670
63.9
100,397
59.0
3,368
97,030
8,273
7.6
61,460

172,271
110,204
64.0
99,526
57.8
3,401
96,125
10,678
9.7
62,067

171,335
109,034
63.6
99,688
58.2
3,379
96,309
9,346
8.6
62,301

171,489
109,364
63.8
99,695
58.1
3,367
96,328
9,669
8.8
62,125

171,667
109,478
63.8
99,597
58.0
3,367
96,230
9,881
9.0
62,189

171,844
109,740
63.9
99,484
57.9
3,356
96,128
10,256
9.3
62,104

172,026
110,378
64.2
99,994
58.1
3,446
96,548
10,384
9.4
61,648

172,190
110,147
64.0
99,681
57.9
3,371
96,310
10,466
9.5
62,043

172,364
110,416
64.1
99,588
57.8
3,445
96,143
10,828
9.8
61,948

172,511
110,614
64.1
99,683
57.8
3,429
96,254
10,931
9.9
61,897

172,690
110,858
64.2
99,543
57.6
3,363
96,180
11,315
10.2
61,832

172,881
110,752
64.1
99,176
57.4
3,413
95,763
11,576
10.5
62,129

173,058
111,042
64.2
99,136
57.3
3,466
95,670
11,906
10.7
62,016

173,199
111,129
64.2
99,093
57.2
3,411
95,682
12,036
10.8
62,070

173,354
110,548
63.8
99,103
57.2
3,412
95,691
11,446
10.4
62,806

72,419
57,197
79.0
53,582
74.0
2,384
51,199
3,615
6.3

73,644
57,980
78.7
52,891
71.8
2,422
50,469
5,089
8.8

73,120
57,461
78.6
53,099
72.6
2,386
50,713
4,362
7.6

73,209
57,581
78.7
53,130
72.6
2,388
50,742
4,451
7.7

73,287
57,633
78.6
53,026
72.4
2,392
50,634
4,607
8.0

73,392
57,794
78.7
53,024
72.2
2,417
50,607
4,770
8.3

73,499
58,008
78.9
53,190
72.4
2,446
50,744
4,818
8.3

73,585
57,959
78.8
52,943
71.9
2,424
50,519
5,016
8.7

73,685
58,055
78.8
52,905
71.8
2,462
50,443
5,150
8.9

73,774
58,064
78.7
52,832
71.6
2,433
50,399
5,232
9.0

73,867
58,354
79.0
52,776
71.4
2,436
50,340
5,578
9.6

73,984
58,363
78.9
52,649
71.2
2,444
50,205
5,714
9.8

74,094
58,454
78.9
52,589
71.0
2,434
50,155
5,865
10.0

74,236
58,443
78.7
52,534
70.8
2,389
50,145
5,909
10.1

74,339
58,048
78.1
52,452
70.6
2,426
50,025
5,597
9.6

81,497
42,485
52.1
39,590
48.6
604
38,986
2,895
6.8

82,864
43,699
52.7
40,086
48.4
601
39,485
3,613
8.3

82,260
42,926
52.2
39,817
48.4
626
39,191
3,109
7.2

82,367
43,111
52.3
39,825
48.4
620
39,205
3,286
7.6

82,478
43,285
52.5
39,883
48.4
625
39,258
3,402
7.9

82,591
43,355
52.5
39,827
48.2
600
39,227
3,528
8.1

82,707
43,632
52.8
40,064
48.4
614
39,450
3,568
8.2

82,811
43,819
52.9
40,254
48.6
586
39,668
3,565
8.1

82,926
43,983
53.0
40,311
48.6
598
39,713
3,672
8.3

83,035
44,039
53.0
40,368
48.6
590
39,778
3,671
8.3

83,152
43,996
52.9
40,286
48.4
588
39,698
3,710
8.4

83,271
43,936
52.8
40,112
48.2
578
39,534
3,824
8.7

83,385
44,112
52.9
40,123
48.1
590
39,533
3,989
9.0

83,383
44,286
53.1
40,215
48.2
628
39,587
4,071
9.2

83,490
44,201
52.9
40,238
48.2
625
39,613
3,963
9.0

16,214
8,988
55.4
7,225
44.6
380
6,845
1,763
19.6

15,763
8,526
54.1
6,549
41.5
378
6,171
1,977
23.2

15,955
8,647
54.2
6,772
42.4
367
6,405
1,875
21.7

15,913
8,672
54.5
6,740
42.4
359
6,381
1,932
22.3

15,902
8,560
53.8
6,688
42.1
350
6,338
1,872
21.9

15,861
8,591
54.2
6,633
41.8
339
6,294
1,958
22.8

15,820
8,738
55.2
6,740
42.6
386
6,354
1,998
22.9

15,794
8,369
53.0
6,484
41.1
361
6,123
1,885
22.5

15,753
8,378
53.2
6,372
40.4
385
5,987
2,006
23.9

15,702
8,511
54.2
6,483
41.3
406
6,077
2,028
23.8

15,671
8,508
54.3
6,481
41.4
339
6,142
2,027
23.8

15,625
8,453
54.1
6,415
41.1
391
6,024
2,038
24.1

15,579
8,476
54.4
6,424
41.2
442
5,982
2,052
24.2

15,580
8,400
53.9
6,344
40.7
394
5,950
2,056
24.5

15,525
8,299
53.5
6,413
41.3
361
6,052
1,886
22.7

147,908
95,052
64.3
88,709
60.0
6,343
6.7

149,441
96,143
64.3
87,903
58.8
8,241
8.6

148,842
95,289
64.0
88,078
59.2
7,211
7.6

148,855
95,459
64.1
88,080
59.2
7,379
7.7

149,132
95,602
64.1
88,033
59.0
7,569
7.9

149,249
95,941
64.3
88,011
59.0
7,930
8.3

149,250
96,405
64.6
88,350
59.2
8,055
8.4

149,429
96,165
64.4
88,089
59.0
8,076
8.4

149,569
96,385
64.4
88,021
58.8
8,364
8.7

149,536
96,375
64.4
87,979
58.8
8,396
8.7

149,652
96,640
64.6
87,872
58.7
8,768
9.1

149,838
96,453
64.4
87,477
58.4
8,976
9.3

149,887
96,719
64.5
87,435
58.3
9,284
9.6

150,056
96,864
64.6
87,443
58.3
9,421
9.7

150,129
96,176
64.1
87,466
58.3
8,711
9.1

18,219
11,086
60.8
9,355
51.3
1,731
15.6

18,584
11,331
61.0
9,189
49.4
2,142
18.9

18,423
11,184
60.7
9,295
50.5
1,889
16.9

18,450
11,219
60.8
9,260
50.2
1,959
17.5

18,480
11,228
60.8
9,209
49.8
2,019
18.0

18,511
11,201
60.5
9,135
49.3
2,066
18.4

18,542
11,318
61.0
9,209
49.7
2,109
18.6

18,570
11,267
60.7
9,171
49.4
2,096
18.6

18,600
11,341
61.0
9,211
49.5
2,130
18.8

18,626
11,400
61.2
9,220
49.5
2,180
19.1

18,659
11,443
61.3
9,172
49.2
2,271
19.8

18,692
11,398
61.0
9,102
48.7
2,296
20.1

18,723
11,475
61.3
9,159
48.9
2,316
202

18,740
11,522
61.5
9,127
48.7
2,395
20.8

18,768
11,542
61.5
9,142
48.7
2,400
20.8

9,310
5,972
64.1
5,348
57.4
624
10.4

9,400
5,983
63.6
5,158
54.9
825
13.8

9,400
6,048
64.3
5,325
56.6
723
12.0

9,341
6,051
64.8
5,297
56.7
754
12.5

9,297
6,015
64.7
5,253
56.5
762
12.7

9,235
5,966
64.6
5,211
56.4
755
12.7

9,297
6,004
64.6
5,182
55.7
822
13.7

9,428
5,965
63.3
5,155
54.7
810
13.6

9,521
5,972
62.7
5,136
53.9
836
14.0

9,689
6,045
62.4
5,162
53.3
883
14.6

9,464
5,961
63.0
5,097
53.9
864
14.5

9,474
5,973
63.0
5,075
53.6
898
15.0

9,355
5,923
63.3
5,012
53.6
911
15.4

9,301
5,898
63.4
4,998
53.7
900
15.3

9,328
5,981
64.1
5,053
54.2
929
15.5

TOTAL

Civilian noninstitutional population' ..................
Civilian labor force......................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..............................................
Employment-population ratio2 ..........
Agriculture..........................................
Nonagricultural industries ....................
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Not in labor force........................................
Men, 20 years and over

Civilian noninstitutional population1 ..................
Civilian labor force ....................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..............................................
Employment-population ratio2 ..........
Agriculture..........................................
Nonagricultural industries ....................
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Women, 20 years and over

Civilian noninstitutional population1 ..................
Civilian labor force ....................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..............................................
Employment-population ratio2 ..........
Agriculture..........................................
Nonagricultural industries ....................
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years

Civilian noninstitutional population1 ..................
Civilian labor fo rce ......................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..............................................
Employment-population ratio2 ..........
Agriculture..........................................
Nonagricultural industries ....................
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployment rate ........................
White

Civilian noninstitutional population1 ..................
Civilian labor force ....................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..............................................
Employment-population ratio2 ..........
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Black

Civilian noninstitutional population1 ..................
Civilian labor force ....................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..............................................
Employment-population ratio2 ..........
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Hispanic origin

Civilian noninstitutional population1 ..................
Civilian labor fo rce ......................................
Participation rate ............................
Employed ..............................................
Employment-population ratio2 ..........
Unemployed ..........................................
Unemployment rate ........................

1The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.


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

Note : Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because data for the
“ other races” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included In both the white and black population
groups.

57

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.

Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[ Numbers in thousands]
Annual average

1982

1983

Selected categories
1981

1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept

O ct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

CHARACTERISTIC

Civilian employed, 16 years and over....................
Men ..........................................................
W om er........................................................
Married men, spouse present ........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who maintain families........................

100,397
57,397
43,000
38,882
23,915
4,998

99,526
56,271
43,256
38,074
24,053
5,099

99,688
56,667
43,021
38,306
23,803
5,095

99,695
56,670
43,025
38,326
23,807
5,157

99,597
56,499
43,098
38,227
23,933
5,094

99,484
56,444
43,040
38,212
23,891
5,093

99,994
56,724
43,270
38,274
24,112
4,991

99,681
56,249
43,432
38,254
24,331
5,120

99,588
56,127
43,461
38,177
24,173
5,200

99,683
56,159
43,524
38,121
24,235
5,208

99,543
56,073
43,471
37,998
24,159
5,118

99,176
55,932
43,244
37,852
24,081
5,107

99,136
55,892
43,244
37,641
23,985
5,025

99,093
55,809
43,284
37,507
24,155
4,985

99,103
55,752
43,350
37,450
24,205
5,038

1,464
1,638
266

1,505
1,636
261

1,402
1,662
348

1,430
1,613
334

1,428
1,645
270

1,442
1,656
266

1,530
1,679
251

1,457
1,661
254

1,523
1,655
254

1,548
1,620
255

1,537
1,569
254

1,576
1,621
229

1,584
1,628
241

1,547
1,627
224

1,637
1,587
231

89,543
15,689
73,853
1,208
72,645
7,097
390

88,462
15,516
72,945
1,207
71,738
7,262
401

88,825
15,546
73,279
1,239
72,040
7,004
416

88,702
15,515
73,187
1,181
72,006
7,097
410

88,620
15,491
73,129
1,218
71,911
7,150
431

88,454
15,464
72,990
1,196
71,794
7,246
410

88,872
15,454
73,418
1,204
72,214
7,262
392

88,548
15,614
72,934
1,205
71,729
7,301
398

88,491
15,471
73,020
1,200
71,820
7,286
393

88,576
15,562
73,014
1,227
71,787
7,338
408

88,562
15,681
72,881
1,220
71,661
7,422
378

88,064
15,436
72,628
1,216
71,412
7,332
403

87,936
15,514
72,422
1,221
71,201
7,349
382

87,976
15,477
72,499
1,163
71,336
7,335
383

87,813
15,386
72,427
1,162
71,265
7,465
380

91,377
74,339
4,499
1,738
2,761
12,539

90,552
72,245
5,852
2,169
3,683
12,455

90,301
72,916
5,066
1,808
3,258
12,319

90,087
73,026
5,489
2,155
3,334
12,352

90,579
72,699
5,611
2,187
3,424
12,269

90,755
72,562
5,750
2,197
3,553
12,443

91,082
72,869
5,731
2,195
3,536
12,482

90,917
72,545
5,561
2,126
3,435
12,811

90,414
72,288
5,577
2,047
3,530
12,549

90,486
72,045
5,820
2,100
3,720
12,621

90,884
71,723
6,495
2,519
3,976
12,666

90,232
71,394
6,903
2,381
4,022
12,435

90,238
71,442
6,411
2,228
4,183
12,385

90,219
71,499
6,425
2,153
4,272
12,295

90,903
71,786
6,845
2,200
4,645
12,271

MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER

Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
Nonagrlcultural Industries:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Government ..........................................
Private industries....................................
Private households ..........................
Other..............................................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
PERSONS AT W O R K '

Nonagricultural industries ....................................
Full-time schedules ......................................
Part time for economic reasons......................
Usually work full time..............................
Usually work part tim e............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons................

'Excludes persons "with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation,
illness, or industrial disputes.

58


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

5.

Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[Unemployment rates]
Annual average

1983

1982

Selected categories

• July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

9.5
22.5
8.7
8.1

9.8
23.9
8.9
8.3

9.9
23.8
9.0
8.3

10.2
23.8
9.6
8.4

10.4
24.1
9.8
8.7

10.7
24.2
10.0
9.0

10.8
24.5
10.1
9.2

10.4
22.7
9.6
9.0

8.4
19.9
20.9
18.7
7.5
7.2

8.4
19.7
21.2
18.0
7.7
7.1

8.7
20.9
22.5
19.1
7.9
7.3

8.7
20.8
22.5
18.9
8.0
7.2

9.1
20.7
22.2
19.1
8.6
7.5

9.3
21.5
23.0
19.9
8.8
7.6

9.6
21.2
22.6
19.8
9.1
8.0

9.7
21.6
22.8
20.4
9.2
8.1

9.1
20.0
21.2
18.7
8.4
7.8

18.4
48.0
48.4
47.7
17.0
15.4

18.6
49.4
49.7
49.1
17.1
15.3

18.6
51.2
55.7
46.0
17.3
15.1

18.8
49.3
48.9
49.7
17.4
15.5

19.1
51.2
50.5
52.1
17.6
15.4

19.8
48.6
51.0
45.9
19.2
15.7

20.1
47.7
49.2
45.9
19.6
16.2

20.2
49.8
53.0
46.2
19.2
16.5

20.8
49.5
52.5
46.2
20.5
16.5

20.8
45.7
45.9
45.5
19.7
18.2

12.7

12.7

13.7

13.6

14.0

14.6

14.5

15.0

15.4

15.3

15.5

5.6
7.0
10.8

6.0
7.6
11.5

6.1
7.3
11.9

6.4
7.1
12.1

6.6
7.4
12.0

6.8
7.3
11.7

7.2
7.6
12.4

7.5
7.9
11.3

7.6
8.2
12.5

7.8
8.2
13.2

7.1
7.8
13.2

8.5
10.4
2.5
9.9

8.9
10.0
2.7
10.3

9.1
10.8
2.8
10.4

9.2
10.5
3.0
10.7

9.4
10.0
3.2
10.4

9.6
11.2
3.2
10.7

9.7
10.4
3.3
10.9

10.2
10.6
3.5
11.7

10.5
10.3
3.8
12.0

10.6
11.3
4.1
12.4

10.8
11.1
4.3
12.7

10.3
10.6
4.2
11.7

9.0
8.3
18.3
10.6
11.2
9.6
5.9
9.1
6.5
5.1
13.4

9.4
9.3
18.2
10.7
10.8
10.6
5.7
10.1
6.8
4.8
14.0

9.8
10.6
19.3
11.3
11.9
10.6
6.7
9.9
7.0
5.2
14.6

9.8
12.1
18.9
11.5
12.2
10.4
6.4
10.2
6.8
4.9
18.1

10.0
14.0
19.5
12.2
13.1
11.1
6.8
9.7
6.9
4.7
15.0

10.2
15.8
20.3
12.1
12.8
11.0
6.6
10.3
7.0
4.7
14.1

10.2
16.0
20.4
12.4
13.3
11.0
7.1
10.0
7.0
4.7
14.2

11.0
18.5
22.3
14.1
16.0
11.2
7.9
10.4
7.1
4.9
13.3

11.0
17.9
22.3
14.1
16.0
11.2
7.9
10.4
7.1
4.9
13.3

11.4
18.1
21.8
14.8
17.0
11.4
8.3
10.6
7.7
5.1
15.6

11.6
18.1
22.0
14.8
17.1
11.4
8.0
11.0
7.9
5.1
16.5

10.8
17.1
20.0
13.0
14.7
10.5
7.8
10.8
7.6
5.7
16.0

1981

1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

Total, all civilian workers......................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ..........................
Men, 20 years and over................................
Women, 20 years and over ..........................

7.6
19.6
6.3
6.8

9.7
23.2
8.8
8.3

8.6
21.7
7.6
7.2

8.8
22.3
7.7
7.6

9.0
21.9
8.0
7.9

9.3
22.8
8.3
8.1

9.4
22.9
8.3
8.2

White, total ..................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ....................
Men, 16 to 19 years........................
Women, 16 to 19 years ..................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................

6.7
17.3
17.9
16.6
5.6
5.9

8.6
20.4
21.7
19.0
7.8
7.3

7.6
19.4
20.6
18.1
6.6
6.4

7.7
19.7
20.4
19.0
6.7
6.6

7.9
19.2
20.4
17.9
7.0
6.8

8.3
20.4
21.9
18.8
7.3
7.1

Black, total ..................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ....................
Men, 16 to 19 years........................
Women, 16 to 19 years ..................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................

15.6
41.4
40.7
42.2
13.5
13.4

18.9
48.0
48.9
47.1
17.8
15.4

16.9
42.1
38.2
46.3
16.0
13.7

17.5
43.5
42.2
45.0
16.2
14.5

18.0
46.3
47.6
44.9
16.3
15.1

Hispanic origin, total ....................................

10.4

13.8

12.0

12.5

Married men, spouse present........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who maintain families........................

4.3
6.0
10.4

6.5
7.4
11.7

5.3
6.3
10.4

5.4
6.9
10.4

Full-time workers..........................................
Part-time workers ........................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................
Labor force time lost1 ..................................

7.3
9.4
2.1
8.5

9.6
10.5
3.2
11.0

8.4
9.7
2.2
9.9

7.7
6.0
15.6
8.3
8.2
8.4
5.2
8.1
5.9
4.7
12.1

10.1
13.4
20.0
12.3
13.3
10.8
6.8
10.0
6.9
4.9
14.7

8.8
7.9
18.5
10.3
10.9
9.5
6.2
8.8
6.0
4.8
15.3

CHARACTERISTIC

INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers ..
Mining ........................................................
Construction ................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Durable goods ......................................
Nondurable goods..................................
Transportation and public utilities ..................
Wholesale and retail trad e............................
Finance and service industries ......................
Government workers ..........................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers ..................

1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.


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

59

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
6.

Unemployment rates by sex and age, seasonally adjusted

[Civilian workers]
Sex and age

1983

1982

Annual average
1981

1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct,

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Total, 16 years and over......................................
16 to 24 years ................................................
16 to 19 years ............................................
16 to 17 years ........................................
18 to 19 years ........................................
20 to 24 years ............................................
25 years and over ..........................................
25 to 54 years ........................................
55 years and over....................................

7.6
14.9
19.6
21.4
18.4
12.3
5.4
5.8
3.6

9.7
17.8
23.2
24.9
22.1
14.9
7.4
7.9
5.0

8.6
16.4
21.7
22.3
21.1
13.6
6.3
6.8
4.2

8.8
16.9
22.3
22.9
21.8
14.1
6.5
6.9
4.3

9.0
16.9
21.9
23.2
21.3
14.1
6.8
7.2
4.6

9.3
17.4
22.8
24.4
21.8
14.5
7.0
7.4
4.9

9.4
17.4
22.9
25.1
21.4
14.5
7.1
7.6
4.9

9.5
17.3
22.5
23.6
22.0
14.5
7.3
7.7
5.1

9.8
17.9
23.9
25.8
22.6
14.7
7.5
8.0
5.3

9.9
18.2
23.8
25.8
22.5
15.3
7.5
8.0
5.2

10.2
18.3
23.8
26.5
22.0
15.3
7.9
8.6
5.2

10.5
18.7
24.1
26.1
22.9
15.8
8.1
8.7
5.5

10.7
19.0
24.2
26.3
22.8
16.3
8.3
8.9
5.7

10.8
18.9
24.5
27.4
22.7
16.0
8.6
9.1
5.8

10.4
18.3
22.7
24.1
21.7
16.1
8.1
8.7
5.4

Men, 16 years and over ..............................
16 to 24 years ........................................
16 to 19 years ....................................
16 to 17 years ................................
18 to 19 years ................................
20 to 24 years ....................................
25 years and over....................................
25 to 54 years ................................
55 years and over............................

7.4
15.7
20.1
22.0
18.8
13.2
5.1
5.5
3.5

9.9
19.1
24.4
26.4
23.1
16.4
7.5
8.0
5.1

8.7
17.5
22.2
23.2
21.5
14.9
6.3
6.7
4.3

8.8
17.9
22.6
23.3
22.1
15.3
6.4
6.8
4.3

9.1
18.2
23.3
24.5
22.6
15.6
6.7
7.1
4.7

9.4
18.7
24.1
24.8
23.7
15.9
6.9
7.3
5.0

9.5
18.6
23.8
26.3
22.2
15.8
7.0
7.5
4.7

9.7
18.7
24.3
25.4
23.7
15.9
7.4
7.9
4.9

10.0
19.2
25.2
27.7
23.4
16.2
7.5
8.1
4.9

10.2
19.5
25.1
27.4
23.4
16.6
7.7
8.2
5.5

10.7
20.0
25.4
29.0
23.0
17.3
8.2
9.0
5.5

10.9
20.2
25.6
28.8
23.4
17.4
8.5
9.1
6.0

11.1
20.6
25.7
28.2
24.1
18.0
8.6
9.2
6.2

11.2
20.5
25.8
29.0
24.0
17.8
8.8
9.4
6.3

10.6
19.7
23.9
24.4
23.5
17.6
8.2
8.7
5.8

Women, 16 years and o v e r..........................
16 to 24 years
16 to 19 years ....................................
16 to 17 years ................................
18 to 19 years ................................
20 to 24 years ....................................
25 years and over....................................
25 to 54 years ................................
55 years and over............................

7.9
14.0
19.0
20.7
17.9
11.2
5.9
6.3
3.8

9.4
16.2
21.9
23.2
21.0
13.2
7.3
7.7
4.8

8.4
15.2
21.1
21.2
20.7
12.0
6.3
6.8
4.1

8.9
15.9
21.9
22.4
21.6
12.6
6.6
7.0
4.3

8.9
15.2
20.3
21.7
19.9
12.5
6.9
7.4
4.7

9.3
16.0
21.3
24.0
19.8
13.0
7.1
7.5
4.7

9.3
16.0
21.8
23.6
20.6
12.9
7.3
7.8
5.0

9.2
15.6
20.6
21.6
20.2
13.0
7.2
7.5
5.4

9.6
16.4
22.6
23.8
21.9
13.1
7.4
7.7
5.8

9.5
16.8
22.5
23.9
21.5
13.7
7.1
7.7
4.8

9.6
16.3
22.1
23.8
20.9
13.1
7.5
8.0
4.8

9.9
17.0
22.5
22.9
22.3
14.0
7.6
8.2
4.8

10.2
17.2
22.6
24.2
21.4
14.4
7.9
8.5
4.9

10.3
17.1
23.0
25.6
21.3
14.0
8.2
8.8
5.1

10.0
16.7
21.5
23.7
19.8
14.2
7.9
8.7
4.8

7.

Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Reason for unemployment

1982

Annual average

1983

1981

1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

4,267
1,430
2,837
923
2,102
981

6,268
2,127
4,141
840
2,384
1,185

5,243
1,852
3,391
842
2,133
1,055

5,246
1,777
3,469
942
2,272
1,096

5,628
1,858
3,770
885
2,261
1,061

5,889
1,967
3,922
901
2,342
1,096

5,938
1,956
3,982
864
2,393
1,159

6,181
2,097
4,084
826
2,378
1,091

6,323
2,126
4,197
819
2,478
1,230

6,446
2,218
4,228
814
2,440
1,304

6,979
2,625
4,354
786
2,437
1,303

7,325
2,519
4,806
803
2,322
1,296

7,369
2,531
4,838
794
2,546
1,244

7,295
2,468
4,827
826
2,629
1,288

6,704
2,131
4,573
839
2,623
1,174

100.0
51.6
17.3
34.3
11.2
25.4
11.9

100.0
58.7
19.9
38.8
7.9
22.3
11.1

100.0
56.5
20.0
36.6
9.1
23.0
11.4

100.0
54.9
18.6
36.3
9.9
23.8
11.5

100.0
57.2
18.9
38.3
9.0
23.0
10.8

100.0
57.6
19.2
38.3
8.8
22.9
10.7

100.0
57.3
18.9
38.5
8.3
23.1
11.2

100.0
59.0
20.0
39.0
7.9
22.7
10.4

100.0
58.3
19.6
38.7
7.5
22.8
11.3

100.0
58.6
20.2
38.4
7.4
22.2
11.9

100.0
60.7
22.8
37.8
6.8
21.2
11.3

100.0
62.4
21.4
40.9
6.8
19.8
11.0

100.0
61.6
21.2
40.5
6.6
21.3
10.4

100.0
60.6
20.5
40.1
6.9
21.8
10.7

100.0
59.1
18.8
40.3
7.4
23.1
10.4

3.9
.8
1.9
.9

5.7
.8
2.2
1.1

4.8
.8
2.0
1.0

4.8
.9
2.1
1.0

5.1
.8
2.1
1.0

5.4
.8
2.1
1.0

5.4
.8
2.2
1.1

5.6
.7
2.2
1.0

5.7
.7
2.2
1.1

5.8
.7
2.2
1.2

6.3
.7
2.2
1.2

6.6
.7
2.1
1.2

6.6
.7
2.3
1.1

6.6
.7
2.4
1.2

6.1
.8
2.4
1.1

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Job losers ..........................................................
On layoff ....................................................
Other job losers ..........................................
Job leavers ........................................................
Reentrants..........................................................
New entrants ......................................................
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed................................................
Job losers ..........................................................
On layoff ....................................................
Other job losers..........................................
Job leavers ........................................................
Reentrants..........................................................
New entrants ......................................................
PERCENT OF
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers ..........................................................
Job leavers ........................................................
Reentrants..........................................................
New entrants ......................................................

8.

Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Weeks of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks ..............................................
5 to 14 weeks ....................................................
15 weeks and over..............................................
15 to 26 weeks............................................
27 weeks and over......................................
Mean duration, in weeks ......................................
Median duration, in weeks....................................

60


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

Annual average

1982

1983

1981

1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

3,449
2,539
2,285
1,122
1,162
13.7
6.9

3,883
3,311
3,485
1,708
1,776
15.6
8.7

3,830
3,079
2,402
1,209
1,193
13.4
7.3

3,807
3,068
2,750
1,479
1,271
14.0
7.4

3,831
3,098
2,962
1,605
1,357
13.9
7.7

3,930
3,255
3,080
1,582
1,498
14.3
8.3

3,871
3,281
3,267
1,633
1,634
14.9
8.6

3,605
3,398
3,517
1,683
1,834
16.3
9.8

3,959
3,249
3,569
1,780
1,789
15.6
8.3

3,933
3,346
3,637
1,808
1,829
16.1
8.3

4,004
3,549
3,856
1,830
2,026
16.6
9.4

3,930
3,511
4,167
1,951
2,216
17.1
9.6

3,963
3,549
4,524
2,191
2,333
17.3
10.0

4,019
3,460
4,732
2,125
2,607
18.0
10.1

3,536
3,328
4,634
1,928
2,706
19.4
11.5

EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS

Employment, hours, and earnings data in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun­
tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat­
ing State agencies by 177,000 establishments representing all
industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling
probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab­
lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others
not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the
survey because they are excluded from establishment records.
This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures
between the household and establishment surveys.

payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of
changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived
from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers (CPI-W). The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from av­
erage hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types
of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments:
fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector
for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries.
Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the por­
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.

Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holi­
day and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the
12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per­
cent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establish­
ment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 11-15 in­
clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction
workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta­
tion and public utilities; in wholesale and retail trade; in finance, in­
surance, and real estate; and in services industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special


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

Notes on the data
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the re­
lease of May 1982 data, published in the July 1982 issue of the Review.
Consequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not
necessarily comparable to current data. Earlier comparable unadjusted
and seasonally adjusted data are published in a Supplement to Em­
ployment and Earnings (unadjusted data from April 1977 through Feb­
ruary 1982 and seasonally adjusted data from January 1974 through
February 1982) and in Employment and Earnings, United States, 190978, BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur­
veys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20. See also BLS
Handbook o f Methods for Surveys and Studies, B ulletin 1910 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1976).

61

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • C u rre n t L a b o r S ta tistics: E sta b lish m e n t D a ta
9.

Employment by industry, selected years, 1950-81

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
Service-producing

Goods-producing

Year

Total

Private
sector

Total

Mining

Construc­ Manufac­
tion
turing

Transportation
and
public
utilities

Total

Wholesale and retail trade

Total

Whole­
sale
trade

Retail
trade

_

Government

insurance,
Services
and real
estate

Total

Federal

State
and
local

1950 ..............................
1955 ..............................
I9601 ............................
1964 ..............................
1965 ..............................

45,197
50,641
54,189
58,283
60,765

39,170
43,727
45,836
48,686
50,689

18,506
20,513
20,434
21,005
21,926

901
792
712
634
632

2,364
2,839
2,926
3,097
3,232

15,241
16,882
16,796
17,274
18,062

26,691
30,128
33,755
37,278
38,839

4,034
4,141
4,004
3,951
4,036

9,386
10,535
11,391
12,160
12,716

2,635
2,926
3,143
3,337
3,466

6,751
7,610
8,248
8,823
9,250

1,888
2,298
2,629
2,911
2,977

5,357
6,240
7,378
8,660
9,036

6,026
6,914
8,353
9,596
10,074

1,928
2,187
2,270
2,348
2,378

4,098
4,727
6,083
7,248
7,696

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880

53,116
54,413
56,058
58,189
58,325

23,158
23,308
23,737
24,361
23,578

627
613
606
619
623

3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588

19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367

40,743
42,495
44,160
46,023
47,302

4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515

13,245
13,606
14,099
14,705
15,040

3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993

9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047

3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645

9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548

10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554

2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731

8,220
8,672
9,102
9,437
9,823

1971..............................
1972 ..............................
1973 ..............................
1974 ..............................
1975 ..............................

71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945

58,331
60,341
63,058
64,095
62,259

22,935
23,668
24,893
24,794
22,600

609
628
642
697
752

3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525

18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323

48,278
50,007
51,897
53,471
54,345

4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542

15,352
15,949
16,607
16,987
17,060

4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415

11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645

3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165

11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892

12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686

2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748

10,185
10,649
11,068
11,446
11,937

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

79,382
82,471
86,697
89,823
90,406

64,511
67,344
71,026
73,876
74,166

23,352
24,346
25,585
26,461
25,658

779
813
851
958
1,027

3,576
3,851
4,229
4,463
4,346

18,997
19,682
20,505
21,040
20,285

56,030
58,125
61,113
63,363
64,748

4,582
4,713
4,923
5,136
5,146

17,755
18,516
19,542
20,192
20,310

4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
5,275

13,209
13,808
14,573
14,989
15,035

4,271
4,467
4,724
4,975
5,160

14,551
15,303
16,252
17,112
17,890

14,871
15,127
15,672
15,947
16,241

2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
2,866

12,138
12,399
12,919
13,147
13,375

1981..............................

91,105

75,081

25,481

1,132

4,176

20,173

65,625

5,157

20,551

5,359

15,192

5,301

18,592

16,024

2,772

13,253

'Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.

10.

E m p lo y m e n t b y S ta te

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
State

December 1981

November 1982 December 1982p

State

December 1981

November 1982 December 1982p

Alabama................................................
Alaska ..................................................
Arizona ..................................................
Arkansas ................................................
California................................................

1,352.8
176.0
1,060.4
735.0
10,167.6

1,319.1
189.4
1,040.8
725.6
9,944.8

1,316.6
187.5
1,043.4
725.6
9,969.5

Montana..................................................
Nebraska ................................................
Nevada ....................................................
New Hampshire ......................................
New Jersey ............................................

292.5
629.1
417.3
397.1
3,095.8

280.6
610.2
413.3
390.1
3,063.3

279.2
605.0
410.4
390.1
3,059.8

Colorado................................................
Connecticut............................................
Delaware ..............................................
District of Columbia ................................
Florida ..................................................

1,298.3
1,447.1
260.1
606.8
3,823.9

1,283.7
1,419.0
255.4
605.6
3,818.5

1,287.4
1,424.1
258.6
606.7
3,863.9

New Mexico ............................................
New Y o rk................................................
North Carolina..........................................
North Dakota ..........................................
Ohio........................................................

479.0
7,355.7
2,391.6
253.7
4,301.4

475.4
7,286.1
2,349.8
254.1
4,186.0

476.3
7,284.8
2,352.6
252.7
4,175.9

Georgia..................................................
Hawaii....................................................
idaho ....................................................
Illinois ....................................................
Indiana ..................................................

2,185.4
406.6
321.7
4,754.2
2,081.5

2,158.5
400.9
314.3
4,564.5
1,993.7

2,164.6
401.6
312.2
4,544.6
1,989.3

Oklahoma................................................
Oregon....................................................
Pennsylvania............................................
Rhode Island............................................
South Carolina ........................................

1,221.9
995.2
4,703.8
402.2
1,195.1

1,191.6
964.3
4,472.7
394.3
1,178.4

1,193.1
956.5
4,436.7
391.7
1,179.4

Iowa ......................................................
Kansas ..................................................
Kentucky................................................
Louisiana................................................
Maine ....................................................

1,085.1
953.8
1,193.5
1,651.4
412.3

1,044.7
918.4
1,146.4
1,614.2
409.4

1,037.8
916.9
1,150.1
1,611.6
406.3

South Dakota ..........................................
Tennessee ..............................................
Texas ......................................................
Utah........................................................
Vermont..................................................

235.8
1,734.8
6,299.0
568.5
203.6

230.6
1,693.3
6,198.3
564.1
201.9

227.8
1,688.4
6,202.1
563.1
202.3

Maryland................................................
Massachusetts........................................
Michigan ................................................
Minnesota ..............................................
Mississippi..............................................
Missouri ................................................

1,706.6
2,674.4
3,322.0
1,763.6
821.9
1,967.5

1,688.4
2,626.5
3,208.1
1,699.2
794.6
1,956.1

1,687.7
(’ )
3,202.3
1,691.5
794.9
1,944.8

Virginia....................................................
Washington..............................................
West Virginia............................................
Wisconsin................................................
Wyoming ................................................

2,176.2
1,576.6
628.9
1,912.8
224.6

2,173.2
1,560.2
596.1
1,867.0
215.5

2,172.6
1,557.1
592.5
1,848.3
212.2

Virgin Islands............................................

36.6

35.0

35.5

p= preliminary.

62


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

'Data not available.

11.

Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
Annual average

1982

1983

Industry division and group
1980

1981

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

TOTAL ..........................................................

90,406

91,105

90,460

90,459

90,304

90,083

90,166

89,839

89,535

c 89,313

c 89,264

PRIVATE SECTOR ..............................

74,166

75,081

74,596

74,609

74,445

74,231

74,313

74,007

73,900

73,640

73,504

25,658

25,481

24,684

24,631

24,450

24,289

24,255

23,994

23,840

23,657

1,027

1,132

1,201

1,203

1,197

1,182

1,152

1,124

1,100

1,086

GOODS-PRODUCING
Mining ................................................................

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

088,877

88,750

88,535

88,874

73,118

72,996

72,779

73,206

23,530

23,239

23,081

22,975

23,113

1,075

1,058

1,046

1,034

1,028

Construction ......................................................

4,346

4,176

3,966

3,974

3,934

3,938

3,988

3,940

3,927

3,899

3,883

3,856

3,854

3,812

3,927

Manufacturing ....................................................
Production workers..................................

20,285
14,214

20,173
14,021

19,517
13,431

19,454
13,290

19,319
13,179

19,169
13,042

19,115
13,008

18,930
12,852

18,813
12,760

18,672
12,647

18,572
12,566

18,325
12,335

18,181
12,203

18,129
12,173

18,158
12,205

Durable goods ................................................
Production workers..................................

12,187
8,442

12,117
8,301

11,622
7,793

11,575
7,759

11,490
7,685

11,375
7,576

11,332
7,553

11,203
7,443

11,133
7,388

10,993
7,272

10,900
7,191

10,666
6,979

10,550
6,874

10,523
6,857

10,540
6,883

Lumber and wood products ............................
Furniture and fixtures......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................
Primary metal industries..................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................

690.5
465.8
662.1
1,142.2
1,613.1

668.7
467.3
638.2
1,121.1
1,592.4

607
452
596
1,038
1,515

611
449
596
1,024
1,505

607
446
590
1,007
1,496

615
443
584
976
1,481

617
443
586
945
1,472

615
442
580
926
1,452

614
439
579
906
1,446

614
443
574
889
1,427

616
439
571
865
1,414

614
434
565
831
1,381

616
435
556
813
1,365

621
435
552
806
1,359

629
435
551
810
1,364

Machinery, except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment................................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................

2,494.0
2,090.6
1,899.7
711.3
418.0

2,507.0
2,092.2
1,892.6
726.8
410.7

2,459
2,055
1,777
720
403

2,446
2,048
1,778
718
400

2,419
2,038
1,774
716
397

2,389
2,034
1,748
713
392

2,377
2,034
1,755
713
390

2,322
2,026
1,745
708
387

2,274
2,018
1,759
708
390

2,230
2,011
1,719
702
384

2,208
1,995
1,709
701
382

2,142
1,969
1,658
694
378

2,108
1,963
1,631
689
374

2,087
1,949
1,660
683
371

2,068
1,955
1,669
683
376

Nondurable goods ..........................................
Production workers..................................

8,098
5,772

8,056
5,721

7,895
5,548

7,879
5,531

7,829
5,494

7,794
5,466

7,783
5,455

7,727
5,409

7,680
5,372

7,679
5,375

7,672
5,375

7,659
5,356

7,631
5,329

7,606
5,316

7,618
5,322

Food and kindred products..............................
Tobacco manufactures ..................................
Textile mill products........................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................
Paper and allied products ..............................

1,708.0
68.9
847.7
1,263.5
692.8

1,674.3
69.8
822.5
1,244.0
687.8

1,657
69
780
1,201
674

1,663
68
777
1,201
670

1,658
68
760
1,186
668

1,643
67
773
1,165
664

1,652
67
759
1,165
661

1,637
67
741
1,161
658

1,643
65
741
1,126
657

1,628
65
737
1,145
653

1,629
63
735
1,143
657

1,644
63
735
1,141
650

1,644
61
726
1,134
652

1,631
65
725
1,129
650

1,634
66
719
1,134
648

Printing and publishing....................................
Chemicals and allied products ........................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . . .
Leather and leather products ..........................

1,252.1
1,107.4
197.9
726.8
232.9

1,265.8
1,107.3
215.6
736.1
233.0

1,275
1,095
210
712
222

1,276
1,093
208
708
215

1,278
1,088
207
703
213

1,274
1,082
206
706
214

1,274
1,079
207
708
211

1,269
1,073
205
704
212

1,267
1,068
205
700
208

1,269
1,070
205
699
208

1,269
1,066
209
694
207

1,268
1,061
208
684
205

1,266
1,059
206
678
205

1,266
1,055
206
678
201

1,270
1,055
208
681
203

SERVICE-PRODUCING........................................

64,748

65,625

65,776

65,828

65,854

65,794

65,911

65,845

65,695

c 65,656

c 65,734

c 65,638

65,669

65,560

65,761

Transportation and public utilities ......................

5,146

5,157

5,125

5,115

5,100

5,094

5,101

5,078

5,044

5,025

5,031

5,007

4,992

4,984

4,973

Wholesale and retail trade..................................

20,310

20,551

20,630

20,670

20,655

20,584

20,652

20,595

20,615

20,550

20,492

20,441

20,425

20,306

20,549

Wholesale trade ................................................

5,275

5,359

5,346

5,343

5,336

5,323

5,331

5,307

5,299

5,278

5,272

5,254

5,228

5,204

5,208

Retail trade ........................................................

15,035

15,192

15,284

15,327

15,319

15,261

15,321

15,288

15,316

15,272

15,220

15,187

15,197

15,102

15,341

Finance, insurance, and real estate....................

5,160

5,301

5,326

5,326

5,336

5,335

5,342

5,352

5,359

5,360

5,367

5,357

5,363

5,373

5,401

Services..............................................................

17,890

18,592

18,831

18,867

18,904

18,929

18,963

18,988

19,042

19,048

19,084

19,074

19,135

19,141

19,170

Government........................................................
Federal..........................................................
State and local ..............................................

16,241
2,866
13,375

16,024
2,772
13,253

15,864
2,741
13,123

15,850
2,737
13,113

15,859
2,736
13,123

15,852
2,730
13,122

15,853
2,728
13,125

15,832
2,739
13,093

15,635
2,737
12,898

c 15,673
c 2,740
12,933

c 15,760
c 2,731
13,029

c 15,759
c 2,740
13,019

15,754
2,745
13,009

15,756
2,761
12,995

15,668
2,751
12,917

p=preliminary.


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

c=corrected.

63

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
12 .

Hours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-81

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]

Year

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Manufacturing

Construction

Mining

Private sector

Average
weekly
hours

1950 ..................
1955 ..................
I960' ................
1964 ..................
1965 ..................

$53.13
67.72
80.67
91.33
95.45

39.8
39.6
38.6
38.7
38.8

$1.335
1.71
2.09
2.36
2.46

$67.16
89.54
105.04
117.74
123.52

37.9
40.7
40.4
41.9
42.3

$1.772
2.20
2.60
2.81
2.92

$69.68
90.90
112.67
132.06
138.38

37.4
37.1
36.7
37.2
37.4

$1.863
2.45
3.07
3.55
3.70

$58.32
75.30
89.72
102.97
107.53

40.5
40.7
39.7
40.7
41.2

$1.440
1.85
2.26
2.53
2.61

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83

38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1

2.56
2.68
2.85
3.04
3.23

130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40

42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7

3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85

146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45

37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3

3.89
4.11
4.41
4.79
5.24

112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33

41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8

2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53

36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1

3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53

172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31

42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9

4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95

211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08

37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4

5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31

142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79

39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5

3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
235.10

36.1
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.3

4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
6.66

273.90
301.20
332.88
365.07
397.06

42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
43.3

6.46
6.94
7.67
8.49
9.17

283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
367.78

36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
37.0

7.71
8.10
8.66
9.27
9.94

209.32
228.90
249.27
269.34
288.62

40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
39.7

5.22
5.68
6.17
6.70
7.27

1981 ..................

255.20

35.2

7.25

439.19

43.7

10.05

398.52

36.9

10.80

318.00

39.8

7.99

Transportation and public
utilities

Finance, insurance, and
real estate

Wholesale and retail trade

Services

$2.89
3.03

$44.55
55 16
66.01
74.66
76.91

40.5
39 4
38.6
37.9
37.7

$1.100
1.40
1.71
1.97
2.04

$50.52
63.92
75.14
85.79
88.91

37.7
37.6
37.2
37.3
37.2

$1.340
1.70
2.02
2.30
2.39

$70.03
73.60

36.1
35.9

$1.94
2.05

41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5

3.11
3.23
3.42
3.63
3.85

79.39
82.35
87.00
91.39
96.02

37.1
36.6
36.1
35.7
35.3

2.14
2.25
2.41
2.56
2.72

92.13
95.72
101.75
108.70
112.67

37.3
37.1
37.0
37.1
36.7

2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.07

77.04
80.38
83.97
90.57
96.66

35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34.4

2.17
2.29
2.42
2.61
2.81

168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44

40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7

4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5.88

101.09
106.45
111.76
119.02
126.45

35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
33.9

2.88
3.05
3.23
3.48
3.73

117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19

36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5

3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06

103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67

33.9
33.9
33.8
33.6
33.5

3.04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02

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

256.71
278.90
302.80
325.58
351.25

39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
39.6

6.45
6.99
7.57
8.16
8.87

133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
176.46

33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
32.2

3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
5.48

155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
209.60

36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
36.2

4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
5.79

143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
190.71

33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
32.6

4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
5.85

1981 ..................

382.18

39.4

9.70

190.95

32.2

5.93

229.05

36.3

6.31

208.97

32.6

6.41

1950 . .
1955
I960’
1964 ..................
1965 ..................

$118.78
125.14

41.1
41.3

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

128.13
130.82
138.85
147.74
155.93

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

1Data Include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.

64


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

13.

Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Gross averages, production'or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average

1982

1983

Industry division and group
1980
PRIVATE SECTOR

1981

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

SepL

Oct

Nov.

Dec.»

Jan.p

35.3

35.2

34.4

35.0

34.9

34.9

35.0

34.9

34.9

34.8

34.8

34.7

34.7

34.8

35.2

MANUFACTURING ............................................
Overtime hours......................................

39.7
2.8

39.8
2.8

376
2.3

39.4
2.4

39.0
2.3

39.0
2.4

39.1
2.3

39.2
2.4

39.2
2.4

39.0
2.4

38.8
2.3

38.8
2.3

38.9
2.3

38.9
2.3

39.7
2.3

Durable goods................................................
Overtime hours......................................

40.1
2.8

40.2
2.8

38.2
2.2

39.8
2.2

39.5
2.2

39.5
2.2

39.6
2.2

39.7
2.3

39.7
2.2

39.4
2.2

38.9
2.1

39.0
2.0

39.2
2.1

39.2
2.1

40.1
2.1

Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products........................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................

38.5
38.1
40.8
40.1
40.4

38.7
38.4
40.6
40.5
40.3

35.0
33.6
38.6
38.3
38.1

37.9
37.7
40.1
39.4
39.7

37.6
37.3
40.0
38.8
39.5

37.6
37.4
40.0
38.5
39.4

38.5
37.5
40.2
38.5
39.5

38.7
37.8
40.4
38.9
39.4

38.6
37.6
40.6
38.9
39.5

38.2
37.9
40.3
38.8
39.2

38.5
37.4
40.2
37.8
38.8

38.0
37.5
40.2
38.0
38.9

38.5
37.6
40.2
38.2
39.0

38.5
37.6
40.0
38.8
39.2

40.6
39.0
41.5
39.0
39.6

Machinery, except electrical ..........................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................

41.0
39.8
40.6
40.5
38.7

40.9
39.9
40.9
40.4
38.8

39.3
38.3
39.0
390
37.3

40.7
39.8
40.5
39.9
38.6

40.2
39.4
40.4
39.9
38.6

40.1
39.3
41.1
39.9
38.5

39.8
39.4
41.1
40.2
38.7

39.6
39.5
41.6
40.2
38.6

39.8
39.8
41.0
40.1
38.7

39.5
39.3
40.5
40.1
38.6

39.0
38.8
39.8
39.8
38.3

39.2
39.0
40.1
39.4
38.6

39.2
39.2
40.8
39.2
38.6

39.3
39.3
39.9
39.6
38.5

39.7
39.9
41.3
40.4
39.1

Nondurable goods ........................................
Overtime hours......................................

39.0
2.8

39.1
2.8

36.8
2.5

38.9
2.6

38.5
2.5

38.4
2.6

38.5
2.5

38.6
2.5

38.6
2.6

38.5
2.6

38.6
2.6

38.5
2.6

38.5
2.5

38.5
2.5

39.2
2.5

Food and kindred products............................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................

39.7
40.1
35.4
42.2

39.7
39.6
35.7
42.5

39.1
32.3
31.4
41.3

40.2
38.3
35.5
42.3

39.5
37.6
35.0
41.8

39.4
37.7
34.7
42.1

39.4
37.9
34.8
41.8

39.5
37.8
35.1
42.0

39.5
37.7
35.2
41.9

39.1
38.2
35.0
41.7

39.4
38.1
35.2
41.5

39.7
38.2
35.0
41.7

39.4
38.6
35.1
41.6

39.2
38.4
35.0
41.5

39.2
40.3
36.6
41.7

Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ..
Leather and leather products ........................

37.1
41.5
41.8
40.0
36.7

37.3
41.6
43.2
40.3
36.8

36.9
41.0
44.3
37.9
34.1

37.4
41.2
43.5
40.0
35.6

37.1
40.7
43.5
39.6
35.8

37.1
40.7
44.0
39.8
35.6

36.8
41.0
44.1
39.9
35.6

37.1
41.0
44.1
40.1
35.7

37.0
40.9
43.3
40.2
36.1

36.8
40.9
43.9
39.7
36.0

37.0
41.2
44.0
39.6
35.7

36.9
40.8
43.3
39.0
35.2

37.1
40.6
43.9
39.3
35.9

37.1
41.0
44.5
39.7
35.5

37.5
41.2
45.3
40.3
36.2

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ....................

32.2

32.2

31.7

32.0

31.9

31.8

32.0

31.9

31.9

31.9

32.1

31.9

31.8

32.1

32.2

WHOLESALE TRADE

38.5

38.6

38.1

38.5

38.4

38.3

38.5

38.6

38.5

38.5

38.4

38.3

38.4

38.4

38.6

RETAIL TRADE ..................................................

30.2

30.1

29.7

29.9

29.8

29.8

30.0

29.8

29.9

29.9

30.1

29.9

29.8

30.2

30.3

SERVICES..........................................................

32.6

32.6

32.5

32.6

32.6

32.7

32.7

32.7

32.6

32.6

32.8

32.6

32.6

32.6

32.8

p=preliminary.


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

65

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
14.

Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average

1982

1983

Industry division and group
1980

1981

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

PRIVATE SECTOR ......................................
Seasonally adjusted ..............................

$6.66
( 1)

$7.25
( ')

$7.55
7.52

$7.54
7.53

$7.55
7.54

$7.58
7.59

$7.63
7.65

$7.64
7.67

$7.67
7.71

$7.70
7.74

$7.76
7.72

$7.79
7.77

$7.81
7.79

$7.82
7.83

$7.89
7.86

MINING..............................................................

9.17

10.05

10.65

10.62

10.62

10.65

10.66

10.82

10.91

10.93

11.04

11.02

11.06

11.05

11.10

CONSTRUCTION................................................

9.94

10.80

11.59

11.32

11.33

11.32

11.46

11.41

11.53

11.60

11.68

11.82

11.66

11.90

11.88

MANUFACTURING ............................................

7.27

7.99

8.42

8.34

8.37

8.42

8.45

8.50

8.55

8.51

8.59

8.56

8.61

8.69

8.70

Durable goods............................................
Lumber and wood products ....................
Furniture and fixtures..............................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..............
Primary metal industries..........................
Fabricated metal products ......................

7.75
6.55
5.49
7.50
9.77
7.45

8.53
7.00
5.91
8.27
10.81
8.20

8.92
7.38
6.28
8.70
11.23
8.55

8.89
7.27
6.19
8.62
11.20
8.57

8.91
7.28
6.21
8.65
11.15
8.64

8.94
7.24
6.21
8.72
11.24
8.69

9.01
7.41
6.23
8.80
11.23
8.79

9.06
7.59
6.30
8.86
11.31
8.83

9.11
7.64
6.34
8.93
11.37
8.85

9.09
7.61
6.39
8.93
11.49
8.85

9.16
7.70
6.41
9.03
11.54
8.90

9.13
7.61
6.41
9.04
11.42
8.85

9.17
7.63
6.44
9.04
11.49
8.90

9.24
7.60
6.47
9.08
11.54
8.96

9.24
7.67
6.50
9.07
11.51
8.97

Machinery, except electrical....................
Electric and electronic equipment............
Transportation equipment........................
Instruments and related products ............
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..................

8.00
6.94
9.35
6.80
5.46

8.81
7.62
10.39
7.43
5.96

9.19
7.98
10.79
7.93
6.27

9.20
7.96
10.82
7.94
6.29

9.18
8.01
10.89
8.00
6.32

9.24
8.03
10.89
8.07
6.35

9.26
8.05
11.08
8.16
6.38

9.27
8.09
11.21
8.23
6.41

9.30
8.18
11.25
8.31
6.40

9.33
8.24
11.18
8.40
6.39

9.40
8.31
11.24
8.44
6.49

9.34
8.34
11.30
8.48
6.50

9.36
8.38
11.35
8.57
6.56

9.41
8.47
11.46
8.66
6.65

9.41
8.47
11.41
8.71
6.65

Nondurable goods......................................
Food and kindred products......................
Tobacco manufactures............................
Textile mill products................................
Apparel and other textile products ..........
Paper and allied products........................

6.55
6.85
7.74
5.07
4.56
7.84

7.18
7.43
8.88
5.52
4.96
8.60

7.67
7.82
9.21
5.76
5.18
9.06

7.54
7.74
9.56
5.76
5.13
8.99

7.57
7.79
9.72
5.76
5.15
9.03

7.65
7.90
10.05
5.79
5.18
9.11

7.66
7.92
9.93
5.79
5.16
9.14

7.70
7.90
10.35
5.79
5.18
9.28

7.77
7.88
10.42
5.81
5.17
9.41

7.74
7.85
9.53
5.82
5.18
9.45

7.84
7.91
9.57
5.86
5.20
9.63

7.81
7.88
9.50
5.87
5.19
9.54

7.88
8.00
10.16
5.92
5.22
9.60

7.96
8.05
9.78
6.02
5.26
9.65

7.99
8.04
9.85
6.06
5.32
9.62

7.53
8.30
10.10
6.52
4.58

8.18
9.12
11.38
7.16
4.99

8.58
9.68
11.91
7.51
5.19

8.56
9.68
12.29
7.49
5.22

8.59
9.71
12.32
7.45
5.24

8.59
9.81
12.50
7.52
5.32

8.61
9.83
12.52
7.56
5.32

8.66
9.95
12.53
7.64
5.36

8.74
10.02
12.42
7.65
5.30

8.79
10.03
12.42
7.64
5.33

8.90
10.20
12.62
7.76
5.41

8.87
10.24
12.57
7.72
5.39

8.91
10.28
12.69
7.79
5.41

8.98
10.34
12.74
7.89
5.46

9.00
10.35
13.25
7.93
5.46

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES . . .

8.87

9.70

10.10

10.13

10.07

10.14

10.17

10.20

10.29

10.43

10.46

,10.48

10.59

10.62

10.69

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ....................

5.48

5.93

6.17

6.1g

6.16

6.18

6.20

6.20

6.21

6.22

6.26

6.30

6.32

6.28

6.42

WHOLESALE TRADE..........................................

6.96

7.57

7.94

7.94

7.93

7.97

8.03

8.01

8.07

8.11

8.14

8.17

8.18

8.24

8.32

Printing and publishing ............................
Chemicals and allied products ................
Petroleum and coal products ..................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ..................

RETAIL TRADE..................................................

4.88

5.25

5.43

5.42

5.43

5.44

5.47

5.47

5.48

5.48

5.52

5.54

5.58

5.55

5.67

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE . . . .

5.79

6.31

6.56

6.62

6.59

6.64

6.77

6.71

6.78

6.87

6.90

6.97

7.01

7.04

7.21

SERVICES..........................................................

5.85

6.41

6.79

6.79

6.77

6.81

6.85

6.84

6.87

6.90

6.99

7.05

7.08

7.12

7.19

1 Not available.

15.

p= preliminary.

Hourly Earnings Index, for production workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry

[1977=100]
Not seasonally adjusted

Industry

PRIVATE SECTOR (in current dollars)
Mining..................................................
Construction ........................................
Manufacturing ......................................
Transportation and public utilities............
Wholesale and retail trade ....................
Finance, insurance, and real estate........
Services ..............................................
PRIVATE SECTOR (in constant dollars)

Percent
change
from:
Jan. 1982
to
Jan. 1983

Jan.
1982

Sept
1982

Oct
1982

Nov.
1982

Dec.
1982 p

Jan.
1983»

153.3

5.4

144.9

150.1

150.8

151.2

152.1

152.7

0.4

163.4
143.7
156.9
155.1
149.6
157.2
153.5

4.6
2.9
5.1
6.4
4.6
9.3
6.2

( 1)
139.9
148.9
145.5
142.1
143.1
143.4

( 1)
140.4
154.7
149.9
146.8
151.3
149.7

(’ )
142.3
154.6
151.1
147.6
152.9
150.8

( 1)
141.0
155.3
152.3
148.1
152.7
150.9

( 1)
143.9
155.7
153.2
148.5
154.2
152.3

( 1)
143.9
156.4
154.8
148.7
156.5
152.3

<1)
.1
.5
1.0
.1
1.5
.0

(2)

92.9

93.2

93.2

93.4

94.1

( 2)

(2)

Jan.
1982

Nov.
1982

145.5

151.4

152.1

156.2
139.7
149.3
145.8
143.0
143.7
144.5

163.3
141.7
155.4
153.6
147.6
152.7
151.1

163.2
144.0
156.3
154.0
147.6
153.6
152.0

93.6

93.7

94.5

( 2)

Dec.
1982 p

Jan.
1983 p

'This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to
the trend-cycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with
sufficient precision.

66

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

Seasonally adjusted

2 Not available,
p = preliminary,

Percent
change
from:
Dec. 1982
to
Jan. 1983

16.

Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average

1982

1983

Industry division and group
1980

1981

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct

Nov.

Dec.»

Jan.p

PRIVATE SECTOR
Current dollars..........................................
Seasonally adjusted................................
Constant (1977) dollars..............................

$235.10
<1)
172.74

$255.20
( 1)
170.13

$255.95
258.69
164.70

$262.39
263.55
168.31

$261.99
263.15
168.37

$262.27
264.89
167.80

$265.52
267.75
168.16

$267.40
267.68
167.33

$269.98
269.08
167.90

$271.04
269.35
168.24

$270.05
268.66
167.42

$270.31
269.62
167.06

$271.01
270.31
167.81

$273.70
272.48
170.11

$273.78
276.67
(’ )

MINING ........................................................

397.06

439.19

456.89

463.03

465.16

454.76

454.12

463.10

463.68

463.43

462.58

461.74

460.10

464.10

$469.53

CONSTRUCTION ..........................................

367.78

398.52

385.95

406.39

419.21

415.44

429.75

427.88

438.14

436.16

430.99

438.52

420.93

437.92

437.18

MANUFACTURING
Current dollars..........................................
Constant (1977) dollars..............................

288.62
212.06

318.00
212.00

312.38
201.02

326.93
209.70

327.27
210.33

325.85
208.48

329.55
208.71

334.05
209.04

332.60
206.84

331.89
206.40

334.15
207.16

333.84
206.33

338.37
209.52

344.99
214.41

340.17

Durable goods..............................................
Lumber and wood products........................
Furniture and fixtures ................................
Stone, clay, and glass products..................
Primary metal industries ............................
Fabricated metal products..........................

310.78
252.18
209.17
306.00
391.78
300.98

342.91
270.90
226.94
335.76
437.81
330.46

336.28
248.71
204.10
325.38
431.23
323.19

352.93
272.63
231.51
337.90
443.52
337.66

352.84
273.73
233.50
344.27
434.85
342.14

350.45
270.05
230.39
347.93
434.99
338.91

355.90
285.29
231.76
355.52
430.11
346.33

360.59
297.53
238.77
361.49
439.96
349.67

357.11
294.90
233.31
362.56
437.75
344.27

356.33
295.27
243.46
362.56
440.07
346.04

357.24
298.76
241.66
365.72
438.52
346.21

357.90
292.22
244.22
367.02
431.68
346.04

363.13
293.76
245.36
367.02
440.07
350.66

370.52
295.64
249.74
366.83
451.21
360.19

$365.90
299.13
245.05
364.61
450.04
352.52

Machinery except electrical........................
Electric and electronic equipment................
Transportation equipment ..........................
Instruments and related products................
Miscellaneous manufacturing......................

328.00
276.21
379.61
275.40
211.30

360.33
304.04
424.95
300.17
231.25

360.25
304.04
414.34
306.10
229.48

374.44
316.81
437.13
317.60
241.54

370.87
316.40
439.96
320.80
244.58

367.75
313.17
441.05
318.77
242.57

367.62
315.56
455.39
327.22
245.63

367.09
319.56
466.34
330.85
247.43

363.63
319.84
456.75
328.25
244.48

364.80
322.18
447.20
335.16
246.65

367.54
322.43
443.98
335.91
250.51

365.19
326.09
457.65
334.96
253.50

370.66
331.85
467.62
341.09
256.50

380.16
340.49
475.59
349.86
260.02

372.64
336.26
464.39
348.40
255.36

Nondurable goods........................................
Food and kindred products ........................
Tobacco manufactures ..............................
Textile mill products ..................................
Apparel and other textile products..............
Paper and allied products ..........................

255.45
271.95
294.89
203.31
161.42
330.85

280.74
294.97
344.54
218.59
177.07
365.50

277.65
302.63
332.48
179.71
155.40
374.18

291.04
307.28
366.15
219.46
180.58
377.58

289.93
303.81
362.56
217.15
180.77
376.55

291.47
306.52
367.83
215.39
178.19
380.80

294.14
312.05
369.40
219.44
180.08
379.31

297.99
312.05
397.44
220.60
183.89
389.76

299.15
312.05
383.46
216.13
183.02
391.46

299.54
310.86
363.09
222.91
183.37
393.12

304.19
315.61
379.93
223.85
182.52
401.57

302.25
312.84
370.50
227.17
183.21
397.82

306.53
317.60
386.08
231.47
184.79
402.24

311.24
319.59
371.64
235.98
186.20
409.16

307.62
311.95
361.50
235.73
186.20
401.15

Printing and publishing................................
Chemicals and allied products....................
Petroleum and coal products......................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products....................................
Leather and leather products......................

279.36
344.45
422.18

305.11
379.39
491.62

312.31
394.94
514.51

317.58
397.85
518.64

318.69
395.20
522.37

316.11
399.27
550.00

315.99
401.06
549.63

319.55
406.96
553.83

322.51
407.81
546.48

326.11
408.22
546.48

331.08
420.24
572.95

328.19
417.79
555.59

332.34
421.48
564.71

340.34
429.11
565.66

333.00
424.35
585.65

260.80
168.09

288.55
183.63

283.88
172.83

298.85
184.27

295.77
186.54

297.04
187.26

300.13
191.52

306.36
196.71

302.94
191.33

303.31
192.95

307.30
192.06

303.40
190.27

308.48
194.76

318.76
195.47

318.79
192.74

351.25

382.18

388.85

397.10

392.73

393.43

394.60

399.84

403.37

409.90

405.85

406.62

413.01

415.24

411.57

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES

n

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ..................

176.46

190.95

191.89

194.66

194.66

195.91

197.78

199.02

202.45

202.77

200.95

200.97

200.34

203.47

202.87

WHOLESALE TRADE ......................................

267.96

292.20

300.13

303.31

303.72

304.45

308.35

309.19

312.31

313.05

312.58

314.55

314.93

318.89

318.66

RETAIL TRADE................................................

147.38

158.03

157.47

159.35

159.64

161.02

163.01

164.65

168.24

168.24

166.70

165.09

165.73

169.83

167.83

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE . ..

209.60

229.05

237.47

239.64

239.22

240.37

245.75

242.23

245.44

249.38

249.09

252.31

253.76

254.85

263.17

SERVICES........................................................

190.71

208.97

2Ì9.32

220.68

220.03

221.33

222.63

224.35

227.40

227.70

228.57

229.13

230.10

232.11

234.39

' Not available.


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

p = preliminary.

67

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA

N ational unemployment insurance data are compiled
monthly by the Employment and Training Administration of
the U.S. Department of Labor from monthly reports of unem­
ployment insurance activity prepared by State agencies. Rail­
road unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board.

ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about 10
percent of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. Ini­
tial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance
programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv­
ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The
rate of insured unemployment expresses the number of insured unem­
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.

Definitions
Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation
for Ex-Servicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act.

An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be­
ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap­
plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Num­
ber of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all com­
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set­
tlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been
adjusted.

Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs
for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of
at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem­

17.

Unemployment insurance and employment service operations

[All Items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1981
Item

All programs:
Insured unemployment........................
State unemployment insurance program:'
Initial claims2 ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ..............................
Rate of insured unemployment ............
Weeks of unemployment compensated .
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment....................
Total benefits paid ..............................
State unemployment insurance program: '
(Seasonally adjusted data)
Initial claims2 ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ..............................
Rate of insured unemployment ............

1982

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

3,935

4,681

4,723

4,892

4,760

3,272

3,328

2,272

2,418

3,778
4.3
14,592

4,470
5.1
15,962

4,376
5.0
15,631

4,282
4.9
18,144

June

July

4,388

4,327

2,347

1,989

4,067
4.6
16,158

3,729
4.3
13,679

$112.83
$114.83
$116.95
$117.10
$117.61
$118.08
$1,592,546 $1,764,206 $1,781,830 $2,072,642 $1,849,881 $1,573,444

Aug.

Sept.

4,495

4,398

2,399

2,655

3,707
4.3
14,648

r 3,912
4.6
14,655

Oct.

Nov.

Dec."

4,283

4,391

4,635

5,078

2,358

r 2,342

2,443

2,641

3,006

3,831
4.4
15,015

'3,712
4.2
'14,547

3,828
4.4
13,786

4,156
4.7
15,162

4,583
5.2
17,785

$118.64
$117.28
'$118.97
'$120.78
$122.75
$123.36
123.28
$1,692,150 $1,679,378 $1,746,195 '$1,710,573 $1,646,554 $1,818,220 $2,122,161

2,106

2,304

2,354

2,521

2,442

2,379

2,528

2,317

2,814

'2,902

2,688

3,593
4.1

3,604
4.1

3,644
4.2

3,777
4.3

3,939
4.5

3,925
4.5

3,995
4.6

3,959
4.5

4,137
4.7

'4,446
5.1

4,680
5.3

Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3
Initial claims ' ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ..............................
Weeks of unemployment compensated .
Total benefits paid ..............................

11

8

8

10

9

8

10

10

11

11

10

17

23

19
93
$10,155

16
65
$7,098

13
49
$5,304

11
48
$5,141

10
37
$4,013

9
31
$3,395

8
29
$3,314

7
25
$2,821

7
24
$2,793

8
25
$2,900

9
28
$3,378

14
33
$4,007

26
88
10,917

Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Initial claims........................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ..............................
Weeks of unemployment compensated .
Total benefits paid ..............................

17

17

12

13

13

11

14

13

12

13

16

14

15

39
174
$18,891

40
162
$18,040

40
154
$17,517

38
172
$19,677

33
146
$16,806

29
120
$13,526

28
123
$13,922

29
120
$13,445

27
118
$13,140

26
111
$12,303

28
109
$12,119

31
126
$14,023

33
145
$16,099

Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications........................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ..............................
Number of payments ..........................
Average amount of benefit payment . . .
Total benefits paid ..............................

19

22

11

9

5

5

36

68

68

14

20

17

17

54
117
$212.33
$25,292

75
153
$213.39
$30,544

67
140
$214.07
$28,011

65
154
$215.71
$33,853

57
130
$209.48
$26,262

44
95
$200.75
$19,110

44
93
$199.15
$18,574

55
100
$202.54
$17,998

55
100
$202.54
$17,998

61
137
$216.14
$31,123

82
159
$212.35
$31,638

81
162
$216.55
$35,061

83
172
$217.00
$39,500

Employment service:5
New applications and renewals............
Nonfarm placements ..........................

4,081
731

7,439
1,232

11nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
jarcane workers.
2 Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
4 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.

Digitized for
68FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

10,965
1,902

"13,346
"2,629

5 Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly,
Note: Qata for puert0 r |C0 an(j the virgin Islands included. Dashes indicate data not available.
p= preliminary.
r= revised.

PRICE DATA

P rice data are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).

Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser­
vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new CPI for All Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the
new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri­
al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the
unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali­
ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi­
sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000
housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country.
All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi­
tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it meas­
ures only price change, which is just one of several important factors
affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the
level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received
in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities
in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in­
dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations
per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com­
modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial
transactions in primary markets in the United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or
semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure
organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In­
dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit­
ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.


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

Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol­
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari­
ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com­
modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in­
dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura­
bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite
groupings.
Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries measure av­
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in­
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Notes on the data
Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the Review, regional CPI’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri­
ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 19.)
For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
CPI, see Facts About the Revised Consumer Price Index, a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also The
Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years, Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stand­
ards of living, see the family budget data published in the Handbook
of Labor Statistics, 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the CPI Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price
Indexes, both monthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val­
ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963
values of shipments were used as weights.
For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer,
producer, and industry price indexes, see BLS Handbook o f Methods
for Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the meas­
urement of producer price change,” Monthly Labor Review, April
1978, pp. 7-15. For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In­
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor Review, August
1965, pp. 974-82.

69

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
18.

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-82

[1967=100]
Food and
beverages

All items
Year
Index

1967
1968
1969
1970

Percent
change

Index

Percent
change

Apparel and
upkeep

Housing

Index

Percent
change

Index

Transportation

Percent
change

Index

Percent
change

Medical care

Index

Percent
change

Other goods
and services

Entertainment

Index

Percent
change

Index

Percent
change

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

100.0
104.2
109.8
116.3

4.2
5.4
5.9

100.0
103.6
108.8
114.7

3.6
5.0
5.4

100.0
104.0
110.4
118.2

4.0
6.2
7.1

100.0
105.4
111.5
116.1

5.4
5.8
4.1

100.0
103.2
107.2
112.7

3.2
3.9
5.1

100.0
106.1
113.4
120.6

6.1
6.9
6.3

100.0
105.7
111.0
116.7

5.7
5.0
5.1

100.0
105.2
110.4
116.8

5.2
4.9
5.8

1971 ..................
1972 ..................
1973 ..................
1S74..................
1975 ..................

121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2

4.3
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1

118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1

3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4

123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5

4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6

119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3

3.2
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5

118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6

5.2
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4

128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6

6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3
12.0

122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2

5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
8.9

122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9

4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4

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

170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
247.0

5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
13.5

177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
248.7

3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
8.7

174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
263.2

6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
15.7

147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
177.4

3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
6.6

165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
250.5

9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
17.7

184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
267.2

9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
11.3

159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
203.7

5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
8.5

162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
213.6

5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
8.8

1981 ..................
1982 ..................

272.3
288.6

10.2
6.0

267.8
278.5

7.7
4.0

293.2
314.7

11.4
7.3

186.6
190.9

5.2
2.3

281.3
293.1

12.3
4.2

295.1
326.9

10.4
10.8

219.0
232.4

7.5
6.1

233.3
257.0

9.2
10.2

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

19. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary

1981

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

1982

Dec.

July

Aug.

Sept.

All Items......................................................................................

281.5

292.2

292.8

Food and beverages ....................................................................
Housing........................................................................................
Apparei and upkeep......................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................
Medical care ................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................
Other goods and services..............................................................

270.5
305.2
190.5
289.8
310.2
227.3
246.7

280.8
319.2
189.7
296.1
330.0
236.6
257.2

279.9
320.1
191.8
296.2
333.3
237.4
258.3

Commodities................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ....................................
Nondurables less food and beverages..................................
Durables............................................................................

258.4
248.7
266.7
233.7

266.5
255.7
268.2
244.7

Services ......................................................................................
Rent, residential..................................................................
Household services less rent ..............................................
Transportation services........................................................
Medical care services..........................................................
Other services....................................................................

321.8
216.5
390.4
284.2
335.7
249.5

All items less food ........................................................................
All items less mortgage interest costs ............................................
Commodities less food ..................................................................
Nondurables less food ..................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel................................................
Nondurables ................................................................................
Services less rent ........................................................................
Services less medical ca re ............................................................
Domestically produced farm foods ................................................
Selected beef cuts........................................................................
Energy ........................................................................................
All items less energy ....................................................................
All items less food and energy ............................................
Commodities less food and energy....................................
Energy commodities ........................................................
Services less energy........................................................
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ....................

1981
Oct

Nov.

293.3

294.1

293.6

280.1
319.7
194.9
295.3
336.0
238.3
266.6

279.6
320.7
195.5
295.5
338.7
240.3
271.2

279.1
319.0
c 195.4
295.8
342.2
239.9
273.8

266.4
255.9
268.8
244.6

266.6
256.1
269.9
244.1

267.5
257.6
271.0
246.0

267.8
258.2
271.4
246.6

337.0
224.8
409.4
297.2
357.3
258.0

338.9
226.0
411.7
297.8
361.0
259.7

339.7
226.9
410.4
298.7
364.0
266.3

340.3
228.9
409.2
300.5
366.9
268.4

280.8
264.9
246.5
261.1
300.7
269.8
342.0
318.1
259.1
270.7
414.6
271.1
267.9
224.2
448.0
318.9

291.5
275.1
253.5
263.0
304.3
275.7
358.5
332.5
270.7
287.4
424.5
282.0
278.7
233.1
438.2
331.8

292.5
275.6
253.8
263.6
304.2
275.5
360.5
334.1
268.4
280.8
424.5
282.7
279.8
233.6
436.6
333.6

292.9
276.7
253.9
264.6
304.2
276.2
361.3
334.8
268.0
279.3
424.2
283.1
280.4
234.1
433.3
334.2

$0,355

$0,342

$0,342

$0,341

1982

Dec.

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct.

292.4

281.1

291.8

292.4

292.8

279.1
316.3
193.6
294.8
344.3
240.1
276.6

270.8
304.7
189.4
291.5
309.1
224.4
243.5

281.2
319.3
188.7
297.9
328.1
233.5
254.5

280.2
320.5
190.7
298.0
331.3
233.9
255.7

280.4
320.0
194.1
296.9
333.9
234.8
262.8

267.7
258.0
270.0
247.3

258.8
249.3
268.9
232.7

266.9
256.3
270.3
243.9

266.8
256.5
270.7
244.0

338.6
230.2
404.1
299.9
371.0
269.2

335.6
230.8
396.8
299.4
373.4
270.0

322.4
216.0
394.8
283.6
334.0
248.0

337.9
224.3
415.3
295.7
354.7
256.6

294.0
278.0
255.4
265.7
305.5
276.5
361.6
335.1
266.6
272.0
425.0
284.0
281.5
236.0
431.9
334.4

293.6
278.2
256.0
266.1
306.2
276.4
359.3
332.9
265.3
271.9
422.6
283.6
281.2
236.6
431.6
333.1

292.1
278.4
255.8
264.7
305.2
275.8
355.5
329.3
264.8
270.0
419.9
282.5
279.9
237.1
425.4
329.6

280.7
265.2
247.2
263.3
302.5
270.9
342.9
318.7
258.2
271.9
417.6
269.9
266.6
223.3
448.7
319.5

$0,340

$0,341

$0,342

$0,356

Dec.

Nov.

Dec.

293.6

293.2

292.0

279.9
321.2
194.6
297.0
336.5
236.5
267.8

279.4
319.6
194.4
297.3
339.8
236.1
270.9

279.6
316.8
192.8
296.3
341.8
236.5
274.0

267.0
256.8
271.8
243.6

267.9
258.3
272.9
245.4

268.2
258.9
273.3
246.2

268.2
258.8
271.9
247.0

340.0
225.5
418.1
296.5
358.3
258.4

340.5
226.4
416.5
296.9
361.1
264.0

341.2
228.4
415.6
298.4
363.9
266.1

339.3
229.7
410.4
297.5
367.7
266.8

336.2
230.3
402.7
296.7
370.1
267.5

291.4
275.3
254.1
265.0
305.8
276.8
359.9
333.6
269.7
288.8
426.5
280.8
277.6
232.4
439.0
332.6

292.4
275.8
254.4
265.4
305.5
276.5
362.2
335.6
267.4
281.9
426.1
281.5
278.7
232.8
437.3
334.7

292.8
276.7
254.7
266.5
305.6
277.2
362.5
335.8
267.0
280.7
425.6
281.9
279.2
233.6
433.8
334.8

293.9
277.9
256.1
267.5
306.9
277.4
362.9
336.3
265.5
273.2
426.0
282.8
280.4
235.4
432.3
335.2

293.5
278.1
256.7
267.9
307.5
277.4
360.4
334.0
264.4
273.2
423.7
282.5
280.2
236.2
431.8
333.7

292.1
278.3
256.6
266.6
306.5
276.8
356.5
330.4
264.0
271.2
420.8
281.5
279.0
236.8
425.6
330.1

$0,343

$0,342

$0,342

$0,341

$0,341

$0,342

Special indexes:

C— corrected.

70


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

19.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967= 100 unless otherwise specified]

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

All Urban Consumers
General summary

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

279.9

280.1

279.6

279.1

287.4

287.6

287.0

286.4

Dec.

July

Aug.

FOOD AND BEVERAGES ....................................................................

270.5

280.8

Food....................................................................................................

277.8

288.5

Food at home........................................................................................
Cereals and bakery products ..........................................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 - 100)..............................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 - 100)....................
Cereal (12/77 - 100)....................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 - 100) ..........................
Bakery products (12/77 - 100)................................................
White bread ......................................................................
Other breads (12/77 - 100)..............................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 - 100) ..................
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 - 100)..........................
Cookies (12/77 - 100)......................................................
Crackers, bread, and cracker products (12/77 - 100) ........
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . . ,
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products
and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 - 100) ..........

1982

1981

1982

1981

278.3
285.5
153.2
139.2
167.2
146.1
150.3
246.8
147.3
150.9
150.5
153.6
143.3
149.6

Dec.

July

279.1

270.8

281.2

286.5

277.9

288.6

Dec.

277.8
286.3
153.4
139.5
168.0
145.3
150.9
248.1
147.6
151.6
151.5
153.7
144.1
150.4

270.8
276.6
152.5
138.4
162.1
152.9
144.3
237.4
145.3
141.9
, 143.7
148.4
135.6
147.8

281.9
283.0
155.8
144.0
168.5
150.0
147.8
241.9
147.0
145.4
147.2
150.9
143.2
151.1

Nov.

Dec.

279.9

279.4

279.6

287.2

286.6

286.7

278.5
283.7
154.9
140.3
169.7
148.7
148.6
242.6
148.4
147.1
148.5
153.2
143.3
151.4

277.4
284.1
154.1
139.5
169.4
147.3
149.1
242.6
149.4
146.9
148.8
154.5
144.6
152.3

277.1
284.9
154.2
139.8
170.1
146.5
149.6
243.9
149.6
147.6
149.7
154.6
145.5
152.9

Sept

Oct.

280.2

280.4

287.5

287.7

Aug.

279.8
283.4
155.5
142.1
168.6
150.5
148.1
242.5
148.2
146.6
147.6
150.6
142.6
151.5

279.7
283.4
155.2
141.8
169.0
149.4
148.2
241.9
149.0
145.6
148.7
152.1
142.3
151.8

271.7
277.7
151.5
137.8
160.2
151.7
145.4
241.5
143.4
145.9
144.9
147.6
134.2
145.4

282.8
284.3
154.8
143.5
166.3
148.9
149.0
246.1
145.1
148.9
148.9
150.0
141.8
148.5

280.8
284.8
154.5
141.6
166.5
149.3
149.4
246.6
146.2
150.5
149.5
149.6
141.3
148.9

280.6
284.6
154.3
141.4
166.9
148.2
149.4
246.1
147.1
149.5
150.3
150.9
140.8
149.2

279.4
285.0
154.0
139.9
167.5
147.6
149.7
246.7
146.5
151.0
150.1
152.2
141.9
148.7

149.3

156.2

156.6

154.7

154.4

155.8

155.2

143.0

149.2

149.5

148.1

147.6

148.6

148.4

261.6
268.8
271.1
270.2
261.7
281.0
243.0
253.5
253.0
162.8
270.1
290.8
242.4
129.6
332.0
272.4
145.6
269.7
268.9
155.3
141.8
134.3
190.4
185.4
124.8
126.0
369.6
138.9
141.9
172.5

253.1
257.7
257.9
270.9
265.8
291.5
245.9
252.2
260.7
159.1
233.8
240.5
211.0
106.3
300.0
247.7
129.2
259.7
260.0
146.3
130.6
143.9
189.5
187.8
126.3
119.8
358.6
140.2
134.4
198.8

268.3
275.8
278.2
287.4
273.9
305.3
254.7
269.4
298.0
171.7
264.9
288.7
247.3
112.4
332.9
258.7
149.5
271.3
273.4
156.6
135.1
147.3
197.8
198.8
127.9
126.9
368.7
139.9
140.8
174.7

265.1
273.3
275.8
280.8
269.0
298.9
247.9
261.1
286.8
168.0
267.6
300.4
246.3
113.8
333.5
261.1
150.0
272.3
274.9
157.6
136.1
145.6
194.4
191.8
126.5
127.4
365.8
138.8
139.7
162.3

267.7
275.1
277.9
279.8
267.0
295.9
249.2
260.6
286.7
167.6
276.3
320.7
250.6
119.1
342.5
263.5
153.0
271.7
274.7
156.6
136.7
143.6
194.2
192.5
125.4
127.4
368.4
138.7
141.3
176.1

265.0
272.1
274.6
272.7
263.7
290.4
240.5
251.0
268.0
163.4
277.0
317.7
250.0
123.4
343.2
271.4
150.5
272.2
274.0
158.5
137.9
140.6
193.2
190.3
124.9
128.0
366.0
138.1
140.2
176.7

263.5
270.6
273.2
272.5
264.2
290.3
244.3
255.1
260.6
162.4
273.4
304.0
247.0
124.2
338.5
275.0
148.6
271.5
273.8
156.4
139.1
138.5
190.0
187.4
123.5
124.6
365.3
138.4
139.6
176.2

261.5
268.6
270.8
270.6
262.7
289.6
246.4
251.3
252.7
161.2
269.5
296.1
240.8
126.4
332.5
276.9
144.9
269.8
268.4
155.1
139.8
137.5
188.4
183.5
123.1
125.3
368.2
138.2
141.5
173.3

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs..........................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Meats ..............................................................................
Beef and veal ................................................................
Ground beef other than canned....................................
Chuck roast................................................................
Round roast................................................................
Round steak ..............................................................
Sirloin steak................................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 - 100) ............................
Pork..............................................................................
Bacon ........................................................................
Chops ........................................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 - 100)........................
Sausage ....................................................................
Canned ham ..............................................................
Other pork (12/77 = 100) ..........................................
Other meats ..................................................................
Frankfurters................................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) ............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 - 100) ................................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 - 100) ........................
Poultry..............................................................................
Fresh whole chicken....................................................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts~(12/77 - 100) ............
Other poultry (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Fish and seafood ..............................................................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 - 100)......................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100) ........
Eggs ......................................................................................

253.7
258.4
258.7
270.5
264.5
282.2
242.6
254.6
260.1
161.0
234.3
237.2
212.4
109.1
299.1
244.3
130.0
260.6
261.0
146.4
132.6
140.7
191.7
190.1
128.1
120.7
359.6
140.7
134.7
198.0

268.5
276.2
278.8
286.7
272.5
296.2
251.8
271.2
295.6
173.3
265.4
283.9
248.9
115.3
331.9
255.3
150.3
272.0
274.2
156.5
137.3
143.9
199.6
201.2
129.4
127.3
370.2
140.5
141.3
173.6

265.4
273.7
276.5
280.5
268.1
289.7
245.0
263.4
285.5
169.7
268.2
295.6
248.0
116.8
332.2
257.6
150.8
272.8
275.6
157.5
138.3
142.3
196.2
193.8
128.2
127.7
367.6
139.4
140.4
161.2

267.8
275.3
278.4
279.1
265.4
286.9
245.4
262.0
285.2
169.3
277.1
315.5
252.5
122.1
341.2
259.7
153.8
272.1
275.3
156.6
138.9
140.5
196.2
194.8
127.1
127.9
369.4
139.3
141.5
175.2

265.1
272.4
274.9
272.2
262.4
281.9
237.9
253.4
266.3
164.9
277.9
312.4
252.3
126.5
342.1
267.2
151.3
272.2
274.8
158.5
140.1
137.0
195.4
192.6
126.8
128.5
367.1
138.6
140.5
175.8

263.6
270.8
273.6
272.0
263.0
281.7
241.4
257.1
259.8
164.1
274.2
298.7
249.0
127.3
337.7
270.5
149.6
271.6
274.4
156.6
141.3
135.4
192.0
189.3
125.3
125.4
366.6
139.0
140.0
175.0

Dairy products..........................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 - 100) ................................
Fresh whole m ilk............................................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 - 100)......................
Processed dairy products (12/77 = 100)............................
Butter............................................................................
Cheese (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 - 100)................
Other dairy products (12/77 - 100)................................

245.5
135.2
221.2
135.3
143.9
248.7
141.0
150.3
139.7

247.5
135.6
221.6
136.2
145.9
251.1
144.2
150.4
141.3

247.5
135.4
221.2
136.0
146.3
252.1
144.8
150.6
140.7

247.0
135.1
220.8
135.6
146.1
252.2
144.9
149.3
141.1

247.1
135.0
220.8
135.3
146.2
252.6
144.7
150.4
141.0

247.4
135.1
220.9
135.4
146.6
252.5
144.5
152.4
140.9

247.8
135.5
221.9
135.2
146.6
252.1
144.6
151.8
141.7

244.9
134.6
220.2
134.9
144.2
251.3
141.3
149.4
140.5

246.8
135.1
220.7
135.7
146.2
253.7
144.5
149.6
142.0

246.8
134.8
220.3
135.5
146.6
254.6
145.1
149.6
141.6

246.3
134.5
219.9
135.0
146.3
254.7
145.2
148.4
141.8

246.4
134.5
220.0
134.7
146.5
255.1
145.0
149.6
141.7

246.7
134.6
220.1
134.9
146.9
255.1
144.8
151.5
141.5

247.1
135.0
221.1
134.7
146.9
254.5
144.9
150.8
142.4

Fruits and vegetables ..............................................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables ................................................
Fresh fruits ....................................................................
Apples........................................................................
Bananas ....................................................................
Oranges ....................................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 - 100)..................................
Fresh vegetables............................................................
Potatoes ....................................................................
Lettuce ......................................................................
Tomatoes ..................................................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 - 100) ........................

276.4
274.9
269.6
261.2
254.9
280.6
141.0
279.8
286.8
343.1
204.6
150.4

299.7
313.8
332.4
331.8
245.4
438.2
161.6
296.4
370.9
254.5
270.2
155.6

291.4
296.9
336.1
314.5
233.7
473.0
163.9
260.2
328.1
246.3
194.3
138.3

284.1
283.5
329.0
285.5
240.7
516.3
152.1
241.0
272.4
236.1
184.9
134.0

280.7
277.4
317.1
250.7
227.8
520.8
148.0
240.2
243.8
259.2
210.5
131.5

276.1
268.3
288.9
239.4
243.7
399.6
143.3
249.1
240.8
259.2
242.9
137.6

277.6
272.3
273.9
243.7
242.6
313.0
144.8
270.8
241.3
334.6
272.8
142.2

272.6
269.4
260.5
261.2
252.8
252.8
136.7
277.6
280.0
342.7
207.8
149.1

295.3
307.1
320.5
333.3
243.6
399.9
156.1
295.0
366.0
253.0
274.9
154.8

286.7
289.7
323.2
316.7
231.3
433.5
158.1
259.6
323.4
247.5
198.2
137.8

278.8
275.2
313.6
286.6
238.5
466.8
146.4
240.6
269.6
237.9
187.9
133.5

275.0
268.4
300.4
251.9
226.7
465.7
142.4
239.7
240.5
260.9
213.7
131.0

271.3
261.0
275.4
239.9
241.9
360.4
137.5
248.1
235.9
259.8
246.6
137.1

273.6
266.6
262.5
243.7
242.0
283.0
138.7
270.4
237.5
336.0
278.4
141.5

Processed fruits and vegetables ........................................
Processed fruits (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100)....................
Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 = 100) ................
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 - 100 )........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 - 100)..............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 - 100)................................

280.6
145.0
142.3
149.5
142.6
136.9
139.1

c 286.8
148.5
143.5
152.2
148.8
139.7
146.7

288.0
148.7
142.8
153.0
148.9
140.7
147.7

287.4
149.0
144.1
152.0
149.8
139.8
148.1

286.8
149.2
144.8
152.5
149.2
139.1
147.7

287.3
149.7
145.6
153.4
149.1
139.0
149.0

286.0
149.5
143.6
154.0
149.6
138.0
147.5

278.4
144.5
141.2
148.3
143.0
135.7
140.2

284.8
148.1
142.6
151.0
149.4
138.6
148.0

285.9
148.2
141.7
151.9
149.6
139.6
149.0

285.3
148.6
143.2
151.0
150.4
138.6
149.5

284.6
148.8
144.0
151.4
149.8
137.9
148.8

285.1
149.4
144.7
152.6
149.7
137.8
150.4

283.8
149.2
142.6
153.1
150.2
136.8
148.9


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

71

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
19.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary

1981

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

1982

1981

1982

Dec.

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Dec.

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

138.9
134.8
325.6
359.3
149.9
153.4
146.1
261.1
255.7
160.1
129.7
412.5
298.1
139.3
3444
332.0
137.0
262.8
133.7
145.9
152.2
148.8
144.6
145.8
142.5

141.0
135.4
332.2
369.5
150.5
164.6
149.8
259.3
258.4
154.9
129.2
422.8
302.9
143.3
364.3
344.9
139.2
268.0
136.9
146.7
152.7
152.7
151.4
149.3
144.6

143.6
135.6
333.3
370.1
150.0
166.7
149.6
258.3
257.9
154.2
128.5
423.8
304.3
144.8
365.5
344.9
137.7
269.9
137.9
149.1
153.1
154.1
151.9
150.2
145.4

141.3
134.8
333.6
371.2
149.7
167.5
151.1
258.4
259.3
151.2
129.4
424.2
305.0
144.6
362.9
343.1
138.8
269.9
137.4
148.9
153.0
155.3
152.2
149.7
145.9

140.8
133.9
334.8
370.6
149.4
167.3
151.0
258.4
258.4
151.2
129.7
427.5
308.9
146.2
362.0
343.6
139.1
270.5
136.8
148.5
153.3
156.5
152.1
151.4
145.8

140.8
133.0
334.3
370.3
149.6
165.2
152.5
258.6
257.5
152.0
129.8
426.2
308.8
144.8
360.0
344.2
138.8
270.2
136.6
149.7
153.1
157.1
151.7
150.2
145.0

140.3
132.0
333.7
369.2
149.5
164.3
151.7
258.6
256.5
151.7
130.3
424.3
307.2
142.4
361.4
346.1
139.0
270.7
136.9
149.0
152.7
157.4
152.6
151.0
146.1

136.5
133.2
326.4
359.3
149.9
154.6
144.2
261.0
254.9
158.5
130.1
414.2
295.7
137.2
340.1
331.6
137.1
264.4
135.7
145.3
154.2
147.7
146.2
145.8
143.9

138.6
134.1
333.1
369.7
150.6
166.1
147.9
259.3
258.0
153.1
129.7
424.4
300.4
141.1
359.3
344.4
139.5
269.8
138.9
146.0
154.8
152.1
153.2
149.5
145.9

141.2
134.2
334.0
370.3
150.1
168.2
147.5
258.2
257.3
152.4
129.0
425.3
301.7
142.6
360.4
344.4
137.8
271.5
140.0
148.5
155.1
153.2
153.6
150.3
146.8

138.8
133.3
334.5
371.3
149.8
169.0
148.9
258.3
258.5
149.5
130.0
425.9
302.8
142.3
357.9
342.5
139.0
271.7
139.5
148.4
155.0
154.4
154.0
149.9
147.3

138.4
132.4
335.7
370.6
149.3
168.8
148.9
258.4
257.8
149.5
130.2
429.2
306.2
144.0
357.2
343.2
139.3
272.2
138.7
147.9
155.4
155.6
153.9
151.6
147.2

138.4
131.6
335.1
370.1
149.5
166.6
150.2
258.5
256.8
150.3
130.3
427.9
306.2
142.4
354.8
343.7
139.1
271.9
138.5
149.2
155.2
156.2
153.4
150.3
146.4

137.8
130.5
334.6
369.1
149.6
165.6
149.4
258.7
255.4
150.2
130.8
426.1
304.8
140.2
356.2
345.6
139.2
272.4
138.9
148.5
154.8
156.4
154.4
151.2
147.3

Food away from home..........................................
Lunch (12/77=100) ........................................
Dinner (12/77=100) ..............................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77=100)........................................

297.7
144.6
144.0
144.7

307.6
149.6
148.1
150.5

308.7
150.3
148.6
150.7

309.8
150.7
149.2
151.5

310.7
151.2
149.5
152.1

311.4
151.6
149.7
152.7

312.6
152.2
150.4
153.0

300.7
146.3
145.6
145.4

310.7
151.2
149.8
151.1

311.8
152.0
150.3
151.3

312.9
152.3
150.9
152.1

313.8
152.8
151.2
152.7

314.6
153.2
151.4
153.3

315.8
153.8
152.1
153.7

Alcoholic beverages ................................................

202.7

209.2

210.1

210.1

210.6

210.9

210.9

204.9

211.3

212.1

212.2

212.8

213.0

213.0

Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77=100)..................................
Beer and a le ....................................................
Whiskey ..........................................
Wine..........................................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77=100)..................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77=100)..............

131.4
204.1
145.0
230.0
117.3
135.8

135.5
211.4
148.9
236.5
119.6
140.8

136.1
211.9
149.6
238.9
120.3
141.2

135.9
211.4
149.8
237.5
120.3
142.5

136.2
212.7
150.0
236.4
120.3
142.7

136.2
212.5
150.7
235.9
120.4
143.6

136.1
212.6
150.2
235.6
120.2
144.2

132.8
203.5
145.9
238.0
117.4
137.3

136.9
210.5
149.8
245.0
119.6
142.1

137.4
210.9
150.4
247.1
120.5
142.4

137.2
210.5
150.5
246.2
120.4
143.9

137.6
211.8
150.7
244.8
120.3
144.0

137.5
211.7
151.2
243.7
120.4
144.8

137.4
211.7
150.7
243.3
120.1
145.3

FOOD AND BEVERAGES-Continued
Food —Continued
Food at home — Continued
Fruits and vegetables— Continued
Cut com and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) ___
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77=100) .
Other foods at hom e....................
Sugar and sweets..................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77=100) ......................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77=100)........................
Other sweets (12/77=100) ..................................
Fats and oils (12/77=100) ................................
Margarine ................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77=100) ............
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77=100) ................
Nonalcoholic beverages ......................
Cola drinks, excluding diet c o la ..................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77=100)..............
Roasted coffee ................................................
Freeze dried and instant coffee..............................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77=100)......................
Other prepared foods ..................................................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77=100)............................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77=100)..............................
Snacks (12/77=100)............................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77=100)..........
Other condiments (12/77=100) ..............................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77=100) ..............
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) . . .

HOUSING................................................

305.2

319.2

320.1

319.7

320.7

319.0

316.3

304.7

319.3

320.5

320.0

321.2

319.6

316.8

Shelter....................................................

328.0

342.8

344.2

342.6

342.8

340.7

335.9

329.3

344.6

346.5

344.7

345.2

343.0

338.0

Rent, residential................................................

216.5

224.8

226.0

226.9

228.9

230.2

230.8

216.0

224.3

225.5

226.4

228.4

229.7

230.3

Other rental costs ..........................................
Lodging while out of town........................................
Tenants’ insurance (12/77=100) ....................................

306.3
319.9
140.7

330.0
356.5
145.6

333.9
362.0
147.5

343.0
363.1
147.3

341.6
358.0
149.3

337.8
351.6
150.1

333.0
343.7
150.3

305.3
318.0
140.6

329.4
354.2
144.8

333.3
359.5
146.6

341.1
360.7
146.3

339.5
355.6
148.3

335.6
349.3
149.1

330.7
341.4
149.3

Homeownershlp......................................
Home purchase............................................
Financing, taxes, and insurance ......................
Property insurance ..................................................
Property taxes ......................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t....................
Mortgage interest rates..........................................
Maintenance and repairs ............................................
Maintenance and repair services ........................
Maintenance and repair commodities ......................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77=100) ..............................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77=100)..............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77=100)................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77=100) ..........

367.8
270.5
506.3
394.1
210.7
666.6
243.9
324.1
355.4
250.3

384.5
287.7
524.3
401.5
219.3
690.4
237.3
334.7
366.9
258.7

385.9
287.9
527.3
402.5
221.8
694.0
238.8
335.9
368.5
258.8

383.0
286.8
519.9
404.8
223.7
681.2
235.3
338.4
372.5
257.7

382.8
289.9
514.3
405.8
224.5
672.0
230.0
339.4
374.1
257.3

379.5
290.4
504.8
406.9
225.5
656.4
224.3
339.0
373.4
257.8

372.9
290.9
486.2
409.4
227.1
626.3
213.5
337.8
371.4
258.5

370.4
268.7
512.9
396.5
212.5
668.1
245.3
321.0
356.5
244.9

388.0
286.8
532.4
403.7
221.1
694.0
239.2
331.5
368.1
252.9

390.1
287.3
536.8
404.6
223.7
699.6
241.2
332.5
369.6
253.0

387.0
286.4
528.9
407.4
225.6
686.3
237.5
334.6
373.4
251.8

387.1
289.7
524.3
408.5
226.4
678.8
232.4
335.4
374.9
251.2

383.7
290.4
514.6
409.7
227.5
663.4
226.6
334.9
374.0
251.6

376.8
290.9
495.7
412.1
228.8
633.5
215.9
333.7
371.7
252.3

147.3
124.3

153.4
125.0

154.2
124.1

153.0
123.6

152.8
122.8

153.1
123.3

153.6
123.7

140.5
121.6

146.5
122.5

147.3
121.7

145.9
121.3

145.7
120.4

145.9
120.8

146.5
121.3

131.5
132.5

137.1
138.3

136.3
138.8

136.1
139.0

135.4
139.4

135.8
139.4

136.4
139.0

131.6
134.7

136.6
140.5

135.6
140.9

135.3
141.2

134.6
141.8

135.3
141.6

136.2
141.2

Fuel and other utilities..............................

331.8

354.7

356.3

359.5

363.4

362.2

364.1

332.7

356.2

357.7

361.0

364.7

363.6

365.5

Fuels ............................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g as..............................................
Fuel o il..............................................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ............................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ......................................
Electricity............................................
Utility (piped) gas ..........................................

420.0
682.5
713.5
169.4
359.9
300.3
438.2

452.0
659.9
688.6
166.0
402.1
330.5
500.2

454.0
659.9
686.8
169.2
404.4
333.7
500.6

458.5
662.8
685.9
176.8
409.2
332.5
517.6

464.5
677.2
699.1
183.7
413.4
327.0
542.0

461.9
691.3
712.8
189.0
407.6
318.4
543.1

464.0
688.5
708.7
190.4
410.6
319.6
549.6

419.6
685.5
716.0
170.8
358.8
299.3
436.4

451.9
662.9
691.1
167.4
401.5
330.8
496.9

453.8
662.7
689.1
170.5
403.7
333.7
497.5

458.4
665.4
688.1
178.0
408.6
332.5
514.5

464.0
679.7
c 701.2
184.8
412.4
326.3
538.8

461.7
693.7
714.7
190.3
406.9
317.3
541.6

463.9
690.8
710.6
191.6
410.0
318.7
547.6

72


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

19.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1982

1981

1982

1981
Dec.

duly

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Dec.

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Other utilities and public services..............................................................
Telephone services ..........................................................................
Local charges (12/77 - 100) ....................................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ....................................................

191.9
156.8
124.4
116.7
107.1
307.4

201.4
163.8
131.9
119.7
110.0
327.7

202.4
164.2
132.5
119.7
110.0
331.9

203.6
165.5
134.3
119.7
110.1
332.4

204.5
166.2
135.2
119.7
110.4
334.1

205.1
206.6
166.6 • 168.2
135.4
137.8
119.7
119.7
111.5
111.1
335.8
335.1

192.2
156.9
124.6
116.8
106.9
309.4

202.1
164.2
132.3
120.1
109.6
330.8

203.1
164.6
132.9
120.1
109.6
334.8

204.3
165.9
134.8
120.1
109.7
335.4

205.3
166.6
135.7
120.2
110.1
337.1

205.9
167.0
135.9
120.2
110.9
338.2

207.3
168.6
138.1
120.2
111.3
338.9

Household furnishings and operations..................................................

227.7

234.1

233.4

234.2

235.4

235.1

235.7

224.2

230.9

230.0

231.0

232.3

231.8

232.3

Housefurnishings ....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings ....................................................................
Household linens (12/77 - 100) ................................................
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) .
Furniture and bedding..............................................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 - 100)................................................
Sofas (12/77 - 100)..................................................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Other furniture (12/77 - 100) ....................................................
Appliances including TV and sound equipment ....................................
Television and sound equipment (12/77 - 100) ..........................
Television............................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 - 100)..........................................
Household appliances ................................................................
Refrigerators and home freezers ..........................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 - 100)........................................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 - 100)................................
Other household equipment (12/77 - 100)........................................
Floor and window coverings, infants’, laundry,
cleaning, and outdoor equipment (12/77 - 100) ......................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 - 100)............................
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 - 100) ....................................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) .

189.2
211.2
128.8
134.7
209.7
138.6
119.4
119.0
138.4
147.9
108.9
104.7
113.7
175.9
179.9
130.5
118.7

194.7
218.6
131.9
140.8
214.2
144.8
117.7
121.9
140.9
151.6
108.7
104.0
114.0
184.2
187.4
137.3
124.4

193.3
220.4
132.9
142.2
210.3
141.4
117.0
121.1
137.1
151.3
108.3
103.9
113.3
184.1
187.4
137.3
124.3

194.3
222.1
135.4
141.6
213.3
145.5
117.2
123.1
137.8
151.5
108.2
103.7
113.2
184.7
190.2
137.6
124.0

195.9
223.2
136.4
142.0
215.8
146.7
119.4
122.6
140.6
152.0
108.5
103.5
114.1
185.4
191.1
140.0
123.5

195.1
222.6
133.8
144.0
214.1
146.2
116.4
122.1
140.1
151.7
108.1
102.9
113.9
185.2
192.7
140.0
122.7

195.3
222.0
132.7
144.4
215.4
147.4
118.2
122.2
140.4
151.5
107.2
102.6
112.4
186.1
193.3
141.0
123.2

187.1
213.9
129.9
137.4
206.0
135.2
119.5
119.1
134.0
147.5
108.0
103.3
112.9
176.0
185.3
130.3
116.8

192.7
221.1
133.3
143.2
210.5
141.2
118.1
122.0
136.3
151.5
107.8
102.7
113.2
184.8
192.9
137.5
123.0

191.3
222.9
134.1
144.7
206.9
137.3
117.5
121.4
133.3
151.2
107.5
102.7
112.6
184.6
192.9
137.5
122.7

192.4
225.0
136.4
144.8
210.3
142.1
117.7
123.4
134.1
151.4
107.4
102.6
112.5
185.1
196.1
137.9
122.0

193.9
226.4
137.6
145.3
212.3
143.5
119.6
122.9
136.0
151.9
107.6
102.1
113.3
185.9
196.9
140.4
121.7

193.0
225.8
135.0
147.5
210.3
142.1
117.0
122.5
135.3
151.5
107.3
101.7
113.1
185.6
198.4
140.3
120.7

193.2
224.9
134.0
147.6
211.6
143.4
118.8
122.5
135.6
151.4
106.3
101.4
111.4
186.7
199.1
141.4
121.5

117.9

123.3

122.7

123.4

122.9

120.7

121.5

116.2

122.2

121.4

121.5

121.4

119.2

120.1

119.6
134.0

125.6
139.6

126.0
138.2

124.6
137.8

124.0
139.6

124.7
139.1

125.1
139.2

117.3
131.9

123.9
137.5

124.2
136.0

122.5
135.6

122.0
137.6

122.4
137.1

123.0
137.1

135.9
128.4

142.7
132.3

142.9
129.8

143.3
129.7

143.4
131.3

142.6
131.3

142.7
131.0

128.3
124.7

135.4
128.3

135.4
125.1

135.9
124.9

136.0
126.4

134.5
126.8

134.3
126.6

141.0
126.3

145.9
133.2

143.8
132.3

141.6
133.4

145.1
134.8

144.6
134.2

145.1
134.1

137.1
131.5

141.9
138.5

140.0
137.2

137.6
138.8

141.3
140.1

141.0
139.5

141.2
139.5

Housekeeping supplies ............................................................................
Soaps and detergents ......................................................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 - 100) ..........................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) ..
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100)................
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 - 100)..........................................

277.4
271.6
138.8
144.5
128.8
145.4
136.7

288.4
281.4
145.3
147.7
134.3
150.3
145.3

288.7
279.4
144.6
148.5
135.4
150.7
145.7

289.2
282.8
145.6
148.0
136.8
150.2
143.8

290.1
283.5
146.8
148.9
137.6
150.9
142.3

290.3
283.5
147.3
148.2
138.3
151.6
141.9

292.3
285.3
148.Q
148.6
137.9
152.3
145.7

274.1
268.0
137.5
144.4
131.6
140.4
129.4

285.0
277.6
144.2
147.4
137.8
145.1
138.1

284.9
275.4
143.6
148.3
138.6
145.5
138.1

285.7
278.9
144.5
147.9
140.0
145.0
136.4

286.7
279.7
145.7
148.9
140.7
145.6
135.1

287.1
279.9
146.2
148.1
141.4
146.2
134.9

288.8
281.5
146.9
148.5
141.0
146.9
138.5

Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage............................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 - 100)................................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 - 100)......................................

306.9
337.5

312.5
337.5

312.9
337.5

313.4
337.5

313.8
337.5

314.3
337.5

315.0
337.5

305.4
337.5

311.6
337.5

312.2
337.5

312.7
337.5

313.2
337.5

313.7
337.5

314.5
337.5

147.8
133.0

155.3
137.5

156.1
137.7

156.6
138.3

157.0
139.0

157.7
139.5

158.6
140.2

147.6
131.6

155.4
136.0

156.4
136.1

156.8
136.7

157.2
137.4

157.8
137.9

158.7
138.5

APPAREL AND UPKEEP

190.5

189.7

191.8

194.9

195.5

195.4

193.6

189.4

188.7

190.7

194.1

194.6

194.4

192.8

Apparel commodities ............................................................................

180.7

178.6

180.8

184.1

184.6

184.3

182.3

180.1

178.2

180.3

183.8

184.1

183.8

181.9

Apparel commodities less footwear....................................................
Men’s and boys’ ..............................................................................
Men’s (12/77 - 100) ................................................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ......................
Coats and jackets (12/77 - 100) ........................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 - 100) ....................
Shirts (12/77 - 100) ..........................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 - 100)......................
Boys’ (12/77 - 100)..................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100) ..............
Furnishings (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100)..........
Women’s and girls’ ............................................................................
Women’s (12/77 - 100)............................................................
Coats and jackets................................................................
Dresses ..............................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ............................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 - 100) ................
Suits (12/77 - 100)............................................................
Girls’ (12/77 - 100) ..................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 - 100)..................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ............................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 - 100) ..............................................

176.6
181.6
114.5
106.4
101.4
134.2
122.7
108.5
117.2
109.9
127.5
118.8
159.6
105.8
161.8
164.0
100.7
124.8
87.7
107.7
98.4
108.9

174.0
182.4
114.9
105.5
98.2
138.7
121.6
109.5
118.6
109.0
132.1
120.7
154.6
102.1
154.9
152.8
96.7
127.7
77.6
106.3
98.8
103.6

176.9
183.7
115.9
108.0
99.1
138.4
121.9
110.5
118.4
110.5
131.1
119.5
159.2
105.4
163.0
158.5
98.3
129.3
85.6
108.2
101.4
105.8

180.4
186.5
117.7
110.6
103.7
138.6
123.8
111.4
120.2
113.7
132.6
120.3
163.6
108.7
169.7
165.1
101.4
129.7
92.7
109.6
102.5
107.8

180.9
188.6
119.0
111.6
103.7
141.0
125.2
112.4
121.7
114.5
133.6
122.7
163.0
108.1
170.5
162.6
102.0
129.9
88.6
109.9
104.5
106.0

180.6
189.0
119.3
111.5
103.4
142.4
125.8
112.6
121.6
113.7
132.6
123.4
162.2
107.3
169.5
161.4
100.1
130.6
87.4
110.4
103.9
106.0

178.4
187.4
118.3
108.7
103.2
141.5
126.5
111.9
120.7
112.2
132.4
122.8
159.6
105.5
166.3
159.0
97.1
130.8
82.8
109.5
103.7
104.1

175.6
181.7
115.0
99.5
104.1
130.6
125.3
114.1
115.4
110.9
123.5
115.9
160.7
107.1
167.3
149.5
101.3
124.5
106.0
106.0
96.1
107.5

173.4
182.6
115.4
99.2
99.8
135.3
123.6
115.0
116.9
109.7
128.2
118.3
156.2
103.5
161.8
138.4
97.6
127.4
93.1
105.4
96.0
104.1

176.2
183.5
116.2
101.2
100.3
134.9
123.9
116.0
116.7
111.3
127.2
117.1
160.9
106.9
171.0
145.9
99.1
129.0
99.8
107.4
99.4
105.9

179.9
186.6
118.2
103.5
106.4
135.8
126.2
116.9
118.3
114.6
128.6
117.3
165.7
110.5
176.9
151.2
102.6
129.4
111.9
108.9
100.5
108.5

180.2
188.6
119.4
104.3
106.4
137.7
128.1
118.0
119.8
115.3
129.5
119.7
164.7
109.8
176.8
149.2
102.9
129.6.
106.7
108.7
102.3
105.2

179.8
188.9
119.7
104.2
105.4
139.1
128.7
118.1
119.7
114.6
128.5
120.5
163.8
108.8
173.2
147.7
100.9
130.2
105.8
109.6
102.2
105.9

177.8
187.6
118.8
101.7
105.5
137.9
129.2
117.5
119.0
113.3
128.3
120.0
161.3
106.8
171.0
144.9
97.8
130.5
99.7
109.2
102.0
105.1

120.7

123.8

124.0

124.4

126.0

129.3

129.1

119.5

122.7

123.0

123.5

125.1

128.1

128.0

HOUSING-Continued
Fuel and other utilities — Continued


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

73

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
19.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary

1981

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

1982

1981

1982

Dec.

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Dec.

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Apparel commodities less footwear— Continued
Infants’ and toddlers’ ....................................................
Other apparel commodities ........................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) ............................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 = 100) ........................................

259.4
214.5
118.3
147.4

268.8
209.7
120.0
142.2

272.4
210.8
121.5
142.6

276.8
212.6
121.9
144.1

275.8
213.1
119.3
145.6

274.2
212.7
120.0
144.9

273.1
210.1
120.8
142.2

270.6
203.2
116.2
138.4

277.8
198.7
118.5
133.1

283.0
199.5
119.6
133.3

288.1
201.2
120.0
134.7

286.8
201.7
117.7
136.2

285.5
201.4
118.2
135.7

284.2
199.2
118.5
133.5

Footwear......................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ......................................................
Boys' and girls' (12/77 = 100) ........................................
Women’s (12/77 = 100)..................................................

205.7
130.7
132.1
125.4

206.4
132.3
131.7
125.6

204.4
130.9
128.7
125.4

206.2
132.4
129.4
126.5

206.8
133.2
129.5
126.9

206.9
132.5
129.3
127.6

205.9
132.0
129.0
126.8

205.9
132.5
134.8
121.6

206.7
134.3
134.4
121.5

204.1
132.7
131.3
121.1

205.9
134.1
131.9
122.4

206.7
135.0
132.1
122.8

206.7
134.2
131.8
123.6

205.8
133.7
131.5
122.9

Apparel services ................................................

266.4

276.6

277.4

279.2

281.3

282.0

282.8

264.4

274.3

275.2

277.2

279.7

280.3

281.1

Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)............
Other apparel services (12/77 = 100) ......................................

159.2
139.1

165.4
144.1

165.6
145.0

166.7
145.9

167.2
148.2

167.9
148.1

168.9
147.7

157.8
139.6

163.8
144.6

164.1
145.5

165.2
146.6

165.8
149.3

166.4
149.2

167.5
148.8

TRANSPORTATION ............................................................

289.8

296.1

296.2

295.3

295.5

295.8

294.8

291.5

297.9

298.0

296.9

297.0

297.3

296.3

Private..........................................................

286.5

292.3

292.4

291.1

291.1

291.4

290.4

289.0

295.1

295.2

293.8

293.8

294.1

293.1

New cars ....................................................................
Used cars ..............................................................
Gasonne ........................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair..................................
Body work (12/77 = 100)....................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 = 100) ..........................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Power plant repair (12/77* = 100) ..............................................
Other private transportation ..............................................
Other private transportation commodities ....................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 = 100) ................
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Tires ..............................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Other private transportation services..........................................
Automobile insurance ..................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . .
State registration ..............................................................
Drivers' licenses (12/77 = 100) ....................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 100) ............................
Other vehicle-related fees (12/77 = 100) ..........................

197.0
281.9
408.4
304.1
150.6

198.6
302.4
400.3
318.0
157.5

198.7
304.4
398.4
319.2
158.2

197.7
304.6
394.2
320.6
159.4

197.7
306.7
390.6
321.9
160.4

199.0
310.5
388.1
322.3
161.0

200.1
312.6
381.3
323.1
161.4

196.9
281.9
409.8
304.8
148.9

198.5
302.4
401.6
318.7
156.0

198.6
304.4
399.7
320.0
156.8

197.5
304.6
395.5
321.3
158.1

197.4
306.7
391.9
322.6
159.4

198.7
310.5
389.5
323.1
159.8

199.9
312.6
383.0
323.8
160.2

144.7
141.5
145.6
250.6
214.5
148.7
137.2
191.5
133.9
262.6
266.0
190.5
120.8
149.0
111.9
128.3
141.6

151.9
147.9
151.7
260.8
216.3
151.5
138.2
191.8
136.6
275.1
275.4
193.6
137.4
183.6
132.8
128.5
151.0

152.5
148.5
152.4
260.8
214.8
153.2
136.8
189.5
135.8
275.5
275.8
193.5
138.0
183.8
132.8
128.5
151.9

153.1
148.9
153.3
260.0
213.9
152.5
136.3
188.5
135.8
274.7
276.9
189.6
138.9
183.7
132.8
128.5
154.5

153.2
149.3
154.3
261.4
214.4
151.9
136.7
189.6
135.4
276.4
283.9
185.2
138.8
183.7
132.8
128.5
154.2

153.7
149.3
154.4
260.7
215.1
153.3
137.0
190.4
135.1
275.3
286.9
178.9
139.2
183.8
132.8
128.5
155.0

154.3
149.9
154.2
259.6
214.3
153.3
136.5
190.0
133.8
274.2
288.8
173.8
139.3
183.8
132.8
128.5
155.2

148.5
141.0
145.1
254.2
216.9
147.2
139.2
195.2
133.9
266.6
265.6
189.9
121.4
149.0
111.9
129.0
149.2

156.1
147.3
151.2
264.0
218.8
150.3
140.1
195.5
136.8
278.5
274.9
192.6
138.4
183.2
133.1
129.9
158.7

156.6
147.8
151.9
263.9
217.1
151.8
138.6
193.0
136.0
278.9
275.2
192.9
138.8
183.4
133.1
129.9
159.4

157.1
148.2
152.8
263.0
216.3
151.2
138.1
192.1
135.8
277.9
276.3
188.9
140.0
183.3
133.1
129.9
163.0

157.2
148.6
153.8
264.1
216.9
151.0
138.6
193.2
135.4
279.1
283.2
184.6
139.8
183.2
133.1
129.9
162.7

157.8
148.6
153.9
262.9
217.7
152.3
139.0
194.0
135.4
277.5
286.1
178.1
140.0
183.4
133.1
129.8
162.9

158.3
149.2
153.7
261.6
216.9
152.3
138.4
193.7
133.9
276.0
288.2
173.0
140.1
183.4
133.1
129.8
163.2

APPAREL AND UPKEEP-Continued
Apparel commodities— Continued

Public..............................................................

333.8

347.2

348.1

353.3

356.3

356.0

355.6

328.6

339.8

341.0

345.4

348.2

348.2

348.0

Airline fare..............................................................
Intercity bus fare ......................................................
Intracity mass transit ......................................................
Taxi fa re ..............................................................
Intercity train fa re ..........................................................

374.7
365.2
304.6
294.7
319.2

397.4
368.3
311.0
299.3
338.4

397.5
370.5
312.8
299.7
338.6

409.5
368.9
312.6
299.8
338.4

413.7
370.6
315.2
300.2
338.4

411.6
373.8
316.1
300.5
348.3

408.8
377.7
317.7
300.8
351.3

372.8
366.1
303.9
304.1
318.9

393.2
370.6
310.3
308.7
338.4

393.5
372.3
312.3
309.3
338.6

407.0
371.0
312.1
309.3
338.4

411.1
372.5
314.7
309.9
338.4

408.8
375.7
315.7
310.1
349.3

405.9
379.3
316.7
310.5
351.9

MEDICAL CARE..........................................................

310.2

330.0

333.3

336.0

338.7

342.2

344.3

309.1

328.1

331.3

333.9

336.5

339.8

341.8

Medical care commodities......................................

194.9

206.5

208.2

209.9

211.6

212.9

213.7

195.4

207.1

208.8

210.5

212.1

213.4

214.0

Prescription drugs ....................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 = 100)..............................
Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100)......................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 100)......................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription medical supplies (12/77 = 100) ................................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 10 0 )..............................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 = 100)............................................

181.0
137.8
144.8
131.9

193.4
144.2
156.1
139.3

195.6
146.0
157.6
140.7

197.2
147.5
158.8
141.5

199.4
149.1
161.5
143.0

201.0
150.1
163.5
144.0

202.8
150.9
165.8
144.9

181.9
139.7
144.4
131.8

194.4
146.0
155.8
139.1

196.6
147.5
157.4
140.6

198.2
149.2
158.6
141.3

200.5
151.2
161.1
142.8

202.1
152.3
163.2
143.9

203.9
153.1
165.5
144.8

164.6
145.9

179.6
155.4

181.6
157.6

182.3
159.5

183.5
161.7

183.9
164.0

185.5
166.2

165.9
147.3

181.1
157.1

183.1
159.3

183.8
161.4

185.1
163.6

185.2
166.0

187.0
168.0

138.1

147.9

149.6

150.8

152.3

153.4

154.2

138.0

148.1

149.8

150.9

152.4

153.6

154.5

Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 100) ....................
Eyeglasses (12/77 = 100) ............................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ....................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100)........

139.2
128.4
221.6
134.6

146.4
131.6
234.9
142.2

147.2
131.6
236.6
142.9

148.4
131.9
239.3
143.5

149.2
132.6
240.7
144.1

149.9
132.9
241.9
145.2

149.7
133.0
241.3
145.2

139.7
127.1
222.8
135.2

147.1
130.4
236.2
143.2

147.9
130.3
237.9
144.2

149.1
130.5
240.6
144.8

149.8
131.4
241.9
145.1

150.5
131.6
243.0
146.2

150.3
131.8
242.2
146.3

Medical care services ..................................

335.7

357.3

361.0

364.0

366.9

371.0

373.4

334.0

354.7

358.3

361.1

363.9

367.7

370.1

Professional services ............................................
Physicians' services............................
Dental services..............................................
Other professional services (12/77 = 100)..............

290.0
313.0
273.9
140.3

302.8
328.7
284.8
144.8

304.4
330.4
286.4
145.6

305.9
332.3
287.7
145.9

306.6
334.2
287.0
146.1

308.3
335.3
289.2
147.2

309.4
336.6
290.1
147.6

290.3
316.0
272.3
137.2

302.9
331.6
282.9
141.5

304.6
333.5
284.4
142.5

306.1
335.4
285.7
142.7

306.9
337.4
285.0
143.0

308.4
338.6
287.0
143.9

309.5
339.9
288.0
144.4

Other medical care services..............................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)..........................
Hospital room..................................
Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 = 100)............

390.9
162.7
519.3
159.6

423.2
174.7
557.8
171.2

429.4
177.1
565.5
173.6

434.1
178.3
570.1
174.7

439.8
180.0
576.8
176.0

446.8
182.6
586.6
178.1

450.8
183.2
588.5
178.7

388.1
161.1
512.6
158.4

419.4
172.9
549.7
170.0

425.4
175.2
557.6
172.2

429.9
176.5
562.1
173.3

435.6
178.3
569.1
174.7

442.3
180.7
578.7
176.7

446.3
181.5
581.3
177.5

74


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

19.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

All Urban Consumers
General summary

Dec.

Nov.

Dec.

236.5

236.1

236.5

236.6

235.4

236.0

152.4
290.1
159.2

152.7
290.5
159.6

153.8
294.8
159.2

125.0
122.8
118.1
200.0
129.8

125.8
123.6
118.3
199.9
132.1

124.7
122.2
117.6
199.5
131.3

124.3
122.0
117.7
198.5
130.0

135.7
132.8
131.4
143.6

136.0
132.9
131.3
144.6

136.1
133.0
130.6
145.0

135.2
131.8
130.1
144.5

135.6
132.0
130.8
145.1

231.3

234.2

235.8

237.6

238.4

238.5

139.3
128.7
124.3

143.0
134.6
128.8

144.8
136.5
129.2

147.4
135.5
129.6

149.4
135.6
130.5

150.1
135.9
130.7

150.0
136.4
130.6

Dec.

Dec.

July

240.3

239.9

240.1

224.4

233.5

233.9

234.8

242.9

241.4

241.8

225.4

235.5

234.4

235.0

153.1
290.4
159.2

153.4
290.9
159.6

154.3
294.7
159.3

139.1
267.6
143.4

149.7
285.6
156.0

148.9
286.0
153.6

149.6
288.2
153.8

132.9
135.3
120.5
199.0
129.4

134.3
137.1
120.6
198.7
131.9

132.1
133.8
119.9
198.3
131.5

131.6
133.3
120.0
197.1
130.6

122.4
120.2
117.9
195.2
126.3

125.7
124.1
118.0
199.4
129.8

124.9
122.4
117.5
200.4
130.9

136.9
136.4
130.2
142.5

137.1
136.4
130.1
143.4

137.1
136.4
129.6
143.9

136.4
1J5.5
129.0
143.4

136.8
135.5
129.7
144.2

130.9
126.9
126.3
140.9

136.1
133.7
131.9
143.0

230.8

233.5

235.2

237.2

238.2

238.2

223.9

141.8
135.5
127.8

143.4
137.4
128.3

146.0
136.4
128.8

148.0
136.6
129.6

149.0
136.9
129.8

148.9
137.3
129.6

Aug.

227.3

236.6

237.4

238.3

Entertainment commodities..................................................................

230.6

241.1

240.5

240.8

Reading materials (12/77 - 100)............................................................
Newspapers ....................................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 - 100)..............................

139.6
267.7
143.5

150.4
285.9
156.1

149.4
286.3
153.8

150.1
288.5
153.9

Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)..........................................
Sport vehicles (12/77 - 100) ..........................................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100)..................
Bicycles ..........................................................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 - 100) ..........................

130.0
132.1
119.9
193.9
126.2

132.8
135.4
120.3
198.3
129.4

133.2
135.7
119.7
199.4
130.3

Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)..............................
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)..........................
Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 = 100) ........................................

132.0
130.1
125.2
140.2

137.3
137.2
130.8
142.0

Entertainment services ........................................................................

223.0

Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100)................................................
Admissions (12/77 - 100)......................................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 - 100)............................................

137.6
129.7
123.7

Oct.

Aug.

Sept.

Nov.

Sept.

July

ENTERTAINMENT..................................................................................

1982

1981

1982

1981

Oct

OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES............................................................

246.7

257.2

258.3

266.6

271.2

273.8

276.6

243.5

254.5

255.7

262.8

267.8

270.9

274.0

Tobacco products ................................................................................

226.8

239.2

240.1

246.8

257.3

264.0

272.3

225.9

238.3

239.3

246.1

256.6

263.4

271.9

Cigarettes..............................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)..............

229.7
134.4

242.2
142.1

243.1
142.4

250.6
142.6

262.3
142.9

269.8
142.8

279.0
143.8

228.7
134.7

241.3
142.2

242.3
142.5

249.8
142.8

261.4
143.1

268.8
143.0

278.0
143.9

Personal care ......................................................................................

239.1

249.4

250.6

251.1

252.9

254.2

254.8

237.1

247.5

248.8

249.3

250.9

252.1

252.5
253.1
146.2
154.6

Toilet goods and personal care appliances................................................
Products for the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 - 100) ..................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup implements (12/77 - 100) ..................................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)

234.7
136.5
141.2

247.7
145.0
150.9

249.5
145.0
153.1

249.1
144.6
153.3

251.5
147.8
155.2

253.5
148.3
157.2

252.2
146.8
156.2

235.4
135.8
139.8

248.6
144.2
149.5

250.5
144.4
151.6

250.0
144.0
151.8

252.1
146.9
153.5

254.1
147.3
155.4

133.2
136.0

139.9
141.8

141.3
142.5

140.7
142.4

141.4
142.2

141.7
144.7

142.2
143.2

133.7
139.1

140.5
145.4

142.0
146.2

141.4
146.2

142.1
145.8

142.3
148.4

143.0
147.0

Personal care services............................................................................
Beauty parlor services for women......................................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) ........

243.9
245.2
136.8

251.8
254.4
139.8

252.5
255.0
140.2

253.8
256.3
141.1

255.1
258.3
141.0

255.8
258.9
141.4

258.0
262.1
141.6

239.2
238.8
135.7

246.9
247.9
138.5

247.6
248.7
139.0

248.9
249.8
139.9

250.0
251.6
139.8

250.6
252.1
140.3

252.4
254.7
140.4

Personal and educational expenses ....................................................

285.1

294.5

295.8

316.1

319.3

320.0

320.5

285.9

296.4

297.9

317.4

320.4

321.3

321.7

Schoolbooks and supplies ......................................................................
Personal and educational services............................................................
Tuition and other school fees ............................................................
College tuition (12/77 - 100) ....................................................
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ......................
Personal expenses (12/77 = 100)....................................................

254.5
292.3
149.1
148.3
152.0
153.4

264.8
301.7
152.0
151.8
152.2
166.0

265.3
303.1
152.6
151.9
154.6
167.4

280.5
324.4
165.6
164.9
168.7
169.4

283.0
327.7
167.2
166.8
168.6
171.9

283.1
328.6
167.2
166.8
168.7
174.1

283.3
329.1
167.2
166.8
168.7
175.4

258.5
292.8
149.4
148.1
152.7
152.7

269.0
303.4
152.5
152.0
152.9
166.1

269.6
305.1
153.2
152.0
155.6
167.6

284.3
325.6
166.2
165.0
169.6
169.6

286.8
328.7
167.7
166.9
169.6
171.7

286.8
329.8
167.7
166.9
169.7
174.0

287.0
330.3
167.7
166.9
169.7
175.2

402.8
423.1
293.9
341.3

395.0
439.1
318.7
350.3

393.2
441.3
320.3
351.4

389.2
436.0
323.8
353.8

385.7
432.9
326.5
355.0

383.5
426.2
324.1
354.8

377.0
413.4
326.0
354.0

404.0
422.1
292.6
341.5

396.2
438.8
317.8
351.0

394.4
441.7
319.4
352.2

390.3
436.3
322.8
354.6

386.9
433.9
325.4
355.7

384.8
427.2
323.2
355.4

378.5
414.7
325.1
354.4

Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products........................................
Insurance and finance ............................................................................
Utilities and public transportation..............................................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ........................................


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

75

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
20. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)

Size class B
(385,000-1.250 million)

Size class C
(75,000-385,000)

Size class D
(75,000 or less)

Category and group
1962
Aug.

Oct

1982
Dec.

Aug.

Oct

1982
Dec.

Aug.

1982

Oct

Dec.

Aug.

Oct

Dec.

Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ............................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

149.0
144.9
153.3
119.6
159.4
150.0
139.7
141.7

151.8
145.1
157.7
122.2
160.7
151.4
140.6
150.0

151.0
144.4
155.9
119.8
161.0
153.6
140.2
152.8

155.8
143.4
164.5
122.4
166.5
156.1
137.4
143.2

156.6
142.4
164.9
127.0
166.6
158.1
139.9
151.4

157.1
142.1
166.5
124.9
166.7
160.6
135.9
153.9

161.2
148.9
174.5
128.4
164.7
157.2
136.8
148.1

160.7
147.0
172.9
128.5
165.2
161.5
138.1
154.3

162.3
147.4
175.2
129.1
166.2
163.6
139.2
157.8

155.3
142.9
163.7
124.8
163.7
156.1
143.8
144.6

155.8
141.9
163.0
131.4
164.6
157.0
144.8
153.4

156.3
142.0
163.2
131.1
164.5
159.8
145.0
158.7

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities ......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................

145.3
145.5
153.8

147.7
149.3
157.1

147.5
149.4
155.6

151.6
155.6
162.4

152.4
157.2
163.3

153.5
159.0
162.9

152.3
153.9
175.6

152.0
154.3
175.0

153.7
156.6
176.4

149.8
153.1
163.8

150.9
155.2
163.5

151.7
156.3
163.4

North Central Region
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

162.2
143.7
179.8
117.0
166.1
155.8
138.8
142.3

163.1
143.5
181.2
118.8
164.5
157.9
140.7
150.5

162.0
143.3
179.1
116.4
163.8
160.3
140.2
152.8

157.0
142.7
165.6
124.1
165.0
161.2
131.7
153.3

158.9
142.6
168.5
128.7
164.1
162.7
133.5
161.4

159.3
141.9
169.1
129.4
164.5
164.0
134.1
163.8

158.9
144.9
169.4
126.7
166.7
157.7
139.9
142.8

155.9
143.8
162.6
127.8
165.0
160.9
142.5
148.1

156.2
143.4
162.8
126.1
165.2
162.9
143.7
150.6

160.2
149.2
171.4
120.1
164.1
161.0
131.4
150.2

159.0
149.2
167.8
121.9
163.1
163.7
133.3
157.3

156.8
149.1
161.9
121.4
163.8
166.5
134.5
160.3

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................

150.9
154.2
179.0

151.9
155.8
179.7

151.7
155.7
177.3

148.8
151.3
170.3

149.7
152.6
173.7

150.8
154.5
173.1

150.8
153.4
172.0

148.2
150.1
168.6

148.7
150.9
168.4

149.1
149.0
177.8

147.6
147.0
177.0

148.4
148.1
170.1

South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

156.9
147.2
165.0
124.0
165.3
156.2
131.7
145.6

158.1
146.8
166.1
127.5
164.7
160.9
135.5
152.9

157.5
147.0
164.3
128.0
164.6
164.0
135.0
155.0

159.1
146.5
167.9
122.6
168.6
157.3
145.0
143.6

159.6
146.4
167.5
125.3
167.7
161.3
147.3
152.5

159.3
146.4
166.0
124.7
168.0
163.5
148.5
158.1

158.6
146.0
167.8
121.0
166.4
166.2
142.1
145.2

159.1
145.6
167.3
123.7
166.0
169.4
144.5
153.3

158.8
145.4
166.0
122.6
166.8
173.5
144.4
154.9

158.8
147.5
168.4
107.9
165.6
169.3
148.1
152.3

159.8
147.5
169.7
112.4
164.5
173.9
149.7
153.2

159.1
147.3
168.2
111.1
163.5
179.4
143.8
155.8

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................

149.7
150.8
166.9

150.1
151.6
169.2

150.9
152.6
166.9

150.9
152.8
171.5

151.7
154.0
171.5

152.3
154.8
169.9

149.6
151.2
172.4

149.9
151.8
173.2

150.2
152.3
172.1

149.6
150.5
172.6

150.6
152.0
173.6

150.6
151.9
172.1

West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

160.3
147.5
167.7
119.8
169.9
167.1
135.8
149.3

160.3
148.3
166.9
120.7
169.4
168.9
136.6
155.4

156.9
147.8
160.7
119.9
166.3
171.1
137.8
159.3

159.9
148.6
166.6
124.9
169.7
163.3
141.0
149.8

160.1
148.6
166.0
126.5
169.8
165.1
142.4
155.0

157.9
149.2
161.2
125.8
168.1
168.4
142.5
158.9

153.3
144.9
155.6
122.8
167.0
167.0
135.7
141.7

152.6
145.7
153.4
123.8
166.0
168.8
136.2
148.0

150.1
144.8
148.3
123.4
165.1
170.7
137.2
153.0

158.5
150.6
160.5
138.5
166.2
168.5
153.1
154.4

158.1
150.8
158.7
138.6
165.7
169.6
154.9
164.2

157.8
150.7
158.3
136.9
165.2
171.5
154.3
165.2

COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities....................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................

148.8
149.4
175.5

149.4
149.9
174.8

148.1
148.3
168.5

151.0
152.1
172.1

151.6
152.9
171.8

150.7
151.3
167.9

149.9
152.0
158.1

150.6
152.6
155.4

149.0
150.7
151.7

149.2
148.7
172.1

147.7
146.4
173.4

148.9
148.1
171.0

76


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

21.

Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
Area'

1981
Dec.

U.S. city average2 ..............................................................

Anchorage, Alaska (10/67=100) ........................................
Atlanta, Ga...........................................................................
Baltimore, Md.......................................................................
Boston, Mass........................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y..........................................................................
Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.........................................................
Cleveland, O hio..................................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex............................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo............................................................
Detroit, Mich.........................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii ................................................................
Houston, Tex........................................................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ....................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif................................
Miami, Fla. (11/77=100) ....................................................
Milwaukee, Wis.....................................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis..............................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J...........................................
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)....................................................

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct

Nov.

292.2

292.8

293.3

294.1

293.6

263.4

263.6
282.2

295.6
286.1
279.2

264.3
273.9

293.1
293.3

289.2
282.9

293.2

319.9
292.4

289.3

Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.............................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash............................................................
St. Louis, Mo.-lll....................................................................
San Diego, Calif....................................................................

274.9
281.8

San Frandsco-Oakland, Calif................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash...........................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.......................................................

294.0

277.3
275.1
281.1

294.9

281.3
291.4

288.2

280.7
276.0
283.0

304.3

296.0

288.5

281.8
300.7

283.6
279.4
282.9

274.4

317.6
303.3

281.2
291.0

292.6
269.9
318.1
290.6
285.3

275.1
259.3
298.8
272.0
285.9

Oct

Nov.

291.8

292.4

292.8

293.6

293.2

306.1
281.8

298.3
266.9

281.6
302.1

274.1
282.6

288.8
282.7

292.7
295.9

292.5

289.3

293.0

276.1
277.3
280.9

292.7

291.2

291.7

280.7
291.8

278.9
277.1
282.1

293.1
307.1

292.1

291.6

288.7
271.0
316.1
288.6
288.0

158.6
306.9
307.6
282.7

281.2
300.3

281.9
280.6
282.0

306.1
280.3

281.0
301.7

283.5
288.9
318.2
301.3

298.3
291.9

291.8
315.0
299.4

332.5
291.2
274.7
314.9
287.3
292.8

285.8
293.1
321.1
302.8

292.9
286.3

293.2

275.0

314.1
302.5

157.5
306.3
313.3
277.1

290.6
289.2
329.4
293.9

292.9
302.8

331.3
289.3
269.5
315.3
283.6
292.8

297.8
289.7
284.4

274.3

310.6
300.2

156.9
299.6

297.5
286.3

298.7

265.5

Dec.

254.4

258.9
297.1

326.3

285.6
290.0
321.7
302.4

302.2
286.5

293.1

156.8
303.1
307.7
284.5

288.2
294.1
325.6

1The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated


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

294.3
304.2

Sept

262.7

326.2
295.2
275.2
317.6
289.3
289.5

156.1
302.4
313.8
278.5

292.5
290.2
334.8

296.6
281.3

294.4

Aug.

287.0
278.7
277.8

316.6
306.7

1982
July

284.1

290.1
285.0

324.5
292.7
269.4
318.6
285.0
289.1

155.1
296.5
298.7
267.9

294.0
300.2

Dec.

259.1
296.1

277.1

312.2
304.3

Dec.

257.2
297.8

267.7

281.6
295.1

278.3
258.3
302.7
273.5
282.1

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1981

1982

293.6
294.1
291.6

Area is used for New York and Chicago.
2 Average of 85 cities.

77

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
22.

Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

[1967=100]
Annual
average
1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

S e p t1

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Finished goods ................................................................

280.6

277.9

277.9

277.3

277.3

277.8

279.9

281.7

282.3

'281.2

284.1

284.9

285.1

283.6

Finished consumer goods ........................................
Finished consumer foods ......................................
Crude...................................................................
Processed ..........................................................
Nondurable goods less foods ...............................
Durable g o o d s........................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy
Capital equipment.....................................................

280.9
259.3
252.5
257.7
333.5
226.7
223.6
279.6

278.3
256.4
280.6
252.1
329.3
226.2
217.4
276.2

278.6
258.2
282.5
254.0
330.3
224.0
219.6
275.0

277.7
257.1
263.3
254.5
328.8
223.9
220.5
275.8

277.3
260.0
266.6
257.3
325.7
224.1
222.3
277.2

277.7
262.3
259.9
260.3
324.3
225.0
223.1
278.1

280.1
263.4
254.7
262.0
328.7
225.9
223.5
279.2

282.1
260.6
241.0
260.2
335.3
226.7
223.7
280.2

282.8
259.7
239.2
259.4
337.2
227.5
224.3
280.7

'281.9
259.9
'228.2
260.6
'338.3
'223.0
'225.5
'278.7

284.2
257.8
232.0
258.0
339.7
231.1
227.4
283.8

285.2
257.6
235.6
257.4
342.4
230.8
228.1
284.0

285.1
258.2
247.2
257.1
341.4
231.5
228.3
285.1

283.0
258.3
232.6
258.4
335.2
231.9
227.4
285.7

Intermediate materials, supplies, and components .........

310.4

311.0

311.1

310.6

309.9

309.8

309.9

311.1

310.8

'310.5

310.0

310.1

310.2

309.9

Materials and components for manufacturing...........
Materials for food manufacturing ...........................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing ...............
Materials for durable manufacturing......................
Components for manufacturing .............................

289.9
255.2
284.5
310.1
274.0

290.4
250.7
289.0
313.6
269.8

290.9
252.8
289.3
313.1
270.9

290.4
252.0
288.8
310.9
271.8

290.6
254.4
287.6
311.0
272.6

291.4
260.0
287.6
311.0
273.6

289.8
260.7
285.4
307.5
273.6

289.2
259.7
283.1
308.0
273.9

288.7
258.0
282.6
306.5
274.3

'289.9
'257.3
'281.7
'310.5
'275.8

289.5
254.7
280.3
310.0
276.9

288.9
251.4
279.5
309.8
277.0

288.7
250.1
278.2
309.8
277.7

289.0
250.9
277.4
312.1
277.4

Materials and components for construction . . . .

. .

293.5

292.0

293.0

293.3

294.0

293.7

294.5

294.3

293.5

'294.2

293.2

293.0

294.5

296.2

Processed fuels and lubricants.................................
Manufacturing industries........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries .................................

591.8
497.9
674.4

604.4
505.9
691.3

596.8
497.8
684.2

593.0
496.1
678.3

579.9
487.5
661.1

570.9
481.4
649.5

581.1
491.7
659.5

600.7
506.9
683.0

603.8
510.7
685.5

'592.3
'496.4
'676.9

59Ó.2
496.9
672.1

594.3
502.5
674.9

593.6
500.4
675.5

583.5
493.2
662.7

Containers ................................................................

285.5

282.5

285.5

286.3

287.0

287.0

286.5

286.3

285.4

'285.3

285.1

284.7

284.6

284.9

Supplies.....................................................................
Manufacturing industries........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries .................................
Feeds ...................................................................
Other supplies ...................................................

272.2
266.0
275.7
207.1
289.9

269.8
262.6
273.8
214.8
285.7

270.4
263.3
274.4
212.0
287.3

270.6
264.5
274.1
208.1
287.9

272.1
265.3
276.0
213.1
288.9

273.4
266.7
277.2
214.2
290.1

273.4
266.7
277.1
213.1
290.4

273.1
266.8
276.7
210.3
290.5

272.6
266.5
276.0
203.1
291.1

'272.2
'266.7
275.3
'198.1
'291.3

272.3
267.4
275.1
193.3
292.1

273.0
267.2
276.3
199.5
292.2

273.2
267.4
276.5
204.9
291.3

273.6
268.0
276.8
206.9
291.3

Crude materials for further processing ...........................

319.5

318.4

321.6

320.0

322.6

328.3

325.6

323.4

319.8

'316.1

312.2

313.4

312.6

313.7

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs..........................................

247.8

242.6

248.3

247.9

254.4

262.6

259.9

255.5

249.6

242.9

236.3

236.3

237.0

239.6

Nonfood m aterials.....................................................

474.0

481.5

479.3

475.2

469.9

470.2

467.7

469.8

471.0

'473.7

475.4

479.0

475.0

473.0

Nonfood materials except fu e l...............................
Manufacturing industries ...................................
Construction.......................................................

376.9
387.2
270.7

399.5
413.2
267.6

394.8
407.5
270.5

387.1
398.4
273.2

378.8
389.0
273.3

376.6
386.3
274.5

370.0
378.9
274.2

369.2
378.4
271.4

369.5
378.9
270.3

'369.5
379.1
'268.8

372.2
382.4
267.1

369.5
379.3
267.3

366.0
375.0
269.4

368.1
377.5
268.9

Crude f u e l..............................................................
Manufacturing industries ....................................
Nonmanufacturing industries...............................

886.3
1,034.8
782.7

812.9
940.3
725.6

824.5
954.4
735.4

839.7
974.7
746.6

851.2
989.1
755.8

864.8
1006.7
766.4

919.4
906.9
'923.5
1,061.1 '1,083.6 1,077.5
'810.7
798.9
808.3

955.3
1,124.8
835.2

949.5
1,117.0
830.9

926.3
1,088.2
812.0

Finished goods excluding foods ......................................
Finished consumer goods excluding fo o d s...............
Finished consumer goods less energy......................

285.7
287.8
251.2

283.0
285.2
240.5

282.4
284.9
241.3

281.9
284.0
241.3

281.1
282.3
243.0

281.0
281.8
244.3

283.4
284.8
245.1

286.7
288.8
244.5

287.9
290.2
252.0

'286.3
'288.9
'250.9

290.8
293.3
246.4

291.9
294.6
246.5

292.0
294.3
254.7

289.9
291.1
254.7

Intermediate materials less foods and feeds ..................
Intermediate materials less e n e rg y ...........................

315.7
290.5

316.4
289.9

316.4
290.7

316.0
290.5

315.1
291.0

314.6
291.6

314.7
290.8

316.1
290.4

316.0
289.7

'315.9
'290.5

315.5
290.1

315.7
289.9

315.7
290.2

315.3
290.7

Intermediate foods and fe e d s ..........................................

239.5

238.8

239.4

237.7

240.9

245.0

245.1

243.6

240.2

'238.1

234.8

234.6

235.4

236.5

Crude materials less agricultural products......................
Crude materials less energy......................................

536.5
240.4

546.1
239.1

543.9
243.4

538.4
242.8

531.6
247.3

531.5
252.8

529.1
248.7

531.5
245.1

532.0
240.7

'535.5
'235.6

537.9
230.0

542.3
229.3

537.0
229.9

534.8
232.6

Commodity grouping

1983

1982

FINISHED GOODS

INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS

j

CRUDE MATERIALS

883.9
901.3
1,032.0 1,053.9
780.5
794.5

SPECIAL GROUPINGS

1Data for September 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and
corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

78


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

r=revised,

23.

Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

All commodities ........................................................................
All commodities (1957-59 = 100)..............................................

299.3
317.6

298.3
316.5

298.6
316.8

298.0
316.2

298.0
316.2

298.6
316.8

299.3
317.6

300.4
318.7

Farm products and processed foods and feeds........................
Industrial commodities ..............................................................

248.9
312.3

246.0
311.8

248.4
311.6

247.5
311.0

251.6
309.9

255.8
309.6

255.3
310.6

01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-6
01-9

FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
Farm products ............................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ........................................
Grains......................................................................................
Livestock ................................................................................
Live poultry..............................................................................
Plant and animal fibers..............................................................
Fluid milk ................................................................................
Eggs........................................................................................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................................
Other farm products ................................................................

242.3
253.4
210.9
257.8
191.9
202.9
282.5
178.7
212.8
274.5

242.2
289.2
225.2
236.8
186.8
198.2
287.6
187.0
218.4
280.1

247.1
290.1
223.2
251.2
197.3
193.5
285.8
200.6
217.6
273.7

244.7
257.3
220.9
255.6
197.7
199.5
282.5
204.0
213.7
273.0

250.6
267.6
226.0
267.6
186.2
207.4
280.3
192.1
222.8
274.2

256.5
271.5
228.2
282.9
192.7
214.1
278.8
164.3
227.3
273.9

02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9

Processed foods and feeds..........................................................
Cereal and bakery products......................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Dairy products..........................................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables................................................
Sugar and confectionery ..........................................................
Beverages and beverage materials............................................
Fats and o ils ............................................................................
Miscellaneous processed foods ................................................
Prepared animal feeds..............................................................

251.5
253.9
257.6
248.9
274.3
269.9
256.9
215.5
248.6
211.3

247.1
256.6
243.7
247.7
273.2
256.8
253.9
216.6
251.0
217.4

248.1
253.3
247.9
248.0
276.3
257.2
255.1
216.8
250.9
214.9

248.1
253.3
250.0
248.0
275.9
255.0
256.4
213.7
249.5
211.4

251.1
253.5
258.2
248.4
275.2
256.0
256.6
218.1
249.6
216.3

Code

Commodity group and subgroup

1983

1982
June

July

Aug.

Sept1

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

300.2
318.5

'299.3
'317.6

299.9
318.2

300.4
318.7

300.6
318.9

300.0
318.3

252.4
312.8

249.6
313.2

'247.4
'312.7

243.9
314.4

244.0
315.1

244.8
315.0

245.9
314.0

252.7
264.5
225.7
277.5
207.2
203.1
278.9
159.3
219.3
271.8

246.6
239.1
212.8
270.3
212.5
220.8
279.0
171.7
220.0
265.5

240.8
238.6
197.2
268.4
189.3
207.5
278.8
171.7
204.5
274.4

'234.5
'221.0
187.3
259.0
196.5
196.8
281.9
173.3
201.8
276.8

229.1
222.3
183.2
248.5
177.1
198.1
285.0
177.9
194.3
274.0

230.6
232.5
198.6
239.1
181.6
195.3
285.9
172.5
204.8
276.3

232.5
248.1
202.3
237.2
177.8
200.6
285.5
170.0
209.0
280.1

233.1
227.0
206.3
242.3
177.1
201.7
284.5
170.0
212.4
279.9

254.4
252.8
267.6
248.5
273.8
265.3
256.5
222.3
248.0
217.4

255.8
252.7
271.2
248.7
275.8
269.1
256.7
221.8
248.6
216.4

254.6
253.0
266.0
248.6
274.4
275.7
256.9
221.3
248.1
213.9

253.5
252.7
262.2
248.8
274.1
285.5
258.0
215.6
245.9
207.5

'253.5
'254.0
265.7
'249.1
'272.8
'278.5
'257.1
'211.4
'247.0
'204.3

251.0
253.2
256.9
250.0
273.7
276.7
258.4
214.9
247.7
200.1

250.4
254.6
251.5
250.2
273.1
281.1
258.9
209.0
247.9
205.7

250.6
256.6
249.9
250.8
273.0
280.8
259.0
204.3
248.6
210.5

251.8
256.9
252.2
250.7
274.6
281.8
260.9
203.6
248.9
212.1

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82

Textile products and apparel ........................................................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100)..................................................
Processed yams and threads (12/75 = 100) ............................
Gray fabrics (12/75 = 100)......................................................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100) ................................................
Apparel....................................................................................
Textile housefumishings............................................................

204.3
162.4
137.7
145.3
124.6
193.8
240.0

205.0
162.9
139.2
148.2
126.8
192.7
237.6

205.6
163.2
140.7
147.3
127.1
193.2
240.8

205.0
161.3
140.5
146.6
125.6
193.4
241.4

205.4
163.0
140.4
146.3
125.4
194.1
241.8

205.4
163.4
141.0
145.9
125.2
194.5
239.5

205.0
162.8
139.4
146.0
124.0
195.0
239.7

204.1
161.5
135.9
144.9
123.8
194.8
238.2

204.2
162.2
135.9
144.6
124.3
195.1
236.4

'204.3
'162.5
136.6
'143.6
'123.7
'195.4
'238.2

201.6
162.0
129.5
143.6
123.4
193.5
240.5

203.5
162.1
136.7
143.0
123.1
193.8
240.5

202.4
160.6
136.7
143.3
122.9
191.7
240.5

201.6
158.4
135.1
144.8
122.3
192.9
240.8

04
04-2
04-3
04-4

Hides, skins, leather, and related products ....................................
Leather ....................................................................................
Footwear ................................................................................
Other leather and related products............................................

263.0
311.3
245.0
248.9

261.8
319.0
238.9
247.5

261.6
317.7
238.6
248.1

260.6
313.3
239.8
248.1

263.4
310.6
244.8
248.1

263.2
309.8
244.5
248.1

261.8
307.7
244.2
245.6

263.1
307.4
247.3
246.9

262.0
304.9
247.7
244.9

'263.5
309.2
'248.3
'247.7

264.7
309.5
249.2
252.4

264.3
312.8
249.1
250.9

265.2
314.3
248.2
253.1

265.6
314.9
247.5
254.6

05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7

Fuels and related products and power ..........................................
Coal........................................................................................
Coke ......................................................................................
Gas fuels2 ..............................................................................
Electric power..........................................................................
Crude petroleum 3 ....................................................................
Petroleum products, refined4 ....................................................

693.4
535.3
461.8
1,061.2
406.6
733.5
761.5

705.1
525.3
469.7
987.9
392.8
787.2
801.9

697.8
529.9
469.7
987.6
392.9
770.3
789.7

689.7
529.6
467.5
990.5
403.7
744.8
770.6

670.6
532.6
467.5
992.7
406.3
717.9
733.5

06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7

Chemicals and allied products......................................................
Industrial chemicals5 ................................................................
Prepared paint..........................................................................
Paint materials ........................................................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals ......................................................
Fats and oils, inedible ..............................................................
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products ............................
Plastic resins and materials ......................................................
Other chemicals and allied products..........................................

292.4
353.0
262.9
304.6
210.1
267.1
292.7
283.3
269.8

292.9
362.9
258.9
306.6
202.2
272.8
296.8
286.1
263.8

293.6
362.2
258.9
306.4
204.4
274.2
298.0
287.3
264.9

294.6
361.4
258.9
306.8
205.9
290.1
297.1
285.5
268.5

294.3
357.8
258.9
306.7
208.9
282.6
295.8
286.0
270.0

295.0
357.1
264.7
306.9
209.9
288.4
294.8
283.2
272.7

293.3
351.2
264.7
304.9
209.7
287.5
294.1
282.1
273.8

291.6
349.1
264.7
304.5
210.0
278.2
291.5
280.9
271.1

291.6
349.1
264.7
302.5
211.2
254.2
290.8
282.2
272.3

'290.7
'346.5
'264.7
303.0
'212.4
254.1
'289.9
'281.6
'271.2

290.4
347.6
265.1
303.0
214.7
242.3
289.4
281.6
268.1

290.5
345.8
265.1
302.3
215.4
239.6
287.3
281.4
271.7

289.3
342.9
265.1
301.5
216.0
240.8
286.2
281.4
270.2

289.2
339.9
265.1
301.3
218.3
241.9
282.8
282.8
272.6

07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-2

Rubber and plastic products ........................................................
Rubber and rubber products......................................................
Crude rubber ..........................................................................
Tires and tubes........................................................................
Miscellaneous rubber products..................................................
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................................

241.6
268.5
278.9
255.2
278.8
132.2

237.3
262.5
281.8
253.6
263.8
130.5

239.3
266.0
282.1
256.7
268.8
131.0

240.8
266.7
283.5
253.7
274.3
132.3

241.1
266.6
283.3
253.4
274.7
132.6

242.1
269.0
283.7
254.9
278.8
132.5

242.5
269.3
282.5
255.3
279.5
132.8

242.0
268.8
280.3
255.0
279.4
132.5

242.6
270.1
278.7
257.8
279.7
132.5

'242.5
'269.5
'276.6
'255.6
'281.6
'132.7

243.0
271.1
272.4
255.8
287.1
132.4

242.6
270.2
270.8
254.8
286.5
132.4

243.0
270.5
271.0
256.2
285.5
132.8

244.5
273.9
271.0
259.1
290.7
132.6

08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4

Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Lumber....................................................................................
Millwork ..................................................................................
Plywood ..................................................................................
Other wood products................................................................

284.7
310.8
279.4
232.1
236.2

285.5
310.0
277.1
237.4
238.2

285.2
308.1
278.6
235.1
238.7

285.3
308.2
276.5
236.5
238.6

286.5
312.4
276.6
234.0
237.7

284.6
310.5
276.3
230.5
237.4

289.0
315.8
280.5
239.2
236.0

288.6
319.2
282.3
232.4
236.0

284.2
311.6
280.2
229.0
235.8

283.0
'310.3
279.5
'228.5
235.6

279.6
306.8
278.6
224.0
235.8

279.9
305.1
280.3
227.8
233.1

284.8
311.0
286.1
231.2
231.3

292.1
324.2
293.7
234.4
232.0

701.1
705.6 '700.4
699.6
707.3
702.6
686.3
662.2
677.3
539.7
532.3
534.0
533.6
538.0
539.0 ' 538.5
540.3
540.3
459.1 '460.0
453.0
452.3
452.3
450.9
467.5
462.0
460.3
1,001.2 1,027.5 1,054.3 1,074.6 '1,112.2 1,133.6 1,190.9 1,177.4 1,143.5
405.7
414.9 '415.0
409.1
405.2
410.3
411.2
407.1
416.0
718.4 '718.3
734.1
720.4
720.1
717.8
718.2
718.4
735.8
781.7 '761.6
754.9
753.0
727.1
713.2
739.4
776.5
759.9

See footnotes at end of table.


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

79

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
23.

Continued— Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
Code

1983

1982

Commodity group and subgroup
1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.1

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES-Continued
09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2

Pulp, paper, and allied products....................................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board . . .
Woodpulp................................................................................
Wastepaper ............................................................................
Paper ......................................................................................
Paperboard..............................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products................................
Building paper and board..........................................................

288.6
273.3
379.8
121.1
286.6
254.9
264.4
239.3

285.5
276.1
410.3
135.2
289.2
259.7
263.9
233.8

286.3
276.8
410.3
128.8
289.8
261.4
264.7
231.4

287.4
276.6
411.6
129.2
289.6
261.1
264.5
239.6

288.5
275.3
389.9
128.1
289.4
261.2
264.3
236.3

289.6
274.8
393.3
121.5
288.2
258.8
264.3
240.2

289.5
274.1
388.0
115.2
287.8
255.9
264.5
240.0

289.1
272.6
368.3
115.6
286.3
255.0
264.4
239.8

289.3
272.2
367.0
116.0
285.3
255.4
264.3
244.4

'289.4
'271.5
'365.0
116.0
'285.3
250.7
264.2
'243.4

289.2
270.4
352.5
116.0
285.6
248.0
263.9
241.5

289.6
269.9
349.4
116.0
281.7
247.6
265.0
240.4

289.5
269.1
349.3
116.0
280.0
244.5
264.9
241.4

291.1
269.1
350.5
116.0
279.8
243.6
265.0
240.5

10
10-1
10-17
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8

Metals and metal products ..........................................................
Iron and steel ..........................................................................
Steel mill products....................................................................
Nonferrous metals....................................................................
Metal containers ......................................................................
Hardware ................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings............................................
Heating equipment....................................................................
Fabricated structural metal products..........................................
Miscellaneous metal products....................................................

301.8
339.1
349.7
263.6
328.1
279.5
278.7
237.3
304.2
284.1

304.7
343.1
350.6
274.4
324.3
274.1
274.6
233.4
303.4
281.2

304.2
342.9
350.3
273.6
326.2
274.8
276.4
233.1
304.0
278.7

302.9
342.5
350.5
267.2
327.2
278.2
279.1
235.4
304.5
279.0

303.1
342.8
352.2
266.1
330.0
278.5
280.3
236.0
305.2
279.7

302.8
341.3
352.1
263.6
330.2
278.9
281.0
237.2
304.9
284.5

299.3
338.3
349.9
253.4
329.9
280.3
282.6
238.5
305.3
283.9

299.5
337.5
349.0
256.4
330.0
281.2
283.3
238.9
303.9
283.2

299.2
337.1
348.6
255.7
328.8
282.6
274.6
238.4
304.3
283.3

'301.8
'336.5
'348.2
'265.1
'328.8
'282.7
'277.1
'239.1
'306.4
'283.8

302.1
337.6
349.8
263.2
328.7
280.8
277.8
238.7
303.7
289.7

301.0
336.3
349.3
262.0
327.0
280.8
278.2
238.9
302.8
288.5

300.9
333.3
345.5
264.0
325.7
283.5
279.1
239.3
304.6
288.7

301.7
333.2
343.7
267.6
327.0
284.9
280.6
240.1
303.3
288.6

11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9

Machinery and equipment ............................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment........................................
Construction machinery and equipment......................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ....................................
General purpose machinery and equipment................................
Special industry machinery and equipment ................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ..........................................
Miscellaneous machinery..........................................................

278.7
310.9
343.8
320.7
303.9
325.2
231.5
268.2

274.1
303.1
337.0
315.9
300.0
320.4
228.7
261.4

275.4
304.6
337.9
317.2
301.3
320.7
229.5
264.0

276.2
306.4
339.2
317.8
302.0
321.3
230.3
264.9

277.6
306.8
341.5
319.6
303.4
322.9
231.7
266.1

278.2
308.2
343.5
320.7
303.8
323.9
231.3
267.9

278.6
309.7
343.9
321.2
303.5
325.0
231.5
268.5

279.6
311.0
346.1
322.5
304.8
327.1
231.6
269.5

279.9
312.2
346.5
322.8
304.9
326.7
231.8
270.9

'280.2
'314.1
347.5
'323.1
'305.0
'326.8
'231.7
'271.5

280.9
317.0
346.6
322.4
305.5
327.9
233.0
270.9

281.3
318.1
347.8
323.0
306.0
329.1
233.0
271.7

281.8
319.9
347.9
323.1
306.6
330.1
233.3
272.0

282.7
321.4
348.6
323.7
306.9
331.7
234.3
272.5

12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6

Furniture and household durables ................................................
Household furniture..................................................................
Commercial furniture................................................................
Floor coverings ........................................................................
Household appliances ..............................................................
Home electronic equipment ......................................................
Other household durable goods ................................................

206.8
229.9
275.7
180.7
198.8
88.1
288.2

203.5
227.5
266.7
180.3
193.4
89.3
283.4

204.6
227.4
271.2
180.6
195.3
89.6
283.7

205.5
227.6
273.6
180.6
197.3
89.1
285.0

206.0
229.7
274.2
181.1
197.8
87.9
285.9

206.5
230.0
275.2
181.3
198.9
88.0
285.4

207.0
230.2
276.0
181.9
199.6
88.4
286.1

206.8
230.0
277.4
181.2
200.2
87.2
285.1

208.1
230.4
278.1
181.0
201.0
88.0
291.8

'208.3
'230.7
'278.2
'181.5
'201.2
'87.4
'293.4

208.4
231.3
278.8
180.3
200.5
88.0
293.8

208.3
231.6
279.1
180.2
200.3
87.3
294.5

208.6
231.8
279.0
180.1
200.7
87.2
295.4

210.1
231.5
281.6
181.0
202.1
87.6
302.0

13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9

Nonmetallic mineral products........................................................
Flat glass ................................................................................
Concrete ingredients ................................................................
Concrete products....................................................................
Structural clay products, excluding refractories ..........................
Refractories ............................................................................
Asphalt roofing ........................................................................
Gypsum products ....................................................................
Glass containers ......................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals........................................................

320.2
221.5
310.5
297.8
259.9
337.3
396.9
256.0
355.6
471.6

315.6
216.2
306.2
295.5
257.5
316.8
401.3
250.4
335.4
474.7

319.0
216.2
308.4
295.9
257.7
335.1
400.4
255.0
352.2
478.7

319.9
216.2
309.8
296.3
257.7
337.4
394.4
260.7
356.0
479.6

320.2
216.2
309.5
297.7
258.1
338.7
386.7
263.2
358.1
479.1

321.2
226.4
312.5
298.2
258.6
339.5
385.5
259.4
358.1
471.3

320.9
226.4
312.7
298.5
258.9
340.4
396.4
256.4
358.1
465.2

321.1
226.1
311.8
298.8
259.3
340.4
399.8
255.8
358.1
466.6

320.5
221.1
311.2
299.0
263.9
340.7
400.1
253.9
358.0
466.0

'321.2
221.1
'310.8
'298.7
'264.0
'340.8
'413.4
253.9
'358.6
'467.7

321.2
221.1
311.9
298.7
259.5
341.3
405.1
255.1
358.4
470.4

321.5
225.3
311.7
298.1
264.3
337.7
397.5
254.9
358.5
471.3

320.9
225.3
309.3
298.5
264.3
337.7
395.4
253.9
358.5
470.6

321.5
229.7
308.1
298.6
264.4
338.2
392.2
259.7
358.2
471.8

14
14-1
14-4

Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100)......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ..................................................
Railroad equipment ..................................................................

249.7
251.3
348.7

248.6
250.8
345.8

245.2
246.8
345.8

245.2
246.8
346.3

245.8
247.2
343.5

247.5
249.2
342.8

249.1
251.1
342.8

249.8
252.0
342.6

250.6
252.8
347.7

'244.5
'244.6
'348.0

256.4
258.1
357.5

256.1
257.5
357.5

257.5
257.9
357.5

257.1
257.8
357.6

15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
15-9

Miscellaneous products................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition............................
Tobacco products ....................................................................
Notions....................................................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ........................................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)....................................................
Other miscellaneous products ..................................................

276.6
222.1
323.2
277.1
210.7
161.7
338.1

268.3
218.4
278.2
270.3
209.9
159.5
342.2

273.5
220.1
306.6
270.4
210.5
159.6
341.1

272.7
220.7
306.6
271.5
212.1
161.9
334.5

273.2
221.0
306.7
271.5
214.2
162.2
334.1

272.2
221.8
307.0
280.1
210.6
162.5
331.3

271.5
221.9
307.0
280.1
210.4
162.4
328.6

273.4
222.0
311.5
280.1
208.9
162.6
333.7

272.0
223.5
311.5
280.1
208.9
162.8
327.0

'279.5
'221.8
'329.1
'280.1
'209.9
'162.9
'345.2

285.9
223.7
366.0
280.3
210.2
161.5
344.7

285.7
223.7
365.1
280.1
210.2
161.4
344.6

290.3
223.2
383.5
280.1
210.3
161.5
351.0

284.7
223.7
350.9
280.5
210.3
161.3
350.3

1Data for September 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
3 Includes only domestic production.

80


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

4 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month,
5 Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
r=revised.

24.

Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual

1982

Commodity grouping

1983

1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.1

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jaa

All commodities— less farm products ..............................
All foods
Processed foods ............................................................
Industrial commodities less fuels ..........................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 100) ..................
Hosiery ..............................................................................
Underwear and nightwear....................................................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and fibers and yams ........................................................

303.0
254.5
256.1
272.8
138.2
138.3
217.4

302.0
251.6
250.5
271.1
139.3
136.9
213.9

301.9
253.2
251.9
271.5
139.7
136.9
215.6

301.4
251.6
252.1
271.7
139.0
137.5
215.9

300.9
254.7
255.1
272.3
139.0
138.0
215.9

301.2
257.9
259.0
272.8
138.7
138.5
215.9

302.2
259.0
260.8
272.4
138.2
138.5
217.4

303.9
256.6
259.5
272.5
137.6
138.5
218.6

304.1
255.8
258.7
272.6
137.8
138.5
218.6

r 303.7
r 255.3
r 259.2
r 272.5
r 137.8
138.7
r 219.6

304.7
252.9
256.5
274.4
137.3
138.7
219.2

305.2
252.1
255.0
274.4
137.1
139.7
219.4

305.2
252.7
254.8
274.8
136.6
139.7
219.5

304.6
252.4
255.8
275.4
136.6
141.7
223.1

283.9

284.3

285.1

285.6

285.6

286.1

284.5

282.9

283.3

r 282.5

282.3

282.4

281.2

280.8

Pharmaceutical preparations ................................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork......................
Steel mill products, including fabricated wire products............
Finished steel mill products, excluding fabricated wire
products..........................................................................
Finished steel mill products, including fabricated wire
products..........................................................................

206.0
288.8
349.4

196.8
289.9
350.6

199.3
287.9
350.3

201.1
288.5
350.5

204.5
290.5
352.2

205.8
288.1
352.1

205.4
294.5
349.9

205.9
294.6
348.4

207.4
288.3
348.1

'209.0
'287.2
'347.8

211.5
283.4
349.4

212.3
283.5
348.5

213.0
288.6
344.8

215.5
298.7
343.1

348.4

349.3

348.9

349.2

351.0

350.9

348.6

347.7

347.3

'346.9

348.6

348.0

344.0

342.1

348.1

349.3

348.9

349.2

351.0

350.9

348.6

347.0

346.7

'346.3

348.2

347.2

343.3

341.5

Special metals and metal products ......................................
Fabricated metal products....................................................
Copper and copper products................................................
Machinery and motive products............................................
Machinery and equipment, except electrical ..........................

286.7
292.0
185.6
272.1
306.3

287.9
289.4
194.5
268.9
300.7

286.0
289.0
194.1
268.1
302.3

285.3
289.9
190.8
268.5
303.1

285.6
290.8
191.6
269.6
304.6

286.3
292.6
193.0
270.7
305.7

285.2
292.8
179.7
271.7
306.2

285.7
292.0
179.2
272.8
307.6

285.8
291.9
179.8
273.3
308.1

'284.0
'292.9
'181.0
'270.7
'308.6

289.9
294.1
179.2
276.3
308.9

289.0
293.1
181.8
276.7
309.6

289.2
294.0
182.1
277.6
310.3

289.7
293.9
190.5
277.9
311.1

Agricultural machinery, including tractors ..............................
Metalworking machinery ......................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100) ___
Total tractors ......................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts....................

322.8
350.4
239.8
354.7
313.5

315.1
343.8
240.1
346.9
306.5

316.0
344.9
239.8
346.9
307.4

318.4
346.4
239.9
349.1
309.7

319.0
348.8
239.9
352.4
310.3

319.9
349.3
239.9
353.6
311.0

321.3
350.1
240.0
354.1
312.2

321.8
352.6
239.2
354.8
312.8

322.8
353.1
239.2
355.5
313.6

'325.5
'353.5
'239.4
'359.6
'315.8

329.8
354.2
239.8
360.8
319.5

331.3
354.3
239.8
360.7
320.8

333.7
354.2
239.8
363.2
323.1

336.0
354.8
238.0
365.3
325.1

Farm and garden tractors less parts ....................................
Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts ..............
Construction materials..........................................................

327.4
319.3
288.0

319.7
311.6
286.6

319.7
313.2
286.9

323.5
314.6
287.5

323.5
315.6
288.2

325.0
316.1
288.2

325.8
317.9
289.5

325.4
319.1
289.2

326.0
320.4
288.3

'333.0
'319.6
'288.4

334.9
325.9
287.7

334.9
328.6
287.6

339.1
329.6
288.3

342.2
331.2
290.0

1Data for September 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

25.

r=revised.

Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product

[1967 = 100]
Annual
average
1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.1

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Total durable goods ....................................................
Total nondurable goods......................................................

279.0
315.3

277.6
314.7

277.4
315.4

277.4
314.2

278.1
313.6

278.5
314.5

278.3
316.0

278.9
317.6

278.8
317.1

'278.6
'315.7

281.4
314.3

281.2
315.5

282.0
315.1

282.8
313.4

Total manufactures ..........................................
Durable ..................................................................
Nondurable ..................................................

292.7
279.9
306.4

291.9
278.0
306.8

292.0
277.8
307.2

291.4
277.8
305.9

291.1
278.7
304.1

291.3
279.2
304.0

292.4
279.3
306.3

293.7
279.9
308.5

293.8
279.8
308.6

'292.9
'279.6
'307.1

293.9
282.4
305.9

294.0
282.4
306.3

294.1
283.2
305.6

293.7
283.9
303.9

Total raw or slightly processed goods............................
Duraole............................................................
Nondurable ....................................

331.3
234.1
337.4

328.9
253.8
333.4

330.6
253.7
335.2

329.7
250.1
334.5

331.9
245.3
337.2

335.1
239.7
341.1

333.4
225.4
340.3

333.2
225.3
340,-i

331.1
225.0
337.9

'329.9
'226.2
'336.5

328.2
225.1
334.8

331.1
220.0
338.2

331.5
218.2
338.8

330.3
225.2
337.0

Commodity grouping

1982

1 Data for September 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.


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

1983

r=revised,

81

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
26.

Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code

Annual

1983

1982

Industry description
1982

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept1

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

175.2
312.2
925.7
151.2

171.3
347.9
919.7
149.6

171.3
313.7
913.9
149.6

171.3
325.0
905.4
149.6

171.3
327.0
893.3
151.7

177.1
308.3
901.2
151.7

177.1
307.5
914.3
151.7

177.1
306.2
924.3
151.7

177.1
287.5
926.7
151.7

177.1
r 289.5
r 937.6
151.7

177.1
312.5
946.7
151.7

177.1
308.3
969.0
151.7

177.1
312.5
956.0
151.7

177.1
306.2
942.8
153.6

MINING
1011
1092
1311
1455

Iron ores (12/75 - 100)..............................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)........................................
Crude petroleum and natural g a s..................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 - 100) ................................
MANUFACTURING

2021
2024
2041
2044
2067

Creamery butter..........................................................
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 - 100) ..............
Flour mills (12/71 - 100)............................................
Rice milling..................................................................
Chewing gum ..............................................................

276.0
214.4
186.2
185.1
304.1

275.0
212.8
191.5
205.9
303.3

276.4
212.8
187.5
192.2
303.3

276.8
210.9
187.3
183.5
303.3

275.3
214.2
192.5
177.9
303.4

274.9
214.2
188.4
183.0
303.4

274.9
214.2
189.1
180.3
303.4

275.0
213.6
185.5
177.6
303.3

276.3
213.6
180.2
183.0
304.7

276.8
216.5
182.2
183.0
304.7

276.8
216.5
179.6
183.0
304.8

276.5
216.5
184.8
175.2
306.0

277.8
216.5
185.5
196.1
306.1

275.5
216.5
182.6
191.3
326.0

2074
2083
2085
2091
2098

Cottonseed oil mills......................................................
M alt............................................................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) ................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100)..................
Macaroni and spaghetti................................................

168.3
256.9
140.1
187.0
258.5

184.9
267.1
140.1
187.2
259.5

170.5
267.1
137.9
187.0
259.5

158.1
267.1
140.2
187.7
259.5

164.7
259.1
140.2
188.2
259.5

167.9
259.8
139.8
188.0
259.5

170.2
259.8
139.8
188.4
259.5

174.6
259.8
139.8
187.8
259.5

173.1
259.8
140.4
184.3
259.5

r 164.4
251.2
140.4
186.2
259.5

157.6
251.2
140.4
186.3
255.5

164.2
240.6
141.3
186.4
255.5

169.4
240.6
141.3
186.6
255.5

157.5
232.6
141.3
182.8
255.5

2251
2261
2262
2284
2298

Women’s hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100) ............
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100)............................
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 - 100)................
Thread mills (6/76 - 100) ..........................................
Cordage and twine (12/77 - 100)................................

116.8
139.5
128.2
157.2
141.5

115.6
140.5
129.4
156.8
141.0

115.6
140.3
129.9
156.8
141.0

116.1
140.8
128.5
156.8
141.0

116.2
141.6
128.5
156.7
141.0

116.9
141.5
128.4
156.6
141.0

116.9
141.4
127.6
156.6
141.0

116.8
140.3
126.8
156.5
141.0

116.9
139.8
129.0
158.0
141.0

r 116.9
r 138.5
r 128.2
158.0
142.6

116.8
136.8
127.4
157.9
142.6

118.5
136.2
127.7
157.8
142.6

118.4
136.1
127.2
157.8
142.6

118.6
135.3
125.6
157.9
142.6

2321
2323
2331
2361
2381

Men's and boys' shirts and nightwear............................
Men’s and boys’ neckwear (12/75 = 100)....................
Women’s and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) .
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)..............
Fabric dress and work gloves ......................................

214.6
119.5
125.8
120.6
292.1

173.4
115.3
126.5
123.2
293.8

215.9
117.3
126.5
123.2
297.4

216.9
117.3
126.5
123.2
295.5

217.3
117.3
126.5
122.2
295.5

217.5
117.3
126.5
122.2
295.5

217.8
121.3
126.6
122.2
294.5

218.1
121.3
126.4
119.4
294.5

218.2
121.3
126.7
120.3
288.2

r 221.5
121.3
r 126.6
118.6
288.2

219.4
121.3
123.8
118.6
287.4

220.9
121.3
125.5
117.0
287.4

220.4
121.3
124.8
117.0
287.4

223.4
121.3
124.8
117.0
288.8

2394
2396
2448
2515
2521

Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100) ................
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100)..........
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 - 100) ........................
Mattresses and bedsprings ..........................................
Wood office furniture....................................................

145.6
131.0
145.5
207.2
270.6

144.9
131.0
149.8
204.4
261.9

144.9
131.0
149.0
205.6
270.7

147.2
131.0
148.2
205.6
270.8

145.7
131.0
145.9
205.7
270.8

145.9
131.0
144.7
205.9
270.8

143.1
131.0
144.2
205.9
270.8

143.1
131.0
144.1
205.7
270.9

143.1
131.0
143.9
205.9
271.3

r 144.8
131.0
143.8
r 206.0
r271.3

148.0
131.0
144.3
210.3
272.4

148.0
131.0
144.1
210.3
272.4

148.0
131.0
144.5
210.3
272.4

149.4
131.0
144.5
208.7
272.5

2647
2654
2655
2911
2952

Sanitary paper products ..............................................
Sanitary food containers ..............................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) ..
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ..................................
Asphalt felts and coating (12/75 - 100) ......................

348.4
260.2
177.8
278.4
172.9

344.6
254.0
176.4
293.0
174.2

344.6
256.9
176.5
289.1
173.8

344.5
260.0
176.5
281.7
171.2

344.5
259.9
176.5
267.4
168.1

343.6
259.9
176.7
259.2
168.4

346.2
259.9
176.7
267.9
173.1

346.9
259.9
176.7
281.5
174.7

351.5
259.9
177.5
283.7
174.4

r 352.3
'260.8
177.5
'279.6
'180.4

349.5
263.2
177.8
278.5
176.5

358.5
263.1
180.7
280.5
173.1

356.6
263.2
183.8
278.4
172.3

356.9
263.2
183.8
268.3
170.8

3031
3251
3253
3255
3259

Reclaimed rubber(12/73 = 100) ..................................
Brick and structural clay tile ..........................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ....................
Clay refractories..........................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c........................................

207.1
306.6
139.7
353.1
219.8

200.3
298.9
140.4
329.6
255.6

200.4
299.4
140.4
354.4
226.0

207.2
299.4
140.4
355.6
225.9

209.2
303.4
140.6
355.2
215.9

209.5
304.5
140.6
355.5
215.8

210.7
305.0
140.6
356.2
215.9

209.9
305.9
140.6
356.3
215.9

209.7
313.8
140.7
356.8
219.0

'209.8
'314.0
'140.7
'356.9
'219.0

207.5
307.5
138.0
357.9
219.5

207.0
316.9
138.0
351.2
219.4

206.5
316.9
138.0
351.2
219.5

207.1
317.1
138.0
352.0
219.5

3261
3262
3263
3269
3274

Vitreous plumbing fixtures ............................................
Vitreous china food utensils..........................................
Fine earthenware food utensils......................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)..........................
Ume (12/75 = 100)....................................................

265.0
354.3
317.5
166.4
186.4

261.1
347.7
315.1
164.3
178.8

260.6
347.7
315.1
164.3
183.7

260.8
347.3
315.0
164.2
185.7

261.8
346.5
314.9
164.0
186.3

265.4
355.5
316.2
166.3
188.0

265.5
360.2
316.9
167.4
188.3

264.2
360.2
316.9
167.4
188.0

263.9
360.2
316.9
167.4
188.0

'267.2
'360.2
'316.9
'167.4
'187.8

269.1
350.3
321.3
166.9
188.1

270.3
359.4
322.7
169.1
187.8

269.7
366.8
323.7
170.9
186.0

272.1
369.2
363.5
183.8
187.5

3297
3313
3425
3482
3623

Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100)..............................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 = 100) ................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 - 100) ..................
Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 100) ........................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 - 100)....................

201.8
121.4
218.9
170.7
237.9

191.2
125.3
211.6
167.5
236.8

198.3
123.4
214.8
167.5
236.9

200.4
120.3
214.9
167.5
232.3

202.3
120.3
215.3
166.3
237.6

203.2
120.3
221.3
166.3
237.6

203.8
120.4
221.4
170.3
237.8

203.8
120.4
221.5
170.3
241.6

203.8
121.4
221.6
170.3
242.4

203.8
121.4
'221.6
'149.0
'242.8

203.8
121.3
221.2
175.9
237.8

203.7
121.3
221.4
175.9
238.0

203.6
121.2
221.2
174.8
238.3

203.7
121.1
221.4
180.9
238.5

3636
3641
3648
3671
3942

Sewing machines (12/75 = 100)..................................
Electric lamps..............................................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ......................
Electron tubes, receiving type ......................................
Dolls (12/75 = 100)....................................................

154.3
294.0
170.0
382.3
136.6

156.0
282.1
162.8
374.1
135.5

155.8
286.1
167.8
374.2
136.6

155.8
283.6
168.8
374.4
136.6

154.3
296.6
170.9
374.5
136.8

154.3
294.5
171.2
374.4
136.8

154.3
293.9
171.1
374.5
136.8

154.3
291.8
171.1
375.4
136.8

153.6
293.7
171.2
375.4
136.8

'153.6
296.3
171.2
' 380.2
'136.8

153.6
302.9
171.2
380.8
136.5

153.6
303.0
171.2
414.5
136.5

153.6
303.4
171.5
414.5
136.5

153.6
305.6
171.5
431.6
136.8

3944
3955
3995
3996

Games, toys, and children’s vehicles ............................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100)............
Burial caskets (6/76 = 100) ........................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 100)..................

233.1
140.0
148.4
155.9

228.4
140.3
142.7
155.1

232.5
140.3
143.8
155.2

234.1
140.3
143.8
156.1

234.1
140.3
145.3
156.1

234.3
140.5
149.3
156.3

234.3
140.6
149.3
154.3

234.4
140.4
150.8
155.0

234.4
140.5
150.8
155.7

'234.8
139.3
150.8
156.9

232.6
139.3
150.8
156.9

232.8
139.2
150.8
156.9

232.8
139.4
150.8
156.8

232.7
139.2
147.0
159.2

' Data for September 1982 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

82


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

Note: Indexes which were deleted may now be found in Table 4 of the BLS monthly
report, Producer Prices and Price Indexes.
r=revised.

PRODUCTIVITY DATA

P roductivity data are compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com­
pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.

Definitions
Output is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of output per hour of labor input, or labor pro­
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
of labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of em­
ployees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private
benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and
supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. Real com­
pensation per hour is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Unit labor cost measures the labor compensation cost required to
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, in­
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, unit
nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and invento­
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.
The implicit price deflator is derived by dividing the current dollar
estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.

27.

The use of the term “man hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 26 through 29, has been discontin­
ued. Hours of all persons is now used to describe the labor input of
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
Output per all-employee hour is now used to describe labor productiv­
ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.

Notes on the data
In the business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the basis
for the output measure employed in the computation of output per
hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National Product.
Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and farm propri­
etor hours.
Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly
manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating)
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Beginning with the September 1982 issue of the Review, all of the
productivity and cost measures contained in these tables are based on
revised output and compensation measures released by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis in July as part of the regular revision cycle of the
National Income and Product Accounts. Measures of labor input
have been revised to reflect results of the 1980 census, and seasonal
factors have been recomputed for use in the preparation of quarterly
measures. The word “private” is no longer being used as part of the
series title of one of the two business sector measures prepared by
BLS; no change has been made in the definition or content of the
measures as a result of this change.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-82

[1977=100]

Item
Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o st................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ....................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
1Not available.


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

1982

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

50.4
20.0
50.5
39.7
43.4
41.0

58.3
26.4
59.6
45.2
47.6
46.0

65.2
33.9
69.5
52.0
50.6
51.6

78.3
41.7
80.1
53.3
57.6
54.7

86.2
58.2
90.8
67.5
63.2
66.0

94.5
85.5
96.3
90.5
90.4
90.5

97.6
92.9
98.9
95.1
94.0
94.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.6
108.6
100.9
108.0
106.7
107.5

99.6
119.1
99.4
119.5
112.8
117.2

98.9
131.4
96.7
132.9
119.3
128.3

100.7
144.1
96.0
143.1
135.2
140.4

56.3
21.8
55.0
38.8
42.7
40.1

62.8
28.3
64.0
45.0
47.8
46.0

68.3
35.7
73.0
52.2
50.4
51.6

80.5
42.8
82.2
53.2
58.0
54.8

86.8
58.7
91.5
67.6
63.7
66.3

94.7
86.0
96.8
90.8
88.5
90.0

97.8
93.0
99.0
95.1
93.5
94.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.6
108.6
100.9
108.0
105.3
107.1

99.3
118.8
99.2
119.6
110.3
116.5

98.5
130.9
96.3
133.0
119.1
128.3

99.9
143.6
95.7
143.8
134.8 ■
140.8

( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )

( 1)
( ')
( ')
(’ )
( ')
(’ )

68.0
37.0
75.8
54.4
54.6
54.5

81.9
43.9
84.3
53.5
60.8
56.1

87.4
59.4
92.7
68.0
63.1
66.3

95.5
86.1
96.9
90.2
90.8
90.4

98.2
92.9
98.9
94.6
95.0
94.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
108.5
100.8
107.5
104.2
106.4

100.7
118.7
99.1
117.8
106.9
114.1

100.3
130.9
96.2
130.5
117.7
126.1

102.0
143.5
95.6
140.6
134.8
138.6

(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
( ')
(’ )
( ')

49.4
21.5
54.0
43.4
54.3
46.6

56.4
28.8
65.1
51.0
58.5
53.2

60.0
36.7
75.1
61.1
61.1
61.1

74.5
42.8
82.3
57.5
69.3
61.0

79.1
57.6
89.8
72.7
65.0
70.5

93.4
85.4
96.2
91.5
87.3
90.3

97.5
92.3
98.3
94.6
93.7
94.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
108.3
100.6
107.4
102.5
106.0

101.5
118.9
99.2
117.1
99.9
112.0

101.7
132.8
97.7
130.6
97.1
120.8

104.5
146.4
97.5
140.0
108.8
130.8

»103.4
»158.8
»99.7
»153.5

p 101.0
p 154.6

»97.0
p 153.0

»138.9
p 148.2
»100.0
»154.0
»96.7
»153.9
»133.9
»149.0

P (1)

PC )

p= preliminary.

83

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
28.

Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1972-82
Annual rate
of change

Year
Item
1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1950-82

1972-82

3.5
6.5
3.1
2.9
4.5
3.4

2.6
8.0
1.6
5.3
5.9
5.5

-2.4
9.4
-1.4
12.1
4.4
9.5

2.2
9.6
0.5
7.3
15.1
9.8

3.3
8.6
2.6
5.1
4.0
4.7

2.4
7.7
1.2
5.1
6.4
5.6

0.6
8.6
0.9
8.0
6.7
7.5

-0.9
9.7
-1.4
10.7
5.7
9.0

-0.7
10.4
-2.8
11.2
5.8
9.4

1.8
9.6
-0.7
7.7
13.3
9.5

»0.4
p7.3
»1.1
p6.9
p2.7
p5.5

p2.4
p6.3
p2.3
p3.8
p3.7
p3.7

»1.1
»9.0
p0.1
p7.8
p7.3
»7.5

3.7
6.7
3.3
2.9
3.2
3.0

2.4
7.6
1.3
5.0
1.3
3.8

-2.5
9.4
-1.4
12.2
5.9
10.2

2.0
9.6
0.4
7.5
16.7
10.3

3.2
8.1
2.2
4.7
5.7
5.0

2.2
7.5
1.0
5.2
6.9
5.7

0.6
8.6
0.9
8.0
5.3
7.1

-1.3
9.3
-1.7
10.7
4.7
8.8

-0.9
10.2
-2.9
11.2
8.0
10.2

1.4
9.7
-0.7
8.1
13.1
9.7

p0.2
p7.3
p1.1
p7.1
p3.4
p5.9

p2.1
p6.0
p2.0
»3.8
p3.7
»3.8

2.9
5.7
2.4
2.8
2.7
2.8

2.4
7.5
1.2
4.9
1.5
3.8

-3.7
9.4
-1.5
13.6
7.1
11.4

2.9
9.6
0.4
6.5
20.1
10.9

2.9
7.9
2.0
4.9
4.6
4.8

1.8
7.6
1.1
5.7
5.3
5.6

0.9
8.5
0.8
7.5
4.2
6.4

-0.2
9.4
-1.7
9.6
2.6
7.2

-0.4
10.3
-2.9
10.7
10.1
10.5

1.7
9.6
-0.7
7.8
14.6
10.0

( 1)
( ')
( ')
(’ )

5.0
5.4
2.0
0.3
0.8
0.5

5.4
7.2
0.9
1.7
-3.3
0.3

-2.4
10.6
-0.3
13.3
-1.8
9.0

2.9
11.9
2.5
8.8
25.9
13.1

4.4
8.0
2.1
3.4
7.4
4.6

2.5
8.3
1.8
5.7
6.7
6.0

0.9
8.3
0.6
7.4
2.5
6.0

0.7
9.7
-1.4
9.0
-2.6
5.7

0.2
11.8
-1.6
11.6
-2.7
7.8

2.8
10.2
-0.2
7.2
12.0
8.4

-1.0
8.5
2.2
9.6
( 1)

1972
Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hou r......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinandal corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per ho u r......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
' Not available.

29.

n

n
e»

n

p0.9
»8.8

p0.0
»7.8
»7.5
»7.7

( 1>
( ')
( ')
( ')
( )

1

»1.0
»8.8
»0.0
»7.7
»7.4
»7.6

p2.6
p5.9
p1.9
p3.2
p2.1
p2.9

»1.7
»9.5
»0.6
»7.7
»3.7
»6.7

III

IV

p= preliminary.

Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted

[1977 = 100]

Item

Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinandal corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per ho u r......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Total unit costs ..................................................
Unit labor cost ............................................
Unit nonlabor costs......................................
Unit profits ........................................................
Implidt price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
1Not available.
r=revised.

84


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

Quarterly indexes

Annual
average

1980

1982

1981

1981

1982

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

100.7
144.1
96.0
143.1
135.2
140.4

»101.0
»154.6
»97.0
»153.0
»138.9
»148.2

98.2
130.0
96.4
132.3
116.2
126.9

98.9
133.1
96.9
134.7
120.6
129.9

99.3
136.1
96.2
137.0
124.6
132.8

100.7
140.0
96.2
139.0
131.8
136.5

100.7
142.5
96.4
141.5
133.4
138.8

101.0
145.6
95.7
144.2
137.4
141.9

100.2
148.2
95.6
147.9
138.3
144.6

100.0
150.9
96.5
150.9
136.4
146.0

100.3
153.4
97.1
152.9
137.0
147.5

r 101.2
155.7
96.8
r 153.8
r 140.0
' 149.1

»102.2
»158.0
»97.5
»154.5
»142.4
»150.4

99.9
143.6
95.7
143.8
134.8
140.8

»100.0
»154.0
»96.7
»153.9
»139.3
»149.0

97.6
129.3
96.0
132.5
116.7
127.2

98.4
132.6
96.5
134.7
120.3
129.9

99.2
135.7
95.9
136.8
124.4
132.7

100.4
139.5
96.0
139.0
131.5
136.5

100.0
142.0
96.0
141.9
132.8
138.9

100.0
145.1
95.4
145.1
136.7
142.3

99.1
147.7
95.3
149.0
138.4
145.5

99.2
150.4
96.3
151.6
136.7
146.6

99.4
152.7
96.6
153.5
137.2
148.1

r 100.3
155.1
96.4
r 154.7
r 140.1
149.8

»100.9
»157.4
»97.2
»155.9
»143.2
»151.7

102.0
143.5
95.6
143.4
140.6
151.4
101.6
138.6

(’ )
( 1)
(’ )
( ')

(’ )
( ')

99.3
129.3
95.9
130.4
130.2
131.0
81.9
124.8

100.6
132.6
96.6
132.9
131.9
135.7
87.8
127.7

101.1
135.6
95.8
135.8
134.1
140.7
90.5
130.6

102.3
139.6
96.0
138.3
136.5
143.4
104.7
134.5

102.2
141.9
96.0
141.7
138.9
149.6
98.8
136.8

102.2
144.8
95.2
144.7
141.7
153.1
105.2
140.2

101.6
147.7
95.3
149.1
145.4
159.6
97.6
143.2

101.6
150.7
96.5
151.8
148.3
161.8
86.1
144.3

102.3
153.0
96.8
153.8
149.5
166.0
82.3
145.6

103.5
155.2
96.4
154.8
150.0
168.5
88.7
147.2

104.5
146.4
97.5
140.0

»103.4
»158.8
»99.7
»153.5

100.4
130.9
97.1
130.3

100.3
135.2
98.5
134.9

103.6
138.4
97.8
133.6

105.2
142.6
98.0
135.5

105.0
144.9
97.9
138.0

105.0
147.3
96.8
140.3

102.8
150.7
97.2
146.6

102.1
154.7
99.0
151.5

102.3
157.6
99.7
154.0

104.2
160.0
99.4
153.6

f )
n

p = preliminary.

I

II

(’ )
f )
n

(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
»104.3
»161.8
»99.9
»155.2

30. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1977=100]
Percent change from same quarter a year ago

Quarterly percent change at annual rate
Item

Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor costs ..........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor costs ..........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Total unit costs ..........................................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor costs..................................
Unit profits..................................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor costs ..........................................
1Not available.
c= corrected.


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

III 1982
to
IV 1982

III 1980
to
III 1981

IV 1980
to
IV 1981

11981
to
I 1982

I11981
to
II 1982

1.4
6.9
2.2
5.5
1.7
4.3

4.2
6.1
-1.4
1.8
9.3
4.1

p4.1
p6.0
p3.3
p1.8
»7.0
»3.5

2.2
9.4
-1.3
7.1
13.9
9.2

0.9
8.9
-0.6
7.9
11.0
8.9

-0.7
7.8
0.3
8.6
3.5
6.9

-0.4
7.6
0.8
8.1
2.7
6.3

0.4
6.9
1.1
6.5
2.0
5.0

»2.0
p6.6
»2.0
»4.5
»2.9
»4.0

0.6
7.7
4.3
7.1
-4.6
3.3

0.8
6.1
1.4
5.2
1.3
4.0

4.0
6.6
-0.9
2.6
9.5
4.7

p2.7
p6.0
»3.3
»3.2
»9.2
»5.1

1.6
9.4
-1.2
7.7
13.6
9.6

-0.1
8.8
-0.6
8.9
11.2
9.6

-1.1
7.8
0.3
9.0
4.0
7.4

-0.6
7.5
0.6
8.2
3.3
6.6

0.4
6.9
1.1
6.5
2.7
5.3

»1.9
»6.6
»2.0
»4.6
»3.5
»4.3

-2.4
8.2
0.3
12.8
10.9
17.8
c-25.9
8.9

0.3
8.4
5.0
7.4
8.1
5.7
—39.4
3.0

2.7
6.2
1.6
5.4
3.4
10.7
-16.7
3.8

4.6
5.9
-1.6
2.6
1.2
6.4
35.4
4.6

0)
(1)
(’ )
(’ )
0
(')
(’ )
0

1.6
9.2
-1.4
8.9
7.5
12.9
19.7
9.7

0.5
8.9
-0.5
9.8
8.4
13.4
7.9
9.6

-0.6
8.0
0.5
9.7
8.6
12.8
-17.8
7.3

0.2
7.8
0.9
8.5
7.6
10.9
-16.7
6.4

1.3
7.2
1.3
7.0
5.8
10.1
-15.6
5.0

0)
(')
(')
0
(1)
(1)
0)
0)

-8.2
9.6
1.6
19.4

-2.4
11.1
7.6
13.9

0.8
7.8
3.1
6.9

7.3
6.2
-1.3
-1.0

»0.4
p4.5
p 1.9
p4.1

4.7
8.9
-1.7
4.0

-0.8
8.9
-0.6
9.8

-2.9
8.5
1.0
11.7

-2.5
8.8
1.8
11.6

-0.8
8.7
2.7
»9.5

»1.5
»7.4
»2.8
»5.8

III 1981
to
IV 1981

IV 1981
to
I 1982

1.1
9.0
-2.6
7.8
12.5
9.3

-2.9
7.4
-0.4
10.6
2.9
8.0

-1.0
7.3
3.9
8.4
-5.4
3.8

-0.3
9.0
-2.6
9.3
12.1
10.2

-3.5
7.3
-0.5
11.2
5.1
9.2

0.2
8.4
-3.1
8.6
8.2
9.8
28.4
10.2
-0.1
6.8
-4.6
6.8

1 1982
to
II 1982

III 1981
to
III 1982

IV 1981
to
IV 1982

II 1982
to
III 1982

I11981
to
III 1981

p= preliminary.

85

WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA

THE employment cost index are reported to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics by a sample of 2,000 private nonfarm establishments and 750 State and local government units
selected to represent total employment in those sectors. On
average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensation
information on five well-specified occupations.
data for

Data on negotiated wage and benefit changes are obtained
from contracts on file at the Bureau, direct contact with the
parties, and secondary sources.
Definitions
The Employment Cost Index (ECI) is a quarterly measure of the
average change in the cost of employing labor. The rate of total com­
pensation, which comprises wages, salaries, and employer costs for
employee benefits, is collected for workers performing specified tasks.
Employment in each occupation is held constant over time for all se­
ries produced in the ECI, except those by region, bargaining status,
and area. As a consequence, only changes in compensation are meas­
ured. Industry and occupational employment data from the 1970 Cen­
sus of Population are used in deriving constant weights for the ECI.
While holding total industry and occupational employment fixed, in
the estimation of indexes by region, bargaining status, and area, the
employment in those measures is allowed to vary over time in accord
with changes in the sample. The rate of change (in percent) is avail­
able for wages and salaries, as well as for total compensation. Data
are collected for the pay period including the 12th day of the survey
months of March, June, September, and December. The statistics are
neither annualized nor adjusted for seasonal influence.
Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions,
excluding premium pay for overtime, work on weekends and holidays,
and shift differentials. Production bonuses, incentive earnings, com­
missions, and cost-of-living adjustments are included; nonproduction
bonuses are included with other supplemental pay items in the bene­
fits category; and payments-in-kind, free room and board, and tips are
excluded. Benefits include supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and
savings plans, and hours-related and legally required benefits.
Data on negotiated wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry
collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more.
Data on compensation changes apply only to those agreements cover­
ing 5,000 workers or more. First-year wage or compensation changes
refer to average negotiated changes for workers covered by settle­
ments reached in the period and implemented within the first 12
months after the effective date of the agreement. Changes over the life


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
86
Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis

o f the agreement refer to all adjustments specified in the contract,
expressed as an average annual rate. These measures exclude wage
changes that may occur under cost-of-living adjustment clauses, that
are triggered by movements in the Consumer Price Index. Wage-rate
changes are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings;
compensation changes are expressed as a percent of total wages and
benefits.
Effective wage adjustments reflect all negotiated changes imple­
mented in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. They
include changes from settlements reached during the period, changes
deferred from contracts negotiated in an earlier period, and cost-ofliving adjustments. The data also reflect contracts providing for no
wage adjustment in the period. Effective adjustments and each of
their components are prorated over all workers in bargaining units
with at least 1,000 workers.

Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quar­
ter of 1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in
the private nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee bene­
fits were included in 1980, to produce a measure of the percent
change in employers’ cost for employees’ total compensation. State
and local government units were added to the ECI coverage in 1981,
providing a measure of total compensation change in the civilian non­
farm economy.
Data for the broad white-collar, blue-collar, and service worker
groups, and the manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, and service indus­
try groups are presented in the ECI. Additional occupation and in­
dustry detail are provided for the wages and salaries component of
total compensation in the private nonfarm sector. For State and local
government units, additional industry detail is shown for both total
compensation and its wages and salaries component.
Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates of chang­
es presented in the ECI are also available.
For a more detailed discussion of the ECI, see chapter 11, “The
Employment Cost Index,” of the BLS Handbook o f Methods (Bulletin
2134—1), and the Monthly Labor Review articles: “Employment Cost
Index: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor,”’ July 1975; “How
benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,” Janu­
ary 1978; and “The Employment Cost Index: recent trends and ex­
pansion,” May 1982.
Additional data for the ECI and other measures of wage and com­
pensation changes appear in Current Wage Developments, a monthly
publication of the Bureau.

31.

Employment Cost Index, total compensation, by occupation and industry group

[June 1981=100]
Percent change
1982

1981

1980

3 months
ended

Series
Dec.

Civilian nonfarm workers'....................................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ......................................................
Blue-collar workers ........................................................
Service workers ............................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..........................................................
Services....................................................................
Public administration2 ................................................

March

—
—
—

—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—

12 months
ended

Decemtrer 1982

June

Sept

Dec.

March

June

Sept

Dec.

100.0

102.6

104.5

106.3

107.5

110.1

111.4

1.2

6.6

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.7
102.3
102.8

104.9
104.1
104.2

106.5
105.7
107.2

107.7
107.1
108.3

110.7
109.2
110.8

111.9
110.5
112.4

1.1
1.2
1,4

6.7
6.1
7.9

102.1
102.8
104.4
104.3

104.0
104.8
107.1
106.0

106.0
106.4
108.2
108.1

107.2
107.7
109.2
109.1

109.3
110.5
113.5
112.8

110.4
111.8
115.0
113.6

1.0
1.2
1.3
.7

6.2
6.7
7.4
7.2

—

—

1000
100.0
100.0
100.0

Private nonfarm workers..................................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ..................................................
Blue-collar workers ....................................................
Service workers ........................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing............................................................
Nonmanufacturing......................................................

94.7

98.1

100.0

102.0

104.0

105.8

107.2

109.3

110.7

1.3

6.4

94.5
94.9
94.3

98.3
97.8
99.3

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
102.2
101.9

104.0
104.0
103.1

105.8
105.6
106.7

107.2
107.0
107.9

109.5
109.0
109.6

110.8
110.3
111.8

1.2
1.2
2.0

6.5
6.1
8.4

94.7
94.7

98.0
98.2

100.0
100.0

102.1
102.0

104.0
103.9

106.0
105.7

107.2
107.1

109.3
109.3

110.4
110.8

1.0
1.4

6.2
6.6

State and local government workers ..............................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ..................................................
Blue-collar workers ....................................................
Workers, by Industry division
Services....................................................................
Schools ................................................................
Elementary and secondary..................................
Hospitals and other services3 ..................................
Public administration2 ................................................

-

-

100.0

105.3

107.4

108.8

109.3

114.3

115.1

.7

7.2

115.8
113.0

.8
.3

7.4
6.7

115.9
115.8
116.6
116.0
113.6

.9
.9
.9
.6
.7

7.4
7.3
7.7
7.6
7.2

'Excludes household and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.


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

—
—

—
—

100.0
100.0

105.7
104.2

107.8
105.9

109.1
108.2

109.5
108.9

114.9
112.7

—
—
—
—

—
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

105.8
106.0
106.3
105.0
104.3

107.9
107.9
108.3
107.8
106.0

109.0
108.9
109.3
109.5
108.1

109.4
109.1
109.5
110.3
109.1

114.9
114.8
115.6
115.3
112.8

_

—

includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
Note: Dashes Indicate data not available.

87

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data
32.

Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group

[June 1981=100]
Percent change
1980

1981

1982

3 months
ended

Series

12 months
ended

Dec.

March

June

Sept

Dec.

March

June

Sept

Dec.

-

-

100.0

102.5

104.4

106.3

107.3

109.7

110.9

1.1

6.2

Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ......................................................
Blue-collar workers ........................................................
Service workers..............................................................

—
—
—

—
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.6
102.4
102.5

104.7
104.0
103.6

106.7
105.5
106.8

107.6
106.7
107.9

110.4
108.6
110.1

111,4
109.8
111.8

.9
1.1
1.5

6.4
5.6
7.9

Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing ................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................
Services ....................................................................
Public administration 2 ..................................................

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.1
102.7
104.4
103.8

104.0
104.5
106.6
105.5

105.9
106.5
108.6
107.5

107.0
107.5
109.5
108.4

108.8
110.1
113.2
111.9

109.8
111.3
114.4
112.6

.9
1.1
1.1
.6

5.6
6.5
7.3
6.7

95.4

98.0

100.0

102.0

103.8

105.9

107.1

109.0

110.3

1.2

6.3

95.2
95.3
94.7
94.8
95.7
95.7
96.1
95.5
95.3
95.7
94.8

98.1
98.2
98.6
96.2
98.6
97.7
97.8
97.8
96.8
97.5
99.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
103.3
101.6
98.0
102.7
102.3
102.9
102.1
101.0
101.5
101.8

103.9
105.5
102.8
101.9
104.2
103.9
104.3
104.1
102.7
103.3
102 7

106.2
108.0
105.8
102.2
107.0
105.4
106.2
105.4
103.2
104.1
106.7

107.3
109.4
107.2
101.8
108.3
106.6
107.6
106.6
104.1
105.1
107.9

109.4
111.8
108.5
104.5
110.3
108.5
109.6
108.3
106.0
106.5
109.3

110.6
112.9
109.3
106.2
111.6
109.7
111.2
109.3
106.9
107.8
111.4

1.1
1.0
.7
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.5
.9
.8
1.2
1.9

6.4
7.0
6.3
4.2
7.1
5.6
6.6
5.0
4.1
4.4
8.5

95.7
95.7
95.7
95.2
95.9
95.6
95.1
95.9
94.8
93.1
95.7

97.9
97.9
97.8
98.1
97.6
97.7
98.2
98.5
98.1
95.7
99.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.1
102.1
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
101.3
102.0
101.0
98.3
103.6

104.0
104.5
103.1
103.8
104.3
103.6
102.3
103.4
101.9
102.3
105.8

105.9
106.3
105.3
105.9
105.9
105.7
103.9
106.3
103.0
103.7
108.8

107.0
107.4
106.3
107.1
107.3
106.9
105.8
108.9
104.5
102.4
110.0

108.8
109.0
108.5
109.1
109.1
109.5
106.5
109.0
105.5
106.1
112.5

109.8
110.3
109.1
110.5
109.7
111.1
107.2
109.8
106.1
109.0
114.3

.9
1.2
.6
1.3
.6
1.5
.7
.7
.6
2.7
1.6

5.6
5.6
5.8
6.5
5.2
7.2
4.8
6.2
4.1
6.5
8.0

Civilian nonfarm workers' ....................................................

Private nonfarm workers..................................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ..................................................
Professional and technical workers ..........................
Managers and administrators ..................................
Salesworkers..........................................................
Clerical workers......................................................
Blue-collar workers ....................................................
Craft and kindred workers ......................................
Operatives, except transport....................................
Transport equipment operatives ..............................
Nonfarm laborers....................................................
Service workers..........................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing ............................................................
Durables................................................................
Nondurables ..........................................................
Nonmanufacturing ......................................................
Construction ..........................................................
Transportation and public utilities..............................
Wholesale and retail trade ......................................
Wholesale trade..................................................
Retail trade ........................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate..........................
Services ................................................................
State and local government workers................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ..................................................
Blue-collar workers ....................................................
Workers, by industry division
Services ....................................................................
Schools..................................................................
Elementary and secondary..................................
Hospitals and other services3 ......................................
Public administration2 ..................................................

'Excludes household and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

88

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

December 1982

—

_

100.0

105.0

107.0

108.2

108.7

113.5

114.0

.4

6.5

—
—

—
—

100.0
100.0

105.4
103.9

107.5
105.5

108.5
107.5

108.9
107.9

114.2
111.5

114.6
112.0

.4
.4

6.6
6.2

—
—
—

—

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

105.5
105.7
106.0
104.6
103.8

107.6
107.7
107.9
107.3
105.5

108.4
108.3
108.7
108.8
107.5

108.8
108.5
108.8
109.5
108.4

114.2
114.2
114.9
114.3
111.9

114.6
114.5
115.1
114.9
112.6

.4
.3
.2
.5
.6

6.5
6.3
6.7
7.1
6.7

_
—
—

_

3 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
N ote : Dashes indicate data not available.

33.

Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size

[June 1981 = 100]
Percent change
1980

1981

1982

3 months
ended

Series
Dec.

12 months
ended

Dec.

March

June

Sept

Dec.

March

June

Sept.

December 1982

Union ................................................................................
Manufacturing ................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................

94.7
—

97.6
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.5
102.3
102.7

104.8
104.6
105.0

106.5
106.3
106.8

108.4
108.0
108.7

110.6
110.3
111.0

112.3
111.8
112.8

1.5
1.4
1.6

7.2
6.9
7.4

Nonunion............................................................................
Manufacturing ................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................

94.6
—

98.4

—

—

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
101.8
101.7

103.5
103.5
103.5

105.3
105.7
105.2

106.5
106.6
106.4

108.5
108.4
108.6

109.7
109.2
109.9

1.1
.7
1.2

6.0
5.5
6.2

94.7
94.2

98.1
98.1

100.0
100.0

102.1
101.8

104.1
103.2

105.7
106.2

107.2
107.0

109.4
108.6

110.9
109.1

1.4
.5

6.5
5.7

Workers, by bargaining status1
Union ................................................................................
Manufacturing ................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................

95.8
96.1
95.5

97.4
97.7
97.1

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.7
102.6
102.8

105.0
104.7
105.2

106.5
105.9
107.0

108.1
107.3
108.8

110.3
109.5
111.1

111.8
110.8
112.7

1.4
1.2
1.4

6.5
5.8
7.1

Nonunion............................................................................
Manufacturing ................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ..........................................................

95.1
95.4
95.0

98.2
97.9
98.3

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.6
101.7
101.6

103.2
103.3
103.2

105.6
105.9
105.5

106.5
106.7
106.4

108.3
108.2
108.3

109.5
109.1
109.6

1.1
.8
1.2

6.1
5.6
6.2

Workers, by region1
Northeast ..........................................................................
South ................................................................................
North Central......................................................................
West..................................................................................

96.0
94.9
95.3
95.3

98.3
98.0
98.1
97.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
101.9
101.6
103.2

104.4
102.8
103.3
105.1

106.1
105.7
104.7
107.9

106.7
107.4
106.1
108.6

109.7
108.8
107.6
110.7

111.5
109.8
108.6
112.0

1.6
.9
.9
1.2

6.8
6.8
5.1
6.6

Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan areas..............................................................
Other areas........................................................................

95.4
95.1

97.9
98.3

100.0
100.0

102.1
101.8

104.0
103.1

105.9
106.0

107.1
106.8

109.1
108.3

110.5
108.8

1.3
.5

6.3
5.5

COMPENSATION
Workers, by bargaining status1

—

—

Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan areas..............................................................
Other areas........................................................................
WAGES AND SALARIES

1The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a
detailed description of the index calculation, see BLS Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 1910.


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

89

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Wage and Compensation Data
34.

Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1978 to date

[In percent]
Quarterly average
Measure

1981
1978

1979

1980

1981

8.3
6.3

9.0
6.6

10.4
7.1

10.2
8.3

3.2
2.7

first year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

7.6
6.4

7.4
6.0

9.5
7.1

9.8
7.9

Manufacturing:
first year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

8.3
6.6

6.9
5.4

7.4
5.4

Nonmanufacturing (excluding
construction):
First year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

8.0
6.5

7.6
6.2

Construction:
first year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

6.5
6.2

8.8
8.3

1982 p

I

1982 p

II

III

IV

1

II

III

7.7
7.2

11.6
10.8

10.5
8.1

11.0
5.8

1.9
1.2

2.6
2.0

6.2
4.7

3.0
4.9

3.8
3.6

7.1
6.2

11.8
9.7

10.8
8.7

9.0
5.7

3.0
2.8

3.4
3.2

5.5
4.6

3.7
5.0

7.2
6.1

2.9
2.7

6.4
5.5

8.2
6.7

9.0
7.5

6.6
5.4

2.5
2.7

1.8
1.7

5.3
4.1

4.2
4.6

9.5
6.6

9.8
7.3

4.2
4.1

8.0
7.3

11.8
9.1

8.6
7.2

9.6
5.6

2.7
2.1

6.6
6.1

5.5
4.8

3.2
5.4

13.6
11.5

13.5
11.3

6.5
6.4

11.4
10.3

12.9
11.1

16.4
12.4

11.4
11.7

8.6
8.2

6.2
6.3

6.3
5.9

4.6
3.8

IV

Total compensation changes covering
5,000 workers or more, all
industries:
First year of contract..................
Annual rate over life of contract ..
Wage rate changes covering at least
1,000 workers, all industries:

p=preliminary.

35.

Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1978 to date
Year

Year and quarter
1981

Measure
1978

Average percent adjustment (including no change):
All industries....................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Nonmanufacturing........................................
From settlements reached in period ..................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period
From cost-of-living clauses................................
Total number of workers receiving wage change (in
thousands)’ ....................................................
From settlements reached
in period......................................................
Deferred from settlements
reached in earlier period ..............................
From cost-of-living clauses................................
Number of workers receiving no adjustments (in
thousands) ......................................................

1979

1980

1981


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

I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

8.2
8.6
7.9

9.1
9.6
8.8

9.9
10.2
9.7

9.5
9.4
9.5

6.7
5.2
7.9

1.7
2.3
1.2

3.2
2.4
3.8

3.3
3.1
3.4

1.5
1.9
1.1

1.0
.9
1.0

2.0
1.0
2.7

2.4
1.8
2.9

1.3
1.5
1.2

2.0
3.7
2.4

3.0
3.0
3.1

3.6
3.5
2.8

2.5
3.8
3.2

1.7
3.6
1.4

.4
.5
.7

1.1
1.4
.7

.5
1.5
1.2

.4
.4
.6

.2
.6
.3

.4
1.4
.2

.5
1.3
.6

.6
.4
.3

7,855

3,855

4,701

4,364

3,225

2,882

3,431

3,759

3,387

—

—

—

8,648

-

-

-

2,270

1,893

579

909

540

604

203

511

620

815

—

—

—

6,267
4,593

4,850
3,817

888
2,639

2,055
2,669

3,023
2,934

882
2,179

997
1,925

1,603
1,569

2,399
2,245

850
1,927

145

501

4,937

4,092

4,428

5,568

5,473

4,925

4,597

4,969

1The total number of workers who received adjustments does not equal the sum of workers that
received each type of adjustment, because some workers received more than one type of adjustment
during the period.

90

1982 p

1982 p

p=preliminary.

WORK STOPPAGE DATA

Estimates of days idle as a percent of estimated working
time measures only the impact of larger strikes (1,000 workers
or more). Formerly, these estimates measured the impact of
strikes involving 6 workers or more; that is, the impact of vir­
tually all strikes. Due to budget stringencies, collection of
data on strikes involving 6 workers or more was discontinued
with the December 1981 data.

include all known strikes or lockouts involv­
ing 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer.
Data are based largely on newspaper accounts and cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly in­
volved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or sec­
ondary effect on other establishments whose employees are idle
owing to material or service shortages.

Work

36.

stoppages

Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date

1947
1948
1949
1950

Beginning in
month or year

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

1951
1952
1953
1954
1955

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

1956
1957
1958
1959
I960

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

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

1962
1963
1964
1965

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

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

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

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

1972
1973
1974
1975

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

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

1981
1982

Days idle

Workers involved

Number of stoppages
Month and year

In effect
during month

Beginning in
month or year
(in thousands)

In effect
during month
(in thousands)

Number
(in thousands)

Percent of
estimated
working time

270
245
262
424

1,629
1,435
2,537
1,698

25,720
26,127
43,420
30,390

.22
.38
.26

415
470
437
265
363

1,462
2,746
1,623
1,075
2,055

15,070
48,820
18,130
16,630
21,180

.12
.38
.14
.13
.16

287
279
332
245
222

1,370
887
1,587
1,381
896

26,840
10,340
17,900
60,850
13,260

.20
.07
.13
.43
.09

195
211
181
246
268

1,031
793
512
1,183
999

10,140
11,760
10,020
16,220
15,140

.07
.08
.07
.11
.10

321
381
392
412
381

1,300
2,192
1,855
1,576
2,468

16,000
31,320
35,567
29,397
52,761

.10
.18
.20
.16
.29

298
250
317
424
235

2,516
975
1,400
1,796
965

35,538
16,764
16,260
31,809
17,563

.19
.09
.08
.16
.09

231
298
219
235
187

1,519
1,212
1,006
1,021
795

23,962
21,258
23,774
20,409
20,844

.12
.10
.11
.09
.09

145
96

729
656

16,908
9,061

.07
.04

202.8
241.1
357.0
533.1
657.6
907.2
844.7
754.3
2,088.8
904.8
805.4
764.4

.01
.01
.02
.03
.04
.05
.04
.04
.11
.05
.04
.04

794.8

.04

1982

January..................................................................
February................................................................
March ....................................................................
April ......................................................................
May ......................................................................
June ......................................................................
July........................................................................
August....................................................................
September..............................................................
October..................................................................
November..............................................................
December..............................................................

2
3
4
14
15
18
13
9
14
3
1

1983 p

January..................................................................

1

-

4
7
9
21
23
27
25
23
27
13
6
2

6.1
3.9
13.3
59.5
42.7
42.8
38.4
18.8
390.0
38.1
2.2
-

11.4
15.3
26.1
79.1
66.1
66.9
65.9
58.0
427.0
67.6
43.7
36.4

3

1.6

38.0

p=preliminary.


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

91

Our warehouses here at the Government
Printing Office contain more than 16,000
different Government publications. Now
we’ve put together a catalog of nearly
1,000 of the most popular books in our
inventory. Books like In fa n t C a re ,
N a tio n a l P a rk G u ide a n d M ap, The
S pace S h u ttle a t W ork, F ed era l B en efits
f o r V eteran s a n d D ep en d en ts,
M erch a n d isin g Y ou r Job


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

T a len ts, and The B a ck -Y a rd M echanic.

Books on subjects ranging from
agriculture, business, children,
and diet to science, space exploration,
transportation, and vacations. Find out
what the Government’s books are all
about. For your free copy of our
new bestseller catalog, w rite—

937

New Catalog
Superintendent of Documents
Washington, D.C. 20402

Bestsellers

Two new
Special Labor
Force Reports
The Bureau of Labor Statistics
has issued two new publications
in its Special Labor Force
Reports series.

Unemployment and its Effect on
Family Income in 1980, BLS
Bulletin 2148, $4.50, analyzes the work
experience of the population and shows
that the median income of families with an
unemployed member was 21 percent lower
than that of families without unemployment.
The publication includes an article from the
Monthly Labor Review, plus supplementary
tables and technical notes.

Analyzing 1981 Earnings Data from the
Current Population Survey, BLS Bulletin 2149,
$3.75, examines intergroup differences and basic
trends in usual weekly earnings and the earnings of men
and women in specific occupations. The publication includes
two Monthly Labor Review articles, plus supplementary tables
and technical notes.

O rder Form

Please Send:
------------ Copies of Unemployment and Its Eftect on Family Income in 1980, Bulletin 2148
Stock No. 029-001-02713-3, at $4.50 each.
------------ Copies of Analyzing 1981 Earnings Data, Bulletin 2149, Stock No. 029-001-02715-0, at $3.75 each.
Total C o st____________
The following BLS regional
offices will expedite orders:
1603 JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
Suite 3400
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036

P.O. Box 13309
Philadelphia, PA 19101
1371 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30367
9th Floor
Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604

2nd Floor
555 Griffin Square Bldg.
Dallas, TX 75202
911 Walnut St.
Kansas City, MO 64106
450 Golden Gate Ave.
Box 36017
San Francisco, CA 94102

□

Enclosed is a check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents.

□

Charge to my GPO Account no. -------------------------------------------------------

□

Charge to MasterCard* Account no.______________________________

Expiration date

□

Charge to VISA* Account no. ___________________________________

Expiration date

'A vailable only on orders sent directly to Superintendent of Documents.

Name
Organization
(if applicable)
Street address
City, State,

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

You may also send your
order directly to:
Superintendent of
Documents,
U.S. Government Printing
Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Laóor Statistics
Washington D.C. 20212__

Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Lab-441 - C ' ­

Officiai Business

SECOND CLASS MAIL

Penalty for private use, $300


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

MLR
L IB R A 4 4 2 L ISSD UE001R
LIBRARY
FED RESERVE BANK OF ST LOUIS
PO BOA <*42
SA1NÎ LO U IS
MO 6 3 1 6 6

______

U.S.MAIL