View original document

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

March 2001

j.,S< Apartment of Labor


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

iureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. Department of Labor
Elaine L. Chao, Secretary
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Katharine G. Abraham, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review ( usps 987-800) is published
monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor. The Review welcomes articles on the
labor force, labor-m anagem ent relations, business
conditions, industry productivity, com pensation,
occupational safety and health, demographic trends, and
other economic developments. Papers should be factual
and analytical, not polemical in tone. Potential articles, as
well as communications on editorial matters, should be
submitted to:
Editor-in-Chief
Monthly Labor Review
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, D C 20212
Telephone: (202) 691-5900
E-mail: mlr@bls.gov
Inquiries on subscriptions and circulation, including address
changes, should be sent to: Superintendent of Documents
Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402
Telephone: (202) 512-1800
Subscription price per year—$43 domestic; $53.75 foreign.
Single copy—$13 domestic; $16.25 foreign. Make checks
payable to the Superintendent of Documents.
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.
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. Periodicals
postage paid at Washington, DC, and at additional mailing
addresses.
Unless stated otherwise, articles appearing in this
publication are in the public domain and may be reprinted
without express permission from the Editor-in-Chief. Please
cite the specific issue of the Monthly Labor Review as the
source.
Information is available to sensory impaired individuals
upon request:
Voice phone: (202) 691-5200
Federal Relay Service: 1-800—877^-8339.
P ostmaster :
Send address changes to Monthly Labor
Review, U.S. Government Printing\Office, Washington, dc
20402-0001.

Cover designed by Melvin B. Moxley


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

MONTHLY LABOR

REVIEW
Volume 124, Number 3
March 2001

Work arrangements in the new economy
C ontingent work
Despite the strong labor market, the incidence
of contingent work changed little over the 1997-99 period

3

Steven Hippie

A lternative w ork arrangem ents
The proportion of workers preferring alternative
schedules has increased since the mid-1990s

28

Marisa DiNatale

Flexible w ork schedules
Workers may entail a sacrifice of leisure time, compensation,
or a predictable workweek in return for flexible schedules

50

Lonnie Golden

W age differentials associated w ith flextim e
Significant wage differentials emerge for selected
motivations, industries, and occupations
Bonnie Sue Gariety and Sherrill Shaffer

68

Departments
Labor month in review
Précis
Book reviews
Current labor statistics

2
76
77
79

Editor-in-Chief: Deborah P. Klein • Executive Editor: Richard M. Devens • Managing Editor: Anna Huffman Hill • Editors: Brian I. Baker,
Bonita L. Boles, Richard Hamilton, Leslie Brown Joyner, Lawrence H. Leith • Book Reviews: Roger A. Comer, Ernestine Patterson
Leary • Design and Layout: Catherine D. Bowman, Edith W. Peters • Contributors: Ernestine Patterson Leary


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

Labor Month in Review

The M arch R eview
Even after the collapse of the dot-com
bubble, it is clear that new technologies
and new organizational paradigms have
contributed to the increasing adoption
of new working arrangements. This is­
sue of the Review explores the growing
incidence and impact of strategies rang­
ing from contingent work to flextime.
Steven Hippie reports on the persis­
tence of contingent employment even as
general labor market conditions im­
proved. The unemployment rate, for ex­
ample, dropped nearly a full percentage
point between February 1997 and Febru­
ary 1999, but the contingency rate—the
proportion of total employment that are
contingent workers—was virtually un­
changed at about 4.3 percent. Contingent
work is conceptually an arrangement that
is transitory and conditional and has of­
ten been used to denote a new, less loyal,
less secure, “just-in-time” approach to
staffing the new economy.
An analytical issue related to contin­
gent work is the use of independent
contractors, on-call workers, temps, and
other alternative work arrangements.
Marisa DiNatale finds that such work­
ers account for less than one-tenth of
total employment in 1999, a share that is
not growing. In fact, the share ac­
counted for by independent contrac­
tors, the largest of these groups, de­
clines slightly between 1997 and 1999.
The final two articles discuss various
aspects of flexible scheduling or flextime,
another grow ing characteristic of
today’s labor market. Lonnie Golden
finds that flexibilty in daily scheduling
has grown to the point that it reaches
more than one worker in four. Golden
also finds, however that this often
comes at a cost, either in terms of an
extended workweek or stretching out of
the work day, or in terms of accepting
part-time work or irregular shifts.
Bonnie Sue Gariety and Sherrill
Shaffer look at the relationship between
wages and flextime and find that flexible

2

Monthly Labor Review


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

schedules are associated with higher
wages. This, they state, “compares the
relative strengths of two opposing
efects: a negative compensating wage
differential resulting from workers’ pref­
erences for flexitime and a positive wage
differential associated with higher pro­
ductivity of workers on flextime attrib­
uted to what economists call the ‘effi­
ciency wage hypothesis’.”

Strong productivity growth
in 2000
Productivity in the nonfarm business
sector, as measured by output per hour,
rose 4.3 percent in 2000. The increase
was the biggest since a 4.5-percent rise
in 1983. The increase in productivity
during 2000 was due to a 5.7-percent
growth in output and a 1.3-percent rise
in hours. During 1999, productivity in­
creased 2.6 percent, as output grew 4.8
percent and hours of all persons in­
creased 2.2 percent. Additional informa­
tion is available in “Productivity and
Costs, Fourth-Quarter and Annual Av­
erages for 2000 (Revised),” news release
USDL 01-56.

M o re m ass layo ffs in

2000
In 2000, there were 15,738 layoff events
and 1,835,592 initial claimants for unem­
ployment insurance in the 50 States and
the District of Columbia. Both the num­
ber of events and the number of initial
claimants were higher than in 1999, when
layoff events totaled 14,909 and the to­
tal number of initial claimants was
1,572,399.
In 2000, manufacturing accounted for
35 percent of all mass layoff events and
42 percent of initial claims filed. Initial
claim filings were most numerous in
transportation equipment (192,047),
food and kindred products (88,942) and
industrial machinery and equipment
(73,215). A mass layoff event involves

March 2001

at least 50 workers from a single estab­
lishment. Read more about recent mass
layoffs in “Mass Layoffs in December
2000,” news release u s d l 01-33.

M o re w o rk s to p p a g e s
in 2 0 0 0
There were 39 major work stoppages in
2000, up from only 17 in 1999. Of the
major work stoppages beginning in
2000, 31 were in the private sector; the
remainder occurred in State and local
government. In the private sector, 14
stoppages occurred in goods-producing
industries and 17 occurred in serviceproducing industries. In the public sec­
tor, 4 of the 8 stoppages were in educa­
tion. (Major work stoppages are defined
as strikes or lockouts that idle 1,000 or
more workers and last at least one shift.)
Learn more about work stoppages in
“Major Work Stoppages, 2000,” news
release u s d l 01-41.

U nem ploym ent dow n in
m ost S tates
Compared with 1999, annual average
unemployment rates in 2000 were lower
in 33 States and the District of Colum­
bia, higher in 16 States, and unchanged
in 1 State. The U.S. jobless rate de­
creased from 4.2 percent to 4.0 percent
over the year.
The States posting the largest de­
clines were Hawaii (-1.3 percentage
points), West Virginia (-1.1 points), and
Wyoming (-1.0 point). Twelve additional
States plus the District of Columbia re­
corded decreases of at least 0.5 percent­
age point. See more about last year’s
developments in “State and Regional
Unemployment, 2000 Annual Aver­
ages,” news release u s d l 01-50.
□
News releases discussed above are
available at:
http://stats.bls.gov/newsrel.htm

Contingent work
in the late-1990s
Despite the strong labor market, the incidence
of contingent work changed little between 1997 and 1999;
characteristics of contingent workers
are similar to those of earlier surveys

Steven Hippie

Steven Hippie is an
economist in the
Division of Labor Force
Statistics, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.


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

n February 1999, 5.6 million workers held
contingent jobs, that is, jobs that are struc­
tured to be short term or temporary. The
contingency rate—the proportion of total em­
ployment composed of contingent workers—was
4.3 percent.1 Both the number of contingent
workers and the contingency rate were virtually
the same as those in the 1997 survey. The fact
that both the number of individuals with contin­
gent jobs and the contingency rate were little
different is interesting, because the period cov­
ered by the two surveys was one of strong labor
market conditions. For example, total employment
grew by 4.8 million over the two periods, and the
unemployment rate—at 5.3 percent in February
1997—had fallen to 4.4 percent in February 1999.2
(See chart 1.)
This article discusses the results of the
February 1999 Contingent and Alternative Work
Arrangements Supplement to the Current Popu­
lation Survey ( c p s ) , including an examination of
the characteristics of contingent workers and the
jobs they hold, and their earnings and employee
benefits.3 Information on contingent work was
first collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
in February 1995, and when the results of that
survey were published, three alternative mea­
sures of contingent work were introduced.4 (See
the appendix.) The analysis in this article fo-

I

cuses on the broadest measure of contingent
work—estimate 3. Noncontingent workers, em­
ployed individuals who do not fall under any of
the estimates of contingent work, are used as a
point of comparison.
Prior analyses have shown that the characteris­
tics of workers in contingent and noncontingent
employment arrangements differ substantially.
The incidence of contingent work is higher
among certain demographic groups, for instance,
and in certain industries and occupations. More­
over, the groups differ by other characteristics
including employee tenure and work schedules.
Disentangling the impact of these differences on
earnings or employee benefits, for example, can
be very complicated. Using descriptive statis­
tics, this article provides an overview of contin­
gent workers in 1999.

Why are contingent jobs temporary?
The phrase “contingent work” was first pro­
posed by Audrey Freedman in 1985 to refer
specifically to “conditional and transitory em­
ployment arrangements as initiated by a need
for labor—usually because a company has an
increased demand for a particular service or a
product or technology, at a particular place, at
a specific time.”5 The term, however, took on a

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

3

Contingent Work

C h art 1.

U n em p lo ym en t rates a n d c o n tin g e n c y rates, February 1994-2000

Percent

Percent
7

negative connotation, implying less job security, and soon
became used to describe a wide variety of employment ar­
rangements including part-time work, self-employment, tem­
porary help agency employment, contracting out, employee
leasing, and employment in the business services industry.
In fact, to some analysts, any work arrangement that differed
from the commonly perceived norm of a permanent, full-time
wage and salary job would be considered “contingent.” For
many people, nonstandard or contingent work has come to
represent a just-in-time work force, the human equivalent of
just-in-time inventories. Although studying “nonstandard”
arrangements is of interest to a number of analysts, combining
these very diverse arrangements into a single category and
labeling them contingent may cause workers to be classified
incorrectly and may cause confusion among analysts study­
ing this topic.6
In order to turn the focus on the attachment between the
worker and the employer and to identify a common underly­
ing trait that could be used to classify workers, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics proposed the following definition of contin­
gent work in 1989: “Any job in which an individual does not
have an explicit or implicit contract for long-term employ­
ment.”7 Essentially, contingent workers are individuals who
hold jobs that are temporary or not expected to continue.
In the survey, the key factor used to determine if a job fits
the conceptual definition of a contingent work arrangement

is whether the job was temporary or not expected to last.
(For a detailed explanation of the criteria used to determine if
a job is contingent, see the appendix.) Jobs are considered to
be temporary if a person is working only until the comple­
tion of a specific project, temporarily replacing another
worker, being hired for a fixed time period, filling a sea­
sonal job, or if business conditions dictated that the job
was temporary. Workers who are temporarily holding jobs
for personal reasons are excluded from the count of con­
tingent workers.
In 1999, the majority of contingent workers— 53 per­
cent—reported that their jobs were temporary because they
were working only until a specific project was completed.8
Another 18 percent said that they were hired for a fixed time
period, 9 percent were hired to temporarily replace another
worker, 8 percent were holding a seasonal job, and 12 per­
cent gave another economic-related reason. These propor­
tions were similar to those measured in the 1995 and 1997
surveys.
A study conducted by Susan N. Houseman used data
from a nationwide survey of employers on their use of flex­
ible staffing arrangements. The author found that the most
common reasons that employers use temporary workers were
to fill seasonal needs, to help with special projects, to help
during unexpected increases in business, to fill in for an ab­
sent employee, and to fill in until a regular worker is hired.9
Text continues on page 8.

4

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Table 1.

Contingent and noncontingent workers by selected characteristics, February 1995-99

[Percent distribution]

Contingent workers'
Estimate 3

Estimate 2

Estimate 1

Characteristic

Noncontingent
workers2

1995

5,574
100.0
12.4
17.9
24.8
20.9
13.6
7.3
3.1

5,641
100.0
13.2
19.8
24.4
18.8
13.2
6.4
4.1

117,174
100.0
4.3
9.6
26.1
28.0
19.8
9.4
2.8

121,168
100.0
4.4
9.0
25.0
28.2
21.0
9.6
2.9

125,853
100.0
4.7
9.0
23.5
28.1
21.8
10.1
2.8

49.6
50.4

49.3
50.7

48.7
51.3

54.0
46.0

53.8
46.2

53.5
46.5

80.5
12.7
13.6

80.9
13.3
11.3

81.9
11.1
12.4

80.2
12.2
13.2

85.6
10.5
8.3

85.3
10.6
9.4

84.5
11.1
10.0

87.1
13.0
3.7
92

85.3
14.7
3.1
11.7

86.8
13.2
2.2
11.0

85.3
14.7
3.9
10.7

84.0
16.0
3.9
12.1

91.0
9.0
3.2
5.8

89.4
10.6
4.2
6.4

89.0
11.0
4.4
6.6

53.6
46.4

54.8
45.2

52.0
48.0

57.1
42.9

57.5
42.5

55.9
44.1

81.8
18.2

82.2
17.8

83.0
17.0

1,086
100.0
63.8
36.2

1,279
100.0
53.7
46.3

1,143
100.0
57.7
42.3

1,212
100.0
62.1
37.9

1,841
100.0
58.1
41.9

1,690
100.0
63.7
36.3

1,863
100.0
65.9
34.1

16,215
100.0
38.4
61.6

16,299
100.0
40.0
60.0

17,261
100.0
41.4
58.6

1,308
100.0

1,311
100.0

2,070
100.0

1,893
100.0

1,762
100.0

3,968
100.0

3,710
100.0

3,546
100.0

97,633
100.0

101,397
100.0

105,043
100.0

14.0

10.0

12.7

13.6

11.0

12.6

12.0

10.4

11.9

9.6

9.6

9.1

27.9
22.8
8.4
27.0
9.4

27.9
21.9
10.7
29.4
10.5

27.8
19.1
7.7
32.6
11.6

27.5
23.3
8.0
27.7
10.0

28.5
20.2
10.1
30.1
9.3

28.5
18.5
8.0
32.4
11.4

27.3
19.6
7.9
33.2
14.9

26.8
18.8
8.2
35.8
14.7

25.8
17.0
6.9
38.5
16.0

32.4
19.9
9.1
28.9
9.9

32.8
18.9
9.1
29.5
10.0

31.4
19.3
9.2
31.0
10.3

1999

1995

1997

1999

Total, 16 years
and older (thousands)....
Percent.............................
16 to 19 y e a rs .......................
20 to 24 y e a rs .......................
25 to 34 y e a rs .......................
35 to 44 y e a rs .......................
45 to 54 y e a rs .......................
55 to 64 y e a rs .......................
65 years and o ld e r................

2,739
100.0
16.6
25.0
26.0
18.5
8.2
3.8
1.8

2,385
100.0
19.2
23.9
23.7
17.5
8.3
5.3
2.1

2,444
100.0
20.9
23.5
23.1
15.6
11.0
3.9
1.9

3,422
100.0
152
22.2
27.5
19.8
9.5
3.7
2.1

3,096
100.0
16.0
21.0
24.4
20.6
10.8
5.4
1.9

3,038
100.0
17.8
22.1
24.7
17.5
11.8
3.9
2.1

6,034
100.0
10.7
19.8
26.3
21.0
12.6
5.9
3.7

Men .......................................
W om en.................................

49.3
50.7

49.5
50.5

46.9
53.1

49.4
50.6

48.4
51.6

46.6
53.4

80.0
13.9
13.6

79.5
13.3
12.2

80.9
11.8
13.8

80.1
13.6
12.9

80.6
13.0
12.8

87.5
12.5
1.6
10.9

87.6
12.4
3.2
9.1

85.2
14.8
3.0
11.8

87.3
12.7
1.7
11.0

52.9
47.1

53.5
46.6

48.4
51.6

1,142
100.0
55.3
44.7

1,029
100.0
61.4
38.6

1,547
100.0

1997

1997

1999

1999

1995

1997

1995

Age and sex

Race and Hispanic origin
White
Black
Hispanic o rig in .......................

Country of birth
and U.S. citizenship status
U .S .born...............................
Foreign bom ...........................
U.S. citizen...........................
Not a U.S. citizen................

Full- or part-time status
Full-time workers....................
Part-time workers..................

School enrollment
Total, 16 to 24 years
(thousands).....................
Percent.............................
Enrolled..................................
Not enrolled...........................

Educational attainment
Total, 25 to 64 years
(thousands).....................
Percent.............................
Less than a high school
diploma..............................
High school graduates,
no college..........................
Some college, no degree.......
Associate degree..................
College graduates.................
Advanced degree................

1 Contingent workers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
themselves as having an explicit or im plicit contract with their employers
for ongoing em ployment. Estimate 1 is calculated using the narrowest
definition of contingent work; estimate 3 uses the broadest definition. For
the specific criteria used for each definition, see the appendix, p. 25.
2 Noncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for any


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

of the three definitions of contingent work.
N o t e : Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not
sum to totals because data for the “other races” group are not presented
and H ispanics are included in both the w h ite and black p o pulatio n
groups. D etail fo r oth er ch a ra cte ristics may not sum to to ta ls due to
rounding.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

5

Contingent Work

Table 2.

Contingency rates by selected characteristics, February 1995-99

[In percent!

Contingency rates'
Characteristic

Estimate 1

Estimate 2

Estimate 3

1995

1997

1999

1995

1997

1999

1995

1997

1999

Total, 16 years and o ld e r...................
16 to 19 y e a rs ..........................................
20 to 24 y e a rs..........................................
25 to 34 y e a rs ..........................................
35 to 44 y e a rs ..........................................
45 to 54 y e a rs ..........................................
55 to 64 y e a rs ..........................................
65 years and o ld e r...................................

2.2
8.1
5.5
2.2
1.5
.9
.9
1.4

1.9
7.6
4.8
1.8
1.2
.8
1.1
1.3

1.9
7.7
4.6
1.8
1.0
1.0
.7
1.2

2.8
9.2
6.1
2.9
2.0
1.4
1.1
2.1

2.4
8.2
5.4
2.4
1.8
1.3
1.4
1.6

2.3
8.1
5.4
2.4
1.5
1.3
.9
1.7

4.9
11.4
9.6
4.9
3.7
3.2
3.1
6.3

4.4
11.5
8.4
4.4
3.3
2.9
3.4
4.8

4.3
11.2
9.0
4.5
2.9
2.6
2.8
6.1

M e n ...........................................................
Women ......................................................

2.0
2.4

1.7
2.0

1.6
2.1

2.5
3.0

2.2
2.7

2.0
2.6

4.5
5.3

4.0
4.8

3.9
4.7

2.1
2.9
3.6

1.8
2.4
2.4

1.8
2.0
2.5

2.6
3.5
4.2

2.3
3.0
3.3

2.2
2.6
3.1

4.6
6.1
6.5

4.2
4.6
5.7

4.1
4.7
5.6

2.1
3.0
1.1
4.0

1.8
2.2
1.4
2.6

1.8
2.5
1.3
3.2

2.7
3.8
1.5
5.0

2.4
2.9
2.2
3.4

2.2
3.0
1.6
3.9

4.7
7.0
3.5
8.9

4.2
6.0
4.1
7.2

4.1
6.1
3.8
7.6

1.5
5.4

1.2
4.6

1.1
5.3

1.8
6.6

1.7
5.8

1.5
6.1

3.5
10.8

3.1
9.9

2.9
10.4

6.3
8.7
4.7

5.7
8.3
3.8

5.7
8.3
3.7

7.1
9.4
5.5

6.4
8.7
4.7

6.3
9.0
4.3

10.2
14.7
7.2

9.4
14.2
5.9

9.7
14.7
5.9

1.5
2.2
1.3
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4

1.2
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.3

1.2
1.7
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.3

2.0
2.9
1.7
2.4
1.8
1.9
2.0

1.8
2.1
1.6
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.6

1.6
2.2
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.8

3.9
4.8
3.3
3.8
3.4
4.5
5.8

3.5
3.8
2.9
3.5
3.2
4.3
5.1

3.3
4.2
2.7
2.9
2.4
4.0
5.0

3»-

,

Age and sex

Race and Hispanic origin
W h ite .........................................................
B la c k .........................................................
Hispanic o rig in ..........................................

Country of birth
and U.S. citizenship status
U.S. b o rn ...................................................
Foreign b o rn .............................................
U.S. citizen.............................................
Not a U.S. c itiz e n ...................................

Full- or part-time status
Full-time w o rk e rs ......................................
Part-time w o rk e rs .....................................

School enrollment
Total, 16 to 24 y e a rs .......................
E nrolled.....................................................
Not enrolled..............................................

Educational attainment
Total, 25 to 64 y e a rs ........................
Less than a high school diplom a............
High school graduates, no co lle g e .........
Some college, no degree.........................
Associate d e g re e .....................................
College graduates.....................................
Advanced d e g re e ..................................

1
Contingency rates are calculated by dividing the number of contingent workers in a specified worker group by total employment for the same worker
group. Estimate 1 above is calculated using the narrowest definition of contingent work; estimate 3 uses the broadest definition. For the specific criteria used
for each definition, see the appendix, p. 25.

6

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Contingency rates by occupation and industry, February 1995-99
[In percent]

Contingency rates'
Occupation and industry

Estimate 1
1995

1997

Estimate 3

Estimate 2
1999

1995

1997

1999

1995

1997

1999

Occupation
Total, 16 years and o ld e r..............................

2.2

1.9

1.9

2.8

2.4

2.3

4.9

4.4

4.3

Managerial and professional sp e cia lty.............
Executive, administrative, and managerial....
Professional specialty......................................

1.7
.8
2.6

1.4
.7
2.0

1.5
.5
2.4

2.1
1.1
3.1

1.7
1.0
2.4

1.8
.8
2.7

4.8
2.7
6.8

4.2
2.2
6.0

4.4
2.0
6.7

Technical, sales, and administrative support ...
Technicians and related s u p p o rt....................
Sales occu pation s...........................................
Administrative support, including c lerica l......

2.1
1.3
1.2
3.1

2.1
1.8
1.1
3.0

2.1
2.0
1.2
2.9

2.5
1.9
1.6
3.4

2.6
2.7
1.5
3.5

2.6
2.5
1.7
3.3

4.4
4.2
2.6
5.8

4.3
4.7
2.1
6.0

4.3
4.4
2.4
5.8

Service occupations...........................................
Precision, production, craft, and re pair............
Operators, fabricators, and laborers................
Farming, forestry, and fis h in g ............................

3.0
2.3
2.7
2.2

2.3
1.8
2.2
2.0

2.3
1.4
2.0
2.9

4.1
2.9
3.1
3.2

3.2
2.3
3.0
3.0

3.1
1.8
2.4
3.3

5.8
4.6
5.4
5.6

5.0
4.1
4.4
5.9

4.7
3.3
4.0
7.3

Total, 16 years and o ld e r..............................

2.2

1.9

1.9

2.8

2.4

2.3

4.9

4.4

4.3

Agriculture...........................................................
M ining...................................................................
Construction........................................................

2.4
1.0
4.5

1.6
1.1
3.7

2.6
.7
2.3

3.3
1.0
5.7

2.6
1.8
4.7

3.2
.7
2.9

5.0
2.6
8.4

5.2
4.0
7.2

6.1
2.6
5.2

Manufacturing......................................................
Durable g o o d s ...................................................
Nondurable goods.............................................

1.3
1.3
1.3

.8
.7
1.0

.8
.9
.6

1.6
1.6
1.5

1.1
1.0
1.1

1.0
1.1
.9

3.1
3.4
2.8

2.1
2.0
2.3

2.2
2.4
2.0

Transportation......................................................
Communications and public utilities..................
Wholesale trade...................................................
Retail tra d e ..........................................................
Finance, insurance, and real esta te.................

1.1
1.4
.7
1.6
.7

.7
.6
.8
1.5
1.1

.6
1.6
1.1
1.6
.6

1.1
1.6
1.0
2.0
.8

1.4
1.0
1.3
1.7
1.3

1.0
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.0

2.3
4.0
2.3
3.0
2.0

2.7
2.3
2.1
2.6
2.1

1.7
2.7
2.8
2.7
1.9

S ervices...............................................................
Private household............................................
Business, auto, and repair service s..............
Personal s ervice s............................................
Entertainment and recreation se rv ic e s..........

3.4
8.2
5.3
3.6
4.3

2.8
6.1
3.8
2.5
3.6

2.9
8.8
3.2
3.6
3.9

4.3
11.9
7.3
3.9
5.3

3.7
9.8
5.8
3.3
4.0

3.6
11.8
4.7
4.3
4.3

7.5
17.9
9.6
5.6
8.2

6.7
15.7
8.0
5.7
6.8

6.9
16.8
7.5
6.2
5.7

Professional s e rv ic e s ......................................
H ospitals.........................................................
Health services, excluding hospitals...........
Educational se rv ic e s .....................................
Social service s..............................................
Other professional services..........................

2.7
.8
1.2
5.3
2.3
1.1

2.4
1.1
1.0
4.6
1.6
1.7

2.6
1.0
.7
5.0
2.1
1.5

3.3
.8
1.5
5.5
5.6
2.1

3.0
1.2
1.3
4.8
4.5
2.4

3.1
1.0
.9
5.1
5.2
2.0

6.7
2.2
2.7
12.3
7.8
4.2

6.3
3.8
2.4
11.4
6.2
3.6

6.6
3.7
1.7
11.6
7.3
4.1

Public adm inistration..........................................

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.4

3.6

4.2

3.1

Industry

1 Contingency rates are calculated by dividing the number of contingent workers in a specified worker group by total employment for the same worker
group. Estimate 1 above is calculated using the narrowest definition of contingent work; estimate 3 uses the broadest definition. For the specific criteria
used for each definition, see the appendix, p. 25.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

7

Contingent Work

Table 4.

Contingent and noncontingent workers by full- and part-time status, reason for part-time work,
usual hours at work on primary job, and multiple job holding, February 1999
Contingent workers'
unaracTensnc

Estimate 1

Estimate 2

Estimate 3

workers2

Full- or part-time status3
Total employed, 16 years and older (thousands)............................
P erce nt............................................................................................
Full-time w orkers..........................................................................
Part-time w orkers.........................................................................
At work part time for economic reasons................................
At work part time for noneconomic reasons..........................

2,444
100.0
48.4
51.6
9.1
40.3

3,038
100.0
52.0
48.0
9.0
37.7

5,641
100.0
55.9
44.1
7.2
35.8

125,853
100.0
83.0
17.0
2.5
14.0

27.3
38.7
16.8

28.4
39.3
16.8

30.0
40.8
16.9

38.8
42.7
20.6

143
100.0
28.0
51.7
20.3
6.3
5.9

196
100.0
34.7
46.4
18.9
5.8
6.5

457
100.0
36.8
40.9
20.1
5.9
8.1

8,109
100.0
55.3
21.3
19.1
1.7
6.4

Hours of work
Average hours, total at w o rk ....................................................................
Average hours, usually work full tim e ......................................................
Average hours, usually work part tim e ....................................................

Multiple jobholding
Total, 16 years and older (thousands)................................................
Percent4...............................................................................................
Primary job full time, secondary job part tim e .............................
Primary and secondary job both part tim e ..................................
Hours vary on primary or secondary jo b s ....................................
Proportion of full-time workers who combined part-time jo b s .........
Multiple jobholding rate6.............................................................................
1 Contingent workers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
themselves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their employers for
ongoing employment. Estimate 1 above is calculated using the narrowest
definition of contingent work; estimate 3 uses the broadest definition. For
the specific criteria used for each definition, see the appendix, p. 25.
2 Noncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for any
of the three definitions of contingent work.
3 Part-time is defined as 1 to 34 hours per week; full time is 35 hours or
more. The classification of full- or part-time is based on the number of hours
usually worked. The sum of the at-work part time categories would not equal
the estimate for part-time workers as the latter includes those who had a job

Demographics
Both the number of contingent workers and the contingency
rate were about unchanged between 1997 and 1999 for most
of the major demographic groups. (See tables 1 and 2, pp. 56.) As in prior surveys, the contingency rate was highest for
younger workers. In 1999, roughly 10 percent of both teenag­
ers (aged 16 to 19 years) and 20- to 24-year-olds held contin­
gent jobs.
Among workers aged 16 to 24, the likelihood of holding a
contingent job was much greater for those enrolled in school;
the contingency rate for students was 2.5 times higher than
that for their counterparts not enrolled in school. The greater
tendency of students to hold contingent jobs suggests that
flexibility and lack of a long-term commitment to an employer
is compatible with attending school. In fact, among those
enrolled in college, a large proportion work in colleges and
universities, that is, on their campuses. Many of these jobs,
by nature, are designed to be temporary. For example, of

8

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

but were not at work in the reference week. Persons who are at work part
time for an economic or noneconomic reason are limited to those who
usually work part time.
4A small number of individuals who worked full time on both their primary
and secondary jobs or worked part time on their primary jobs and full time on
their secondary jobs are not shown separately.
5Multiple jobholding rates are calculated by dividing the number of mul­
tiple jobholders in a specified worker group by total employment for the same
worker group.
N ote:

Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

the 715,000 college students employed at their schools in
1999, about three-fifths reported that they were holding
contingent jobs.
Although the contingency rates for men and women
changed little between 1997 and 1999, women continued to
be more likely than men to hold contingent jobs. Working
women are more likely than their male counterparts to be
employed in industries— services, for example—that have a
large proportion of contingent workers Moreover, compared
to men, a much higher proportion of women are employed
part time, and part-time workers have a higher probability of
being contingent than full-time workers.
Blacks and Hispanics continued to be somewhat more
likely than whites to hold temporary jobs. In 1999, contin­
gency rates for blacks and Hispanics were 4.7 percent and 5.6
percent, respectively, while the rate for whites was 4.1 per­
cent.
As was the case in 1995 and 1997, contingent workers
were found at both ends of the educational spectrum. Among

Table 5.

Union affiliation of contingent and noncontingent w age and salary workers by industry,
February 1999
Noncontingent workers2

Contingent workers (estimate 3)1

Total
(in thousands)

Total, 16 years and o ld e r...........................................
Agriculture................................................................
Mining.......................................................................
Construction............................................................
Manufacturing................................ ........................
Transportation and public utilities..........................
Wholesale tra d e ......................................................
Retail tra d e .............................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ....................
S ervices...................................................................
Public adm inistration..............................................

Members
of unions

5,301
159
14
389
444
175
121
578
154
3,079
188

1 Contingent workers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
them selves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their employers
for ongoing employment. For the specific criteria used, see the appendix,
p. 25.
2 Noncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for
any of the three definitions of contingent work.
3 Unionization rates are calculated by dividing the number of persons

25- to 64-year-olds, workers with advanced degrees and those
with less than a high school diploma had relatively high con­
tingency rates— 5.0 and 4.2 percent, respectively. (The over­
all contingency rate for workers aged 25 to 64 was 3.3 per­
cent.) The probability of holding a contingent job was lower
for workers with an associate degree, high school graduates
with no college, and workers with some college but no de­
gree. (See table 2, p. 6.)
Workers who were natives of the United States were much
less likely than the foreign-born to hold contingent jobs. The
contingency rate for U.S. natives was 4.1 percent, in contrast
to 6.1 percent for the foreign-born.10 The above-average rate
among the foreign-born is due entirely to the high rate of
contingency among noncitizens; the rate for this group— 7.6
percent—was twice as high as that for naturalized citizens—
3.8 percent. (See table 2, p. 6.) Employment among nonciti­
zens tends to be concentrated in many of the industries and
occupations in which contingent employment arrangements
are most common. For example, compared with U.S. natives
and naturalized citizens, noncitizens were twice as likely to
work in agriculture and 5 times as likely to work in private
household services, two industries that have above-average
contingency rates. But, even within agriculture, the rate for
noncitizens is much higher than that for U.S. natives and
naturalized citizens. The contingency rate in agriculture for
noncitizens was 24.5 percent, in contrast to 3.2 percent for


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

Unionization rate3

Unionization rate3

Industry

5.9
.0
(4)
22.6
6.5
18.3
.8
3.1
(5)
4.0
10.6

Represented
by unions

7.4
.0
(4)
23.1
7.4
19.4
3.3
5.4
(6)
5.2
18.1

Total
(in thousands)

112,720
1,283
399
5,627
18,646
9,025
4,173
20,115
7,535
39,737
6,180

Members
of unions

Represented
by unions

14.8
2.9
6.4
18.8
16.5
32.2
4.2
5.3
2.9
15.1
34.3

16.3
2.9
9.8
19.2
17.6
34.4
5.1
5.7
3.5
17.0
39.7

who are members of a labor union or are covered by a union contract in a
specified worker group by total employment for the same worker group.
4 Data not shown where base em ployment is less than 75,000.
6 Less than 0.05 percent.
N o t e : Data refer to members of a labor union or employee association
similar to a union as well as w orkers who report no union affiliation but
whose jobs are covered by a union or employee association contract.

U.S. natives and only 1.2 percent for naturalized citizens. The
high rate for noncitizens in this industry is largely due to
their concentration in farm laborer occupations, which have
very high contingency rates. Conversely, the low rate of con­
tingency among U.S. natives working in agriculture is due, in
part, to the fact that a large proportion (more than two-fifths)
of these workers were employed as farm operators and man­
agers, occupations that have extremely low rates of contin­
gency—less than 1 percent.

Industry and occupation
Industry. As in 1997, the probability of holding a contingent
job was highest for workers in the agriculture, construction,
and services industries. Between 1997 and 1999, the contin­
gency rate for construction declined, while the rates for agri­
culture and services were little different.11 (See table 3, p. 7.)
Within services, specific industries that had relatively high
contingency rates in 1999 included private household ser­
vices (16.8 percent); educational services (11.6 percent);
business, auto, and repair services (7.5 percent); social ser­
vices (7.3 percent); and personal services (6.2 percent).
Major industry groups that had very low contingency
rates—less than 3 percent—included transportation; com­
munications and public utilities; finance, insurance, and real
estate; manufacturing; and mining.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

9

Contingent Work

C h art 2.

C o n tin g e n c y rates of full- a n d p art-tim e workers b y industry, February 1999
Percent

10

Percent

10

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

15

20

Occupation. As in the prior survey, contingent workers were
found in a wide range of occupations. (See table 3, p. 7.) Occu­
pational categories that had the highest rates of contingency
were farming, forestry, and fishing; professional specialty;
and administrative support.
Within the professional specialty category, the contin­
gency rate was highest—29 percent—for college and uni­
versity instructors. In contrast, the rate for elementary and
secondary teachers was much lower (7.6 percent). The high
rate among postsecondary teachers most likely reflects
the use of more adjunct or temporary teachers by colleges
and universities, but also could be a result of the inherent
uncertainties of the tenure process, which plays an impor­
tant role in higher education.12 Many younger college and
university instructors, for instance, may perceive their
jobs to be insecure because they have not yet earned ten­
ure with their institution. The high contingency rate
among postsecondary teachers also may explain the high
rate among workers with advanced degrees. Of the 621,000
contingent w orkers with advanced degrees in 1999,
156,000, or 1 in every 4, was employed as a college or
university instructor. Interestingly, among postsecondary
teachers, individuals with contingent jobs were much more
likely than their noncontingent counterparts to be work­
ing part time; nearly three-fifths of postsecondary teach­
ers employed in contingent jobs were working part time, in
contrast to only about one-tenth of noncontingent work­
ers in the same occupation.
Other professional specialty occupations with relatively
high rates of contingency include physicians (12.3 percent);
biological and life scientists (11.8 percent); photographers
(9.1 percent); and actors and directors (7.8 percent). Within
the administrative support category, occupations that had
high contingency rates include library clerks (24.1 per­
cent); interviewers (19.2 percent); general office clerks (14.0
percent); receptionists (8.9 percent); and typists (8.9 percent).
Not surprisingly, of the contingent workers employed in these
five administrative support occupations, a large proportion
were working through a temporary help agency, an alterna­
tive work arrangement that employs a large number of con­
tingent workers.13

Contingent work and marital status
In addition to the impact of contingent work on individuals,
some researchers have expressed concern that the lack of job
security characterized by contingent employment arrange­
ments has had a negative impact on families.14 As shown
below, however, married men and women have below-average
contingency rates.


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

Aged 16 years Aged 25 years
and older
and older
M en....................................
Married, spouse present..
Married, spouse absent....
Widowed.......................
Divorced........................
Separated.......................
Never married.................

3.9
2.5
7.7
1.9
3.9
4.3
7.2

3.0
2.4
8.2
1.9
4.0
4.0
4.8

Women............................... .
Married, spouse present.,
Married, spouse absent..,
Widowed.......................
Divorced........................
Separated.......................
Never married................

4.7
3.5
5.0
4.2
3.2
4.0
8.1

3.7
3.4
5.2
4.2
3.2
4.0
5.4

Contingency rates tend to be higher for individuals who
have never been married and for those who were married,
but whose spouse was absent. (An absence of a spouse, in
this context, could be due to a temporary work-related as­
signment overseas, for example.) By comparison, workers
who were widowed, divorced, or separated had a lower prob­
ability of holding a temporary job. The fact that contingent
work has somewhat more appeal to younger individuals
undoubtedly has some affect on the rates of contingency by
marital status.

Hours of work and multiple jobholding
Hours o f work. As in prior surveys, part-time workers, that
is, those who usually work less than 35 hours per week,
were much more likely than full-time workers to hold contin­
gent jobs. In 1999, about 10 percent of part-time workers
were contingent, in contrast to only 3 percent of full-time
workers.
Contingency rates for part-time workers were higher than
the overall rate for all the major industry groups. (See chart 2,
p. 10.) Among full-time workers, the rate of contingency was
above the overall rate in only two industries—agriculture
and construction. Although contingent work is a character­
istic of part-time work regardless of the industry, this implies
that it also is closely related to certain kinds of work (farm
work and construction, for example).
As was the case in the 1995 and 1997 surveys, part-time
contingent and noncontingent workers were about equally
likely to choose part-time work, that is, they worked part
time voluntarily and not for economic reasons; about fourfifths of workers in each group chose to work part time. Of
those working part time for an economic reason, only
about 1 in every 10 was holding a job that was structured

,

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

11

Contingent Work

Table 6.

Contingency rates by census region and division, February 1995-99

[In percent]

Contingency rates'
Estimate 1

Census region and division

Estimate 2

1995

1997

1999

Total, United S tates...........................

2.2

1.9

N ortheast.........................................
New England................................
Middle A tla n tic ..............................

2.0
2.3
1.9

M idw est............................................
East North C e n tra l........................
West North C e n tra l.......................

Estimate 3

1995

1997

1.9

2.8

2.4

2.3

1.6
2.1
1.4

1.8
2.1
1.6

2.5
2.8
2.4

2.1
2.5
1.9

2.1
2.1
2.0

1.7
1.5
2.1

1.6
1.4
2.1

2.6
2.6
2.7

South ...............................................
South A tla n tic ...............................
East South C e n tra l.......................
West South Central.......................

2.1
2.1
1.8
2.5

1.7
1.7
1.5
1.9

1.7
1.5
1.9
1.9

W e s t...................................
M ountain........................................
Pacific............................................

2.7
2.6
2.7

2.6
2.6
2.7

2.4
2.7
2.4

1999

1995

1997

1999

4.9

4.4

4.3

2.1
2.4
2.0

5.1
5.4
5.0

4.3
4.6
4.1

4.1
4.3
4.0

2.2
1.9
2.6

2.0
1.8
2.4

4.6
4.4
5.1

3.9
3.5
4.6

3.6
3.4
4.2

2.7
2.6
2.3
3.2

2.3
2.3
1.8
2.5

2.1
2.0
2.1
2.3

4.5
4.4
4.1
4.9

3.9
4.0
3.4
4.0

3.9
39
39
3.9

3.3
3.2
3.3

3.3
3.3
3.3

3.1
3.3
3.0

5.7
5.5
5.8

5.9
5.4
6.1

58
5.8
5.7

1Contingency rates are calculated by dividing the number of contingent workers in a specified worker group by total employment for the same worker group
Estimate 1 above is calculated using the narrowest definition of contingent work; estimate 3 uses the broadest definition. For the specific criteria used for each
definition, see the appendix, p. 25.

to be temporary.
Compared with their noncontingent counterparts, work­
ers holding contingent jobs put in slightly fewer hours per
week. For persons who usually worked full time, contingent
workers averaged 40.8 hours per week, compared with 42.7
hours per week for noncontingent workers. Among workers
who usually worked part time, average weekly hours for con­
tingent workers were 16.9, compared with 20.6 for noncontin­
gent workers. (See table 4, p. 8.)
Multiple jobholding. Because contingent workers are much
more likely than noncontingent workers to be employed part
time, one way to obtain more hours of work is to work at more
than one job. In 1999, the multiple jobholding rate—the pro­
portion of workers who hold more than one job— for contin­
gent workers was higher than that for noncontingent
workers. (For respondents who hold more than one job,
questions concerning contingency refer to their main job,
that is, the job at which they worked the most hours during
the survey reference week.) Compared with noncontingent
workers, contingent workers who were multiple jobholders
were much more likely to hold two or more part-time jobs; in
contrast, noncontingent workers were more likely to have
one full-time and one part-time job. The high multiple jobholding rate among contingent workers may be due to the
fact that they tend to work fewer hours and earn less, re­

12

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

gardless of whether they are employed full or part time,
and, therefore, may need an additional job to supplement
their income. (See table 4, p. 8.)

Union affiliation
As in 1995 and 1997, contingent workers were much less
likely than noncontingent workers to be members of unions.
In 1999, the unionization rate for contingent workers was 5.9
percent, in contrast to 14.8 percent for noncontingent work­
ers. (See table 5, p. 9.) The proportion of contingent workers
who were covered by a union contract, regardless of whether
the worker was a union member, also was much lower than
that for noncontingent workers.15
Although overall rates of union membership and union
representation were much lower for contingent workers, there
is a great deal of variation among the different industries. For
instance, unionization rates among contingent workers were
highest for individuals employed in construction and lowest
for workers in agriculture and finance, insurance, and real
estate. In fact, in construction, the proportion of contingent
workers who were members of unions or covered by a union
contract was actually higher than that for noncontingent
workers. The higher rate of unionization in the construc­
tion industry may be due to the nature of employment for
at least some of the workers in the industry, but also may

C o n t in g e n t w o r k e r s b y r e a s o n fo r c o n t in g e n c y a n d p r e f e r e n c e fo r c o n t in g e n t
a n d n o n c o n t in g e n t w o r k , F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 9
[Percent distribution]
CContingent w orke rs1
Reason a n d p re fe re n c e

Estimate 2

Estimate 3

2,444
100.0
30.3
19.2
5.9
5.2
57.8
12.7
5.2
22.8
1.1
16.0
11.9

2,657
100.0
31.5
20.3
5.6
5.7
56.5
13.5
4.8
21.1
1.3
15.7
12.0

5,259
100.0
25.6
15.3
5.2
5.1
52.3
12.5
3.6
19.0
1.1
16.1
22.1

959
100.0
7.5
2.2
.8
4.5
83.1
18.8
6.9
40.5
.4
16.4
9.3

1,210
100.0
6.4
2.0
.7
3.8
69.1
16.7
5.5
32.6
14.0
24.4

2,197
100.0
5.6
1.3
.6
3.6
70.6
17.4
4.6
31.1
.4
17.3
23.8

1,320
100.0
49.5
33.6
9.7
6.2
37.1
7.7
4.1
9.5
1.7
13.9
13.3

1,622
100.0
46.7
31.7
8.4
6.2
34.6
8.0
3.4
8.4
1.8
12.9
18.7

2,997
100.0
40.5
25.8
8.4
6.3
33.4
7.3
2.6
8.6
1.6
13.3
26.0

Estimate 1

Total
Total, 16 years and older (thousands)............................................................................
P ercent...............................................................................................................................
Economic reasons..................................................................................................................
Only type of work could fin d ..............................................................................................
Hope job leads to permanent em ploym ent........................................................................
Other economic reason.......................................................................................................
Personal re a s o n s ...................................................................................................................
Flexibility of schedule and only wanted to work a short period of tim e ..........................
Family or personal obligations and child-care problem s..................................................
In school or tra in in g .............................................................................................................
Money is b e tte r....................................................................................................................
Other personal re a s o n ........................................................................................................
Reason not available..............................................................................................................
Prefer c o n tin g e n t e m p lo y m e n t
Total, 16 years and older (thousands)............................................................................
P ercent...............................................................................................................................
Economic reasons..................................................................................................................
Only type of work could fin d ...............................................................................................
Hope job leads to permanent em ploym ent........................................................................
Other economic reason.......................................................................................................
Personal re a s o n s ...................................................................................................................
Flexibility of schedule and only wanted to work a short period of tim e ..........................
Family or personal obligations and child-care problem s..................................................
In school or tra in in g .............................................................................................................
Money is b e tte r....................................................................................................................
Other personal re a s o n ........................................................................................................
Reason not available..............................................................................................................

.3

Prefer noncontingent employment
Total, 16 years and older (thousands)............................................................................
P ercent...............................................................................................................................
Economic reasons..................................................................................................................
O n ly ty p e of work could fin d ...............................................................................................
Hope job leads to permanent em ploym ent........................................................................
Other economic reason.......................................................................................................
Personal re a s o n s ...................................................................................................................
Flexibility of schedule and only wanted to work a short period of tim e ..........................
Family or personal obligations and child-care problem s...................................................
In school or tra in in g .............................................................................................................
Money is b e tte r....................................................................................................................
Other personal re a s o n ........................................................................................................
Reason not available..............................................................................................................

1 Contingent w orkers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
themselves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their em ployers for ongoing em ployment. Estimate 1 above is calculated using the
narrowest definition of contingent work; estim ate 3 uses the broadest

definition. For the specific criteria used for each definition, see the appendix, p. 25.

be due to the historic role unions have played in construc­
tion. In this industry, much of the work involves projects
that are designed to last a limited period of time. Once a
project is completed, the workers move on to new ones.
One function of unions has been to provide job stability, and
thus, it may be that some contingent workers in construction
have consistently turned to unions, which traditionally
have played a significant role in helping construction work­

ers transition between jobs through the use of hiring halls,
for example.


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

N ote:

Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Regions
As in prior surveys, the likelihood of holding a contingent
job was greatest in the western region. In 1999, the contin­
gency rate in the West was 5.8 percent, compared with 4.1

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

13

Contingent Work

Contingent and noncontingent workers who actively searched for a new job in the prior 3 months,
by selected characteristics, February 1999
Contingent workers'
Characteristic
Estimate 1

Estimate 2

Estimate 3

Noncontingent
workers2

Total
Total, 16 years and older (in thousands)......................
Actively searched for a new job
P ercent.....................................................................
“Permanent” ...........................................................
Temporary...............................................................
Any typ e .................................................................
Job search ra te ...........................................................

2,444

3,038

5,641

125,853

100.0
86.1
6.2
7.7
19.3

100.0
87.0
5.8
7.2
18.7

100.0
86.5
5.9
7.6
15.4

100.0
90.8
4.1
5.1
3.6

1,358
100.0

1,827
100.0

3,778
100.0

108,592
100.0

90.5
4.2
5.3
22.4

90.1
4.4
5.5
20.6

88.6
4.2
7.2
16.5

93.2
2.5
4.2
3.2

1,086
100.0

1,212
100.0

1,863
100.0

17,261
100.0

78.3
9.7
12.1
15.5

80.9
8.5
10.6
15.9

81.2
10.1
8.6
13.1

82.6
9.3
8.1
5.9

1,320

1,622

2,997

(3)

100.0
91.0
2.7
6.3
32.5

100.0
91.5
2.3
6.3
31.6

100.0
89.9
2.8
7.4
25.9

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

Total, 25 years and older
Total (in thousands)........................................................
Actively searched for a new jo b ................................
Percent
“Permanent” ...........................................................
Temporary..............................................................
Any ty p e .................................................................
Job search ra te ...........................................................

Total, 16 to 24 years
Total (in thousands)........................................................
Actively searched for a new jo b ................................
Percent
“ Permanent’ ...........................................................
Temporary...............................................................
Any ty p e .................................................................
Job search ra te ...........................................................

Prefer noncontingent employment
Total, 16 years and older (in thousands)......................
Actively searched for a new job
P erce nt.....................................................................
“Permanent’ ...........................................................
Temporary...............................................................
Any ty p e .................................................................
Job search ra te ...........................................................

1 Contingent workers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
themselves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their employers
for ongoing employment. Estimate 1 above is calculated using the narrowest definition of contingent work; estimate 3 uses the broadest definition.
For the specific criteria used for each definition, see the appendix, p. 25.

percent in the Northeast, 3.9 percent in the South, and 3.6
percent in the Midwest.16 (See table 6, p. 12.)
The higher rate in the West is due, in part, to the region’s
industry composition. For example, the proportion of total
employment consisting of agriculture, which has an aboveaverage contingency rate, is slightly higher in the West than
in other regions. But, even in the West, workers in agricul­
ture were much more likely than their counterparts in other
regions of the United States to hold a contingent job. The

14

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

2 Noncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for any
of the three definitions of contingent work,
3 N t aDD|jcak|P
™
N o t e : Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

contingency rate for agricultural workers in the western re­
gion was roughly 14 percent; in contrast, the rates in the
other regions ranged from about 2 percent in the Midwest to
nearly 4 percent in the South.
In the West, the proportion of workers employed in con­
struction was higher than all but one of the other regions;
furthermore, the contingency rate for construction in the West
(6.9 percent) was higher than the rates for the other three
regions. Finally, as was the case with construction, the pro-

Table 9.

Median weekly earnings of full- and part-time time contingent and noncontingent w ag e
and salary workers by selected characteristics, February 1999
Median weekly earnings
Part-time workers2

Full-time workers'

Characteristic

Contingent
estimate 33

Noncontingent4

Contingent
estimate 33

Total, 16 years and o ld e r.........................................................
16 to 19 y e a rs ..................................................................................
20 to 24 y e a rs ..................................................................................
25 years and o ld e r..........................................................................
25 to 34 y e a rs ..............................................................................
35 to 44 y e a rs ..............................................................................
45 to 54 y e a rs ..............................................................................
55 to 64 y e a rs ..............................................................................
65 years and o ld e r.......................................................................

$415
257
350
471
444
504
494
540
(6)

$542
278
362
581
510
599
647
616
369

$114
83
106
159
171
175
164
144
111

$160
104
143
207
218
210
229
194
149

Men, 16 years and olde r..................................................................
Women, 16 years and older............................................................

494
340

614
476

119
112

150
166

420
350
313

564
447
396

113
122
116

161
150
159

295
353
438
445
581

334
447
512
590
840

92
133
93
142
191

110
171
155
218
268

Noncontingent4

Age and sex

Race and Hispanic origin
W h ite .................................................................................................
B la c k .................................................................................................
Hispanic o rig in ..................................................................................

Educational attainment
Less than a high school diplom a....................................................
High school graduates, no c o lle g e ................................................
Some college, no degree.................................................................
Associate d e g re e ............................................................................
College graduates.............................................................................

1 Full-time workers are those who usually work 35 hours per week or
more.

for ongoing employment. Estimate 3 is calculated using the broadest defi­
nition of contingent work. See the appendix, p. 25.

2 Part-time workers are those who usually work 1 to 34 hours per week.

4 Noncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for
any of the three definitions of contingent work.

3 Contingent w orkers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
them selves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their employers

portion of total employment in the West consisting of ser­
vices was higher than all but one other region. The contin­
gency rate for the services industry in the West (8.7 percent)
was more than 2 percentage points higher than the rates for
the other three regions.

Preferences, reasons, and job search
Preferences and reasons. In the survey, contingent workers
were asked if they preferred such work to noncontingent
employment, as well as the reason why they were employed
in a temporary job. Although more than one-half of contin­
gent workers reported that they would rather be employed in
a noncontingent job, about two-fifths said they preferred
holding a temporary job, slightly higher than the proportion


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

5 Data not shown where base em ployment is less than 75,000.

in 1997. Contingent workers aged 16 to 24 were much more
likely to be satisfied with their current employment arrange­
ment than their older counterparts aged 25 years and older.
More than half of the younger workers were happy with their
contingent jobs, in contrast to about one-fifth of adult men
and roughly one-third of adult women. (See chart 3.) As dis­
cussed earlier, a large proportion of younger workers en­
rolled in school held contingent jobs, and these students
probably preferred the flexibility afforded by temporary work
in order to balance work and school attendance. Indeed, threefifths of younger contingent workers enrolled in school said
that they were satisfied with their temporary job.
The following tabulation shows preferences of older con­
tingent workers for their current arrangement by race and
Hispanic origin.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

15

Contingent Work

C o n tin g e n t w o r k e r s
(e s tim a te 3 )

White
Total, 25 years and older
(In thousands)........................... 3,023
Percent........................................... 100.0
Prefer noncontingent employment.. 54.3
Prefer contingent employment.......
29.8
It depends..........................................
5.3
Preference not available...................
10.6

Black Hispanic
origin
459
100.0
65.4
20.2
4.6
9.8

516
100.0
73.1
15.5
2.7
8.7

Hispanics were most likely to be dissatisfied with being in a
contingent job. Nearly three-fourths of Hispanics aged 25
years and older would prefer a permanent job, compared with
about two-thirds of blacks and more than half of whites.
Research conducted by Susan N. Houseman and Anne E.
Polivka helps shine some light on why many older contin­
gent workers feel unhappy with their current employment
arrangement.17 Using the longitudinal capability of the c p s ,
the authors matched information from households in the Feb­
ruary 1995 Contingent and Alternative Work Arrangements
Survey and the February 1996 "Basic" c p s . Houseman and
Polivka found that workers employed in temporary jobs in
1995 were more likely than individuals with "regular" jobs to

C hart 3.
Percent
80

have changed employers, to be unemployed, or to have dropped
out of the labor force when surveyed again in 1996. For older
workers, it appears that the lack of job stability associated
with contingent employment is less desirable probably be­
cause, in general, older workers tend to be more risk-averse
than their younger counterparts. Many older workers may
perceive that they have more to lose in terms of benefits such
as pensions, for example, which typically accrue to workers
with permanent jobs, especially those employed full time.
In 1999, contingent workers were more likely to provide a
personal reason for choosing to accept their contingent jobs
than were their counterparts in the prior surveys. The pro­
portion who gave a personal reason for holding a contingent
job has risen steadily since the first survey on contingent
work was conducted, suggesting that, since 1995, contingent
work has become more of a voluntary choice, coinciding with
a period of declining unemployment and strong job growth.
About 1 in every 5 contingent workers reported attending
school or training as the reason they held their current job,
and roughly 1 in every 10 gave either flexibility of schedule,
or family or personal obligations as the reason for holding a
contingent job. (See table 7, p. 13.) These reasons imply that
contingent work enabled some individuals to join the
workforce despite their involvement in other activities. The

C o n tin g e n t workers b y their p re fe re n c e for co n tin g en t or n o n co n ting en t
work a rran g e m en ts by a g e a n d sex, February 1999

Percent
80

Prefer contingent
Prefer noncontingent
It depends
60 -

60

40

40

20

20

Both sexes, aged 16 to 24

16

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Men, aged 25 and older

Women, aged 25 and older

Table 10.

M edian weekly earnings of full- and part-time contingent and noncontingent
w ag e and salary workers by occupation and industry, February 1999
Median weekly earnings
Occupation and industry

Full-time workers'

Part-time workers2

Contingent
(estimate 3)3

Noncontingent4

Managerial and professional sp e cia lty.........................
Executive, administrative, and m anagerial.............
Professional sp e cia lty..............................................

$620
662
591

$786
776
792

$150
150
150

$268
260
271

Technical, sales, and administrative s u p p o rt..............
Technicians and related s u p p o rt..............................
Sales occupations.....................................................
Administrative support, including clerical................

381
550
515
434

482
583
521
442

109
124
105
109

161
302
133
186

Service occupations.......................................................
Private household......................................................
Other services...........................................................

288
123
301

346
220
351

97
104
95

140
119
140

Precision, production, craft, and re pair........................
Operators, fabricators, and labo rers............................
Farming, forestry, and fish in g ........................................

583
343
248

589
417
333

132
123
88

230
148
185

Agriculture.......................................................................
M ining...............................................................................
C onstruction....................................................................

243
(6)
641

318
705
552

87
(6)
143

166
(6)
182

Manufacturing..................................................................
Durable goods............................................................
Nondurable g o o d s ......................................................

389
407
358

551
585
505

196
209
124

198
274
175

Transportation, communications,
and other public utilities............................................
Wholesale tra de...............................................................
Retail tra d e ......................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real esta te.............................

504
405
316
377

675
575
386
578

174
(5)
110
153

255
156
135
209

S e rvices..........................................................................
Private household......................................................
Other services...........................................................
Professional services............................................

417
131
421
474

552
229
558
596

110
107
110
106

181
134
183
199

Public adm inistration......................................................

660

663

124

180

Contingent
(estimate 3)3

Noncontingent4

Occupation

Industry

1 Full-time workers are those who usually work 35 hours per week or more.
2Part-time workers are those who usually work 1 to 34 hours per week.
3 Contingent workers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
themselves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their employers for
ongoing employment. Estimate 3 is calculated using the broadest definition of

most common economic reason reported by contingent work­
ers was that it was the only type of work that could be found;
15 percent gave such a reason in 1999, somewhat lower than
the proportion in the 1997 survey.
Although slightly more than half of contingent workers
gave personal reasons for holding their contingent jobs, the
proportion was much lower— one-third—for those who were
dissatisfied with their contingent job.18 The most common
economic reason given by contingent workers who preferred


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

contingent work. For the specific criteria used for each definition, see the
appendix, p. 25.
4 Noncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for any of
the three definitions of contingent work.
5 Data not shown where base employment is less than 75,000.

a permanent job was that it was the only job they could find;
about 1 in 4 contingent workers dissatisfied with their cur­
rent arrangement gave such a reason. Not surprisingly,
the majority of contingent workers who preferred tempo­
rary work gave a personal reason for holding a contingent
job. A large proportion—nearly one-third—reported that
they preferred temporary work because they were attend­
ing school or in training and an additional 17 percent cited
the flexibility of the arrangement as the main reason for
Text continues on page 20.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

17

Contingent Work

Table 11.

Contingent and noncontingent w age salary workers with health insurance coverage
by selected characteristics, February 1999

[In percent]

Noncontingent workers2

Contingent workers (estimate 3)'

Percent with health insurance coverage

Percent with health insurance coverage
Characteristic

Total
Cn

thousands)

Total

Through
Through
current
other job
employer
or union
at main job

Eligible for
employerprovided
health
insurance

Total
Cr

thousands)

Total

Through
current
employer
at main job

Through
other job
or union

Eligible for
employerprovided
health
insurance

Age and sex
Total, 16 years and older
(thousands)...................
16 to 19 y e a rs .....................
20 to 24 y e a rs ......................
25 years and o ld e r..............
25 to 34 years....................
35 to 44 ye a rs...................
45 to 54 ye a rs....................
55 to 64 yea rs...................
65 years and o ld e r............
Men .......................................
Women .................................

30.1
28.0
29.3
30.2
14.9

1.6
(3)
.5
2.3
1.1
1.7
3.3
3.5
6.0

33.9
11.7
26.6
40.7
44.0
37.6
45.3
40.5
21.9

111,801
5,852
10,987
94,961
27,391
31,212
23,646
10,260
2,452

83.0
73.3
66.8
85.4
80.1
85.6
89.3
89.4
89.2

61.5
10.0
43.0
66.8
64.1
68.1
70.7
68.1
36.9

0.7
.1
.3
.8
.6
.6
.9
1.4
1.9

74.2
23.8
59.4
79.0
77.3
80.2
82.5
78.7
50.9

60.0
69.3

24.1
20.2

2.3
.9

35.3
32.6

58,057
53,744

82.3
83.7

66.9
55.6

1.1
.3

77.0
71.2

4,201
651
704

66.6
50.1
37.8

22.6
15.4
17.5

1.7
1.1
.0

34.2
30.9
26.6

93,646
13,248
11,796

84.1
76.3
63.0

61.5
61.4
49.5

.8
.4
.8

74.3
74.1
61.1

2,828
2,414

59.4
71.0

33.3
8.7

2.2
.9

46.7
18.6

92,480
19,079

84.9
74.0

70.7
17.0

.7
.7

82.7
32.9

538

29.7

11.0

.9

20.8

10,752

59.8

43.9

.6

56.6

1,108
707
267
1,449
573

53.3
59.7
65.9
76.5
84.8

16.5
26.9
25.8
37.9
47.1

3.2
2.1
3.4
1.2
2.6

29.3
43.3
41.2
50.5
59.2

34,631
20,104
9,367
29,905
9,445

79.6
84.9
88.1
93.5
95.4

60.0
65.2
67.6
77.0
80.9

.9
.9
1.0
.5
.5

73.3
79.0
81.7
87.5
90.5

5,253
726
1,062

64.8
73.8
60.7

22.1
3.9
14.1

3,472

64.1

28.4

1,240
978
697
341
215

55.8
63.6
67.1
76.2
85.6

2,569
2,691

Race and Hispanic origin
W hite.....................................
B la c k .....................................
Hispanic o rig in ......................

Full- or part-time status
Full-time w o rk e rs .................
Part-time w o rk e rs ................

Educational attainment4
Less than
a high school dip lo m a .....
High school graduates,
no c o lle g e .........................
Some college, no degree....
Associate d e g re e ................
College graduates................
Advanced d e gree..............

1 Contingent workers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
themselves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their employers
for ongoing employment. Estimate 3 uses the broadest definition of con­
tingent work. See the appendix, p. 25.
2 Noncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for
any of the three definitions of contingent work.
3 Less than 0.05 percent.

18

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

4 Excludes workers aged 16 to 24 years enrolled in school.
N o t e : Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum
to totals because data for the “other races” group are not presented and
Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. Detail
for other characteristics may not sum to totals due to rounding. Data
exclude the incorporated self-employed and independent contractors.

Table 12.

Contingent and noncontingent w age and salary workers with health insurance
coverage by occupation and industry, February 1999

[In percent]

Noncontingent workers2

Contingent workers (estimate 3)'
Percent with health insurance coverage
Occupation and industry
Total
On
thousands)

Total

Through
Through
current
other
employer
job or
at main
union
job

Percent with health insurance coverage

Eligible
for
Total
employerCn
provided thousands)
health
insurance

Total

Through
current
employer
at main
job

Through
other
job or
union

Eligible
for
employerprovided
health
insurance

Occupation
1,689

81.2

37.4

1.1

47.8

32,874

93.1

75.3

0.4

86.8

343
1,345

80.5
81.5

47.2
34.9

1.2
1.1

56.3
45.7

15,788
17,086

92.3
93.9

75.6
75.0

.4
.3

87.1
86.6

1,556
170
317

64.8
67.1
58.7

16.5
27.1
14.2

1.0
1.8
.9

31.7
46.5
22.7

33,794
3,892
12,795

84.5
90.9
79.5

58.2
70.9
48.4

.5
.5
.6

73.2
84.1
64.3

1,069

66.1

15.3

.8

32.0

17,107

86.8

62.7

.4

77.3

Service occupations....................................
Private household...................................
Other services........................................

715
102
613

57.8
54.9
58.2

8.3
7.8
8.3

.3
(3)
.3

17.8
7.8
19.4

15,678
489
15,189

69.1
44.0
69.9

38.9
4.1
40.0

.6
(3)
.6

52.7
5.3
54.3

Precision production, craft,
and repair..................................................
Operators, fabricators, and laborers.........
Farming, forestry, and fis h in g ....................

432
676
193

54.4
50.0
21.2

18.8
18.5
5.7

8.6
1.6
(3)

31.3
29.9
8.8

12,030
16,044
1,381

80.2
76.7
58.9

67.1
59.9
36.1

2.4
1.1
.6

76.5
71.9
48.6

A griculture....................................................
M ining...........................................................
C onstruction.................................................

159
14
382

18.2
(4)
48.7

6.3
(4)
20.2

(3)
(4)
10.5

8.2
(4)
34.0

1,310
503
5,669

58.9
87.1
69.8

32.9
83.7
49.4

.1
(3)
4.4

44.6
88.9
61.0

Manufacturing..............................................
Durable go ods.........................................
Nondurable g o o d s ..................................

434
284
150

62.4
62.3
62.7

32.7
35.6
29.3

1.1
1.1
1.3

46.3
52.8
35.3

19,275
11,849
7,369

88.7
90.0
86.6

78.2
80.1
75.2

.3
.3
.3

87.6
89.2
85.3

Transportation and public u tilitie s..............
Wholesale tra de...........................................
Retail tra d e ...................................................
Finance, insurance,
and real estate.........................................

175
121
569

70.3
66.9
57.3

34.9
27.3
10.4

5.1
(3)
.8

44.6
33.1
20.4

8,628
4,442
19,406

87.6
85.9
70.7

75.6
68.5
36.4

1.0
.9
.8

84.3
81.3
53.2

150

66.7

38.7

(3)

46.0

7,559

89.2

68.4

.5

81.9

S ervices.......................................................
Private household..................................
Other services........................................
Professional and related services....

3,062
109
2,953
2,006

69.4
51.4
70.0
79.7

20.9
7.3
21.4
25.7

.8
(3)
.9
.8

33.2
7.3
34.1
36.2

39,078
528
38,551
27,753

84.5
44.5
85.1
89.4

59.2
4.7
59.9
64.4

.5
(3)
.5
.4

73.3
5.9
74.2
78.8

Public adm inistration...................................

187

81.3

37.4

.4

56.1

5,930

95.0

85.6

.3

92.7

Managerial and professional s p e c ia lty.....
Executive, administrative,
and m anagerial.....................................
Professional specialty.............................
Technical, sales, and administrative
s u p p o rt..................................................
Technicians and related s u p p o rt............
Sales occupations...................................
Administrative support, including
c le ric a l....................................................

Industry

1 Contingent workers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
them selves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their employers
for ongoing employment. Estimate 3 uses the broadest definition of con­
tingent work. See the appendix, p. 25.
2 N oncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for
any of the three definitions of contingent work.


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

3 Less than 0.05 percent.
4 Data not shown where base em ployment is less than 75,000.

N o t e : Data exclude the incorporated self-employed and independent
contractors.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

19

Contingent Work

holding a contingent job. (See table 7, p. 13.)
Job search. An additional way to gauge workers’ satisfac­
tion with their current employment arrangement is whether
they are looking for another job. In the survey, employed
individuals are asked whether they had searched for a job in
the 3 months prior to the survey date, or since the start of
their current job if they began working at the job sometime
during those 3 months.19 Additional information is obtained
with respect to whether the jobseeker is looking for an addi­
tional job or a new job, and, if an individual is seeking a new
job, he or she is asked whether the job sought is a permanent
job, a temporary job, or simply any type of job that can be
found. The focus in this section is on contingent and non­
contingent workers who used active methods to search for a
new job. Active job-search methods include scheduling in­
terviews, contacting an employer directly, registering at a
public or private employment agency, contacting friends or
relatives about available jobs, sending out resumes or filling
out applications, and placing or answering ads.
In the 3 months prior to February 1999, approximately 15
percent of contingent workers had actively looked for a new
job, compared with only about 4 percent of noncontingent
workers. (See table 8, p. 14.) Interestingly, the job search rate
for both contingent and noncontingent workers has steadily
declined since the first survey was conducted in 1995. As
was the case in prior surveys, the vast majority of contingent
and noncontingent workers were looking for a “permanent”
job instead of a new temporary job. Among contingent work­
ers, the proportion aged 25 years and older who had looked
for work was only slightly higher than that for 16- to 24year-olds. In contrast, the fraction of younger noncontin­
gent workers who had actively looked for a new job in the
3 months preceding the survey was nearly twice that of
their older counterparts.
Contingent workers who reported that they preferred a
noncontingent job were most likely to have actively searched
for a new job in the 3 months preceding the February 1999
survey. Indeed, more than 1 in every 4 had actively looked for
a new job, in contrast with only 4 percent of contingent work­
ers who were happy with their temporary job.

Com pensation
Earnings. As in 1995 and 1997, contingent workers in 1999
earned less than noncontingent workers. Median weekly
earnings for all contingent workers, that is, both full- and
part-time workers combined, were $261, compared with $479
for their noncontingent counterparts. The large disparity in
earnings between the two groups reflects differences in de­
mographics, work schedules, occupational and industry

20

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

concentrations, and employee tenure. As mentioned earlier,
contingent workers were twice as likely as noncontingent
workers to be employed part time.
Yet, even among individuals employed full time, median
weekly earnings for contingent workers ($415) were only 77
percent of the median for noncontingent workers ($542). A
similar pattern was found among part-time workers. Median
weekly earnings for part-time contingent workers were $114,
or only about 71 percent of what noncontingent workers
earned ($160). The contingent-to-noncontingent earnings ra­
tios among both full- and part-time workers were roughly
similar for all the major demographic groups—men, women,
whites, blacks, and Hispanics. (See table 9, p. 15.)
Interestingly, between 1997 and 1999, median weekly earn­
ings for both full- and part-time contingent workers were little
changed, while earnings for full- and part-time noncontin­
gent workers rose by 6.3 percent and 9.6 percent, respec­
tively. The stagnation in earnings growth for contingent
workers between the two surveys could be due to shifts in
the demographic composition of contingent workers between
the two survey dates. For instance, compared with 1997,
somewhat larger proportions of contingent workers in 1999
either were high school dropouts or under the age of 25, and
workers in these groups, in general, tend to be on the lower
end of the earnings spectrum.
As in the 1995 and 1997 surveys, contingent workers were
found in both low- and high-skilled occupations, and, as a
result, there is a large degree of variation in their earnings by
occupation. Among occupations that had relatively high
rates of contingency, full-time workers in professional spe­
cialty occupations had the highest weekly earnings ($620),
followed by administrative support ($343), and farming, for­
estry, and fishing ($248). (See table 10, p. 17.)
Health insurance. As in prior surveys, contingent workers
in 1999 were much less likely than noncontingent workers to
have employer-provided health insurance; slightly more than
one-fifth had health insurance from their employer, compared
with more than three-fifths of noncontingent workers.20 (See
table 11, p. 18.) As was the case with earnings, the low cover­
age rates among contingent workers can be explained, in
part, by the composition of the contingent workforce— its
age, work schedules, employee tenure, and occupational and
industry concentrations.
Although most contingent workers did not receive health
insurance from their employers, a substantial proportion—
nearly two-thirds—had health insurance from some source,
including coverage from another family member or by pur­
chasing it on their own. Although the overall health insur­
ance coverage rate for contingent workers was lower than
that for noncontingent workers, the absolute number of non-

Table 13.

Contingent and noncontingent w age and salary workers with pension coverage
by selected characteristics, February 1999
Noncontingent workers2

Contingent workers (estimate 3)1
Characteristic

Total
Cn
thousands)

Percent with
pension
coverage

Eligible for
employerprovided
pension

Total
Cn
thousands)

Percent with
pension
coverage

Eligible for
employerprovided
pension

Age and sex
Total, 16 years and over......................
16 to 19 y e a rs .............................................
20 to 24 y e a rs .............................................
25 years and o ld e r......................................
25 to 34 y e a rs ........................................
35 to 44 y e a rs ........................................
45 to 54 y e a rs ........................................
55 to 64 y e a rs ........................................
65 years and o ld e r.................................

5,259
726
1,062
3,472
1,240
978
697
341
215

14.6
.6
4.7
20.7
14.9
20.3
24.2
36.7
18.6

23.0
8.3
14.3
28.8
25.1
26.9
31.1
43.7
27.4

111,801
5,852
10,987
94,961
27,391
31,212
23,646
10,260
2,452

51.4
4.3
22.9
57.6
49.7
59.9
65.0
60.6
31.8

59.0
14.1
37.8
64.2
59.6
66.2
69.5
64.9
37.3

Men ...............................................................
Women .........................................................

2,569
2,691

15.6
13.6

24.4
21.7

58,057
53,744

53.8
48.8

60.6
57.3

4,201
651
704

15.3
13.1
8.9

23.8
21.8
16.3

93,646
13,248
11,796

52.0
49.7
34.0

59.3
59.2
41.0

2,828
2,414

21.1
6.8

31.6
12.9

92,480
19,079

58.3
17.6

66.1
24.7

538
1,108
707
267
1,449
574

4.8
12.3
17.3
20.2
28.4
29.8

10.4
20.9
26.0
27.0
38.7
40.4

10,752
34,631
20,104
9,367
26,905
9,444

25.6
47.9
54.4
59.6
70.7
76.4

33.3
56.1
63.0
67.4
76.5
80.5

Race and Hispanic origin
W h ite .............................................................
B la c k .............................................................
Hispanic o rig in .............................................

Full- and part-time status
Full-time w o rk e rs .........................................
Part-time w o rk e rs........................................

Educational attainment3
Less than a high school diplom a...............
High school graduates, no c o lle g e ............
Some college, no degree............................
Associate d e g re e ........................................
College graduates........................................
Advanced d e g re e ......................................

1 Contingent workers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
themselves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their employers for
ongoing employment. Estimate 3 above is calculated using the broadest
definition of contingent work. For the specific criteria used for each defini­
tion, see the appendix, p. 25.
2 Noncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for any
of the three definitions of contingent work.

contingent workers lacking health insurance (19.0 million)
greatly exceeded the number of uninsured contingent work­
ers— 1.9 million.
Among contingent workers, health insurance coverage
rates were highest—and nearly equal to their noncontingent
counterparts— for teenagers and those aged 65 years and
older. Even though these two groups were among the least
likely to have coverage through their employer, teenagers
often are covered under their parents’ health insurance plans,
and individuals in the older age group have almost universal


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

3 Excludes workers aged 16 to 24 years enrolled in school.
N o t e : Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum
to totals because data for the "other races" group are not presented.
Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. Detail
for other characteristics may not sum to totals due to rounding. Data
exclude the incorporated self-employed and independent contractors.

coverage under medicare. Among workers in the central-age
group (aged 25 to 54 years), however, there was a substantial
disparity in coverage rates between contingent and noncon­
tingent workers: about three-fifths of contingent workers had
coverage, in contrast to more than four-fifths of those with
noncontingent jobs.
As was the case in 1995 and 1997, women with contingent
jobs were less likely than men to receive health insurance
from their employers, although a higher proportion of women
had coverage from some source. The most common source

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

21

Contingent Work

of health insurance coverage for female contingent workers was
another family member; more than one-third had coverage from
another member of their family, mostly through their spouses.
Of workers in contingent arrangements, whites had much
higher health insurance coverage rates than either blacks or
Hispanics. Two-thirds of whites had health insurance, com­
pared with half of blacks, and nearly two-fifths of Hispanics.
Table 14.

Whites also were more likely than blacks or Hispanics to
receive coverage from their employers.
More-educated workers were more likely than their lesseducated counterparts to have health insurance. This relation
holds for receipt of, and eligibility for, employer-provided
coverage, and applies to both contingent and noncontin­
gent workers. Still, at each level of educational attainment,

Contingent and noncontingent w age and salary workers with pension coverage
by occupation and industry, February 1999

[In percent]

Contingent workers (estimate 3)'
Occupation and industry
Total in
thousands

Percent
with
pension
coverage

Noncontingent workers2

Eligible for
employerprovided
pension

Total in
thousands

Percent
with
pension
coverage

Eligible for
employerprovided
pension

Occupation
Managerial and professional sp e cia lty.....................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial............................
Professional specialty.............................................................

1,689
343
1,345

27.5
36.2
25.3

36.3
42.9
34.6

32,874
15,788
17,086

68.5
66.9
70.0

74.4
72.9
75.7

Technical, sales, and administrative s u p p o rt..........................
Technicians and related s u p p o rt............................................
Sales occupations...................................................................
Administrative support, including clerical..............................

1,556
170
317
1,069

10.4
16.5
6.0
10.8

20.0
27.1
15.1
20.3

33,794
3,892
12,795
17,107

49.4
62.1
38.6
54.6

58.9
70.9
48.7
63.9

Service occupations...................................................................
Private household....................................................................
Other service s.........................................................................

715
102
613

2.8
(3)
3.3

9.7
(3)
11.3

15,678
489
15,189

29.0
.8
29.9

36.3
1.8
37.4

Precision production, craft, and re p a ir.....................................
Operators, fabricators, and laborers........................................
Farming, forestry, and fish in g ....................................................

432
676
193

15.3
8.3
.5

21.3
17.8
4.1

12,030
16,044
1,381

52.2
44.5
18.7

58.1
53.5
24.3

Agriculture...................................................................................
M ining......................................................................................
C onstruction................................................................................

159
14
382

.0
(4)
19.4

4.4
(4)
23.3

1,310
503
5,669

17.0
62.4
35.1

19.8
69.6
40.2

Manufacturing..............................................................................
Durable g o o d s ..........................................................................
Nondurable g o o d s ....................................................................

441
284
150

20.0
23.6
14.0

28.6
31.0
25.3

19,275
11,849
7,369

64.4
66.3
61.6

72.3
73.8
70.1

Transportation and public u tilitie s.............................................
Wholesale trade..........................................................................
Retail tra d e ..................................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real esta te.........................................

175
121
569
150

25.7
6.6
3.7
22.7

41.1
28.1
11.2
26.7

8,628
4,442
19,406
7,559

65.2
51.8
25.2
59.5

71.0
60.9
36.1
69.0

S ervices......................................................................................
Private household....................................................................
Other s ervice s.........................................................................
Professional and related se rv ic e s .......................................

3,062
109
2,953
2,006

14.0
(3)
14.5
18.1

22.6
(3)
23.4
26.4

39,078
528
38,551
27,753

51.2
.8
51.9
59.4

58.4
1.7
59.1
66.3

Public adm inistration..................................................................

187

31.6

41.7

5,930

87.1

89.4

Industry

1 Contingent workers are defined as individuals who do not perceive
themselves as having an explicit or implicit contract with their employers for
ongoing employment. Estimate 3 is calculated using the broadest definition of
contingent work. See the appendix, p. 25.
2 Noncontingent workers are those who do not meet the criteria for any of
the three definitions of contingent work.

22

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

3 Less than 0.05 percent.
4 Data not shown where base employment is less than 75,000.

N o t e : Data exclude the incorporated self-employed and independent
contractors.

contingent workers were less likely than noncontingent work­
ers to have health insurance from any source.
With the exception of private household workers, contin­
gent workers were less likely than noncontingent workers to
have health insurance coverage from any source in every
occupational category; they also were much less likely to
have, or be eligible for, employer-provided health insurance
coverage. However, eligibility and employer-provided cover­
age rates vary considerably by occupation. For instance, man­
agers and professionals in both contingent and noncontingent
employment arrangements were more likely to have, or be eli­
gible for, employer-provided health insurance than their coun­
terparts in other occupations. At the other end of the spectrum,
workers in service and farming occupations in both contingent
and noncontingent jobs had the lowest employer-provided cov­
erage and eligibility rates. (See table 12, p. 19.)
In terms of industry, there was a large degree of heteroge­
neity among the various industries in employer-provided
coverage and eligibility rates. Among both contingent and
noncontingent workers, individuals employed in public ad­
ministration and durable goods manufacturing tended to
have higher employer-provided coverage and eligibility rates
than their counterparts in other industries. Moreover, rates for
contingent workers in public administration and durable goods
manufacturing exceeded the rates for noncontingent workers
employed in private household services and agriculture.
As mentioned earlier, the proportion of contingent work­
ers in the construction industry who were union members
was higher than that of their noncontingent counterparts. In
addition to possibly helping contingent workers transition
between jobs through the use of hiring halls, unions in the
construction industry also appear to be a source of health
insurance coverage for many of these workers. Indeed, in
construction, the proportion of contingent workers who re­
ceived coverage through their union (11 percent) was more
than twice that of noncontingent workers (4 percent).
Pensions. As in prior surveys, contingent workers were
much less likely than those with noncontingent arrange­
ments to participate in employer-sponsored pension plans.21
In 1999, only 15 percent of contingent workers participated in
such plans, in contrast to a bit more than half of noncontingent
workers. (See table 13, p. 21.) Furthermore, the proportion of
contingent workers eligible to participate in their employers’
pension plan—approximately one-fourth—was much lower
than that for noncontingent workers (nearly three-fifths). Al­
though the coverage rate for contingent workers is much
lower than the rate for noncontingent workers, the number of
noncontingent workers who lack pensions (54.3 million)
greatly exceeded the number of contingent workers without
pensions— 4.5 million.22


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

Contingent workers aged 16 to 24, who constitute onethird of all contingent workers, were much less likely than
those aged 25 and older to participate in pension plans or to
work in industries that are more likely to offer pensions to
their employees. Among every major demographic group,
individuals in contingent employment arrangements were
less likely than their noncontingent counterparts to have, or
be eligible for, employer-provided pensions. However, even
though there was a great deal of variation among the differ­
ent industries in coverage and eligibility rates, contingent
workers were less likely than noncontingent workers to have
pensions in nearly every occupation and industry group.
(See table 14.)
e s p it e t h e e c o n o m i c e x p a n s io n that continued into the
late-1990s, both the number of contingent workers and the
proportion of total employment composed of such workers
changed little between 1997 and 1999. Characteristics of
workers with contingent jobs also were very similar to those
identified in the prior surveys. The probability of holding a
contingent job continued to be greater for women, workers
under the age of 25, students, noncitizens, and those em­
ployed part time. As in earlier surveys, contingent work was
more prevalent in agriculture, construction, and services.
Contingent workers also continued to be found in both highand low-skilled occupations. Individuals employed in pro­
fessional specialty, administrative support, and farming
occupations were about equally likely to hold a contingent job.
A majority of contingent workers would have preferred a
permanent job, although many were happy with their current
arrangement. Students, in particular, were most likely to be
satisfied with temporary jobs, probably because many wanted
the flexibility afforded by contingent work. Compared with
prior surveys, individuals with contingent jobs were more
likely to have cited personal, as opposed to economic, rea­
sons for being employed in a contingent arrangement, sug­
gesting that contingent work was more of a voluntary choice
in 1999. Nevertheless, individuals employed in contingent
jobs continued to be much more likely than noncontingent
workers to have actively searched for a new job in the 3
months prior to the survey date, indicating that many contin­
gent workers were not satisfied with their current employ­
ment arrangement.
Data from the most recent survey continued to show that
contingent workers earned less and were less likely than those
with noncontingent jobs to have been included in employerprovided health or pension plans. However, when comparing
the wages and employee benefits of workers in contingent
and noncontingent arrangements, there was a large degree
of variation with regard to age, educational attainment, occu­
pation, and industry.
□

D

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

23

Contingent Work

Notes
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The author thanks Bernard R. Altschuler, Robert
J. Mclntire, and Anne E. Polivka for their assistance in tabulating
much of the data that appears in this article.

1 Contingency rates are calculated by dividing the number of con­
tingent workers in a specified worker group by total employment for
the same worker group.
2 Data on employment and unemployment are derived from the
Current Population Survey ( c p s ) , a nationwide sample survey of about
50,000 households, conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The c p s collects information about
the demographic characteristics and employment status of the noninstitutional civilian population aged 16 years and older.
3 Special supplements to the c p s are routinely added to obtain infor­
mation on a wide range of topics including, for example, income and
work experience, displaced workers, employee tenure and occupa­
tional mobility, em ployment status o f veterans, work schedules,
home-based work, and school enrollment.
4 For more information on the concepts and definitions of con­
tingent work, see Anne E. Polivka, "Contingent and alternative
work arrangements, defined," M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , October
1996, pp. 3 -9 .
5 Testimony o f Audrey Freedman before the Employment and
Housing Subcommittee o f the Committee on Government Opera­
tions, U.S. House of Representatives, May 19, 1988.
6 A recent study, using data from the Contingent and Alternative
Work Arrangements Survey, divided total employment into eight
mutually exclusive groups: agency temporaries, on-call workers, con­
tract company workers, direct-hire temporary workers, independent
contractors, regular self-employed, regular part-time workers, and
regular full-time workers. Excluding regular full-time workers, the
seven “nonstandard” arrangements totaled 32.5 percent of total work­
ers in 1995 and 31.3 percent in 1997. (Although the study focuses on
data from the 1995 and 1997 surveys, 29.9 percent of the workforce
was in a nonstandard employment arrangement in 1999.) The au­
thors found that the characteristics o f workers in these different
arrangements varied considerably, as do the types o f jobs they per­
form. In addition, measures o f job quality such as earnings, health
insurance coverage, and job satisfaction varied greatly. The authors
conclude that, because of this variation, combining all of these work­
ers into a single category is arbitrary and misleading, and that all jobs
in nonstandard arrangements should not be automatically viewed as
“bad jobs.” See Anne E. Polivka, Sharon R. Cohany, and Steven Hippie,
“Definition, Composition, and Economic Consequences of the Non­
standard Work Force,” in Françoise Carré, Marianne A. Ferber, Lonnie
Golden, and Stephen A. Herzenberg, eds., N o n s t a n d a r d W o rk : T h e
N a tu r e a n d C h a lle n g e s o f C h a n g in g E m p lo y m e n t A r r a n g e m e n ts (In­
dustrial Relations Research Association, 2000), pp. 41-94.

temporary because it was a “seasonal job” might be due to the timing
of the survey.
9 In the survey, conducted in 1996 by the Upjohn Institute for
Employment Research, employers could provide more than one rea­
son for employing temporary workers. The specific percentages by
reason were: to fill seasonal needs (54.8 percent); to help with special
projects (37.6 percent); to help during unexpected increases in busi­
ness (31.0 percent); to fill in for an absent employee (30.0 percent);
to fill in until a regular worker is hired (20.5 percent); to employ
workers with special expertise (15.7 percent); to screen candidates
for "regular" jobs (9.0 percent); to reduce the cost o f wages and
benefits (8.0 percent); and to provide assistance during company
restructuring or merger (6.2 percent). In the study, data on reasons
for using flexible employment arrangements also were reported for
agency temporaries, part-time workers, and on-call workers. See Su­
san N. Houseman, “Why Employers Use Flexible Staffing Arrange­
ments: Evidence from an Establishment Survey,” I n d u s t r i a l a n d L a ­
b o r R e l a t i o n s R e v ie w , forthcoming.
10 Beginning in 1994, questions on nativity and U.S. citizenship
status were added to the basic monthly c p s . Respondents are asked to
name their country of birth. Those who said that they were bom in
the United States, Puerto Rico, or another U.S. territory, or that they
were bom abroad of an American parent, or parents, are classified as
U.S. natives. Individuals who provided another response were classi­
fied as foreign-bom.
11 Although contingent workers were found in all industries, they
were disproportionately concentrated in construction and services. In
1999, more than half o f all contingent workers were employed in
services, and an additional 8 percent were employed in construction.
These proportions are similar to those found in prior surveys. As the
contingency rates show, however, the vast majority (93 percent in
services and 95 percent in construction) of workers in both industries
were not holding contingent jobs.
12 For more inform ation on the use o f contingent work in
postsecondary education, see Kathleen Barker, “Toiling for PieceRates and Accumulating Deficits: Contingent Work in Higher Educa­
tion,” in Kathleen Barker and Kathleen Christensen, eds., C o n tin g e n t
W o rk : A m e r i c a n E m p l o y m e n t R e l a t i o n s in T r a n s itio n , pp 195-220,
(Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1998).
13 For instance, in February 1999, more than half of the 1.2 million
temporary help agency workers were contingent under estimate 3. An
overview of workers in alternative employment arrangements is pro­
vided by Marisa DiNatale in “Characteristics of and preference for
alternative work arrangements, 1999,” this issue, pp. 28-49.
14 See Kathleen Christensen, “Countervailing Human Resource
Trends in Family-Sensitive Firms,” in Barker and Christensen, eds.,
C o n tin g e n t W o rk , pp. 103-25.

7 See Anne E. Polivka and Thomas Nardone, “On the definition
o f ‘contingent work’,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , December 1989,
pp. 9 -1 6 .

15 The proportion o f workers covered by a union contract is a
broader measure of unionization and includes individuals who report
no union affiliation, but whose jobs are covered by a union or em­
ployee association contract.

8 The large proportion of contingent workers reporting that “they
were working only until a specific project was completed” may be due,
in part, to an “order” effect. In the survey, a series o f questions
collects information on the reason a job is temporary. Once a re­
spondent gives a “yes” answer to one of the questions in the series, he
or she is skipped to questions on expected duration of employment.
B ecause the question, “Are you working only until a sp ecific
project is completed?” is the first one in the series, respondents
may have a tendency to respond affirmatively to this question, and
thus, are skipped over the other questions pertaining to “reasons.” In
addition, because February is a month in which seasonal work is rela­
tively uncommon, the small proportion reporting that their job was

16 The four census regions o f the United States are Northeast,
South, Midwest, and West. Within the Northeast, the New England
division includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp­
shire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; and the Middle Atlantic division
includes New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Within the South,
the South Atlantic division includes Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia,
and West Virginia; the East South Central division includes Alabama,
Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee; and the West South Central
division includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Within
the Midwest, the East North Central division includes Illinois, Indi­
ana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin; the West North Central division

24

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

includes Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Da­
kota, and South Dakota. Within the West, the Mountain division
includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah, and Wyoming; the Pacific division includes Alaska, California,
Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.
17 See Susan N. Houseman and Anne E. Polivka, "The Implications
o f F lexible Staffing Arrangements for Job Security," in David
Neumark, ed., O n th e J o b : I s L o n g -T e r m E m p lo y m e n t a T h in g o f th e
P a s t ? (New York, Russell Sage Foundation, forthcoming).
18 In the survey, information concerning preferences for a con­
tingent or noncontingent employment arrangement was collected
separately from the reasons for holding a contingent job. There­
fore, a contingent worker could prefer a noncontingent job but
still give a personal reason for being in a contingent work arrange­
ment.
19 For further discussion of job search among the employed, see
Joseph R. Meisenheimer and Randy Ilg, “Looking for a ‘better’ job:
job-search activity of the employed, M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , Septem­
ber 2000, pp. 3-14; and, also, Peter Kuhn and Mikal Skuterud, “Job
search methods: Internet versus traditional,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
October 2000, pp. 3-11.
20 In the survey, respondents were asked, “Do you have health
insurance from any source?” If the response was “yes,” they were
then asked if their insurance was provided by their employer. Those
who did not receive health insurance from their employer were asked
for the source of their health insurance; in addition, they were asked

if they were eligible for employer-provided health insurance. Respon­
dents who said “no” to the initial question were asked, “D oes
(employer’s name) offer a health insurance plan to any of its employ­
ees?” If the answer to that question was “yes,” the respondent was
then asked, “Are you included in this plan?” If the response was “no,”
the respondent was asked, “Why not?” The answer to this question
was used to determine whether or not the respondent was eligible to
receive insurance from his or her employer. For further discussion on
the prevalence of health insurance (and pension) coverage among
contingent workers, see C o n tin g e n t W o r k e r s : I n c o m e s a n d B e n e f its
L a g B e h in d T h o s e o f th e R e s t o f th e W o r k f o r c e (Washington, D.C.,
U.S. General Accounting Office, June 2000).
21 In the survey, respondents were asked, “Does (employer’s name)
offer a pension or retirement plan to any of its employees?” If they
answered “y es,” they were then asked, “Are you included in this
plan?” If the response was “no,” respondents were then asked, “Why
not?” The response to this last question was used to determine eligi­
bility for those not in the plan.
22 In 1999, the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pen­
sion Benefit Plans o f the U.S. Department of Labor's Pension and
Welfare Benefits Administration studied the issue of pension cover­
age and contingent work. For more information, see R e p o r t o f th e
W o rk in g G r o u p o n th e B e n e f it I m p lic a tio n s o f th e G r o w th o f a C o n tin ­

Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension
Benefit Plans, U.S. Department of Labor, November 1999, on the Inter­
net at http://www.dol.gov/dol/pwba/public/adcoun/contrpt.htm
(visited Feb. 21, 2001).

g e n t W o rk fo r c e ,

A ppend ix: C o n cep ts a n d d e fin itio n s ____
The data presented in this article were collected through a
supplement to the February 1999 Current Population Survey
( c p s ), a monthly survey of about 50,000 households that pro­
vides the basic data on employment and unemployment for
the Nation. This supplement obtained information from work­
ers on whether they held contingent jobs, basically, jobs that
were expected to last only a limited period of time. In addi­
tion, inform ation was collected on several alternative
employment arrangements, namely, working as independent
contractors or being "on call," as well as working through
temporary help agencies and contract firms. Characteristics
of workers in alternative employment arrangements are dis­
cussed on pp. 28-49.
All employed persons, except unpaid family workers, were
included in the supplement. For persons holding more than
one job, the questions referred to the characteristics of
their main job— the job in which they worked the most
hours. A similar survey was conducted in February 1995
and February 1997. (The survey was conducted again in
February 2001, and the results are scheduled to be released
later this year.)

The contingent workforce
Contingent workers were defined as those who do not have
an explicit or implicit contract for long-term employment. Sev-


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

eral pieces of information were collected in the supplement
from which the existence of a contingent employment arrange­
ment could be discerned. These include: whether the job was
temporary or not expected to continue, how long the worker
expected to be able to hold the job, and how long the worker
had held the job. For workers who had a job with an inter­
mediary, such as a temporary help agency or contract com­
pany, information was collected about their employment
at the place they were assigned to work by the intermedi­
ary, as well as their employment with the intermediary it­
self.
The key factor used to determine if a worker’s job fit the
conceptual definition of contingent was whether the job was
temporary or not expected to continue. The first questions of
the supplement were:
1. Some people are in temporary jobs that last only for
a limited time or until the completion of a project. Is
your job temporary?
2. Provided the economy does not change and your
job performance is adequate, can you continue to work
for your current employer as long as you wish?
Respondents who answered “yes” to the first question,
or “no” to the second, were then asked a series of questions
to distinguish persons who were in temporary jobs from

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

25

Contingent Work

those who, for personal reasons, were temporarily holding
jobs that offered the opportunity of ongoing employment.
For example, students holding part-time jobs in fast-food res­
taurants while in school might view those jobs as temporary
if they intend to leave them at the end of the school year. The
jobs themselves, however, would be filled by other workers
once the students leave.
Jobs were defined as being short term or temporary if the
person was working only until the completion of a specific
project, temporarily replacing another worker, being hired for
a fixed time period, filling a seasonal job that is available only
during certain times of the year, or if other business condi­
tions dictated that the job was short term.
Workers also were asked how long they expected to stay
in their current job and how long they had been with their
current employer. The rationale for asking how long an indi­
vidual expects to remain in his or her current job was that
being able to hold a job for a year or more could be taken as
evidence of at least an implicit contract for ongoing employ­
ment. In other words, the employer’s need for the worker’s
services is not likely to evaporate tomorrow. By the same
token, the information on how long a worker has been with
the employer shows whether a job has been ongoing. Hav­
ing remained with an employer for more than a year may be
taken as evidence that, at least in the past, there was an
explicit or implicit contract for continuing employment.
To assess the impact of altering some of the defining
factors on the estimated size of the contingent workforce,
three measures of contingent employment were developed,
as follows:
Estimate 1. The narrowest definition, estimate 1, defines
contingent workers as wage and salary workers who indi­
cated that they expected to work in their current job for 1 year
or less and who had worked for their current employer for 1
year or less. Self-employed workers, both incorporated and
unincorporated, and independent contractors are excluded
from the count of contingent workers under estimate 1; the
rationale was that people who work for themselves, by defi­
nition, have ongoing employment arrangements, although
they may face financial risks. Individuals who worked for
temporary help agencies or contract companies are consid­
ered contingent under estimate 1 only if they expect their
employment arrangement with the temporary help or con­
tract company to last for 1 year or less and they had worked
for that company for 1 year or less.
Estimate 2. This measure expands the definitions of contin­
gent workers by including the self-employed (incorporated
and the unincorporated) and independent contractors who
expect to be, and had been, in such employment arrange-

26

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

ments for 1 year or less. (The questions asked of the selfemployed are different from those asked of wage and salary
workers.) In addition, temporary help and contract company
workers are classified as contingent under estimate 2 if they
had worked and expected to work for the customers to whom
they were assigned for 1 year or less. For example, a “temp”
secretary who is sent to a different customer each week but
has worked for the same temporary help firm for more than 1
year and expects to be able to continue with that firm indefi­
nitely is contingent under estimate 2, but not under estimate
1. In contrast, a “temp” who is assigned to a single client for
more than a year is not counted as contingent under either
estimate.
Estimate 3. The third definition expands the concept of con­
tingency by removing the 1-year requirement both on ex­
pected duration of the job and current tenure for wage and
salary workers. Thus, the estimate effectively includes all the
wage and salary workers who do not expect their employ­
ment to last, except for those who, for personal reasons, ex­
pect to leave jobs that they would otherwise be able to keep.
Thus, a worker who had held a job for 5 years could be con­
sidered contingent if he or she now viewed the job as tempo­
rary. These conditions on expected and current tenure are
not relaxed for the self-employed and independent contrac­
tors, because they were asked a different set of questions
from wage and salary workers.

Alternative em ploym ent arrangements
To provide estimates of the number of workers in alternative
employment arrangements, the February 1999 c p s supplement
included questions about whether individuals were paid by a
temporary help agency or contract company, or whether they
were on-call workers or independent contractors. Definitions
of each category, as well as the main questions used to iden­
tify workers in each category, follow.
Independent contractors. Workers who were identified as
independent contractors, consultants, and freelance work­
ers in the supplement, regardless of whether they were iden­
tified as wage and salary workers or self-employed in the
responses to basic c p s labor force status questions. Workers
identified as self-employed (incorporated and unincorpo­
rated) in the basic c p s were asked, “Are you self-employed as
an independent contractor, independent consultant, or some­
thing else (such as a shop or restaurant owner)?” in order to
distinguish those who consider themselves to be indepen­
dent contractors, consultants, or freelance workers from those
who were business operators such as shop owners or res­
taurateurs. Those identified as wage and salary workers in

the basic c p s were asked, “Last week, were you working as an
independent contractor, an independent consultant, or a
freelance worker? That is, someone who obtains custom­
ers on their own to provide a product or service.” About
88 percent of independent contractors were identified as selfemployed in the main questionnaire, while 12 percent were
identified as wage and salary workers. Conversely, about
half of the self-employed were identified as independent
contractors.
On-call workers. These are persons who are called into work
only when they are needed. This category includes workers
who answered affirmatively to the question, “Some people
are in a pool of workers who are ONLY called to work as
needed, although they can be scheduled to work for several
days or weeks in a row, for example, substitute teachers and
construction workers supplied by a union hiring hall. These
people are sometimes referred to as ON-CALL workers. Were
you an ON-CALL worker last week?” Persons with regularly
scheduled work which might include periods of being “on
call” to perform work at unusual hours, such as medical resi­
dents, were not included in this category.
Temporary help agency workers. These are workers who
were paid by a temporary help agency. To the extent that
permanent staff of temporary help agencies indicate that they
are paid by their agencies, the estimate of the number of


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

workers whose employment was mediated by temporary help
agencies is overstated. This category includes workers who
said their job was temporary and answered affirmatively to
the question, “Are you paid by a temporary help agency?”
Also included are workers who said their job was not tempo­
rary and answered affirmatively to the question, “Even
though you told me your job was not temporary, are you paid
by a temporary help agency?”
Workers provided by contract firms. These are individuals
identified as working for a contract company, and who usu­
ally work for only one customer and usually work at the
customer’s worksite. The last two requirements were imposed
to focus on workers whose employment appeared to be very
closely tied to the firm for which they are performing the
work, rather than include all workers employed by firms that
provide services. This category included workers who an­
swered affirmatively to the question, “Some companies pro­
vide employees or their services to others under contract. A
few examples of services that can be contracted out include
security, landscaping, or computer programming. Did you
work for a company that contracts out you or your services
last week?” These workers also had to respond negatively to
the question, “Are you usually assigned to more than one
customer?” In addition, these workers had to respond affir­
matively to the question, “Do you usually work at the
customer’s worksite?”

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

27

Alternative Work Arrangements

Characteristics of and preference for
alternative work arrangements, 1999
Characteristics of individuals employed in alternative
work arrangements were similar to those o f the 1995 and 1997
surveys; however; the proportion of these workers who prefer
these arrangements has increased since the mid-1990s

Marisa D iN atale

Marisa DiNatale
is an economist in the
Office of Employment
and Unemployment
Statistics, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.

28

he proportion of the workforce consisting
of independent contractors, on-call work­
ers, temps, and contractors is small, and
the shares of these workers are not growing, ac­
cording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 1999
Contingent and Alternative Work Arrangements
Survey.1 In 1999, workers in all four alternative
arrangements combined accounted for 9.3 per­
cent of total employment, compared with 9.9 per­
cent in 1997 and 9.8 percent in 1995. Although
independent contractors remained the largest
group numerically, their share of total employ­
ment declined slightly between 1997 and 1999.
The proportions of total employment comprised
of the other three arrangements changed little
over the period. (See exhibit 1 and table 1.) Alter­
native work arrangements are defined in exhibit 1.
Perhaps the most significant finding from the
1999 data is that more workers in alternative em­
ployment arrangements are choosing these ar­
rangements. Data on preference for the arrange­
ments show that more workers actually prefer
their alternative work arrangements to traditional
jobs. This was true overall for on-call workers,
and for temps and independent contractors with
3 or fewer years of tenure. Furthermore, among
the four groups, enormous diversity exists in
terms of demographics, earnings, benefit cover­
age, and preference for the arrangements.
This article uses the data from the 1999 Con­
tingent and Alternative Work Arrangements
supplement to the February Current Population

T

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Survey (CPS) to address several issues relating to
job quality and how or if it has changed since the
prior surveys. In 1995 and 1997, the arrange­
ments differed widely from each other in their
demographics, preferences, and pay. Although
it may be tempting to lump these arrangements
together, a clear distinction can be drawn among
them in terms of job quality and satisfaction. In
particular, independent contractors and workers
provided by contract companies have very dif­
ferent experiences from both on-call and tempo­
rary help agency workers.
Since the mid-1980s, some employment ana­
lysts have debated the issue of the size and
growth of the workforce in “nonstandard” or al­
ternative employment arrangements. Is a grow­
ing trend in nontraditional employment arrange­
ments an indication that more American workers
are being forced into “bad” jobs?2 Some ana­
lysts stereotype workers who are in alternative
arrangements as being in substandard jobs, of­
ten citing low earnings, low rates of health insur­
ance and pension coverage, job instability, and
dissatisfaction with work.3 These concerns have
ushered in a host of articles and debates on the
topic. Proponents of the arrangements argue that
these jobs provide much needed flexibility in a
tight labor market for both employers and em­
ployees. They claim that these arrangements
enable employers to more easily modify their hir­
ing levels and cost effectiveness when demand
for their goods or services fluctuates.4 On the

Workers in alternative arrangements as a percent of total employment, February 1995, 1997,
and 1999
Alternative arrangement

February 1995

February 1997

February 1999

Independent contractors
Workers identified as independent contractors,
independent consultants, or freelance workers,
whether they were self-employed or wage and
salary workers...............................................................................

6.7

6.7

6.3

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.0

1.0

.9

.5

.6

.6

On-call workers
Workers called to work only as needed, although
they can be scheduled to work for several days
or weeks in a row ..........................................................................

Temporary help agency workers
Workers paid by a temporary help agency, whether
or not their job actually was temporary.................................

Contract company workers
Workers employed by a company that provides them
or their services to others under contract and who
are usually assigned to only one customer and usually
work at the customer’s worksite...............................................

supply side, these alternative arrangements allow individuals
to balance work with nonlabor market activities.5
In response to the emerging interest about workers in alter­
native work arrangements, the Bureau of Labor Statistics con­
ducted the first supplement to the Current Population Survey
on this topic (and on contingent workers) in February 1995;
subsequent surveys were conducted in February 1997 and
February 1999.6 This article focuses on workers in alternative
arrangements; an accompanying article beginning on page 3
profiles contingent workers from the same CPS supplement
and further defines alternative employment arrangements.7

Independent contractors
More than 8 million persons worked as independent contrac­
tors, freelancers, or independent consultants in 1999. (BLS
refers to these three groups of workers collectively as inde­
pendent contractors.) These workers accounted for more than
6 percent of all employed persons, slightly below their shares
of total employment in 1995 and 1997. (See exhibit 1.)
Demographic characteristics. The demographic character­
istics of independent contractors have not changed signifi­
cantly across the three surveys. (See table 2.) Compared with
traditional workers, independent contractors were more likely
to be men, older, and white. (See table 3.) Independent con-


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

tractors were also somewhat more highly educated than
traditional workers. A little more than one-third of inde­
pendent contractors aged 25-64 were college graduates, and
about 12 percent held an advanced degree. These propor­
tions were slightly lower for traditional workers— 31 per­
cent were college graduates, and 10 percent held advanced
degrees. (See table 3.)
Part-time status and hours. Both male and female indepen­
dent contractors older than 20 years were twice as likely as
their counterparts in traditional arrangements to work part
time. (See table 4.) Despite the relatively high incidence of
part-time work among independent contractors, full-timers in
this arrangement worked longer hours than did traditional full­
time workers. The average workweek for full-time indepen­
dent contractors was 46.4 hours, compared with 42.5 hours for
traditional workers. In 1999,15 percent of independent con­
tractors worked more than 60 hours per week, compared with
only 6 percent of traditional workers.
For women, the propensity to work part time may reflect a
desire to balance work with child care. Female independent
contractors were somewhat less likely to have children overall
than women with traditional work arrangements; however,
they were more likely to have pre-school children than women
in traditional arrangements. Along the same lines, adult women
were more likely than men in the arrangement to be working

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

29

Alternative Work Arrangements

part time by choice (35 percent and 11 percent, respectively).
(See table 4.)
Occupation and industry. The occupational and industrial
distribution of independent contractors did not change from
the prior surveys. In 1999, independent contractors were more
likely than traditional workers to hold managerial, professional
specialty, sales, and production jobs, but were less likely to
work in technical, administrative support, and service occupaTable 1.

tions. In terms of industry, independent contractors were more
likely than traditional workers to be employed in the agriculture,
construction, finance, and services industries. (See table 5.)
Paid employees. Nearly one-quarter of independent contrac­
tors had paid employees in 1999. Of this group, about twothirds had fewer than six employees. This proportion of inde­
pendent contractors with paid employees fell slightly from the
previous surveys. Depending on whether the business was

Incidence of alternative and traditional work arrangements by selected characteristics, February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Workers with alternative arrangements
Total
employed
(thousands)

Characteristic

Independent
contractors

On-call
workers

Temporary
help
agency
workers

Contract
company
workers

wonters
with
traditional
arrangements1

Age and sex
Total, 16 years and older2..............................................
to 1 9 ..................................................................................
to 2 4 ..................................................................................
to 3 4 ..................................................................................
to 4 4 ..................................................................................
to 5 4 ..................................................................................
to 6 4 ..................................................................................
and older............................................................................

131,494
6,662
12,462
30,968
36,415
28,144
13,062
3,781

6.3
1.1
2.0
4.8
6.8
7.7
9.3
14.8

1.5
2.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.6
4.4

.9
1.0
2.0
1.1
.6
.6
.6
.9

.6
.6
.7
.8
.6
.5
.4
.4

90.6
94.0
93.4
91.7
90.5
90.0
88.1
79.3

Men, 16 years and o ld e r...............................................
16 to 1 9 ..................................................................................
20 to 2 4 ..................................................................................
25 to 3 4 ..................................................................................
35 to 4 4 ..................................................................................
45 to 5 4 ..................................................................................
55 to 6 4 ..................................................................................
65 and older............................................................................

70,040
3,339
6,489
16,617
19,603
14,684
7,186
2,122

7.8
1.4
2.4
5.4
8.7
9.6
11.3
20.1

1.4
2.8
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.4
4.0

.7
1.1
1.8
.9
.4
.5
.4
.8

.8
.9
1.1
1.0
.8
.5
.5
.6

89.2
93.3
92.5
91.3
88.9
88.3
86.3
74.2

Women, 16 years and o ld e r ..........................................
16 to 1 9 ..................................................................................
20 to 2 4 ..................................................................................
25 to 3 4 ..................................................................................
35 to 4 4 ..................................................................................
45 to 5 4 ..................................................................................
55 to 6 4 ..................................................................................
65 and olde r............................................................................

61,454
3,323
5,973
14,351
16,812
13,459
5,876
1,659

4.5
.9
1.6
4.0
4.7
5.7
6.8
8.0

1.7
2.6
1.4
1.9
1.6
1.1
1.8
5.0

1.1
.9
2.2
1.4
.9
.8
.9
.9

.4
.2
.3
.5
.4
.4
.2
.1

92.2
94.8
94.3
92.2
92.4
91.9
90.2
86.0

110,887
14,620
13,356

6.7
3.3
3.8

1.5
1.8
1.8

.8
1.7
1.2

.5
.7
.3

90.2
92.6
92.5

107,630
23,864

5.8
8.6

.9
4.3

.9
1.1

.6
.4

91.8
85.2

10,027
33,867
20,842
33,930

5.5
6.4
7.1
7.4

2.0
1.3
1.4
1.2

1.2
.8
1.0
.5

.4
.4
.6
.7

90.6
90.9
89.9
90.1

16
20
25
35
45
55
65

Race and Hispanic origin3
W h ite ......................................................................................
B la c k ......................................................................................
Hispanic o rig in .......................................................................

Full- or part-time status
Full-time workers....................................................................
Part-time w o rk e rs ..................................................................

Educational attainment
(aged 25 to 64)
Less than a high school d iplo m a.........................................
High school graduates, no c o lle g e ......................................
Less than a bachelor’s d e g re e ............................................
College graduates..................................................................

1Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of
the “alternative arrangements” categories.
2Detail may not sum to total employed because a small number of workers
are both “on call” and “provided by contract firms,” and total employed includes

30

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

day laborers, an alternative arrangement not shown separately.
3
Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals
because data for “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are
included in both the white and black population groups.

incorporated or unincorporated, the share of workers with
paid employees differed widely. Among independent con­
tractors, more than 50 percent with incorporated businesses
had paid employees, compared with only 14 percent of unin­
corporated business owners.

Contract com pany workers
In 1999, contract company workers (769,000) were the small­
est of the four alternative work arrangement groups. These
workers are employees of one company but carry out assign­
ments for another company—that is, they work for only one
client at the client’s place of business. Workers in this ar­
rangement made up about the same proportion of total em­
ployment across the three surveys. (See exhibit 1.)
Demographic characteristics. As was the case in prior sur­
veys, contract company workers in 1999 were more likely than
traditional workers to be men, aged 20-44, and black. (See
table 3.) The proportion of contract company workers aged
25-64 that had a college degree—more than one-third—was
the highest of all the work arrangements, including the tradi­
tional arrangement, and the share that had an advanced de­
gree (10 percent) was about the same for traditional workers.
Part-time status and hours. In 1999, contract company work­
ers were somewhat less likely than traditional workers to be
employed part time. (See table 4.) In prior surveys, they had
been as likely as traditional workers to work part time. The
average workweek for full-time contract company workers was
44.2 hours in 1999, slightly above the average for traditional
workers— 42.5 hours.
Occupation and industry. Compared with traditional work­
ers, contract company workers were more likely to hold pro­
fessional specialty, service, production, and technical jobs,
and were less likely to be in managerial, sales, administrative
support, and operator, fabricator, and laborer positions. (See
table 5.) Nearly 1 in 10 contract company workers were em­
ployed as security guards, and a little more than 1 in 10 work­
ers were computer scientists and computer systems analysts.
With regard to industry, services, manufacturing companies,
transportation and public utilities companies, and the gov­
ernment were most likely to use contract company workers.
(See table 5.)

O n-call workers
Workers in on-call arrangements numbered 2 million in 1999,
or 1.5 percent of total employment. (See exhibit 1.) Both the
level and the proportion were similar in the prior two surveys.
On-call workers do not have an established schedule for re­
porting to work, but work, rather, on an as-needed basis; how­


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

ever, they may be scheduled to work for months at a time, as a
substitute teacher, for example.
Demographic characteristics. As in the prior survey, on-call
workers were similar to workers in traditional arrangements,
except that they were slightly more likely to be female and
younger than traditional workers. (See tables 2 and 3.) Among
women, the proportion of on-call workers who were mothers
(61 percent) was slightly higher than their counterparts in
traditional arrangements (56 percent). (See table 4.) Slightly
more than half (56 percent) of 16- to 24-year-olds in the on-call
arrangement were attending school, compared with 44 percent
of workers of the same age range in traditional arrangements.
The educational attainment of on-call workers was lower
than the education levels of traditional workers. For instance,
among 25- to 64-year-olds, 13 percent of on-call workers were
high school dropouts, compared with 9 percent of traditional
workers. (See table 3.) The proportion of on-call workers who
had college degrees (28 percent) was slightly lower than that
for traditional workers (31 percent). Compared with women,
male on-call workers were more likely to have dropped out of
high school. Women in the arrangement were actually more
likely to have graduated college than women in traditional
work arrangements (35 percent and 30 percent, respectively).
Part-time status and hours. The proportion of on-call work­
ers employed part time (51 percent) was much higher than that
for traditional workers (17 percent). (See table 4.) Reflecting
this, the average workweek for on-call workers was 28.1 hours,
the lowest of all arrangements. Among on-call workers in
1999, adult women were nearly 2!/2 times more likely than men
in the arrangement to work part time (67 percent versus 27
percent, respectively). The number of on-call workers who
preferred to be working part time was up slightly from 1997,
although there was still a substantial share (27 percent) who
would have preferred to work a full-time schedule. This was
nearly twice the rate for traditional workers.
Occupation and industry. There were clear distinctions be­
tween gender in the occupational distribution of on-call work­
ers. A large proportion of men in the arrangement were opera­
tors, fabricators, and laborers, and most women were employed
in professional specialty and service occupations. (See table
5.) About 1 in 5 women were teachers, presumably substitutes,
and about 1 in 10 women were in health occupations such as
registered nurses and therapists. For women, personal- and
food-service occupations were also among the most common,
and for men the most common occupations were motor vehicle
operators, cleaners and helpers, and other construction trades.
On-call workers were most likely to work in services, trade,
construction, and transportation industries. They were much

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

31

Alternative Work Arrangements

1

W o rk e rs in a lt e r n a t iv e a r r a n g e m e n t s b y s e le c t e d c h a r a c t e r is t ic s , F e b r u a r y 1 9 95, 1 9 97, a n d 1999

Characteristics

1995

1997

1999

16 years and o ld e r........................
16 to 1 9 ................................................
20 to 2 4 ................................................
25 to 3 4 ................................................
35 to 4 4 ................................................
45 to 5 4 ................................................
55 to 6 4 ................................................
65 and o ld e r.........................................

100.0
1.5
2.4
19.7
30.8
25.3
13.6
6.7

100.0
.8
2.4
18.3
31.1
26.5
13.9
7.0

100.0
.9
3.1
17.9
30.2
26.4
14.7
6.8

Men, 16 years and o ld e r.........................
16 to 1 9 ................................................
20 to 2 4 ................................................
25 to 3 4 ................................................
35 to 44 ...............................................
45 to 5 4 ................................................
55 to 6 4 ................................................
65 and older.........................................

67.3
.9
1.6
12.6
21.0
16.7
9.6
4.9

66.6
.3
1.5
11.4
20.7
17.7
9.9
5.1

66.2
.6
1.9
10.9
20.7
17.0
9.9
5.2

Women, 16 years and o ld e r.................
16 to 19. ...............................................
20 to 2 4 ................................................
25 to 3 4 ................................................
35 to 4 4 ................................................
45 to 54.................................................
55 to 6 4 ................................................
65 and o ld e r.........................................

32.7
.6
.8
7.1
9.8
8.5
4.0
1.8

33.4
.5
.9
7.0
10.4
8.8
4.0
1.9

33.8
.4
1.1
7.0
9.5
9.4
4.8
1.6

C haracteristics

1995

1997

1999

9.2
4.3
6.3
1.5

10.3
9.2
5.1
2.6
1.9

8.8
8.0
7.8
1.6
.3

83.0
11.7
8.4

81.5
12.9
6.3

79.2
12.6
6.0

100.0
9.5
29.8
30.2
30.6

100.0
7.2
36.8
23.4
32.7

100.0
6.4
22.7
31.9
38.9

100.0
55.7
2.6
8.3
2.1
31.3

100.0
58.1
3.5
10.8
1.4
26.2

100.0
44.1
6.5
10.4
1.3
37.6

100.0
7.9
12.6
24.6
23.7
15.7
9.2
6.4

100.0
9.6
11.9
22.5
25.4
14.4
9.7
6.5

100.0

50.1
4.1
7.4
13.0
11.8
6.8
3.7
3.4

49.0
5.3
6.4
11.8
12.1
6.9
3.9
2.6

48.8
4.6
5.9
10.0
11.6
7.6
5.0
4.2

49.9
3.8
5.1
11.6
11.9
8.9
5.5
3.0

51.0
4.3
5.4
10.6
13.4
7.5
5.8
3.9

51.2
4.2
4.0
13.1
13.4
7.3
5.1
4.1

84.0
11.0
12.5

89.3
7.8
13.3

84.2
12.7
11.6

100.0
13.4
35.1
30.7
20.8

100.0
13.4
28.7
32.0
25.9

100.0
13.4
29.6
29.1
27.9

100.0
54.8
3.8
9.2
2.8
29.4

100.0
51.4
4.8
10.2
3.5
30.2

100.0
52.3
3.9
8.2
3.2
32.3

Ind e p e n d e n t contractors
Age and sex:
T o ta l

Race and Hispanic origin:1
W h ite .......................................................
B lack.......................................................
Hispanic o rig in ........................................

90.7
5.3
7.3

90.6
5.8
6.1

100.0
8.7
29.1
27.9
34.4

100.0
8.7
30.3
26.8
34.1

100.0
7.5
29.7
28.5
34.3

100.0
70.7
2.8
10.0
2.9
13.5

100.0
69.2
3.4
11.5
13.7

100.0
68.8
2.7
11.5
2.0
15.0

Total 16 years and o ld e r........................
16 to 1 9 ................................................
20 to 2 4 ................................................
25 to 3 4 ................................................
35 to 4 4 ................................................
45 to 5 4 ................................................
55 to 6 4 ................................................
65 and o ld e r.........................................

100.0
2.5
12.7
39.0
23.3
11.8
6.7
4.1

100.0
1.9
8.1
34.2
31.1
14.2
7.7
2.8

100.0
4.8
11.3
30.5
28.1
17.2
6.1
1.9

Men, 16 years and o ld e r.......................
16 to 1 9 ...............................................
20 to 2 4 ................................................
25 to 3 4 ................................................
35 to 4 4 ................................................
45 to 5 4 ................................................

71.5
1.4
6.4
29.8
19.0
5.7
5.2
4.1

69.8
1.1
7.7
24.0
21.9
9.1
5.1
0.9
30.2

70.5
3.8
9.2
21.8
20.1
9.4
4.6
1.6
29.5
1.0
2.0

Educational attainment:

Marital status:
All marital s ta tu s e s...............................
Married, spouse p re s e n t.......................
Married, spouse a b s e n t........................
D ivorced..................................................
W idow ed..................................................
Never m arried.........................................

2 .2

Contract company workers
Age and sex:

65 and older..........................................
Women, 16 years and o ld e r.................
16 to 1 9 ................................................
20 to 2 4 ...............................................

28.5
1.1
6.1

’See Footnote at end of table.

32

Monthly Labor Review


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

65 and o ld e r.........................................
Race and Hispanic origin1
W h ite .......................................................
B lack.......................................................
Hispanic orig in........................................
Educational attainment:
Total, 25 to 64 ye a rs.............................
Less than a high school diplom a..........
High school graduate, no college.........
Some college, no d e g re e .....................
College gradua tes.................................
Marital status:
All marital sta tu se s...............................
Married, spouse p re se n t.......................
Married, spouse a b s e n t........................
D ivorced..................................................
W idow ed..................................................
Never m arried.........................................

On-call workers
Age and sex:

92.3
5.0
5.2

Total, 25 to 64 y e a rs.............................
Less than a high school diplom a..........
High school graduate, no college.........
Some college, no d e g re e .....................
College gradua tes.................................

25 to 3 4 ...............................................
35 to 4 4 ...............................................
45 to 5 4 ...............................................

March 2001

.8
.4

Total
16
20
25
35

16 years and o ld e r.........................
to 1 9 ...............................................
to 24.................................................
to 3 4 ...............................................
to 4 4 ...............................................

65 and o ld e r.........................................
Men, 16 years and o ld e r.........................
16 to 1 9 ...............................................
20 to 2 4 ...............................................
35 to 4 4 ...............................................

65 and older..........................................
Women, 16 years and o ld e r..................
16 to 19 .............................................
20 to 2 4 ...............................................
25 to 34.................................................
35 to 4 4 ...............................................

65 and o ld e r.........................................

8 .8

9.9
23.1
24.9
14.9
10.1
8.2

Race and Hispanic origin1
W h ite .......................................................
B lack.......................................................
Hispanic origin.........................................
Educational attainment:
Total, 25 to 64 ye a rs .............................
Less than a high school diplom a..........
High school graduate, no college.........
Some college, no d e g re e ......................
College graduates.................................
Marital status:
All marital sta tu se s...............................
Married spouse present
Married spouse absent
Divorced..................................................
W idow ed.................................................
Never m arried.........................................

Table 2.

Continued—Workers in alternative arrangements by selected characteristics, February 1995, 1997, and 1999
Characteristics

1995

1997

1999

Temporary help agency workers
Age and sex:

16 to 1 9 ................................................
20 to 2 4 ................................................
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 5 4 ................................................
55 to 64 ................................................
65 and o ld e r.........................................

100.0
52
19.7
34.1
21.3
12.1
5.8
1.8
47 2
3.0
11.4
1fi ft
77
4.4
2.8
1.1

100.0
6 1
16.5
30.3
21.5
16.2
6.7
2.8
44.7
2.9
9.6
69
6.2
2.2
1.7

42.2
3.2
9.6
1? 2
70
6.3
2.2
1.6

Women, 16 years and o ld e r..................
16 to 1 9 ...............................................
20 to 2 4 ................................................
25 to 3 4 ................................................

52.8
2.3
8.3
17.4

55.3
3.2
6.9
15.1

57.8
2.5
11.3
17.1

16 to 19
20 to 2 4 ................................................
25 to 3 4 ................................................
35 to 4 4 ................................................
45 to 5 4 ................................................
55 to 6 4 ................................................
65 and o ld e r.........................................

1 e; 1

100.0
58
20.9
29.3
19.4
15.4
6.5
2.8

1 Detail for the race and Hispanlc-origin groups will not sum to totals
because data for the “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are

more likely than workers in traditional arrangements to be em­
ployed in the services industry.

Temporary help agency workers
In February 1999, there were 1.2 million temporary help agency
workers who accounted for 0.9 percent of total employment.
(See exhibit 1.) The proportion was almost unchanged from
the previous survey. Like contract company workers, temp
workers are paid employees of the temp agency and work at
the clients’ sites.
Demographic characteristics. As with all other alternative
arrangements, the characteristics of temporary help workers
were similar to those found in past surveys. (See table 2.) Temp
workers were disproportionately young, black or Hispanic ori­
gin, and female. The temporary help arrangement had the high­
est concentration of women of any arrangement—nearly threefifths of workers in the arrangement were women. In terms of
age, more than one-quarter of temp workers were under 25 years,
and more than half were under 34 years. Compared with other
work arrangem ents, temp help agency workers had the largest
proportions of blacks and Hispanics. In fact, temps were nearly
twice as likely as traditional workers to be black. School enroll­
ment among young temporary agency workers was up from 16
percent in 1997 to 23 percent in 1999. This arrangement had
the highest rate of high school dropouts among the four alter­
native arrangements— 15 percent of those aged 25-64. About
21 percent of this age group were college graduates— 10 per­
centage points lower than traditional workers. (See table 3.)
Of women in any alternative arrangement, temps were most
likely to have children. (See table 4.) In February 1999, two-


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

Characteristics
35 to 4 4 ...............................................
45 to 5 4 ...............................................
55 to 6 4 ...............................................
65 and o ld e r.........................................

1995
13.5
7.7
2.9
.8

1997

1999

14.6
10.0
4.4
1.1

12.4
9.0
4.2
1.3

Race and Hispanic origin'

7/ H.O
A o

White

91I .c.
9
c.
11.3

12.3

13.6

100.0
14.2
33.4
32.1
20.3

100.0
11.2
30.7
36.3
21.8

100.0
14.6
30.5
33.7
21.2

100.0
AO
4
*1 . 1i
5.8
11.1
1.4
39.7

100.0

100.0

An o
4U.*1

0 4 .1

6.3
12.2
1.5
39.8

4.1
15.7
1.3
44.9

Educational attainment:
Total, 25 to 64 yea rs............................
Less than a high school d ip lo m a .......
High school graduate, no college.......
Some college, no d e g re e .....................
College graduates............................... .
Marital status:
All marital statuses
M
IVq
I drrio
i i l cH
U, e
o fnJ nUiUi oc tpi n
f Jrioc co o
c inl tl

Married, spouse absent
Divorced
Widowed
Never married

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

included in both the white and black population groups.
NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

thirds of women in the arrangement had children, compared
with a little more than half in traditional arrangements. The
share of women with children in the temp arrangement increased
substantially from 1997, when not quite half had children.
Part-time status and hours. Just under four-fifths of temp
workers were on a full-time schedule in February 1999, which
was slightly below the traditional workers’ rate. (See table 4.)
Of those employed part time, roughly one-half were doing so
for economic reasons—that is, they would have preferred full­
time work. This was a substantially higher proportion than for
workers in all other arrangements.
Occupation and industry. Temporary help agency workers
were most likely to work in administrative and clerical jobs and
in operator, fabricator, and laborer jobs. Women in this ar­
rangement were more likely to be in the former occupations,
and men were more likely to be in the latter ones.
Temp workers were much more likely to work in the manu­
facturing and services industries (relative to traditional work­
ers), and they were less likely than traditional workers to be
assigned to government agencies, and trade companies. (See
table 5.)
As can be seen from the above analysis, independent con­
tractors and contract company workers are overwhelmingly
male and highly educated. Temporary agency and on-call
workers are more likely than traditional workers to be female,
black or of Hispanic origin. Independent contractors are gen­
erally older than all other categories of workers, and are much
more likely to be white. In contrast, temporary help agency
workers tend to be much younger than workers in other types
of arrangements. Independent contractors and contract com-

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

33

Alternative Work Arrangements

1 Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements by age and sex, race and Hispanic
[ Percent distribution]

Workers with alternative arrangements
Independent
contractors

Characteristic

On-call
workers

Temporary
help
agency
workers

Contract
company
workers

Workers
with
traditional
arrangements'

Age and sex2
Total, 16 years and older (thousands)..............
Percent.................................................................
16 to 1 9 ....................................................................
20 to 2 4 ....................................................................
25 to 3 4 ....................................................................
35 to 4 4 ....................................................................
45 to 5 4 ....................................................................
55 to 6 4 ....................................................................
65 and o ld e r............................................................

8,247
100.0
.9
3.1
17.9
30.2
26.4
14.7
6.8

2,032
100.0
8.8
9.9
23.1
24.9
14.9
10.1
8.2

1,188
100.0
5.8
20.9
29.3
19.4
15.4
6.5
2.8

769
100.0
4.8
11.3
30.5
28.1
17.2
6.1
1.9

119,109
100.0
5.3
9.8
23.9
27.7
21.3
9.7
2.5

Men, 16 years and o lde r......................................
16 to 1 9 ....................................................................
20 to 2 4 ....................................................................
25 to 3 4 ....................................................................
35 to 4 4 ....................................................................
45 to 5 4 ....................................................................
55 to 6 4 ....................................................................
65 and o ld e r.............................................................

66.2
0.6
1.9
10.9
20.7
17.0
9.9
5.2

48.8
4.6
5.9
10.0
11.6
7.6
5.0
4.2

42.2
3.2
9.6
12.2
7.0
6.3
2.2
1.6

70.5
3.8
9.2
21.8
20.1
9.4
4.6
1.6

52.4
2.6
5.0
12.7
14.6
10.9
5.2
1.3

Women, 16 years and o ld e r................................
16 to 1 9 ....................................................................
20 to 2 4 ....................................................................
25 to 3 4 ....................................................................
35 to 4 4 ....................................................................
45 to 5 4 ....................................................................
55 to 6 4 ....................................................................
65 years and o ld e r..................................................

33.8
0.4
1.1
7.0
9.5
9.4
4.8
1.6

51.2
4.2
4.0
13.1
13.4
7.3
5.1
4.1

57.8
2.5
11.3
17.1
12.4
9.0
4.2
1.3

29.5
1.0
2.0
8.8
8.0
7.8
1.6
0.3

47.6
2.6
4.7
11.1
13.0
10.4
4.5
1.2

90.6
5.8
6.1

84.2
12.7
11.6

74.3
21.2
13.6

79.2
12.6
6.0

84.0
11.4
10.4

7,359
100.0
7.5
29.7
28.5
34.3

1,485
100.0
13.4
29.6
29.1
27.9

838
100.0
14.6
30.5
33.7
21.2

631
100.0
6.4
22.7
31.9
38.9

98,207
100.0
9.2
31.4
28.3
31.1

4,826
100.0
9.5
30.7
26.8
33.0

695
100.0
16.7
38.1
25.0
20.3

330
100.0
19.7
33.6
25.2
21.5

430
100.0
8.4
23.7
31.6
36.0

51,769
100.0
10.4
30.8
26.8
32.0

2,533
100.0
3.8
27.6
31.7
36.9

790
100.0
10.5
22.2
32.8
34.7

508
100.0
11.2
28.3
39.4
20.9

201
100.0
2.0
20.9
31.8
45.3

46,439
100.0
7.9
32.0
29.9
30.1

Race and Hispanic origin3
W hite.........................................................................
B la c k ........................................................................
Hispanic origin.........................................................

Educational attainment2
Total, 25 to 64 years
Thousands ...............................................................
P e rc e n t....................................................................
Less than a high school d iplo m a.......................
High school graduates, no c o lle g e ....................
Less than a bachelor’s d e g re e ..........................
College graduates................................................
Men, 25 to 64 years
Thousands ...............................................................
P e rce n t....................................................................
Less than a high school d iplo m a.......................
High school graduates, no c o lle g e ....................
Less than a bachelor’s d e g re e ..........................
College graduates................................................
Women, 25 to 64 years
Thousands ...............................................................
P e rce n t....................................................................
Less than a high school d iplo m a.......................
High school graduates, no c o lle g e ...................
Less than a bachelor’s degree...........................
College graduates................................................

1Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of
the “alternative arrangements” categories.
2Detail for other characteristics may not sum to totals because of rounding,

34

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

3Detail for race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because
data for the “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are included
in both the white and black population groups.

Table 4.

Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements by reasons for full- and parttime status and marital status, February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Workers with alternative arrangements
Characteristic
1

**<-, / ,<

Workers
with
traditional
arrangements2

Independent
contractors

On-call
workers

Temporary
help
agency workers

Contract
company
workers

131,494
100.0
81.9
18.1
2.7
14.9

8,247
100.0
75.1
24.9
4.8
20.0

2,032
100.0
49.4
50.6
13.7
34.6

1,188
100.0
78.5
21.5
9.8
14.1

769
100.0
86.9
13.1
4.4
9.9

119,109
100.0
82.9
17.1
2.3
14.2

66,701
100.0
92.0
8.0
2.4
6.1

5,412
100.0
85.1
14.9
5.5
11.3

900
100.0
72.7
27.3
12.2
17.8

463
100.0
83.2
16.8
9.1
11.0

513
100.0
91.6
8.4
5.5
5.8

59,348
100.0
93.0
7.0
1.9
5.4

58,131
100.0
76.7
23.3
3.0
19.0

2,759
100.0
56.9
43.1
3.6
35.3

954
100.0
33.4
66.5
16.5
44.7

657
100.0
76.1
23.9
10.5
15.2

219
100.0
79.5
20.5
2.7
14.6

53,496
100.0
78.5
21.5
2.6
17.7

6,662
100.0
25.2
74.8
4.5
67.7

76
100.0
22.4
77.6
(6)
76.3

179
100.0
16.2
83.2
6.1
65.9

68
100.0
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)

37
100.0
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)

6,265
100.0
24.9
75.1
4.5
68.1

61,454
40,821
100.0
56.1
33.9
43.9

2,788
2,092
100.0
53.1
24.3
28.7
46.9

1,040
686
100.0
61.4
20.1
41.3
38.6

687
394
100.0
66.0
28.9
37.1
34.0

227
130
100.0
52.3
13.1
40.0
46.9

56,645
37,489
100.0
56.1
22.1
34.0
43.9

33,050
32,590
100.0
52.7
21.7
31.0
47.3

1,844
1,826
100.0
51.7
24.9
26.8
48.4

590
577
100.0
58.4
18.2
40.2
41.6

238
227
100.0
47.6
21.1
26.4
52.4

89
89
100.0
51.7
9.0
42.7
48.3

30,261
29,843
100.0
52.7
21.7
31.0
47.3

28,405
8,231
100.0
69.4
24.0
45.4
30.6

944
266
100.0
62.4
20.7
42.1
37.2

450
109
100.0
76.1
30.3
45.9
22.9

449
167
100.0
91.0
39.5
51.5
9.0

138
41
100.0
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)

26,384
7,646
100.0
69.1
23.7
45.4
30.9

Total
employed1

Full or part-time status
Employed, total (thousands).............
Percent................................................
Full-time w orkers............................
Part-time w orkers...........................
Economic re a s o n s .......................
Noneconomic reasons.................

Men, 20 years and older
Employed (thousands).......................
Percent.............................................
Full-time w orkers............................
Part-time w orkers...........................
Economic re a s o n s .....................
Noneconomic reasons.................

Women, 20 years and older
Employed (thousands).......................
Percent.............................................
Full-time w orkers............................
Part-time w orkers...........................
Economic re a s o n s .......................
Noneconomic reasons.................

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Employed (thousands).......................
Percent.............................................
Full-time w orkers............................
Part-time w orkers...........................
Economic re a s o n s .......................
Noneconomic reasons.................

Marital status
Employed women, (thousands)..............
Spouses/reference persons, to ta l.......
P ercent.....................................................
With children under 18 y e a rs ............
Under 6 ye a rs....................................
6 to 17 y e a rs .....................................
With no children under 18 y e a rs .......

22.2

Married, spouse present
Employed (thousands)............................
Spouses/reference persons................
P ercent.....................................................
With children under 18 y e a rs ............
Under 6 yea rs....................................
6 to 17 y e a rs .....................................
With no children under 18 y e a rs ......

All other marital statuses
Employed (thousands)............................
Spouses/reference persons................
P ercent.....................................................
With children under 18 y e a rs ............
Under 6 ye a rs....................................
6 to 17 y e a rs .....................................
With no children under 18 y e a rs ......

’ Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding, and total employed includes
day laborers, an alternative arrangement not shown separately.
2Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any
of t£ie “alternative arrangements” categories.
Part time is defined as working 1 to 34 hours per week; full time is 35
hours and over. The classification of full- and part-time workers is based on
the number of hours usually worked. The sum of the two at work part time


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

categories do not equal the part-time worker estimate as the latter includes
those not at work during the reference week. Persons at work part time for an
economic reason can work either full or part time on a usual basis; persons at
work part time for a noneconomic reason are limited to those who usually work
part time.
“Less than 0.05 percent.
Percentage not shown where base is less than 75,000.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

35

Alternative Work Arrangements

1 Employed persons with alt<amative and traditional work arrangements by occupation and industry,
[ Percent distribution]
Workers with alternative arrangements
Independent
contractors

Occupation and Industry

On-call
workers

Temporary
help
agency
workers

Contract
company
workers

Workers
with
traditional
arrangements'

Occupation2
Total, 16 years and older (thousands)...........
P ercent...........................................................
Executive, administrative, and m anagerial.......
Professional specialty.........................................
Technicians and related s u p p o rt........................
Sales occupations...............................................
Administrative support, including clerical..........
Service occupations...........................................
Precision production, craft, and repair..............
Operators, fabricators, and laborers.................
Farming, forestry, and fis h in g ............................

8,247
100.0
20.5
18.5
1.1
17.3
3.4
8.8
18.9
7.0
4.4

2,032
100.0
5.3
24.3
4.1
5.7
8.2
23.5
10.1
16.0
2.9

1,188
100.0
4.3
6.8
4.1
1.8
36.1
8.1
8.7
29.2
.9

769
100.0
12.0
28.8
6.7
1.5
3.4
18.8
16.0
10.7
2.2

119,109
100.0
14.6
15.5
3.3
12.0
15.0
13.7
10.5
13.6
2.0

Men, 16 years and older (thousands)............
P e rce n t............................................................
Executive, administrative, and m anagerial.......
Professional specialty.........................................
Technicians and related s u p p o rt........................
Sales occupations...............................................
Administrative support, including clerical..........
Service occupations...........................................
Precision production, craft, and repair..............
Operators, fabricators, and laborers.................
Farming, forestry, and fis h in g ............................

5,459
100.0
22.6
16.0
1.2
15.2
1.0
2.5
26.8
9.2
5.5

993
100.0
7.2
13.1
3.1
4.4
2.5
18.4
18.4
28.1
4.7

501
100.0
4.4
7.0
5.4
2.0
16.7
5.2
15.7
42.0
1.6

542
100.0
10.7
27.3
5.7
.9
1.1
16.6
21.8
13.1
2.8

62,464
100.0
14.7
13.5
3.0
11.8
6.1
10.5
18.1
19.4
2.9

Women, 16 years and older (thousands).......
P e rce n t...........................................................
Executive, administrative, and m anagerial.......
Professional specialty.........................................
Technicians and related s u p p o rt........................
Sales occupations...............................................
Administrative support, including clerical..........
Service occupations...........................................
Precision production, craft, and repair..............
Operators, fabricators, and laborers.................
Farming, forestry, and fis h in g ............................

2,788
100.0
16.5
23.5
1.1
21.2
8.3
21.1
3.4
2.7
2.3

1,040
100.0
3.6
35.0
5.1
6.8
13.7
28.3
2.0
4.4
1.1

687
100.0
4.1
6.7
3.2
1.6
50.4
10.3
3.6
19.7
.4

227
100.0
15.0
32.6
8.8
2.6
8.8
23.8
2.2
5.3
0.9

56,645
100.0
14.6
17.6
3.6
12.2
24.7
17.2
2.1
7.2
0.9

Total, 16 years and older (thousands)............
P e rce n t............................................................
Agriculture.............................................................
Mining....................................................................
Construction.........................................................
Manufacturing......................................................
Transportation and public utilities.......................
Wholesale and retail tra d e ..................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .................
S ervices................................................................
Public administration...........................................

8,247
100.0
4.9
.2
19.9
4.6
5.7
13.7
8.8
42.1
.2

2,032
100.0
2.2
.4
9.6
4.5
9.5
16.4
2.7
52.0
2.6

1,188
100.0
.4
.1
2.5
29.7
6.1
8.1
7.0
38.7
(3)

769
100.0
.4
2.7
9.0
18.0
14.0
5.4
8.9
27.1
10.7

119,109
100.0
2.0
.4
5.1
16.5
7.4
21.6
6.7
35.2
5.1

Men, 16 years and older (thousands).............
P e rce n t...........................................................
Agriculture.............................................................
Mining....................................................................
Construction.........................................................
Manufacturing......................................................
Transportation and public utilities.......................
Wholesale and retail tra d e ..................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .................
S ervices................................................................
Public adm inistration...........................................

5,459
100.0
5.9
.3
28.1
4.8
7.2
12.4
7.8

993
100.0
3.9
.9
18.5
5.0
15.0
17.6
2.3
33.0
3.7

501
100.0
1.0
.2
4.8
31.3
6.4
11.0
3.8
34.1

542
100.0
.2
3.5
12.7
21.4
14.2

62,464
100.0
2.6
0.7
8.6
21.6
9.8
21.7
5.2
24.4
5.3

Industry2

See footnotes at end of table.

36

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

3 3 .3
.2

.2

6 .6
6 .6

22.5
9.2

Table 5.

Continued— Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements by occupation and industry,
February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Workers with alternative arrangements
Occupation and Industry

Independent
contractors
On-call
workers

Temporary
help
agency
workers

Contract
company
workers

1,040
100.0
.6
1.1
3.9
4.2
15.1
3.1
.7
1.6

687
100.0
.1
.7
28.4
5.8
6.0
9.5
42.1
1.7

227
100.0
.9
.9
(3)
10.1
13.7
2.6
14.1
38.3
14.5

Workers
with
traditionc
arrangeme

Industry2
Women, 16 years and older (thousands).......
P e rce n t............................................................
Agriculture............................................................
Mining....................................................................
Construction.........................................................
Manufacturing......................................................
Transportation and public utilities.......................
Wholesale and retail tra d e .................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te .................
Services................................................................
Public administration...........................................

2,788
100.0
3.0
.1
3.7
4.2
2.8
16.1
10.6
59.3
.2

'Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of
the “alternative arrangements” categories.
2Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding and/or to persons not
reporting. For temp workers and workers provided by contract firms, the

pany workers also are more likely to have graduated from col­
lege than other groups of workers.
One common characteristic of the alternative work arrange­
ments is that workers in every arrangement, except for con­
tract company workers, are more likely to work part time than
workers in traditional arrangements. Perhaps this phenom­
enon is related to the fact that female on-call and temporary
help agency workers are more likely to have children than
women in other arrangements. Although female independent
contractors are less likely than traditional workers to have any
children, they are more likely to have children under 6 years
old, perhaps explaining their propensity to work part time. Full­
time independent contractors and contract company workers
work longer hours per week than any other type of worker.
Also, temps and on-call workers have lower average weekly
hours than workers in the other arrangements.
The following discussion focuses on further differences
among the four groups in alternative work arrangements in
terms of their preferences and reasons for being in their
employment arrangements.

Tenure and contingency
One perceived aspect of job quality is stability, a trait which
most analysts view as desirable. Not all workers prefer a job
that continues, however. The two indicators of job stability
for workers in alternative arrangements are tenure and contin­


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

56,645
100.0
1.2
.1
1.3
10.9
4.7
21.5
8.3
47.2
4.8

industry classification is that of the place to which they were assigned.
3Less than 0.05 percent.
N ote :

Dash indicates data not available.

gency. Tenure measures the length of the relationship be­
tween the worker and the employer. Workers are contingent if
they believe the nature of their jobs to be temporary, or if there
is no explicit or implicit contract for ongoing employment in
the positions. Being in an alternative arrangement does not
automatically make a worker contingent; indeed, contingency
rates vary greatly across the four arrangements, and the vast
majority of contingent workers are in traditional arrangements.
bls constructs three measures of contingency. The first
measure is the narrowest. The third is the broadest, and is
also the one most commonly cited. However, for temporary
help agency workers and contract company workers, it is in­
teresting to look at the rate of contingency using the bls first
estimate of contingency because it measures attachment to
the arrangement, rather than to the worker’s particular assign­
ment. Specifically, a temp or a contract company worker is
considered contingent under this estimate if their employment
arrangement with the temporary help or contract company is
expected to last for 1 year or less, and they work for that ex­
pected duration. This is an important distinction for contract
company workers and temps because even if they think they
cannot continue in a particular assignment indefinitely, they
may believe they can continue working in the arrangement for
as long as they wish. Therefore, it is misleading to consider a
high rate of contingency under estimate 3 as an indication of
job instability if the worker can stay indefinitely with the con­
tract company or temp help agency.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

37

Alternative Work Arrangements

Independent contractors had the most stable jobs by these
criteria. As in 1997, only a small fraction of independent con­
tractors in 1999 reported that their job was contingent—3 per­
cent. (See table 6.) These workers had the lowest rate of
contingency across all alternative arrangements, and they had
about the same contingency rate as workers in traditional ar­
rangements. Therefore, independent contractors perceive
their jobs to be very stable.
Not suprisingly, independent contractors also had the
longest median tenure across all arrangements; in fact, they
had higher median tenure than did workers in traditional ar­
rangements. (See table 7.) A substantial number of indepen­
dent contractors had been in their arrangement for quite a
long time: 43 percent had been in their jobs for at least 10
years, and 18 percent had been in the arrangement for more
than 20 years. These rates were much higher than those for
traditional workers, perhaps reflecting the older age profile of
independent contractors.
Judging from these data, it appears that independent con­
tractors generally have stable work arrangements. This prob­
ably reflects the fact that they have a stronger attachment to
their arrangement than to a particular client or employer.

Table 6.

In 1999, 20 percent of contract company workers were
contingent under the broadest (estimate 3) definition. By con­
trast, only 3 percent of traditional workers were contingent.
Looking at the rate of contingency under estimate 1 (which
measures attachment to the arrangement rather than to the
assignment), only 6 percent were contingent. (See table 6.)
For contract company workers, the median tenure in the
arrangement was 2.1 years, and the median tenure in the as­
signment was 1.6 years. The majority of contract workers had
been in the arrangement for more than a year, but 43 percent
had been in their jobs for a year or less. Only 10 percent had
been contract workers for more than 10 years, and 2 percent
had more than 20 years of tenure.
Contract company workers, on average, are younger than
traditional workers, and this may help explain some of the
tenure disparity between the two arrangements.
Under contingency estimate 3, about 28 percent of on-call
workers felt that they could not continue in their jobs for as
long as they wished. (See table 6.) Median tenure for those in
the arrangement also has not changed since 1997, remaining
at about 2 years. (See table 7.)
In 1999,56 percent of temporary help agency workers were

Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements by contingent and noncontingent
employment, February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Contingent workers
Total
(thousands)

Work arrangements

Estimate 1

Estimate 2

Noncontingent
workers'
Estimate 3

Total
With alternative arrangements:
Independent contractor..............................................
On-call w orke rs...........................................................
Temporary help agency w orkers................................
Contract company w o rk e rs ........................................
With traditional arrangements3 ......................................

8,247
2,032
1,188
769
119,109

(2)
12.6
24.2
6.0
1.4

2.9
13.2
36.1
12.7
1.5

2.9
28.0
55.9
20.2
3.2

97.1
72.0
44.1
79.8
96.8

5,459
993
501
542
62,464

0
14.6
25.3
5.0
1.2

2.1
15.1
36.3
11.3
1.3

2.1
29.8
57.1
19.6
3.0

97.9
70.1
42.9
80.6
97.0

2,788
1,040
687
227
56,645

10.6
23.4
8.4
1.6

4.3
11.3
36.0
15.9
1.8

4.3
26.3
55.2
22.0
3.5

95.7
73.8
45.0
78.0
96.5

Men
With alternative arrangements:
Independent contractor...............................................
On-call w orke rs...........................................................
Temporary help agency w orkers................................
Contract company w o rk e rs ........................................
With traditional arrangements3 ......................................

Women
With alternative arrangements:
Independent contractor...............................................
On-call w orke rs...........................................................
Temporary help agency w orke rs...............................
Contract company w orke rs........................................
With traditional arrangements3 ......................................

'Noncontingent workers are those who do not fall into any estimate of
“contingent’ workers.
2Not applicable.

38

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

0

3Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of
the “alternative arrangements” categories. Independent contractors, as well as
the self-employed, are excluded from estimate 1.

contingent under the broadest measure (estimate 3)— the
highest rate of all arrangements. This estimate of contingency
measures the temps’ attachment to their assignment. Under
estimate 1, only 24 percent of temps were contingent. (See
table 6.) These data indicate that although the majority of
temps did not think they could continue indefinitely in their
current assignment, about 75 percent believed that they could

Table 7.

continue temping for as long as they wished.
The median tenure at the place assigned was about 5
months—the same as 2 years ago. About 32 percent had been
in their current assignment for less than 3 months, and 20
percent had been in the assignment for more than a year.
For temps, median tenure in the arrangement was some­
what higher than the 7-month tenure in the assignment.

Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements, tenure in the arrangement, February
1999

[Percent distribution]

Workers with alternative arrangements
Workers
with
traditional
arrangements'

Independent
contractors

On-call
workers

Temporary
help
agency
workers

Total, 16 years and older (thousands).......................
Percent......................................................................
Total reporting specific te n u re ........................................
1 year or le s s ...........................................................
Less than 6 m o nths.............................................
6 to 12 m onths......................................................
More than 1 y e a r......................................................
Less than 4 y e a rs.................................................
4 to 9 y e a rs ..........................................................
10 to 19 yea rs.......................................................
20 years or m o re ...................................................

8,247
100.0
97.4
14.8
5.1
9.7
85.2
15.7
26.5
24.6
18.3

2,032
100.0
96.1
49.3
26.2
23.1
50.8
20.8
17.0
9.2
3.8

1,188
100.0
92.4
68.9
39.3
29.5
31.1
23.0
6.8
1.3
-

769
100.0
97.4
42.5
16.7
25.8
57.5
24.8
22.8
7.6
2.1

119,109
100.0
95.3
26.0
10.3
15.7
74.0
20.1
24.5
18.4
11.0

Specific tenure not ava ila ble..........................................

2.6

3.9

7.7

2.6

4.7

Tenure and sex

Contract
company
workers

Median tenure (in years)..................................................

7.7

1.9

.6

2.1

4.6

Men, 16 years and older (thousands).....................
Percent......................................................................

5,459
100.0

993
100.0

501
100.0

542
100.0

62,464
100.0

Total reporting specific te n u re ........................................
1 year or le s s ...........................................................
Less than 6 m o nths.............................................
6 to 12 m onths......................................................
More than 1 y e a r......................................................
Less than 4 y e a rs .................................................
4 to 9 y e a rs ..........................................................
10 to 19 yea rs.......................................................
20 years or m o re ............................................ ......
Specific tenure not ava ila ble..........................................

96.8
12.6
4.7
7.9
87.4
14.5
24.7
26.4
21.1
3.2

96.5
46.9
24.5
22.3
53.1
22.1
15.0
10.8
5.3
3.4

93.4
69.4
40.6
28.6
30.3
21.4
8.1
.9
6.8

97.8
44.9
16.2
28.7
55.1
25.8
19.4
7.5
2.3
2.4

95.1
24.1
9.5
14.7
75.9
19.8
24.2
18.6
13.3
4.9

Median tenure (in years)..................................................

9.1

2.1

.6

2.0

5.0

Women, 16 years and older (thousands)...............
Percent......................................................................

2,788
100.0

1,040
100.0

687
100.0

227
100.0

56,645
100.0

Total reporting specific te n u re ........................................
1 year or le s s ..................................................... ......
Less than 6 m o nths.............................................
6 to 12 m onths......................................................
More than 1 y e a r......................................................
Less than 4 y e a rs .................................................
4 to 9 y e a rs ..........................................................
10 to 19 yea rs.......................................................
2 0 years or m o re ...................................................
Specific tenure not ava ila ble..........................................

98.5
19.0
5.9
13.1
81.0
18.1
30.1
21.2
11.6
1.5

95.6
51.6
27.7
23.9
48.4
19.5
18.8
7.6
2.4
4.4

91.7
68.3
38.4
29.8
31.7
24.1
6.0
1.6
8.3

96.5
36.5
17.4
19.2
63.5
22.4
31.1
8.2
3.5

95.5
28.1
11.3
16.8
71.9
20.5
24.9
18.1
8.1
4.5

Median tenure (in y e a rs ).................................................

5.7

1.7

.6

2.6

4.2

2 .2

'Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of with the current employer. Median tenure was calculated only for those who
the “alternative arrangements” categories. Detail may not sum to totals due to reported a specific tenure.
n o t e : Dash indicates data not available.
rounding. For workers with traditional arrangements, estimates reflect tenure


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

39

Alternative Work Arrangements

About 31 percent had been temping for more than 1 year.
(See table 7.)

Earnings
The earnings “gap” between workers in alternative arrange­
ments and traditional workers is one of the most oft cited criti­
cisms of these arrangements.8 However, when comparing the
earnings of workers in those alternate arrangements, factors
such as age, tenure, work experience, hours, educational at­
tainment, and occupation must be considered.9 For example,
there are stark demographic differences between the arrangeTable 8.

ments in which workers earn more than traditional workers and
those in which they earn less. Older, highly educated men
who work long hours in higher paying occupations are over­
represented in independent contracting and in contract com­
pany work. The arrangements in which earnings are lower
than in traditional arrangements—on-call work and temp help
work—are more likely than traditional jobs to have young,
minority, or female workers, groups which traditionally have
lower levels of education, higher rates of school enrollment,
and greater incidence of part-time work. Furthermore, workers
in alternate arrangements are concentrated in lower-paying
occupations such as administrative and production occupa-

Median weekly earnings of full-time workers with alternative and traditional work arrangements by selected
characteristics, February 1999
Workers with alternative arrangments
Characteristics
Independent
contractors

On-call
workers

Temporary
help agency
workers

Contract
company
workers

Workers with
traditional
arrangements'

Age and sex
Total, 16 years and o ld e r.............................
16 to 19 .
20 to 24 .
25 years and o ld e r..........................................
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 and o ld e r..................................................

$640
300
424
652
624
689
662
651
419

$472
227
314
497
484
505
625
465
278

$342
(2)
321
356
348
370
326
557
(2)

$756
(2)
507
813
785
908
792
(2)
(2)

$540
275
362
580
509
599
647
616
368

Men, 16 years and o lde r..............................
16 to 19 .
20 to 24 .
25 years and o ld e r..........................................
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 and o ld e r..................................................

689
(2)
478
697
666
726
689
755
477

507
237
311
586
557
518
673
622
447

367
(2)
367
378
371
354
321
(2)
(2)

770
(2)
(2)
834
786
932
(2)
(2)
(2)

613
283
388
657
537
688
759
755
371

Women, 16 years and older.........................
16 to 19 ..
20 to 24 ..
25 years and o ld e r..........................................
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 and o ld e r..................................................

441
(2)
(2)
459
414
478
500
445
(2)

348
158
320
352
318
469
337
347
204

331
(2)
313
346
329
376
329
(2)
(2)

690
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)

474
245
335
493
477
492
515
504
364

662
414
504

478
393
308

338
354
296

734
719
(2)

562
445
396

474
520
621
607
844

290
485
451
677
619

302
311
354
(2)
515

(2)
572
717
816
966

335
445
512
588
832

Race and Hispanic origin
W h ite .....
B la c k .....
Hispanic o rig in .................................................

Educational attainment
Less than a high school dip lo m a ..................
High school graduate, no c o lle g e .................
Some college, no d e g re e ...............................
Associate degree............................................
College graduates...........................................

1Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of
the “alternative arrangement” categories.

40

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

2Data not shown where base is less than 75,000.

tions. In addition, other personal characteristics exist that
may influence earnings.10 Data on earnings of workers with
alternate work arrangements are in table 8.
The difference between the median weekly earnings of full­
time independent contractors and their traditional counter­
parts widened further in 1999. In 1997, independent contrac­
tors’ earnings were 15 percent higher than traditional workers’
earnings, and in 1999, they were 19 percent higher. A disparity
in earnings still existed between genders, however. Earnings
of male independent contractors continued to out-pace their
counterparts in traditional jobs, but women independent con­
tractors continued to earn less. Shorter tenure in the arrange­
ment and fewer hours worked per week help explain much of
this gap between male and female independent contractors.
Contract company workers who usually worked full time
continued to have the highest median weekly earnings across
all arrangements— including traditional arrangements—and
also experienced the largest percentage increase in wages over
the three surveys. The median weekly earnings for full-time
contract workers in February 1999 were $756, compared with
$540 for traditional workers. Both men and women out-earned
their counterparts in traditional jobs.

' , ;
^

™

The median weekly earnings of full-time on-call workers
were $472 in 1999—87 percent of the median for full-time tradi­
tional workers. Earnings by gender differed significantly in
the arrangement: women earned 73 percent of the median for
women in traditional jobs, and men earned 83 percent of the
median for men in traditional arrangements.
Unlike the other arrangements, the majority of on-call work­
ers worked part time. Because of this, it is interesting to note
that this is the only arrangement in which part-time workers
made less than part-time workers in traditional work arrange­
ments. The median weekly earnings of part-time on-call work­
ers in 1999 were $ 119, compared with $ 157 for part-time tradi­
tional workers. Furthermore, the median wage for part-time
on-call workers stayed the same since 1997, while the median
wage for traditional part-timers increased by 9 percent from its
1997 level.
Temporary help agency workers who usually worked full
time had median weekly earnings of $342 in February 1999.
This was the lowest earnings figure across all arrangements.
Differing from other arrangements, earnings among the major
demographic groups in the temporary help arrangement were
very similar. Women temps earned 90 percent of the median

Percent of inde pendent contractors with health insurance and pension coverage by selected characteristics,
February 1999
With pension coverage

With health insurance coverage’

Characteristics

Number
(thousands)

Total
(percent)

Through
current
employer
at main job

Through
spouse or
other family
member

1 .8

26.7
31.1
26.6
27.7
27.9
27.9
19.6

Other
sources

Total
(percent)

IRA or
Keogh

33.0

1 0 .6

8 .2

5.5

34.0
25.2
36.7
36.7
34.2

1 0 .8

6.9
4.7
4.7
26.8

40.5
7.6
41.9
27.0
38.9
38.9
52.3

38.6
3.7
40.1
24.9
37.1
37.1
50.3

20.4
39.1

37.2
24.8

11.4
9.2

40.7
40.1

38.8
38.4

27.4
17.2
11.7

33.7
22.7
27.1

10.3
13.7
4.0

42.3
15.1

40.4
13.2

2 0 .6

2 0 .0

23.0
37.4

38.4
18.2

7.8
18.3

41.3
38.6

39.2
37.2

Purchased
on own

Age and sex
Total, 16 years and o lde r.......
16 to 24 y e a rs ......................
25 years and o ld e r..............
25 to 34 y e a rs .....................
35 to 44 y e a rs .....................
45 to 54 y e a rs .....................
55 years and o lde r..............

8,247
328
7,920
1,479
2,491
2,491
1,773

73.3
52.1
74.2
63.6
70.8
70.8
83.8

M en.......................................
W omen..................................

5,459
2,788

71.6
76.8

7,471
476
506

74.2
58.6
48.6

5,997
2,191

72.3
76.4

3.7
1.7
2 .8
1 .2
1 .2
1 .8
1 .8

1.9

Race and Hispanic origin2
W h ite ....................................
B la c k ....................................
Hispanic o rig in .....................

1 .6

3.4
1 .0

Full- and part-time status3
Full-time workers....................
Part-time w o rk e rs .................

2 .1

.9

’ Detail for sources of health insurance coverage will not sum to totals
because information on a specific source was not always available.
2Detail for race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because
data for the “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are included


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

in both the white and black population groups.
3 Detail for full- and part-time workers will not sum to totals because the
usual status on the principal job is not identifiable for a small number of multiple
jobholders.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

41

Alternative Work Arrangements

jjflS É IM

Percent of persons in alternative and traditional work arrangements with health insurance and pension
coverage, by selected characteristics, February 1999
With health Insurance coverage1

Characteristic

Number
(thousands)

Total

Through
current
employer
at main job

With pension coverage
Eligible for
employerprovided
health
insurance

Total

5.6
7.5

31.6
16.3
35.2
38.1
34.9
38.0
30.1

22.5
4.5
26.7
28.9
25.6
24.8
26.9

33.0
37.0
32.3
31.4
29.8

4.9
1.3

40.6
23.1

23.3
21.7

30.5
27.8

3.3

32.0
30.6
23.2

23.2
19.4
1 1 .0

29.5
28.7
16.0

46.1
19.0

29.5
16.1

2 1 .2

31.4
31.5
31.5
36.5
27.7
28.6
28.2

5.8
4.4
6.4
5.7
4.8
5.5
12.7

29.7
32.6

9.6
3.2

16.0

0 .6

33.2
27.0
19.9

5.9
3.6
6 .8

12.3
11.9
13.7

6.3
3.3

14.1
7.4

40.2

55.0
46.0
56.7
65.0
58.8
43.2
47.5

Through
other job
or union

Eligible for
employerprovided
pension

On-call workers
Age and sex:
Total, 16 years and o ld e r....
16 to 24 y e a rs .........................
25 years and o ld e r .................
25 to 34 y e a rs ......................
35 to 44 y e a rs ......................
45 to 54 y e a rs ......................
55 years and o ld e r..............

2,032
381
1,652
470
507
303
372

67.3
58.3
69.3
61.1
65.7
70.3
83.9

Men...........................................
Women......................................

993
1,040

61.8
72.4

29.7

1,711
258
237

70.0
46.9
37.6

20.9
22.5
15.6

919
1,080

64.7
69.9

35.9
7.8

2 .1

Total, 16 years and o ld e r....
16 to 24 y e a rs .........................
25 years and older..................
25 to 34 y e a rs ......................
35 to 44 y e a rs ......................
45 to 54 y e a rs ......................
55 years and o ld e r..............

1,188
317
871
348
231
182

8.5

1 .0

8 .2

8.7
10.3
7.8
7.7
7.3

1.4
-

110

41.0
38.5
41.9
35.6
39.8
38.5
72.7

M en...........................................
Women......................................

501
687

36.1
44.4

7.8
9.2

883
252
161

42.9
30.6
30.4

1 0 .2

6 .2

1.4
-

916
270

38.3
49.3

10.5

0 .8

34.0

1 .1

1.9

2 2 .2

Total 16 years and older......
16 to 24 y e a rs .........................
25 years and o ld e r.................
25 to 34 years.....................
35 to 44 years......................
45 to 54 years......................
55 years and o ld e r..............

769
124
645
235
216
132
61

80.0
66.9
82.3
85.1
78.7
81.1

56.2
46.8
58.1
67.2
57.9
50.8

2 .0

71.1
65.3
72.2
76.2
70.8
72.7

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

43.7
44.3
50.5
34.1
37.7

Men...........................................
Women......................................

542
227

79.0
82.4

60.5
45.8

2.4
1.3

73.4
65.6

43.9
31.3

57.6
48.9

609
97
46

81.4
56.7
(5)

58.1
33.0
(5)

2.3
(5)

72.1
59.8
(5)

41.7
35.1
(5)

56.5
48.5
(5)

663
106

83.1
60.4

64.0
7.5

2.3
(4)

79.9
16.0

45.2
8.5

61.8
13.2

3.1
0.3
3.7
2.3

2 1 .1

8.9
23.8
28.7
23.5
25.4
16.7

1 .0

1 2 .8

29.1
1 2 .1

Race and Hispanic origin :2
W h ite ........................................
B la c k ........................................
Hispanic o rig in .........................

1 .2
0 .8

Full- and part-time status :3
Full-time workers......................
Part-time w o rk e rs ....................

4.2

37.8

Temporary help agency
workers
Age and sex:

•

(4)
3.8
4.5
1 .6

1 2 .6

14.2
1 2 .2
1 2 .1

10.4
11.5
17.3
1 0 .2

Race and Hispanic origin :2
W h ite ........................................
B la c k ........................................
Hispanic o rig in .........................

2 .8

Full-and part-time status :3
Full-time workers......................
Part-time w o rk e rs ....................

Contract company
workers
Age and sex:

1 .6
2 .2
2 .1

3.2
1.5

2 1 .8

Race and Hispanic-origin :2
W h ite ........................................
B la c k ........................................
Hispanic o rig in .........................

2 .1

Full- and part-time status :3
Full-time w orkers......................
Part-time w o rk e rs ...................
See footnotes at end of table.

42

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Table 10.

Continued—Percent of persons in alternative and traditional work arrangements with health insurance and
pension coverage, by selected characteristics, February 1999
______
With pension coverage

With health insurance coverage1

Characteristic

Number
(thousands)

Total

Through
current
employer
at main job

Through
other job
or union

Eligible for
employerprovided
health
insurance

Total

Eligible for
employerprovided
pension

Workers with
traditional arrangements6
Age and sex:
61.1
30.2

73.7
45.3
79.0
77.0
80.1
82.6
73.5

50.9
15.5
57.4
49.1
59.8
65.1
55.4

58.5
28.3
64.1
59.1

76.3
70.8

53.2
48.3

60.0
56.8

.8

73.8
73.4
60.7

51.5
49.5
33.6

58.9
59.0
40.6

.7
.7

82.6
32.3

58.2
16.8

65.9
23.9

.7

Total, 16 years and older ....
16 to 24 y e a rs .........................
25 years and o ld e r.................
25 to 34 years......................
35 to 44 years......................
45 to 54 years......................
55 years and o ld e r..............

112,829
17,720
95,109
27,534
31,213
23,677
12,685

82.9
69.5
85.4
80.0
85.7
89.4
89.4

6 8 .2

.6

70.8
62.5

.9
1.4

Men...........................................
Women......................................

58,483
54,346

82.2
83.7

66.3
55.4

1 .1

94,415
13,283
11,977

84.0
76.6
62.7

61.2
61.4
49.2

.7
.4

92,711
19,894

84.8
74.3

70.6
16.9

.2

6 6 .8

.8

63.9

.6

.3

6 6 .1

69.5
60.1

Race and Hispanic origin :2
W h ite ........................................
B la c k ........................................
Hispanic o rig in .........................
Full- and part-time status :3
Full-time workers......................
Part-time w o rk e rs ...................

’ Detail for sources of health insurance coverage will not sum to totals
because information on a specific source was not always available.
2Detail will not sum to totals because data for the “other races” group are
not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black popula­
tion groups.
3Detail will not sum to totals because usual status on the principal job is not

for men. Earnings for blacks and whites in the arrangement
were nearly the same. Temps who worked part time in 1999
out-earned part-time traditional workers.

Benefits
Employer-provided benefits such as health insurance and pen­
sion coverage also are a measure of job quality. For this rea­
son, analysts have been concerned that workers in alternative
arrangements do not enjoy the same rates of benefit and pen­
sion coverage as do workers in traditional jobs. Like earnings,
benefit coverage of workers in alternative arrangements varies
widely by arrangement—generally following the same pattern
as earnings. Demographics, hours, and occupations play a
large role in the extent to which employees in a particular ar­
rangement received health insurance and pension coverage.
In 1999, as in past survey years, the incidence of health
insurance coverage and pension coverage was lower for work­
ers in alternative arrangements than for workers in traditional
jobs. Coverage levels differ between independent contractors
and contract company workers on one hand, and on-call work­
ers and temps on the other. The alternative arrangements
showed some improvement in coverage in the benefits area


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

identifiable for a small number of multiple jobholders.
“Less than 0.05 percent.
5Data not shown where base is less than 75,000.
6Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of
the “alternative arrangements” categories.
NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

since the last survey: pension coverage rates increased for all
the arrangements, although the rates were still below that of
traditional workers. The proportion of contract company work­
ers and temps who had healthcare coverage also increased
from 1997, while the rate for traditional workers stayed the
same. Tables 9 and 10 present the incidence of health insurance
and pension coverage for workers in alternate arrangements.
Because independent contractors do not have employers
that can provide them with health insurance or pension ben­
efits, they must purchase them on their own. About 73 per­
cent of independent contractors had health insurance from
some source, compared with 83 percent of workers in tradi­
tional arrangements. In both arrangements women were some­
what more likely than men to have some source of healthcare
coverage. This is most likely due to the fact that more women
are covered under the plan of a relative. Nearly twice the
percentage of men with health insurance purchased their
plans (52 percent) as were covered under another family
member’s plan (29 percent). For women with insurance, the
percentages were nearly reversed—51 percent were covered
under another family member’s plan, while only 32 percent
purchased it on their own.
Perhaps because the vast majority of female independent

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

43

Alternative Work Arrangements

contractors were working part time, part-timers in the arrange­
ment were more likely to have health insurance than were full­
time independent contractors. The reverse was true for tradi­
tional workers. As would be expected, coverage rates rose,
with rising levels of educational attainment. While the same
was true for traditional workers, they were still more likely to
have coverage than independent contractors at all levels of
educational attainment.
In 1999, 41 percent of independent contractors had some
type of pension plan, compared with 37 percent in 1997. The
corresponding rates for traditional workers were 51 percent in
1999 and 50 percent in 1997. Nearly all covered independent
contractors had either an ir a or a Keogh plan.
In 1999, 80 percent of contract company workers had
health insurance from some source. This rate was the highest
among the alternative work arrangements, and was very close
to the coverage rate for workers in traditional jobs. The per­
centage of contract company workers with employer-provided
insurance rose to 56 percent in 1999 from 50 percent in 1997.
This also was about the same rate as workers in traditional
arrangements.
With regards to pension coverage, contract company work­
ers had similar rates of coverage as independent contractors,
and higher rates than the other three alternative arrangements.
The percentage of contract company workers who were eli­
gible for employer-provided pensions rose to 55 percent in
1999 from 46 percent in 1997. This was the same rate as work­
ers in traditional arrangements. About 40 percent of workers
in the arrangement actually participated in their employer’s
pension plan, compared with 48 percent of traditional work­
ers. The rates for both arrangements rose since 1997.
Despite the fact that independent contractors, and to a
lesser degree, contract workers, had insurance and pension
coverage rates that were below those of traditional workers, it
could be that these workers are forgoing coverage by choice
because these two groups substantially out-earn their tradi­
tional counterparts.
A little more than two-thirds of on-call workers had health
insurance in 1999, but only one-fifth of them had insurance
through their employer. Of those who had insurance from
another source, two-thirds were covered under another fam­
ily member’s plan. Nearly 10 percent of on-call workers who
had insurance from another source relied on medicare or med­
icaid for health insurance coverage, compared with only 6
percent of traditional workers. Women who worked on-call
were more likely than men to have insurance, although men
were more likely to have coverage through their employer.
This may occur because most women who worked on-call in
1999 were part-timers, and thus may not have been eligible for
employer-provided health benefits.
About 29 percent of on-call workers were eligible for their

44

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

employer’s pension plan, and 23 percent were included in the
plan; these rates were about half those for traditional workers.
Of the on-call workers who were not included in their
employer’s pension plan, 80 percent were not allowed to par­
ticipate in the plan. Men were more likely than women to be
eligible for their employer’s pension plan, and also were more
likely to actually participate in the plan. The reason for men’s
higher eligibility rate was partially due to men being more
likely to work full time.
Temporary help agency workers had the lowest levels of
both health insurance coverage and pension coverage among
all arrangements. Only 41 percent of temps had health insur­
ance in 1999, and only 9 percent had it through their employer,
although the share of temps who had insurance through their
employer rose slightly between 1997 and 1999. Women were
more likely than men to have insurance. Both sexes were most
likely to have it through another family member. In 1999,31
percent of temps were eligible to participate in their employer’s
health insurance plan, but nearly half cited cost as their rea­
son for not participating. Only 13 percent of temp workers
were eligible to participate in their employer’s pension plan,
and 6 percent were included in that plan. Both rates were up
by 2 percentage points from 1997.

Prior activity of recent starters
In 1996, Anne E. Polivka studied workers in alternative ar­
rangements who had 3 or fewer years of tenure in their respec­
tive jobs.11 Polivka analyzed the prior labor force status of
recent starters in alternative arrangements, their preferences
and reasons for entering into them, and the extent to which
these workers were searching for traditional jobs, in an at­
tempt to measure the degree to which workers were being
forced into these arrangements by labor market conditions.
Updating portions of Polivka’s analysis using the 1999 data
reveals that more workers enter alternative arrangements by
choice. The 1999 data also show that more workers in alterna­
tive arrangements, regardless of tenure, prefer to be in them
than was in the case in 1997.
About 30 percent of independent contractors had 3 or
fewer years of tenure in this arrangement. These short-ten­
ured independent contractors were more likely than traditional
workers with similar tenure to have been employed prior to
entering the arrangement. (See table 11.) Nearly three-quar­
ters of independent contractors were employed previously—
a slightly higher proportion as Polivka reported in 1995.
Among the independent contractors who were previously em­
ployed, 61 percent had quit their last job, compared with 57
percent in February 1995.
About 68 percent of contract company workers with 3 or
fewer years of tenure were previously employed prior to en-

R Prior labor force status of previously employed persons currently in alternative and traditional work
arrangements with 3 or fewer years of tenure in current job by school enrollment status, and reason
for termination, February 1999
[In thousands]

Workers in alternative arrangements

Characteristic

Independent
contractors

On-call workers

Contract company
workers

Temporary help
agency workers

Workers in traditional
arrangements'

Total

Notin
school2

478
334
49

52,670
34,060
6,853

45,510
31,160
5,501

52

37

12

12

4,943
1,871

3,760
1,701

47
18

29
5

23
5

5,706
401

3,007
393

74
36
4

74
36
4

5
42
19

5
42
19

3,488
1,323
840

3,418
1,258
776

577

702

647

358

346

35,931

32,861

13.8
52.3
13.2

18.3
49.4
20.9

18.9
48.1
2 0 .6

6.5
66.5
18.3

2 0 .2

1 1 .1

1 2 .0

8 .8

6.7
65.3
18.9
9.1

9.9
69.3
9.2
10.3

Total

Notin
school2

Total

Notin
school2

Total

Notin
school2

Total

2,432
1,766
132

2,321
1,730
125

1,375
610
241

1,165
530
196

1,039
634
218

967
589
199

510
346
65

89
43

82
43

178
58

143
48

147
69

139
58

166

98

22

22

124
45

61
45

56
18

275
62
9

275
62
9

133
38
183

133
25
175

1,809

1,773

668

11.4
60.9
8.4
18.1

11.4
60.8
8.4
18.2

13.3
51.8
15.0
19.5

Notin
school2

Prior status
Total, 16 years and older .
Employed............................
Looking for work 3 ...............
Not employed directly
prior to lo okin g...............
Previously em ployed........
Not In the labor force:
Going to school................
R etired..............................
Had personal or family
obligations.......................
Other a c tiv itie s................
Status not re p o rte d ...........

Reason for termination
from previous job
Total, 16 years and older
(thousands)......................
Percent:
Lost last jo b .....................
Quit last jo b .....................
Temporary job ended.......
Other reason....................

’Workers in traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of
the “alternative arrangements” categories.
2Only individuals 16 to 24 years old are asked for their school enrollment
status in February.

tering into their arrangement—about the same rate as tradi­
tional workers. There have been some dramatic shifts in the
reasons for separating from the previous job. About 67 per­
cent of contract workers reported they quit their last job in
1999, compared with 47 percent in 1995. In 1999, only 7 per­
cent reported losing their jobs, while those individuals ac­
counted for 17 percent in 1995. About 19 percent of contract
workers in 1999 had been in a temporary job that ended, while
in 1995, that percentage was 24 percent. The proportion of
those in the arrangement who were looking for work prior to
becoming contract workers has declined since the first supple­
ment in 1995.
Among the on-call workers who were previously employed,
52 percent had quit their last job in 1999. In 1995, this propor­
tion was 44 percent. The percentages of on-call workers who
lost their jobs or had temporary jobs that ended were down
from that in 1995, suggesting that more of these workers volun-


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

1 0 .6
6 8 .6
8 .8
1 0 .8

3Subcategories do not sum to total looking for work because there were a
few individuals whose activity directly prior to looking for work was unknown.
NOTE: Data on tenure of 3 or fewer years exclude persons who did not
report specific tenure, but did report that tenure was more than 1 year.

tarily left permanent jobs to work on-call. (See table 11.) The
percentage of on-call workers with 3 or fewer years of tenure
who looked for work prior to entering the arrangement— 18
percent—suggests that this arrangement may provide access
to the labor market for those having difficulty finding employ­
ment. The percentage of on-call workers who looked for work
prior to entering the arrangement in 1995 was 23 percent.
In 1999,61 percent of temporary help agency workers with
3 or fewer years of tenure were employed prior to entering
their arrangements. Suprisingly, this was close to the 65-percent rate for traditional workers. By contrast, 21 percent of
new temps were looking for work prior to starting in the ar­
rangement, compared with 13 percent of traditional workers.
This was the highest previous unemployment rate across all
arrangements in 1999. There has been considerable change
over the years: in 1995, about 27 percent of temps were previ­
ously unemployed.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

45

Alternative Work Arrangements

It is also interesting to compare the reasons why those
temps left their previous jobs to enter the arrangement. Here
again, there is a considerable difference between temps and
other workers. Temps with 3 or fewer years of tenure in the
arrangement were most likely—of any arrangement—to have
lost their previous job. About 18 percent of all temps had lost
their previous job, compared with only 10 percent of workers
in traditional arrangements. (See table 11.) In 1995, this figure
was 25 percent for temps. Temps were also the most likely
workers in any arrangement to have been in a temporary job
that ended prior to becoming a temp worker.

Preference and reason for the arrangement
The overwhelming majority of independent contractors were
very happy in their arrangement and had entered it voluntarily.
About 84 percent of independent contractors reported that
they preferred their arrangement to a traditional one in Febru-

Table 12.

ary 1999. (See table 12.) This was unchanged since the 1997
survey. Among independent contractors with 3 or fewer years
of tenure, this rate has decreased since 1995, when it was last
collected, but only by a small amount. The majority of inde­
pendent contractors preferred this arrangement rather than
being someone else’s employee, regardless of prior labor force
status. About 10 percent of independent contractors reported
being in the arrangement for an economic reason. Even among
those who said that they would prefer a traditional arrange­
ment, most were in the arrangement for personal reasons rather
than economic ones. (See table 13.)
Among on-call workers, fewer than half preferred that ar­
rangement. About 45 percent of them preferred on-call work,
compared with 37 percent in 1995. The proportion who said
they would prefer a traditional employment arrangement in
1999 was slightly lower as in 1997. (See table 13.) When only
those workers with 3 or fewer years in the arrangement were
examined, the majority still preferred traditional work, but the

Preference of employed persons in alternative work arrangements for a traditional or an alternative work
arrangement, by prior activity, February 1999
With 3 or fewer years of tenure'
With prior labor force status of—

Preference

Total
Total

Employed

Looking for
work

Going to
school

Retired

Had personal
or family
obligations

Independent contractors
Total, 16 years and older
Thousands .....................................
P erce nt..........................................

8,247

2,432

1,766

132

166

22

275

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

10 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

10 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

Prefer traditional arrangement2 ........
Prefer alternative arrangem ent........
It de p e n d s.........................................
Preference not available..................

8.5
83.8
5.2
2.5

14.5
77.8
5.4
2.3

14.3
77.8
6.4

42.1
50.9
2.7
4.3

1 2 .1

79.4
3.5
5.1

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

Total, 16 years and o ld e r.............
Thousands .....................................
P e rce n t..........................................

2,032

1,375

610

241

124

45

133

10 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

10 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

Prefer traditional arrangement2 ........
Prefer alternative arrangem ent........
It d e pend s.........................................
Preference not available..................

46.7
44.7
4.8
3.8

50.2
41.9
5.1

52.2
37.5
5.9
4.4

68.9
25.2
4.6
1.3

57.9
38.8
0.5

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

28.0
65.3
3.7
3.0

Total, 16 years and older
Thousands .....................................
P e rce n t..........................................

1,188

1,039

634

218

56

18

74

10 0 .0

10 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

Prefer traditional arrangement2 ........
Prefer alternative arrangem ent........
It de pend s.........................................
Preference not available..................

57.0
33.1
5.3
4.6

59.3
32.7

60.7
31.6
4.1
3.5

70.9
18.9
5.1
5.1

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

1 .6

6.5
8 8 .6
2 .6

2.3

On-call workers

2 .8

2 .8

Temporary help agency workers

4 .8

3.2

’ Data exclude persons who did not report specific tenure, but did report that
tenure was more than 1 year, and include those whose prior activity was
classified as “other” and a small number of persons for whom prior activity was
not reported.
2Workers in traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

46

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

the alternative arrangement categories.
3Data not shown were base is less than 75,000.
N o t e : Data on workers provided by contract firms are not shown because
these workers were not asked for their preferences. Detail may not sum to 100
percent due to rounding.

proportion has decreased since 1995. Half of on-call workers
preferred a job with regularly scheduled hours, while the pro­
portion in 1995 was 62 percent. Preferences for the arrange­
ment varied depending upon the worker’s prior labor force
status in the arrangement. For example, 69 percent of workers
who were unemployed prior to entering the arrangement would
have preferred a traditional job. (See table 12.) For workers
who were previously out of the labor force attending to per­
sonal or family obligations, only 28 percent preferred a tradi­
tional arrangement. Overall, since 1995, there seems to be
increased preference for the arrangement regardless of prior
status, except in the case of those who attended school prior
to working on-call. For them, the proportion preferring a tradi­
tional job increased from the 1995 share.
In 1999, only 35 percent of on-call workers were in that
arrangement for economic reasons,12 compared with 47 per­
cent in 1995, and 41 percent in 1997. This suggests that more
workers chose to enter the arrangement for reasons unrelated
to labor market constraints. The most common economic rea­
son for being in the arrangement was that it was the only type
Table 13.

of work to be found; however, in 1999, these individuals made
up only 21 percent of total employment in the arrangement,
compared with 27 percent in 1997. (See table 13.)
Note that data on reasons for being in the arrangement and
on the preferred arrangement were not collected for contract
company workers due to the difficulty of devising questions
that would capture the desired information for this group.
The majority of temp workers in 1999—57 percent—would
have preferred a traditional job. (See table 12.) This was down
slightly from 1997. For temps who had been in the arrange­
ment for 3 years or less, about the same proportion preferred
to work in a traditional job, but interestingly, this proportion
decreased substantially since 1995 when 66 percent of new
temps preferred a traditional job. The decrease occurred both
for temps who were previously employed prior to beginning in
the temp arrangement and for those who were previously look­
ing for work. The 1999 survey found that more temps were in
the arrangement for personal reasons than in 1997, although
most temps (53 percent) still cited an economic reason for
being in the arrangement. About a third of temps said it was

Employed men and women 16 years and older in alternative work arrangements, by reason for
arrangement and preference for a traditional work arrangement, February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Independent contractors

Temporary help agency workers

On-call workers

Reason and preference
Total

Men

Women

Total

Men

Women

Total

Men

Women

Reason for arranagement
Economic reasons.....................................
Could only find this type
of employment......................................
This job may lead to permanent one ...
Other economic re asons.......................

9.6

1 0 .0

8.9

35.4

39.2

31.9

52.4

55.5

50.1

2 .6

2.5
.5
7.0

2 .8

21.3

2 1 .1

6 .2

5.9

8 .1

1 2 .0

21.3
6.3
4.3

32.4
12.3
7.7

33.3
13.2
9.0

31.6

.4
5.7

Personal re a s o n s ......................................
Flexibility of work sche dule....................
Child care problem s.................................
Other family or personal obligations.....
In school or tra in in g ...............................
Other personal re a s o n s .........................

75.6
25.9
3.1
1.3
.5
44.7

76.0
21.9
1.3

74.7
34.0

47.0
28.5

38.3
22.9

6 .6

1 .8

.6

3.4

1 .0

.2

1 .0

3.7
4.4

52.4

29.7

8 .6

3.4
10.4

32.0
17.2
.5
3.4
4.7

31.1
15.8

.2

55.4
33.9
2.9
6.3
5.3
6.9

5.6
7.4

32.6
18.2
.4
4.7
4.1
5.2

Reason not reported..................................

14.8

14.0

16.4

17.5

2 2 .6

1 2 .8

15.7

13.4

17.5

Economic reasons.....................................
Could only find this type of
employment..........................................
This job may lead to permanent o n e ....
Other economic reasons........................

33.4

36.0

28.6

61.2

61.7

60.8

65.0

64.7

65.1

19.0
2.9
11.4

18.9
4.4
12.5

19.2
—
9.4

40.0

37.7

1 1 .0

8 .6

1 0 .1

15.6

42.9
13.6
4.5

43.0
14.5
7.7

43.1
15.7
5.9

42.7
13.2
9.1

Personal re a s o n s ......................................
Flexibility of work sche dule...................
Child care problem s................................
Other family or personal obligations.....
In school or tra in in g ...............................
Other personal re a s o n s .........................
Reason not reported..................................

51.9
19.3
3.7

51.0
17.4

53.5
22.9

2 0 .8

29.7
16.7

23.2

23.5
11.4

2 2 .6

1 0 .8

2 .2

.4

1 .0

2 .0

.2

.8

2 .2

2 .8

.7
26.1
14.7

30.1
13.2

25.2
13.6
1.3
1.5
3.9
4.8
13.6

4.1
4.9
17.5

3.9
4.8
9.5

4.4
4.7

.7
4.6
5.9
11.4

.5
6 .2

6 .1

.6
1 .8

1 1 .8

6.7

Prefer traditional arrangement

2 .2

1 .1

6 .1

5.7
~
18.4
18.0

N o t e : Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. Information was
not collected for contract company workers because of the difficulty of devis-


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

10.7
.4

1 2 .0

1 0 .2

~
4.6
4.3
3.8
1 2 .1

ing questions that would capture the desired information for these workers,
Dash indicates data not available.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

47

Alternative Work Arrangements

the only kind of work they could find. And 12 percent were in
the arrangement because they hoped that the job would lead
to a permanent position. (See table 13.)

Job search
Job search activity among workers in alternative arrangements
corresponds closely with their preference for and satisfaction
with their current arrangements. (See table 14.) The pattern
has stayed about the same since the 1995 survey: independent
contractors had job search rates similar to those of traditional
workers; and contract company workers, on-call workers, and
temporary help agency workers had rates higher than those of
their traditional counterparts.
The job search activity of independent contractors mirrored
the activity of traditional workers. Only 3 percent of all inde­
pendent contractors had searched for a new job in the 3 months
prior to the survey; this rate was 4 percent for traditional work­
ers. For independent contractors with 3 or fewer years of
tenure, 7 percent had searched for a new job, compared with 6

percent of traditional workers.
In 1995, the job search activities of on-call workers and
contract company workers were very similar. In 1999, how­
ever, the two groups diverged somewhat—particularly for
workers with 3 or fewer years of tenure in the arrangement.
On-call workers had a job search rate of 17 percent, and con­
tract workers had a 12 percent rate. In the 1995 survey, the
rates for new on-call workers and contract workers were 19
percent and 20 percent, respectively.
Temp workers saw a drop of about 7 percentage points in
new job searches since the first survey. Their job search rate
was still nearly six times the rate for traditional workers— about
the same magnitude as in 1995.
As would be expected, there was considerably more job
search activity for persons who preferred to be in a traditional
work arrangement. Among the relatively small number of in­
dependent contractors who preferred to be someone else’s
employee, 23 percent were searching for a new job. For on-call
workers who preferred a job in which they would work regu­
larly scheduled hours, 24 percent were searching for a new

Table 14. Job search of employed workers in alternative and traditional work arrangements who searched for a
job in the previous 3 months, by selected characteristics, February 1999
[Percent distribution]

Workers in alternative arrangements
Characteristic

Workers in
traditional
arrangements'

Independent
contractors

On-call workers

Temporary help
agency workers

8,247

2,032

1,188

769

119,110

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

10 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

5.3
3.2
2.7

19.4
14.1

27.4
24.2

1 2 .8

2 2 .6

.2

.7

.8

12.7
10.9
9.4
.5

.4

.6

.9

1 .0

5.3
4.3
3.8
.2
.2

1 0 .8

23.3
16.6
15.0

28.8
26.1
24.8

14.4

8 .0

1 1 .8

(3)
.4

6.3
5.5
.4
.4

(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)

(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)

Contract company
workers

Told
Total, 16 years and older
Thousands .....................................
P e rc e n t..........................................
Searched for a jo b ............................
Searched for a new jo b ................
“ Permanent” ..................................
Tem porary.....................................
Any ty p e .......................................

With 3 or fewer years of tenure2
Searched for a jo b ............................
Searched for a new jo b ................
“ Permanent” ...................................
Tem porary......................................
Any ty p e ........................................

7.0
5.7
.2
1 .1

1 .1

.6

.5

.6

32.0
24.0
22.3
.5

37.3
34.2
32.5

1 .2

.8

1 1 .1

Prefer a traditional arrangement
Searched for a jo b ............................
Searched for a new jo b ................
“ Permanent” ...................................
Tem porary......................................
Any ty p e ........................................

28.6
23.4
19.3
0.7
3.5

1Workers in traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of
the “alternative arrangements” categories.
2 Excludes persons who did not report specific tenure, but did report that
tenure was more than 1 year.

48

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

.8

'

3Less than 0.05 percent.
“ Workers provided by contract firms were not asked their preference.
5Not applicable.
N o t e : Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

job. For temps who preferred to work in a traditional arrange­
ment, this rate was 34 percent. All of these rates dropped from
the 1995 survey. For temps, the rate fell by 10 percentage
points from 44 percent in 1995. Nearly all workers (regardless
of their arrangement) who preferred a traditional arrangement
were looking for a permanent job rather than a temporary job.
f o r a n d sa t is f a c t io n w it h t h e ir jo b s has increased
among workers in alternative arrangements since 1995. There
is a clear dichotomy between independent contractors and
contract company workers on one hand, and temporary agency
workers and on-call workers on the other, in terms of arrange­
ment preferences. The former group overwhelmingly prefers
to be in their arrangements, while the latter group prefers

P reference

traditional arrangements.
Because of the claim that their job was the only one they
could find, a significant proportion of temps and on-call work­
ers might very well be unemployed without these arrange­
ments. These alternative arrangements allow a level of flexibil­
ity that most traditional jobs do not. Mothers with small chil­
dren, people going to school, and people taking care of family
members can balance these responsibilities with working.
While there continue to be startling disparities between
some of these arrangements and traditional jobs in terms of
health insurance coverage, pension coverage, and earnings,
these disparities are at least partially the result of differences
in demographics, education levels, the occupational makeup
of these arrangements, and personal choice.

Notes

1 The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly survey of 50,000
households in the U.S. The first supplement to the CPS on contingent
and alternative work arrangements was conducted in February 1995.
Subsequent surveys were done in February 1997 and February 1999.
2 The issue of “good jobs— bad jobs” is discussed in Neal H. Rosenthal,
“More than wages at issue in job quality debate,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
v ie w , December 1989, pp. 4-8. See also Joseph R. Meisenheimer II,
“Services industry in the ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ jobs debate,” M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1998, pp. 22-47.
3 See, for example, Helene J. Jorgensen,
(Washington, DC, 2030 Center, 1999).

W hen G o o d J o b s G o B a d

4 See, for example, Katharine G. Abraham and Susan K. Taylor,
“Firms’ Use of Outside Contractors: Theory and Evidence,” J o u r n a l o f
L a b o r E c o n o m ic s , July 1996.
5 See, for example, Anne E. Polivka, “Into contingent and alterna­
tive employment: by choice?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1996,
pp. 55-74.
6 See “Contingent Workers & Alternate Work Arrangements” ar­
ticles in the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1996.
7 It should be noted that the classification of workers in alternative
employment arrangements was made separately from their contingent
work status, that is, whether the job was temporary or not expected to


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

continue. Individuals employed in alternative arrangements were clas­
sified as contingent only if they met the requisite criteria.
8 See, for example, Arne L. Kalleberg and others, N o n s t a n d a r d
(Washington, DC, Economic Policy Institute
and Women’s Research and Education Institute, 1997).
W o rk , S u b s ta n d a r d J o b s

9 See Anne E. Polivka, Sharon R. Cohany, and Steven Hippie, “Defi­
nition, Composition, and Economic Consequences of the Nonstandard
Workforce” in N o n s t a n d a r d W o r k : T h e N a t u r e a n d C h a l l e n g e s o f
C h a n g in g E m p lo y m e n t A r r a n g e m e n ts (Chicago, Industrial Relations
Research Association, 2000).
10 For an example of this type of analysis, see Marianne A. Ferber
and Jane Waldfogel, “The long-term consequences of nontraditional
employment,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , May 1998, pp. 3-12; see also,
Lewis M. Segal and Daniel G. Sullivan, “The Nature of Temporary
Services Employment: Evidence from State UI Data,” J o u r n a l o f E c o ­
n o m ic P e r s p e c t i v e s , 1997.
11 This analysis for those with 3 or fewer years of tenure was not
done for the 1997 Contingent and Alternative Work Supplement; how­
ever, basic data on preference and reasons for being in the arrange­
ments were collected that year.
12 Nearly 18 percent of workers in the on-call arrangement who
were surveyed did not provide a reason for being in the arrangement.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

49

Flexible Work Schedules

Flexible work schedules:
what are w e trading off to get them?
Flexible work schedules are spreading, but workers
sometimes must be willing to increase their hours markedly,
work evening shifts, or switch to part-time status,
self-employment, or certain occupations to get flexibility
in their schedules; this may entail a sacrifice
o f leisure time, compensation, or a predictable workweek
Lonnie Golden

Lonnie Golden is
associate professor of
economics. Economics
and Business Division,
Commonwealth
College, the Pennsylva­
nia State University,
Delaware County,
Media, Pennsylvania.
50 Monthly Labor Review

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

he 1990s economic expansion not only
whisked away decades-long stubborn
labor market problems such as unemploy­
ment and stagnant wage rates, but also hosted
the spread of flexible work schedules. By 1997,
in the May Current Population Survey ( c p s ),
more than 27 percent of full-time wage and sal­
ary workers reported that they had some ability
to vary either the starting or ending time of their
typical workday, more than double the rate ob­
served in 1985.1 Workers tend to regard flexible
work-scheduling practices as a valuable tool for
easing the chronic pressures and conflicts im­
posed by attempting to execute both work and
non work responsibilities. The growing value of
such daily flexibility to workers may reflect in­
creases in labor force participation rates of par­
ents, dual-income households, family annual
work hours, weekly overtime hours, the premium
for additional hours of work, college enrollment
rates, and the aging of the workforce.2 More­
over, employers are likely to be turning to flex­
ible scheduling as an instrument for recruiting
and retaining employees (particularly those fac­
ing a labor shortage climate) and for boosting
job satisfaction and labor productivity.3 Yet, the
demand for such flexible work schedules on the
part of workers appears still to exceed the sup­
ply provided by employers.4
This article examines the association between
workers’ access to flexibility in their work sched­
ules, on the one hand, and their various work
and job characteristics, on the other. In particu­
lar, it focuses on the levels of work hours and
the types of jobs that either enhance or dimin­

T

March 2001

ish a worker’s chances of attaining a flexible work
schedule. While the direction and magnitude of
the trend in average work hours has been a source
of much controversy, it is clear that paid work
hours are growing for many segments of the
workforce.5 The trend toward greater flexibility
in hours may be inextricably linked with a polar­
ization of work hours that has become evident
among workers in which one segment of the
workforce may be working longer than standard
hours and another segment shorter or nonstand­
ard hours or jobs, in part to gain access to the
daily flexibility needed to better balance the com­
peting demands on their time.
Research analyses of data from previous May
c p s supplements have detected a gradual trend
toward a nonstandard workday and workweek in
the United States. Work is increasingly being
spread out, performed on the fringes of the typi­
cal workday, extending earlier in the morning or
later into the evening.6 Consequently, in 1997,
only 54.4 percent of employed nonagricultural
workers over age 18 worked a traditional 5-day
workweek on a fixed daytime schedule.7 The pro­
portion working a 35- to 40-hour “standard” work­
week was 29.1 percent in 1997, compared with
31.5 percent in 1991 and is considerably lower for
men (decreasing from 29.5 percent to 26.5 per­
cent over the years cited). In 1991, nonstandard
schedules were adopted by workers much more
for involuntary (for example, as a job requirement)
than for voluntary (for example, to care for one’s
family) reasons, by an almost 2-to-l margin. Work­
ing in the evening hours is much more common
among part-time than full-time workers. Neither

n

ing and ending times by intervals. Table 1 displays the fre­
quency distribution of workers by their daily starting and end­
ing times. Not surprisingly, given the growing presence of
flexible scheduling, the typical 9-to-5 workday is not as repre­
Percent of
Percent of
sentative of work-time patterns in the 1990s as it might have
workers
workers
Interval at work
been
in previous decades. A surprisingly high proportion of
beginning
ending
workers, 40 percent, is usually still at work past 5 p .m . (although
the table does not specify what time each of these workers
0 .6
0 .1
12:30 . . to
1:29 . ..............................................
.1
.5
1:30 . . to
2:29 . ..............................................
starts his or her workday). Also, 28 percent of the workforce is
.3
.2
3:29 . ..............................................
2:30 . . to
at work by 7:30 a .m . (although again, it is unclear what time
.2
.5
3:30 . . to
4:29 . ..............................................
1.7
.3
5:29 . ..............................................
4:30 . . to
these individuals typically finish their shifts). Finally, approxi­
.5
6:29 . ..............................................
6.9
5:30 .
to
mately 10 percent of the workforce cannot specify a typical
.1
.8
to
5:59 . ..............................................
5:30 . .
.5
6 .1
to
6:29 . ..............................................
6 :0 0
. .
ending time of the workday, mainly because that time is vari­
1.7
2 1 .1
6:30 . .
to
7:29 . ..............................................
able.
3.4
.2
6:30 . .
to
6:59 . ..............................................
1.4
17.7
7:00 . .
to
7:29 . ..............................................
Previous research has yet to take advantage of the ques­
1 .0
8:29 . ..............................................
32.6
7:30 . .
to
tion in the May c p s Supplement about the flexibility of the
.4
9.0
7:59 . ..............................................
7:30 . .
to
.7
23.6
8:29 . ..............................................
8 :0 0
. .
to
worker’s daily schedule. In this supplement, employed work­
.2
9:29 . ..............................................
13.3
8:30 . .
to
ers are asked, “Do you have flexible work hours that allow you
.1
6 .1
8:59 . ..............................................
8:30 . .
to
.1
7.2
9:29 . ..............................................
9:00 . .
to
to vary or make changes in the time you begin and end work”?9
.1
2 .1
9:30 . .
to 10:29 . ...............................................
Thus, the 27 percent who answered in the affirmative in 1997
.1
.8
10:30 . .
to 11:29 . ...............................................
.2
.5
11:30 . . to 12:29 . ...............................................
represent a rather broad estimate. Among these respondents
would be any worker whose job or employer permits an infor­
.5
.5
1:29 . ...............................................
12:30 . .
to
1 .0
1.9
1:30 . .
2:29 . ...............................................
to
mal
flexible arrangement, rather than just a formal flextime or
2 .2
7.8
2:30 . .
to
3:29 . ..............................................
“gliding” schedule of work over the course of a day. Also, the
.4
2 .0
2:59 . ..............................................
2:30 . .
to
1 .8
5.8
3:29 . ..............................................
3:00 . .
to
frequency with which respondents can or do take advantage
17.6
4:29 . ...............................................
1.5
3:30 . .
to
of this option is unknown. Another question respondents were
6 .8
.5
to
3:59 . ...............................................
3:30 . .
10.7
1 .0
to
4:29 . ...............................................
4:00 . .
asked was whether they worked on nontraditional shifts, such
.6
29.5
to
4:30 . .
5:29 . ...............................................
as evening, night, rotating, or split shifts. The regular (“ba­
8 .6
.2
4:30 . .
to
4:59 . ...............................................
.4
20.9
5:29 . ...............................................
5:00 . .
to
sic”) c p s questions include those inquiring about the number
13.1
.5
5:30 . .
to
6:29 . ..............................................
of actual and usual hours worked the previous week, as well as
.1
5.1
5:30 . .
to
5:59 . ..............................................
.4
8 .0
to
6:29 . ..............................................
6 :0 0 . .
those
inquiring about a host of demographic and other work
4.6
.9
6:30 . .
7:29 . ...............................................
to
characteristics of workers in the sample. Moreover, the c p s
2 .1
.8
7:30 . .
to
8:29 . ...............................................
1 .1
9:29 . ...............................................
.5
8:30 . .
to
asks individuals who usually work part time if they are em­
1 .2
.6
to 10:29 . ..............................................
9:30 . .
ployed at full-time hours and vice versa. Finally, there are suf­
2 .0
1.3
10:30 . .
to 11:29 . ..............................................
1.7
.5
11:30 . .
to 12:29 . ..............................................
ficient observations to group the respondents into a total of 52
“detailed” Standard Industrial Classification (sic) industries
9.2
7.3
Time v a rie s .....................................................
2 .0
1.9
Actual time not ava ila ble..............................
and 45 “detailed” Standard Occupational Classification (soc)
occupations, which are then collapsed into 23 “major” indus­
tries
and 14 “major” occupations.10 Thus, the May 1997 c p s
Harriet B. Presser and Amy G. Cox nor Daniel Hamermesh finds
provides
a rich source of data that allows economists to exam­
great differences in nonstandard work hours by occupation or
industry, although Presser does point to their greater prevalence ine the interrelationships among the different dimensions of
in service and technical and support occupations and in per­ work hours—including their level, timing, and flexibility. It also
sonal service industries.8 Consequently, neither attributes provides an opportunity to examine another facet of workers’
changes in the pattern of timing of work and destandardization time at work that has remained unexplored in previous research:
of the workday to either occupational or industrial shifts. Nor are the variability of the workweek.
Despite the impressive gains in flexible daily work sched­
demographic factors very consequential, although women being
married or having children (depending on their ages) reduces the ules, the analysis performed herein finds that the distribution
of flexible schedules among workers is quite uneven accord­
likelihood of being employed nonstandard hours or days.
ing to demographic and job characteristics of workers, such as
gender, race, education level, occupation, employment, and
Differentiation in work hours and schedules
usual work hours. Multivariate regression analysis identifies
The pattern of workers’ daily work schedules may be observed empirically the various factors associated with the likelihood
from their responses to questions regarding their daily start­ that a worker reports possessing the ability to vary his or her
Table 1

>istribution of usual starting and ending times of
tiie workday, full-time wage and salary workers
a ged 16 years and older, May 1997

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

a m

p m

p m

p m

p m

p m

p m

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

p m

p m

p m

p m

pm

p m

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm

pm


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

51

Flexible Work Schedules

daily starting or ending times for work. Certain work and job
characteristics are associated with having either significantly
greater or significantly lesser access to flexibility in one’s sched­
ule. Such characteristics include not only the typical set of
personal and human-capital variables, such as gender, race,
education, and work-related characteristics, including occu­
pation and self-employment, but also the work-time status of
workers— that is, their usual number of hours worked and their
work shift. Some workers must either work very long work­
weeks, part time, evening shifts, or in selected highly skilled
occupations suffering a shortage of labor, become self-em­
ployed, or further their formal education to obtain a degree
beyond high school. This suggests that workers may enhance
their chances of gaining flexibility in the timing of their work by
altering their jobs or the hours they work.
Moreover, because about 10 percent of the employed work a
variable workweek,11 a similar set of characteristics is examined
with respect to the likelihood that workers have a variable num­
ber of work hours per week. This analysis not only provides a
fuller picture of workers’ daily or weekly work times, but also
reveals whether having flexibility in one’s daily schedule tends
to either lessen or increase the chances that a worker faces vola­
tile hours. A set of demographic and job characteristics that give
the worker more access to flexibility in his or her schedule may, in
addition, either enhance or reduce the chances that that worker
will face a variable, unpredictable duration of the workweek.
Standard economic models of labor supply focus attention
almost exclusively on the average duration of work hours, rather
than other temporal dimensions, such as flexibility or instabil­
ity. Workers work a certain number of hours per week, given
their compensation rate and the constraints imposed on them,
including that of an often fixed number of hours per week
required by their employer. Whatever time the worker spends
away from work is assumed to add to his or her well-being
(“utility”) by being either self-directed leisure time or time spent
producing household goods and services. Yet, in addition to
its sheer volume, the daily timing of available time for leisure
or household production may have a profound impact on the
worker’s well-being. The daily and weekly scheduling of work,
as well as the many non-work-related responsibilities a person
has (for example, attending classes at school), are often out­
side the direct control of the individual. The scheduling of
work may frequently overlap or conflict with time slots work­
ers need to execute their non-work-related responsibilities and
activities, such as caregiving, volunteering, commuting, study­
ing, and socializing. For a given stock of work and leisure
hours, having some ability to adjust one’s work schedule when
one’s non-work-related responsibilities change is a crucial fea­
ture of both a job and a workers’ well-being. While Hamermesh
usefully distinguishes between hours per day and days worked
in a week, and between regular day and evening or night-shift
work, economists generally do not focus on the flexibility di­
mension.12 Nor is flexibility ever sufficiently distinguished
52 Monthly Labor Review

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

March 2001

from variability of hours through time.13 To a worker, flexibil­
ity means an immediate and fully proportional adjustment of
actual hours of work to both anticipated and unanticipated
deviations in the worker’s desired number of hours. Indeed,
this same notion applies to a worker’s preference for changes
in the scheduling of his or her work hours.
Conventional tests of labor supply models have found that a
worker’s desire for longer or overtime hours may be diminished
by certain factors, such as the worker’s age, or enhanced by
other factors, such as the size of the firm employing the worker.14
Broader-based models find that the worker’s desired hours of
labor supply may be rising because of workplace and consumer
culture. Longer hours are encouraged as a way for workers to
earn promotions and improve their relative positioning with re­
spect to relevant social reference groups inside the workplace.15
Longer hours also can improve the worker’s positioning toward
social groups outside the workplace as a consumer.16 In addi­
tion, longer hours may be perceived as an “insurance policy” or
hedge against the risk of future job loss or income loss.17 Further,
laws, regulations, and their changing scope of applicability have
a real impact on actual hours worked.18 Finally, by facilitating
greater flexibility in the allocation of work time, technological
advances, such as the diffusion of telecommunications technol­
ogy and “teleworking” (working in a facility remote from one’s
job site through the use of technology), may be lengthening
workers’ time spent at work.19
The findings in this article suggest that the rise in flexibility
is no coincidence: it may be going hand in hand with the polar­
ization of work hours, particularly at the high end, as mani­
fested in an increasing proportion of individuals working ex­
tended hours (50 or more per week). In other words, some
workers are trading off reduced leisure, others reduced com­
pensation, in order to attain flexibility in their time spent at
work.20 Longer hours of work may be induced in part by the
greater degree of autonomy many workers are being granted at
the workplace in terms of the timing of those hours. Workers
wishing to work standard hours are likely to be frustrated by
the inflexibility of its daily timing, which, no doubt, explains
the continuing excess demand for flexible schedules, despite
their recently rising supply.21 Many workers are probably in­
duced to switch their job status to part time, self-employment,
or a different occupation in order to attain more flexibility, per­
haps at stages of their life cycle when such a benefit is needed
most. But they tend to suffer a reduction in earnings and ben­
efit coverage as a result.22

Workers’ characteristics
Chart 1 demonstrates the difference in the distribution of flex­
ible schedules by gender and age. Women aged 24 and younger
actually have a greater incidence of flexible schedules, but the
pattern reverses for women aged 25 and older relative to men.
Indeed, while the growth of such access was across the board,

the existing inequality in access appears to be no less than it
was in 1991. There is, however, surprisingly little difference by
demographic group, although the share of men (except for
teens) with flexible schedules is actually greater than that of
women, who nonetheless exhibit a slight increase in access to
daily flexibility in the prime childbearing years.
Table 2 shows that access to flexibility ranges widely across
workers’ “detailed” occupations (using the c p s supplement
and supplement weights). While only 1 in 9 machine operators
has a flexible daily work schedule, as many as 3 of 5 natural or
mathematical scientists, lawyers, and sales representatives have
such schedules. Professional and sales occupations tend to
have much-higher-than-average flexibility of scheduling. The
table also shows that having highly variable workweeks is a
characteristic of computer equipment operator jobs, a true out­
lier in the sample, as well as farm and forestry jobs. Having
variable hours is common, too, in transportation and construc­
tion jobs, as well as certain sales and service job classifica­
tions. Most professional, administrative, supervisory, and sec­
retarial jobs tend to have a more stable, predictable workweek.
The first column of table 3 shows that there is not quite as
much variation in the incidence of flexible schedules among
industries as there is among occupations. The proportions by
industry are highest in agriculture, but almost half of the
workforce in “other professional services,” insurance, and pri­
C hart 1.

vate households has a flexible schedule. Many of the service
and trade industries and public administration are above the
average. The lowest incidences are 19 percent in educational
services, 13 percent in local government (not shown in table),
and 10 percent to 20 percent in several manufacturing indus­
tries. Within the manufacturing sector, however, there is con­
siderable variation. Some industries have higher-than-average
flexible scheduling: printing and publishing; professional,
photo, and watches; petroleum and coal; aircraft; and miscel­
laneous manufacturing industries, in each of which about 1 in
3 workers reports having a flexible schedule. (There may be
some reliability issues in several detailed production indus­
tries—“other metals,” tobacco, petroleum and coal, and leather
goods—for which the total sample in the c p s supplement was
less than 120.) The rate in these latter industries is more than
double to more than triple the rate for workers in textile, leather,
and primary metals industries (10 percent, 13 percent, and 14
percent, respectively).23 Of all workers with flexible schedules,
18 percent are in the retail trade sector, a percentage that owes
mainly to the disproportionate presence of jobs in that sector.
Correlation analysis finds that having variable hours is some­
what positively correlated with usual part-time status (P = 0.44,
whereas P = 0 for usual full-time status). In addition, having
variable hours is somewhat negatively correlated with the num­
ber of usual hours on one’s primary job (p=-0.30), reinforcing

Flexible work schedule, by age bracket
Percent with
flexible schedule

Percent with
flexible schedule
35

35

30

30

25 -

25

20

20

15

15

10

10

16 to 19


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

20 to 24

25 to 34

3 5 to 44

45 to 54

55to64

55 and older

20 and older

Age in years
Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

53

Flexible Work Schedules

X

I

F le x ib le s c h e d u le s a n d v a r ia b le w e e k ly h o u rs , r a n k e d b y o c c u p a t io n , M a y 1997
Percent

Rank

D etailed o c c u p a tio n 1

Percent
with
flexible
schedule

Rank

D etailed o c c u p a tio n 1

1

Computer equipment operators...................................
Farm operators.............................................................
Forestry occupations...................................................
Construction tra d e s .....................................................
Personal service occupations........
Sales representatives, finance
and business services..........................................

22

Farm operators...........................................................
Natural scientists.......................................................
Lawyers and ju d g e s ...................................................
Sales representatives, finance
and business services............................................
Mathematical s cie n tists............................................
Teachers, college and university..............................
Forestry occupations.................................................
Other professional.....................................................
Sales representatives and commodities...................
except re ta il.............................................................
Engineers....................................................................
M anagers....................................................................
Sales supervisors and proprietors...........................
Sales-related occupations.........................................
Other technicians.......................................................
Financial records, processing...................................
Private household service.........................................
Health-diagnosing occupations................................
Management-related occupations............................
Public adm inistration..................................................
Farm workers...............................................................
Personal service occupations...................................
Engineering and science technicians.......................

49.8
47.9
47.9
45.7
44.4
44.0
43.5
43.3
42.6
41.2
41.0
36.1
35.5
33.1

23
24
25
26
27

Sales, retail and personal services..........................
Construction trades....................................................
Administrative support for supervisors...................
Secretaries, stenographers, and typists.................
Motor vehicle op e ra to rs............................................

30.7
30.4
29.3
27.1
27.0

23
24
25
26
27

28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

Mechanics and repairers...........................................
Other administrative support.....................................
Health assessment and tre a tin g ..............................
Food service occupations.........................................
Cleaning and building services.................................
Health tech nicians.....................................................
Other precision production........................................
Construction la b o r......................................................
Health service occupations.......................................
Computer equipment operators................................
Freight h andlers.........................................................
Protective service occupations...............................
Other handlers and la b o re rs .....................................
Mail and message distributing...................................
Fabricators..................................................................
Other transportation...................................................
Teachers, except college and university.................
Machine operators and tenders,
except precision.......................................................

24.7
24.3
23.3

28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

77.9
60.2
58.6
58.1
55.9
54.6
53.8
50.3

2 2 .1
2 1 .2
2 0 .6

19.9
19.5
19.4
19.3
17.8
16.2
15.1
14.4
13.9
13.6
1 2 .8

March 2001

6

7
Motor vehicle operators.......................
Other technicians......................................................
Food service occupations...........................................
Other transportation..................
Sales workers, retail and personal service s.............
Health service occupations........................................
Freight handlers
Construction labor
Other handlers and labo rers.......................................
Other administrative support occupations................
La jvyars and judges
Health technicians
Cleaning and building service occupations...............
Health-diagnosing occupations...................................
Machine operators and tenders,
except precision.......................................................

8

10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Mechanics and repairers.............................................
Fabricators....................................................................
Other precision production occupations....................
Financial records, processing.................
Sales representatives and com m odities,..................
except re ta il..............................................................
Mail and message distributing.....................................
Engineers......................................................................
Managers......................................................................
Natural scientists.........................................................
Sales supervisors and proprietors.............................
Protective service occupations..................................
Sales-related occupations..........................................
Other professional.......................................................
Administrative support for supervisors......................
Management-related occupations..............................
Mathematical scientists..........................
Health assessment and tre a tin g ................................
Secretaries, stenographers, and ty p is ts ..................
Public administration....................................................
Teachers, college and university...............................
Private household s e rv ic e ..........................................

81.8
30.0
22.3
19.0
18.6
17.1
15 2
14 9
138
1 1 .8

11 5
1 0 .6

9.8
8 8
8 6
8 .2
8 .2
8 0

79
7.7
6 .8

5.9
5.8
5.6
5.4
4.9
4.9
4.6
4.2
4.2
42
4.0
4.0
3.1
2.9
2 .8
2 .6
2 .0
•j 7
1 6

1 .6

.9
.0
__
_

1 1 .1

the notion that workers putting in fewer average hours face
more variability in their workweeks. Thus, part-timers appear
to be more prone to having variable, unpredictable workweeks,
either because they have relatively less control over the length
of their workweek or because they have more leeway in their
arrival and departure times or in the particular days of the
week that they work. Moreover, the last two rows of table 4
suggest that part-time workers whose workweeks vary have a
high incidence of flexibility in their daily hours, compared with
full-time workers. This in turn suggests that part-time workers
54 Monthly Labor Review

3
4
5

9

1
Workers employed by the Armed Forces and unemployed persons are
excluded.


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

2

whose
usuai
hours
vary

N ote:

Dash indicates sample size too small to yield reliable data.

_____
are deployed by employers in part to adjust their labor input
levels instantaneously in response to fluctuations in the demand
for their products or services. Employers thus are likely to gain
more variable workweeks by expanding their part-time job base,
which has much less of a “regular” workweek.24 Interestingly,
having a flexible schedule correlates somewhat positively with
having variable hours, both generally (P = .24) and a bit more so
with workers whose “daily ending times vary” ( p = .30). The
positive correlation is highest in three particular major occupa­
tional classifications: sales, crafts, and farming. This suggests

that such workers may have the most discretion to either
lengthen or truncate the end of their workday.
Table 3 shows that, by industry, the incidence of unpredict­
able workweeks (hours vary) ranges from less than 2 percent
up to the more than 20 percent of the workforce found in
agriculture and in private household services. The incidence
of unpredictable workweeks also is well above average in
construction, transportation, and selected manufacturing (to­
bacco) and service (auto repair, entertainment and recreation,
and personal services) industries. The next-to-last row of table
3 displays the correlation in the industry data between flex­
ibility of schedule, on the one hand, and length of hours,
variability of hours, and nonstandard forms of employment,
on the other. The somewhat positive correlation of flexibility
with long hours (at least 5 hours of usual “overtime”) inti­
mates that industries using longer hours per worker do so
with more flexible starting and ending times. The significantly
positive correlation of flexibility with variable hours suggests
that having flexible schedules makes workers’ workweeks less
stable or predictable than does having fixed daily schedules.
For example, there is also a slight positive correlation between
a flexible schedule and variable hours in sales, craft, and farm­
ing occupations (+0.28). In addition, there is a significant posi­
tive correlation of both flexible schedules and variable work­
weeks with the sum total of nonstandard workers used in an
industry. This correlation suggests either that employers us­
ing nonstandard workers also tend to use nonstandard work
scheduling practices for their regular workforce or that the
prominent presence of such nonstandard workers (predomi­
nantly independent contractors and workers contracting with
a temporary agency) in an industry increases the utilization of
flexible starting and ending times.25 Whichever of these alter­
natives is true, it suggests that nonstandard workers are de­
ployed in part as a complementary method for employers to
achieve numerical flexibility of labor, along with variable work­
weeks and flexible scheduling.
Table 4 reveals that the frequency distribution of flexible
scheduling across ranges of usual weekly hours is U shaped.
Only 22.7 percent of workers reporting that they usually worked
40 hours per week have flexibility in scheduling. This figure is
distinctly lower than the 33 percent of those working 41 to 49
hours per week and the 33 percent of those in the 35-to-39hours bracket. Also, it is far below the 52 percent with flexible
schedules who report averaging 50 or more hours per week,
and it falls well short of the 45 percent and 62 percent working
21-34 and 1-20 hours per week, respectively. Notwithstand­
ing this latter correlation with fewer hours, workers’ access to
flexible scheduling is positively correlated with the usual length
of their workweek (p = 0.55). Among major occupations, this
correlation is highest in protective service jobs, with manage­
rial and administrative jobs coming in second. The correlation
is negative for administrative support workers, suggesting that
clerical workers must actually reduce the length of their work­


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

week—for example, to part time— in order to gain greater flex­
ibility in the daily timing of their work. The following tabula­
tion reinforces this pattern, showing that both mean usual
hours and actual hours are longer for full-time workers:
M ean

M ea n u su a l h o u rs

a c tu a l h o u rs,
T y p e o f s c h e d u le

F u ll-tim e

fu ll-tim e

w o rk ers

w o rk ers

o n ly

o n ly

33.7
35.6

45.82
42.69

47.32
43.93

-1.9

3.13

3.39

A ll
w o rk ers

Flexible............................
Inflexible........................
Difference (flexible
minus inflexible).........

Correlation coefficient, usual and actual hours =.885

This tabulation suggests, perhaps more persuasively than
the evidence provided by table 3, that full-time workers with
daily flexibility tend to work 3 or more additional (usual or
actual) hours per week than those with fixed schedules.
In contrast, there is surprisingly little correlation between
whether a worker has a flexible schedule and the worker’s
personal demographic characteristics. For example, by major
occupation, the highest correlation coefficient between one’s
marital status and flexibility is +0.23, for the managerial posi­
tions. Interestingly, the managerial occupations appear to yield
slightly less flexibility in schedule for women and for non­
whites (with correlation coefficients of about -0.20 and -0.26,
respectively). However, in the same occupation, age is some­
what positively correlated with flexible schedules, with a correla­
tion coefficient of 0.34, the highest among all major occupa­
tional categories. Education level, by contrast, has virtually
no measurable correlation with flexible schedules, although
by occupation, less education is slightly associated with less
flexibility in farming and in sales occupations and with more
flexibility for those with college degrees in professional occu­
pations. Finally, being usually on full-time status actually hin­
ders the access of administrative support workers to flexible
schedules (-0.51), as it does (although less so) for those in
craft, laborer, farming, and machine operator jobs. All this
suggests that lesser skilled workers and traditionally disad­
vantaged demographic groups have slightly less access to
flexibility in their schedules, particularly if they are working
full-time jobs.
Table 3 also shows the somewhat inverse relationship
between unemployment and flexible scheduling by detailed
industry (p= -0.30). The relationship suggests that labor
shortages tend to give rise to more use of flexible sched­
ules, while labor surpluses stifle flextime somewhat. By way
of contrast, the unemployment rate has a negligible asso­
ciation with both the variability of hours and the propor­
tion of nonstandard workers. Thus, part of the increase in
the availability of flexible schedules to workers is attributMonthly Labor Review

March 2001

55

Flexible Work Schedules

Proportions of workers with flexible, variable, and long work hours, and correlations, by detailed industry,
May 1997
Percent
on
flexible
schedule

Percent
working
more than
45 hours
per week

Percent
whose
hours
vary

Percent of
nonstandard
workforce1

Agricultural se rv ic e s .............................................
Agriculture, o th e r....................................................
M ining.....................................................................
Construction...........................................................
Lum ber....................................................................
Furniture..................................................................
Stone and g la s s .....................................................
Primary m e ta ls ......................................................
Fabricated m e ta ls ..................................................
Machinery, nonelectric..........................................
Machinery, electric.................................................
Motor vehicles........................................................
A irc ra ft....................................................................
Other transportation equipm ent...........................
Professional, photo, and watches........................
Toys and sporting go o d s.......................................
Miscellaneous m anufacturing..............................
F o o d ........................................................................

45.5
62.3
24.1
34.9
21.8
20.8
21.8
14.4
19.9
26.3
26.4
15.8
30.2
29.1
33.0
28.6
30.7
17.7

17.3
31.5
29.2
19.4
22.4
19.6
23.6
27.9
24.8
33.8
24.7
33.4
26.5
21.2
24.9
19.4
22.0
24.7

21.8
27.3
9.6
13.6
9.9
3.4
5.1
5.6
4.5
4.2
3.7
2.9
7.1
3.0
1.4
10.6
6.3
6.8

35.9
14.1
7.3
30.4
7.9
4.9
5.3
.3
3.9
3.7
3.8
2.7
3.4
2.1
3.2
3.2
8.1
2.4

1.6
1.3
2.7
2.3
2.8
1.3
2.1
4.2
2.8
3.1
2.1
3.1
7.0
1.5
.6
4.8
1.1
2.5

.8
1.5
.5
6.3
.7
.6
.5
.6
1.1
2.0
1.5
1.0
.4
.4
.6
.1
.4
1.3

Tobacco ...................................................................
Textiles....................................................................
A pparel....................................................................
Paper.......................................................................
Printing and publishing..........................................
C hem icals...............................................................

15.4
10.0
13.7
16.9
34.8
31.7

5.0
15.7
14.1
23.9
22.1
28.8

17.5
9.8
3.6
6.2
6.5
5.4

4.1
3.3
4.3
2.4
7.8
2.4

7.7
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.4
2.2

.1
.5
.7
.5
1.4
1.0

Petroleum and c o a l...............................................
Rubber and pla s tic .................................................
Leather....................................................................
Transportation........................................................
Comm unication......................................................
U tilitie s ........................................................
WholesaleTrade......................................................
Eating and drinking.................................................
Other retail tra d e ....................................................
Banking and fin a n c e .............................................
Insurance and real e s ta te .....................................
Private household s e rvice ....................................
Business s e rv ic e s .................................................
Auto repair services..............................................
Personal service s..................................................
Entertainment and recreation...............................
H ospita ls.................................................................
Health services......................................................
Educational services.............................................
Social s e rv ic e s ......................................................
Other professional s e rvice s................................
Forestry and fis h e rie s..........................................
Justice, public order, and safe ty.........................
Administration of human resources.....................
National security, in te rn a l.....................................
Other public adm inistration...................................
No industry response g iv e n ................................

32.1
15.5
13.3
26.1
31.3
22.2
36.7
29.0
34.1
28.2
47.5
41.7
37.3
39.8
37.5
35.4
22.8
28.2
19.3
30.6
49.4
63.9
20.7
38.2
35.9
34.4

28.3
19.5
10.2
25.1
23.3
16.4
30.5
13.8
18.6
22.5
19.9
11.2
21.2
27.1
14.6
17.2
9.7
12.8
17.0
14.2
29.0
26.8
20.6
5.0
11.5
9.6

5.6
4.7
4.6
12.4
4.7
4.6
6.3
10.6
8.8
4.3
9.1
21.2
8.7
13.6
13.5
12.7
6.3
7.2
6.0
6.1
10.6
18.4
3.8
2.2
3.4
2.7

3.4
3.1
.0
10.8
4.2
3.8
7.8
4.1
6.3
4.4
15.1
27.7
33.0
16.8
13.5
14.3
3.7
8.5
4.5
8.6
18.1
18.1
3.2
.0
2.1
1.6

1.2
2.3
5.0
2.4
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.7
2.3
2.9
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.0
2.9
2.2
3.3
2.5
2.2
3.8
1.8
2.3

.1
.7
.1
4.4
1.2
1.1
3.8
5.1
11.4
2.7
3.4
.7
4.9
1.8
2.6
1.8
3.9
4.9
8.0
2.5
4.6
.1
1.7
.7
.5
1.4
1.5

.27

.60

.60

i
CO
o

Table 3

Correlations with percentage of
workers with a flexible schedule.......................
Correlations with percentage of
workers whose hours v a ry................................

1 Data from February 1997 Contingent Work Supplement to the

.69

cps .

N ote : Armed Services employment is omitted. “Other metals” industry

56 Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Unemployment
rate
(percent)

-*•

Detailed industry

had a very small sample size and was omitted from the table.

Percent
of all
workers

able to the prolonged cyclical expansion of the 1990s: em­
ployers may have been offering such flexibility to recruit
and retain workers as labor markets tightened.26

Likely users of flexible schedules
Which factors explain the cross-sectional variation among in­
dividuals in their access to flexibility in their daily schedules?
The probability that a given worker in the sample will be on a
flexible schedule or will work variable hours is likely to be
linked to both the worker’s demographic characteristics and
the characteristics of his or her job. To answer the preceding
question requires econometric estimations, conducted by merg­
ing the cps Supplement with the regular cps questions contain­
ing information regarding the personal and work characteris­
tics of the employed. Whether an individual reports that he or
she has the flexibility to control either the starting or ending
time of the workday may depend on four general sets of fac­
tors: (1) personal characteristics, such as gender, race, marital
status, and age; (2) human-capital characteristics, such as one’s
education level and whether one attended college in conjunc­
tion with working; (3) job characteristics, such as the occupa­
tion and industry in which the worker is employed, whether
the individual is self-employed, and whether he or she is a
union member; and (4) one’s work hours status, such as whether
one usually works full time or part time, the actual average
duration of one’s weekly hours, whether one works on a non­
standard time schedule, and whether the length of one’s work­
week is variable.27
The likelihood that an individual in the sample has a flexible
work schedule (F) is estimated. A virtually identical model is
then estimated for the likelihood of having variable hours (VOIn each case, the likelihood is determined by a worker’s per­
sonal (X) as well as job (Y) characteristics and the vector of
estimated coefficients— (3 and 8, respectively:

■

1 Percentage of workers with flexible schedules,
by average-usual-weekly-hours bracket,
May 1997
Percent with
flexible
schedule

Hours

1 - 2 0 ...............................
21-34 .............................
35-39 .............................
4 0 ....................................
41-49 .............................
50 or m o re ......................
Hours vary:
Full-timers....................
Part-timers...................

Number in
supplement
sample with
flexible
schedule

62.2
45.0
33.2
22.7
33.3
52.2

2,492
1,584
1,393
5,585
2,053
5,550

61.2
72.8

2,770
1,075

Table 6 contains the results when “usual full-time status” is
broken out into five different work-hour classifications (with
at least one omitted, to serve as a reference group). Table 7
presents the results when workers’ detailed occupational and
industry classifications are controlled for.
The clear pattern that emerges from the empirical results is
that, while many personal characteristics either significantly
improve or diminish the likelihood of having flexibility in one’s
work schedule, access to such flexibility is significantly af­
fected by the workers’ job status and work-hour classification.
On the personal side, nonwhites are about 50 percent to 60
percent less likely than whites to be on a flexible work sched­
ule. Women also are significantly less likely than men to have
such flexibility, by roughly the same percentage. However, this
lack of access appears to be attributable in large part to the
occupational segregation of women: their reduced likelihood
of flexibility shrinks down to less than a 10-percent greater
disadvantage relative to men when major occupational con­
trols are included in the analysis and to no more than a 4percent disadvantage when detailed occupational controls are
included. Indeed, the relatively lower access of women to daily
flexibility is not significantly different from zero if their detailed
F i ,V i = a + X i P
+ Y.t 8 + £
industry, as well as occupation, is taken into account.
Access to flexible schedules is gained with age, although it
The model is estimated with the use of probit analysis. The
dependent variable is bivariate, taking on a value of unity if the tapers off at older ages. Controlling for the occupational distri­
worker answers that he or she has “flexible work hours that bution, as well as some other job factors, however, indicates
allow you to vary or make changes in the time you begin and an exponential effect of age. This effect suggests that experi­
end work.” The estimated coefficients represent the marginal ence, seniority, or job tenure helps workers gain more access
probabilities that an individual possessing a given character­ to control over the timing of their workday.
Married workers are significantly more likely than unmar­
istic has access to a flexible daily work schedule.28
Table 5 displays the regression results of the model, begin­ ried workers to have a flexible work schedule, although the
ning with demographic variables only and then adding sets of magnitude of significance is small—on the order of about 8
explanatory variables progressively rightward by column. The percent. This greater likelihood may reflect either the fact that
inclusion of job status, occupation, and usual full- or part-time married workers are more likely to be parents and are offered,
status appears to improve the overall explanatory power of the perhaps informally, a greater degree of flexibility by employers
model. Neither the estimates nor the significance of the coeffi­ compared with unmarried workers or the fact that married work­
cients proved very sensitive to the model specified, with a few ers are more apt to utilize formal flextime systems that employ­
minor exceptions, such as the demographic characteristics. ers have instituted in the workplace.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

57

Flexible Work Schedules

Table 5.

Likelihood of having flexible starting and ending times, probit estimates, marginal effect
of personal and work characteristics

Variable

A g e .......................................
Age squ ared........................
Doctoral d e gree..................
Master’s degree..................
Bachelor’s degree...............
Associate’s degree.............
Some college.......................
High school d ip lo m a ...........
Less than high s c h o o l........
Nonwhite..............................
Female..................................
M arried.................................
College s tu d e n t..................
Self-employed......................
Union member......................

Coefficient

z-statistic

Coefficient

0.0907
-.0010
-.3750
.3046
.1834
-.3638
-.1523
-.4030
-.8019
-.4911
-.2787
.1524

49.625
-50.804
-5.617
9.486
7.117
-10.803
-5.967
-16.315
-29.221
-32.488
-28.408
13.638

0.0847
-.0009
-.2124
.4276
.2272
-.1872
-.0619
-.2612
-.6604
-.6011
-.2369
.1255
.1979
1.4975
.0734

z-statistic

44.01
-45.70
-3.11
12.73
8.42
-5.39
-2.31
-10.08
-22.96
-37.97
-23.45
10.94
5.54
64.96
1.94

Coefficient

-0.0079
.0004
.5128
.6236
.4694
.1246
.1651
.1150
-.1445
-.4622
-.0357
.0925
.5042
1.0746
.0563

z-statistic

-2.79
11.67
5.45
15.53
15.04
3.13
5.26
3.76
-4.09
-25.41
-2.62
6.78
11.33
43.10
1.42

Usually work part tim e ........
Usually work full tim e ..........
Occupation:1
Managerial........................
Professional.....................
Technicians......................
S ales................................
Administrative s u p p o rt....
and c lerica l..................
Other s e rvice ..................
C ra ft..................................
O perators.........................
Transportation.................
Laborers...........................
Farming............................
C onstant..............................

-2.1217

Pseudo R 2 ..........................
...........................................

.136
56,982

n

-45.199

-2.1796
.186
88,728

’ Protective service is dropped due to multicollinearity. Private household
service also is omitted.
N otes : Regression results begin with demographic variables and add

Finally, workers’ levels of education influence their access
to flexible schedules, although not quite in a linear fashion.29
Workers who have not finished high school are highly likely to
be excluded from flexibility in their schedules. Interestingly, so
are those with doctoral degrees, although this is entirely at­
tributable to their occupational distribution. Also, a worker
who is simultaneously attending college is significantly more
likely to be on a flexible schedule, again indicating either that
employers are more accommodating to these individuals or
that those workers are more apt to request or take advantage
of flextime. The results suggest that, given one’s occupation,
workers enhance their access to flexibility either by enrolling
in or completing college, especially when they earn an ad­
vanced degree.
Perhaps the most fascinating results are the differences by
workers’ usual hours. Tables 5 and 6 show that being a parttime worker more than doubles a person’s chances of having
flexible starting and ending times for work. However, table 7
reveals that about half of this increased likelihood is traceable
58 Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

-43.79

Coefficient

z-statistic

0.0116
.0001
.5042
.6188
.4475
.1436
.1113
.0688
-.2693
-.5853
-.1000
.1079
.2780

3.98
3.58
5.33
15.30
14.22
3.59
3.51
2.23
-7.51
-30.91
-7.20
7.71
6.11

.1068

2.67

.9039
-.4794

21.57
-28.50

.6737
.4672
.5920
.7076

4.30
2.95
3.59
4.53

.7413
.5201
.6149
.7019

4.78
3.32
3.76
4.54

.1220
.2191
.2614
-.2784
.1599
.0356
.8337

.78
1.39
1.67
-1.75
1.01
.22
5.23

.0775
.0669
.2594
-.2348
.1901
-.0151
.7990

.50
.43
1.67
-1.49
1.21
-.1 0
5.06

-1.3195

-7.85

-1.2122

-7.27

.185
56,982

.208
56,982

sets of explanatory variables progressively rightward by column. Dependent
variable = 1 if worker reports being able to vary starting or ending times of
work.

to the detailed occupation or industry in which the worker is
employed. At the other end of the spectrum, workers who
report very long hours—more than 50 hours per week— in­
crease their likelihood of having a greater influence over the
starting and ending times of their work, by 8 percent to 21
percent.30 In contrast, working exactly 40 hours per week is
associated with a less flexible schedule, on the order of about
15 to 22 percent. Somewhat surprisingly, the flexibility payoff
to working longer hours is not delivered to those working in
the range of 41 to 49 hours per week (or to those working 35 to
39 hours per week). Thus, only workers who average at least
10 hours a day in a traditional 5-day workweek, or workers who
put in at least 1 extra day per week, have a greater likelihood of
being able to alter either the starting or ending time of their
typical workday.
Reporting that the usual number of hours vary too widely
from week to week to be specified precisely is strongly posi­
tively associated with having more flexibility in one’s sched­
ule, significantly heightening the likelihood of having a flex-

ible starting or ending time by 0.68 to 0.78 basis point. What is
more, the association is even stronger for part-time workers
whose hours usually vary. The suggestion is that workers
with an enhanced ability to alter their daily starting or ending
time for work are trading off stability in their usual weekly
number of hours. In this regard, working on a “standard” day
schedule reduces the likelihood that a worker has a flexible
work schedule by 0.16 to 0.50 basis point. (Working on a gen­
erally nonstandard schedule increases the probability, by an
even greater 0.75 point.) Working on nonstandard shift time,
however, does not guarantee having more flexible starting and
ending times: Those working an evening shift do improve thenaccess to flexibility in their schedules, but those working the
night shift actually have a reduced likelihood of flexible times.
Those who report working on an irregular schedule arranged
by their employer, presumably some (nonrotating) mix of regu­
lar day, evening, or night shifts, do gain some flexibility by
working such irregular shifts.
For many workers, their occupation may influence their ac­
cess to flexibility. Among major occupational classifications,
when individual characteristics of workers are controlled for in
the analysis, managerial, professional, technical, sales, and
farming jobs provide greater access to flexibility in the sched­
ule. Service (other than household or protective) and craft
jobs may weakly enhance workers’ chances of attaining flex­
ibility.31 Operators appear to get reduced access to flexibility,
although not necessarily significantly, because the reduction
is not robust to all model specifications.
Among detailed occupations, a worker’s probability of hav­
ing a flexible daily schedule is increased significantly if the
worker is employed in a few particular occupations: mathemat­
ics and computer science professional; freight, stock, and ma­
terial handler; and farm worker. The likelihood of having
access to flexibility rises somewhat for those in secretarial po­
sitions. In contrast, as many as 13 detailed occupational clas­
sifications, including health assessment and treating occupa­
tions, lawyers and judges, supervisors of clericals, financial
records and processing occupations, protective service, food
service, precision production, construction trades, and fabri­
cators, assemblers, inspectors, and samplers, yield a reduced
likelihood of having flexibility, all other things being equal. To
a lesser degree, computer equipment operator, cleaning and
building services, and construction laborer occupations also
may offer less flexibility in the work schedule.32
A few of the detailed industry classifications shown in table
7 significantly alter the likelihood of attaining flexibility when
the worker’s occupation and other characteristics are taken
into account. (No one major industry classification, however,
significantly alters the likelihood of having flexibility.) Only six
of the detailed industries enhance the worker’s chances of
attaining a flexible schedule— in order of size of the industry’s
positive effect, justice and public safety; manufacturing of
transportation equipment; manufacturing other than motor


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

vehicles, aircraft, and miscellaneous industries; educational
services; construction (perhaps weakly); and toys and sport­
ing goods manufacturing (again, perhaps weakly). No nonagricultural industries of note significantly reduce a worker’s ac­
cess to flexibility, taking into account the worker’s occupation
and other characteristics.
While the industry in which one’s job is located may have
limited bearing on the likelihood of having access to flexible
scheduling, controlling for industry in the analysis does af­
fect the likelihood of some occupations being associated with
greater flexibility. For example, the greater flexibility enjoyed
by both mathematical and computer scientists (and perhaps
weakly by those in secretarial positions) is attributable at least
in part to the industry distribution of these jobs. In addition,
the reduced likelihood of access to a flexible schedule en­
dured by workers in health assessment and treating occupa­
tions, lawyers and judges, computer equipment operators,
and perhaps food service employees is attributable to their
concentration in certain industries in which work schedules
tend to be inflexible.
Working in either Federal or local branches of government
reduces the likelihood of having a flexible schedule. This is
surprising, given the efforts of the Federal Government over
the last two decades to establish more flextime work schedules
for Federal employees, in part as a model to be exported to the
private sector. In addition, it is unexpected, given the ability of
State and local governments to substitute compensatory time
in lieu of pay for overtime hours if such an arrangement is
formally agreed upon by individuals or collective bargaining
agents. Apparently, such a policy does not translate into more
flexibility for workers in their daily working hours.33
Being self-employed rather than a payroll employee more than
doubles the likelihood that a worker has the ability to vary his or
her starting and ending times of work. Indeed, having a flexible
schedule is clearly a major reason to become self-employed, de­
spite the fact that the average number of hours the self-employed
spend working is relatively longer than that of payroll employ­
ees.34 Similarly, being a union member tends to improve a worker’s
access to flexibility, although the effect is neither particularly
strong nor always significant. (For example, the positive effect
dissipates when the worker’s industry is also taken into account.)
The positive effect, however, is counterintuitive, running counter
to a conventional assumption and a past empirical finding that
union membership is associated with less individual control over
one’s work time.35
Finally, being paid on an hourly basis appears to diminish a
worker’s access to a flexible schedule, at least among the
subsample of the c ps that is asked a question pertaining to that
category. However, being paid on a nonhourly basis does not
appear to be significantly related to the likelihood of having
flexiblity, although observations on the category are available
only for the outgoing rotation (quarter sample) for May 1997.
In sum, more than 1 in 4 employed individuals now have
Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

59

Flexible Work Schedules

1 Likelihood of having flexible starting and ending times, probit estimates marginal effect of work-hour
characteristics
Controls added for—
Variable

Long hours
Coefficient

Standard hours

z-

statistic

Nonstandard hours

Government

zCoCoZr
CozCoefficient statistic efficient statisti« :efficient statistic efficient

Shifts

zCostatistic efficient

A g e ......................
Age squ ared.......
Doctoral d e gree..
Master’s degree..
Bachelor’s
d e gree................
Associate’s
degree.............
Some college.....
High school
d ip lo m a ..........
Less than high
s c h o o l.............
Nonwhite.............
Female................
Married ...............
College s tu d e n t..
Federal
Governm ent....
State government
Local government
Self-employed....
Union member....

-0.0006
.0003
.4884
.6181

-0.19
8.61
5.16
15.21

0.0017
.0003
.5209
.6834

0.60
7.59
5.49
16.70

0.0024
.0002
.4054
.5086

0.82
7.44
4.28
12.26

0.0017
.0002
.4205
.5109

0.60
7.50
4.44
12.30

0.0723
-.0007
-.1482
.4486

36.17
-35.32
-2.10
12.98

-0.0007
.0003
.4659
.6426

.4327

13.73

.4395

13.96

.3683

11.47

.3983

12.35

.2242

8.13

.1476
.1374

3.69
4.34

.1818
.1558

4.54
4.92

.0866
.0580

2.14
1.79

.0976
.0728

2.41
2.24

-.1380
-.0125

.0935

3.03

.1205

3.91

.0285

.91

.0329

1.05

-.2013
-.5493
-.0712
.0773
.3824

-5.63
-29.25
-5.13
5.56
8.49

-.1770
-.5508
-.0858
.0749
.0452

-4.94
-29.29
-6.15
5.37
.00

1.0091
.0374

39.47
.93

1.0130
.0715

39.65
1.77

Usual part time ...
Standard d a y .....
Workweek:
50 or more
hours...............
41-49 h o u rs ....
40 h o u rs ...........
35-39 h o u rs ....
Hours v ary.........

1.2024
-.2945

29.73
-19.70

1.1132
-.2449

27.24
-16.02

.1806

10.95

.0780

4.39

-.2205

-15.35

Zr
Costatistic efficient

-0.25
11.93
5.81
17.61

.4106

13.12

.4815

15.07

-3.86
-.4 5

.1368
.1515

3.42
4.84

.2278
.1995

5.61
6.22

-.2280

-8.55

.0485

1.59

.1267

4.04

-.2824
-7.75
-.5752 -30.54
-.0586
-4.20
.0935
6.67
.3570
7.91

-.5782
-.6324
-.2057
.0851
.2488

-19.32
-37.25
-19.43
7.19
6.65

-.2428
-.5276
-.1093
-.1062
.3540

-6.82
-27.98
-7.84
7.61
7.78

1.0120
.0259

39.45
.65

-.3411
-.0301
-.6343
1.4499
.0641

-5.05
-.2 5
-8.98
61.58
1.63

1.1109
.0682

43.80
1.71

1.0148
.0888

39.86
2.19

1.1862
29.31
-.2880 -19.28

1.1595
28.60
-.2748 -18.37

1.4860
.4968

37.72
36.35

1.1466

28.46

.6603

15.04

7.37
.1249
-.2880 -14.05

.0834
4.82
-.3184 -15.42

.2114
-.1145
-.1592
-.1985

11.25
-5.44
-10.08
-7.54

.1555

8.58

-.1455

-9.85

.6796

27.60

-.2794
-7.68
-.5677 -30.12
-.0668
-4.80
.0818
5.86
.3695
8.20

.9894
.0300

38.53
.75

-12.68

-.1456
^ .0 1
-.5962 -31.21
-.0418
-2.97
.0787
5.64
.3932
8.71

.7584
.5699
.6484
.7492

4.87
3.63
3.96
4.83

.7457
.5624
.6659
.7066

4.78
3.57
4.05
4.54

.7799
.5794
.6190
.7613

5.04
3.71
3.80
4.93

.6800
.5147
.5653
.7121

4.35
3.26
3.44
4.57

.6354
.4281
.5549
.6014

4.04
2.69
3.35
3.83

.1991
.1599
.3403
-.2295
.1527
.0580
.8608

1.28
1.02
2.18
-1.45
.97
.37
5.43

.1953
.1126
.3409
-.2087
.1360
.0489
.8287

1.25
.72
2.18
-1.32
.86
.31
5.21

.1631
.1432
.3093
-.2542
.1489
.0313
.8401

1.05
.92
2.00
-1.62
.95
.20
5.33

.1317
.1717
.2943
-.2302
.0987
.0401
.8387

.84
1.09
1.88
-1.45
.62
.25
5.27

.0502
.1118
.2130
-.2852
.0366
-.0249
.6538

.32
.70
1.35
-1.79
.23
-.1 6
4.08

-7.00

Work shift:
E vening............
N ig h t.................
Irregular............

.1552
-.3628
.8302

4.66
-6.79
30.26

—45.05

-1.4494

-8.62 -1.1835

Constant.............

-1.2742

-1.1943

-7.17 -2.3067

Pseudo R 2 = ......
Chi-square..........
n ..........................

.198
15,200
56,982

.207
15,824
56,982

.226
23,054
56,982

.2080
15,953
56,982

.2620
26,786
56,982

.2180
16,072
56,982

.21
16,346
56,982

Logarithm
of likelihood.....

-30,618

-30,306

-39,689

-30,241

-37,823

-30,182

-30,046

N ote :

-7.62

-1.2389

-7.39

Dependent variable = 1 if worker reports being able to vary starting or ending times of work.

60 Monthly Labor Review


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

Zr

statistic

-0.25 -0.0112
8.65
.0004
4.94
.5548
16.02
.7258

-.3330

Occupation:
Managerial........
P rofessional....
Technicians.......
S a le s ................
Administrative
support
and clerical....
Other service....
C ra ft.................
O perators.........
Transportation...
Laborers...........
Farming.............

Hours vary

March 2001

I

P ro b it e s tim a te s o f lik e lih o o d o f h a v in g a fle x ib le s c h e d u le , b y d e t a ile d in d u s try a n d o c c u p a t io n
D etailed o ccu pation s
a n d industries

D etailed o ccu pation s
Has a fle x ib le s c he dule
C oefficie nt

z-statistic

C oefficie nt

z-statistic

A g e ............. ......................................................
Age squ ared.....................................................
Doctoral d e gree................................................
Master’s degree................................................
Bachelor’s degree............................................
Associate’s degree..........................................
Some college....................................................
High school d ip lo m a ........................................
Less than high s c h o o l.....................................
Nonwhite...........................................................
Female...............................................................
M arried..............................................................
College s tu d e n t................................................
Self-employed...................................................
Union member...................................................

-0.0061
.0003
.5850
.6244
.4868
.4891
.2253
.1631
-.0581
-.4804
.0372
.0301
.4100
.9116
.1335

-2.05
9.84
5.51
14.88
14.87
11.26
6.83
5.06
-1.55
-24.06
2.53
2.07
9.00
34.88
3.21

-0.0092
.0004
.3997
.5354
.3950
.3984
.1615
.0879
-.1612
-.5420
.0299
.0038
.4625
.9072
.0672

-2.08
7.26
2.66
8.74
8.25
6.26
3.35
1.86
-2.93
-18.27
1.37
.18
6.92
23.79
1.08

Usual part tim e ................................................
Hours v a ry .......................................................
50 or more h o u rs............................................
40 h o u rs ..........................................................

.5932
.6964
.1391
-.2109

13.09
26.32
7.33
-13.68

.5403
.7764
.1856
-.1610

8.14
19.64
6.62
-7.02

-.8078
.3707
-.2200
.2161
1.0590
.3930
-.7195
.2424
.1940
-.8261
.2144
.1810
.0466
.0976
.3056

-1.20
1.17
-.6 9
.67
3.29
1.15
-2.03
.68
.45
-2.58
.61
.56
.14
.31
.96

-.7974
.2462
-.4208
.1292
.8573
.1376
-.8733
.0909
.2139
-.7974
.2620
.1058
-.0203
-.1349
.1422

-.9 8
.48
-.8 2
.25
1.66
.26
-1.52
.16
.30
-1.55
.47
.20
-.0 4
-.2 6
.28

.2717

.84

.0746

.14

-.0489
-.3770
-.2508
-1.7555
-.6500
.6078
-.8195
-.4437
-.4278
-.1586
-1.8389
-.9237
-.0734
-.6172
.1453
-.5083
-.7694
-.6456
-.2751
-.7433
-.5228
-.3105
-.6008
.6986
.0074
-.1051

-.1 5
-.92
-.7 4
-5.28
-2.03
1.89
-2.49
-1.39
-1.21
-.5 0
-4.91
-2.85
.21
-1.93
.46
-1.59
-2.40
-2.01
-.8 6
-2.29
-1.61
-.9 6
-1.86
2.16
.02
-.2 7

-.2248
-.9819
-.4640
-2.1924
-.7905
.3816
-1.0371
-6010
-.4703
-.4248
-2.2914
-.9996
-.3479
-.7901
-.0310
-.6617
-.9669
-.7449
-.4198
-.9880
-.6945
-.4340
-.8215
.6082
-.2672
-.5871

-.4 4
-1.53
-.8 7
-4.05
-1.54
.74
-1.97
-1.18
-.8 4
-.8 3
-3.54
-1.93
-.6 4
-1.54
-.0 6
-1.29
-1.88
-1.45
-.8 2
-1.90
-1.34
-.8 4
-1.59
1.17
-.5 2
-.9 6

Occupation:1
Public administration....................................
Managers......................................................
Management related.....................................
Engineers......................................................
Mathematical scientists..............................
Natural scientists.........................................
Health assessment and tre a tin g ................
Teachers, college and un ive rsity...............
Teachers, except college and university ...
Lawyers and ju d g e s .....................................
Other professional.......................................
Health technicians.......................................
Engineering and science tech nicians........
Other tech nicians........................................
Sales supervisors and proprietors.............
Sales representatives, finance
and business services..............................
Sales representatives, commodities...........
excluding re tail...........................................
Sales, retail and personal service s........
Sales-related occupations.......................
Supervisors, administrative support.......
Computer equipment operators...............
Secretaries, stenographers, and typists
Financial records, processing.................
Mail and message distributing................
Other administrative s up port..................
Private household service.......................
Protective service occupations..............
Food service occupations.......................
Health service occupations.....................
Cleaning and building service.................
Personal service occupations................
Mechanics and repairers.........................
Construction tra d e s..................................
Other precision production......................
Machine operators and tenders..............
Fabricators................................................
Motor vehicle operators...........................
Other transportation................................
Construction la b o r....................................
Freight handlers........................................
Other handlers and laborers....................
Farm operators.........................................
See footnotes at end of table.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

61

Flexible Work Schedules

IQ S U iE f

C o n t in u e d — P ro b it e s tim a te s o f lik e lih o o d o f h a v in g a fle x ib le s c h e d u le , b y d e t a ile d in d u s try a n d o c c u p a t io n
D etailed occu p a tio n s
a n d industries

D etailed o ccu pation s
Has a fle x ib le s c he dule
C oefficie nt

Farmworkers........................................................
Forestry occupations..........................................

.3663
-.0406

z-statistic

C oefficie nt

8.59
-.19

.2545
-.3789

4.02
-1.10

.0794
-.1121
.1363
.0711
-.0202
.1209
-.1793
.2038
.0253
-.0132
.0605
.1361
.0884
.0141
.3267
-.0889
.2266
.1830
.0916
-.0647
.0766
.0950
.0913
.0311
-.0329
.1580
-.3239
-.0004
-.1913
-.3709
-.2619
-.2337
-.3039
-.2393
-.2316
-.3241
-.1966
-.1674
-.2177
-.1075
.0347
.0936
.0491
-.0389
.0653
.4015
.0908
-.1901
-.0775
.1265
.5886

.91
-1.73
1.16
1.89
-.1 7
.95
-1.31
1.52
.28
-.1 9
.76
1.39
.54
.10
2.68
-.3 5
1.84
2.36
.20
-.4 2
.73
.76
1.18
.37
-.1 5
1.38
-1.01
-.01
-.4 3
-.8 3
-.5 9
-.5 3
-.6 9
-.5 4
-.5 2
-.7 2
-.4 4
-.3 8
-.4 9
-1.60
.74
2.16
1.43
-.6 6
1.52

-.6116

-1.18

Detailed Industry:..................................................
Agricultural services...........................................
Agricultural, o th e r................................................
M ining...................................................................
C onstruction........................................................
Lumber..................................................................
Furniture...............................................................
Stone and g la s s ..................................................
Primary m etals.....................................................
Fabricated m e tals................................................
Other m etals........................................................
Machinery, nonelectrical.....................................
Machinery, electrical...........................................
Motor veh icle s.....................................................
A ircraft..................................................................
Other transportation equipm ent.........................
Professional photos and w a tc h e s .....................
Toys and sporting g o o d s ....................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing............................
F o o d .....................................................................
Tobacco................................................................
T e xtiles.................................................................
A pparel.................................................................
P aper....................................................................
Printing and publishing.......................................
Chem icals.............................................................
Petroleum and c o a l.............................................
Rubber and plastic goods...................................
Leather.................................................................
Transportation......................................................
Communication....................................................
U tilities..................................................................
Wholesale tra d e ...................................................
Eating and drinking establishments..................
Other retail tra d e .................................................
Banking and finance...........................................
Business services...............................................
Automotive and repair services.........................
Personal services................................................
Entertainment and re creatio n............................
H ospita ls..............................................................
Health s e rv ic e s ...................................................
Educational services..........................................
Social services....................................................
Other professional se rv ic e s..............................
Forestry and fis h e rie s ........................................
Justice, public order, and safety.......................
Administration of human rig h ts ..........................
National security and internal affairs................
Other public administration.................................
Armed Fo rces......................................................
No industry re sponse.........................................
C onstant...............................................................
Pseudo

R 2

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

Logarithm of likelihood........................................
Chi-square............................................................
P rob> chi-square................................................

-.8766

-2.70

.252
56,982.0
-28,604.2

.255
26,247.0
-13,115.5

19,228.0

8,966.2

.000

1Health-diagnosing occupations, Armed Forces personnel, and the unemployed are dropped.

62 Monthly Labor Review

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

March 2001

z-statistic

1.97
1.25
-1.57
-.5 9
1.69
1.15

some flexibility in the daily timing of their work schedule. Still,
there are disparities in access to such flexibility across workers
according to their demographic, job, and work-hour character­
istics. The analysis suggests that workers who wish to gain
greater access to a flexible schedule sometimes must be willing
to work very long workweeks (50 or more hours), work regu­
larly nondaytime hours such as evening shifts, work irregular
shifts, work an unpredictable number of hours each week, or
make a transition to either part-time work or self-employment.
Otherwise, workers may have to make longer term and presum­
ably more costly mobility decisions, including pursuing fur­
ther education credentials or switching to a different occupa­
tion or industry that tends not to utilize a standard 40-hour
workweek as a norm. Thus, workers with a strong need or
preference for daily flexibility in their work schedule may have
to forgo leisure time, endure long-term reductions in income,
or pay the costs associated with searching for a new job.

Likelihood of volatile hours
Table 8 shows that having variable hours, as evidenced by the
respondent’s reporting that his or her usual number of hours is
impossible to specify, is a condition strongly influenced by
several work characteristics as well as demographic factors.
Being nonwhite heightens the marginal probability of having
volatile hours, as does being female. However, almost half of
the higher probability of having unstable workweeks for non­
whites, as well as all of the higher probability for women, is
attributable to the distribution of the two groups’ employment
across industries, in effect reflecting industry segregation in
employment. Married workers have a 9-percent to 19-percent
lower likelihood of facing variable workweeks.
Being a government employee or a union member is associ­
ated with having a more predictable workweek length. Some of
the workweek-stabilizing effect of unionism is traceable either
to the detailed industry distribution of union jobs or to em­
ployment in government. Public-sector employment at all three
levels—Federal, State, and especially local government—re­
duces the probability of having variable work hours. Self-em­
ployment increases the chances of having variable hours, due
to the nature of the job, not the detailed industry in which the
occupation is located.
Perhaps the most revealing finding of the analysis is that
having variable hours is strongly positively associated with
usually working part time, more than doubling the likelihood of
having hours that vary weekly. Part-timers tend to face much
more unpredictability in their workweeks than full-timers are
confronted with. Indeed, usually working full time reduces the
chances of having an unpredictable workweek by more than
40 percent, an assiciation which suggests that part-time work­
ers specifically may be used by employers to absorb fluctua­
tions in workload via changes in their number of hours or days
at work. This use of part-time workers serves to buffer full-time


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

employees’ hours of work. Furthermore, not surprisingly, given
the association revealed in the previous section’s findings,
having the ability to vary one’s daily schedule leads to a (68percent) greater likelihood of having a variable workweek length.
It then follows that workers with more access to flexible daily
starting and ending times, such as those with the shortest
hours and those with the longest hours, experience a more
unpredictable workweek length than those who are on fixed
daily schedules.
In addition, certain major occupations—executive, mana­
gerial, and administrative positions; professional occupations,
administrative support positions; and private household jobs—
reduce the chances of having volatile hours. (Farming occu­
pations make up the omitted category.) Those in craft jobs
also have reduced chances of working variable hours, but
this is due to the concentration of such jobs in certain indus­
tries. Conversely, machine operators, assemblers, and inspec­
tors; handlers, equipment cleaners, and laborers; and, to a
lesser extent, those in sales and service occupations other
than protective and household services are more likely to
work a variable-hour workweek. (Again, the last of these is in
large measure due to their detailed industry distribution.36
Note, however, that the reduced variability of hours in private
household jobs and in craft jobs, as well perhaps as the greater
variability of hours for sales workers, are attributable, to a
large extent, to the more flexible scheduling commonly associ­
ated with those occupational classifications.)
T he analysis presented in this article has resulted in se v ­
eral noteworthy em pirical findings:

1. Access to flexibility in one’s daily work schedule rose across
most types of jobs between 1991 and 1997, reaching more
than 27 percent of the labor force the latter year and more
than doubling since 1985. The form such access takes ap­
pears to be mainly in the differentiation and stretching out
of the available workday. This is because more than 40 per­
cent of the employed now regularly work past 5:00 p .m . each
day, and 28 percent begin work at or earlier than 7:30 a . m .
(Those starting early, of course, are not necessarily those
who stay late.)
2. Many workers are experiencing a tradeoff wherein they
work long usual weekly hours in full-time positions while
gaining greater access to flexibility in their work sched­
ules, because working in excess of 50 hours per week height­
ens the chances of obtaining a flexible work schedule. Given
that fewer workers are reporting that they work exactly 40
hours and more workers are indicating that they work 49 or
more hours,37 more workers may be willing to endure the
longer workweeks in order to get a more flexible work sched­
ule. However, it is possible that the attainment of flexibility
may be only a secondary aim of workers or may even be
just coincidental across occupations, because working long
Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

63

Flexible Work Schedules

Table 8. Likelihood that workers’ usual hours are variable
With major industry
controls

With controls for government employment

Category

With detailed industry
controls
i

Coefficient z-statistic
A g e .................................
Age squ ared.................
Doctoral degree............
Master’s degree............
Bachelor’s degree.........
Some college................
High school d ip lo m a ....
Less than high s c h o o l..
Nonwhite........................
Female...........................
M arried..........................
Union member...............
Self-employed...............
Federal G overnm ent....
State governm ent.........
Local governm ent.........
Flexible schedule..........
Usually work part time ..
Usually work full time....
Occupation:'
Managerial..................
Professional...............
S a le s ...........................
Administrative support
and cle ric a l............
Private household.......
Protective s e rv ic e ......
Other service..............
C ra ft............................
O pe rato rs....................
Transportation.............
Laborers......................

0.0239
-.0001
.0690
-.6728
-.2633
.1596
-.0424
-.0067
.3974
.1657
-.1088
-.3321

7.36
-1.87
.57
-11.34
-8.66
5.77
-1.59
-.2 0
19.21
9.59
-6.47
-5.40

Coefficient

z-statistic

0.0241
-.0001
.0745
-.6711
-.2630
.1723
-.0414
-.0076
.4194
.1606
-.1117
-.3024

7.42
-1.95
.62
-11.30
-8.65
6.21
-1.55
-.2 3
20.14
9.27
-6.64
-4.89

0.0223
-.0001
.0366
-.7455
-.2886
.2409
.0388
.1172
.4384
.1512
-.1910
-.2854

6.93
-2.74
.30
-12.57
-9.13
8.41
1.39
3.43
20.35
8.49
-10.94
—4.62

-.3954
-.4772
-.9416

-3.71
-2.37
-8.43

-.2784
-.4346
-.8272
.6818

-2.60
-2.10
-7.29
41.43

Coefficient z-statistic

Coefficient z-statistic

Coefficient

z-statistic

0.0789
-.0007
.0269
-.8231
-.3326
.0040
-.1964
-.2525
.2628
-.0035
-.0934
-.3037

21.05
-17.38
.22
-12.89
-10.55
.14
-7.02
-7.14
11.41
-.1 9
-5.12
-4.71

0.0707
-.0006
-.0048
-.8369
-.3875
-.0484
-.1912
-.2672
.2463
.0160
-.0994
-.2347
.5240

18.65
-15.33
-.0 4
-13.03
-12.16
-1.64
-6.79
-7.50
10.63
.84
-5.38
-3.63
22.05

2.3074
-.4514

53.28
-23.12

2.2862
-.4033

52.11
-20.29

-.2882
-.3503
.2679

-3.61
-3.90
3.47

-.2977
-.3576
.2527

-3.72
-3.97
3.26

-.3510
-.3281
.1628

—4.34
-3.60
2.08

-.2077
-.3461
.2639

-2.45
-3.60
3.21

-.2595
-.3579
.1323

-3.06
-3.72
1.61

-.2940
-.5099
.0450
.1738
-.2203
.2847
-.0110
.4651

-3.71
-1.90
.55
2.19
-2.61
3.41
-.1 3
5.61

-.2796
-.4489
.0327
.1679
-.2385
.2929
-.0196
.4543

-3.51
-1.70
.40
2.11
-2.81
3.50
-.2 3
5.47

-.2192
-.3418
.0885
.1656
-.0954
.3497
.0576
.3554

-2.72
-1.29
1.06
2.06
-1.11
4.13
.66
4.23

-.3894
-.6184
-.1235
.1778
-.1055
.3475
-.0481
.4734

-4.58
-2.00
-1.39
2.11
-1.18
3.93
-.52
5.36

-.3828
-.6146
-.1323
.1261
-.1333
.3022
-.0618
.4722

—4.51
-1.99
-1.49
1.50
-1.49
3.42
-.6 8
3.63

C onstant........................

-2.2633

-21.36

-2.2510

-21.22

-2.4176

-22.84

-2.8719

-25.00

.4641

5.27

Number of observations
Chi-square....................
Prob > chi-square.........
Pseudo R 2 .....................

62,427
3,399
0
.086

Logarithm of likelihood..

62,427
5,279
0
.134
-17,124

28,775

28,774

0
.245

0
.247
-6,906.2

1Technicians and farming are dropped.

hours also delivers an average hourly earnings premium
across most occupations38 and the greater income may be
workers’ primary goal. Alternatively, workers may get flex­
ibility in their schedules by switching to part-time jobs or
self-employment, by working evenings or irregular shifts,
or by choosing to work unpredictable hours. Thus, the
growing flexibility of work schedules may be producing a
greater willingness on the part of workers to work consid­
erably longer, considerably shorter, or less predictable
hours than the 40-hour workweek norm. Still, the various
causal connections may be muddied by the fact that some
employers in certain occupations and industries may be
increasingly inclined to offer more flexible scheduling in
order to foster greater commitment by and retention of
workers, either in conjunction with or in place of higher
wages. Such offers may in turn induce a greater willing­
64 Monthly Labor Review

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

March 2001

ness on the part of employees to accept long average hours.
Meanwhile, in other industries and occupations, employ­
ers may use more part-time or alternative-shift options to
accomplish the same end.
3. Access to daily flexibility in one’s schedule remains uneven
by sector and not equally shared across individuals. It is less
likely for nonwhites, women, unmarried persons, those with
relatively less education, and individuals employed in the
public sector. It is noticeably higher in many of the higher
skilled, lower unemployment occupations and industries.
4. Almost 10 percent of the workforce now has workweeks
that are variable and thus unpredictable from week to week.
Having such unstable hours is more likely among non­
whites, women, unmarried persons, those who work in the
private sector, those who are not members of a union, and
individuals in less skilled occupations. The variable work-

week is perhaps most prominent among part-time workers.
How this trend toward a destandardized workweek, workday,
and work schedule plays out over the next decade or so prom­
ises to be a most interesting subject of study for economists,
sociologists, and, indeed, all analysts of labor. On the one
hand, if employers adhere or revert to a uniform, one-size-fitsall standard workweek, the diverse needs of today’s workers
and their families may go unsatisfied. As the male-breadwin­
ner model of work life and households wanes, workers’ de­
sired hours may fluctuate more widely than ever before. On

the other hand, accessing flexible daily schedules may be
coming at the dear price of lost leisure time, significantly lower
lifetime earnings, a checkered career progression, or stresses
associated with irregular work. Moreover, such flexibility in
daily scheduling is m ost readily available to already
advantaged workers, and it appears to prom ote more
unpredictability in the length of the workweek and excessive
work among those who usually work full time. The ultimate
outcome of the ongoing destandardization and whether the
various conflicting factors will improve the well-being of work­
ers, on balance, cannot be foretold at the present time.
□

Notes
1 Thomas M. Beers, “Flexible schedules and shift work: replacing
the ‘9-to-5’ workday?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , June 2000, pp. 33-40;
“Workers on Flexible and Shift Schedules in 1997,” bls N e w s (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Mar. 26, 1998). For comparison, see Earl Mellor, “Shift
work and flexitime: how prevalent are they?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
November 1986, pp. 14-21.
2 Overtime hours, for which data are available only for production
and nonsupervisory workers in the manufacturing sector, rose to a record
peak by the end of the 1990s. (See Ron Hetrick, “Analyzing the recent
upward surge in overtime hours,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , February 2000,
pp. 30-33.) For an examination of the usually positive earnings pre­
mium employees receive for working longer hours, see Daniel Hecker,
“How hours of work affect occupational earnings,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
v ie w , October 1998, pp. 8-18. For a review of increases in labor force
participation over the past 50 years and a projection of the aging of the
workforce over the next 25 years, see Howard Fullerton, “Labor force
participation: 75 years of change, 1950-98 and 1998-2025,” M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v i e w , December 1999, pp. 3-12. The recent trend of rising
postretirement labor force participation is examined in Diane E. Herz,
“Work after early retirement: an increasing trend among men,” M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1995, pp. 13-20; and John R. Besl and Balkrishna
D. Kale, “Older workers in the 21st century: active and educated, a case
study,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , June 1996, pp. 18-28.
3 For a discussion of pockets of occupational labor shortages, see
Carolyn Veneri, “Can occupational labor shortages be identified using
available data?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1999, pp. 15-21. Evi­
dence relating to the effects of flexible work arrangements on outcomes
such as productivity, job satisfaction, and absenteeism is presented in M.
Krausz and N. Freibach, “Effects of Flexible Working Time for Em­
ployed Women upon Satisfaction, Training and Absenteeism,” J o u r n a l
o f O c c u p a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , vol. 56, no.2, 1983, pp. 155-59; R. L.
Moss and T. D. Curtis, “The Economics of Flexitim e,” J o u r n a l o f
B e h a v i o r a l E c o n o m ic s , summer 1985, pp. 95-114; C. Rodgers, “The
Flexible Workplace: What Have We Learned?” in S. Lobel (ed.), H u m a n
R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t, S p e c i a l I s s u e o n W o rk a n d F a m ily , fall 1993,
pp. 183-99; T. Clifton, E. Shephard, and D. Kruse, “Flexible Work
Hours and Productivity: Some Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Indus­
try, I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s , January 1996, pp. 123-39; T. Scandura and M.
Lankau, “Relationships of Gender, Family Responsibility and Flexible
Work Hours to Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction,” J o u r ­
n a l o f O r g a n iz a t io n a l B e h a v io r , July 1997, pp. 377-91; and Boris B.
Baltes, Thomas E. Briggs, Joseph W. Huff, Julie A. Wright, and George
A. Neuman, “Flexible and Compressed Workweek Schedules: A MetaAnalysis of Their Effects on Work-Related Criteria,” J o u r n a l o f A p ­
p l i e d P s y c h o lo g y , August 1999, pp. 496-513.
4 For evidence of the excess demand for more flexible work hours
and schedules, see E. Galinsky, J. T. Bond, and J. Swanberg, Th e 1 9 9 7
S tu d y o f th e C h a n g in g W o r k F o r c e (New York, Families and Work
Institute, 1998). In a 1992 survey, as much as 25 percent of the workforce


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

was found to be willing to sacrifice career prospects in order to attain
more flexibility in daily hours of work— this despite the finding that 26
percent of workers surveyed already have such flexibility available on a
daily basis. Nearly all workers (92 percent) say that they are concerned
with having flexibility in their work schedule in order to take care of
family needs, with 38 percent of workers saying that they are extremely
concerned and 37 percent asserting that they are very concerned (W o rk
T r e n d s : A m e r i c a ’s A t t i t u d e s a b o u t W o rk , E m p lo y e r s , a n d G o v e r n m e n t

(John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers Uni­
versity and Center for Survey Research at University of Connecticut,
Mar. 18, 1999).)
5 For evidence that work hours have risen in the United States since
the early 1980s, see B. Bluestone and S. Rose, “Macroeconomics of
Work Time,” R e v i e w o f S o c i a l E c o n o m y , winter 1998, pp. 425-41;
and Galinsky, Bond, and Swanberg, C h a n g in g W o rk F o r c e . For evi­
dence of a rise in annual family hours, see L. Mishel, J. Bernstein, and
J. Schmitt, T h e S t a t e o f W o r k in g A m e r i c a : 2 0 0 0 / 2 0 0 1 (Ithaca, n y ,
Economic Policy Institute and i l r Press, 2000), tables 1.29, 1.31, and
2.1; and L. Leete and J. Schor, “Assessing the Time-Squeeze Hypoth­
esis: Hours Worked in the United States, 1969-89,” I n d u s t r i a l R e l a ­
tio n s , January 1994, pp. 25-43. For evidence that average work hours
have crept upward slightly, see Philip L. Rones, Randy E. Ilg, and
Jennifer M. Gardner, “Trends in hours of work since the mid-1970s,
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1997, pp. 3-14. For evidence that aver­
age hours are growing among those workers in the upper tail of the
distributions of income, weekly hours, and educational attainment, see
M. Coleman and J. Pencavel, “Changes in Work Hours of Male Em­
ployees, 1940-1988,” I n d u s tr i a l a n d L a b o r R e l a tio n s R e v ie w , January
1993, pp. 262-83; and J. Jacobs and K. Gerson, “Who Are the Over­
worked Americans?” R e v i e w o f S o c i a l E c o n o m y , winter 1998, pp.
442-59. For evidence that average hours are constant, but shifting
toward youths, women, and married persons, see Ellen R. McGrattan
and Richard Rogerson, “Changes in Hours Worked since 1950,” F e d ­
e r a l R e s e r v e B a n k o f M in n e a p o lis Q u a r te r ly R e v ie w , winter 1998, pp.
2-19. For the counterargument that average hours are declining, with
data collected from time diaries, see John P. Robinson and Ann Bostrom,
“The overestimated workweek? What time diary measures suggest,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , August 1994, pp. 11-23. This view is chal­
lenged by Jerry A. Jacobs, “Measuring time at work: are self-reports
accurate?” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , December 1998, pp. 42-53.
6 Daniel Hamermesh, "The Timing o f Work over Time,”
January 1999, pp. 37-66.

E co­

n o m ic J o u r n a l,

7 Harriet Presser, “Toward a 24-Hour Economy,” S c i e n c e , June
11, 1999, pp. 1778-79; Harriet B. Presser and Amy G. Cox, “The
work schedules of low-educated American women and welfare reform,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1997, pp. 25-34.
8 Presser and Cox, “Work schedules of low-educated American
women”; Hamermesh, “Timing of Work.”

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

65

Flexible Work Schedules

9

The May 1997 Supplement to the c p s queries the employed regard­
ing the starting and ending times of their workday (at half-hour inter­
vals) and their ability to vary those times. The regular c p s sample for
May 1997 consists of 50,000 households, of which 48,000 are adminis­
tered the Supplement’s questions.
10 These classifications were recoded from the respondents given
three-digit industry and occupation response.
11 In the basic monthly c p s , respondents are asked the number of
hours they usually work per week and the actual number of hours they
worked the previous week. Beginning with the redesigned c p s in 1994,
they may answer, “It varies.” In May 1997, 9.7 percent gave this
optional response. For the notion that irregular, unpredictable work
hours are one of three features that characterize “contingent” work, see
Anne E. Polivka and Thomas Nardone, “On the definition of ‘contin­
gent work,’” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , December 1989, pp. 9-16. The
c p s ’ s estimate of the proportion of contingent workers, which has varied
between 4 percent and 5 percent of the workforce, according to the
1995, 1997, and 1998 C o n tin g e n t W o rk S u p p le m e n t (c w s) to th e F e b r u ­
a r y cps , can be broadened by including those workers who face a work­
week so variable that they cannot even specify what its usual length is.
(See D. Belman and L. Golden, “Contingent and Nonstandard Work
Arrangements in the United States: Dispersion and Contrasts by Indus­
try, Occupation and Job Type,” in F. Carré, M. Ferber, L. Golden, and S.
Herzenberg (eds.), N o n s t a n d a r d W o rk : T h e N a tu r e a n d C h a lle n g e o f
C h a n g in g E m p lo y m e n t A r r a n g e m e n t s , Industrial Relations Research
Association Series (Ithaca, n y , i l r Press, 2000).)
12 See Daniel Hamermesh,

W ork D a y s , W ork H o u r s , W o rk S c h e d u le s :
E v i d e n c e f o r th e U n ite d S ta t e s a n d G e r m a n y (Kalamazoo, m i , W. E.

Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1996). Indeed, in another
work, Hamermesh argues that “we need to integrate the notion of work
timing into a variety of areas of applied economics [such as]...evaluations
of household welfare [and]...the timing of the household’s economic
activities, including work, not merely how much of each activity is
undertaken” (Hamermesh, “Timing of Work,” p. 65).
13 V a ria b ility (or v a r ia n c e ) in h o u rs means the degree to which actual
work hours deviate from their mean over the course of some period,
such as a year. (See Lonnie Golden, “Projected Labor Market Conse­
quences of Reforming the U.S. Overtime Hours Law,” in G. De Geest, J.
Siegers, and R. Van den Bergh (eds.), L a w a n d E c o n o m ic s a n d th e L a b o u r
M a r k e t, New Horizons in Law and Economics (Cheltenham, U.K., Ed­
ward Elgar, 1999, pp. 132-56).) While sometimes used as a proxy for
flexibility (see, for example, A. King, “Industrial Structure, Flexibility
of Working Hours and Women’s Labor Force Participation,” I n d u s tr ia l
a n d L a b o r R e l a tio n s R e v ie w , August 1978, pp. 399-407), variance in
hours is clearly distinct from the ability to adjust one’s hours or schedule
in response to a change in preferences.
14 See T. Idson and P. K. Robbins, “Determinants of Voluntary Over­
time Decisions,” E c o n o m ic - I n q u ir y , January 1991, pp. 79-91.
15 See K. Moore Scott and M. M icelli, “An Exploration of the
Meaning and Consequences of Workaholism,” H u m a n R e la tio n s , March
1997, pp. 287-314; Linda Bell, “Differences in Work Hours and Hours
Preferences by Race in the U.S.” R e v i e w o f S o c i a l E c o n o m y , winter
1998, pp. 481-500; and Wayne Eastman, “Working for Position:
Women, Men and Managerial Work Hours,” I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s , Janu­
ary 1998, pp. 51-66.
16 See K. Rothschild, “A Note on Some Economic and Welfare
Aspects of Working Time Regulations,” A u s tr a lia n E c o n o m ic P a p e r s ,
voi. 21, 1982, pp. 214-18; and Juliet Schor, T h e O v e r s p e n t A m e r ic a n :
U p s c a lin g , D o w n s h iftin g a n d th e N e w C o n s u m e r (New York, Basic Books,
1999).
17 See R. Landers, J. Rebitzer, and L. Taylor, “Rat Race Redux:
Adverse Selection in the Determination of Work Hours in Law Firms,”
A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , June 1996, pp. 329-48; and B. Bluestone

66 Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

and S. Rose, “M acroeconomics o f Work Tim e,”
winter 1998, pp. 425-41.

R e v ie w o f S o c ia l

E conom y,

18 Using the 1998 c p s outgoing rotation file, the U.S. General Ac­
counting Office, in “Fair Labor Standard Act: White Collar Exemptions
in the Modem Work Place,” g a o / h e h s - 9 9 - 1 6 4 , R e p o r t to th e S u b c o m ­
m i t t e e o n W o r k f o r c e P r o t e c t i o n s , C o m m i t t e e o n E d u c a t i o n a n d th e
W o r k fo r c e , U S H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n ta t iv e s , September 1999, pp. 59-60,
estimated that 44 percent of “exempt” workers (those not covered by
overtime pay requirements), but only 20 percent of “nonexempt” work­
ers (those so covered), worked longer than 40 hours per week. Daniel
Hamermesh and Stephen Trejo, “The Demand for Hours o f Labor:
Direct Evidence from California,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta t is tic s ,
February 2000, pp. 38-47, found that the daily overtime pay premium
required in California shortens average hours worked relative to other
States in the industries and occupations the authors targeted for study.

19 Hours spent teleworking is a likely positive predictor o f an
employee’s reporting that he or she has flexibility in scheduling work
time. However, such flexibility, as well as the technologies facilitating
it (for example, e-mail and voice mail), have lengthened workers’
workdays. (See The Conference Board, “Work-Family Roundtable:
Technology Is Helping Workers Balance Work-Family Issues,” release
no. 4457, Dec. 3, 1998.) Workers also say that devices like beepers,
laptop computers, and cell phones make it difficult to escape work and
even harder to catch up with missed work (“More Tech, Less Time,” hr
F o c u s (American Management Association, March 1999), p. 4).
20 Conventional economic theory predicts that a competitive labor
market will eventually sort workers and employers so that desired and
required hours and schedules are matched. In the interim, the market
should create fully compensating wage differentials, providing workers
sufficient extra income to offset the ill effects of the adverse working
conditions of inflexible or inconvenient hours and schedules. (See, for
example, S. Rottenberg, “The Regulation of Work Hours and Its Exter­
nalities Defenses,” J o u r n a l o f L a b o r R e s e a r c h , January 1995, pp. 9 8 109.) However, this prediction has garnered little empirical support.
(See, for instance, G. Duncan and B. Holmlund, “Was Adam Smith Right
After All? Another Test of the Theory of Compensating Wage Differ­
entials,” J o u r n a l o f L a b o r E c o n o m ic s , vol. 1, no. 4, 1983, pp. 366-79;
R. Ehrenberg and P. Schumann, “Compensating Wage Differentials for
Mandatory Overtime? E c o n o m ic I n q u ir y , October 1984, pp. 460-78);
and J. Altonji and C. Paxson, “Labor Supply Preferences, Hours Con­
straints, and Hours-Wage Trade-Offs,” J o u r n a l o f L a b o r E c o n o m ic s ,
April 1988, pp. 254-76.) Thus, the additional income gained by endur­
ing undesired inflexibility is likely less than fully compensating.
21 The majority of flexible work schedule arrangements are likely
informal, because only 6 percent of employees are offered such arrange­
ments by a formal employee benefit program. (See Beers, “Flexible
schedules and shift work.”) Much larger proportions of employers re­
port in one-time surveys that they offer flexible schedules to their
employees. Estimates range from just under half to more than threequarters of (usually larger sized) firms. When asked, employers indicate
that only about half such flexible scheduling systems are offered as a
formal policy, and their offering is often subject to management discre­
tion. One reason for the large discrepancy between the proportion of
employers offering flextime and employees actually receiving or using
it may be that flextime is often made available only, or first, to a
particular segment of an organization’s workforce— typically manage­
rial and professional staff on a case-by-case basis— or only temporarily,
seasonally, or experimentally. Another reason may be that 40 percent
of employees fear that using flextime (or taking time off for familyrelated purposes) would damage their career prospects. (See Galinsky,
Bond, and Swanberg, C h a n g in g W o rk F orce', and the John J. Heldrich
Center’s W o rk T re n d s.) Almost 60 percent of women fear using flextime
for the same reason. (See “Part 3: Work and Family: Flexibility on the
Job,” F u tu r e w o r k — T re n d s a n d C h a lle n g e s f o r W o rk in th e 2 1 s t C e n tu r y
(U.S. Department of Labor, 1999).) Time off and flexibility are strik­
ingly important issues among women in particular. (See “Ask a Working
Woman” survey, Working Women project, a f l - c i o , 1997.) Among the

most important employer policies are those which help working women
gain more control of their time. The proportions of such women citing
as “very important” having paid sick leave (82 percent), paid vacation
time (76 percent), paid family leave for caregiving (70 percent), and
flexible hours (61 percent) were greater than those citing protection
from layoffs and downsizing and time off for child care (33 percent
each). Another 25 percent indicated that having flexible hours or con­
trol over their hours was somewhat important. There remains a gap of
30 percent between those who deem this benefit at least somewhat
important and those workers who have it. Still, 39 percent of respond­
ents report lacking flexible hours.
22 For evidence that workers taking part-time positions suffer both a
current and a future loss of pay and benefit coverage, see Marianne A.
Ferber and Jane Waldfogel, “The long-term consequences of nontraditional employment,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , May 1998, pp. 3-12.
23 Results from the 1998 Families and Work Institute survey of firms
are consistent with this pattern of the presence of flextime by major
industry group. In offering general “work-life” assistance, the finance,
insurance, and real-estate industry is the most generous, while the whole­
sale and retail trade industries are the least. Also, 82 percent of firms in
which more than half the executive positions are filled by women offer
flextime. By contrast, 56 percent of firms wherein less than half the
executive staff is composed of women offer flextime.
24 The higher variability of work hours for part-timers reinforces the
findings of Ian Dey, “Flexible ‘Parts’ and Rigid ‘Fulls,’” W ork, E m p lo y ­
m e n t a n d S o c ie ty , December 1990, pp. 465-90; Arne Kalleberg, “PartTime Work and Workers in the U.S.: Correlates and Policy Issues,”
W a sh in g to n a n d L e e L a w R e v ie w , vol. 52, no. 3, 1995, pp. 772-98; and
Belman and Golden, “Contingent and Nonstandard Work Arrangements.”
25 The source for the data on nonstandard workers is the February
1997 Contingent and Alternative Work Survey, which contains informa­
tion on the same 52 detailed industries examined in the current analysis,
for independent contractors, workers contracting with a temporary agency,
employees working for a contracting firm, and on-call and day laborers.
26 Indeed, it is also possible that the prolonged noninflationary eco­
nomic expansion owed much to the spread of flexible schedules, at least
to the extent that they contributed to the growth of labor productivity
during the decade and served as a nonpecuniary substitute for wage
increases to employees.
27 Potentially important factors that are n o t observable in the c p s
data include characteristics of the worker’s industry o f employment,
such as the average size of enterprises, the degree of product market
competition, the volatility of product market demand, and_ profitability.
28 The columns labeled “coefficient” report derivatives of the like­
lihood function (d F /d x ), for a discrete change of dummy variable from
0 to 1. The z-statistic represents a standard test of the coefficient being
significantly different from zero.
29 Workers with a professional school degree make up the omitted
category in the regression on education level.

32 Sample sizes in the account of some detailed occupational classifi­
cations that follow are likely to be insufficiently large to yield confi­
dence in the stated estimated effects and significance, particularly for
sales-related occupations, forestry occupations, computer equipment
operators, and, to a lesser extent, public-sector administrators, health
diagnosticians, lawyers and judges, natural scientists, health assessment
and treating occupations, teachers other than college, health techni­
cians, and protective service occupations.
33 The flexibility of State and local public-sector employees may
soon become even less, because the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled,
6-3, in C h r is te n s e n e t a l. vs. H a r r is C o u n ty (120 S.Ct. 1655 (2000))
that public-sector employers can enforce a deadline before which em­
ployees have to use the compensatory time they have accumulated to
avoid having to pay them cash for their extra time worked. (See “Public
Employers Can Push Comp Time Usage,” W o r k fo r c e , June 2000, pp.
3 0 -3 2 .)
34 That the self-employed are less dissatisfied with their work sched­
ules is not surprising: “flexibility of schedule” is a key reason for becom­
ing self-employed, particularly for women with children. (See R. Boden,
“Flexible Working Hours, Family Responsibilities and Female Self-Em­
ployment: Gender Differences in Self-Employment Selection,” A m e r i ­
c a n J o u r n a l o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S o c i o l o g y , January 1999, pp. 71-83.)
However, Jennifer Glass, “Employer Characteristics and the Provision
o f Family Responsive Benefits,” W o rk a n d O c c u p a t i o n s , November
1995, pp. 380-411, finds no improvement in the flexibility o f selfemployed mothers’ schedules.
35 Using longitudinal data from 1973 to 1978, G. Duncan and F.
Stafford, “Do Union Members Receive Compensating Wage Differen­
tials? Reply,” A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , vol. 72, no. 4, 1982, pp.
868-72, had found that workers who switched from union to nonunion
status achieved larger-than-average increases in their own control, rather
than their supervisors’, over the setting of their overtime work hours.
(For reasons that some employers desire to schedule overtime hours, see
Darrell E. Carr, “Overtime work: an expanded view,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R e v ie w , November 1986, pp. 36-39; and M. Gunderson and K. Weiemair,
“Labor Market Rigidities: Economic Analysis of Alternative Work Sched­
ules Including Overtime Restrictions,” in G. Dlugo, W. Doron, and K.
Weiermair (eds.), M a n a g e m e n t u n d e r D i f f e r i n g L a b o u r M a r k e t a n d
E m p lo y m e n t S y s te m s (Berlin, Walter de Gruyter and Co., 1988), pp.
153-63.) S. M. Glosser and L. M. Golden, “Average Work Hours as a
Leading Economic Variable in U.S. Manufacturing Industries,” I n te r n a ­
t io n a l J o u r n a l o f F o r e c a s ti n g , June 1997, pp. 175-95, however, find
that rising overtime hours no longer lead to imminent increases in
employment in business cycle expansions.
36 Results not reported in Table 8 reveal that several detailed occu­
pations— managers, mathematical and computer scientists, lawyers
and judges, health technicians, other administrative support, com­
puter equipment operators, food service workers, cleaning and building
services, and, most of all, protective services— raise the likelihood of
having variable hours. In contrast, a few occupations— supervisors of
clericals; freight, stock, and materials handlers; and farm operators
and managers— increase the s t a b i l i t y of hours. With occupation con­
trolled for, four detailed industries are associated with volatile hours:
agricultural services, mining, communication, and entertainment and
recreation. One industry, paper manufacturing, stabilizes weekly hours.

30 J. Jacobs and K. Gerson, “Who Are the Overworked Americans?”
winter 1998, pp. 442-59, find that having
flexible hours does not significantly lead workers to systematically ex­
aggerate their reported work hours per week. Thus, the positive associa­
tion between long hours spent at work and access to flextime is likely
n o t a statistical artifact produced by workers on flextime tending to
overreport their average work time.

37 See R e p o r t o n th e A m e r ic a n W o r k fo r c e , table 3-1 (U.S. Depart­
ment of Labor, 1999. In 1998, 20 percent of full-time workers reported
working 49 or more hours per week, up from about 10 percent in 1979
(although only slightly since 1989). See also Philip L. Rones, Randy E.
Ilg, and Jennifer M. Gardner, “Trends in hours of work since the mid1970s,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1997, pp. 3-14.

31 Professional jobs’ greater flexibility disappears, however, when
controls are included for their major industry. (Service occupations are
omitted as the reference occupation.)

38 For evidence of this possibility, see Daniel Hecker, “Work more,
earn more? How hours of work affect occupational earnings,” O c c u ­
p a t i o n a l O u tlo o k Q u a r t e r l y , spring 1999, pp. 10-23, especially pp.
1 2 -1 3 .

R e v ie w o f S o c ia l E c o n o m y ,


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

67

Wages and Flextime

W a g e differentials
a s s o c ia te d w ith fle x tim e

Analysis o f the Current Population Survey indicates
positive wage differentials overall for women
on flextime in 1989 and for both men and women in 1997;
significant differentials emerge for selected motivations,
industries, and occupations

Bonnie Sue Gariety
and
Sherrill Shaffer

Bonnie Sue Gariety is
a former graduate
student in economics
at the University of
Wyoming, Laramie,
Wyoming. Sherrill
Shaffer is John A.
Guthrie Senior
Distinguished Professor
of Banking and
Financial Services,
Department of
Economics and
Finance, at the same
university.

68

his article presents an empirical test of
wage differentials associated with flextime,
by gender, stated motivation for using
flextime, industry, and major occupation. The test
implicitly compares the relative strengths of two
opposing effects: a negative compensating wage
differential resulting from workers’ preferences
for flextime and a positive wage differential asso­
ciated with higher productivity of workers on
flextime attributed to what economists call the
“efficiency wage hypothesis.” Although previ­
ous studies have found evidence that flextime
increases both productivity1 and workers’ satis­
faction,2 scant evidence has emerged thus far re­
garding the net quantitative or qualitative impact
of these factors on equilibrium wages.
One exception is an article by Nancy Johnson
and Keith Provan,3 who applied a similar test to a
much smaller data set and found flextime to be
positively associated with wages for professional
women, negatively associated with wages for nonprofessional women, and not significantly asso­
ciated with wages for men. Johnson and Provan’s
sample totaled 258, obtained by survey from
within a single State. The study reported in the
current article, by contrast, uses nationwide
samples of more than 5,000 workers, obtained
from the U.S. Current Population Survey (CPS)
supplement, “Multiple Job Holding, Flexitime, and

T

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Volunteer Work,” for 1989 and 1997. In addition
to estimating aggregate wage effects by gender
in each year, the article estimates the flextime wage
differential associated with specific reasons each
worker reportedly preferred flextime in 1989. (Rea­
sons for choosing flextime were not reported in
1997, preventing a comparison with that year.)
Also estimated is the flextime wage differential
associated with specific industries and specific
major occupations for 1997. (Again, in 1989, the
number of workers on flextime in particular occu­
pations and industries was too small to draw a
meaningful comparison with the later year.)
Results of the study indicate that flextime is
associated with significantly higher wages over­
all. The size of the flextime wage differential for
women is stable across the years 1989 and 1997
and is similar to the 1997 estimate for men. How­
ever, the 1989 flextime wage differential for men is
much smaller than in 1997 and is not significantly
different from zero. This finding suggests that
the pattern of compensation has evolved in a
similar direction for both male and female work­
ers, but it evolved later for men.
The more detailed regressions for 1989 find
that the only stated reason for desiring flextime
associated with a significant wage differential
among women is transportation. Among men,
flextime taken for personal reasons is associated

Wages and Flextime

with a positive wage differential at the 0.01 level. Only a small
number of industries exhibit significant flextime wage differ­
entials for either men or women in 1997, and all of those differ­
entials are positive. Two major industries (automotive and
repair services; and social services, other professional serv­
ices, and forestry and fisheries—grouped collectively as “pro­
fessional” industries (see p. 5)—exhibit significant wage dif­
ferentials for both men and women. Significantly positive
flextime wage differentials emerge for men in all major occupa­
tions except operators, movers, and handlers, while women
exhibit significantly positive flextime wage differentials only
for sales and administrative occupations.
The article continues by presenting a brief overview of the
history of flextime, describing the empirical and conceptual
framework of the analysis, and characterizing the sample data.
The article concludes with a discussion of the results and
some suggestions for future research.

ated with productivity gains that are not only positive, but
also great enough to more than offset any compensating wage
differentials that would be expected when workers prefer
flextime to traditional work schedules. The analysis that fol­
lows is based on equilibrium wage theories.
It seems clear why women, at least, desire flextime benefits
as they pursue careers and families. Even women who are
employed full time spend 20 to 30 hours per week on house­
work; employed men spend at most half that time.7 Tradition­
ally, flexible schedule arrangements were sometimes offered
to women who needed to take care of their children. Recently,
however, because of a shortage of qualified labor, growing
numbers of working mothers in the labor force, unacceptable
levels of career progress for women, and work schedules for
women that constrained their productivity, more employers
have begun to offer family-related benefits. (Some of these
changes in the roles of women and men are explored by
Francine D. Blau and Marianne A. Ferber.8)

Background
Flextime is generally defined as a worker’s ability to alter the
starting and quitting time of a workday. It was introduced in
Germany in 1967, spread quickly to other parts of Europe, and
has been adopted by some U.S. employers during the past 20
years.4 One of the first groups in the United States to experi­
ment with a system of flexible working hours was the Federal
Government’s agencies. Over time, other firms have begun to
adopt some form of flexible working hours as a means of at­
tracting employees of higher quality or from a larger pool of
applicants.
As of 1992, more than 13 percent of the U.S. workforce was
covered by flextime arrangements, with a higher incidence
among part-time than full-time workers.5 Many of the firms
offering flextime have found that it confers benefits on the
employer, besides fostering employee morale. Flextime has
been reported to reduce absenteeism and turnover, increase
lines of communication, reduce stress in the workplace, and,
in some cases, even increase productivity.6 Increasing flex­
ibility in the work schedule can reduce the uncertainty of con­
flicts between market work, nonmarket work, and leisure, as
well as enabling workers to devote themselves more fully to
their job responsibilities.
Still, not everyone embraces the flexible work schedule.
Unions have opposed the idea of flexible work hours because
it makes labor laws more difficult to enforce and may create an
opportunity for firms to abuse the system. Also, some have
argued that flextime is a hindrance to the effectiveness of the
workplace because a worker must be present and visible in
order to contribute fully to the job. Thus, empirical research
into the net effects of flextime continues to be useful. With
this in mind, the objective of the present study is to quantify
whether, on average, employees find that flextime is associ­

69

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Empirical framework and sample
Both the compensating wage differential theory and the effi­
ciency wage hypothesis predict that wage rates are affected
by pecuniary and nonpecuniary attributes. The compensat­
ing wage differential refers to a worker’s willingness to pay (or
forgo income) for desirable job attributes.9 In contrast, ac­
cording to the efficiency wage hypothesis, in a competitive
labor market an employer will be forced to pay higher wages
for more productive workers.10 Thus, any given job attribute
may have two types of effect on the overall wage: one reflect­
ing the worker’s direct preference for the attribute, the other
reflecting any impact of the attribute on the worker’s produc­
tivity (or, in this case, any possible selection of more produc­
tive workers into the attribute). In the case of flextime, the two
effects may be intertwined to the extent that improved em­
ployee morale associated with a flexible work schedule may
contribute to improved productivity through lower absentee­
ism, lower turnover, and greater effort expended on the job.
Also, flextime may be able to contribute to higher productiv­
ity by reducing any interference from employees’ outside
obligations, and employers may selectively offer flextime only
to their more productive workers.
It is the objective of this section to isolate and measure the
impact of flextime on wages. To the extent that flextime is de­
sired by workers, the compensating wage theory alone would
predict a negative association between flextime and wages,
controlling for a vector of other job attributes. If, however,
flextime is associated with higher productivity among work­
ers, the predicted impact on wages is slightly more complex.
One might question why an employer should pay more for the
added productivity of employees who are working in an im­
proved environment. One answer would involve competition

Wages and Flextime

among employers, as in conventional applications of the effi­
ciency wage theory, plus an element of asymmetric informa­
tion in that only the worker knows his or her personal (he­
donic) value of flextime. As long as more than one employer
offers flextime for a particular category of worker, employers
may be forced to bid up their wages—possibly as high as the
marginal value of the worker’s product. Whether such a posi­
tive wage differential exists is an empirical question. If one is
found, it would represent a lower bound on the value of actual
differences in productivity, bearing in mind that some offset­
ting compensating wage differential may also be reflected in
the observations.
The sample used in the analysis was collected from the cps
of May 1989 and May 1997.11 The supplement titled “Multiple
Job Holding, Flextime, and Volunteer Work” contains data on
the usual number of hours worked daily and weekly, usual
number of days worked weekly, specific days worked weekly,
starting and ending times of an individual’s workday, whether
the starting and ending times could be varied, and—for 1989—
the primary reasons each individual desired the flextime ben­
efit in his or her workplace. The sample is drawn from all per­
sons aged 18 to 65 in the civilian noninstitutional population
of the United States living in households.
The 1989 sample size of full-time workers totaled 5,385 ob­
servations, of which 2,324 (43.2 percent) were women and 3,061
(56.8 percent) were men. The average hourly wage rate was
$9.23: $10.35 for men and $7.74 for women.12 The 1997 sample
comprised 8,358 observations, including 3,800 women (45.5
percent) and 4,558 men (54.5 percent). A minimum hourly wage
of $2.00 was imposed to reduce the impact of miscoded re­
sponses.13 Table 1 presents descriptive statistics. Because of
small samples in certain industries and occupations, several
categories are grouped together: social services, other profes­
sional services, and forestry and fisheries are collectively de­
noted as “professional,” and operators, movers, and handlers
are collectively denoted as “operators.” These groupings re­
sulted in a minimum of 15 flextime observations, plus larger
numbers of nonflextime observations, per industry or occupa­
tion in 1997, as needed to obtain statistically meaningful esti­
mates in table 4. As shown in that table, of the 40 parameter
cells (representing 20 industry or occupation categories times
two genders), only 4 comprised fewer than 20 observations,
while another 8 cells represented between 20 and 40 observa­
tions each. The 1989 data, representing a smaller sample and
drawn from a period in which flextime was less common, con­
tained fewer than 15 observations in each of 28 cells and be­
tween 15 and 17 observations in each of 6 more cells; those
data were therefore not subjected to further decomposition.
Smaller samples reported certain reasons for desiring flextime
in 1989 (see table 3), but no natural groupings of those dispar­
ate reasons suggested themselves.
Besides observing the statistics in table 1, note that the

70

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

1989 mean wage rate was $8.97 for women on flextime, $7.66 for
women not on flextime, $ 10.98 for men on flextime, and $ 10.31
for men not on flextime. These raw averages suggest an over­
all dominance of the efficiency wage hypothesis (reflecting
higher productivity of flexing workers) over the compensating
wage differential effect. The regressions that follow test this
casual impression more formally.
The wage equation was estimated by gender, using the
natural logarithm of wages as the dependent variable. Two
versions were fitted, one with a simple f l e x t im e dummy vari­
able, the other with a vector of f l e x r e a s o n s described shortly:
In Wi = a + X \,a i + a 2Fle x tim e (- + &,■;

(1)

In Wt = a + Xi/ai + ^

(2)

flex r ea so n s ,-

+ a,-.

Here, X u is a vector of measurable characteristics that are ex­
pected to affect wages, such as potential work experience,14
potential work experience squared, education, marital status,
and race. These variables are commonly included in studies of
compensating wage differentials.15 Other included job char­
acteristics that may affect earnings are union status, type of
industry, occupation, and flextime. Nonpecuniary binary con­
trol variables include metropolitan area, the white race, and
the southern geographic region. Also in X is a vector of bi­
nary variables denoting each respondent’s major occupation
and major industry, as listed in table 1. Thus, the model that is
being fit is a fixed-effects model that controls for both indus­
try and occupation. To avoid a singularity in the presence of
the intercept, the analysis omitted utilities as a major industry
and farming as a major occupation. The stochastic error term
is ai . Each equation was fitted by ordinary least squares.
In equation (1), f l e x t im e is a binary variable equal to unity
for workers whose schedule allows them to vary the time they
begin and end their workday, and equal to zero otherwise. In
equation ( 2 ) , f l e x r e a s o n is a vector of binary variables indi­
cating the primary reason workers on flextime reported for al­
tering their schedules. The choices are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

family and child responsibilities;
transportation;
helps to build up leave;
personal reasons;
enjoy flextime;
nature of the job.

Previous work by Johnson and Provan16 yielded mixed re­
sults that failed to suggest any a priori hypothesis on the sign
of f l e x t i m e . However, one would expect that the average
strength of workers’ preferences for flextime might vary by
reason, whereas the magnitude of any productivity effect of
flextime might be relatively less sensitive to the reason. Thus,
unequal coefficients across the reasons may primarily reflect
unequal preferences, with the most preferred reasons possi-

1 Sample statistics
Men

Women
1989
n = 2,324

Variable

Reason for desiring
flextime:
Family or child c a r e ...........
Transportation....................
Build up leave.....................
Personal reasons..............
Enjoy flextim e.....................
Nature of the j o b ...............

Standard
deviation

Standard
deviation

Mean

Standard
deviation

Mean

Standard
deviation

1.965
19.930
.071
.360
.715
.588
12.558
.832
.171

0.405
11.213
.257
.480
.452
.492
2.094
.374
.377

2.410
19.140
.229
.334
.786
.605
13.632
.835
.159

0.489
9.481
.420
.472
.410
.489
2.292
.371
.366

2.245
19.856
.0595
.322
.711
.684
12.216
.865
.364

0.433
11.202
.2365
.467
.454
.465
2.153
.342
.481

2.606
19.092
.2667
.303
.799
.689
13.515
.882
.203

0.500
9.196
.4423
.460
.401
.463
2.442
.323
.403

.017
.219
.025
.017
.007
.190
.068
.122
.093
.052
.025
.026
.0009
.053

.128
.414
.155
.130
.083
.392
.252
.328
.290
.221
.156
.159
.0293
.224

.016
.145
.024
.020
.010
.156
.107
.086
.084
.127
.032
.042
.0011
.061

.124
.352
.152
.139
.098
.363
.309
.281
.278
.333
.176
.200
.0324
.240

.166
.346
.072
.018
.033
.145
.019
.024
.010
.025
.005
.012
.0010
.050

.372
.476
.258
.133
.179
.353
.135
.152
.100
.157
.067
.109
.0313
.218

.118
.240
.073
.021
.031
.185
.049
.019
.013
.045
.008
.044
.0011
.061

.323
.427
.260
.142
.173
.389
.216
.137
.114
.206
.089
.205
.0331
.240

.156
.045
.090
.335
.191
.141
.0
.032

.363
.208
.287
.472
.393
.348
.0
.177

.372
.043
.099
.270
.128
.061
.008
.016

.483
.204
.299
.444
.335
.239
.088
.127

.075
.035
.036
.073
.414
.165
.07
.092

.263
.184
.185
.259
.493
.371
.26
.289

.284
.035
.098
.068
.306
.086
.073
.042

.451
.184
.298
.251
.461
.280
.261
.201

.009
.002
.0004
.004

.095
.046
.0207
.065
.103
.182

(’)
(1)
(’)
(’)
(’)
(’)

(’)

.0007
.002
.0003
.002

.0256
.048
.0181
.048
.106
.190

(1)

(’)
(’)
0
(’)
(’)
(’)

Mean

In(wage)..................................
Potential experience.............
Flextim e..................................
S o u th ......................................
Metro.......................................
Married....................................
Education...............................
W hite.......................................
Unions.....................................
Major industry:
M ining....................................
M anufacturing......................
Transportation......................
Communication....................
U tilitie s ..................................
W holesa le ............................
F in ance.................................
H ospital.................................
Medical..................................
E ducational..........................
S o cia l....................................
Professional.........................
F o re s try ...............................
Public adm inistration...........
Major occupation:
Managerial............................
Technical..............................
S ales.....................................
A dm inistration......................
Service..................................
O perator...............................
M o vers..................................
H andlers...............................

1997
n = 4,558

1989
n = 3,061

1997
n = 3,800

.011
.034

(')
(')

(’)
(')

.011

O

.038

Mean

(')

O
(’)
(’)
(’)

1 1997 survey did not report reasons for desiring flextime.

bly indicating a negative coefficient, as the negative compen­
sating wage differential more than offsets any positive effi­
ciency wage differential. However, if employers tend to be
more willing to grant requests for flextime to workers who
have proven to be more productive, then a positive efficiency
wage component could emerge in these samples. In addition,
when flextime is adopted because of the nature of the job, it
could be that flextime is more the employer’s choice than the
employee’s choice. This suggests a zero or negative compen­
sating wage differential, perhaps a positive efficiency wage
differential (particularly if the nature of the job requires
flextime for productivity reasons), and thus a positive coeffi­
cient overall in equation (2).
Following previous studies, we anticipate positive coeffi­
cients on experience, education, metropolitan area, the white
race, and union membership and negative coefficients on


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

experience squared and the southern geographic region. We
similarly expect the coefficient on married to be positive for
men, but negative for women.
In addition, we estimate two other equations to quantify
any systematic differences in the wage differentials associ­
ated with flextime by industry and by major occupation for
1997:
In Wi= a + X ua.i + ^

f l e x x in d u stry ,

In W i = a

flex

+

Xi,a i +

^

x

+ a,;

o c cu pa tio n ,- +

(3)
a,-.

(4)

These decompositions will permit us to infer whether any ap­
parent productivity effects of flextime may be relatively greater
than the hedonic effects for certain industries or occupations.
Although it is natural to suppose that productivity effects
may be unequal across the various industry or occupation

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

71

Wages and Flextime

categories, we did not hypothesize specific effects a priori.

nearly the same as for women.
The majority of other control variables exhibit significant
coefficients, except for occupation effects on women. Experi­
ence shows positive, but declining, marginal returns, and
wages are higher in metropolitan areas, but lower in the south.
Education, unionization, and being a member of the white race
are all associated with higher wages, as in previous studies.
Table 3 presents the regression results for wage equation
(2), distinguishing the various reasons for flextime in 1989.
For each gender, only one flextime reason is associated with a
significant wage differential: transportation for women and
personal reasons for men, each with a positive coefficient. For
the other reasons for adopting flextime, a coefficient not sig­
nificantly different from zero could be consistent with a net
offset of positive and negative wage differentials from pro­
ductivity and compensating wage effects. However, as noted
earlier, a sparse representation for some of these reasons (es­
pecially among men) makes it difficult to detect significance in

Results
Table 2 presents the regression results for wage equation (1)
by gender. The results for 1989 indicate that flextime is asso­
ciated with higher wages for women (t = 2.53, significant at
the 0.05 level), as in Johnson and Provan’s subsample of
professional women.17 This outcome is consistent with an
efficiency wage effect—reflecting higher productivity—
dominating any compensating wage differential. For men, no
significant wage differential is associated with flextime (t =
0.48), suggesting that any positive efficiency wage effect is
roughly offset by a negative compensating wage differential
(and conversely). For 1997, flextime is associated with sig­
nificantly higher wages for both men and women at the 0.01
level; the magnitude of the “flextime premium” for women is
virtually unchanged from its 1989 value, while that for men is
Parameter estimates, wage equation (1)

....

Women
Variable

Men

1989
Coefficient

1997

1989

1997

/-statistic

Coefficient

/-statistic

Coefficient

/-statistic

Coefficient

/-statistic

Intercep t................................
Experience .............................
Experience squared..............
Education...............................
S o u th ......................................
Metro.......................................
Married....................................
White.......................................
Union.......................................
Flextim e.................................

1.129
.013
-.00020
.041
-.053
.102
-.003
.046
.230
.066

'5.44
'5.58
'-4.01
'10.63
'-3.75
'6.82
-.26
22.49
'12.22
22.53

0.928
.024
-.00044
.0728
-.047
.137
.013
.032
.143
.067

'5.13
'9.06
'-6.56
'20.80
'-3.50
'8.87
.99
31.82
'7.50
'4.41

0.874
.022
-.0003
.040
-.087
.097
.060
.106
.235
.013

'10.57
'9.20
’-7.05
’ 11.65
’-6.21
’ 6.75
’4.14
'5.53
’ 15.97
.48

0.745
.026
-.00041
.068
-.047
.119
.093
.122
.137
.062

’8.16
’9.59
’-6.17
’21.51
’-3.60
'7.92
’ 6.91
’6.54
’8.54
’4.41

Major industry:
Mining....................................
Manufacturing......................
Transportation......................
Communication.....................
U tilities..................................
W holesale............................
Finance.................................
Hospital.................................
Medical..................................
Educational..........................
S ocial....................................
Professional.........................
F o restry...............................
Public administration...........

.231
.242
.266
.243
.233
.002
.133
.291
.124
.037
-.157
.115
.044
.198

'4.16
'8.26
'5.43
'4.35
'2.83
.07
'3.87
'9.64
'3.93
.98
’—3.31
22.44
.18
'5.33

.114
.111
.143
.154
.198
-.133
.046
.094
.022
-.095
-.161
.042
-.373
.076

22.12
'3.92
’3.10
’31.4
'2.99
'-4.86
1.61
'3.13
.74
’-3.16
’-3.97
1.12
3- 1 .94
22.29

.347
.230
.242
.289
.321
.059
.052
.060
-.015
.016
-.062
.217
-.314
.257

’ 12.14
’8.58
'6.95
’5.45
’7.59
21.99
.99
1.26
-.23
.34
-.6 4
’3.43
-1.54
’6.96

.210
.149
.128
.210
.274
-.060
.071
-.048
-.052
-.126
-.150
.099
.254
.131

’7.91
’6.28
’4.06
’4.60
’6.98
2-2.41
22.14
-1.01
-.9 4
’-3.55
2—2.17
’2.83
1.40
’4.15

.118
.085
-.150
-.069
-.264
-.230
-.093
-.232

.59
.42
-.7 5
-.3 5
-1.32
-1.14
-.4 3
-1.14

.214
.105
.079
-.035
-.180
-.170
-.004
-.181

1.25
.60
.46
-.21
-1.05
-.9 8
-.0 2
-1.02

.345
.293
.067
.134
.189
.148
.103
.021

’5.04
’4.05
.91
21.98
’2.96
22.25
1.54
.32

.417
.378
.300
.176
.171
.059
.126
.051

’5.44
’4.62
’ 3.82
22.23
22.25
.76
1.60
.63

Occupation:
Managerial............................
Technical..............................
S ales.....................................
Adm inistrative......................
Service.................................
Operator...............................
M overs..................................
Handlers...............................
O bservations.........................
Adjusted R 2 ...........................

2,324
.40

'Significant at 0.01 level.
S ignificant at 0.05 level.

72

Monthly Labor Review


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

3,800
.40

3,061
.35
S ignificant at 0.10 level (two-tailed tests).

March 2001

4,558
.37

a number of these cases. None of the reasons exhibit a signifi­
cantly negative coefficient, suggesting that no reason is val­
ued strongly enough by workers to more than offset any posi­
tive productivity effect.
Table 4 reports regressions for 1997, incorporating interac­
tive variables between flextime and major industry (wage equa­
tion (3)) and between flextime and major occupation (wage
equation (4)). In equation (3), for women, two interactive terms
(automotive and repair, and hospital) are significant at the
0.05 level, while two more (communication and professional)
are significant at the 0.10 level in a two-tailed test. These find­
ings are consistent with several possible interpretations,
which the analysis presented here cannot distinguish. First,
flextime may be associated with an exceptionally large im-

Parameter estimates, wage equation (2), 1989

Table 3.

Men

Women
Variable

Coefficient

f-statistic

Coefficient

f-statistic

Intercep t.....................
Experience.................
Experience squared...
Education....................
S o u th ..........................
Metro...........................
Married........................
W hite...........................
Unions.........................

1.14
.01
-0 .0
.04
-.0 5
.10
-.0 0
.05
.23

'5.48
'5.50
'-3.94
'10.61
'-3.74
'6.88
-.2 6
22.49
’ 12.27

0.87
.02
-.0 0
.04
-.09
.10
.06
.11
.24

'10.54
'9.24
'-7.08
’ 11.62
’-6.26
'6.66
'4.12
'5.59
’ 16.02

Reason for desiring
flextime:
Family or child
c a r e .......................
Transportation..........
Build up le a v e ..........
Personal re asons....
Enjoy fle x tim e ..........
Nature of the jo b .....

.07
.45
-.31
.12
.05
.04

1.18
'3.17
-1.00
1.21
.84
1.05

.01
.04
-.0 2
.37
.06
-.03

.08
.28
-.0 5
’2.79
.97
-.79

Major industry:
M ining........................
M anufacturing..........
Transportation..........
Comm unication........
U tilities......................
W h olesa le................
F in a n c e .....................
H ospital.....................
M edical......................
Educational..............
S o cia l........................
Professional.............
F o re s try ....................
Public administration

.22
.24
.26
.24
.23
.00
.13
.29
.12
.04
-.1 6
.12
.06
.20

’3.96
’8.08
'5.38
’4.32
'2.79
.01
'3.83
'9.63
'3.88
.96
’-3.31
22.46
.23
’5.32

.35
.23
.25
.29
.33
.06
.06
.06
-.01
.02
-.0 5
.22
-.3 3
.26

’ 12.27
’8.72
’7.11
’5.54
’7.69
22.17
1.11
1.25
-.1 7
.45
-.4 8
’3.46
-1.59
’7.10

Major occupation:
Managerial...............
Technical.................
S ales.........................
Adm inistrative..........
Service......................
O perator....................
M o vers......................
Handlers....................

.11
.08
-.1 5
-.0 7
-.2 7
-.23
-.1 0
-.2 3

.56
.41
-.7 6
-.3 6
-1.34
-1.15
-.4 5
-1.15

.34
.29
.07
.13
.19
.15
.10
.02

'5.02
'4.03
.91
1.94
'2.95
22.20
1.51
.31

Adjusted

R

2 .............

.41

'Significant at 0.01 level.
S ignificant at 0.05 level.
S ignificant at 0.10 level (two-tailed tests).


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

.36

provement in productivity among women in the four indus­
tries mentioned. Second, employers in those industries may
selectively grant requests for flextime (or perhaps even im­
pose flextime) on their more productive female employees.
Third, the association between productivity and flextime—
whatever the causality—may be positive across all indus­
tries, but women who choose to work in manufacturing may
not value flexible work schedules to the same extent as women
who work in other industries.
In equation (4), for women, two interactive variables are
highly significant and positive: flextime x sales, with i = 4.17,
and flextime x administrative, with t = 3.51. Each of these is
significant at the 0.01 level. The positive sign of both coeffi­
cients suggests either a stronger positive productivity effect
of flextime in those occupations (again, whichever way the
causality runs) or a systematically weaker personal prefer­
ence for flextime in those occupations, combined with a posi­
tive productivity effect.
For the sample of men, equation (3) exhibits significantly
positive coefficients for four major industries. As with women,
flextime x automotive and repair and flextime x professional
exhibit positive coefficients, with t = 4.31 and 1.67, respec­
tively. In contrast to the sample of women, however,
flextime x manufacturing and flextime x medical are signifi­
cant, with t = 1.84 and 2.30, respectively. These coefficients
are consistent with a stronger association between flextime
and productivity or with weaker preferences for flextime in
those four industries. For men, equation (4) exhibits positive
coefficients that are significant for all major occupations ex­
cept operators.
From equations (3) and (4), the emergence of distinct genderbased marginal wage effects of flextime across some industries
and occupations raises questions that could usefully be ad­
dressed in future studies. Are the differences due primarily to
differences in productivity or in hedonic preferences? Can such
findings identify those industries or occupations which could
benefit more than others from a more widespread adoption of
flextime? Do the differences reflect systematic discrimination by
gender, or do they instead point to additional factors that must
be controlled for in studies aimed at measuring wage discrimina­
tion? To what extent do any positive productivity effects that
are observed result from flextime itself, as opposed to reflecting
an employer’s selective offering of flextime to a more productive
subset of workers?
F l e x t i m e is a n e m e r g in g t r e n d i n t h e m o d e r n w o r k p l a c e ,

with potential benefits for employers as well as employees.
Theoretically, the net impact of flextime on wages depends on
the relative strengths of two opposing effects and therefore
raises the important empirical question of which effect is stron­
ger either in general or in a given case. The CPS supplements
from 1989 and 1997 offer a rich data set that may be used to
answer that question.
Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

73

Wages and Flextime

Table 4.

Parameter estimates for interactive flextime terms, 1997
Women
Variable
Coefficient

/-statistic

Men
Number of
observations'

Coefficient

/-statistic

Number of
observations'

Equation (3)
Flextime x
Flextime x
Flextime
Flextime
Flextime x
Flextime
Flextime
Flextime
Flextime
Flextime
Flextime
Flextime
Flextime
Flextime
Flextime

industry:
m in in g .............................
manufacturing................
transportation.................
communication...............
w holesale.......................
fina nce............................
automotive and re p a ir....
services..........................
entertainment.................
h o spital...........................
m edical............................
educational.....................
professional ....................
public adm inistration.....

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

0.0843
.0204
.0857
.1798
.0348
.1558
.1410
.0385
-.1055
.1051
.0278
-.000278
.0777
.0412

0.74
.46
.93
41.84
1.00
23.65
32.18
.40
-.89
31.97
.52
-.0 0
41.65
.77

15
97
23
21
165
108
45
20
16
63
63
46
104
74

0.0456
.0545
.0671
.1304
.0191
.0668
.2070
.0168
-.0310
.1272
.2505
-.0187
.0866
.0377

1.05
41.84
1.26
1.42
.63
1.21
24.31
.14
-.2 8
1.26
32.30
-.2 7
41.67
.73

103
252
71
26
247
81
108
16
18
20
20
43
101
86

.0284
-.0608
.1773
.1050
.0637
.0368

1.24
-.8 4
24.17
23.51
1.37
.42

415
36
116
203
81
20

.0576
.1542
.0843
.0900
.0657
-.0057

22.55
22.38
32.21
41.62
32.25
-.1 5

547
61
182
66
223
130

Equation (4)

x
x
x
x
x
x

Flextime occupation:
Flextime managerial.......................
Flextime tech nical.........................
Flextime s a le s ...............................
Flextime administrative.................
Flextime service............................
Flextime x op e ra to rs........................

T h e number of observations is the number of flexing employees in each
industry or profession.
S ignificant at 0.01 level.

This article has found evidence of a positive wage differ­
ential associated with flextime for a sample o f2,324 women in
1989 and 3,800 in 1997, presumably reflecting a positive pro­
ductivity effect that more than offsets any compensating
wage differential reflecting hedonic preferences for flextime.
No significant wage differential accompanied the adoption
of flextime for the 1989 sample of more than 3,000 men, a
finding that is consistent with the hypothesis that any pro­
ductivity effects are approximately offset by hedonic effects
within that sample. These results are all generally consistent
with earlier findings obtained by Johnson and Provan for a
much smaller and more locally limited sample, with the excep­
tion of their results for nonprofessional women.18 However,
the 1997 sample of more than 4,500 men exhibited a signifi­
cantly positive wage differential associated with flextime,
consistent with the findings from the sample of women.
Decomposing the 1989 observations by stated reason for
adopting flextime, the analysis presented finds that only a single
reason was associated with measurable wage effects for each
gender: transportation for women on flextime and personal rea­
sons for men on flextime. Both of those reasons exhibited posi­
tive wage differentials, suggesting productivity benefits of
flextime in those cases. This issue has apparently not been pre­
viously studied, and the omission of reasons for flextime from
74

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Significant at 0.05 level.
S ignificant at 0.10 level (two-tailed tests).

the 1997 survey prevented its further exploration.
Decomposing the observations by industry and by occu­
pation for 1997 reveals positive wage differentials for women
in communication, finance, automotive and repair, hospitals,
and professional services and for men in manufacturing, au­
tomotive and repair, medical services, and professional serv­
ices. Positive wage differentials were associated with women
on flextime in sales and administrative occupations and with
men on flextime in managerial, technical, and service occupa­
tions. Again, these decompositions appear never to have
been addressed in the literature. The differences found across
industries and occupations by gender may warrant further
research to determine whether they are specific to the samples
used or more systematic.
Further research on the incidence and causes of a positive
flextime wage differential appears warranted. Some may find
the efficiency wage hypothesis an unconvincing explana­
tion in this context, despite more direct evidence that flextime
may enhance productivity.19 As discussed earlier, one vari­
ant of this idea is that some employers may allow only their
most productive and reliable employees the option of flextime,
using it as a nonpecuniary form of compensation that comple­
ments pecuniary compensation, or possibly relying on the
personal integrity of their best workers to mitigate a greater

difficulty involved in monitoring the effort contributed by
employees on flextime. An alternative, more cynical, explana­
tion is that employers who offer flextime are, on average, sim­
ply less serious about maximizing profits and may also pay
above-market wages as another dimension of corporate inef­
ficiency. If data on employers as well as employees were avail­
able, this hypothesis could be tested by comparing the over­
all cost efficiency, profit efficiency, or other kind of efficiency
of employers who allow their employees to use flextime, as
opposed to those who do not.
Another question revolves around the stated reasons for

adopting flextime: might these reasons mask a pattern of strate­
gic misreporting as workers seek to conform to entrenched or­
ganizational and cultural norms or to avoid signaling that they
place a large hedonic value on flextime? For instance, other
things being equal, are women on flextime paid more if their
stated motivation is transportation rather than family and child
responsibilities? Are fathers on flextime paid more if their stated
motivation is unspecified personal reasons rather than family
and child responsibilities? The empirical results reported in this
article are consistent with these hypotheses and others, but are
merely suggestive, given the data currently available.
□

Notes
A cknowledgment: The authors are grateful for helpful comments from
Joni Hersch on earlier drafts of this article.

January-February 1974, pp. 34-55.

1 See John D. Owen, “Flexitime: Some Problems and Solutions,”
I n d u s t r i a l a n d L a b o r R e l a t i o n s R e v i e w , January 1977, pp. 152-160;
Steven G. Allen, “An Empirical Model of Work Attendance,” R e v ie w
o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta t is tic s , February 1980, pp. 77-87; D. R. Dalton
and D. Mesch, “The Impact o f Flexible Scheduling on Employee
Attendance and Turnover,” A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c ie n c e Q u a r t e r l y , June
1990, pp. 370-87; and Edward M. Shepard, Thomas J. Clifton, and
Douglas Kruse, “Flexible Work Hours and Productivity: Some Evi­
dence from the Pharmaceutical Industry,” I n d u s tr i a l R e l a tio n s , Janu­
ary 1996, pp. 123-39.

n o m ic G r o w th

2 Marni Ezra and Melissa Deckman, “Balancing Work and Family
Responsibilities: Flextime and Child Care in the Federal Government,”
P u b lic A d m in is tr a tio n R e v ie w , March-April 1996, pp. 174-79.

10 See Harvey Leibenstein, E c o n o m i c B a c k w a r d a t i o n a n d E c o ­
(New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1957); and Joseph E.
Stiglitz, “The Efficiency Wage Hypothesis, Surplus Labour, and the
Distribution of Income in L.D.C.s,” O x f o r d E c o n o m ic P a p e r s , July
1976, pp. 185-207.

11 The c p s is conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
12 Full-time salaried workers whose usual weekly hours are not less
than 35 were included in the sample with an imputed hourly wage rate
equal to the ratio of weekly earnings to usual hours. Note that, be­
cause c p s wage data are top coded, average hourly wage data will be
biased downward.

4 See Owen, “Flexitime”; and Barney Olmstead, “Flexible Work
Arrangements: From Accommodation to Strategy,” E m p lo y m e n t R e ­
l a t i o n s T o d a y , summer 1995, pp. 11-20.

13 At the time of the survey, the Federal minimum wage was $3.35
per hour. However, some States had minimum wage rates that were
lower than the Federal minimum, and some jobs did not fit the Federal
definition of interstate commerce and so were exempt from the mini­
mum. The value of $2.00 was chosen to correspond to known wage
rates of certain jobs (for example, waitress) at the time o f the survey.
Observations reporting a wage rate lower than $2.00 per hour were
treated as miscoded responses and were ignored.

m e n t: A n E c o n o m ic A p p r o a c h ,

5 David Lewin and Daniel J. Mitchell, H u m a n R e s o u r c e M a n a g e ­
2d ed. (Cincinnati, South-Western
College Publishing, 1995), see especially p. 155.

14 Potential work experience is defined as age, minus education,
minus 6 years and is usually a larger number than actual work experi­
ence.

6 See Owen, “Flexitim e”; Allen, “Model of Work Attendance”;
Dalton and Mesch, “Impact o f Flexible Scheduling”; and Shepard,
Clifton, and Kruse, “Flexible Work Hours and Productivity.”

15 See Rosen, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets”; and Charles
Brown, “Equalizing Differences in the Labor Market,” Q u a r te r ly J o u r ­
n a l o f E c o n o m ic s , February 1980, pp. 113-34.

7 Joni Hersch and Leslie Stratton, “Housework, Fixed Effects, and
Wages o f Married Workers,” J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R e s o u r c e s , spring
1997, pp. 2 8 5-307.

16 Johnson and Provan, “Work/Family Benefit and Earnings.”

3 Nancy Johnson and Keith Provan, “The Relationship between
Work/Family Benefit and Earnings: A Test of Competing Predic­
tions,” J o u r n a l o f S o c i o - E c o n o m i c s , Winter 1995, pp. 571-84.

8 Francine D. Blau and Marianne A. Ferber, Th e E c o n o m ic s o f W om en ,
2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, nj, Prentice Hall, 1992).

17 I b id .
18 I b id .

M en , a n d W ork,

9 Sherwin Rosen, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product
Differentiation in Pure Competition,” J o u r n a l o f P o l i t i c a l E c o n o m y ,


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

19 $ee Owen, “Flexitime”; Allen, “Model o f Work Attendance”;
Dalton and Mesch, “Impact o f Flexible Scheduling”; and Shepard,
Clifton, and Kruse, “Flexible Work Hours and Productivity.”

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

75

Précis

New econom y and
p r o d u c t iv ity
The “new econom y” has become a
popular topic of discussion, in the
Review and elsew here. In “P roduc­
tiv ity G ro w th an d th e N ew
E co n o m y ” (NBER W orking P aper
8096), William D. Nordhaus of Yale
U niversity adds to the discussion
by estim ating the effect of the new
ec o n o m y on la b o r p ro d u c tiv ity
growth. This study is the third of a
serie s o f th ree re c e n t p ap ers by
N ordhaus on productivity m easure­
ment.
In th is la te s t paper, N ordhaus
p re sen ts alte rn a tiv e p ro d u c tiv ity
m easures using concepts and data
that he describes in the second pa­
per of the series. He uses “ incomesid e” output m easures in his p ro ­
ductivity calculations, in contrast
to standard productivity statistics
such as those published by the B u­
reau of Labor Statistics, which uses
“ p ro d u c t-s id e ” o u tp u t m easu res.
(The “ sides” refer to which part of
the national accounts serve as the
data source.)
T he p ro d u c tiv ity s e rie s th a t
Nordhaus constructed for the b usi­
ness sector increased at a slow er
rate than the corresponding b ls se­
ries in 1977-95. However, in 199698, his series grew more rapidly than
the BLS series.
N ordhaus exam ines the contribu­
tion of the new economy to busi­
n e ss-se c to r p ro d u c tiv ity grow th.
For m easurem ent purposes, he de­
fines the new economy as m achin­
ery, electric equipm ent, telephone
and te le g ra p h , and so ftw are. He
finds that one-third of the accelera­
tion in b u sin ess-sector labor p ro ­
ductivity in 1996-98 is due to the
acceleration in the new econom y’s

76

Monthly Labor Review


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

contribution to productivity growth.
He does caution that his results are
likely to underestimate the effect of the
new economy because they only in­
clude the direct contribution of it.

The ‘N e t a n d th e la b o r
m a rk e t
In addition to their impacts on capi­
tal stocks and industry production,
the Internet and the new economy
are having effects on the in stitu ­
tions and functioning of the labor
m arkets. David A. A utor’s article,
“W iring the Labor M arket,” in the
Journal o f Econom ic Perspectives
analyzes three aspects of the labor
m arket in which the forces of the
new economy are likely to have sig­
nificant consequences.
Job search is likely to becom e
more efficient. There may already be
some evidence of this. The index of
h e lp -w a n te d a d v e rtisin g , w hich
u s u a lly rise s as u n e m p lo y m e n t
falls, has been relatively flat even
as the unem ploym ent rate fell to 30year lows in the late-1990s. This is
c o n s is te n t w ith a s h ift o f the
B everidge curve— a negative re la­
tio n sh ip b etw een v a c a n c ie s and
jo b lessn ess— tow ard its origin. If
job search is indeed becoming more
efficient, Autor points out that la­
bor m arket theory predicts an im ­
provem ent in productivity. As the
num ber of p otential m atches em ­
ployers and workers can consider
goes up, the “re se rv a tio n m atch
quality” rises on both sides of the
table.
There may also be changes in the
way labor services are delivered, ac­
cording to Autor. “Remote access to
e-mail and company documents will
enable m any w orkers to perform
some or all of their work from home

March 2001

or elsew here.” One efficiency gain
from such rem ote locations is that
unproductive com m ute tim es may
be reduced and there is also some
evidence that em ployees who use
In tern et access at hom e actu ally
spend more hours working at home
without spending less lime working
in the office. Autor attributes this
to the possibility that “by increas­
ing the productivity of working at
hom e, telecom m uting may induce
substitution from leisure to produc­
tion.”
Finally, the demand for labor may
depend less on local labor supplies.
Says Autor, “ ...businesses are likely
to subdivide work into com ponent
parts, ship subtasks electronically
to sources of labor supply, and use
inform ation technology to co ordi­
nate the geographically dispersed
p ro d u c tio n p ro c e s s .” T his m ig h t
lead to the reallocation of work to
regions where labor is least costly
and w ill allow producers to find
econom ies of scale th at sm aller,
m ore lo calized m arkets for th eir
p ro d u c ts w ould not su p p o rt. As
producers thus arbitrage regional
wage differentials, Autor points out
that there is the theoretical po ssi­
b ility th at w ages w ould becom e
m ore equal and som e hig h lo cal
rates of unem ploym ent could be re ­
duced.
□

We are interested in your feed­
back on this column. Please let us
know what you have found m ost
in te re stin g and w hat e ss e n tia l
readings we may have m issed.
W rite to: E x e c u tiv e E d ito r,
M onthly Labor Review, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, W ashington, DC,
20212, or e-mail MLR@bls.gov

Book Review

Canada’s “pit” boys
Boys in the Pits: Child Labour in Coal
M ines. By R obert M cIntosh.
Montreal, Quebec, McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 2000,305 pp. bibli­
ography. $34.95.
Robert McIntosh, an employee at the
National Archives of Canada, has writ­
ten an interesting book on child labor in
Canada in the 19thand early 20th'cen­
turies. Boys in the Pits explores the his­
tory of boys, aged 8 to 15, who worked
in the coal mines in Canada. They la­
bored underground, leading horses
along lengthy and treacherous subter­
ranean roads, manipulating ventilation
doors, helping miners cut and lift tons
of coal, and filling wagon after wagon
with freshly-mined coal, as the first step
in its removal from the mines. For young
boys, the work was very hard, as justi­
fied by their role in producing the en­
ergy that fueled Canada’s Industrial
Revolution.
The author examines how the vari­
ous roles of changing technology, alter­
native sources of unskilled labor, and leg­
islation concerning the children from
1820 to 1940—which eventually banned
children in the mine and required com­
pulsory education— affected Canadian
society, as it moved from the Industrial
Age into the modem era.
One British author of a child labor
book argues that, “the exploitation of
little children, on this scale and with this
intensity, was one of the most shameful
events in our history.” The history of
child labor is, thus, reduced to a
chronicle of blighted childhood. McIn­
tosh, in Boys in the Pits, reassesses this
orthodoxy. In the first part, he examines
“how changing attitudes and practices
regarding childhood, class relations at
the colliery, mining technology, the
state, the working-class family, and the
mining community shaped the world pit
boys encountered. These circumstances
drew boys into the mine, defined their
place there, and eventually expelled


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

t
them from the colliery.”
The author writes: “The history of
children is a history of their labor.” Until
the 19th century, the majority of young
people worked in a household setting.
In the growing cities, they worked shin­
ing shoes, selling newspapers, and do­
ing odd jobs.
Large new mills, factories, and mines
were more characteristic of the emerg­
ing Industrial Age. By the last decades
of the 19th century, the reorganization
or mechanization of traditional crafts
such as cigarmaking, printing, and boot,
shoe, and clothing manufacturing pro­
duced a brisk demand for child labor in
urban areas of Canada. Textile mills were
known for hiring girls and boys. Chil­
dren also labored in sawmills, match fac­
tories, ropemaking, and bakeries across
the country. Wherever new divisions of
labor and machinery produced jobs that
required little skill or strength, children
were found employed.
Coal was the basic fuel of the Indus­
trial Age from the 1850s on into the
1900s. It was used increasingly in rail­
way and steam engines, to propel ocean
shipping, and to heat homes and other
buildings. Coal was the main source of
fuel during that era, occupying the niche
that petroleum does today.
The majority of the boys were taken
into the mines by their fathers, brothers,
or other relatives. The family claimed
they were putting their sons into an ap­
prenticeship. However, there were times
when the adults were jealous of the boys
because two boys were hired for each
man. The men were also resentful of the
boys, at times, because the boys were
unionized and went on strike often, for
example, when a coworker was fired, for
better pay, when mine foremen whipped
the boys, or when a boy’s horse died,
and the company demanded that he pay
$150 for it. (Although one boy admitted
later that he hit one horse in the head
and killed him because the horse was
reckless and kicked him in the head.) The
work day was long, and the boys labored
in the mines for 10 to 12 hours at 32 cents

to $1 per day as trappers (opening and
closing the ventilation doors); drivers
of horses got from 60 cents to $1 per
day; boys, on balances, got from 80 cents
to $1; loaders earned $1.20 to $1.30; la­
borers were paid from 85 cents to $1.
One miner comm ented in 1891:
“There are no children working in the
mine. They may be children when they
go in at 10 or 12 years of age, but a fort­
night or so thoroughly works that out of
them. They then become old fashioned
boys. They get inured to all sorts of dan­
ger and hardship.”
After World War I, the age for start­
ing in the mines was raised a bit, from
approximately 10-12 years to 14 or 15
years. Miners were recruited from En­
gland and Wales to Canada. They also
bought their children, but they encoun­
tered some resistance when they tried
to bring their sons into the mines. On
the Pacific coast, which had a ready sup­
ply of Asian laborers, child labor in the
mines was restricted by legislation in
1877. By the late 1880s, with the mecha­
nization of underground hauling, rail­
road tracks were installed and box cars
were used, as well as other technology;
therefore, the demand was reversed.
Other innovations discouraged the em­
ployment of boys in some mines. At the
same time, older miners began steering
their sons away from what they viewed
as a declining craft, the craft of collier.
In some areas of Canada, young-boy
labor accounted for 15 to 20 percent of
the coal-mining labor force in the early
1900s. Working as general laborers, some
boys distributed miners’ hand picks or
they greased coal tubs, changed batter­
ies, serviced lamps, filled powder cans,
loaded timbers and cordwood onto flat­
cars, or pushed and assembled empty
tubs for return trips into the mine. The
“tally” boy kept track of the amount of
coal each miner sent to the surface. Some
worked as helpers to the tradesmen, in­
cluding blacksmiths, boilermakers, and
foundry men. Other boys operated
pumps, or worked as wharf hands help­
ing to dump coal cars. Rarely did they

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

77

Book Reviews

work in the mine office. Many also
worked on the mine surface cleaning
coal, which consisted of removing im­
purities of dirt, slate, and rocks. One 13
year old recalled, “it was the most mindstifling occupation that can be imagined.
Our job was to pick out the pieces of
shale from the coal as it passed on a
conveyer. Watching a slow-moving
conveyer passing one’s eye was enough
to drive one crazy.” Most boys preferred
to work underground.
The work enviroment was harsh and
frightening. There were rough footing,
steep grades, low roofs, dripping water,
narrow passageways, pools of stagnant
water and mud, cold, rushing-air cur­
rents, clouds of bitter smoke and chok­
ing coal dust, falling stones and coal
from overhead, fatal pockets of meth­
ane gas embedded in the seams, and al­
most universal darkness. The absence
of light accentuated sounds under­
ground: the clatter of coal tubs against
underground rail lines, the scurrying of
rats, the dull sound of distant explo­
sions. One pit boy who started in the
mines at age 11, in 1912, recalled that
“most of the miners had to walk t© their

78

Monthly Labor Review


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

place of work. The first day I worked I
had to walk 3 miles underground before
I got to work, then do my 12 hours and
walk back 3 miles.” Some boys refused
to return after the first day.
On February 21, 1891, at a mine in
Nova Scotia, a charge of gunpowder was
lit 1,900 feet underground to dislodge a
small quantity of coal. The explosion
backfired, igniting airborne coal dust.
Wind and flame followed by balls of fire
stormed through the mine, where 125
workers died that day; 21 of the victims
were under 18 years of age, the young­
est being 12 years old. Many of the pit
boys experienced accidents in the mine,
including broken bones, and even death
as a result of rock and coal falls, being
crushed, working around underground
transportation on mine slopes and trav­
eling roads. Management frequently
tried to shift the blame to the pit boys,
citing their irresponsibility. Trapper
boys were often killed or injured. But
inspectors recognized that it was not the
youthfulness of the boys that caused
accidents; instead, as the author notes,
the root of the problem lay with careless
individuals who made bad decisions.

March 2001

The Provincial Workman’s Associa­
tion ( p w a ) established a boys’ lodge in
1883 as a union among the pit boys, who
were able to use the union as a bargain­
ing tool. The pit boys did lead strikes,
shutting down the mines. The young
haulers were particularly strike-prone.
They only needed a five-minute strike
to bring the whole pit to a standstill, as
tubs clogged up waiting to be removed.
By the 1900s, wage structures were for­
malized through collective bargaining.
Boys up to 17 were paid a certain rate
and from ages 17 to 18, an augmented
boys’ rate. After that, a boy would have
to quit the job or go to a job that called
for a man’s rate.
Boys in the Pits is well documented,
with detailed footnotes and an exten­
sive 37-page bibliography. It will be use­
ful to labor historians interested in
Canada, child labor, and the history of
mining.

—Ernestine Patterson Leary
Office of Publications and
Special Studies
Bureau of Labor Statistics

C urrent Labor Statistics

Notes on labor statistics

80

Com parative indicators
1. Labor market indicators......................................................
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in
compensation, prices, and productivity.......................
3. Alternative measures of wages and
compensation changes.....................................................

90

Labor com pensation and collective
bargaining data— continued
26. Participants in benefits plans, small firms
and government................................................................ 113
27. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or m ore........... 114

91
91

Price d ata
28. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure

Labor force d ata
4. Employment status of the population,
seasonally adjusted.........................................................
5. Selected employment indicators,
seasonally adjusted.........................................................
6. Selected unemployment indicators,
seasonally adjusted.........................................................
7. Duration of unemployment,
seasonally adjusted..........................................................
8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment,
seasonally adjusted..........................................................
9. Unemployment rates by sex and age,
seasonally adjusted.........................................................
10. Unemployment rates by States,
seasonally adjusted..........................................................
11. Employment of workers by States,
seasonally adjusted..........................................................
12. Employment of workers by industry,
seasonally adjusted..........................................................
13. Average weekly hours by industry,
seasonally adjusted.........................................................
14. Average hourly earnings by industry,
seasonally adjusted..........................................................
15. Average hourly earnings by industry.................................
16. Average weekly earnings by industry................................
17. Diffusion indexes of employment change,
seasonally adjusted.........................................................
18. Annual data: Employment status of the population.......
19. Annual data: Employment levels by industry..................
20. Annual data: Average hours
and earnings levels by industry......................................

92
93
94
95
95
96
97
97


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

115
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
126

98
100
101
102
103
104
105
105
106

Labor com pensation and collective
bargaining d ata
21. Employment Cost Index, compensation,
by occupation and industry group.................................
22. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries,
by occupation and industry group.................................
23. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry
workers, by occupation and industry group.................
24. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers,
by bargaining status, region, and area s iz e ....................
25. Participants in benefit plans, medium and large firms.....

category and commodity and service groups..............
29. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and
local data, all items.....................................................
30. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items
and major groups.......................................................
31. Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing...............
32. Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major
industry groups.........................................................
33. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes
by stage of processing................................................
34. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International
Trade Classification...................................................
35. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International
Trade Classification...................................................
36. U.S. export price indexes by end-use category...............
37. U.S. import price indexes by end-use category..............
38. U.S.international price indexes for selected
categories of services..................................................

107
109
110
111
112

Productivity d ata
39. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted........................
40. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity.... ..................
41. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
unit costs, and prices.......................................................
42. Annual indexes of output per hour for selected
industries...........................................................................

127
128
129
130

International comparisons d ata
43. Unemployment rates in nine countries,
data seasonally adjusted.................................................. 133
44. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian
working-age population, 10 countries............................ 134
45. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures,
12 countries.....................
135

Injury and illness d ata
46. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness
incidence rates.................................................................. 136
47. Fatal occupational injuries by event or
exposure............................................................................ 138

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

79

Notes on Current Labor Statistics

This section of the R eview presents the prin­
cipal statistical series collected and calcu­
lated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
series on labor force; employment; unem­
ployment; labor compensation; consumer,
producer, and international prices; produc­
tivity; international comparisons; and injury
and illness statistics. In the notes that follow,
the data in each group of tables are briefly
described; key definitions are given; notes
on the data are set forth; and sources of addi­
tional information are cited.

G eneral notes
The following notes apply to several tables
in this section:
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly
and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect on the data of such factors as cli­
matic conditions, industry production sched­
ules, opening and closing of schools, holi­
day buying periods, and vacation practices,
which might prevent short-term evaluation
of the statistical series. Tables containing
data that have been adjusted are identified as
“seasonally adjusted.” (All other data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are es­
timated on the basis of past experience.
When new seasonal factors are computed
each year, revisions may affect seasonally
adjusted data for several preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted data appear in tables
1-14,16-17,39, and 43. Seasonally adjusted
labor force data in tables 1 and 4-9 were re­
vised in the February 2001 issue of the R e ­
view. Seasonally adjusted establishment sur­
vey data shown in tables 1, 12-14 and 1617 were revised in the July 2000 R eview and
reflect the experience through March 2000.
A brief explanation of the seasonal adjust­
ment methodology appears in “Notes on the
data.”
Revisions in the productivity data in table
45 are usually introduced in the September
issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and per­
cent changes from month-to-month and
quarter-to-quarter are published for numer­
ous Consumer and Producer Price Index se­
ries. However, seasonally adjusted indexes
are not published for the U.S. average AllItems CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent
changes are available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some
data—such as the “real” earnings shown in
table 14— are adjusted to eliminate the ef­
fect of changes in price. These adjustments
are made by dividing current-dollar values
by the Consumer Price Index or the appro­
priate component of the index, then multi­
plying by 100. For example, given a current
hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price

80

Monthly Labor Review


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

index number of 150, where 1982 = 100, the
hourly rate expressed in 1982 dollars is $2
($3/150 x 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other
resulting values) are described as “real,”
“constant,” or “1982” dollars.

tin 1979.
Detailed data on the occupational injury
and illness series are published in O ccupa­

Sources of information

tional Injuries a n d Illn esses in the U nited
States, by Industry, a BLS annual bulletin.
Finally, the M onthly L a b o r R eview car­

Data that supplement the tables in this sec­
tion are published by the Bureau in a variety
of sources. Definitions of each series and
notes on the data are contained in later sec­
tions of these Notes describing each set of
data. For detailed descriptions of each data
series, see b l s H andbook o f M ethods, Bul­
letin 2490. Users also may wish to consult
M a jo r P rogram s o f the B ureau o f L a b o r Sta­
tistics, Report 919. News releases provide

the latest statistical information published by
the Bureau; the major recurring releases are
published according to the schedule appear­
ing on the back cover of this issue.
More information about labor force, em­
ployment, and unemployment data and the
household and establishment surveys under­
lying the data are available in the Bureau’s
monthly publication, E m ploym ent and E a rn ­
ings. Historical unadjusted and seasonally
adjusted data from the household survey are
available on the Internet:
http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm
Historically comparable unadjusted and sea­
sonally adjusted data from the establishment
survey also are available on the Internet:
http://stats.bls.gov/ceshome.htm
Additional information on labor force data
for areas below the national level are pro­
vided in the BLS annual report, G eographic
P rofile o f E m ploym ent a n d U nem ploym ent.

For a comprehensive discussion of the
Employment Cost Index, see E m ploym ent
C ost Indexes a n d L evels, 1 9 7 5 -9 5 , BLS Bul­
letin 2466. The most recent data from the
Employee Benefits Survey appear in the fol­
lowing Bureau of Labor Statistics bulletins:
E m p lo y e e B e n e fits in M ed iu m a n d L a rg e
F irm s; E m ployee B enefits in Sm all P rivate
E stablishm ents; and E m ployee B en efits in
State a n d L ocal G overnm ents.

More detailed data on consumer and pro­
ducer prices are published in the monthly
periodicals, T he CPI D e ta ile d R e p o rt and
P roducer P rice Indexes. For an overview of
the 1998 revision of the c p i , see the Decem­
ber 1996 issue of the M onthly L abor R eview .
Additional data on international prices ap­
pear in monthly news releases.
Listings of industries for which produc­
tivity indexes are available may be found on
the Internet:
http://stats.bls.gov/iprhome.htm
For additional information on interna­

March 2001

tional comparisons data, see In tern a tio n a l
C om parisons o f U nem ploym ent, BLS Bulle­

ries analytical articles on annual and longer
term developments in labor force, employ­
ment, and unemployment; employee com­
pensation and collective bargaining; prices;
productivity; international comparisons; and
injury and illness data.

Symbols
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified,
n.e.s. = not elsewhere specified.
p = preliminary. To increase the time­
liness of some series, preliminary
figures are issued based on repre­
sentative but incomplete returns,
r = revised. Generally, this revision
reflects the availability of later
data, but also may reflect other ad­
justments.

Comparative Indicators
(Tables 1-3)
Comparative indicators tables provide an
overview and comparison of major b l s sta­
tistical series. Consequently, although many
of the included series are available monthly,
all measures in these comparative tables are
presented quarterly and annually.
Labor market indicators include em­
ployment measures from two major surveys
and information on rates of change in com­
pensation provided by the Employment Cost
Index (ECi) program. The labor force partici­
pation rate, the employment-to-population
ratio, and unemployment rates for major de­
mographic groups based on the Current
Population (“household”) Survey are pre­
sented, while measures of employment and
average weekly hours by major industry sec­
tor are given using nonfarm payroll data. The
Employment Cost Index (compensation), by
major sector and by bargaining status, is cho­
sen from a variety of BLS compensation and
wage measures because it provides a com­
prehensive measure of employer costs for
hiring labor, not just outlays for wages, and
it is not affected by employment shifts among
occupations and industries.
Data on changes in compensation, prices,
and productivity are presented in table 2.

Measures of rates of change of compensa­
tion and wages from the Employment Cost
Index program are provided for all civ il­
ian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal
and household workers) and for all private
nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in
consumer prices for all urban consumers;
producer prices by stage of processing;
overall prices by stage of processing; and
overall export and import price indexes are
given. Measures of productivity (output per
hour of all persons) are provided for major
sectors.
Alternative measures of wage and com­
pensation rates of change, which reflect the
overall trend in labor costs, are summarized
in table 3. Differences in concepts and scope,
related to the specific purposes of the series,
contribute to the variation in changes among
the individual measures.

Notes on the data
Definitions of each series and notes on the
data are contained in later sections of these
notes describing each set of data.

Employment and
Unemployment Data
(Tables 1; 4-20)

Household survey data
Description of the series
E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are ob­
tained from the Current Population Survey,

a program o f personal interviews conducted

monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sample con­
sists of about 50,000 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.

Definitions
Employed persons include (1) all those 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 regu­
lar jobs because of illness, vacation, indus­
trial dispute, or similar reasons. A person
working at more than one job is counted only
in the job at which he or she worked the
greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did
not work during the survey week, but were
available for work except for temporary ill­
ness and had looked for jobs within the pre­


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

ceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look
for work because they were on layoff are
also counted among the unemployed. The
unemployment rate represents the num­
ber unemployed as a percent of the civilian
labor force.
The civilian labor force consists of all
employed or unemployed persons in the
civilian noninstitutional population. Persons
not in the labor force are those not classified
as employed or unemployed. This group
includes discouraged workers, defined as
persons who want and are available for a job
and who have looked for work sometime in
the past 12 months (or since the end of their
last job if they held one within the past 12
months), but are not currently looking,
because they believe there are no jobs
available or there are none for which they
would qualify. The civilian noninstitu­
tional 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. The
civilian labor force participation rate is the
proportion of the civilian noninstitutional
population that is in the labor force. The
employment-population ratio is employ­
ment as a percent of the civilian nonin­
stitutional population.

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
intercensal years. These adjustments affect
the comparability of historical data. A de­
scription of these adjustments and their ef­
fect on the various data series appears in the
Explanatory Notes of E m p lo y m e n t a n d
E arnings.

Labor force data in tables 1 and 4-9 are
seasonally adjusted. Since January 1980,
national labor force data have been season­
ally adjusted with a procedure called X -11
a r i m a which was developed at Statistics
Canada as an extension of the standard X11 method previously used by b l s . A de­
tailed description of the procedure appears
in the X - l l
S e a so n a l A d ju s tm e n t
M ethod, by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics
Canada, Catalogue No. 12-564E, January
1983).
At the beginning of each calendar year,
historical seasonally adjusted data usually
are revised, and projected seasonal adjust­
ment factors are calculated for use during
the January-June period. The historical sea­
sonally adjusted data usually are revised for
only the most recent 5 years. In July, new
seasonal adjustment factors, which incorpo­
rate the experience through June, are pro­
duced for the July-December period, but no
a r i m

a

revisions are made in the historical data.
F o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on na­
tional household survey data, contact the
Division of Labor Force Statistics: (202)
691-6378.

Establishment survey data
Description of the series
E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a t a

in this section are compiled from payroll
records reported monthly on a voluntary ba­
sis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its
cooperating State agencies by about 300,000
establishments representing all industries
except agriculture. Industries are classified
in accordance with the 1987 S ta n d a rd In ­
d u stria l C lassification (SIC) M anual. In most
industries, the sampling probabilities are
based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the
sample. (An establishment is not necessar­
ily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for ex­
ample, or warehouse.) Self-employed per­
sons and others not on a regular civilian
payroll are outside the scope of the sur­
vey because they are excluded from estab­
lishment records. This largely accounts for
the difference in employment figures be­
tween the household and establishment
surveys.

Definitions
An establishment is an economic unit which
produces goods or services (such as a fac­
tory or store) at a single location and is en­
gaged in one type of economic activity.
Employed persons are all persons who
received pay (including holiday and sick
pay) for any part of the payroll period in­
cluding the 12th day of the month. Per­
sons holding more than one job (about 5
percent of all persons in the labor force)
are counted in each establishment which
reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing
include working supervisors and nonsupervisory workers closely associated with pro­
duction operations. Those workers men­
tioned in tables 11-16 include production
workers in manufacturing and mining; con­
struction workers in construction; and
nonsupervisory workers in the following in­
dustries: transportation and public utilities;
wholesale and retail trade; finance, insur­
ance, and real estate; and services. 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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

81

Current Labor Statistics
for overtime or late-shift work but exclud­
ing irregular bonuses and other special
payments. Real earnings are earnings
adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in
consumer prices. The deflator for this series
is derived from the Consumer Price Index
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers (CPI-W).
Hours represent the average weekly
hours of production or nonsupervisory work­
ers for which pay was received, and are dif­
ferent from standard or scheduled hours.
Overtime hours represent the portion of av­
erage weekly hours which was in excess of
regular hours and for which overtime premi­
ums were paid.
The D iffusion Index represents the
percent of industries in which employment
was rising over the indicated period, plus
one-half of the industries with unchanged
employment; 50 percent indicates an equal
balance between industries with increasing
and decreasing employment. In line with Bu­
reau practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month
spans are seasonally adjusted, while those
for the 12-month span are unadjusted. Data
are centered within the span. Table 17 pro­
vides an index on private nonfarm employ­
ment based on 356 industries, and a manu­
facturing index based on 139 industries.
These indexes are useful for measuring the
dispersion of economic gains or losses and
are also economic indicators.

Notes on the data
Establishment survey data are annually ad­
justed to comprehensive counts of employ­
ment (called “benchmarks”). The latest ad­
justment, which incorporated March 1999
benchmarks, was made with the release of
May 2000 data, published in the July 2000
issue of the R eview . Coincident with the
benchmark adjustment, historical seasonally
adjusted data were revised to reflect updated
seasonal factors. Unadjusted data from April
1999 forward and seasonally adjusted data
from January 1996 forward are subject to
revision in future benchmarks.
In addition to the routine benchmark revi­
sions and updated seasonal factors introduced
with the release of the May 2000 data, all esti­
mates for the wholesale trade division from
April 1998 forward were revised to incorpo­
rate a new sample design. This represented the
first major industry division to convert to a
probability-based sample under a 4-year
phase-in plan for the establishment survey
sample redesign project. For additional infor­
mation, see the the June 2000 issue of E m ploy­
m ent and Earnings.

Revisions in State data (table 11) oc­
curred with the publication of January 2000
data.
Beginning in June 1996, the BLS uses the
X - 12 a r i m a methodology to seasonally ad-

82

Monthly Labor Review


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

just establishment survey data. This proce­
dure, developed by the Bureau of the Cen­
sus, controls for the effect of varying sur­
vey intervals (also known as the 4- versus
5-week effect), thereby providing improved
measurement of over-the-month changes and
underlying economic trends. Revisions of
data, usually for the most recent 5-year pe­
riod, are made once a year coincident with
the benchmark revisions.
In the establishment survey, estimates
for the most recent 2 months are based on
incomplete returns and are published as pre­
liminary in the tables (12-17 in the R eview ).
When all returns have been received, the es­
timates are revised and published as “final”
(prior to any benchmark revisions) in the
third month of their appearance. Thus, De­
cember data are published as preliminary in
January and February and as final in March.
For the same reasons, quarterly establish­
ment data (table 1) are preliminary for the
first 2 months of publication and final in the
third month. Thus, fourth-quarter data are
published as preliminary in January and
February and as final in March.
F o r a d d it i o n a l in f o r m a t io n on estab­
lishment survey data, contact the Division
of Monthly Industry Employment Statis­
tics: (202) 691-6555.

Unemployment data by
State
Description of the series
Data presented in this section are obtained
from the Local Area Unemployment Statis­
tics (LAUS) program, which is conducted in
cooperation with State employment secu­
rity agencies.
Monthly estimates of the labor force,
employment, and unemployment for States
and sub-State areas are a key indicator of lo­
cal economic conditions, and form the basis
for determining the eligibility of an area for
benefits under Federal economic assistance
programs such as the Job Training Partner­
ship Act. Seasonally adjusted unemployment
rates are presented in table 10. Insofar as
possible, the concepts and definitions under­
lying these data are those used in the national
estimates obtained from the CPS.

Notes on the data
Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data
for all States and the District of Columbia are
derived using standardized procedures
established by b l s . Once a year, estimates are
revised to new population controls, usually
with publication of January estimates, and
benchmarked to annual average CPS levels.
F o r a d d it i o n a l in f o r m a t io n o n da ta in
th is series, c a ll

March 2001

(202) 691-6392

(ta b le

10) o r

(202) 691-6559 (table 11).

Compensation and
Wage Data
(Tables 1-3; 21-27)
are gathered
by the Bureau from business establishments,
State and local governments, labor unions,
collective bargaining agreements on file with
the Bureau, and secondary sources.

C o m p e n s a t io n a n d w a g e d a t a

Employment Cost Index
Description of the series
The Employment Cost Index (ECl) is a quar­
terly measure of the rate of change in com­
pensation per hour worked and includes
wages, salaries, and employer costs of em­
ployee benefits. It uses a fixed market
basket of labor— similar in concept to the
Consumer Price Index’s fixed market basket
of goods and services—to measure change
over time in employer costs of employing
labor.
Statistical series on total compensation
costs, on wages and salaries, and on benefit
costs are available for private nonfarm work­
ers excluding proprietors, the self-employed,
and household workers. The total compensa­
tion costs and wages and salaries series are
also available for State and local government
workers and for the civilian nonfarm economy,
which consists of private industry and State
and local government workers combined. Fed­
eral workers are excluded.
The Employment Cost Index probability
sample consists of about 4,400 private non­
farm establishments providing about 23,000
occupational observations and 1,000 State
and local government establishments provid­
ing 6,000 occupational observations selected
to represent total employment in each sector.
On average, each reporting unit provides
wage and compensation information on five
well-specified occupations. Data are col­
lected each quarter for the pay period includ­
ing the 12th day of March, June, September,
and December.
Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed
employment weights from the 1980 Census
of Population are used each quarter to
calculate the civilian and private indexes
and the index for State and local govern­
ments. (Prior to June 1986, the employment
weights are from the 1970 Census of Popu­
lation.) These fixed weights, also used to
derive all of the industry and occupation
series indexes, ensure that changes in these
indexes reflect only changes in compensa­
tion, not employment shifts among indus­
tries or occupations with different levels of

wages and compensation. For the bargaining
status, region, and metropolitan/non-metropolitan area series, however, employment
data by industry and occupation are not
available from the census. Instead, the 1980
employment weights are reallocated within
these series each quarter based on the cur­
rent sample. Therefore, these indexes are not
strictly comparable to those for the aggre­
gate, industry, and occupation series.

Definitions
Total compensation costs include wages,
salaries, and the employer’s costs for em­
ployee benefits.
Wages and salaries consist of earnings
before payroll deductions, including produc­
tion bonuses, incentive earnings, commis­
sions, and cost-of-living adjustments.
Benefits include the cost to employers
for paid leave, supplemental pay (includ­
ing nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retire­
ment and savings plans, and legally required
benefits (such as Social Security, workers’
compensation, and unemployment insurance).
Excluded from wages and salaries and em­
ployee benefits are such items as payment-in­
kind, free room and board, and tips.

Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index for changes in
wages and salaries in the private nonfarm
economy was published beginning in 1975.
Changes in total compensation cost— wages
and salaries and benefits combined— were
published beginning in 1980. The series of
changes in wages and salaries and for total
compensation in the State and local govern­
ment sector and in the civilian nonfarm
economy (excluding Federal employees)
were published beginning in 1981. Histori­
cal indexes (June 1981=100) are available on
the Internet:
http://stats.bls.gov/ecthome.htm
F or additional information on the
Employment Cost Index, contact the Office
of Compensation Levels and Trends: (202)
691-6199.

Employee Benefits Survey
Description of the series
Employee benefits data are obtained from
the Employee Benefits Survey, an annual
survey of the incidence and provisions of
selected benefits provided by employers.
The survey collects data from a sample of
approximately 9,000 private sector and
State and local government establishments.
The data are presented as a percentage of em­
ployees who participate in a certain benefit, or


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

as an average benefit provision (for example,
the average number of paid holidays provided
to employees per year). Selected data from the
survey are presented in table 25 for medium
and large private establishments and in table
26 for small private establishments and State
and local government.
The survey covers paid leave benefits
such as holidays and vacations, and personal,
funeral, jury duty, military, family, and sick
leave; short-term disability, long-term dis­
ability, and life insurance; medical, dental,
and vision care plans; defined benefit and
defined contribution plans; flexible benefits
plans; reimbursement accounts; and unpaid
family leave.
Also, data are tabulated on the inci­
dence of several other benefits, such as
severance pay, child-care assistance, well­
ness programs, and employee assistance
programs.

Definitions
Employer-provided benefits are benefits
that are financed either wholly or partly by
the employer. They may be sponsored by a
union or other third party, as long as there is
some employer financing. However, some
benefits that are fully paid for by the em­
ployee also are included. For example, long­
term care insurance and postretirement life
insurance paid entirely by the employee are
included because the guarantee of insurabil­
ity and availability at group premium rates
are considered a benefit.
Participants are workers who are covered
by a benefit, whether or not they use that benefit
If the benefit plan is financed wholly by
employers and requires employees to complete
a minimum length of service for eligibility, the
workers are considered participants whether or
not they have met the requirement. If workers
are required to contribute towards the cost of
a plan, they are considered participants only
if they elect the plan and agree to make the
required contributions.
Defined benefit pension plans use prede­
termined formulas to calculate a retirement
benefit (if any), and obligate the employer to
provide those benefits. Benefits are generally
based on salary, years of service, or both.
Defined contribution plans generally
specify the level of employer and employee
contributions to a plan, but not the formula
for determining eventual benefits. Instead,
individual accounts are set up for partici­
pants, and benefits are based on amounts
credited to these accounts.
Tax-deferred savings plans are a type of
defined contribution plan that allow par­
ticipants to contribute a portion of their sal­
ary to an employer-sponsored plan and defer
income taxes until withdrawal.
Flexible benefit plans allow employees

to choose among several benefits, such as life
insurance, medical care, and vacation days, and
among several levels of coverage within a given
benefit.

Notes on the data
Surveys of employees in medium and large
establishments conducted over the 1979-86
period included establishm ents that
employed at least 50, 100, or 250 workers,
depending on the industry (most service
industries were excluded). The survey
conducted in 1987 covered only State and
local governments with 50 or more
employees. The surveys conducted in 1988
and 1989 included medium and large
establishments with 100 workers or more in
private industries. All surveys conducted over
the 1979-89 period excluded establishments
in Alaska and Hawaii, as well as part-time
employees.
Beginning in 1990, surveys of State and
local governments and small private
establishments were conducted in evennumbered years, and surveys of medium and
large establishments were conducted in oddnumbered years. The small establishment
survey includes all private nonfarm
establishments with fewer than 100 workers,
while the State and local government survey
includes all governments, regardless of the
number of workers. All three surveys include
full- and part-time workers, and workers in all
50 States and the District of Columbia.
F or additional information on the
Employee Benefits Survey, contact the Of­
fice of Compensation Levels and Trends on
the Internet:
http ://stats.bls.gov/ebshome.htm

Work stoppages
Description of the series
Data on work stoppages measure the num­
ber and duration of major strikes or lockouts
(involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring
during the month (or year), the number of
workers involved, and the amount of work
time lost because of stoppage. These data are
presented in table 27.
Data are largely from a variety of pub­
lished sources and cover only establish­
ments directly involved in a stoppage. They
do not measure the indirect or secondary
effect of stoppages on other establishments
whose employees are idle owing to material
shortages or lack of service.

Definitions
Number o f stoppages: The number of
strikes and lockouts involving 1,000 work­
ers or more and lasting a full shift or longer.
W orkers involved: The number of

Monthly Labor R eview

March 2001

83

Current Labor Statistics
workers directly involved in the stoppage.
Number of days idle: The aggregate
number of workdays lost by workers in­
volved in the stoppages.
Days of idleness as a percent of estimated
working time: Aggregate workdays lost as a
percent of the aggregate number of standard
workdays in the period multiplied by total
employment in the period.

Notes on the data
This series is not comparable with the one
terminated in 1981 that covered strikes in­
volving six workers or more.
For additional information on work
stoppages data, contact the Office of Com­
pensation and Working Conditions: (202)
691-6282, or the Internet:
http://stats.bls.gov/cbahome.htm

Price Data

Notes on the data

(Tables 2; 28-38)
P rice data are gathered by the Bureau

o f Labor Statistics from retail and pri­
mary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base pe­
riod— 1982 = 100 for many Producer Price
Indexes, 1982-84 = 100 for many Con­
sumer Price Indexes (unless otherwise
noted), and 1990 = 100 for International
Price Indexes.

Consumer Price Indexes
Description of the series
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a mea­
sure of the average change in the prices paid
by urban consumers for a fixed market bas­
ket of goods and services. The cpi is calcu­
lated monthly for two population groups, one
consisting only of urban households whose
primary source of income is derived from the
employment of wage earners and clerical
workers, and the other consisting of all ur­
ban households. The wage earner index (CPiW) is a continuation of the historic index that
was introduced well over a half-century ago
for use in wage negotiations. As new uses
were developed for the CPI in recent years,
the need for a broader and more representa­
tive index became apparent. The all-urban
consumer index (CPi-U), introduced in 1978,
is representative of the 1993-95 buying hab­
its of about 87 percent of the noninstitutional
population of the United States at that time,
compared with 32 percent represented in the
CPI-W. In addition to wage earners and cleri­
cal workers, the CPI-U covers professional,
managerial, and technical workers, the selfemployed, short-term workers, the unem­
ployed, retirees, and others not in the labor
force.
84

Monthly Labor Review


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

The cpi is based on prices of food, cloth­
ing, shelter, fuel, drugs, transportation fares,
doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods
and services that people buy for day-to-day
living. The quantity and quality of these
items are kept essentially unchanged between
major revisions so that only price changes
will be measured. All taxes directly associ­
ated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index.
Data collected from more than 23,000 re­
tail establishments and 5,800 housing units
in 87 urban areas across the country are used
to develop the “U.S. city average.” Separate
estimates for 14 major urban centers are pre­
sented in table 29. The areas listed are as in­
dicated in footnote 1 to the table. The area
indexes measure only the average change in
prices for each area since the base period, and
do not indicate differences in the level of
prices among cities.

In January 1983, the Bureau changed the
way in which homeownership costs are
meaured for the cpi-u . A rental equivalence
method replaced the asset-price approach to
homeownership costs for that series. In
January 1985, the same change was made
in the cpi-w . The central purpose of the
change was to separate shelter costs from
the investment component of home-owner­
ship so that the index would reflect only the
cost of shelter services provided by owneroccupied homes. An updated cpi-u and cpiw were introduced with release of the Janu­
ary 1987 and January 1998 data.
F or additional information on con­
sumer prices, contact the Division of Con­
sumer Prices and Price Indexes: (202)
691-7000.

Producer Price Indexes
Description of the series
Producer Price Indexes (PPi) measure av­
erage changes in prices received by domes­
tic producers of commodities in all stages
of processing. The sample used for calcu­
lating these indexes currently contains about
3,200 commodities and about 80,000 quo­
tations per month, selected to represent the
movement of prices of all commodities pro­
duced in the manufacturing; agriculture, for­
estry, and fishing; mining; and gas and elec­
tricity and public utilities sectors. The stageof-processing structure of PPI organizes
products by class of buyer and degree of
fabrication (that is, finished goods, interme­
diate goods, and crude materials). The tradi­
tional commodity structure of ppi organizes
products by similarity of end use or mate­
rial composition. The industry and product
structure of ppi organizes data in

March 2001

accordance with the Standard Industrial Clas­
sification (SIC) and the product code exten­
sion of the sic developed by the U.S. Bu­
reau of the Census.
To the extent possible, prices used in
calculating Producer Price Indexes apply
to the first significant commercial transac­
tion in the United States from the produc­
tion or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily
by mail questionnaire. Most prices are
obtained directly from producing companies
on a voluntary and confidential basis. Prices
generally are reported for the Tuesday of
the week containing the 13th day of the
month.
Since January 1992, price changes for the
various commodities have been averaged
together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net
selling value of all commodities as of 1987.
The detailed data are aggregated to obtain
indexes for stage-of-processing groupings,
commodity groupings, durability-of-product
groupings, and a number of special composite
groups. All Producer Price Index data are
subject to revision 4 months after original
publication.
F or additional information on pro­
ducer prices, contact the Division of In­
dustrial Prices and Price Indexes: (202)
691-7705.

International Price Indexes
Description of the series
The International Price Program produces
monthly and quarterly export and import
price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded
between the United States and the rest of the
world. The export price index provides a
measure of price change for all products sold
by U.S. residents to foreign buyers. (“Resi­
dents” is defined as in the national income
accounts; it includes corporations, busi­
nesses, and individuals, but does not require
the organizations to be U.S. owned nor the
individuals to have U.S. citizenship.) The
import price index provides a measure of
price change for goods purchased from other
countries by U.S. residents.
The product universe for both the import
and export indexes includes raw materials,
agricultural products, semifinished manufac­
tures, and finished manufactures, including
both capital and consumer goods. Price data
for these items are collected primarily by
mail questionnaire. In nearly all cases, the
data are collected directly from the exporter
or importer, although in a few cases, prices
are obtained from other sources.
To the extent possible, the data gathered
refer to prices at the U.S. border for exports
and at either the foreign border or the U.S.
border for imports. For nearly all products,

the prices refer to transactions completed dur­
ing the first week of the month. Survey re­
spondents are asked to indicate all discounts,
allowances, and rebates applicable to the re­
ported prices, so that the price used in the
calculation of the indexes is the actual price for
which the product was bought or sold.
In addition to general indexes of prices
for U.S. exports and imports, indexes are also
published for detailed product categories of
exports and imports. These categories are
defined according to the five-digit level of
detail for the Bureau of Economic Analysis
End-use Classification (SITC), and the four­
digit level of detail for the Harmonized
System. Aggregate import indexes by coun­
try or region of origin are also available.
publishes indexes for selected catego­
ries of internationally traded services, calcu­
lated on an international basis and on a balance-of-payments basis.
bls

Notes on the data
The export and import price indexes are
weighted indexes of the Laspeyres type. Price
relatives are assigned equal importance
within each harmonized group and are then
aggregated to the higher level. The values as­
signed to each weight category are based on
trade value figures compiled by the Bureau
of the Census. The trade weights currently
used to compute both indexes relate to 1995.
Because a price index depends on the same
items being priced from period to period, it is
necessary to recognize when a product’s speci­
fications or terms of transaction have been
modified. For this reason, the Bureau’s ques­
tionnaire requests detailed descriptions of the
physical and functional characteristics of the
products being priced, as well as information
on the number of units bought or sold, dis­
counts, credit terms, packaging, class of buyer
or seller, and so forth. When there are changes
in either the specifications or terms of trans­
action of a product, the dollar value of each
change is deleted from the total price change
to obtain the “pure” change. Once this value
is determined, a linking procedure is em­
ployed which allows for the continued repric­
ing of the item.
For the export price indexes, the preferred
pricing is f.a.s. (free alongside ship) U.S. port
of exportation. When firms report export
prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point
information is collected which enables the
Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port
of exportation. An attempt is made to collect
two prices for imports. The first is the import
price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation,
which is consistent with the basis for valua­
tion of imports in the national accounts. The
second is the import price c.i.f.(costs, insur­
ance, and freight) at the U.S. port of importa­
tion, which also includes the other costs as-


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

sociated with bringing the product to the U.S.
border. It does not, however, include duty
charges. For a given product, only one price
basis series is used in the construction of an
index.
For additional information on inter­
national prices, contact the Division of Inter­
national Prices: (202) 691-7155.

Productivity Data
(Tables 2; 39-42)

Business sector and major
sectors
Description of the series
The productivity measures relate real output
to real input. As such, they encompass a fam­
ily of measures which include single-factor
input measures, such as output per hour, out­
put per unit of labor input, or output per unit
of capital input, as well as measures of mul­
tifactor productivity (output per unit of com­
bined labor and capital inputs). The Bureau
indexes show the change in output relative
to changes in the various inputs. The mea­
sures cover the business, nonfarm business,
manufacturing, and nonfinancial corporate
sectors.
Corresponding indexes of hourly com­
pensation, unit labor costs, unit nonlabor
payments, and prices are also provided.

Definitions
Output per hour of all persons (labor pro­
ductivity) is the quantity of goods and ser­
vices produced per hour of labor input. Out­
put per unit of capital services (capital pro­
ductivity) is the quantity of goods and ser­
vices produced per unit of capital services
input. Multifactor productivity is the quan­
tity of goods and services produced per com­
bined inputs. For private business and pri­
vate nonfarm business, inputs include labor
and capital units. For manufacturing, in­
puts include labor, capital, energy, non-en­
ergy materials, and purchased business ser­
vices.
Compensation per hour is total compen­
sation divided by hours at work. Total com­
pensation equals the wages and salaries of
employees plus employers’ contributions for
social insurance and private benefit plans,
plus an estimate of these payments for the
self-employed (except for nonfinancial cor­
porations in which there are no self-em­
ployed). Real compensation per hour is
compensation per hour deflated by the
change in the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers.
Unit labor costs are the labor compen­
sation costs expended in the production of a

unit of output and are derived by dividing
compensation by output. Unit nonlabor
payments include profits, depreciation,
interest, and indirect taxes per unit of out­
put. They are computed by subtracting
compensation of all persons from currentdollar value of output and dividing by out­
put.
Unit nonlabor costs contain all the
components of unit nonlabor payments ex­
cept unit profits.
Unit profits include corporate profits
with inventory valuation and capital con­
sumption adjustments per unit of output.
Hours of all persons are the total hours
at work of payroll workers, self-employed
persons, and unpaid family workers.
Labor inputs are hours of all persons ad­
justed for the effects of changes in the edu­
cation and experience of the labor force.
Capital services are the flow of services
from the capital stock used in production. It
is developed from measures of the net stock
of physical assets—equipment, structures,
land, and inventories— weighted by rental
prices for each type of asset.
Combined units of labor and capital
inputs are derived by combining changes in
labor and capital input with weights which
represent each component’s share of total
cost. Combined units of labor, capital, energy,
materials, and purchased business services are
similarly derived by combining changes in
each input with weights that represent each
input’s share of total costs. The indexes for
each input and for combined units are based
on changing weights which are averages of the
shares in the current and preceding year (the
Tomquist index-number formula).

Notes on the data
Business sector output is an annually-weighted
index constructed by excluding from real gross
domestic product (gdp ) the following outputs:
general government, nonprofit institutions,
paid employees of private households, and the
rental value of owner-occupied dwellings.
Nonfarm business also excludes farming. Pri­
vate business and private nonfarm business
further exclude government enterprises. The
measures are supplied by the U.S. Department
of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analy­
sis. Annual estimates of manufacturing sectoral
output are produced by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Quarterly manufacturing output in­
dexes from the Federal Reserve Board are ad­
justed to these annual output measures by the
bls. Compensation data are developed from
data of the Bureau of Economic Analysis and
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hours data are
developed from data of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
The productivity and associated cost mea­
sures in tables 39-42 describe the relation-

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

85

Current Labor Statistics
ship between output in real terms and the
labor and capital inputs involved in its pro­
duction. They show the changes from period
to period in the amount of goods and ser­
vices produced per unit of input.
Although these measures relate output to
hours and capital services, they do not mea­
sure the contributions of labor, capital, or any
other specific factor of production. Rather,
they reflect the joint effect of many influences,
including changes in technology; shifts in the
composition of the labor force; capital invest­
ment; level of output; changes in the utiliza­
tion of capacity, energy, material, and research
and development; the organization of produc­
tion; managerial skill; and characteristics and
efforts of the work force.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION on this
productivity series, contact the Division of
Productivity Research: (202) 691-5606.

Industry productivity
measures
Description of the series
The BLS industry productivity data
supplement the measures for the business
economy and major sectors with annual
measures of labor productivity for selected
industries at the three- and four-digit levels
of the Standard Industrial Classification
system. In addition to labor productivity,
the industry data also include annual
measures of compensation and unit labor
costs for three-digit industries and measures
of multifactor productivity for three-digit
manufacturing industries and railroad
transportation. The industry measures differ
in methodology and data sources from the
productivity measures for the major sectors
because the industry measures are
developed independently of the National
Income and Product Accounts framework
used for the major sector measures.

put. Labor compensation includes pay­
roll as well as supplemental payments, in­
cluding both legally required expenditures
and payments for voluntary programs.
Multifactor productivity is derived by
dividing an index of industry output by an
index of the combined inputs consumed in
producing that output. Combined inputs
include capital, labor, and intermediate pur­
chases. The measure of capital input used
represents the flow of services from the
capital stock used in production. It is devel­
oped from measures of the net stock of
physical assets— equipment, structures,
land, and inventories. The measure of in­
termediate purchases is a combination of
purchased materials, services, fuels, and
electricity.

Notes on the data
The industry measures are compiled from
data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics and the Bureau of the Census,with addi­
tional data supplied by other government
agencies, trade associations, and other
sources.
For most industries, the productivity
indexes refer to the output per hour of all
employees. For some trade and services in­
dustries, indexes of output per hour of all
persons (including self-employed) are con­
structed. For some transportation indus­
tries, only indexes of output per employee
are prepared.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION on this se­
ries, contact the Division of Industry Produc­
tivity Studies: (202) 691-5618.

International Comparisons
(Tables 43-45)

Labor force and
unemployment

Definitions
Output per hour is derived by dividing an index
of industry output by an index of labor input.
For most industries, output indexes are de­
rived from data on the value of industry out­
put adjusted for price change. For the remain­
ing industries, output indexes are derived from
data on the physical quantity of production.
The labor input series consist of the hours
of all employees (production workers and non­
production workers), the hours of all persons
(paid employees, partners, proprietors, and
unpaid family workers), or the number of em­
ployees, depending upon the industry.
Unit labor costs represent the labor
compensation costs per unit of output pro­
duced, and are derived by dividing an index
of labor compensation by an index of out­

86

Monthly Labor Review


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

Description of the series
Tables 43 and 44 present comparative meas­
ures of the labor force, employment, and un­
employment— approximating U.S. con­
cepts—for the United States, Canada, Aus­
tralia, Japan, and several European countries.
The unemployment statistics (and, to a lesser
extent, employment statistics) published by
other industrial countries are not, in most
cases, comparable to U.S. unemployment
statistics. Therefore, the Bureau adjusts the
figures for selected countries, where neces­
sary, for all known major definitional differ­
ences. Although precise comparability may
not be achieved, these adjusted figures pro­
vide a better basis for international compari-

March 2001

sons than the figures regularly published by
each country. For further information on ad­
justments and comparability issues, see
Constance Sorrentino, “International unem­
ployment rates: how comparable are they?”
M onthly L a b o r R eview , June 2000, pp. 3-20.

Definitions
For the principal U.S. definitions of the labor
force, employment, and unemployment, see
the Notes section on Employment and Unem­
ployment Data: Household survey data.

Notes on the data
The adjusted statistics have been adapted to
the age at which compulsory schooling ends
in each country, rather than to the U.S. stan­
dard of 16 years of age and older. Therefore,
the adjusted statistics relate to the popula­
tion aged 16 and older in France, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom; 15 and older in
Australia, Japan, Germany, Italy from 1993
onward, and the Netherlands; and 14 and older
in Italy prior to 1993. An exception to this
rule is that the Canadian statistics for 1976
onward are adjusted to cover ages 16 and
older, whereas the age at which compulsory
schooling ends remains at 15. The institu­
tional population is included in the denomi­
nator of the labor force participation rates
and employment-population ratios for Japan
and Germany; it is excluded for the United
States and the other countries.
In the U.S. labor force survey, persons on
layoff who are awaiting recall to their jobs
are classified as unemployed. European and
Japanese layoff practices are quite different
in nature from those in the United States;
therefore, strict application of the U.S. defi­
nition has not been made on this point. For
further information, see M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
view , December 1981, pp. 8-11.
The figures for one or more recent years
for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
and the United Kingdom are calculated using
adjustment factors based on labor force sur­
veys for earlier years and are considered pre­
liminary. The recent-year measures for these
countries, therefore, are subject to revision
whenever data from more current labor force
surveys become available.
There are breaks in the data series for the
United States (1990,1994,1997,1998,1999,
2000), Canada (1976) France (1992), Ger­
many (1991), Italy (1991, 1993), the Neth­
erlands (1988), and Sweden (1987).
For the United States, the break in series
reflects a major redesign of the labor force
survey questionnaire and collection method­
ology introduced in January 1994. Revised
population estimates based on the 1990 cen­
sus, adjusted for the estimated undercount,
also were incorporated. In 1996, previously

published data for the 1990-93 period were
revised to reflect the 1990 census-based
population controls, adjusted for the un­
dercount. In 1997, revised population con­
trols were introduced into the household sur­
vey. Therefore, the data are not strictly
conparable with prior years. In 1998, new
composite estimation procedures and minor
revisions in population controls were intro­
duced into the household survey. Therefore,
the data are not strictly comparable with data
for 1997 and earlier years. See the Notes sec­
tion on Employment and Unemployment
Data of this R eview .
bls recently introduced a new adjusted
series for Canada. Beginning with the data
for 1976, Canadian data are adjusted to more
closely approximate U.S. concepts. Adjust­
ments are made to the unemployed and labor
force to exclude: (1) 15-year-olds; (2) pas­
sive jobseekers (persons only reading news­
paper ads as their method of job search); (3)
persons waiting to start a new job who did
not seek work in the past 4 weeks; and (4)
persons unavailable for work due to personal
or family responsibilities. An adjustment is
made to include full-tine students looking for
full-time work. The impact of the adjust­
ments was to lower the annual average unem­
ployment rate by 0.1-0.4 percentage point
in the 1980s and 0.4-1.0 percentage point in
the 1990s.
For France, the 1992 break reflects the
substitution of standardized European Union
Statistical Office (EUROSTAT) unemployment
statistics for the unemployment data esti­
mated according to the International Labor
Office (ilo) definition and published in the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) annual yearbook and
quarterly update. This change was made be­
cause the EUROSTAT data are more up-to-date
than the OECD figures. Also, since 1992, the
Eurostat definitions are closer to the U.S.
definitions than they were in prior years. The
impact of this revision was to lower the un­
employment rate by 0.1 percentage point in
1992 and 1993, by 0.4 percentage point in
1994, and 0.5 percentage point in 1995.
For Germany, the data for 1991 onward
refer to unified Germany. Data prior to 1991
relate to the former West Germany. The im­
pact of including the former East Germany
was to increase the unemployment rate from
4.3 to 5.6 percent in 1991.
For Italy, the 1991 break reflects a revi­
sion in the method of weighting sample data.
The impact was to increase the unemploy­
ment rate by approximately 0.3 percentage
point, from 6.6 to 6.9 percent in 1991.
In October 1992, the survey methodol­
ogy was revised and the definition of unem­
ployment was changed to include only those
who were actively looking for a job within
the 30 days preceding the survey and who


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

were available for work. In addition, the
lower age limit for the labor force was raised
from 14 to 15 years. (Prior to these changes,
bls adjusted Italy’s published unemploy­
ment rate downward by excluding from the
unemployed those persons who had not
actively sought work in the past 30 days.)
The break in the series also reflects the incor­
poration of the 1991 population census re­
sults. The impact of these changes was to
raise Italy’s adjusted unemployment rate by
approximately 1.2 percentage points, from
8.3 to 9.5 percent in fourth-quarter 1992.
These changes did not affect employment
significantly, except in 1993. Estimates by
the Italian Statistical Office indicate that em­
ployment declined by about 3 percent in
1993, rather than the nearly 4 percent indi­
cated by the data shown in table 44. This
difference is attributable mainly to the incor­
poration of the 1991 population benchmarks
in the 1993 data. Data for earlier years have
not been adjusted to incorporate the 1991
census results.
For the Netherlands, a new survey ques­
tionnaire was introduced in 1992 that allowed
for a closer application of ilo guidelines.
eurostat has revised the Dutch series back
to 1988 based on the 1992 changes. The 1988
revised unemployment rate is 7.6 percent;
the previous estimate for the same year was
9.3 percent.
There have been two breaks in series in
the Swedish labor force survey, in 1987 and
1993. Adjustments have been made for the
1993 break back to 1987. In 1987, a new
questionnaire was introduced. Questions re­
garding current availability were added and
the period of active workseeking was re­
duced from 60 days to 4 weeks. These
changes lowered Sweden’s 1987 unemploy­
ment rate by 0.4 percentage point, from 2.3
to 1.9 percent. In 1993, the measurement
period for the labor force survey was
changed to represent all 52 weeks of the year
rather than one week each month and a new
adjustment for population totals was intro­
duced. The impact was to raise the unem­
ployment rate by approximately 0.5 per­
centage point, from 7.6 to 8.1 percent. Sta­
tistics Sweden revised its labor force survey
data for 1987-92 to take into account the
break in 1993. The adjustment raised the
Swedish unemployment rate by 0.2 percent­
age point in 1987 and gradually rose to 0.5
percentage point in 1992.
Beginning with 1987, BLS has adjusted the
Swedish data to classify students who also
sought work as unemployed. The impact of
this change was to increase the adjusted un­
employment rate by 0.1 percentage point in
1987 and by 1.8 percentage points in 1994,
when unemployment was higher. In 1998,
the adjusted unemployment rate had risen
from 6.5 to 8.4 percent due to the adjustment

to include students.
The net effect of the 1987 and 1993
changes and the bls adjustment for students
seeking work lowered Sweden’s 1987 unem­
ployment rate from 2.3 to 2.2 percent.
for additional information on this se­
ries, contact the Division of Foreign Labor
Statistics: (202) 691-5654.

Manufacturing productivity
and labor costs
Description of the series
Table 45 presents comparative indexes of
manufacturing labor productivity (output per
hour), output, total hours, compensation per
hour, and unit labor costs for the United
States, Canada, Japan, and nine European
countries. These measures are trend compari­
sons—that is, series that measure changes
over time—rather than level comparisons.
There are greater technical problems in com­
paring the levels of manufacturing output
among countries.
bls constructs the comparative indexes
from three basic aggregate measures— output,
total labor hours, and total compensation.
The hours and compensation measures refer
to all employed persons (wage and salary
earners plus self-employed persons and un­
paid family workers) in the United States,
Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Norway,
and Sweden, and to all employees (wage and
salary earners) in the other countries.

Definitions
Output, in general, refers to value added in
manufacturing from the national accounts of
each country. However, the output series
for Japan prior to 1970 is an index of indus­
trial production, and the national accounts
measures for the United Kingdom are essen­
tially identical to their indexes of industrial
production.
The 1977-97 output data for the United
States are the gross product originating (value
added) measures prepared by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department
of Commerce. Comparable manufacturing
output data currently are not available prior
to 1977.
U.S. gross product originating is a chaintype annual-weighted series. (For more in­
formation on the U.S. measure, see Robert E.
Yuskavage, “Improved Estimates of Gross
Product by Industry, 1959-94,” Survey o f
C urrent B u sin ess, August 1996, pp. 133—
55.) The Japanese value added series is based
upon one set of fixed price weights for the
years 1970 through 1997. Output series for
the other foreign economies also employ fixed
price weights, but the weights are updated
periodically (for example, every 5 or 10 years).

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

87

Current Labor Statistics
To preserve the comparability of the U.S.
measures with those for other economies, bls
uses gross product originating in manufac­
turing for the United States for these com­
parative measures. The gross product origi­
nating series differs from the manufacturing
output series that bls publishes in its news
releases on quarterly measures of U.S. pro­
ductivity and costs (and that underlies the
measures that appear in tables 39 and 41 in
this section). The quarterly measures are on
a “sectoral output” basis, rather than a valueadded basis. Sectoral output is gross output
less intrasector transactions.
Total labor hours refers to hours worked
in all countries. The measures are developed
from statistics of manufacturing employment
and average hours. The series used for France
(from 1970 forward), Norway, and Sweden
are official series published with the national
accounts. Where official total hours series are
not available, the measures are developed by
bls using employment figures published with
the national accounts, or other comprehen­
sive employment series, and estimates of
annual hours worked. For Germany, bls uses
estimates of average hours worked developed
by a research institute connected to the Min­
istry of Labor for use with the national ac­
counts employment figures. For the other
countries, BLS constructs its own estimates
of average hours.
Denmark has not published estimates of
average hours for 1994-97; therefore, the BLS
measure of labor input for Denmark ends in
1993.
Total compensation (labor cost) includes
all payments in cash or in-kind made directly
to employees plus employer expenditures for
legally required insurance programs and con­
tractual and private benefit plans. The mea­
sures are from the national accounts of each
country, except those for Belgium, which are
developed by bls using statistics on employ­
ment, average hours, and hourly compensa­
tion. For Canada, France, and Sweden, com­
pensation is increased to account for other sig­
nificant taxes on payroll or employment. For
the United Kingdom, compensation is reduced
between 1967 and 1991 to account for em­
ployment-related subsidies. Self-employed
workers are included in the all-employed-persons measures by assuming that their hourly
compensation is equal to the average for wage
and salary employees.

Notes on the data
In general, the measures relate to total manu­
facturing as defined by the International Stan­
dard Industrial Classification. However, the
measures for France (for all years) and Italy
(beginning 1970) refer to mining and manu­
facturing less energy-related products, and
the measures for Denmark include mining

88

Monthly Labor Review


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

and exclude manufacturing handicrafts from
1960 to 1966.
The measures for recent years may be
based on current indicators of manufactur­
ing output (such as industrial production in­
dexes), employment, average hours, and
hourly compensation until national accounts
and other statistics used for the long-term
measures become available.
For additional information on this se­
ries, contact the Division of Foreign Labor
Statistics: (202) 691-5654.

Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses

cludes acute and chronic illnesses or disease
which may be caused by inhalation, absorp­
tion, ingestion, or direct contact.
Lost workday injuries and illnesses are
cases that involve days away from work, or
days of restricted work activity, or both.
Lost workdays include the number of
workdays (consecutive or not) on which
the employee was either away from work
or at work in some restricted capacity, or
both, because of an occupational injury or
illness, bls measures of the number and
incidence rate of lost workdays were dis­
continued beginning with the 1993 survey.
The number of days away from work or
days of restricted work activity does not
include the day of injury or onset of illness
or any days on which the employee would
not have worked, such as a Federal holiday,
even though able to work.
Incidence rates are computed as the
number of injuries and/or illnesses or lost
work days per 100 full-time workers.

Description of the series

Notes on the data

Occupational Injury
and Illness Data
(Tables 46-47)

The Survey of Occupational Injuries and Ill­
nesses collects data from employers about their
workers’ job-related nonfatal injuries and ill­
nesses. The information that employers provide
is based on records that they maintain under
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970. Self-employed individuals, farms with
fewer than 11 employees, employers regulated
by other Federal safety and health laws, and
Federal, State, and local government agencies
are excluded from the survey.
The survey is a Federal-State coopera­
tive program with an independent sample
selected for each participating State. A strati­
fied random sample with a Neyman alloca­
tion is selected to represent all private in­
dustries in the State. The survey is stratified
by Standard Industrial Classification and
size of employment.

Definitions
Under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, employers maintain records of nonfatal
work-related injuries and illnesses that in­
volve one or more of the following: loss of
consciousness, restriction of work or motion,
transfer to another job, or medical treatment
other than first aid.
Occupational injury is any injury such as
a cut, fracture, sprain, or amputation that re­
sults from a work-related event or a single, in­
stantaneous exposure in the work environment.
Occupational illness is an abnormal con­
dition or disorder, other than one resulting from
an occupational injury, caused by exposure to
factors associated with employment. It in­

March 2001

The definitions of occupational injuries and
illnesses are from R ecordkeeping G uidelines
f o r O ccupational Injuries a n d Illnesses (U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics, September 1986).
Estimates are made for industries and em­
ployment size classes for total recordable cases,
lost workday cases, days away from work
cases, and nonfatal cases without lost work­
days. These data also are shown separately for
injuries. Illness data are available for seven cat­
egories: occupational skin diseases or disorders,
dust diseases of the lungs, respiratory condi­
tions due to toxic agents, poisoning (systemic
effects of toxic agents), disorders due to physi­
cal agents (other than toxic materials), disor­
ders associated with repeated trauma, and all
other occupational illnesses.
The survey continues to measure the num­
ber of new work-related illness cases which
are recognized, diagnosed, and reported dur­
ing the year. Some conditions, for example,
long-term latent illnesses caused by exposure
to carcinogens, often are difficult to relate to
the workplace and are not adequately recog­
nized and reported. These long-term latent ill­
nesses are believed to be understated in the
survey’s illness measure. In contrast, the over­
whelming majority of the reported new ill­
nesses are those which are easier to directly
relate to workplace activity (for example, con­
tact dermatitis and carpal tunnel syndrome).
Most of the estimates are in the form of
incidence rates, defined as the number of in­
juries and illnesses per 100 equivalent full­
time workers. For this purpose, 200,000 em­
ployee hours represent 100 employee years
(2,000 hours per employee). Full detail on the

available measures is presented in the annual
bulletin, O ccupational Injuries and Illnesses:
Counts, R ates, a n d Characteristics.

Comparable data for more than 40 States
and territories are available from the bls Of­
fice of Safety, Health and Working Condi­
tions. Many of these States publish data on
State and local government employees in ad­
dition to private industry data.
Mining and railroad data are furnished to
bls by the Mine Safety and Health Adminis­
tration and the Federal Railroad Administra­
tion. Data from these organizations are in­
cluded in both the national and State data
published annually.
With the 1992 survey, bls began publish­
ing details on serious, nonfatal incidents re­
sulting in days away from work. Included are
some major characteristics of the injured and
ill workers, such as occupation, age, gender,
race, and length of service, as well as the cir­
cumstances of their injuries and illnesses (na­
ture of the disabling condition, part of body
affected, event and exposure, and the source
directly producing the condition). In general,
these data are available nationwide for de­
tailed industries and for individual States at
more aggregated industry levels.
For additional information on occu­
pational injuries and illnesses, contact the
Office of Occupational Safety, Health and
Working Conditions at (202) 691-6180, or
access the Internet at:
http ://www.bls.gov/oshhome.htm

Census of Fatal
O ccupational Injuries
The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
compiles a complete roster of fatal job-re­
lated injuries, including detailed data about
the fatally injured workers and the fatal
events. The program collects and cross
checks fatality information from multiple
sources, including death certificates, State
and Federal workers’ compensation reports,
Occupational Safety and Health Administra­
tion and Mine Safety and Health Administra­
tion records, medical examiner and autopsy
reports, media accounts, State motor vehicle
fatality records, and follow-up questionnaires
to employers.
In addition to private wage and salary
workers, the self-employed, family mem­
bers, and Federal, State, and local govern­
ment workers are covered by the program.
To be included in the fatality census, the
decedent must have been employed (that
is working for pay, com pensation, or
profit) at the time of the event, engaged in
a legal work activity, or present at the site
of the incident as a requirement of his or
her job.

Definition
A fatal work injury is any intentional or unin­
tentional wound or damage to the body result-

ing in death from acute exposure to energy,
such as heat or electricity, or kinetic energy
from a crash, or from the absence of such es­
sentials as heat or oxygen caused by a specific
event or incident or series of events within a
single workday or shift. Fatalities that occur
during a person’s commute to or from work
are excluded from the census, as well as workrelated illnesses, which can be difficult
to identify due to long latency periods.

Notes on the data
Twenty-eight data elements are collected,
coded, and tabulated in the fatality program,
including information about the fatally in­
jured worker, the fatal incident, and the ma­
chinery or equipment involved. Summary
worker demographic data and event charac­
teristics are included in a national news re­
lease that is available about 8 months after
the end of the reference year. The Census of
Fatal Occupational Injuries was initiated in
1992 as a joint Federal-State effort. Most
States issue summary information at the time
of the national news release.
F or additional information on the
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries con­
tact the bls Office of Safety, Health, and
Working Conditions at (202) 691-6175, or
the Internet at:
http ://w ww.bls.gov/oshhome.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics Internet
The Bureau of Labor Statistics World Wide Web site on the Internet contains a range of
data on consumer and producer prices, employment and unemployment, occupational com­
pensation, employee benefits, workplace injuries and illnesses, and productivity. The
homepage can be accessed using any Web browser:
http://stats.bls.gov
Also, some data can be accessed through anonymous f t p or Gopher at
stats.bls.gov


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

89

Current Labor Statistics:

Comparative Indicators

1. Labor market indicators
Selected indicators

1999

2000

1998

1999

IV

1

II

2000
III

IV

1

II

III

IV

Employment data

Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized
population (householdsurvey):'
Labor force participation rate....................................................
Employment-population ratio...................................................
Unemployment rate..................................................................
Men........................................................................
16 to 24 years......................................................................
25 years and over................................................................
Women..........................................................................
16 to 24 years.....................................................................
25 years and over................................................................

67.1
64.3
4.2
4.1
10.3
3.0
4.3
9.5
3.3

67.2
64.5
4.0
3.9
9.7
2.8
4.1
8.9
3.2

67.2
64.2
4.4
4.3
10.5
3.1
4.6
9.4
3.6

67.1
64.3

67.1
64.2

4.3
4.1
10.4
3.0
4.4
9.7
3.4

4.3
4.2
10.5
3.0
4.4
9.2
3.5

67.1
64.2
4.2
4.1
10.1
3.0
4.3
9.6
3.3

67.1
64.3
4.1
4.0
10.3
2.9
4.2
9.4
3.1

67.4
64.6
4.1
3.9
9.7
2.8
4.2
9.5
3.2

67.3
64.6
4.0
3.9
9.8
2.8
4.1
9.0
3.2

67.0
64.3
4.0
3.9
9.8
2.8
4.2
8.6
3.3

67.
64.
4.
4.
9.
2.
4.
8.
3.

Employment, nonfarm (payroll data), in thousands:1
Total..........................................................................................
Private sector........................................................................
Goods-producing..................................................................
Manufacturing...................................................................
Service-producing.................................................................

128,786
108,616
25,482
18,543
103,304

131,417
110,847
25,661
18,437
105,756

126,967
107,016
25,469
18,716
101,498

127,800
107,741
25,488
18,632
102,312

128,430
108,319
25,454
18,543
102,976

129,073
108,874
25,459
18,516
103,614

129,783
109,507
25,524
18,482
104,259

130,626
110,195
25,680
18,481
104,946

131,552
110,725
25,703
18,488
105,849

131,619
111,084
25,680
18,453
105,940

131,831
111,40c
25.62C
18,347
106,211

Average hours:
Private sector..........................................................................
Manufacturing.......................................................................
Overtime............................................................................

34.5
41.7
4.6

34.5
41.5
4.5

34.6
41.7
4.5

34.5
41.6
4.5

34.5
41.7
4.6

34.5
41.8
4.6

34.5
41.7
4.7

34.5
41.7
4.6

34.5
41.7
4.7

34.4
41.5
4.5

3.4
3.4

4.1
4.4

.6
.6

.4
.4

1.0
1.1

1.1
.9

.9
.9

1.3
1.5

1.0
1.2

1.0
.9

Goods-producing'3..............................................................

3.4

4.4

.5

.8

.7

.9

1.0

1.6

1.2

.9

Service-producing'3.............................................................
State and local government workers.......................................

3.4
3.4

4.4
3.0

.6
.6

.3
.5

1.3
.4

.9
1.5

.8
1.0

1.4
.6

1.2
.3

1.0
1.3

Workers by bargaining status (private industry):
Union.......................................................................................
Nonunion...................................................................................

2.7
3.6

4.0
4.4

.5
.6

.4
.5

.7
1.2

.9
.9

.7
1.0

1.3
1.5

1.0
1.2

1.2
1.0

Employment Cost Index2

Percent change in the ECI, compensation:
All workers (excluding farm, household and Federal workers).....
Private industry workers..........................................................

' Quarterly data seasonally adjusted.
2 Annual changes are December-to-December changes. Quarterly changes are calculated using the last month of each quarter.
3 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service-producing industries include all other private sector industries.

90

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

34.
41.
4.

2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity
Selected measures

2000

1999

1998

2000

1999

IV

III

II

I

IV

III

II

I

IV
Compensation data 1,2

Employment Cost Index—compensation (wages,
salaries, benefits):
3.4

4.1

0.6

0.4

1.0

1.1

0.9

1.3

1.0

1.0

0.7

3.4

4.4

.6

.4

1.1

.9

.9

1.5

1.2

.9

.7

Employment Cost Index—wages and salaries:
3.5

3.8

.7

.5

1.0

1.1

.8

1.1

1.0

1.1

.6

3.5

3.9

.6

.5

1.2

.9

.9

1.2

1.0

1.0

.6

2.7

3.4

.2

.7

.7

1.0

.2

1.7

.7

.8

.2

2.9

4.3

.4

.0

1.2

1.5

.1

1.4

1.3

.6

.2

3.8

3.8

.2

.0

1.8

2.2

-.2

1.8

1.8

.7

.0

.3

1.2

.9

-.1

-.4

-.4

1.2

.1

.0

.0

3.7

4.1

-1.6

-.2

1.9

1.9

.1

1.9

1.6

1.0

.9
-.4

15.3

31.6

-2.5

-.1

9.4

10.2

-3.5

9.1

11.2

.3

8.1

2.8

4.3

3.5

2.7

.5

4.7

7.6

1.7

7.0

2.4

3.2

2.6

4.3

3.2

2.0

.2

5.0

8.0

2.1

6.3

3.0

2.4

2.4

3.0

2.7

4.4

5.8

3.1

5.6

4.4

-

Price data 1

Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers): All Items.....
Producer Price Index:

Productivity data 3

Output per hour of all persons:

Nonfinancial corporations4..................................................

3.5

1
Annual changes are December-to-December changes. Quarterly changes are
calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and price data are not
seasonally adjusted, and the price data are not compounded.

cent changes reflect annual rates of change in quarterly indexes. The data are
seasonally adjusted.
4 Output per hour of all employees.

2 Excludes Federal and private household workers.
NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages. Quarterly per­

3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes
Four quarters ending—

Quarterly average
2000

1999

Components

IV

III

II

I

IV

III

IV

III

II

I

IV

III

2000

1999

Average hourly compensation:1
All persons, business sector.........................................................
All persons, nonfarm business sector..........................................
Employment Cost Index—compensation:
2
Civilian nonfarm ...........................................................................
Union.........................................................................................
Nonunion...................................................................................
State and local governments.....................................................
Employment Cost Index—wages and salaries:
2
Civilian nonfarm ..........................................................................

State and local governments.....................................................

5.1
5.2

3.8
4.2

3.7
4.1

7.1
6.0

5.7
6.2

7.5
6.6

4.6
4.4

4.5
4.4

4.3
4.5

4.9
4.9

5.0
5.1

6.0
5.7

1.1
.9
.9
.9
1.5

.9
.9
.7
1.0
1.0

1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
.6

1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
.3

1.0
.9
1.2
1.0
1.3

.7
.7
.1
.7
.7

3.1
3.1
2.5
3.2
2.9

3.4
3.4
2.7
3.6
3.4

4.3
4.6
3.6
4.7
3.6

4.4
4.6
3.9
4.6
3.5

4.3
4.6
4.2
4.7
3.3

4.1
4.4
4.0
4.4
3.0

1.1
.9
.7
.9
1.9

.8
.9
.6
.9
.9

1.1
1.2
.5
1.3
.6

1.0
1.0
.9
1.1
.3

1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.7

.6
1.0
.9
.6
.7

3.3
3.2
2.5
3.3
3.3

3.5
3.5
2.6
3.6
3.6

4.0
4.2
2.7
4.4
3.8

4.0
4.1
2.8
4.3
3.7

4.0
4.1
3.2
4.3
3.5

3.8
3.9
3.4
4.0
3.3

1 Seasonally adjusted. "Quarterly average" is percent change from a quarter ago, at an annual rate.
2 Excludes Federal and household workers.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

91

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

4. Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status

Annua average
1999

2000

2001

2000

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

209,699
140,863
67.2
135,208

208,782
140,645
67.4
134,976

208,907
141,860
67.4
135,120

209,053
140,705
67.3
135,013

209,216
141,114
67.4
135,517

209,371
140,573
67.1
134,843

209,543
140,757
67.2
135,183

209,727
140,546
67.0
134,898

209,935
140,724
67.0
134,939

210,161
140,847
67.0
135,310

210,378
141,000
67.0
135,464

210,577
141,136
67.0
135,478

210,743
141,489
67.1
135,836

210,889
141,955
67.3
135,999

64.5
5,655
4.0
68,836

64.6
5,669
4.0
68,137

64.7
5,740
4.1
68,047

64.6
5,692
4.0
68,348

64.8
5,597
4.0
68,102

64.4
5,730
4.1
68,798

64.5
5,574
4.0
68,786

64.3
5,648
4.0
69,181

64.3
5,785
4.1
69,211

64.4
5,537
3.9
69,314

64.4
5,536
3.9
69,378

64.3
5,658
4.0
69,441

64.5
5,653
4.0
69,254

64.5
5,956
4.2
68,934

91,555
79,104
76.7
67,761

92,580
70,930
76.6
68,580

92,057
70,777
76.9
68,440

92,092
70,952
77.0
68,557

92,145
70,773
76.8
68,445

92,303
70,776
76.7
68,473

92,408
70,666
76.5
68,315

92,546
70,785
76.5
68,489

92,642
70,782
76.4
68,495

92,754
71,029
76.6
68,710

92,863
71,053
76.5
68,728

92,969
71,155
76.5
68,774

93,061
71,135
76.4
68,683

93,117
71,289
76.6
68,848

93,184
71,492
76.7
68,916

74.0
2,028

74.1
2,252

74.3
2,285

74.5
2,283

74.3
2,240

74.2
2,248

73.9
2,228

74.0
2,262

73.9
2,280

74.1
2,276

74.0
2,350

74.0
2,219

73.8
2,122

73.9
2,232

74.0
2,122

65,517
2,433
3.5

66,328
2,350
3.3

66,155
2,337
3.3

66,294
2,375
3.3

66,205
2,328
3.3

66,225
2,303
3.3

66,087
2,347
3.3

66,227
2,296
3.2

66,215
2,287
3.2

66,434
2,319
3.3

66,378
2,325
3.3

66,555
2,381
3.3

66,561
2,452
3.4

66,616
2,441
3.4

66,795
2,576
3.6

population1..................... 100,158
Civilian labor force.......... .. 60,840
Participation rate......
60.7
Employed...................
58,555
Employment-pop­
ulation ratio2..........
58.5
Agriculture...............
803
Nonagri cultural
industries.............. . 57,752
Unemployed...............
2,285
Unemployment rate..
3.8
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years

101,078
61,565
60.9
59,352

100,579
61,462
61.1
59,209

100,666
61,488
61.1
59,285

100,713
61,573
61.1
59,326

100,809
61,856
61.4
59,651

100,929
61,582
61.0
59,264

101,007
61,561
60.9
59,282

101,111
61,535
60.9
59,273

101,209
61,265
60.5
58,992

101,321
61,486
60.7
59,344

101,448
61,528
60.6
59,425

101,533
61,625
60.7
59,506

101,612
61,819
60.8
59,708

101,643
62,126
61.1
59,894

58.7
818

58.9
826

58.9
854

58.9
866

59.2
871

58.7
846

58.7
829

58.6
797

58.3
808

58.6
764

58.6
748

58.6
797

58.8
822

58.9
852

58,535
2,212
3.6

58,383
2,253
3.7

58,431
2,203
3.6

58,460
2,247
3.6

58,780
2,205
3.6

58,418
2,318
3.8

58,453
2,279
3.7

58,476
2,262
3.7

58,184
2,273
3.7

58,580
2,142
3.5

58,677
2,103
3.4

58,709
2,119
3.4

58,886
2,111
3.4

59,042
2,232
3.6

16,040
8,333
52.0
7,172

16,042
8,369
52.2
7,216

16,147
8,406
52.1
7,327

16,149
8,420
52.1
7,258

16,196
8,359
51.6
7,242

16,104
8,482
52.7
7,393

16,034
8,329
51.9
7,264

15,991
8,411
52.6
7,412

15,974
8,229
51.5
7,130

15,972
8,430
52.8
7,237

15,977
8,308
52.0
7,238

15,960
8,317
52.1
7,265

15,983
8,376
52.4
7,289

16,014
8,381
52.3
7,280

16,063
8,337
51.9
7,188

44.7
234

45.4
235

45.4
245

44.9
230

44.7
232

45.9
241

45.3
220

46.4
222

44.6
218

45.3
233

45.3
242

45.5
274

45.6
257

45.5
220

44.7
205

6,938
1,162
13.9

7,041
1,093
13.1

7,082
1,079
12.8

7,028
1,162
13.8

7,010
1,117
13.4

7,152
1,089
12.8

7,044
1,065
12.8

7,190
999
11.9

6,912
1,099
13.4

7,004
1,193
14.2

6,996
1,070
12.9

6,991
1,052
12.6

7,032
1,087
13.0

7,060
1,101
13.1

6,983
1,149
13.8

population1...................... 173,085
Civilian labor force........... . 116,509
Participation rate.......
67.3
Employed..................... 112,235
Employment-pop­
ulation ratio2...........
64.8
Unemployed.................
4,273
Unemployment rate...
3.7
Black

174,428
117,574
67.4
113,475

173,812
117,484
67.6
113,442

173,886
117,661
67.7
113,501

173,983
117,592
67.6
113,435

174,092
117,800
67.7
113,710

174,197
117,329
67.4
113,240

174,316
117,477
67.4
113,493

174,443
117,298
67.2
113,201

174,587
117,554
67.3
113,378

174,745
117,553
67.3
113,464

174,899
117,603
67.2
113,584

175,034
117,640
67.2
113,509

175,145
117,945
67.3
113,811

175,246
118,276
67.5
114,015

65.1
4,099
3.Ò

65.3
4,042
3.4

65.3
4,160
3.5

65.2
4,157
3.5

65.3
4,090
3.5

65.0
4,089
3.5

65.1
3,984
3.4

64.9
4,097
3.5

64.9
4,176
3.6

64.9
4,089
3.5

64.9
4,019
3.4

64.8
4,131
3.5

65.0
4,134
3.5

65.1
4,261
3.6

25,218
16,603
65.8
15,334

25,047
16,587
66.2
15,238

25,076
16,721
66.7
15,416

25,105
16,550
65.9
15,312

25,135
16,586
66.0
16,376

25,161
16,577
65.9
15,264

25,191
16,573
65.8
15,277

25,221
16,501
65.4
15,232

25,258
16,540
65.5
15,239

25,299
16,489
65.2
15,304

25,339
16,627
65.6
15,401

25,376
16,732
65.9
15,485

25,408
16,742
65.9
15,470

25,382
16,773
66.1
15,372

60.8
1,349
8.1

61.5
1,305
7.8

61.0
1,238
7.5

61.2
1,210
7.3

60.7
1,313
7.9

60.6
1,296
7.8

60.4
1,269
7.7

60.3
1,301
7.9

60.5
1,185
7.2

60.9
1,272
7.6

60.6
1,401
8.4

TOTAL

Civilian noninstitutional
population1..................
207,753
Civilian labor force....... ... 139,368
Participation rate....
67.1
Employed................. ... 133,488
Employment-pop­
64.3
ulation ratio2.......
Unemployed............
5,880
4.2
Not in the labor force.... .. 68,385
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional
population1....................
Civilian labor force......... ..
Participation rate......
Employed................... ...
Employment-pop­
ulation ratio2.........
Agriculture...............
Nonagri cultural
industries.............. ..
Unemployed...............
Unemployment rate..
Women, 20 years and ove
Civilian noninstitutional

Civilian noninstitutional
population1......................
Civilian labor force..........
Participation rate.......
Employed....................
Employment-pop­
ulation ratio2..........
Agriculture................
Nonagricultural
industries...............
Unemployed................
Unemployment rate...
White
Civilian noninstitutional

Civilian noninstitutional
population1.......................
Civilian labor force...........
Participation rate.......
Employed.....................
Employment-pop­
ulation ratio2...........
Unemployed.................
Unemployment rate....

24,855
16,365
65.8
15,056
60.6
1,309
8.0

60.8
1,269
7.6 I

See footnotes at end of table.

92

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

60.8
1,226
7.4 I

61.0
1,247
7.5 I

4. Continued—Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Employment status

Annual average

2000

2001

1999

2000

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

21,650
14,665
67.7
13,720

22,393

22,047

22,355

22,422

15,320
68.5
14 456

15,243
68.0
14,384

15,513
68.8
14,647

22,618
15,491
68.5
14,711

22,687

15,294
68.6
14,411

22,488
15,312
68.1
14,439

22,555

15,271
68.9
14,340

22,231
15,327
68.9
14,463

22,292

15,181
68.9
14,309

22,108
15,194
68.7
14,322

22,166

15,368
68.6
14,492

15,626
68.9
14,686

22,749
15,671
68.9
14,772

22,008
15,540
68.2
14,612

63.4
945
6.4

64.7
876
5.7

64.9
872
5.7

64.8
872
5.7

64.7
931
6.1

65.1
864
5.6

64.6
883
5.8

64.7
864
5.6

64.2
859
5.6

64.2
873
5.7

64.9
866
5.6

65.0
780
5.0

64 7
940
6.0

64.9
899
5.7

64 2
9?7
6.0

Hispanic origin
Civilian noninstitutional
population1.......................
Civilian labor force............
Participation rate........
Employment-pop-

Unemployment rate....

The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.

data for the "other races" groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the

2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanlc-origin groups will not sum to totals because

5.

white and black population groups.

Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[In thousands]
Selected categories

2000

Annual average

2001

1999

2000

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Employed, 16 years and over..
Men...................................
Women..............................

133,488
771,446
62,042

135,208
72,293
62,915

134,976
72,201
62,775

135,120
62,333
62,787

135,013
72,246
62,767

135,517
72,257
63,260

134,843
72,049
62,794

135,183
72,240
62,943

134,898
72,141
62,757

134,939
72,379
62,560

135,310
72,398
62,912

135,464
72,427
63,037

135,478
72,354
63,124

135,836
72,534
63,302

135,999
72,589
63,410

Married men, spouse
present............................

43,254

43,368

3,763

43,437

43,341

43,321

43,306

43,364

43,308

43,375

43,321

43,345

43,251

43,293

43,134

Married women, spouse
present............................

33,450

33,708

34,132

33,841

33,765

33,795

33,723

33,745

33,621

33,507

33,491

33,622

33,633

33,635

34,249

Women who maintain
families............................

8,229

8,387

8,335

8,251

8,119

8,330

8,335

8,340

8,460

8,492

8,516

8,449

8,495

8,501

8,426

1,944
1,297
40

2,034
1,233
38

2,022
1,295
39

2,024
1,303
47

2,037
1,272
42

2,042
1,257
43

2,013
1,246
38

2,051
1,187
44

2,065
1,189
39

2,048
1,241
36

2,018
1,274
38

2,041
1,182
32

2,005
1,180
25

2,019
1,198
34

1,983
1,182
25

121,323
18,903
102,420
933
101,487
8,790
95

123,128
19,053
104,076
890
103,186
8,674
101

122,713
19,011
103,702
949
102,753
8,778
91

122,972
19,259
103,713
980
102,733
8,780
76

122,951
19,451
103,500
967
102,533
8,712
101

123,209
19,168
104,041
977
103,064
8,727
96

122,871
19,084
103,787
934
102,853
8,708
89

123,020
18,836
104,184
926
103,258
8,660
74

122,744
18,592
104,152
821
103,331
8,619
86

122,931
18,644
104,287
781
103,506
8,618
114

123,117
19,003
104,114
824
103,290
8,786
108

123,461
19,073
104,388
812
103,576
8,561
136

123,632
19,146
104,486
827
103,659
8,533
128

123,813
19,352
104,461
879
103,582
8,600
121

124,035
18,843
105,192
859
104,333
8,698
110

3,357

3,190

3,195

3,149

3,139

3,135

3,240

3,125

3,110

3,170

33,188

3,222

3,416

3,234

3,327

1,968

1,927

1,879

1,828

1,836

1,862

1,935

1,858

1,871

1,980

2,051

1,909

2,183

1,964

2,035

1,079

944

1,014

1,015

972

1,002

972

981

918

880

831

947

886

896

954

18,758

18,722

18,752

18,892

18,723

18,606

18,513

18,444

18,579

18,704

18,595

18,758

18,896

18,993

18,568

3,189

3,045

3,048

2,997

3,002

3,021

3,077

2,981

2,972

3,038

3,030

3,044

3,285

3,088

3,227

1,861

1,835

1,792

1,731

1,770

1,791

1,831

1,760

1,773

1,901

1,940

1,808

2,082

1,882

1,971

1,056

924

988

994

942

975

952

982

896

861

817

923

871

877

945

18,207
18,165
18,257
18,159
18,043
17,957
17,897
18,052
18,142
1 Excludes persons "with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.

18,024

18,206

18,323

18,437

18,040

Characteristic

Class of worker
Myriuuuure:
Wage and salary workers....
Self-employed workers.......
Unpaid family workers........
Nonagricultural Industries:
Wage and salary workers....
(iovernment.......................
Private industries...............
Private households.......
Other...........................
Self-employed workers......
Unpaid family workers.......

Persons at work part time1
All industries:
Part time for economic
Slack work or business
conditions.....................
Could only find part-time
Part time for noneconomic
reasons..........................
Nonagricultural industries:
Part time for economic
Slack work or business
conditions.....................
Could only find part-time
Part time for noneconomic
reasons..........................


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

18,197

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

93

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

6. Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Unemployment rates]
Selected categories

Annual average
1998

2000

2000

2001

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Characteristic
Total, 16 years and over..........................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years...................
Men, 20 years and over........................
Women, 20 years and over..................

4.2
13.9
3.5
3.8

4.0
13.1
3.3
3.6

4.0
12.8
3.3
3.7

4.1
13.8
3.3
3.6

4.0
13.4
3.3
3.6

4.0
12.8
3.3
3.6

4.1
12.8
3.3
3.8

4.0
11.9
3.2
3.7

4.0
13.4
3.2
3.7

4.1
14.2
3.3
3.7

3.9
12.9
3.3
3.5

3.9
12.6
3.3
3.4

4.0
13.0
3.4
3.4

4.0
13.1
3.4
3.4

4.2
13.8
3.6
3.6

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 over.............

3.7
12.0
12.6
11.3
3.0
3.3

3.5
11.4
12.3
10.4
2.8
3.1

3.4
11.1
12.4
9.6
2.8
3.1

3.5
12.2
13.8
10.4
2.9
3.1

3.5
11.8
11.6
11.9
2.8
3.2

3.5
11.6
12.9
10.1
2.8
3.1

3.5
10.7
10.9
10.5
2.8
3.3

3.4
9.9
11.7
7.9
2.8
3.2

3.5
11.5
12.5
10.4
2.8
3.2

3.6
12.0
13.1
10.8
2.8
3.3

3.5
11.4
12.2
10.6
2.9
3.1

3.4
11.2
11.8
10.5
2.9
3.0

11.5
11.7
12.4
10.9
3.0
3.0

3.5
11.5
12.2
10.7
2.9
3.1

3.6
11.7
13.3
9.8
3.2
3.0

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 over..............

8.0
27.9
30.9
25.1
6.7
6.8

7.6
24.7
26.4
23.0
7.0
6.3

8.1
24.3
24.7
23.9
7.3
7.1

7.8
24.3
23.0
25.6
7.1
6.5

7.5
24.7
22.8
26.7
6.7
6.2

7.3
23.3
23.7
22.8
6.7
5.9

7.9
24.4
27.4
21.5
7.1
6.7

7.8
25.6
31.5
19.3
6.9
6.5

7.7
26.4
25.7
27.1
6.8
6.3

7.9
26.8
31.7
22.3
7.2
6.2

7.2
24.1
26.7
21.7
6.5
5.8

7.4
23.9
27.0
21.2
7.0
5.8

7.5
21.9
22.5
21.3
6.9
6.2

7.6
26.7
30.1
23.4
7.3
5.7

8.4
27.9
26.9
28.9
6.9
7.3

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

6.4

5.7

5.7

5.7

6.1

5.6

5.8

5.6

5.6

5.7

5.6

5.0

6.0

5.7

6.0

Married men, spouse present............
Married women, spouse present........
Women who maintain families...........
Full-time workers...............................
Part-time workers................................

2.2
2.7
6.4
4.1
5.0

2.0
2.7
5.9
3.9
4.8

2.0
2.6
6.2
3.9
4.7

2.0
2.6
6.2
3.9
4.9

2.0
2.7
6.6
3.8
4.9

1.8
2.7
6.2
3.8
4.7

1.9
2.8
6.3
3.9
5.1

1.9
2.6
6.0
3.8
4.9

2.0
2.7
7.7
3.8
5.1

2.0
2.8
6.0
3.9
5.0

2.1
2.7
5.4
3.8
4.6

2.1
2.5
5.4
3.8
4.5

2.2
2.5
5.2
3.9
4.5

2.2
2.6
5.1
3.9
4.6

2.3
2.5
6.4
4.1
4.9

4.3
5.7
7.0
3.6
3.5
3.9
3.0
5.2
2.3
4.1
2.2
8.9

4.1
3.9
6.4
3.6
3.4
4.0
3.1
5.0
2.3
3.8
2.1
7.5

4.2
2.8
6.4
3.3
2.9
3.8
3.3
5.1
2.5
4.1
2.1
5.4

4.2
3.8
7.2
3.4
3.1
3.8
3.2
5.3
2.7
3.8
2.1
6.6

4.3
2.7
6.6
3.9
3.2
4.9
3.1
5.3
4.4
4.0
1.8
6.0

4.1
3.0
5.4
4.0
3.9
4.1
3.0
5.0
2.5
3.8
1.7
8.3

4.1
4.1
5.9
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.2
5.1
2.4
3.9
2.0
7.4

4.0
3.9
6.0
3.4
3.4
3.2
2.9
5.1
2.3
3.8
2.5
7.2

4.1
4.5
6.0
3.6
3.3
4.0
3.1
5.0
2.2
3.9
2.1
7.2

4.1
4.3
6.4
3.5
3.1
4.1
3.1
5.1
2.4
3.8
2.3
8.0

4.0
5.0
6.4
3.6
3.2
4.3
3.2
4.8
2.1
3.7
2.1
7.9

4.0
7.1
6.5
4.0
3.8
4.3
2.8
4.8
2.3
3.6
2.0
8.8

4.0
3.5
6.9
3.6
3.5
3.9
2.6
4.7
1.9
3.7
2.3
9.4

4.0
3.6
6.5
3.6
3.4
4.0
3.2
4.8
2.1
3.6
2.2
8.9

4.3
2.2
6.8
4.2
4.2
4.3
2.8
5.0
2.3
4.0
2.2
9.0

6.7
3.5

6.4
3.5

6.5
3.5

6.1
3.5

6.7
3.4

6.1
3.4

6.9
3.5

6.4
3.4

6.4
3.4

6.3
3.7

6.2
3.4

6.4
3.5

6.6
3.5

6.3
3.4

6.8
3.8

2.8
1.8

2.7
1.7

2.6
1.8

2.8
1.6

2.7
1.6

2.6
1.6

2.6
1.6

2.8
1.6

2.7
1.7

2.7
1-7

2.6
1.9

2.4
1.6

2.7
1.6

2.7
1.6

3.0
1.6

Industry
Nonagricultural wage and salary
workers....................................................
Mining...................................................
Construction.........................................
Manufacturing.......................................
Durable goods...................................
Nondurable goods.............................
Transportation and public utilities.........
Wholesale and retail trade...................
Finance, insurance, and real estate.....
Services................................................
Government workers................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers......

Educational attainment1
Less than a high school diploma...............
High school graduates, no college............
Some college, less than a bachelor's
degree......................................................
College graduates......................................
' Data refer to persons 25 years and over.

94

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

7.

Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Weeks of
unemployment

Annual average
1999

2000

2000

2001

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Less than 5 weeks.........................
5 to 14 weeks..................................
15 weeks and over.........................
15 to 26 weeks............................
27 weeks and over...... ................

2,568
1,832
1,480
755
725

2,543
1,803
1,309
665
644

2,521
1,768
1,364
683
681

2,582
1,830
1,292
687
605

2,764
1,743
1,300
655
645

2,500
1,835
1,274
660
614

2,536
1,901
1,325
670
655

2,572
1,776
1,260
609
651

2,493
1,811
1,319
650
669

2,567
1,832
1,373
673
700

2,498
1,750
1,247
618
629

2,510
1,755
1,311
702
609

2,531
1,796
1,317
713
604

2,440
1,852
1,326
675
651

2,613
1,977
1,371
731
640

Mean duration, in weeks................
Median duration, in weeks.............

13.4
6.4

12.6
5.9

12.9
5.8

12.5
6.1

12.7
6.0

12.5
6.0

12.6
5.9

12.5
5.9

13.2
5.9

13.0
6.1

12.1
5.3

12.4
6.1

12.4
6.1

12.6
6.1

12.6
5.9

8.

Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Reason for
unemployment
Job losers1.....................................
Not on temporary layoff...............
Job leavers.....................................
New entrants...................................

Annual average
1999

2000

2000

2001

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

2,493
764
1,729
781
2,033
403

2,614
833
1,781
767
1,992
400

2,463
803
1,660
813
1 981
428

2,402
723
1,679
812
1 967
411

2,460
875
1,585
776
2 052
477

2,439
917
1,522
692
2,042
416

2,450
857
1,593
788
1 960
412

2,585
907
1,678
780
1 930
503

2,502
837
1,665
756
1 798
429

2,446
825
1,621
815
1 868
398

2,501
877
1,624
768
1 936
429

2,514
937
1,577
746
1 899
466

2,742
1 032
1,711
838
1 956
446

2,622
848
1,774
783
2,005
469

2,492
842
1,650
775
1,957
431

44.6

44.1

43.7

45.3

43.3

43.0

42.7

13.4
30.3
13.7
35.6
7.1

14.4
30.9
13.3
34.5
6.9

14.1
29.2
14.3
34.8
7.5

12.9
30.0
14.5
35.2
7.3

15.2
27.5
13.5
35.6
8.3

15.3
28.4
14.0
34 9
7.3

44.6
15.6
28.9
13.5
33.3
8.7

45.6
15.3
30.4
13.8
32 8
7.8

44.3
14.9
29.3
14.7
33 8
7.2

44.7

14.9
29.2
13.7
34.6
7.6

43.6
16.4
27.2
12.4
36.5
7.4

44.4

14.4
30.2
13.3
34.1
8.0

15.6
28.8
13.6
34 4
7.6

16.7
28.0
13.3
33 8
8.3

45.8
17.2
28.6
14.0
32 7
7.4

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.9

.6
1.4
.3

.6
1.4
.3

.6
1.4
.3

.5
1.4
.3

.6
1.4
.3

.6
1.4
.3

.6
1.5
.3

.5
1.5
.3

.6
1.4
.3

.6
1.4
.4

.5
1.3
.3

.6
1.3
.3

.5
1.4
.3

.5
1.3
.3

.6
1.4
.3

Percent of unemployed

Job losers1.....................................
Not on temporary layoff...............
Job leavers.....................................
New entrants...................................

43.7

Percent of civilian
labor force

Job losers1.....................................
Job leavers.....................................
Reentrants......................................
New entrants...................................

' Includes persons who completed temporary jobs.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

95

Current Labor Statistics:

9.

Labor Force Data

Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Civilian workers]
Sex and age

Annual average
1999

2000

2000
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

2001

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

4.2
9.9
13.9
16.3
12.4
7.5
3.1
3.2
2.8

4.0
9.3
13.1
15.4
11.5
7.1
3.0
3.1
2.6

4.0
9.4
12.8
14.6
11.7
7.4
3.0
3.1
2.7

4.1
9.8
13.8
15.6
12.5
7.4
3.0
3.0
2.9

4.0
9.7
13.4
15.3
12.0
7.5
3.0
3.0
2.7

4.0
9.4
12.8
14.9
11.5
7.3
2.9
3.0
2.4

4.1
9.7
12.8
15.8
10.8
7.9
3.0
3.1
2.5

4.0
9.1
11.9
13.4
10.7
7.5
3.0
3.1
2.4

4.0
9.2
13.4
16.3
11.5
6.9
3.0
3.1
2.4

4.1
9.4
14.2
16.9
12.6
6.6
3.1
3.2
2.7

3.9
8.9
12.9
15.7
11.1
6.6
3.0
3.0
2.7

3.9
8.9
12.6
15.2
11.1
6.8
2.9
3.0
2.8

4.0
9.1
13.0
15.4
11.4
6.8
3.0
3.0
2.9

4.0
9.2
13.1
15.8
11.6
7.0
3.0
3.0
2.6

4.2
9.6
13.8
17.4
11.5
7.2
3.2
3.2
2.7

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

4.1
10.3
14.7
17.0
13.1
7.7
3.0
3.0
2.8

3.9
9.7
14.0
16.8
12.2
7.3
2.8
2.9
2.7

3.9
9.8
14.0
15.2
13.4
7.3
2.8
2.9
2.6

4.0
10.1
14.9
16.6
13.5
7.3
2.9
2.9
2.7

3.8
9.3
12.7
15.6
10.6
7.4
2.8
2.8
2.7

3.9
9.7
13.8
16.0
12.4
7.4
2.8
2.8
2.7

3.9
10.0
13.5
16.8
11.4
8.1
2.8
2.8
2.6

3.9
9.6
14.2
15.9
13.0
7.0
2.8
2.9
2.3

3.8
9.6
14.1
17.5
12.0
7.1
2.8
2.8
2.4

4.0
10.2
15.8
17.1
15.2
6.9
2.8
2.9
2.7

3.9
9.5
13.7
17.5
11.2
7.1
2.8
2.9
2.6

3.9
9.4
13.4
17.6
10.7
7.3
2.9
2.9
2.8

4.0
9.5
13.6
17.5
11.3
7.3
3.0
2.9
2.9

4.0
9.7
14.1
18.4
11.7
7.2
3.0
2.9
2.8

4.3
10.3
15.0
20.5
11.8
7.6
3.1
3.1
3.0

Women, 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...............

4.3
9.5
13.2
15.5
11.6
7.2
3.3
3.4
2.8

4.1
8.9
12.1
14.0
10.8
7.0
3.2
3.3
2.6

4.2
9.0
11.6
14.0
9.8
7.5
3.2
3.3
2.9

4.1
9.4
12.5
14.3
11.3
7.6
3.1
3.1
3.1

4.3
10.0
14.1
15.0
13.4
7.5
3.2
3.3
2.6

4.1
8.9
11.8
13.7
10.5
7.2
3.1
3.2
2.0

4.3
9.4
12.1
14.8
10.2
7.8
3.2
3.4
2.4

4.1
8.5
9.4
10.7
8.2
8.0
3.2
3.3
2.4

4.2
8.9
12.6
15.0
10.9
6.7
3.3
3.4
2.4

4.2
8.6
12.4
16.8
9.8
6.3
3.4
3.5
2.6

4.0
8.2
12.0
13.8
11.0
6.0
3.2
3.2
2.8

3.9
8.4
11.9
12.8
11.6
6.3
3.0
3.1
2.8

4.0
8.6
12.3
13.4
11.5
6.3
3.1
3.2
2.7

4.0
8.7
12.1
13.2
11.6
6.7
3.0
3.1
2.4

4.1
8.8
12.4
14.1
11.3
6.7
3.2
3.4
2.5

i

96

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

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

10. Unemployment rates by State, seasonally adjusted
State

Dec.

Nov.

Dec.

1999

2000

2000p

State

Dec.

Nov.

Dec.

1999

2000

2000p

New Hampshire........................................

2.8
4.8
2.6
4.1
2.4

3.2
5.0
2.8
4.4
1.8

3.4
4.4
2.8
4.5
2.3

2.7
1.8
3.8
5.7
3.6

2.4 New Jersey...............................................
1.9 New Mexico..............................................
3.8
6.3 North Carolina...........................................
3.6 North Dakota.............................................

4.2
5.8
4.8
3.2
2.9

4.0
5.5
4.6
3.8
2.9

3.9
5.3
4.5
4.0
2.7

3.6
5.1
4.4
42
2.9

3.1
3.8
4.9
4.4
2.6

3.3 Ohio..........................................................
4.3 Oklahoma.................................................
4.9 Oregon......................................................
4.8 Pennsylvania............................................
2.8 Rhode Island............................................

4.1
3.3
5.0
4.2
3.8

3.9
3.0
4.2
4.2
3.6

3.9
2.7
4.2
4.4
3.7

2.2
3.2
3.9
4.3
3.7

2.5
3.4
3.9
6.0
2.6

2.5
3.4
4.1
5.8
2.8

South Carolina..........................................
South Dakota............................................
Tennessee...............................................
Texas........................................................
Utah.........................................................

4.4
2.5
3.7
4.6
3.0

2.8
2.3
4.1
4.2
3.3

3.7
2.3
4.3
3.7
3.3

3.2
3.2
3.6
2.5
5.1

3.6
2.6
3.9
3.1
6.0

3.7 Vermont...................................................
2.3 Virginia.....................................................
3.8 Washington.............................................
3.1 West Virginia............................................
5.1 Wisconsin................................................
Wyoming..................................................

2.7
2.8
4.3
6.1
3.0
4.4

2.8
2.1
5.1
5.8
3.0
3.8

2.5
2.1
4.9
5.5
3.3
3.7

47
5.7
4.0
4.2
5.0

4.7
6.0
3.7
4.2
4.8

4.6
6.0
3.7
4.1
4.6

2.8
2.8
3.5
6.0
38

Montana....................................................
Nebraska..................................................

p = preliminary

11.

Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by State, seasonally adjusted

[In thousands]
State

Dec.

Nov.

Dec.

1999

2000

2000p

Missouri.......................................
Montana.......................................
Nebraska.....................................
Nevada........................................
New Hampshire...........................

2,740.1
386.8
894.9
1,007.0
610.7

2,778.0
393.0
884.8
1,049.4
614.5

2,770.3
393.2
886.4
1,056.5
612.6

2,216.9
1,697.3
424.1
627.1
7,278.9

New Jersey.................................
New Mexico.................................
New York....................................
North Carolina............................
North Dakota...............................

3,896.5
735.5
8,530.7
3,886.4
326.1

3,946.1
749.4
8,677.9
3,916.0
325.3

3,949.1
750.5
8,683.2
3,910.3
325.8

3 994.9
546.3
567.5
6,022.9
2,996.1

3,993.6
548.5
568.2
6,026.0
2,989.7

Ohio............................................
Oklahoma...................................
Oregon........................................
Pennsylvania..............................
Rhode Island...............................

5,580.3
1,475.5
1,588.9
5,580.6
467.6

5,604.9
1,497.0
1,601.8
5,595.3
474.4

5,605.8
1,495.2
1,598.0
5,597.3
474.6

1 473.4
1 339.9
1 813 9
1 907 4
593 1

1,501.6
1,363.7
1 840.2
1 918.0
602.3

1,501.6
1,365.1
1,843.5
1,923.8
603.7

South Carolina............................
South Dakota..............................
Tennessee..................................
Texas..........................................
Utah............................................

1,855.8
278.5
2,691.8
9,264.9
1,061.9

1,895.1
380.8
2,712.2
9,489.6
1,086.8

1,885.2
381.3
2,714.5
9,521.0
1,087.2

2 409.8
3 264 3
4 583 2
2 632 7
1 156 9

2,459.4
3 315.3
4,618.7
2 673.3
1,149.2

2,460.1
3,320.5
4,600.3
2,673.5
1,147.8

Vermont......................................
Virginia.......................................
Washington................................
West Virginia..............................
Wisconsin....................................
Wyoming....................................

292.2
3,440.9
2,665.6
728.3
2,794.5
235.1

297.1
3,508.9
2,713.2
735.2
2,841.7
241.4

297.8
3,511.1
2,718.9
734.1
2,833.3
240.7

Dec.

Nov.

Dec.

1999

2000

2000p

1,940.5
280 3
2 203 0
1 153 8
14 171 3

1,940.9
281.4
2 272.1
1 178.4
14,561.3

1,941.3
284.0
2,285.6
1,177.5
14,614.4

2,166.5
1 680.7
417.4
620 8
7 016 6

2,223.3
1 698.6
424.2
624.1
7,248.2

3 948 1
536 8
548.9
5 983.6
2 986 8

State

p = preliminary
Note : Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the data base.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

97

Current Labor Statistics:

12.

Labor Force Data

Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[In thousands]
Industry

Annua average
1999

TOTAL.............................. . 128,786
PRIVATE SECTOR................ . 108,616
GOODS-PRODUCING................

Metal mining..........................
Oil and gas extraction............
Nonmetallic minerals,
except fuels........................
Construction.............................

General building contractors....
Heavy construction, except
building...............................
Special trades contractors......
Manufacturing...........................

Production workers...........
Durable goods........................

Production workers...........
Lumber and wood products....
Furniture and fixtures............
Stone, clay, and glass
products............................
Primary metal industries.......
Fabricated metal products....
Industrial machinery and
equipment.........................
Computer and office
equipment.......................
Electronic and other electrical
equipment.........................
Electronic components and
accessories......................
Transportation equipment......
Motor vehicles and
equipment.........................
Aircraft and parts.................
Instruments and related
products............................
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries............................
Nondurable goods..................

Production workers............
Food and kindred products.....
Tobacco products.................
Textile mill products...............
Apparel and other textile
products.............................
Paper and allied products......
Printing and publishing...........
Chemicals and allied products.
Petroleum and coal products...
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products..................
Leather and leather products...
SERVICE-PRODUCING...............
Transportation and public
utilities...................................

Transportation.........................
Railroad transportation..........
Local and interurban
passenger transit.................
Trucking and warehousing.....
Water transportation..............
Transportation by air..............
Pipelines, except natural gas...
Transportation services........
Communications and public
utilities..............................
Communications...................
Electric, gas, and sanitary
services.............................

25,482
535
45
293

2000

2001

2000p

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov

Dec.p

Jan.p

131,417
110,847

130,387
110,036
25,677
530
45
293

130,482
110,088

131,009
110,462

131,419
110,752

131,590
110,578

131,647
110,845

131,607
111,001

131,723
111,232

131,789
111,325

131,842
111,437

131,861
111,447

132,129
111,661

25,624
533
45
296

25,738
536
45
300

25,725
539
45
303

25,684
539
44
305

25,700
539
44
306

25,756
538
43
306

131,528
111,018
25,644
537
44
304

25,639
539
44
307

25,665
542
44
309

25,527
541
43
311

25,560
540
44
311

25,645
545
43
315

25,661
538
44
304

112

110

111

111

111

111

110

110

110

109

108

109

109

107

108

6,404
1,450

6,687
1,505

6,652
1,498

6,618
1,491

6,726
1,508

6,694
1,497

6,666
1,497

6,668
1,498

6,670
1,498

6,675
1,505

6,720
1,510

6,745
1,517

6,734
1,523

6,716
1,525

6,861
1 544

869
4,084

886
4,296

892
4,262

885
4,242

905
4,313

899
4,298

888
4,281

877
4,293

881
4,291

882
4,288

885
4,325

892
4,336

882
4,329

867
4,324

889
4,428

18,543
12,739

18,437
12,642

18,495
12,713

18,473
12,697

18,476
12,683

18,492
12,689

18,479
12,682

18,493
12,683

18,548
12,741

18,432
12,630

18,380
12,585

18,378
12,583

18,360
12,567

18,304
12,511

18,239
12,445

11,103
7,590

11,084
7,569

11,099
7,592

11,088
7,592

11,094
7,580

11,104
7,584

11,106
7,584

11,120
7,593

11,161
7,629

11,087
7,567

11,052
7,541

11,052
7,542

11,058
7,546

11,032
7,517

10,961
7,451

828
548

821
555

830
553

832
553

830
555

830
557

828
558

827
558

825
564

818
555

816
556

812
555

807
554

802
551

796
548

563
700
1,517

566
695
1,533

568
699
1,523

567
699
1,525

568
701
1,528

567
699
1,534

566
699
1,535

568
699
1,540

571
698
1,539

566
695
1,539

565
691
1,534

564
691
1,533

563
690
1,535

561
682
1,531

564
675
1 518

2,141

2,128

2,130

2,131

2,124

2,126

2,125

2,130

2,137

2,133

2,121

2,124

2,127

2,127

2 123

370

363

369

368

366

364

360

360

361

363

361

361

361

362

363

1,670

1,704

1,679

1,684

1,682

1,691

1,693

1,697

1,719

1,718

1,714

1,719

1,724

1,727

1 726

636
1,884

667
1,841

642
1,871

645
1,855

646
1,865

651
1,859

654
1,863

661
1,864

670
1,863

675
1,818

681
1,813

687
1,812

694
1,814

696
1,808

698
1 765

1,019
495

1,011
459

1,027
469

1,029
453

1,028
467

1,026
461

1,026
463

1,030
460

1,029
460

993
456

993
457

991
456

989
455

983
457

945
454

856

846

847

844

844

844

845

844

849

849

847

847

850

850

853

395

399

398

397

397

394

395

394

7,385
5,105

7,382
5,103

7,388
5,105

7,373
5,098

396
7,387
5,112

395

7,396
5,121

393
7,373
5,090

396

7,440
5,149

396
7,352
5,073

7,345
5,063

7,328
5,044

7,326
5,041

7,302
5,018

393
7,272
4,994

7,278
4,994

1,677
39
560

1,672
36
541

1,681
38
548

1,672
37
549

1,671
35
549

1,678
37
548

1,675
37
545

1,679
37
542

1,680
37
544

1,670
34
542

1,661
37
539

1,673
37
536

1,667
37
530

6,777
37
525

1,677
37
524

692
668
1,553
1,034
134

649
661
1,556
1,027
131

666
664
1,549
1,031
132

665
663
1,550
1,031
132

665
662
1,551
1,031
132

665
662
1,554
1,030
132

660
661
1,552
1,028
132

652
663
1,558
1,028
132

656
662
1,561
1,026
131

644
660
1,560
1,024
132

639
660
1,560
1,024
132

633
660
1,559
1,023
131

630
657
1,557
1,024
130

623
656
1,554
1 022
128

621
656
1 555

1,006
78
103,304

1,005
74

1,011
76

1,010
76

1,010
76

1,008
75

1,008
74

1,014
76

1,005
74

1,002
74

104,858

105,271

105,906

105,947

105,851

105,884

106,084

998
72
106,207

985
70

104,710

1,001
73
106,124

990
71

105,756

1,007
75
105,694

106,301

106,484

6,826
4,409
230

6,993
4,524
220

6,925
4,470
225

6,937
4,479
225

6,953
4,492
222

6,970
4,509
221

6,962
4,501
219

6,985
4,510
217

7,010
4,536
219

6,941
4,549
221

7,037
4,549
219

7,046
4,549
219

7,060
4,563
220

7,086
4,580
217

7,083
4,579
221

485
1,805
187
1,227
13
463

497
1,839
201
1,282
13
472

493
1,827
192
1,256
13
464

494
1,828
196
1,259
12
465

494
1,833
197
1,268
12
466

498
1,839
200
1,270
12
469

498
1,834
200
1,269
12
469

493
1,834
202
1,279
12
473

502
1,846
199
1,282
13
475

503
1,845
204
1,288
12
476

500
1,845
206
1,291
12
476

498
1,843
206
1,297
12
474

500
1,839
206
1,310
13
475

500
1,850
206
1 317

2,416
1,552

2,469
1,612

2,455
1,591

2,458
1,598

2,461
1,602

2,461
1,604

2,461
1,606

2,475
1,619

2,474
1,618

2,392
1,537

2,488
1,632

2,497
1,641

2,497
1,644

2,506
1,654

393

1 855

865

857

864

860

859

857

855

856

856

855

856

Wholesale trade........................

856

853

852

6,924

7,054

853

7,005

7,011

7,017

7,055

7,048

7,049

7,050

7,062

7,070

7,087

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

7,093

7,085

22,788

23,137

22,973

22,987

23,027

23,197

23,064

23,122

23,196

23,191

23,179

23,193

23,238

23,256

7,080
23 283

1,016
2,765
2,419

1,020
2,762
2,417

1,034
2,756
2,409

1,032
2,791
2,443

1,025
2,744
2,388

1,018
2,741
2,386

1,018
2,727
2,373

1,021
2,740
2,393

1,019
2,739
2,389

1,022
2,740
2,389

1,020
2,770
2,419

1 018
2,747
2,415

2,733
2,394

Building materials and garden
supplies...............................
General merchandise stores....
Department stores.............. 1

989
2,771
2,431

1,021
2,753
2,402 |

bee footnotes at end of table.

98

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

12. Continued—Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]

Finance, insurance, and
real estate................................

Finance..................................
Depository institutions...........
Commercial banks...............
Savings institutions..............
Nondepository institutions......
Security and commodity
brokers...............................
Holding and other investment
offices................................
insurance...............................
Insurance carriers.................
Insurance agents, brokers,
and service.........................
Real estate.............................
Services'..................................

Hotels and other lodging places
Personal services...................
Business services...................
Services to buildings.............
Personnel supply services.....
Help supply services...........
Computer and data
processing services.............
Auto repair services
and parking.........................
Miscellaneous repair services...

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

3,495

3,516

3,501

3,503

3,502

3,522

3,516

3,515

3,519

3,522

3,522

3,519

3,516

3,527

3,528

2,369
1,079
1,174

2,414
1,111
1,174

2,399
1,097
1,176

2,394
1,100
1,184

2,407
1,105
1,188

2,410
1,106
1,195

2,408
1,107
1,195

2,412
1,110
1,197

2,411
1,111
1,206

2,418
1,115
1,202

2,424
1,118
1,209

2,431
1,120
1,205

2,430
1,120
1,211

2,428
1,121
1,217

3,432
1,124
1,227

1,082
7,940

1,199
8,065

1,099
7,998

1,102
7,992

1,111
8,000

1,113
8,097

1,113
8,028

1,118
8,071

1,119
8,132

1,121
8,099

1,122
8,076

1,128
8,073

1,130
8,097

1,139
8,113

1,139
8,124

2,969

3,050

3,019

3,021

3,029

3,037

3,035

3,050

3,064

3,068

3,068

3,075

3,064

3,067

3,088

7,569
3,691
2,061
1,476
252
710

7,618
3,720
2,043
1,455
241
689

7,612
3,709
2,058
1,470
247
699

7,624
3,717
2,057
1,469
245
699

7,621
3,713
2,054
1,466
243
692

7,610
3,709
2,052
1,464
243
686

7,600
3,703
2,044
1,456
243
684

7,588
3,705
2,042
1,454
242
682

7,586
3,708
2,036
1,449
240
683

7,608
3,717
2,037
1,450
240
683

7,622
3,729
2,038
1,450
239
687

7,638
3,737
2,034
1,446
238
689

7,647
3,739
2,033
1,445
237
690

7,660
3,748
2,035
1,445
237
690

7,689
3,763
2,038
1,444
237
697

688

745

716

723

728

732

736

741

748

753

759

766

768

773

776

231
2,371
1,611

242
2,362
1,592

236
2,372
1,606

238
2,373
1,606

239
2,373
1,605

239
2,365
1,597

239
2,361
1,594

240
2,359
1,593

241
2,354
1,585

244
2,358
1,587

245
2,353
1,582

248
2,355
1,581

248
2,362
1,587

250
2,362
1,586

252
2,368
1,591

761
1,507

770
1,536

766
1,531

767
1,534

768
1,535

768
1,536

767
1,536

766
1,524

769
1,524

771
1,533

771
1,540

774
1,546

775
1,546

776
1,550

777
1,558

39,027
766
1,848
1,233
9,267
985
3,601
3,228

40,384
800
1,910
1,276
9,746
1,001
3,835
3,419

39,844
806
1,866
1,263
9,571
997
3,753
3,361

39,914
796
1,868
1,265
9,615
1,000
3,773
3,382

40,090
812
1,885
1,265
9,681
1,004
3,817
3,418

40,195
801
1,902
1,272
9,735
1,001
3,885
3,485

40,220
790
1,904
1,262
9,715
996
3,855
3,440

40,401
788
1,922
1,271
9,773
997
3,873
3,444

40,403
794
1,925
1,273
9,768
1,002
3,851
3,433

40,572
799
1,921
1,285
9,800
1,000
3,865
3,436

40,685
801
1,923
1,285
9,853
1,001
3,891
3,463

40,696
806
1,924
1,285
9,829
1,000
3,861
3,432

40,764
810
1,939
1,288
9,823
1,004
3,845
3,413

40,800
806
1,945
1,291
9,745
1,007
3,746
3,340

40,881
816
1,940
1,309
9,744
1,010
3,711
3,301

1,831

1,941

1,896

1,906

1,915

1,927

1,929

1,933

1,950

1,951

1,955

1,966

1,928

1,966

1,997

1,184
377
610

1,198
384
631

1,194
382
626

1,195
384
623

1,192
384
630

1,195
383
634

1,192
383
632

1,191
384
635

1,194
384
634

1,198
384
636

1,200
385
631

1,206
386
630

1,206
386
631

1,216
383
639

1,227
385
646

1999
Food stores............................
Automotive dealers and
service stations....................
New and used car dealers.....
Apparel and accessory stores...
Furniture and home furnishings
stores..................................
Eating and drinking places.......
Miscellaneous retail
establishments.....................

2001

2000

Annual average
2000p

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May.

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Amusement and recreation
Health services.......................
Offices and clinics of medical

1,660

1,771

1,721

1,723

1,729

1,752

1,755

1,789

1,795

1,808

1,785

1,791

1,793

1,790

1,810

9,989

10,139

10,066

10,078

10,091

10,093

10,104

10,116

10,143

10,161

10,178

10,191

10,208

10,228

10,258

1,877

1,933

1,910

1,914

1,920

1,925

1,928

1,928

1,930

1,935

1,945

1,950

1,953

1,958

1,969

1,785
3,982
636
997
2,276
2,800
695
775

1,791
4,019
642
1,011
2,355
2,963
764
823

1,788
4,001
638
1,008
2,308
2,905
737
803

1,790
4,002
639
1,007
2,309
2,912
740
807

1,791
4,004
639
1,007
2,329
2,929
749
810

1,789
3,999
641
1,004
2,329
2,940
753
812

1,788
4,005
641
1,006
2,356
2,946
758
816

1,786
4,008
642
1,009
2,374
2,945
760
820

1,787
4,018
645
1,012
2,374
2,919
768
826

1,793
4,021
646
1,014
2,395
2,955
774
827

1,791
4,029
645
1,014
2,388
3,001
779
833

1,793
4,032
645
1,016
2,357
3,019
784
838

1,793
4,045
644
1,014
2,365
3,032
787
840

1,796
4,053
642
1,015
2,389
3,055
792
845

1,797
4,065
643
1,015
2,379
3,057
792
849

98
2,425

102
2,441

100
2,439

100
2,439

101
2,440

102
2,439

101
2,438

103
2,441

103
2,429

103
2,433

103
2,445

103
2,446

104
2,450

104
2,451

104
2,447

3,254

3,413

3,344

3,354

3,369

3,368

3,390

3,415

3,411

3,435

3,449

3,463

3,471

3,489

3,499

953

1,002

982

984

985

987

995

1,005

1,007

1,010

1,012

1,015

1,015

1,023

1,030

Nursing and personal care

Home health care services....

Museums and botanical and
zoological gardens...............
Membership organizations......
Engineering and management
Engineering and architectural
Management and public

1,036

1,107

1,074

1,077

1,085

1,088

1,096

1,110

1,107

1,118

1,123

1,129

1,137

1,141

1,146

20,170
2,669

20,570
2,778

20,351
2,663

20,394
2,700

20,547
2,816

20,667
2,885

21,012
3,238

20,802
3,092

20,606
2,819

20,510
2,657

20,491
2,627

20,464
2,625

20,405
2,615

20,414
2,570

20,468
2,607

1,796
4,695
1,968
2,727
Other State government.......
12,806
7,272
Education............................ J
Other local government........ I 5,534

1,918
4,746
1,988
2,758
13,047
7,394
5,656

1,797
4,725
1,981
2,744
12,963
7,356
5,607

1,835
4,728
1,981
2,747
12,966
7,355
5,611

1,951
4,733
1,982
2,751
12,998
7,373
5,625

2,022
4,744
1,990
2,754
13,038
7,408
5,630

2,374
4,737
1,983
2,754
13,037
7,395
5,642

2,230
4,716
1,967
2,749
12,994
7,361
5,633

1,954
4,774
1,994
2,750
13,043
7,394
5,649

1,790
4,765
2,002
2,763
13,088
7,411
5,677

1,764
4,776
2,009
2,767
13,088
7,396
5,692

1,762
4,755
1,988
2,767
13,084
7,391
5,693

1,760
4,748
1,977
2,771
13,042
7,377
5,665

1,757
4,768
1,992
2,776
13,076
7,383
5,693

1,749
4,771
1,999
2,772
13,090
7,387
5,703

Federal, except Postal

1 Includes other industries not shown separately.
p = preliminary.
No t e : See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

99

Current Labor Statistics:

13.

Labor Force Data

Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry, monthly
data seasonally adjusted
Industry

Annual average
1999

2000

2001

2000p

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.p Jan.p

PRIVATE SECTOR................................

34.5

34.5

34.5

34.6

34.5

34.6

34.4

34.5

34.4

34.3

34.4

34.4

34.3

34.1

34.3

GOODS-PRODUCING...............................

41.0

40.9

41.1

41.3

41.2

41.5

40.9

40.9

41.1

40.8

40.7

40.9

40.5

39.7

40.4

MINING.....................................................

43.8

44.9

44.7

44.7

44.7

45.3

44.1

44.7

45.3

44.6

45.2

45.6

44.9

44.4

45.1

MANUFACTURING..................................

41.7
4.6

41.5
4.5

41.7
4.6

41.8
4.7

41.7
4.6

42.2
4.9

41.4
4.5

41.6
4.6

41.7
4.6

41.4
4.5

41.3
4.4

41.4
4.5

41.2
4.3

40.4
4.0

40.9
4.1

42.2
4.8
41.2
40.3
43.5
44.2

42.0
4.7
40.7
39.8
43.2
44.0

42.3
4.8
41.1
40.2
43.6
44.5

42.3
4.9
41.0
40.3
43.5
44.5

42.3
4.8
40.9
40.2
43.4
44.4

42.8
5.1
41.2
40.6
43.6
44.9

42.0
4.7
40.7
40.3
43.0
43.8

42.2
4.8
40.8
39.9
42.9
43.9

42.4
4.7
41.1
39.7
43.7
44.3

41.9
4.6
40.4
39.4
43.2
43.7

41.8
4.5
40.5
39.4
43.1
43.7

41.9
4.6
40.6
39.7
43.2
43.8

41.7
4.4
40.6
39.4
42.7
43.6

40.6
4.0
39.7
38.8
41.7
42.5

41.2
4.1
39.9
38.9
42.4
42.8

Fabricated metal products......................

44.8
42.2

44.7
42.2

45.3
42.4

45.4
42.4

45.2
42.5

45.0
43.0

44.7
42.3

45.0
42.4

45.2
42.6

44.4
42.1

44.5
42.0

44.2
42.1

44.1
41.7

43.2
40.6

43.1
41.5

Industrial machinery and equipment....

42.2

42.3

42.3

42.3

42.3

42.9

42.2

42.5

42.6

42.2

42.1

42.1

42.0

41.2

41.7

41.4
43.8
45.0
41.5
39.8

41.4
43.4
44.2
41.2
39.4

41.6
43.8
45.0
41.3
39.5

41.6
44.0
45.0
41.2
39.5

41.8
43.7
44.6
41.2
39.4

42.2
44.3
45.5
41.6
39.8

41.3
43.2
44.2
41.2
39.3

41.4
44.0
45.3
41.3
39.4

41.9
43.9
44.5
41.6
39.7

41.0
43.4
44.5
41.1
39.4

41.2
42.9
43.6
41.1
39.3

41.2
43.1
44.0
41.2
39.3

40.9
42.9
43.2
41.0
39.1

40.5
40.6
39.8
40.4
38.7

41.0
41.6
40.8
40.8
39.2

40.9
4.4
41.8
40.9
37.5
43.5

40.7
4.3
41.4
41.1
37.2
42.8

40.9
4.4
41.6
41.1
37.6
43.3

41.0
4.5
41.6
41.7
37.7
43.5

40.9
4.3
41.6
41.6
37.8
43.2

41.3
4.6
41.9
41.9
38.0
43.6

40.6
4.3
41.2
41.1
37.1
42.8

40.7
4.3
41.5
41.1
37.0
42.8

40.7
4.3
41.2
41.2
37.3
42.4

40.6
4.2
41.5
40.7
36.9
42.4

40.6
4.3
41.4
41.0
36.8
42.7

40.6
4.3
41.4
40.9
36.9
42.5

40.4
4.1
41.2
40.5
36.6
42.6

40.0
4.0
40.7
40.5
36.4
41.8

40.4
4.1
41.2
40.4
36.5
42.4

38.2
43.0

38.1
42.8

38.3
42.9

38.3
42.7

38.2
42.6

38.5
42.9

38.0
42.7

38.2
42.9

38.1
43.4

37.9
43.0

38.1
42.9

38.2
43.0

38.0
42.6

37.7
42.4

38.1
42.7

Leather and leather products..................

41.7
37.8

41.3
37.8

41.6
37.8

41.6
38.1

41.5
38.0

42.1
38.9

41.3
38.2

41.4
37.8

41.4
37.1

41.2
37.1

41.1
37.4

41.1
37.4

41.0
38.1

40.0
37.2

40.9
38.2

SERVICE-PRODUCING..............................

32.8

32.8

32.9

32.8

32.8

32.8

32.7

32.9

32.7

32.7

32.8

32.7

32.8

32.7

32.8

TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES................................

38.7

38.5

38.4

38.3

38.3

38.7

38.4

38.4

38.8

38.2

38.5

38.6

38.5

38.7

38.7

WHOLESALE TRADE...............................

38.3

38.5

38.6

38.5

38.6

38.6

38.6

38.6

38.5

38.3

38.6

38.5

38.6

38.3

38.4

RETAIL TRADE.........................................

29.0

28.9

29.1

29.1

29.0

28.8

28.8

29.0

28.8

28.8

28.8

28.8

28.9

28.6

29.1

Overtim e hours..........................................

Durable goods........................................
Overtim e hours.........................................
Lumber and wood products....................
Furniture and fixtures................................
Stone, clay, and glass products............
Primary metal industries..........................
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products....................................................

Electronic and other electrical
equipm ent..................................................
Transportation equipm ent........................
Motor vehicles and equipm ent.............
Instruments and related products..........
Miscellaneous manufacturing.................

Nondurable goods.................................
Overtim e hours..........................................
Food and kindred products.....................
Textile mill products....................................
Apparel and other textile products........
Paper and allied products.........................
Printing and publishing..............................
Chemicals and allied products...............
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products........................................

p = preliminary.
NOTE: S ee "Notes on the data" tor a description of the most recent benchm ark revision.

100

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

14.

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry,
seasonally adjusted
Annual average

2001

2000

Industry
2000p

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

PRIVATE SECTOR (in current dollars).. $ 13.24

$ 13.74

S13.49

$13.54

$13.58

$13.64

$13.66

$13.70

$13.75

$13.80

$13.83

$13.88

$13.96

$14.02

$14.02

14.84

15.40

15.13

15.20

15.25

15.30

15.29

15.34

15.40

15.45

15.46

15.57

15.66

15.64

15.71

17.09

17.14

17.09

17.14

17.27

17.26

17.25

17.24

17.23

17.05

17.09

17.08

17.13

17.10

17.01

17.18

17.86

17.50

17.60

17.67

17.78

17.75

17.77

17.90

17.93

17.96

18.00

18.20

18.15

18.31

1999

Goods-producing....................................

Construction........................................
Manufacturing.....................................

13.91

14.38

14.15

14.21

14.23

14.28

14.27

14.36

14.39

14.43

14.43

14.56

14.63

14.61

14.60

13.18

13.64

13.41

13.45

13.47

13.49

13.53

13.60

13.64

13.69

13.73

13.81

13.90

13.93

13.90

Service-producing...................................

12.73

13.22

12.97

13.01

13.05

13.11

13.15

13.19

13.23

13.28

13.33

13.36

13.44

13.53

13.51

Transportation and public utilities......

15.69

16.22

15.92

16.00

16.04

16.12

16.22

16.28

16.17

16.26

16.30

16.38

16.42

16.50

16.46

Wholesale trade..................................

14.58

15.18

14.90

14.89

14.90

15.03

15.02

15.16

15.22

15.24

15.32

15.36

15.46

15.56

15.49

9.08

9.45

9.26

9.32

9.35

9.39

9.39

9.43

9.45

9.49

9.54

9.56

9.60

9.65

9.61

Finance, insurance, and real estate....

14.62

15.07

14.86

14.87

14.95

15.01

15.05

15.03

15.18

15.27

15.35

13.36

13.88

13.61

13.66

13.69

13.79

13.82

13.89

15.12
13.94

15.19

Services..............................................

14.98
13.74

13.97

14.00

14.12

14.20

15.39
14.22

7.86

7.88

7.88

7.87

7.83

7.87

7.87

7.85

7.86

7.90

7.87

7.89

7.92

7.94

-

PRIVATE SECTOR (In constant (1982)
dollars)........................................................

- Data not available.
p = preliminary.
NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

101

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry
Industry

Annual average

2000

2001

1999

2000p

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

PRIVATE SECTOR.....................................

$13.24

$13.74

$13.58

$13.58

$13.59

$13.69

$13.64

$13.62

$13.68

$13.67

$13.88

$13.96

$13.98

$14.03

$14.09

MINING..........................................................

17.09

17.14

17.30

17.20

17.28

17.29

17.19

17.09

17.13

16.94

17.05

17.02

17.06

17.19

17.22

CONSTRUCTION.........................................

17.39

17.42

17.54

17.66

17.71

17.74

17.95

18.04

18.16

18.21

18.16

18.22

18.19

17.18

17.86

MANUFACTURING.....................................

13.91

14.38

14.19

14.19

14.22

14.28

14.27

14.34

14.37

14.37

14.50

14.53

14.62

14.69

14.63

Durable goods..........................................

14.40
11.47
11.23
13.87
15.83

14.93
11.80
11.75
14.32
16.50

14.72
11.67
11.47
13.94
16.20

14.73
11.63
11.51
13.96
16.28

14.76
11.62
11.59
14.03
16.34

14.82
11.73
11.64
14.23
16.51

14.80
11.74
11.69
14.28
16.40

14.90
11.82
11.73
14.36
16.52

14.86
11.87
11.80
14.42
16.68

14.93
11.83
11.82
14.41
16.57

15.07
11.88
11.88
14.53
16.65

15.13
11.91
11.92
14.56
16.55

15.22
11.89
11.94
14.51
16.64

15.26
11.96
12.02
14.51
16.66

15.17
11.96
12.00
14.54
16.66

18.81
13.48

19.46
13.87

19.16
13.71

19.32
13.67

19.49
13.69

19.72
13.75

19.46
13.75

19.62
13.82

19.78
13.82

19.56
13.90

19.58
14.02

19.28
14.03

19.27
14.08

19.26
14.13

19.50
14.12

15.02

15.63

15.39

15.40

15.43

15.42

15.45

15.51

15.61

15.66

15.84

15.88

15.93

16.04

15.97

13.46
18.04
18.41
14.17
11.30

13.80
19.04
19.59
14.62
11.65

13.77
18.57
18.99
14.38
11.52

13.72
18.58
19.03
14.41
11.53

13.70
18.70
19.17
14.40
11.55

13.70
18.82
19.36
14.40
11.58

13.65
18.79
19.35
14.44
11.59

13.72
19.01
19.62
14.49
11.60

13.79
18.66
19.07
14.65
11.65

13.81
19.02
19.58
14.65
11.60

13.84
19.30
19.87
14.80
11.70

13.88
19.52
20.19
14.85
11.77

13.93
19.82
20.57
14.91
11.78

14.03
19.72
20.41
15.06
11.91

14.04
19.30
19.85
15.00
11.93

13.16
12.09
19.07
10.71
8.86
15.94

13.53
12.41
19.07
10.95
9.09
16.21

13.37
12.23
17.21
10.84
9.03
16.02

13.36
12.23
17.48
10.85
9.03
15.99

13.37
12.27
19.10
10.86
9.05
16.00

13.45
12.36
19.71
10.94
9.05
16.15

13.43
12.36
20.40
10.91
9.05
16.12

13.48
12.39
20.87
10.91
9.07
16.18

13.61
12.46
21.08
10.97
9.06
16.29

13.52
12.40
20.95
10.97
9.09
16.18

13.63
12.50
18.51
11.05
9.16
16.31

13.63
12.44
17.98
11.01
9.16
16.36

13.71
12.57
18.40
11.04
9.16
16.36

13.82
12.67
18.55
11.05
9.23
16.56

13.82
12.65
18.42
11.10
9.27
16.53

13.84
17.38
21.39

14.30
17.93
21.46

14.10
17.70
21.62

14.13
17.67
22.03

14.18
17.63
22.24

14.20
17.77
21.77

14.15
17.80
21.34

14.15
17.91
21.19

14.29
18.17
21.24

14.29
17.94
21.01

14.48
18.07
21.14

14.47
18.09
21.11

14.52
18.17
21.31

14.61
18.30
21.54

14.60
18.17
21.51

12.36
9.77

12.77
10.12

12.61
10.08

12.57
9.96

12.58
10.01

12.67
10.13

12.65
10.05

12.72
10.08

12.84
10.08

12.81
10.15

12.87
10.25

12.89
10.21

12.95
10.18

13.06
10.26

13.09
10.33

Lumber and wood products...............
Furniture and fixtures.........................
Stone, clay, and glass products.........
Primary metal industries....................
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products..........................................
Fabricated metal products.................
Industrial machinery and equipment...
Electronic and other electrical
equipment........................................
Transportation equipment..................
Motor vehicles and equipment.........
Instruments and related products......
Miscellaneous manufacturing............
Nondurable goods...................................

Food and kindred products................
Tobacco products..............................
Textile mill products...........................
Apparel and other textile products.....
Paper and allied products..................
Printing and publishing......................
Chemicals and allied products...........
Petroleum and coal products.............
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products..............................
Leather and leather products.............
TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES..................................

15.69

16.22

15.98

16.05

16.02

16.15

16.13

16.17

16.19

16.22

16.31

16.38

16.43

16.52

16.51

WHOLESALE TRADE.................................

14.58

15.18

14.99

14.91

14.83

15.14

14.99

15.04

15.25

15.17

15.32

15.45

15.46

15.58

15.55

RETAIL TRADE...........................................

9.08

9.45

9.33

9.35

9.37

9.42

9.39

9.38

9.38

9.40

9.57

9.58

9.60

9.64

9.68

AND REAL ESTATE................................

14.62

15.07

14.99

14.93

14.97

15.12

15.02

14.93

15.01

14.99

15.12

15.24

15.25

15.33

15.41

SERVICES.....................................................

13.36

13.88

13.78

13.77

13.77

13.83

13.76

13.68

13.74

13.70

13.96

14.07

14.17

14.29

14.36

FINANCE, INSURANCE,

p = preliminary.
NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

102

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

16. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry
Industry

2001

2000

Annual average
2000p

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

Current dollars.......................... $456.78
_
Seasonally adjusted..............
Constant (1982) dollars........... 271.25

$474.03
271.96

$467.15
465.41
273.35

$464.44
468.48
270.34

$464.78
468.51
268.19

$473.67
471.94
273.17

$467.85
469.90
269.50

$471.25
472.65
269.90

$477.43
473.00
273.13

$474.35
473.34
271.52

$478.86
475.75
272.23

$484.41
477.47
275.08

$478.12
478.83
271.04

$479.83
478.08
272.32

$477.65
480.89
269.55

MINING............................................

748.54

769.59

766.39

758.52

758.59

776.32

763.24

770.76

775.99

762.30

784.30

784.62

767.70

768.39

768.01

CONSTRUCTION...........................

671.74

701.90

664.04

674.15

680.55

692.27

701.32

702.50

723.39

725.21

726.40

730.22

697.34

686.89

685.76

Current dollars.........................
Constant (1982) dollars............

580.05
344.45

596.77
342.38

590.30
345.41

588.89
342.78

590.13
340.53

595.48
343.41

590.78
340.31

597.98
342.49

590.61
337.88

594.92
340.54

604.65
343.75

604.45
343.24

608.19
344.78

605.23
343.49

595.44
336.03

Durable goods.................................

607.68

627.06

621.18

620.13

622.87

628.37

623.08

630.27

618.18

625.57

472.56
452.57

480.26
467.65

474.97
459.95

469.85
458.10

470.61
462.44

482.10
464.44

480.17
465.26

485.80
468.03

483.11
462.56

483.85
470.44

635.95
485.89
477.58

635.46
487.12
475.61

639.24
482.73
474.02

634.82
477.20
480.80

623.49

Lumber and wood products.....
Furniture and fixtures..............
Stone, clay, and glass
products..............................
Primary metal industries.........
Blast furnaces and basic
steel products.....................
Fabricated metal products.......
Industrial machinery and
equipment..........................
Electronic and other electrical
equipment...........................
Transportation equipment........
Motor vehicles and
equipment.........................
Instruments and related
products..............................
Miscellaneous manufacturing...

603.35
699.69

618.62
726.00

591.06
722.52

591.90
722.83

596.28
723.86

614.74
734.70

621.18
721.60

624.66
728.53

631.60
725.58

631.16
720.80

637.87
730.94

637.73
721.58

623.93
730.50

607.97
721.38

599.05
714.71

842.69
568.86

869.86
585.31

867.95
579.93

875.20
576.87

875.10
577.72

891.34
583.00

873.75
581.63

882.90
587.35

888.12
576.29

866.51
585.19

871.31
594.45

844.46
593.47

855.59
594.18

837.81
589.22

840.45
584.57

633.84

661.15

654.08

652.96

654.23

655.35

653.54

659.18

654.06

657.72

666.86

668.55

672.25

676.89

667.55

557.24
790.15

571.32
826.34

572.83
811.51

569.38
815.66

571.29
819.06

569.92
829.96

561.02
817.37

569.38
836.44

566.77
781.85

566.21
819.76

575.74
839.55

574.63
847.17

578.10
858.21

583.65
828.24

575.64
800.95

828.45

865.88

850.75

856.35

860.73

880.88

866.88

888.79

800.94

861.52

880.24

890.38

896.85

847.02

807.90

588.06
449.74

602.34
459.01

595.33
450.43

595.13
453.13

593.28
456.23

594.72
456.25

592.04
454.33

596.99
458.20

600.65
453.19

600.65
458.20

608.28
464.49

610.34
467.27

617.27
466.49

621.98
469.25

613.50
462.88

1999
PRIVATE SECTOR

-

MANUFACTURING

Food and kindred products......

472.42
465.60

538 24

550 67

544.16

542.42

542.82

548.76

543.92

549.98

549.84

548.91

558.83

556.10

560.74

562.47

555.56

505.36
762.80
438.04

513.77
758.99
450.05

505.10
672.91
443.36

500.21
685.22
448.11

501.84
741.08
450.69

506.76
782.49
456.20

506.76
811.92
448.40

512.95
836.89
451.67

513.35
832.66
444.29

517.08
842.19
448.67

527.50
764.46
454.16

519.99
719.20
452.51

525.43
732.32
451.54

525.81
740.15
453.05

517.39
703.64
448.44

332.25
693.39

338.15
693.79

335.92
695.27

339.53
687.57

342.09
686.40

341.19
696.07

336.66
686.71

339.22
692.50

333.41
687.44

336.33
681.18

338.00
701.33

338.92
700.21

338.00
705.12

340.59
707.11

334.65
702.53

528.69
747.34
921.91

544.83
767.40
948.53

534.39
757.56
933.98

536.94
750.98
956.10

540.26
749.28
969.66

542.44
757.00
966.59

533.46
756.50
919.75

534.87
768.34
923.88

540.16
779.49
955.80

543.02
769.63
926.54

557.48
778.82
957.64

555.65
781.49
964.73

559.02
783.13
961.08

559.56
790.56
958.53

550.42
772.23
978.71

515.41
369.31

527.40
382.54

523.32
372.96

520.40
375.49

520.81
379.38

528.34
388.99

523.71
384.92

529.15
387.07

522.59
365.90

525.21
383.67

532.82
388.48

529.78
383.90

533.54
389.89

534.15
385.78

532.76
386.34

607.20

624.47

612.03

611.51

608.76

626.62

616.17

622.55

634.65

627.71

631.20

638.82

632.56

637.67

630.68

596.71

589.35

Apparel and other textile

Printing and publishing...........
Chemicals and allied products..
Petroleum and coal products....
Rubber and miscellaneous
Leather and leather products...
TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES.......................

WHOLESALE TRADE...................

558.41

584.43

578.61

568.07

566.51

588.95

575.62

579.04

591.70

581.01

589.82

597.92

595.21

RETAIL TRADE..............................

263.32

273.11

265.91

266.48

267.98

272.24

270.43

274.83

279.52

277.30

275.62

276.86

274.56

277.63

272.98

FINANCE, INSURANCE,
AND REAL ESTATE...................

529.24

547.04

551.63

538.97

537.42

554.90

539.22

540.47

550.87

539.64

545.83

557.78

547.48

553.41

554.76

SERVICES......................................

435.54

453.88

450.61

448.90

447.53

453.62

445.82

447.34

453.42

450.73

453.70

461.50

461.94

464.43

463.83

p = preliminary.
N o t e : See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. Dash indicates data not available.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

103

Current Labor Statistics:
17.

Labor Force Data

Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted

[In percent]
Timespan and year

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov

Dec.

Private nonfarm payrolls, 356 Industries
Over 1-month span:
1998........................................................
1999........................................................
2000........................................................
2001........................................................

63.2
54.1
60.8
54.6

56.6
58.8
54.1

60.5
53.9
60.7

58.7
59.6
56.5

58.3
52.8
45.9

-

-

-

Over 3-month span:
1998........................................................
1999........................................................
2000........................................................

64.3
58.3
61.0

66.6
57.3
62.6

63.2
58.4
61.9

Over 6-month span:
1998........................................................
1999........................................................
2000........................................................

69.8
60.0
65.6

67.4
58.0
60.8

Over 12-month span:
1998........................................................
1999........................................................
2000........................................................

69.7
60.3
64.9

67.3
58.3
63.8

53.9
58.8
58.7
-

58.1
53.8
51.4
-

56.2
57.3
53.7

53.8
60.7
55.2

59.0
60.8
50.6

-

59.7
57.9
56.2
-

-

-

-

57.4
59.0
52.9
-

66.3
54.4
57.4

63.6
57.3
56.7

58.0
58.8
58.3

57.4
58.1
57.9

57.9
60.7
58.4

59.7
59.6
50.8

58.1
63.5
52.1

58.6
64.3
53.8

59.4
63.1
54.1

65.2
57.6
61.0

61.8
58.6
61.9

62.9
54.4
59.3

61.4
59.7
56.0

59.0
60.4
54.4

58.4
62.1
57.2

57.4
64.0
53.9

59.7
62.8
52.9

59.3
65.2

59.1
64.6

-

-

67.3
57.6
60.8

65.9
59.4
59.8

63.9
59.6
57.9

62.5
60.5
55.2

61.5
61.9
55.5

62.1
61.0
-

61.0
62.6
-

59.8
62.9
-

59.8
62.5
-

58.1
63.2
-

39.9
51.8
45.7
-

41.7
51.4
42.8
-

43.9
50.4
41.7
-

Manufacturing payrolls, 139 industries
Over 1-month span:
1998........................................................
1999........................................................
2000........................................................
2001........................................................

57.9
45.0
52.2
39.2

50.7
41.0
47.8

53.6
42.8
51.1

50.7
46.4
51.1

47.1
40.3
45.7

50.0
46.4
51.1

37.8
54.7
57.6

50.0
38.1
36.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

45.7
46.4
38.8
-

Over 3-month span:
1998........................................................
1999........................................................
2000........................................................

56.8
36.7
47.8

56.8
37.1
52.5

52.2
37.1
49.3

52.2
34.5
48.9

48.6
37.8
49.6

41.4
43.5
53.6

39.2
39.9
44.2

40.3
45.0
36.3

43.2
42.1
28.8

37.1
50.4
35.3

36.7
51.1
37.4

40.6
50.7
33.5

Over 6-month span:
1998........................................................
1999........................................................
2000........................................................

60.1
35.6
51.4

54.3
33.5
47.5

50.4
33.5
50.4

39.9
37.1
53.6

43.5
32.7
45.0

42.1
38.8
38.1

38.8
41.0
33.5

36.7
45.7
35.3

36.0
48.2
30.6

39.9
43.2
27.0

34.5
48.6
-

32.7
51.1
-

Over 12-month span:
1998........................................................
1999........................................................
2000........................................................

55.0
37.4
47.8

51.8
32.4
44.6

51.8
31.7
39.2

46.8
35.3
39.2

40.6
36.0
34.2

39.9
37.1
30.6

37.8
38.8
31.3

38.1
39.6

37.1
42.4

36.0
42.4

34.2
42.4

33.5
46.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

Data not available.

decreasing employment. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each

NO TE: Figures are the percent of industries with em ploym ent increasing
plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50
percent indicates an equal balance betw een industries with increasing and

104

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

span are preliminary. S ee the "Definitions” in this section. S ee "Notes on
the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

18.

Annual data: Employment status of the population

[Numbers in thousands]
1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Civilian noninstitutional population..........

Employment status

192,805

194,838

196,814

198,584

200,591

203,133

205,220

207,753

209,699

Civilian labor force................................

128,105

129,200

131,056

132,304

133,943

136,297

137,673

139,368

140,863

Labor force participation rate.............

66.4

66.3

66.6

66.6

66.8

67.1

67.1

67.1

67.2

Employed........................................

118,492

120,259

123,060

124,900

126,708

129,558

131,463

133,488

135,208

Employment-population ratio.........

61.5

61.7

62.5

62.9

63.2

63.8

64.1

64.3

64.5

3,247

3,115

3,409

3,440

3,399

3,378

115,245

117,144

119,651

121,460

126,159

128,085

3,281
130,207

3,305

Nonagricultural industries...........

3,443
123,264

131,903

Unemployed....................................

9,613

8,940

7,996

7,404

7,236

6,739

6,210

5,880

5,655

Unemployment rate.......................

7.5

6.9

6.1

5.6

5.4

4.9

4.5

4.2

4.0

Not in the labor force............................

64,700

65,638

65,758

66,280

66,647

66,837

67,547

68,385

68,836

Agriculture....................................

19.

Annual data: Employment levels by industry

[In thousands]
Industry
Total em ploym ent................................................
Private sector....................................................

Minina............................................................
Construction................................................
Manufacturing.............................................
Service-producing.........................................
Transportation and public utilities.........
W holesale trade.........................................
Retail trade...............................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate....
Services.......................................................
G overnm ent................................................
Federal......................................................
S tate..........................................................
Local..........................................................

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000p

108,601
89,956
23,231
635
4,492
18,104

110,713
91,872
23,352
610
4,668
18,075

114,163
95,036
23,908
601
4,986
18,321

117,191
97,885
'24,265
581
5,160
18,524

119,608
100,189
24,493
580
5,418
18,495

122,690
103,133
24,962
596
5,691

128,786
108,616
25,482
535
6,404

131,417
110,847
25,661
538
6,687

18,675

125,865
106,042
25,414
590
6,020
18,805

18,543

18,437

85,370
5,718
5,997
19,356
6,602
29,052

87,361
5,811
5,981
19,773
6,757
30,197

90,256
5,984
6,162
20,507
6,896
31,579

92,925
6,132
6,378
21,187
6,806
33,117

95,115
6,253
6,482
21,597
6,911
34,454

97,727
6,408
6,648
21,966
7,109
36,040

100,451
6,611
6,800
22,295
7,389
37,533

103,304
6,826
6,924
22,788
7,569
39,027

105,756
6,993
7,054
23,137
7,618
40,384

18,645
2,969
4,408
11,267

18,841
2,915
4,488
11,438

19,128
2,870
4,576
11,682

19,305
2,822
4,635
11,849

19,419
2,757
4,606
12,056

19,557
2,699
4,582
12,276

19,823
2,686
4,612
12,525

20,170
2,669
4,695
12,806

20,570
2,778
4,746
13,047

NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

105

Current Labor Statistics:

20.

Labor Force Data

Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonfarm
payrolls, by industry
Industry

1 99 2

19 9 3

19 9 4

1 99 5

19 9 6

1 99 7

19 9 8

19 9 9

2000p

Private sector:

Average weekly hours..............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................

34.4
10.57
363.61

34.5
10.83
373.64

34.7
11.12
385.86

34.5
11.43
394.34

34.4
11.82
406.61

34.6
12.28
424.89

34.6
12.78
442.19

34.5
13.24
456.78

34.5
13.74
474.03

43.9
14.54
638.31

44.3
14.60
646.78

44.8
14.88
666.62

44.7
15.30
683.91

45.3
15.62
707.59

45.4
16.15
733.21

43.9
16.91
742.35

43.8
17.09
748.54

44.9
17.14
769.59

38.0
14.15
537.70

38.5
14.38
553.63

38.9
14.73
573.00

38.9
15.09
587.00

39.0
15.47
603.33

39.0
16.04
625.56

38.9
16.61
646.13

39.1
17.18
671.74

39.3
17.86
701.90

41.0
11.46
469.86

41.4
11.74
486.04

42.0
12.07
506.94

41.6
12.37
514.59

41.6
12.77
531.23

42.0
13.17
553.14

41.7
13.49
562.53

41.7
13.91
580.05

41.5
14.38
596.77

38.3
13.43
514.37

39.3
13.55
532.52

39.7
13.78
547.07

39.4
14.13
556.72

39.6
14.45
572.22

39.7
14.92
592.32

39.5
15.31
604.75

38.7
15.69
607.20

38.5
16.22
624.47

38.2
11.39
435.10

38.2
11.74
448.47

38.4
12.06
463.10

38.3
12.43
476.07

38.3
12.87
492.92

38.4
13.45
516.48

38.3
14.07
538.88

38.3
14.58
558.41

38.5
15.18
584.43

28.8
7.12
205.06

28.8
7.29
209.95

28.9
7.49
216.46

28.8
7.69
221.47

28.8
7.99
230.11

28.9
8.33
240.74

29.0
8.74
253.46

29.0
9.08
263.32

28.9
9.45
273.11

35.8
10.82
387.36

35.8
11.35
406.33

35.8
11.83
423.51

35.9
12.32
442.29

35.9
12.80
459.52

36.1
13.34
481.57

36.4
14.07
512.15

36.2
14.62
529.24

36.3
15.07
547.04

32.5
10.54
342.55

32.5
10.78
350.35

32.5
11.04
358.80

32.4
11.39
369.04

32.4
11.79
382.00

32.6
12.28
400.33

32.6
12.84
418.58

32.6
13.36
435.54

32.7
13.88
453.88

Mining:

Average weekly hours............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Construction:

Average weekly hours............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).....................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................
Manufacturing:

Average weekly hours............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................
Transportation and public utilities:

Average weekly hours............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................
Wholesale trade:

Average weekly hours...........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................
Retail trade:

Average weekly hours............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................
Finance, insurance, and real estate:

Average weekly hours............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................
Services:

Average weekly hours............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................

106

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

21.

Employment Cost Index, compensation,1by occupation and industry group

[June 1989 = 100]
1998

1999

2000

Percent change
12
3
months
months
ended
ended

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Dec. 2000
Civilian workers2......................................................................

139.8

140.4

141.8

143.3

144.6

146.5

148.0

149.5

150.6

0.7

4.1

141.4
141.0
141.8
141.3
136.1
140.0

141.9
141.3
143.5
142.5
137.1
141.3

143.3
142.2
145.4
143.4
138.3
142.4

145.0
143.9
147.3
144.7
139.5
143.1

146.3
145.3
148.6
146.1
140.6
144.8

148.4
146.7
150.5
148.6
142.7
146.0

149.9
148.3
151.9
150.1
144.1
147.1

151.5
150.0
153.7
151.8
145.6
148.5

152.5
151.3
154.6
152.8
146.5
150.0

.7
.9
.6
.7
.6
1.0

4.2
4.1
4.0
4.6
4.2
3.6

137.9
138.9
140.4
141.7
139.1
140.2
141.0
139.9
139.9

139.0
139.9
140.9
142.3
140.5
141.3
141.3
140.8
140.5

140.0
140.9
142.4
143.2
141.4
142.2
141.7
141.5
141.9

141.2
142.1
144.0
145.1
142.7
143.4
144.6
142.4
143.4

142.5
143.6
145.3
146.5
144.3
145.0
145.8
144.4
144.7

144.9
146.0
147.1
148.0
145.9
146.3
146.5
145.7
146.6

146.6
147.5
148.4
149.3
147.5
147.7
146.8
146.1
148.0

148.0
148.7
150.1
151.2
149.0
149.5
149.7
146.9
149.6

148.8
149.3
151.1
152.4
150.7
151.3
150.6
148.3
150.7

.5
.4
.7
.8
1.1
1.2
.6
1.0
.7

4.4
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.4
4.3
3.3
2.7
4.1

139.8
139.4

140.4
140.5

142.0
141.9

143.3
143.2

144.6
144.5

146.8
146.5

148.5
148.2

149.9
149.8

150.9
150.9

.7
.7

4.4
4.4

Precision production, craft, and repair occupations......
Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors...........
Transportation and material moving occupations..........
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers....

142.0
141.9
142.6
141.8
142.6
141.4
135.9
136.1
136.8
130.7
139.2

142.4
143.0
142.9
143.7
139.6
142.6
136.9
137.2
137.3
131.6
141.0

144.1
144.5
144.1
145.8
142.6
143.7
138.2
138.4
138.4
133.6
142.3

145.6
146.0
145.2
147.7
144.1
145.0
139.4
139.6
139.9
134.4
143.2

146.9
147.3
146.7
149.1
145.3
146.2
140.5
140.6
141.4
135.2
144.4

149.3
149.4
148.4
151.1
148.9
149.0
142.6
142.3
144.0
137.5
146.4

151.1
151.3
150.7
152.7
150.3
150.6
144.1
144.1
145.0
138.6
148.1

152.6
152.9
152.2
154.4
151.2
152.3
145.5
145.8
146.0
139.9
149.4

153.6
154.1
153.7
155.3
151.4
153.4
146.4
146.7
146.8
141.1
150.4

.7
.8
1.0
.6
.1
.7
.6
.6
.5
.9
.7

4.6
4.6
4.8
4.2
4.2
4.9
4.2
4.3
3.8
4.4
4.2

Service occupations......................................................

138.0

139.5

140.6

141.0

142.6

143.9

145.4

146.6

148.1

1.0

3.9

Production and nonsupervisory occupations4...............

139.0

139.3

140.8

141.9

143.1

145.3

146.9

148.4

149.5

.7

4.5

137.8
137.2
140.2
138.8
136.3
134.3
138.9
140.5
138.7
137.7
139.2
138.2

138.9
138.3
141.7
140.4
137.1
135.6
139.9
141.8
140.1
138.5
139.9
139.6

139.9
139.3
142.7
141.3
138.3
136.9
140.9
143.0
141.3
139.4
141.0
140.4

141.1
140.5
143.9
142.5
139.4
137.9
142.1
144.3
142.5
140.5
142.3
141.5

142.5
141.8
145.5
143.9
140.7
138.7
143.6
145.8
143.8
142.1
144.0
142.8

144.8
144.2
148.1
146.5
142.8
140.8
146.0
148.2
146.2
144.4
146.5
144 9

146.6
145.9
150.1
148.4
144.4
143.2
147.5
150.2
148.2
145.6
148.3
146.0

147.9
147.2
151.3
149.6
145 8
145.1
148.7
151.4
149.3
146.7
149.4
147.5

148.8
148.2
151.9
150.5
146 8
146.7
149.3
151.5
149.7
147.8
150.1
147.7

.6
.7
.4
.6
.7
1.1
.4
.1
.3
.7
.5
.1

4.4
4.5
4.4
4.6
43
5.8
4.0
39
4.1
4.0
4.2
3.4

140.5
140.6
142.2
142.8
134.8
137.8
139.3
137.3
141.9
141.7
142.1
138.2
138.8
142.8
141.2
135.6
134.0
132.7

140.9
141.7
142.3
143.8
136.2
139.3
139.7
136.8
143.4
143.3
143.4
138.9
139.9
142.7
142.4
136.8
135.0
134.3

142.8
143.3
144.3
145.5
137.8
140.5
140.9
138.1
144.6
144.9
144.2
141.1
141.9
144.6
144.0
139.1
135.6
135.7

144.1
144.6
145.8
147.0
139.1
140.8
141.8
138.7
145.7
146.1
145.1
142.2
142.8
146.3
145.8
140.0
137.2
137.0

145.3
145.9
147.0
148.3
139.8
142.4
142.3
139.5
146.1
146.0
146.1
143.5
144.3
148.5
147.4
140.7
138.3
138.1

147.4
147.7
149.3
150.3
141 8
143.6
143.9
140.4
148.6
148.4
148.9
145.6
146.4
150.0
149.6
143.2
139.7
140.1

149.1
149.4
151.0
152.1
143.1
145.1
145.7
141.8
150.9
150.9
151.0
147.3
148.1
151.8
151.1
144.8
141.0
142.5

150.6
151.1
152.6
153.9
144.5
146.3
147.4
142.8
153.5
153.9
152.9
148.3
149.6
152.1
152.7
146.2
142.2
143.4

151.7
152.2
153.7
155.1
145.3
147.9
148.3
143.9
154.1
154.7
153.4
149.4
150.6
154.4
154.9
146.6
144.4
144.5

.7
.7
.7
.8
.6
1.1
.6
.8
.4
.5
.3
.7
.7
1.5
1.4
.3
1.5
.8

4.4
4.3
4.6
4.6
3.9
3.9
4.2
3.2
5.5
6.0
5.0
4.1
4.4
4.0
5.1
4.2
4.4
4.6

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers........................................................
Professional specialty and technical..............................
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial......................

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing............................................................
Manufacturing...............................................................
Services........................................................................
Health services............................................................
Hospitals...................................................................
Educational services...................................................
Public administration3.....................................................
Nonmanufacturing...........................................................
Private industry workers.......................................................

Excluding sales occupations........................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers......................................................
Excluding sales occupations......................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations.........
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial occupations..
Sales occupations.......................................................
Administrative support occupations, including clerical...

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing...........................................................

Construction................................................................
Manufacturing.............................................................

Public utilities.............................................................
Communications....................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.........................
Wholesale and retail trade...........................................
Wholesale trade........................................................

General merchandise stores...................................
Food stores.............................................................
See footnotes at end of table.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

107

Current Labor Statistics:

Compensation & industrial Relations

21. Continued—Employment Cost Index, compensation,1by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]
1998

1999

2000

Percent change

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Dec. 2000
Finance, insurance, and real estate..............................

142.5

141.5

145.8

147.6

148.3

152.0

153.1

155.2

155.7

0.3

5.0

Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies.
Insurance.....................................................................
Services.........................................................................
Business services........................................................
Health services.............................................................
Hospitals....................................................................
Educational services....................................................
Colleges and universities...........................................

143.3
146.7
141.7
142.7
145 9
139.0
139.9
147.7
148.5

145.6
148.8
141.7
143.5
147 5
140.5
141.2
148.3
149.2

148.8
155.4
144.0
144.6
148 7
141.4
142.1
148.7
149.6

151.0
159.3
144.5
146.1
180 7

151.6
159.8
145.8
147.6

154.2
162.7
149.9
149.4

155.5
164.2
151.3
151.2

157.4
165.8
154.8
152.9

158.4
166.5
155.2
154.1

.6
.4
.3
.8

4.5
4.2
6.4
4.4

142.6
143.0
152.2
152.6

144.2
144.6
153.0
153.3

145.8
145.8
154.0
154.6

147.5
147.5
154.9
155.5

149.0
149.2
158.8
158.6

150.6
151.1
159.9
159.2

1.1
1.3
.7
.4

4.4
4.5
4.5
3.8

Nonmanufacturing..........................................................

139.7

140.3

142.0

143.4

144.5

146.7

148.4

150.0

151.1

.7

4.6

White-collar workers.....................................................
Excluding sales occupations....................................
Blue-collar occupations................................................
Service occupations.....................................................

142.0
142.7
134.0
137.7

142.3
143.7
135.2
139.2

144.1
145.3
136.8
140.4

145.6
146.8
138.0
140.7

146.9
148.1
138.7
142.3

149.2
150.2
140.6
143.5

151.0
152.0
142.3
145.1

152.6
153.8
143.9
146.3

153.7
155.1
144.8
147.8

.7
.8
.6
1.0

4.6
4.7
4.4
3.9

State and local government workers......................................

139.8

140.5

141.0

143.1

144.6

145.5

145.9

147.8

148.9

.7

3.0

139.3
138.5
141.6
140.3
137.8

139.8
138.8
142.6
141.4
138.8

140.2
139.3
142.8
141.3
139.5

142.6
142.0
144.5
143.0
140.9

144.0
143.2
146.1
145.0
142.5

144.9
144.1
147.0
145.9
143.7

145.3
144.5
147.2
146.5
144.2

147.3
146.6
149.2
148.3
145.9

148.3
147.4
150.7
149.4
147.2

.7
.5
1.0
.7
.9

3.0
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.3

Services............................................................................

139.7

140.0

140.5

143.2

144.5

145.2

145.5

148.0

148.9

.6

3.0

Services excluding schools5...........................................
Health services.............................................................
Hospitals....................................................................
Educational services.....................................................
Schools......................................................................
Elementary and secondary.....................................
Colleges and universities........................................

138.8

139.6

140.3

142.6

143.8

145.2

145.8

147.6

148.8

.8

3.5

140.7
141.2
139.6
139.9
139.3
141.5

141.2
141.7
139.9
140.2
139.6
141.7

142.0
142.7
140.3
140.6
140.0
142.1

144.2
144.8
143.1
143.5
142.9
144.8

145.8
146.3
144.4
144.7
144.1
146.5

147.3
147.9
145.0
145.3
144.5
147.4

147.9
148.4
145.2
145.5
144.7
147.6

150.0
150.7
147.9
148.2
147.3
150.5

151.6
152.0
148.7
149.0
148.1
151.7

1.1
.9
.5
.5
.5
.8

4.0
3.9
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.5

139.9

140.8

141.5

142.4

144.4

145.7

146.1

146.9

148.3

1.0

2.7

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers...........................................................
Professional specialty and technical................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial......................
Administrative support, including clerical.........................
Blue-collar workers............................................................
Workers, by industry division:

Public administration3..........................................

1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of
wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits.
2 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and
State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.

108

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

3 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
4 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly
Earnings index, which was discontinued in January 1989.
5 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.

22.

Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group

[June 1989 = 100]
1998

1999

2000

Percent change
3

Series
Dec.

Civilian workers1.....................

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

12
months
ended
Dec. 2000

months
ended

137.7

138.4

139.8

141.3

142.5

144.0

145.4

147.0

147.9

0.6

3.8

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers..............................................
Professional specialty and technical.............................
Executive, adminltrative, and managerial.................
Administrative support, including clerical......................
Blue-collar workers...............................................
Service occupations.............................................

139.7
139.4
140.3
138.6
133.3
137.0

140.1
140.1
141.6
140.0
134.5
138.3

141.6
141.0
143.8
140.9
135.8
139.4

143.3
142.6
145.9
142.3
137.0
140.1

144.6
144.0
147.2
143.5
137.9
141.7

146.2
144.9
148.6
145.5
139.2
143.0

147.6
146.4
149.9
146.9
140.6
144.0

149.2
148.3
151.6
148.5
142.0
145.7

150.2
149.6
152.4
149.6
142.9
147.1

.7
.9
.5
.7
.6
1.0

3.9
3.9
3.5
4.3
3.6
3.8

Workers, by Industry division:
Goods-producing.......................................................
Manufacturing.......................................
Service-producing.........................................................
Services.....................................................
Health services.........................................................
Hospitals.......................................................
Educational services..................................................

135.2
136.8
138.7
140.5
137.6
137.1
140.0

136.3
137.9
139.2
141.5
138.8
138.1
140.2

137.4
139.0
140.7
142.3
139.7
138.8
140.6

138.6
140.2
142.3
144.1
140.9
140.1
143.7

139.7
141.5
143.5
145.5
142.5
141.6
144.7

141.3
142.9
145.0
146.6
143.8
142.6
145.3

143.0
144.4
146.3
147.9
145.3
143.8
145.6

144.3
145.7
148.0
149.9
146.7
145.6
148.9

145.3
146.5
148.9
151.0
148.3
147.3
149.6

.7
.5
.6
.7
1.1
1.2
.5

4.0
3.5
3.8
3.8
4.1
4.0
3.4

135.9
137.8

136.9
138.4

137.8
139.9

139.5
141.5

141.5
142.6

142.5
144.2

142.9
145.5

144.6
147.2

146.1
148.1

1.0
.6

3.3
3.9

137.4
136.9

138.1
138.2

139.7
139.6

141.0
140.8

142.2
142.0

143.9
143.5

145.4
145.1

146.8
146.5

147.7
147.6

.6
.8

3.9
3.9

139.9
139.7
139.7
140.5
141.3
138.9
133.2
133.0
134.9
127.8
135.8

140.3
141.0
140.7
141.9
137.3
140.4
134.3
134.3
135.7
129.1
137.3

142.1
142.5
141.8
144.3
140.5
141.4
135.6
135.6
136.7
131.0
138.3

143.5
143.9
142.6
146.4
142.1
142.7
136.8
136.7
138.3
131.9
139.4

144.8
145.2
144.1
147.6
143.3
143.8
137.7
137.5
139.5
132.7
140.4

146.6
146.7
145.1
149.2
146.7
146.0
139.1
138.9
140.7
134.1
141.8

148.3
148.5
147.3
150.7
147.9
147.5
140.5
140.6
141.6
135.2
143.6

149.7
149.9
148.6
152.3
149.0
149.1
141.9
142.0
142.9
136.5
145.0

150.6
151.1
150.2
153.0
148.7
150.1
142.8
142.8
143.7
137.6
146.2

.6
.8
1.1
.5
-.2
.7
.6
.6
.6
.8
.8

4.0
4.1
4.2
3.7
3.8
4.4
3.7
3.9
3.0
3.7
4.1

Public administration^.....................................
Nonmanufacturing...................................
Private industry workers.............

Excluding sales occupations............................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers..................................
Excluding sales occupations................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations.........
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial occupations..
Sales occupations.......................................
Administrative support occupations, including clerical...
Blue-collar workers.........................................
Precision production, craft, and repair occupations......
Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors..........
Transportation and material moving occupations.........
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers....
Service occupations...........................................

135.3

136.7

137.8

138.0

139.6

141.0

142.5

143.5

144.9

1.0

3.8

136.4

136.8

138.2

139.3

140.4

142.1

143.7

145.0

146.0

.7

4.0

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing...................................
Excluding sales occupations..................................
White-collar occupations............................
Excluding sales occupations..............................
Blue-collar occupations...........................................
Construction..............................................
Manufacturing..................................
White-collar occupations..................................
Excluding sales occupations.............................
Blue-collar occupations..............................
Durables...............................................
Nondurables................................

135.2
134.4
138.2
136.4
133.3
129.3
136.8
139.0
137.1
135.3
136.9
136.8

136.3
135.5
139.4
137.8
134.3
130.7
137.9
140.1
138.3
136.3
137.9
138.0

137.3
136.6
140.5
138.8
135.4
131.9
139.0
141.4
139.6
137.2
139.1
138.7

138.5
137.8
141.7
140.1
136.6
133.0
140.2
142.7
140.8
138.4
140.4
139.7

139.7
138.9
143.0
141.3
137.6
133.6
141.5
144.0
142.0
139.7
141.8
140.9

141.3
140.5
145.0
143.2
139.0
136.0
142.9
145.8
143.7
140.8
143.0
142.7

143.0
142.1
146.8
144.9
140.5
138.0
144.4
147.7
145.6
142.0
144.7
143.9

144.3
143.4
147.9
146.0
142.0
139.4
145.7
148.7
146.6
143.4
146.1
145.0

145.2
144.6
148.7
147.2
143.1
140.7
146.5
149.2
147.5
144.6
147.3
145.4

.6
.8
.5
.8
.8
.9
.5
.3
.6
.8
.8
.3

3.9
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.0
5.3
3.5
3.6
3.9
3.5
3.9
3.2

Service-producing.............................................
Excluding sales occupations............................
White-collar occupations..................................
Excluding sales occupations.................................
Blue-collar occupations.......................................
Service occupations........................................
Transportation and public utilities................................
Transportation..........................................................
Public utilities...........................................................
Communications....................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services........................
Wholesale and retail trade................................
Excluding sales occupations...................................
Wholesale trade.........................................
Excluding sales occupations...................................
Retail trade.......................................
General merchandise stores.............................
Food stores...............................................

138.4
138.5
140.1
140.7
132.9
135.2
135.1
132.9
137.8
138.0
137.4
137.0
138.2
141.3
140.8
134.8
133.0
130.51

138.9
139.8
140.3
142.0
134.4
136.7
135.4
132.3
139.2
139.4
138.9
137.7
139.5
140.7
141.9
136.2
133.7
131.8

140.8
141.4
142.3
143.7
135.9
137.8
136.8
133.7
140.6
141.1
140.0
139.6
141.1
142.3
143.0
138.3
134.3
132.8

142.1
142.6
143.8
145.1
137.0
138.0
137.5
134.4
141.5
141.9
140.9
140.7
141.8
144.3
144.8
138.9
135.6
133.91

143.3
143.8
145.0
146.4
137.8
139.6
137.9
134.9
141.8
142.2
141.3
142.0
143.3
146.5
146.4
139.6
136.7
134.9

145.0
145.3
146.9
147.8
139.1
141.1
138.5
134.9
143.2
143.4
143.0
143.8
145.2
147.4
147.9
142.1
137.8
136.7

146.5
146.9
148.5
149.6
140.3
142.5
140.0
136.2
144.9
145.0
144.7
145.5
146.8
149.4
149.7
143.5
138.5
139.5

147.9
148.3
150.0
151.2
141.6
143.5
141.3
137.4
146.4
146.7
145.9
146.4
148.2
149.6
151.3
144.8
139.7
140.2

148.9
149.4
150.9
152.3
142.2
144.8
142.3
138.6
147.1
147.4
146.6
147.4
149.0
151.6
153.2
145.2
142.2
141.6

.7
.7
.6
.7
.4
.9
.7
.9
.5
.5
.5
.7
.5
1.3
1.3
.3
1.8
1.0

3.9
3.9
4.1
4.0
3.2
3.7
3.2
2.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
4.0
3.5
4.6
4.0
4.0
5.0

Production and nonsupervisory occupations3.......

See footnotes at end of table.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

109

Current Labor Statistics:

Compensation & Industrial Relations

22. Continued—Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]
Percent change

2000

1999

1998
Series
Dec.

Mar.

Sept.

June

Dec.

Mar.

Sept.

June

12

3
months

months

ended

ended

Dec.

Dec. 2000
Finance, insurance, and real estate............................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies.
Insurance......................................................................
Services............................................................ ..............
Business services........................................................
Health services.............................................................
Hospitals....................................................................
Educational services....................................................
Colleges and universities...........................................

139.8
139.6
144.4
138.5
140.8
144.1
137.4
136.5
143.5
143.6

137.2
141.0
146.1
137.4
142.2
145.4
138.7
137.6
143.9
144.1

142.4
144.8
154.5
139.8
143.2
146.3
139.6
138.3
144.2
144.4

144.5
147.5
159.2
140.2
144.5
148.5
140.6
139.3
147.5
147.2

145.2
148.0
159.6
141.5
146.0
149.8
142.2
140.9
148.2
147.9

148.7
150.2
162.0
145.5
147.4
152.0
143.5
141.8
148.9
148.9

149.5
151.5
163.3
146.6
149.1
154.1
145.3
143.3
149.6
149.4

151.7
153.3
165.0
150.7
150.6
155.3
146.6
144.9
153.4
152.5

151.7
154.1
165.7
150.8
151.8
156.0
148.1
146.8
154.3
152.9

0.0
.5
.4
.1
.8
.5
1.0
1.3
.6
.3

4.5
4.1
3.8
6.6
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.1
3.4

Nonmanufacturing..........................................................
White-collar workers.....................................................
Excluding sales occupations....................................
Blue-collar occupations................................................
Service occupations.....................................................

137.4
139.8
140.3
131.1
135.1

137.9
140.1
141.6
132.4
136.5

139.7
142.0
143.2
134.0
137.7

141.0
143.5
144.6
135.1
137.9

142.1
144.7
145.9
135.8
139.5

143.9
146.5
147.4
137.4
140.9

145.5
148.2
149.1
138.9
142.4

146.9
149.6
150.7
140.3
143.4

147.9
150.6
151.9
140.9
144.7

.7
.7
.8
.4
.9

4.1
4.1
4.1
3.8
3.7

State and local government workers...............................

138.5

139.0

139.6

142.2

143.5

144.3

144.7

147.2

148.3

.7

3.3

138.5
138.7
139.3
136.5
136.0

138.9
138.9
140.1
137.4
136.9

139.3
139.4
140.5
137.5
137.6

142.1
142.5
142.7
139.6
139.4

143.4
143.6
144.3
141.7
140.7

144.1
144.3
144.9
142.4
141.5

144.5
144.7
145.1
143.0
142.1

147.1
147.4
147.3
145.0
143.9

148.0
148.2
148.8
146.2
145.1

.6
.5
1.0
.8
.8

3.2
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.1

139.2

139.5

139.9

142.9

144.0

144.6

144.9

147.9

148.7

.5

3.3

147.9
149.3
149.2
148.7
148.9
148.5
149.5

.8
1.1
1.0
.5
.5
.4
.8

3.3
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.5

146.1

1.0

3.3

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers.................. ........................................
Professional specialty and technical................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial.....................

Workers, by industry division:
Services...........................................................................
Services excluding schools4..........................................

Elementary and secondary.....................................
Colleges and universities.......................................

138.2
139.2
139.1
139.3
139.5
139.3
139.6

139.0
139.7
139.7
139.5
139.6
139.5
139.6

139.6
140.4
140.6
139.8
140.0
139.9
139.8

Public administration2.......................................................

135.9

136.9

137.8

Health services............................................................

1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and
State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.

143.2
144.2
144.1
144.0
144.2
144.1
144.4

144.3
145.3
145.3
144.5
144.7
144.5
144.9

144.8
145.7
145.6
144.8
144.9
144.6
145.6

139.5

141.5

142.5

142.9

144.6

3 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly
Earnings index, which was discontinued in January 1989.

2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

23.

142.1
142.8
142.8
142.9
143.1
143.1
142.6

146.7
147.7
147.7
148.0
148.1
147.9
148.3

4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.

Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group

[June 1989 = 100]
Percent change

2000

1999

1998
Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

3
months

12
months

ended

ended

Dec. 2000
145.2

145.8

147.3

148.6

150.2

153.8

155.7

157.5

158.6

0.7

5.6

147.4
141.6

147.9
142.2

149.4
143.6

151.0
144.8

152.5
146.2

156.3
150.0

158.5
151.6

160.4
153.1

161.5
154.1

.7
.7

5.9
5.4

143.2
145.7
142.7
145.8

144.3
146.1
143.6
146.3

145.2
147.9
144.5
148.0

146.3
149.4
145.7
149.4

148.2
150.7
147.8
150.7

152.3
154.0
152.3
154.0

154.2
156.0
153.9
156.1

155.7
157.9
154.9
158.1

156.2
159.4
154.8
159.7

.3
.9
-.1
1.0

5.4
5.8
4.7
6.0

Workers, by occupational group:

Workers, by industry division:

Nonmanufacturing.............................................................

110

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

24.

Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers by bargaining status, region, and area size

[June 1989 = 100]
1998

2000

199 9

Percent change

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

3

12

months
ended

months
ended

Dec. 2000
COMPENSATION
Workers, by bargaining status1

Union.......................................................................................
Goods-producing.................................................................
Service-producing...............................................................

137.5
136.5
138.5
136.9
137.4

138.0
136.8
139.2
137.0
138 1

139.0
138.2
139.7
138.1
139 2

140.2
139.2
141.0
139.1
140 3

141.2
140.8
141.4
141 0
140 8

143.0
143.3
142.5
144 5
141 7

144.4
144.8
143.9
145 4
143 4

146.1
146.8
145.2
147 1
145 0

146.9
147.3
146.4
147 4
14fi P

140.1
138.3
140.6
139.4
140 0

140.8
139.7
141.1
140.7
140.6

142.5
140.5
143.0
141.7
142.4

143.8
141.8
144.4
143.0
143.8

145.2
143.1
145.7
144.4
145.1

147.4
145.4
148.0
146.5
147.4

149.1
147.2
149.6
148.2
149.1

150.6
148.4
151.2
149.2
150.7

151.6
149.3
152.3
149.9
151.8

139.5
138.1
141.4
140.0

140.5
139.1
141.7
140.3

141.5
140.7
143.6
142.1

143.2
141.8
145.0
143.3

144.3
143.0
146.3
144.7

146.3
145.0
148.9
147.0

147.6
146.7
150.7
148.8

149.3
147.6
152.2
150.8

139.8
139 4

140.4
140.5

142.0
141.8

143.3
143.1

144.7
143.6

146.9
146.0

148.6
147.7

Union.......................................................................................
Goods-producing.................................................................
Service-producing...............................................................
Manufacturing......................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................................

133.1
131.7
134.8
133.0
133.1

133.6
132.3
135.4
133.6
133 7

134.7
133.8
135.8
134.7
134 6

135.7
134.9
136.8
135.8
135 6

136.5 •
136.1
137.2
137.5
135 q

137.2
137.2
137.6
138.8
13fi 4

Nonunion.................................................................................
Goods-producing.................................................................
Service-producing...............................................................
Manufacturing......................................................................
Nonmanufacturing...............................................................

138.3
136.5
138.8
138.2
138.0

139.0
137.8
139.3
139.4
138.6

140.7
138.8
141.3
140.5
140.5

142.0
140.0
142.6
141.7
141.8

143.3
141.1
143.9
142.9
143.0

136.4
136.7
138.0
138.4

137.1
137.9
138.9
138.2

138.2
139.4
141.0
140.2

139.9
140.2
142.4
141.3

137.7
136.0

138.3
137.1

139.9
138.4

141.2
139.8

Nonunion.................................................................................
Goods-producing.................................................................
Service-producing............................................ ...................
Manufacturing.....................................................................

0.5
.3
.8

4.0
4.6
3.5

2
8

.7
.7
.5
.7

4.4
4.3
4.5
3.8
4.6

150.3
148.6
153.3
151.8

.7
.7
.7
.7

4.2
3.9
4.8
4.9

150.1
148.8

151.0
150.3

.6
1 .0

4.4
4.7

138.5
138.4
138.9
139.7
137 ft

140.0
140.2
140.1
141.4

141.2
141.3
141.5
142.6

145.1
142.9
145.8
144.4
145.0

146.7
144.7
147.3
146.1
146.6

148.1
145.8
148.7
147.2
148.0

149.0
146.8
149.6
148.0
148.9

.6

4.0
4.0
4.0
3.6
4.1

140.9
141.5
143.6
142.6

142.3
143.0
145.3
144.7

143.7
144.6
147.1
146.3

145.3
145.3
148.6
148.2

146.0
146.3
149.6
149.2

.5
.7
.7
.7

3.6
3.4
4.2
4.6

142.5
140.2

144.1
142.2

145.7
143.7

147.1
144.7

148.0
146.0

.6

.9

3.9
4.1

.6

Workers, by region1

Northeast................................................................................
South......................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)..........................................
West.......................................................................................
Workers, by area size1

Metropolitan areas..................................................................
Other areas............................................................................
WAGES AND SALARIES
Workers, by bargaining status1

.9
.8
1 .0
.8

.6

.7
.6

.5

3.4
3.8
3.1
3.7

Workers, by region1

Northeast................................................................................
South......................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...........................................
West.......................................................................................
Workers, by area size1

Metropolitan areas..................................................................
Other areas.............................................................................

The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and Industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the

M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w

Technical Note, "Estimation procedures t o r the Employment Cost Index," May 1982.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

11

Current Labor Statistics:

Compensation & Industrial Relations

25. Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, and in selected features within plans,
medium and large private establishments, selected years, 1980-97
Item
Scope of survey (in 000's).......................................
Number of employees (in 000's):
With medical care................................................
With life insurance................................................
With defined benefit plan......................................

1982

1980

1984

1986

1988

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

21,352

21,043

21,013

21,303

31,059

32,428

31,163

28,728

33,374

38,409

20,711
20,498
17,936

20,412

20,383
20,172
17,231

20,238
20,451
16,190

27,953
28,574
19,567

29,834
30,482
20,430

25,865
29,293
18,386

23,519
26,175
16,015

25,546
29,078
17,417

29,340
33,495
19,202

10

9
25
76
25
99

9
29

80
3.3
89
9.1

81
3.7
89
9.3

20,2 0 1

17,676

Time-off plans

Participants with:
Paid lunch time......................................................
Average minutes per day.....................................
Paid rest time........................................................
Average minutes per day.....................................
Paid funeral leave.................................................
Average days per occurrence..............................
Paid holidays.........................................................
Mveraye uays per year........................................

10.1

10 .0

20

100

24
3.8
99

9
26
73
26
99
9.8
23
3.6
99

62
-

67
-

67
-

70
-

-

-

_

Participants in medical care plans......................
Percent of participants with coverage for:
Home health care................................................

97

97

97

_

_

Extended care facilities........................................
Physical exam.....................................................

58
-

62
-

46
62

26
46

27
51

-

Paid personal leave...............................................
Average days per year........................................
Paid vacations.......................................................

75
99

10

11

10

8

27
72
26

29
72
26
85
3.2
96
9.4
24
3.3
98

26
71
26
84
3.3
97
9.2

30
67
28
80
3.3
92

88

3.2
99
10.0

25
3.7

10.2

68

26
83
3.0
91
9.4

22

21

21

22

20

3.1
97

3.3
96

3.1
97

3.3
96

3.5
95

68

65
60
53
_

56

37
18
_

67
37
26
_

58

_

69
33
16
-

84

93

95

90

92

83

82

77

76

66

8

76
79
28

75
80
28

81
80
30

86

70
18

82
42

78
73
56

85
78
63

43
$12.80
63
$41.40

44
$19.29
64
$60.07

47
$25.31

-

36
$11.93
58
$35.93

$72.10

51
$26.60
69
$96.97

61
$31.55
76
$107.42

67
$33.92
78
$118.33

69
$39.14
80
$130.07

96

96

96

96

92

94

94

91

87

87

69
-

72
64

74
64

72

78

59

49

44

76
5
41

77
7
37

74

8

71
7
42

71

10

40

43

47

48

42

45

40

41

42

43

54

51

51

49

46

43

45

44

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

53

55

Participants in defined benefit pension plans..........

84

84

82

76

63

63

59

56

52

50

Percent of participants with:
Normal retirement prior to age 65........................
Early retirement available....................................
Ad hoc pension increase in last 5 years..............
Terminal earnings formula...................................
Benefit coordinated with Social Security...............

55
98
53
45

58
97
52
45

63
97
47
54
56

64
98
35
57
62

59
98
26
55
62

62
97

52
95
61
48

52
96
4
58
51

52
95

64
63

55
98
7
56
54

-

-

_

60

45

48

48

49

55

57

-

-

-

33

36

41

44

43

54

55

2
5
5
12
_
fits at less than full pay.

9
23

10

12

12

36

52
_

38
5

13
32
7

Paid sick leave 1....................................................
Unpaid maternity leave.........................................
Unpaid paternity leave..........................................
Unpaid family leave..............................................

-

100

Insurance plans

Percent of participants with employee
contribution required for:
Self coverage......................................................
Average monthly contribution.............................
Family coverage.................................................
Mveraye mommy ooniriouuori.............................
Participants in life insurance plans..........................
Percent of participants with:
Accidental death and dismemberment
insurance............................................................
Survivor income benefits......................................
Retiree protection available..................................
Participants in long-term disability
insurance plans....................................................
Participants in sickness and accident
insurance plans.....................................................
Participants in short-term disability plans ' ...............

66

6

6

33

Retirement plans

Participants in defined contribution plans.................
Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings
arrangements.......................................................

22

6

10

56
49

Other benefits

Employees eligible for:
Flexible benefits plans..........................................
Reimbursement accounts2....................................
f
_
Premium conversion plans.....................................
_
The definitions for paid sick leave and short-term disability (previously sickness and
accident insurance) were changed for the 1995 survey. Paid sick leave now includes only
plans that specify either a maximum number of days per year or unlimited days. Shortterms disability now includes all insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans available
on a per-disability basis, as well as the unfunded per-disability plans previously reported as
sick leave. Sickness and accident insurance, reported in years prior to this survey, included
only insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans providing per-disability bene­

112

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

_

_

_

Prior to 1995, reimbursement accounts included premium conversion plans, which
specifically allow medical plan participants to pay required plan premiums with pretax
dollars. Also, reimbursement accounts that were part of flexible benefit plans were
tabulated separately.
2

Note : Dash indicates data not available.

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

26. Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, and in selected features
within plans, small private establishments and State and local governments, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996
Small private establishments

Item
1990

1992

1994

State and local governments
1996

1987

1990

1992

1994

Scope of survey (in 000's)....................

32,466

34.36C

35.91C

39,816

10,321

12,972

12,466

12,907

Number of employees (in 000's):
With medical care...............
With life insurance.........................
With defined benefit plan................

22,402
20,778
6,493

24,396
21,990
7,559

23,536
21,955
5,480

25,599
24,635
5,883

9,599
8,773
9,599

12,064
11,415
11,675

11,219
11,095
10,845

11,192
11,194
11,708

8

9
37
49
26
50
3.0
82

11

10

_

50
3.1
82

51
3.0
80

17
34
58
29
56
3.7
81

36
56
29
63
3.7
74

34
53
29
65
3.7
75

62
37
73

7.6
14
3.0

10.9
38
2.7
72

13.6
39
2.9
67

14.2
38
2.9
67

11 5
38
3.0

97

95

95

94

57
30

51
33

44

Time-off plans

Participants with:
Paid lunch time...............................
Average minutes per day..........
Paid rest time............................
Average minutes per day....................
Paid funeral leave...................
Average days per occurrence.........................
Paid holidays................................
Average days per year'............................
Paid personal leave............................
Average days per year...............................
Paid vacations..............................

37
48
27
47
2.9
84
9.5

9.2

11

12

7.5
13

2.8

2 .6

2 .6

88

88

88

86

Paid sick leave2..................................

47

53

50

Unpaid leave.....................................
Unpaid paternity leave...........................
Unpaid family leave....................
.

17

_

_

-

18
7
-

50
_

47

48

69

71

66

64

93

93

90

79
83
26

80
84
28

-

_
_

-

-

76
78
36

82
79
36

87
84
47

84
81
55

Percent of participants with employee
contribution required for:
Self coverage.....................
Average monthly contribution.......................
Family coverage..........................

42
$25.13
67

47
$36.51
73

52
$40.97
76

52
$42.63
75

35
$15.74
71

38
$25.53
65

43
$28.97
72

$30.20
71

Average monthly contribution....................

$109.34

$150.54

$159.63

$181.53

$71.89

$117.59

$139.23

$149.70

64

64

61

62

85

88

89

87

78

76

79

74

64
46

8

_

66

59
93

Insurance plans

Participants In medical care plans................
Percent of participants with coverage for:
Home health care..............................
Extended care facilities...........................
Physical exam..................................

Participants In life insurance plans......................
Percent of participants with:
Accidental death and dismemberment
insurance...................................
Survivor income benefits................
Retiree protection available.................................
Participants in long-term disability
insurance plans................................
Participants in sickness and accident
insurance plans..........................
Participants in short-term disability plans 2........

77

67

67

1

1

2

1

1

1

19

25

20

13

55

45

46

19

23

20

22

31

27

28

30

6

26

26

14

21

22

21

_

_

20

22

15

15

93

90

87

91

54
95
7
58
49

50
95
4
54
46

_
-

47
92

92
90
33

89
88

16

92
89
10

53
44

100

100

100

18

8

10

92
87
13
99
49

31

33

34

38

9

9

g

17

24

23

28

28

45

45

29

Retirement plans

Participants in defined benefit pension pians.......
Percent of participants with:
Normal retirement prior to age 65............
Early retirement available................
Ad hoc pension Increase in last 5 years............
Terminal earnings formula............
Benefit coordinated with Social Security....
Participants in defined contribution plans..........
Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings
arrangements.............................

_

24

Other benefits

Employees eligible for:
Flexible benefits plans.......................
Reimbursement accounts3.................
Premium conversion plans ......................

1

2

3

4

5

5

5

5

8

14

19

12

5

31

50

64

-

-I

-

7

_

_

Methods used to calculate the average number of paid holidays were revised
in 1994 to count partial days more precisely. Average holidays for 1994 are
not comparable with those reported In 1990 and 1992.
1

The definitions for paid sick leave and short-term disability (previously
sickness and accident insurance) were changed for the 1996 survey. Paid sick
leave now includes only plans that specify either a maximum number of days
per year or unlimited days. Short-term disability now includes all insured, selfinsured, and State-mandated plans available on a per-disability basis, as well
as the unfunded per-disability plans previously reported as
2

sick leave. Sickness and accident insurance, reported in years prior to this
survey, included only insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans
providing per-disability benefits at less than full pay.
3 Prior to 1996, reimbursement accounts included premium conversion plans,
which specifically allow medical plan participants to pay required plan
premiums with pretax dollars. Also, reimbursement accounts that were part of
flexible benefit plans were tabulated separately.

N

o t e

: D a s h in d ic a te s d a t a n o t a v a ila b le .

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

113

Current Labor Statistics:

Compensation & Industrial Relations

27. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
1998

1999

2000

1999

Annual totals
Measure

Sept.

Aug.

July

Nov.

Oct.

Dec.

Jan.p

Feb.p

Mar.p

Apr.p

MayP

Junep

JulyP

Number of stoppages:
Beginning in period...........................
In effect during period.......................

34
34

17
21

1
6

1
3

2
5

0
2

1
2

0
1

0
1

1
2

2
4

6
7

2
4

5
8

3
6

Workers involved:
Beginning in period (in thousands)....
In effect during period (in thousands).

387
387

73
80

1.7
16.3

11.0
15.4

19.1
34.5

.0
10.1

2.0
5.0

.0
3.0

.0
3.0

17.0
20.0

5.7
25.7

26.7
29.7

136.9
141.3

11.4
150.8

7.0
146.9

5,116

1,995

266.4

118.8

176.2

67.1

63.6

63.0

60.0

298.0

327.6

Days idle:
272.2 3,095.3 3,134.0 2,804.4

.10
.10
.10
.01
Percent of estimated working time1....
1 Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total working time; private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An explanation of
the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found in " 'Total economy' measures of strike idleness,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1968, pp. 54-56.
.02

.01

.01

2 Less than 0.005.
p = preliminary.

114

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

Ô

.01

Ô

Ô

Ô

.01

.01

28.

Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city average,
by expenditure category and commodity or service group

[1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]

Series

Annual average
1999

2000

2000
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

2001

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS

All items.........................................................
All items (1967 = 100)......................................

166.6
499.0

172.2
515.8

168.8
505.8

169.8
508.7

Food and beverages.......................................
Food.............................................................

164.6
164.1
164.2
185.0
147.9

168.4
167.8
167.9
188.3
154.5

166.6
166.1
166.3
185.6
150.2

159.6
203.1

160.7
204.6

134.3
153.5
152.3
148.3
168.9

Cereals and bakery products.......................
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs......................
Dairy and related products1.........................
Fruits and vegetables.................................
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
materials.................................................

Fats and oils............................................
Other miscellaneous foods12 ..................
Food away from home1.....................
Other food away from home1,2....................
Housing..........................................................
Shelter.................................................... ....
Rent of primary residence............................
Lodging away from home............................
Owners' equivalent rent of primary residence3

171.3
513.2

171.5
513.6

172.4
516.5

172.8
517.5

172.8
517.6

173.7
520.3

174.0
521.2

174.1
521.5

174.0
521.1

175.1
524.5

166.8
166.3
166.3
186.0
151.3

171.2
512.8
167.1
166.5
166.4
186.1
152.4

167.2
166.6
166.5
187.2
152.9

167.8
167.3
167.5
188.6
153.9

167.9
167.3
167.3
187.7
154.9

168.7
168.1
168.3
189.6
155.8

169.2
168.7
168.9
189.9
156.8

169.4
168.9
169.0
188.6
156.9

169.6
169.1
169.1
190.1
156.8

169.5
168.9
168.8
189.0
155.5

170.5
170.0
170.2
190.7
156.6

171.4
170.9
171.3
191.1
158.0

160.4
208.4

160.9
203.0

159.1
201.7

160.6
201.6

159.6
204.3

159.5
199.9

160.5
201.0

161.0
202.5

161.6
204.6

161.9
206.2

161.4
207.3

161.5
215.1

163.6
212.6

137.8
155.6
154.0
147.4
172.2

137.1
154.3
154.8
147.0
169.8

138.4
154.4
154.4
145.6
170.5

138.5
155.1
154.6
145.9
171.6

137.6
154.0
152.4
144.8
170.7

137.3
155.4
153.7
147.0
172.1

137.5
156.2
154.0
146.6
173.4

138.5
156.6
154.1
148.1
173.5

138.2
156.9
154.6
148.9
173.7

138.0
156.7
154.6
148.7
173.4

137.4
155.8
153.9
149.7
172.0

137.9
156.0
153.0
146.5
173.3

136.7
156.3
153.5
150.2
172.7

139.4
157.8
155.7
153.0
173.8

104.9
165.1
105.2
169.7

107.5
169.0
109.0
174.7

104.3
167.2
107.5
172.4

106.4

107.0
167.9
107.9
173.5

105.2

106.4

108.4

107.7

168.1
108.0
173.6

168.3
108.1
173.8

168.6
108.1
174.4

108.8
169.1
108.7
175.2

109.5

167.6
107.9
173.0

170.0

106.8
170.3

110.0
170.4

166.0
190.1

167.1
191.0

167.8
192.2

167.9
192.3

168.1
192.4

169.6
193.3

170.6
194.1

177.5
112.3
192.9

183.9
117.5
198.7

181.1
111.3
196.2

181.5
115.1
196.6

182.0
120.9
196.9

182.3
119.4
197.2

182.7
117.5
197.6

183.2
120.5
198.2

183.9
122.8
198.6

184.6
123.0
199.2

110.5
175.9
171.7
195.2
186.1

111.0
176.4

169.6
193.4

110.0
175.5
171.4
194.6
185.3

171.6
195.2
186.8

108.9
170.8
111.1
176.5
171.9
195.1
187.6

109.0
171.4

163.9
187.3

169.5
109.3
175.6
170.9
194.7

118.1
199.9

118.5
200.5

113.9
201.2

108.8
201.8

188.2
144.1
202.4

111.3
177.2
174.1
196.4

Tenants' and household insurance1,2............
Fuels and utilities.......................................
Fuels.......................................................
Fuel oil and other fuels.............................
Gas (piped) and electricity........................
Household furnishings and operations..........
Apparel..........................................................
Men's and boys' apparel..............................
Women’s and girls' apparel..........................

101.3
128.8
113.5
91.4
120.9
126.7

103.7
137.9
122.8
129.7
128.0
128.2

102.4
129.9
114.3
114.4
119.8
127.0

102.4
132.9
117.6
147.2
120.6
127.2

102.6
131.8
116.3
130.1
120.7
127.9

103.1
131.7
116.1
123.7
121.0
128.2

103.8
132.4
116.8
121.6
122.0
128.1

103.9
138.9
124.0
120.9
130.2
128.1

104.2
141.3
126.5
120.8
133.0
128.6

104.0
140.9
125.9
120.8
132.4
128.6

104.2
143.8
129.1
133.7
134.8
129.0

104.2
143.1
128.3
137.6
133.6
128.7

104.5
142.7
127.7
140.3
132.7
128.9

104.7
145.3
130.6
144.9
135.6
128.6

105.0
153.8
139.8
149.1
145.7
128.8

131.3
131.1
123.3

129.6
129.7
121.5

126.8
129.2
116.0

129.2
130.0
120.0

132.5
131.5
125.9

133.3
131.6
126.7

132.2
132.6
124.4

128.3
129.4
119.2

124.5
126.4
113.9

125.3
126.8
115.6

130.4
129.1
124.2

132.8
130.4
127.9

131.8
131.3
124.8

127.8
128.0
119.7

125.4
125.5
115.5

Infants' and toddlers' apparel1......................
Footwear....................................................
Transportation.................................................
Private transportation...............................

129.0
125.7
144.4
140.5

130.6
123.8
153.3
149.1

133.3
121.6
148.3
144.4

133.1
122.1
149.7
145.6

133.9
124.7
153.4
149.2

132.3
126.7
152.9
148.7

131.7
126.1
153.1
148.8

130.5
123.9
155.7
151.4

128.1
120.3
155.0
150.6

126.7
120.7
153.2
148.6

127.4
124.9
154.7
150.4

130.8
125.3
154.4
150.4

130.7
125.4
155.2
151.1

128.2
123.8
154.4
150.3

127.4
121.4
154.4
150.3

New and used motor vehicles2.....................
New vehicles.............................................

100.1
142.9
152.0
100.7
100.1
100.5
171.9
197.7

100.8
142.8
155.8
129.3
128.6
101.5
177.3
209.6

100.8
143.3
153.9
112.6
111.9
100.8
174.6
199.5

100.3
143.0
153.0
118.1
117.3
100.9
175.2
204.2

100.4
143.3
153.0
131.7
130.9
101.4
175.7
209.8

100.8
143.5
154.0
128.7
127.9
101.0
175.9
209.2

101.0
143.3
155.4
128.3
127.6
101.1
176.3
210.4

100.8
142.9
155.7
139.0
138.3
101.2
176.8
212.6

100.6
142.5
155.3
136.1
135.4
101.5
177.2
213.7

100.4
141.9
155.2
128.4
127.7
101.5
178.2
215.7

100.4
141.4
156.2
135.2
134.3
101.7
178.7
213.0

100.8
141.6
157.9
133.1
132.3
101.7
179.4
208.0

101.5
142.7
159.3
133.0
132.2
102.5
179.9
209.1

102.1
143.6
160.2
127.8
127.0
103.1
179.9
209.5

102.3
143.7
160.4
126.6
125.8
103.6
180.6
210.2

250.6
230.7
255.1
229.2
299.5
102.1
100.7

260.8
238.1
266.0
137.7
317.3
103.3
101.0

255.5
235.2
260.1
233.1
308.4

257.0
235.5
262.0
234.9
310.5
102.5
100.8

258.1
236.3
263.2
236.1
311.5
102.9
100.9

258.8
237.0
263.9
236.6
312.7

260.5
238.2
265.6
237.9
315.6
103.4
101.5

261.4
238.6
266.7
238.3
318.1
103.7
101.3

262.6
239.2
268.0
238.9
321.3
103.9
101.6

263.1
239.4
268.7
239.3
322.5
103.8
101.5

263.7
239.6
269.4
239.7
323.6
103.8
101.0

264.1
240.0
269.8
239.8
324.7
103.7
100.9

264.8
241.1
270.4
240.3
325.3
103.7
100.7

267.1
242.3
273.0
242.6
328.5
104.1
101.2

Used cars and trucks1................................
Motor fuel...................................................
Gasoline (all types)....................................
Motor vehicle parts and equipment................
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair...........
Public transportation......................................
Medical care....................................................
Medical care commodities..............................
Medical care services....................................
Professional services...................................
Hospital and related services........................

101.2

102.5

102.3
100.5
102.7

102.2

102.0

101.8

259.4
237.5
264.4
237.1
313.5
103.1
101.3
101.8

101.5

102.0

102.8

102.9

103.6

103.2

103.6

103.9

107.0
261.7

112.5
279.9

110.2
273.9

110.6
278.3

110.6
276.9

110.7
276.7

110.9
276.8

111.5
277.5

111.8
278.1

113.0
280.2

114.9
284.8

115.4
284.8

324.0
93.6

317.3
96.0

318.0
94.7

318.3
94.3

318.7
93.8

319.2
93.7

320.9
92.6

321.7
93.3

325.4
93.7

330.8
92.1

332.5
92.3

115.5
285.4
332.7
93.0

115.8
289.2

308.4
96.0

115.3
285.2
332.1
93.1

95.5
100.1

92.8
98.5

95.5
100.9

94.1
99.4

93.6
98.9

93.1
98.6

93.0
98.5

91.8
97.2

92.5
98.2

93.0
98.9

91.3
97.0

92.3
98.3

91.5
97.5

92.2
98.4

92.4
98.8

other than telephone services1,4............
Personal computers and peripheral

30.5

25.9

28.0

27.6

27.2

26.7

26.6

26.0

25.7

25.2

25.0

24.7

24.2

23.8

23.2

equipment1,2....................................
Other goods and services.................................
Tobacco and smoking products......................

53.5
258.3
355.8

41.1
271.1
394.9

46.4
264.7
375.1

45.1
266.7
383.0

44.2
268.0
387.3

42.7
271.9
404.4

42.4
270.2
393.5

41.2
269.6
388.5

40.3
272.2
400.7

39.5
271.6
394.1

38.9
274.7
408.0

38.3
273.0
396.7

37.3
276.2
411.0

36.5
274.0
396.6

35.0
275.9
404.3

Personal care1..............................................

161.1
151.8
171.4

165.6
153.7

163.4
152.8
174.9

163.8
152.6
175.6

164.3
153.5
176.2

164.8
153,4
176.2

165.1

165.4

165.7

166.2

166.6

167.0

167.4

167.8

168.2

153.0
177.3

153.6
177.9

153.7

154.3

153.4

179.3

153.9
180.6

155.5
181.3

155.3

178.2

154.3
179.9

Recreation2............................................
Video and audio1'2.......................................
Education and communication2...........
Education2...................................................
Educational books and supplies..................
Tuition, other school fees, and child care.....
Communication1,2........................................
Information and Information processing1,2....
Telephone services1,2.......................
Information and information processing

Personal care products1..............................
Personal care services1..............................


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

178.1

102.9
100.3

180.3

Monthly Labor Review

333.3
93.3

181.6

March 2001

115

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

28. Continued—Consumer Price Indexes for All Urben Consumers end for Urben Wage Earners end Clericd Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure cctegory end commodity or service group
[1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]

1999

2000

2001

2000

Annual average
Series

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

243.0

252.3

247.6

248.9

249.4

250.9

251.7

252.0

252.9

253.6

254.0

255.1

255.7

255.7

257.3

144.4
164.6
132.5
137.5
131.3

149.2
168.4
137.7
147.4
129.6

146.2
166.6
134.0
140.5
126.8

147.4
166.8
135.7
143.9
129.2

149.2
167.1
138.4
148.5
132.5

149.3
167.2
138.4
148.5
133.3

149.2
167.8
138.0
147.6
132.2

149.7
167.9
138.6
149.1
128.3

149.3
169.4
137.7
147.5
124.5

148.6
169.2
136.4
145.6
125.3

150.3
169.4
138.8
149.9
130.4

150.4
169.6
138.9
149.9
132.8

150.6
169.5
139.3
150.2
131.8

150.0
170.5
137.8
147.2
127.8

150.0
171.4
137.4
146.4
125.4

Nondurables less food, beverages,
and apparel.............................................
Durables.....................................................

146.0
126.0

162.5
125.4

153.1
125.7

157.2
125.3

162.7
125.6

162.3
125.6

161.5
125.8

165.8
125.4

165.4
125.2

162.0
124.7

165.9
124.8

164.7
125.0

165.7
125.5

163.1
125.9

163.2
125.9

Services.........................................................

188.8

195.3

191.6

192.4

193.3

193.5

193.8

195.3

196.3

197.0

197.2

197.6

197.6

198.0

200.2

Rent of shelter3............................................
Transporatation services...............................
Other services.............................................
Special Indexes:

195.0
190.7
223.1

201.3
196.1
229.9

198.0
193.0
227.4

198.9
193.7
227.4

200.1
195.0
227.8

200.2
195.2
228.0

200.3
195.7
228.4

201.2
196.1
228.7

202.1
196.5
229.9

202.7
197.4
231.3

202.6
197.2
231.5

203.3
197.0
232.6

203.2
198.0
232.4

203.1
198.3
233.0

204.5
199.1
234.1

All items less food........................................
All items less shelter.....................................
All items less medical care............................
Commodities less food.................................
Nondurables less food..................................
Nondurables less food and apparel................
Nondurables................................................

167.0
160.2
162.0
134.0
139.4
147.5
151.2

173.0
165.7
167.3
139.2
149.1
162.9
158.2

169.3
162.3
164.1
135.6
142.4
154.2
153.7

170.5
163.3
165.0
137.2
145.7
158.0
155.6

172.0
164.8
166.4
139.9
150.1
163.0
158.1

172.2
164.9
166.5
139.9
150.1
162.7
158.2

172.2
165.1
166.6
139.4
149.3
161.9
158.0

173.3
166.0
167.6
140.1
150.7
166.0
158.8

173.6
166.2
167.9
139.2
149.3
165.7
158.4

173.5
166.0
167.9
138.0
147.5
162.6
157.6

174.6
167.4
168.8
140.3
151.5
166.2
160.0

174.9
167.5
169.1
140.4
151.6
165.1
160.1

175.0
167.7
169.2
140.8
151.8
166.0
160.2

174.7
167.5
169.0
139.3
149.0
163.6
159.1

175.9
168.6
170.1
139.0
148.3
163.9
159.1

Services less rent of shelter3.........................
Services less medical care services...............
Energy........................................................
All Items less energy....................................
All Items less food and energy.....................
Commodities less food and energy............

195.8
182.7
106.6
174.4
177.0
144.1
100.0
195.7

202.9
188.9
124.6
178.6
181.3
144.9
129.5
202.1

198.6
185.3
112.5
176.3
178.8
143.6
112.8
198.9

199.2
186.0
116.7
176.9
179.5
144.2
120.6
199.7

199.9
186.9
122.2
177.8
180.5
145.3
131.7
200.7

200.2
187.1
120.7
178.1
180.9
145.9
128.4
200.9

200.9
187.4
121.0
178.2
180.9
145.5
127.9
201.2

202.9
188.9
129.6
178.3
181.0
144.5
137.6
201.9

204.2
189.9
129.7
178.7
181.3
143.8
135.0
202.7

205.0
190.5
125.9
179.1
181.7
143.7
127.9
203.5

205.7
190.7
130.6
179.6
182.3
145.1
135.2
203.5

205.8
191.1
129.3
180.1
182.8
145.6
133.6
204.1

205.9
191.1
129.0
180.3
183.0
146.0
133.8
204.2

206.9
191.5
128.1
180.2
182.8
145.1
129.3
204.4

210.0
193.6
132.5
181.0
183.5
144.8
128.6
205.7

All Items (1967 = 100).......................................

163.2
486.2

168.9
503.1

165.6
493.2

166.5
495.9

167.9
500.0

168.0
500.4

168.2
501.1

169.2
504.1

169.4
504.7

169.3
504.2

170.4
507.6

170.6
508.2

170.9
509.0

170.7
508.5

171.7
511.6

Food and beverages........................................
Food..............................................................
Food at home...............................................
Cereals and bakery products.......................
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs......................

163.8
163.4
163.0
184.7
147.6

167.7
167.2
166.8
188.0
154.1

165.9
165.4
165.1
185.5
149.8

166.1
165.6
165.1
185.8
150.8

166.4
165.9
165.3
185.9
152.0

166.5
166.0
165.4
186.9
152.5

167.2
166.7
166.4
188.4
153.5

167.3
166.8
166.3
187.3
154.6

168.0
167.6
167.3
189.2
155.4

168.6
189.9
156.8
161.0
202.5

168.8
168.3
168.1
188.4
156.6

169.0
168.5
168.1
189.9
156.4

168.8
168.3
167.8
188.6
155.3

169.8
169.3
169.1
190.4
156.3

170.8
170.3
170.3
190.9
157.9

159.4
201.8

160.5
203.4

159.9
207.0

160.4
201.7

158.7
200.5

160.2
200.5

159.3
203.1

159.4
198.9

160.5
200.0

138.2
201.5

161.6
203.6

161.9
204.7

161.4
205.8

161.5
213.3

163.8
210.9

133.2
152.8
152.2
147.9
168.8

136.9
155.1
153.9
147.2
172.3

136.0
153.7
154.8
146.8
169.8

137.6
153.8
154.3
145.2
170.5

137.8
154.5
154.5
145.7
171.6

136.7
153.4
152.3
144.5
170.7

136.4
154.9
153.6
146.9
172.2

136.7
155.6
153.9
146.4
173.4

137.5
156.0
154.2
147.9
173.5

137.4
156.2
154.4
148.6
173.6

137.1
156.1
154.4
148.5
173.5

136.6
155.3
153.8
149.4
172.0

137.1
155.4
152.7
146.3
173.4

135.8
155.8
153.3
149.9
173.0

138.7
157.3
155.4
152.8
174.0

104.6
165.0
105.1
168.8

107.1

103.9
167.1
107.4
171.6

106.2

106.7

104.7

167.9
107.8
172.8

168.1
108.3
172.9

169.1
108.8
174.4

109.0
169.5
109.6
174.7

107.5
170.0
110.4
174.4

106.3
170.3

109.6
170.5

170.8

108.5
171.4

110.9
174.8

111.2
175.6

160.0
181.6

165.4
187.4

162.0
184.5

162.9
185.2

163.4
186.0

163.6
186.2

163.9
186.5

108.0
168.6
108.4
173.6
165.5
187.2

108.6

167.6
107.8
172.2

106.1
168.3
108.5
172.9

108.4

169.0
109.2
173.8

166.4
187.9

166.6
188.4

167.3
188.7

167.5
189.3

167.6
189.5

111.4
175.8
168.1
189.6

111.5
176.5
170.2
190.6

177.1
122.2
175.7

183.4
117.3
180.8

180.7
110.8
178.6

181.1
114.5
179.0

181.5
119.9
179.2

181.8
118.7
179.6

182.2
117.8
179.9

182.7
120.9
180.4

183.4
123.1
180.8

184.1
122.5
181.3

184.8
118.3
181.9

185.6
118.6
182.4

186.2
113.9
183.0

187.0
108.7
183.5

187.7
113.8
184.1

101.6
128.7
113.0
91.7
120.4
124.7
130.1
131.2
121.3

103.9
137.4
121.8
128.8
127.5
125.5
128.3
129.7
119.3

102.6
129.5
113.6
114.0
119.4
124.5
125.9
129.3
114.2

102.6
132.0
116.3
144.5
120.1
124.6
127.9
129.9
118.C

102.8
131.2
115.4
129.6
120.2
125.3
131.0
131.5
123.5

103.3
131.1
115.2
123.0
120.5
125.6
131.8
131.5
124.3

104.0
131.9
116.0
120.9
121.6
125.5
130.9
132.7
122.1

104.1
138.7
123.3
120.2
129.9
125.3
127.3
129.5
117.4

104.4
141.0
125.7
120.1
132.5
125.7
123.6
126.6
112.2

104.2
140.4
125.0
120.1
131.8
125.7
124.C
126.8
113.2

104.4
143.4
128.2
133.1
134.4
126.1
128.7
128.8
121.5

104.4
142.5
127.2
136.7
133.0
125.8
131.3
130.3
125.5

104.7
142.0
126.5
139.3
132.1
126.0
130.5
131.3
122.6

104.9
144.6
129.3
144.1
134.8
125.6
126.6
128.0
117.5

105.2
153.2
138.6
150.1
144.8
125.7
124.1
125.8
113.2

130.3
126.2
143.4
140.7

132.3
124.2
152.8
150.1

134.9
122.3
147.7
145.1

129.8
120.9
154.4
151.6

130.0
124.C
153.9
151.2

129.0
121.5
154.0
151.2

101.4

101.1

132.6
125.5
154.0
151.3
101.4

132.7
125.7
154 .a
152.2

101.5

128.4
121.5
152.C
149.C
100.8

129.C
124.8
154.2
151.4

101.2

134.1
127.1
152.2
149.5
101.2

132.C
124.6
155.5
152.6

101.4

135.7
124.7
152.9
150.1
100.6

133.4
126.6
152.5
149.7

100.4

134.7
122.6
149.1
1464
100.7

102.2

102.6

102.9

Miscellaneous personal services..................
Commodity and service group:
Commodities..................................................
Food and beverages......................................
Commodities less food and beverages...........
Nondurables less food and beverages..........
Apparel....................................................

Services less energy................................
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN
WAGE EARNERS AND CLERICAL WORKERS

Fruits and vegetables.................................
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
materials.................................................

Fats and oils............................................

Rent of primary residence...........................
Owners' equivalent rent of primary residence3
Tenants' and household insurance1,2...........
Fuels......................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity......................
Household furnishings and operations.........
Apparel........................................................

New and used motor vehicles2....................

116

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

101 -C

28. Continued—Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
[1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]

1999

2000

2001

2000

Annual average
Series

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Nov.

Oct.

Dec.

Jan.

New vehicles..............................................

144.0

143.9

144.5

144.2

144.5

144.7

144.5

144.1

143.7

143.1

142.5

142.7

143.7

144.6

144.8

Used cars and trucks1.................................
Motor fuei.....................................................
Gasoline (all types).....................................
Motor vehicle parts and equipment................
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair...........
Public transportation.......................................

153.3

157.1

155.3

154.4

154.4

155.4

156.8

157.1

156.6

156.5

157.5

159.3

160.7

161.6

161.7

100.8
100.2
100.0
173.3
193.1

129.5
128.8
100.9
178.8
203.4

112.9
112.3
100.3
176.1
194.8

118.6
117.9
100.5
176.6
198.8

132.0
131.2
100.9
177.2
203.4

128.5
127.8
100.6
177.4
202.9

128.5
127.9
100.5
177.8
203.9

140.1
139.4
100.5
178.3
205.5

136.2
135.5
100.8
178.7
206.9

128.0
127.3
100.7
179.6
208.7

135.3
134.6
100.9
180.2
206.4

133.1
132.3
101.0
180.9
202.4

133.2
132.4
101.8
181.4
203.2

127.7
126.9
102.3
181.5
203.7

126.9
126.2
103.0
182.1
204.3

Medical care......................................................
Medical care commodities...............................
Medical care services.....................................
Professional services....................................
Hospital and related services.........................

249.7
226.8
254.9
230.8
295.5

259.9
233.6
265.9
239.6
313.2

254.5
230.7
259.9
234.8
304.1

256.2
231.0
261.9
236.7
306.4

257.3
231.8
263.1
238.0
307.5

258.0
232.4
263.8
238.6
308.7

258.5
232.9
264.4
239.0
309.5

259.7
233.7
265.6
239.9
311.7

260.6
234.2
266.6
240.3
314.2

261.7
234.6
267.9
240.9
317.1

262.2
235.0
268.5
241.3
318.2

262.8
235.2
269.2
241.8
319.2

263.1
235.5
269.4
241.7
320.3

263.8
236.5
270.1
242.3
320.9

266.3
237.8
272.8
244.9
323.9

101.3

102.4

101.4

101.6

102.0

102.0

102.3

102.5

102.7

102.9

102.8

102.8

102.7

102.6

103.0

100.5

100.7

100.2

100.4

100.6

100.0

101.0

101.2

100.9

101.3

101.1

100.7

100.6

100.3

100.8

2
Education and communication.........................

101.5

102.7

103.0

102.5

102.2

102.1

102.1

101.7

102.2

103.0

102.9

103.7

103.2

103.7

104.0

Education2.....................................................
Educational books and supplies..................

107.2
264.1

112.8
283.3

110.5
276.6

110.9
281.3

111.0
280.0

111.1
279.9

111.3
280.0

111.8
280.9

112.1
281.5

113.2
283.6

115.1
288.6

115.4
289.0

115.6
288.6

115.7
289.2

116.0
292.9

Tuition, other school fees, and child care.....

302.8
96.9

318.2
94.6

311.7
97.1

312.7
95.7

312.8
95.3

313.4
94.8

313.8
94.7

315.4
93.6

316.2
94.3

319.2
94.8

324.7
93.1

325.7
94.2

326.3
93.3

326.5
94.1

327.0
94.4

Recreation2......................................................

96.5

94.1

96.7

95.3

94.8

94.4

94.3

93.0

93.9

94.4

92.6

93.8

92.8

93.6

93.8

100.2

98.7

101.1

99.6

99.1

98.8

98.7

97.4

98.4

99.1

97.1

98.6

97.6

98.6

99.0

other than telephone services ' .............
Personal computers and peripheral

31.6

26.8

28.9

28.6

28.2

27.6

27.5

27.0

26.6

26.1

25.9

25.5

25.1

24.6

24.0

equipment1,2.....................................
Other goods and services..................................
Tobacco and smoking products......................

53.1
261.9
356.2

40.5
276.5
395.2

45.7
269.3
375.7

44.5
271.7
383.6

43.6
273.3
387.8

42.0
278.0
404.9

41.8
275.4
393.7

40.7
274.5
388.7

39.8
277.9
400.9

39.1
276.8
394.2

38.5
280.9
408.2

37.8
278.2
397.0

36.7
282.3
411.3

35.9
279.2
396.9

34.3
281.5
404.6

Personal care1...............................................

161.3

165.5

163.5

163.9

164.3

164.6

164.9

165.3

165.5

166.1

166.5

166.8

167.1

167.7

168.1

Personal care products..............................

152.5

154.2

153.4

153.2

154.1

153.9

153.4

154.0

154.1

155.0

155.1

153.9

154.2

155.8

155.7

171.7

178.6

175.3

178.6
252.2

181.1

181.7

182.1

251.2

178.3
251.4

180.8

247.6

176.6
250.4

180.3

251.9

176.6
249.4

179.7

243.1

176.1
248.9

177.7

Miscellaneous personal services.................
Commodity and service group:

253.0

253.4

254.5

255.1

255.3

257.0

144.7
163.8
133.2
138.1
130.1

149.8
167.7
139.0
149.1
128.3

146.6
165.9
135.1
141.7
125.9

147.8
166.1
136.8
145.1
127.9

149.8
166.4
139.6
150.2
131.0

149.9
166.5
139.6
150.2
131.8

149.9
167.2
139.3
149.4
130.9

150.6
167.3
140.3
151.5
127.3

150.1
168.0
139.2
149.7
123.6

149.3
168.6
137.7
147.2
124.0

151.0
168.8
140.2
151.8
128.7

151.0
169.0
140.2
151.6
131.3

151.4
168.8
140.8
152.1
130.5

150.6
169.8
139.1
148.6
126.6

150.8
170.8
138.8
148.1
124.1

and apparel..............................................
Durables.....................................................

147.2
126.0

165.3
125.8

155.0
126.0

159.3
125.6

165.7
125.8

165.2
126.0

164.4
126.2

169.6
125.9

168.7
125.6

164.6
125.2

169.3
125.3

167.6
125.6

168.8
126.2

165.5
126.6

166.0
126.6

185.3

191.6

187.9

188.5

189.2

189.4

189.8

191.2

192.2

193.0

193.4

193.9

194.0

194.5

196.6

Transporatation services...............................

174.9
187.9
219.6

180.5
192.9
225.9

177.7
190.2
223.8

178.4
190.8
223.7

179.1
191.8
224.0

179.3
192.0
224.2

179.6
192.4
224.6

180.3
192.6
224.7

181.0
193.0
225.9

181.5
193.8
227.3

181.7
193.7
227.3

182.3
193.9
228.4

182.5
195.0
228.1

182.6
195.2
228.9

183.6
196.0
229.9

163.1
158.1
159.2
134.6
140.0
148.4
151.3

169.1
163.8
164.7
140.4
150.7
165.4
158.9

165.4
160.3
161.4
136.5
143.6
155.8
154.2

166.4
161.3
162.3
138.2
146.8
159.8
156.0

168.0
162.8
163.6
141.0
151.7
165.7
158.8

168.2
163.0
163.8
141.0
151.7
165.3
158.9

168.3
163.1
164.0
140.7
150.9
164.5
158.8

169.5
164.3
165.0
141.7
152.9
169.4
159.9

169.6
164.3
165.1
140.6
151.2
168.7
159.4

169.4
163.9
165.0
139.1
148.9
164.9
158.3

170.7
165.4
166.2
141.6
153.3
169.2
160.8

170.9
165.5
166.4
141.6
153.1
167.7
160.8

171.3
165.7
166.6
142.2
153.6
168.8
161.0

170.9
165.5
166.4
140.6
150.3
165.8
159.7

171.9
166.5
167.4
140.3
149.9
166.3
159.9

174.1
179.5
106.1
171.1
173.1
144.3
100.3
192.6

180.1
185.4
124.8
175.1
177.1
145.4
129.7
198.7

176.4
181.9
112.5
172.8
174.8
144.1
113.1
195.5

176.9
182.4
116.7
173.3
175.3
144.6
120.4
196.2

177.4

177.7
183.3
121.0
174.5
176.7
146.4
128.2
197.1

178.2
183.7
121.5
174.6
176.7
146.C
128.C
197.5

180.2
185.1
130.9
174.6
176.6
145.0
139.1
198.C

181.3
186.0
130.1
174.9
176.8
144.5
135.4
198.8

181.9
186.6
125.7
175.3
177.2
144.2
127.7
199.5

182.5
187.2
130.9
176.0
178.0
145.7
135.4
200.C

182.7

183.1
122.9
174.1
176.2
145.6
132.C
196.9

187.6
129.3
176.5
178.6
146.1
133.5
200.6

182.8
187.7
129.0
176.8
179.0
146.7
133.8
200.8

183.7
188.3
127.6
176.8
178.7
145.8
128.9
201.1

186.6
190.3
131.8
177.4
179.3
145.5
128.5
202.2

Information and information processing '2....
12
Telephone services ' ..............................
Information and information processing
14

Nondurables less food and beverages..........
Apparel.....................................................
Nonaurabies less tood, beverages,

Special indexes:
All items less food.........................................

All items less energy....................................
All items less food and energy....................

Services less energy................................
1 Not seasonally adjusted.
2 Indexes on a December 1997 = 100 base.
3

Indexes on a December 1982 = 100 base.


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

4 Indexes on a December 1988 = 100 base.
“ Data not available.
NOTE: Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

117

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

29. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all Items
[1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]
A ll U rban C onsum ers

P ricin g
sched­

Area

u le1
U.S. city average........................................................
Region and area size2
Northeast urban...............................................................

M

1999
Dec.
168.3

U rban W age Earners

2000
Jan.
168.8

Sept.
173.7

Oct.

Nov.

174.0

174.1

Dec.
174.0

2001

1999

Jan.

Dec.

175.1

2000
Jan.

165.1

Sept.

165.6

170.4

Oct.

2001
Nov.

170.6

170.9

Dec.

Jan.

170.7

171.7

M

175.5

176.2

180.7

181.2

181.5

181.3

182.2

172.6

173.1

177.6

178.0

178.4

178.3

179.0

Size A—More than 1,500,000........................................

M

176.3

177.0

181.7

182.1

182.4

182.3

183.0

172.4

172.9

177.7

178.0

178.3

178.2

178.8

Size B/C—50,000 to 1.500.0003...............................

M

105.4

105.9

108.3

108.8

108.9

108.8

109.6

105.2

105.6

107.9

108.4

108.6

108.6

109.2

M

164.4

164.9

170.0

170.1

170.3

170.2

171.9

160.7

161.3

166.4

166.4

166.8

166.5

168.2
168.8

Size A—More than 1,500,000........................................

M

165.5

166.3

171.5

171.5

171.7

171.6

173.5

161.1

161.7

167.0

166.9

167.2

167.0

Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,000s...................................
Size D—Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000).................
South urban.....................................................................

M

105.3

105.6

108.6

108.8

108.9

108.7

109.6

105.3

105.6

108.7

108.7

109.1

108.8

109.7

M

158.9

159.1

164.5

164.9

165.0

164.9

167.2

157.3

157.6

163.0

163.4

163.7

163.5

165.8

M

163.6

164.1

168.6

168.4

169.3

166.9

166.7

167.5

163.5

168.6

168.5

168.4

169.3

161.3

166.8
166.1

166.8

163.0

162.0
160.9

162.3

M

168.5
168.4

168.5

Size A—More than 1,500,000........................................

166.3

166.2

166.2

Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,000s...................................
Size D—Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000).................

M

105.2

105.4

108.1

108.1

108.2

108.1

108.6

105.0

105.2

107.9

107.9

108.1

108.0

166.9
108.4

M

163.5

164.5

168.2

167.6

167.3

167.1

168.2

164.6

165.2

169.2

168.8

168.6

168.4

169.4

West urban......................................................................

M

170.5

171.0

176.6

177.2

177.2

177.1

178.3

166.4

166.7

172.1

172.7

172.8

172.8

173.7

Size A—More than 1,500,000........................................

M

171.7

172.3

178.4

179.0

178.8

179.0

180.1

165.8

166.3

172.1

172.7

172.7

172.9

173.8

Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,000s...................................

M

105.7

105.7

108.8

109.0

109.2

108.9

109.8

105.5

105.5

108.6

108.9

109.1

108.7

109.5

M
M
M

152.5
105.3
163.7

153.1
105.6
164.4

157.8
108.3
168.7

158.1
108.5
168.7

158.2
108.7
168.6

158.1
108.5
168.5

159.2
109.2
169.8

151.2
105.2
163.1

151.7
105.4
163.6

156.4
108.2
167.9

156.6
108.3
168.1

156.8
108.6
168.1

156.8
108.4
167.9

157.7
109.0
169.2

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL—IN—Wl..................................
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA......................

M
M

169.2
167.3

170.2
167.9

174.8
173.3

175.4
173.8

176.0
173.5

175.8
173.5

178.1
174.2

163.7
160.9

164.6
161.3

169.2
166.3

169.8
166.9

170.4
166.6

170.3
166.7

172.6
167.3

174.3

180.2

180.1

180.0

180.6

Size classes;
A5............................................................
B/C3...........................................................................
D..................................................................................
Selected local areas6

New York, NY-Northern NJ-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA..

M

178.6

179.2

184.4

184.6

184.6

184.2

184.9

174.7

179.9

Boston-Brockton-Nashua, MA-NH-ME-CT.....................

1

-

180.2

184.3

-

187.4

-

189.0

-

178.6

183.2

_

186.2

_

Cleveland-Akron, OH.......................................................

1

-

170.5
166.9
108.7

-

169.4

-

171.3

-

156.9

161.6

_

167.3
108.9

-

160.3

162.8
166.8

-

Dallas-Ft Worth, TX.........................................................

164.5
160.4
105.4

-

-

-

105.3

108.7

-

166.6
108.4

163.3
166.8

-

108.6

_

Washinqton-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV7.........................
Atlanta, GA.......................................................................

1
1

-

2

167.0

-

-

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Ml...............................................

2

165.6

-

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX......................................
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL.................................................

2

150.3

2

Phlladelphia-Wilmington-Atlantlc City, PA-NJ-DE-MD.....

2

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA.............................
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA......................................

-

-

166.8

-

-

108.5

-

187.4

-

171.9

-

164.6

-

_

169.6

_

169.7

-

171.9
171.9

-

171.7

-

160.4

-

-

166.5

_

166.2

_

-

-

157.1

-

156.2

-

149.2

-

-

155.4

-

154.9

_

164.8

-

-

169.6

-

169.5

-

162.7

-

-

167.1

-

167.2

_

172.9

-

-

177.9

-

-

172.8

-

_

177.2

-

174.5

-

-

183.4

-

_

170.9

_

_

179.3

_

177.0

2

177.5
184.1

180.2

_

2

174.4

-

-

182.1

-

181.5

-

170.1

-

-

177.5

-

177.0

-

Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas; most other goods
and services priced as indicated:
M—Every month.
1—January, March, May, July, September, and November.
2—
February, April, June, August, October, and December.

MO-KS; Mllwaukee-Racine, Wl; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI; Pittsburgh, PA; Portland-Salem, OR-WA; St Louis, MO-IL; San Diego, CA; Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,
FL.
7 Indexes on a November 1996 = 100 base.
- Data not available.

2 Regions defined as the four Census regions.
3 Indexes on a December 1996 = 100 base.
4 The "North Central" region has been renamed the "Midwest" region by the Census Bureau.
It is composed of the same geographic entities.
6 Indexes on a December 1986 = 100 base.
6 In addition, the following metropolitan areas are published semiannually and appear in
tables 34 and 39 of the January and July issues of the c p i D e ta ile d R e p o r t: Anchorage, AK;
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN; Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO; Honolulu, HI; Kansas City,

118

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Each local
index has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substantially more sampling and
other measurement error. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the
national index, although their long-term trends are similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use in their
escalator clauses. Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.

_

30.

Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups

[ 1982-84 =

100]
Series

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
All items:
140.3
3.0

144.5
3.0

148.2
2.6

152.4
2.8

156.9
3.0

160.5
2.3

163.0

1.6

166.6
2.2

172.2
3.4

138.7
1.4

141.6
2.1

144.9
2.3

148.9
2.8

153.7
3.2

157.7
2.6

161.1
2.2

164.6
2.2

168.4
2.3

137.5
2.9

141.2
2.7

144.8
2.5

148.5
2.6

152.8
2.9

156.8
2.6

160.4
2.3

163.9
2.2

169.6
3.5

131.9
2.5

133.7
1.4

133.4
-.2

132.0
-1.0

131.7
-.2

132.9
.9

133.0
.1

131.3
-1.3

129.6
-1.3

126.5
2.2

130.4
3.1

134.3
3.0

139.1
3.6

143.0
2.8

144.3
0.9

141.6
-1.9

144.4
2.0

153.3
6.2

190.1
7.4

201.4
5.9

211.0
4.8

220.5
4.5

228.2
3.5

234.6
2.8

242.1
3.2

250.6
3.5

260.8
4.1

183.3
6.8

192.9
5.2

198.5
2.9

206.9
4.2

215.4
4.1

224.8
4.4

237.7
5.7

258.3
8.7

271.1
5.0

138.2
2.9

142.1
2.8

145.6
2.5

149.8
2.9

154.1
2.9

157.6
2.3

159.7
1.3

163.2
2.2

168.9
3.5

Food and beverages:

Housing:

Apparel:

Transportation:

Medical care:

Other goods and services:

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners
and Clerical Workers:
All Items:
Percent change.......................................................


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

119

Current Labor Statistics:

31.

Price Data

Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

[1982 = 100]

Grouping

Annual average
1999

Finished goods............................................

2000p

2000

2001

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Finished consumer goods.....................
Finished consumer foods....................

133.0
132.0
135.1

138.0
138.1
137.1

134.7
133.9
135.0

136.0
135.7
136.0

136.8
136.7
136.0

136.7
136.5
137.3

137.3
137.4
138.2

138.6
139.1
137.6

138.6
139.0
137.5

138.2
138.6
137.2

139.4
140.1
137.4

140.0
140.5
137.8

139.9
140.4
138.1

139.7
140.1
137.9

141.2
141.9
138.4

Finshed consumer goods
excluding foods.................................
Nondurable goods less food..............
Durable goods...................................
Capital equipment................................

130.5
127.9
133.0
137.6

138.4
138.6
133.9
138.8

133.3
131.4
134.1
138.4

135.4
134.3
133.9
138.5

136.8
136.4
133.8
138.5

136.0
135.3
133.9
138.5

136.9
136.5
133.8
138.6

139.6
140.5
133.4
138.5

139.5
140.5
133.1
138.6

139.0
140.0
132.7
138.5

141.1
143.0
132.5
138.6

141.5
142.4
135.1
139.8

141.2
142.1
135.0
139.8

140.8
141.5
135.3
139.9

143.3
144.9
135.2
140.2

supplies, and components.....................

123.2

129.1

125.9

126.9

127.8

128.0

128.3

129.8

130.3

129.9

131.1

130.8

130.5

130.6

Materials and components
for manufacturing...................................
Materials for food manufacturing............
Materials for nondurable manufacturing..
Materials for durable manufacturing.......
Components for manufacturing..............

131.5

124.6
120.8
124.9
125.1
125.7

128.1
119.2
132.7
129.1
126.2

126.4
117.6
128.6
128.6
125.9

127.0
117.5
129.7
129.6
125.9

127.6
118.1
131.3
129.7
126.0

128.2
119.6
132.3
130.0
126.1

128.5
120.5
133.3
129.6
126.0

128.6
120.6
133.7
129.4
126.2

128.9
120.5
134.5
129.4
126.3

128.6
119.4
133.9
129.0
126.3

128.5
119.0
133.6
129.3
126.4

128.5
119.1
133.8
129.2
126.2

128.1
118.8
133.7
127.7
126.2

128.1
119.8
133.5
128.0
126.1

128.6
120.4
135.0
127.2
126.4

148.9
84.6
142.5
134.2

150.7
102.0
151.6
136.8

150.4
91.5
147.2
135.2

150.8
94.8
147.2
135.6

151.3
97.4
148.1
136.0

151.6
95.7
151.6
136.4

151.0
96.5
152.7
136.7

151.2
103.3
153.3
137.1

150.8
105.0
153.3
137.3

150.4
104.5
153.0
137.0

150.3
110.5
153.3
137.4

150.2
108.9
153.4
137.6

149.9
108.3
153.2
137.6

149.9
108.3
153.0
138.1

149.6
111.4
153.0
138.9

98.2
98.7
94.3

119.8
100.2
129.0

105.8
96.5
108.3

110.3
97.6
115.1

112.9
101.4
116.7

111.3
103.4
112.7

115.9
104.9
119.3

125.6
101.9
137.3

122.7
99.3
134.4

118.3
95.5
129.7

126.0
97.6
141.0

128.3
99,5
143.5

125.5
100.5
138.2

136.2
103.9
153.5

155.0
105.3
183.5

Finished goods, excluding foods..............
Finished energy goods.................
Finished goods less energy.....................
Finished consumer goods less energy......
Finished goods less food and energy.......

132.3
78.8
143.0
145.2
146.1

138.1
94.2
144.8
147.3
147.9

134.5
83.8
143.6
145.8
147.0

135.9
87.5
144.3
146.7
147.5

136.9
90.9
144.3
146.7
147.5

136.4
89.2
144.6
147.2
147.5

137.0
90.9
145.0
147.6
147.7

138.8
97.7
144.7
147.3
147.5

138.8
97.3
144.7
147.3
147.6

138.4
95.9
144.7
147.3
147.7

139.9
100.6
144.8
147.5
147.8

140.5
99.7
145.8
148.3
149.0

140.3
99.3
145.9
148.4
148.9

140.1
97.9
145.9
148.5
149.1

141.9
101.9
146.7
149.4
150.0

Finished consumer goods less food
and energy.......................................

151.7

153.9

152.8

153.6

153.6

153.5

153.7

153.6

153.5

153.8

154.0

155.1

155.0

155.3

156.5

Consumer nondurable goods less food
and energy.........................................

166.3

169.7

167.3

169.0

169.1

168.9

169.3

169.4

169.6

170.4

170.9

170.8

170.7

171.0

173.2

Intermediate materials less foods
and feeds.............................
Intermediate foods and feeds..........
Intermediate energy goods................
Intermediate goods less energy..........

123.9
111.1
84.3
131.7

130.1
111.7
101.7
135.0

126.8
109.3
91.2
133.5

127.8
110.0
94.5
133.9

128.8
111.0
97.1
134.5

128.9
111.9
95.4
135.1

129.2
113.4
96.3
135.3

130.7
113.4
103.0
135.5

131.2
112.7
104.6
135.7

131.0
110.6
104.2
135.3

132.2
111.1
110.1
135.4

131.8
111.6
108.5
135.4

131.5
111.6
107.9
135.2

Intermediate materials less foods
and energy.................................

131.5
113.5
107.9
135.3

132 4
115.1
110.9
135.8

133.1

136.5

135.1

135.5

136.1

136.6

136.7

137.0

137.2

137.0

137.0

137.0

136.7

136.8

137.1

Crude energy materials.....................
Crude materials less energy..............
Crude nonfood materials less energy........

78.5
107.9
135.2

120.3
111.7
145.2

92.0
110.2
149.8

100.2
111.5
151.3

102.5
97.9
114.1
115.1
150.9 J 149.2

106.5
116.1
148.8

130.6
113.4
146.7 I

127.6
110.8
144.3

122.4
107.4
141.9

136.7
109.2
142.9

140.5
110.1
141.2

134.8
109.9
137.7

154.7
112.4
137.5

193.4
113.7
138.7

Intermediate materials,

Materials and components
for construction.................................
Processed fuels and lubricants................
Containers...............................
Supplies...............................................
Crude materials for further
processing.................................................

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs.........................
Crude nonfood materials..................
Special groupings:

120

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

32.

Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major industry groups

[December 1984 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]

Industry

SIC

1999

_
10
12
13
14

_
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2000p

2001

2000

Annual average
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Total mining industries.....................................

78.0

112.2

89.5

95.8

98.9

95.7

100.6

118.4

118.1

113.8

124.7

128.7

124.6

139.6

170.8

Metal mining...............................................
Coal mining (12/85 = 100)...........................
Oil and gas extraction (12/85 - 100).............
Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic
minerals, except fuels................................

70.3
87.3
78.5

73.5
84.7
125.0

73.9
85.3
94.2

75.3
84.7
102.6

73.3
84.8
107.0

71.8
85.9
102.7

72.6
86.1
109.1

73.7
85.1
133.1

73.9
85.6
132.8

73.4
83.3
127.4

75.2
83.9
141.9

74.7
83.9
147.3

72.5
83.1
142.3

73.5
84.8
162.0

73.5
83.6
204.4

134.0

137.1

135.0

135.3

135.7

136.7

137.2

137.2

137.6

137.8

138.0

138.1

138.1

138.2

139.3

128.3
126.3
325.7
116.3

133.5
128.5
345.8
116.7

130.8
126.7
329.4
116.2

132.2
127.2
348.6
116.4

132.9
127.4
347.3
116.5

132.6
128.1
341.8
116.5

133.1
129.3
341.7
116.5

134.2
129.4
342.2
116.6

133.9
129.4
342.3
116.7

133.5
128.7
350.4
116.9

134.7
128.5
351.1
116.6

134.8
128.6
351.6
116.6

134.9
128.8
351.6
117.0

134.4
129.6
351.8
117.5

134.7
130.1
372.4
117.4

125.3

125.7

125.2

125.2

125.6

125.7

125.6

125.6

125.9

125.9

125.9

125.9

125.9

125.9

125.7

161.8
141.3
136.4

158.1
143.3
145.8

161.4
142.4
141.0

161.6
142.5
141.5

162.1
143.0
143.2

161.7
143.2
145.4

159.1
143.4
146.9

158.7
143.5
147.3

157.6
143.5
147.3

155.7
143.6
147.3

155.3
143.5
147.7

155.3
143.6
147.6

154.3
143.8
147.3

154.2
143.8
147.0

153.2
144.2
147.4

Total manufacturing industries.......................

Food and kindred products..........................
Tobacco manufactures................................
Textile mill products.....................................
Apparel and other finished products
made from fabrics and similar materials......
Lumber and wood products,
except furniture.........................................
Furniture and fixtures...................................
Paper and allied products............................

27

Printing, publishing, and allied industries......

177.6

182.8

180.4

180.8

181.1

182.0

182.0

183.1

183.2

183.6

183.6

184.0

Chemicals and allied products......................
Petroleum refining and related products........
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.
Leather and leather products.......................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products.....
Primary metal industries..............................
Fabricated metal products,
except machinery and transportation
transportation equipment..........................

149.7
76.8
122.2
136.5
132.6
115.8

156.8
112.9
124.3
137.8
134.6
119.9

153.6
94.0
123.5
137.5
134.4
118.6

154.5
104.1
123.5
137.5
134.6
119.5

155.2
111.0
123.5
137.4
134.7
120.0

155.5
105.6
123.7
137.6
135.0
120.3

156.4
109.0
123.6
137.4
135.1
120.5

156.5
119.9
124.4
137.2
135.1
120.2

157.4
115.7
125.0
137.5
134.8
120.3

157.5
112.6
124.7
137.8
134.5
120.4

158.3
125.1
125.4
138.4
134.8
120.5

159.3
121.3
124.6
138.2
134.4
120.4

184.8
158.5
122.5
124.8
138.2
134.1
119.2

185.1
159.0
114.4
124.8
138.9
134.1
119.2

186.8

28
29
30
31
32
33
34

129.1

130.3

129.9

130.0

130.3

130.4

130.2

130.3

130.3

130.4

130.5

130.5

130.5

130.5

130.6

117.3

117.5

117.1

117.3

117.4

117.4

117.4

117.5

117.6

117.6

117.6

117.6

117.7

117.7

117.7

109.5
134.5

108.3
136.7

108.7
136.3

108.6
136.5

108.6
136.4

108.6
136.5

108.4
136.5

108.5
136.0

108.5
136.1

108.1
135.7

108.1
135.7

108.1
138.4

107.8
138.2

107.7
138.4

107.7
138.7

125.7

126.2

126.0

126.2

126.0

126.0

126.3

126.2

126.2

126.2

126.3

126.4

126.3

126.4

126.9

130.3

130.9

130.7

131.1

130.8

130.9

130.5

130.7

130.9

131.0

131.0

131.0

131.2

131.3

131.7

114.8
135.3
113.0
130.8
98.3

119.3
135.2
123.0
147.6
102.3

116.5
135.2
116.4
141.0
102.1

117.0
135.2
117.0
141.6
101.9

118.1
135.2
117.8
144.3
101.9

118.2
135.2
118.6
145.4
101.9

118.6
135.2
123.8
146.0
102.0

119.0
135.2
124.1
147.2
102.1

118.9
135.2
125.2
147.6
102.5

120.1
135.2
126.1
147.9
102.5

121.2
135.2
127.0
151.5
102.4

121.4
135.2
126.5
151.2
102.7

121.6
135.2
127.8
153.1
102.7

121.5
135.2
126.1
154.2
102.7

121.9
141.3
125.8
154.7
109.1

35
36
37
38

39

Electrical and electronic machinery,
equipment, and supplies...........................
Measuring and controlling instruments;
photographic, medical, and optical
goods; watches and clocks........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
industries (12/85 - 100)............................

160.4
112.5
126.0
139.1
134.4
118.5

Service industries:

42
43
44
45
46

Motor freight transportation
and warehousing (06/93 - 100)..................
U.S. Postal Service (06/89 - 100).................
Water transportation (12/92 - 100)...............
Transportation by air (12/92 - 100)...............
Pipelines, except natural aas (12/92 = 100)....


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

121

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

33. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

n

[ 1982 =

100]
Index

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000p

Finished goods
Total...............................................................................
Energy..........................................................................
Other............................................................................

123.2
123.3
77.8
134.2

124.7
125.7
78.0
135.8

125.5
126.8
77.0
137.1

127.9
129.0
78.1
140.0

131.3
133.6
83.2
142.0

131.8
134.5
83.4
142.4

130.7
134.3
75.1
143.7

133.0
135.1
78.8
146.1

138.0
137.1
94.2
147.9

114.7
113.9
84.3
122.0

116.2
115.6
84.6
123.8

118.5
118.5
83.0
127.1

124.9
119.5
84.1
135.2

125.7
125.3
89.8
134.0

125.6
123.2
89.0
134.2

123.0
123.2
80.8
133.5

123.2
120.8
84.3
133.1

129.1
119.2
101.7
136.5

100.4
105.1
78.8
94.2

102.4
108.4
76.7
94.1

101.8
106.5
72.1
97.0

102.7
105.8
69.4
105.8

113.8
121.5
85.0
105.7

111.1
112.2
87.3
103.5

96.8
103.9
68.6
84.5

98.2
98.7
78.5
91.1

119.8
100.2
120.3
118.2

Intermediate materials, supplies, and
uuiiipunm iis
Total..............................................................................
Foods...........................................................................
Energy..........................................................................

Crude materials for further processing
Total..............................................................................
Energy..........................................................................
Other............................................................................

122

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

34.

U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

[1995 = 100]
SITC

2000

Industry

Rev. 3

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

2001

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

0 Food and live animals.........................................................
01
Meat and meat preparations........................................
04
Cereals and cereal preparations...................................
05
Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry..........

86.3
100.1
71.0
90.9

86.9
98.0
74.1
89.0

86.8
99.4
74.4
88.6

87.5
102.2
74.0
90.6

88.3
105.1
75.0
90.1

87.4
109.3
71.6
87.8

85.8
108.2
66.9
91.3

83.6
103.7
64.0
88.6

85.9
105.2
67.8
91.9

87.1
107.4
70.8
88.7

88.5
107.6
74.0
89.8

88.7
105.9
75.8
88.9

89.7
105.4
78.8
86.9

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels............................
21
Hides, skins, and furskins, raw.....................................
22
Oilseeds and oleaginous fruits.....................................
24
Cork and wood.............................................................
25
26
27
28
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap...............................

80.0
91.1
80.5
86.4
84.3
61.2
94.3
80.0

82.2
89.5
84.8
86.5
88.3
65.7
94.0
80.7

83.2
87.7
86.0
87.2
90.0
68.6
93.5
80.9

84.2
85.5
88.3
87.4
93.8
68.9
93.0
80.4

85.2
86.5
89.1
86.7
99.0
69.0
93.0
79.6

84.4
86.7
86.3
86.7
97.6
69.6
93.3
78.2

82.9
89.7
80.3
86.5
95.9
67.7
93.3
78.0

82.9
95.4
78.0
88.4
91.7
70.7
93.1
78.7

83.7
100.5
83.8
86.9
90.7
72.2
91.5
78.7

83.5
104.7
81.3
87.2
89.8
72.0
90.7
79.5

82.2
102.1
79.3
86.5
88.6
72.2
90.6
76.2

82.6
103.3
85.0
85.9
85.9
73.2
90.6
74.7

82.0
105.6
83.9
85.0
85.3
70.4
90.9
74.4

Coal, coke, and briquettes...........................................
Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials...

129.5
96.1
143.6

138.5
96.1
159.6

152.1
96.1
179.2

137.2
94.7
152.0

142.3
94.5
163.0

144.9
93.8
168.2

151.2
93.8
178.3

147.6
93.1
172.3

166 3
93.1
203.3

157 2
93.3
189.0

162.1
93.1
193.4

157 4
93.0
183.6

155 9
93.1
181.1

4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats, and waxes...................

75.8

74.3

70.8

71.6

70.1

67.1

64.6

63.2

61.7

60.0

59.0

58.7

61.0

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s............................
54
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products........................
55
Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations........
57
Plastics in primary forms.............................................
58
Plastics in nonprimary forms.......................................
59
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s........................

93.8
100.2
103.4
94.8
97.8
99.2

94.2
100.4
103.3
94.8
98.6
99.9

94.4
100.2
103.0
95.5
100.1
99.6

95.8
99.9
103.2
97.7
100.2
99.4

95.8
100.0
103.1
98.4
99.8
99.3

95.5
99.7
102.8
98.1
99.3
99.1

94.7
100.5
103.3
97.0
99.4
99.3

94.9
100.3
103.3
95.4
99.4
99.2

94.4
100.2
103.4
92.8
99.3
99.2

94.9
100.4
103.4
92.3
98.9
99.2

94.1
100.2
103.3
91.2
98.3
99.1

93.5
100.1
103.2
90.0
98.3
99.7

94.1
100.0
103.0
90.0
96.5
99.0

3
32
33

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials....
62
64
66
68

Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.........................................
Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp,
and paperboard..........................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s......................
Nonferrous metals........................................................

7 Machinery and transport equipment................................
71
72
74
75
76

Power generating machinery and equipment...............
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.,
and machine parts.....................................................
Computer equipment and office machines...................
Telecommunications and sound recording and

77
78

Road vehicles..............................................................
87 Professional, scientific, and controlling
instruments and apparatus.............................................


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

98.3

99.0

99.7

99.9

100.1

100.3

100.7

100.9

101.1

100.8

100.5

100.4

100.6

104.7

103.7

103.6

103.7

104.6

104.4

104.8

104.7

104.7

104.6

104.1

103.8

104.3

87.6
105.8
93.4

87.8
106.0
98.8

88.4
106.2
101.9

89.1
106.4
100.3

90.5
106.4
98.1

89.8
106.5
100.1

90.4
106.3
103.0

90.3
106.3
105.1

90.0
106.1
105.0

89.9
105.8
104.9

89.6
105.9
103.4

89.1
105.6
104.9

88.6
106.2
109.1

97.4

97.3

97.3

97.3

97.4

97.3

97.3

97.3

97.4

97.3

97.4

97.5

97.6

111.8
106.2

111.8
106.3

111.8
106.1

111.9
106.2

112.0
106.2

112.0
106.5

112.4
106.4

112.3
106.5

112.4
106.3

112.4
106.3

113.7
106.6

113.7
106.9

114.7
107.0

107.5
70.1

107.6
68.7

108.0
68.7

108.2
68.5

108.2
68.5

108.2
68.2

108.3
68.3

108.1
67.8

108.2
67.8

108.3
67.7

108.4
67.8

108.5
67.6

108.8
67.5

96.4
86.4
103.5

97 0
86.6
103.6

96.6
86.3
104.0

96.4
86.4
103.9

97.0
86.3
103.9

96.9
85.7
103.9

96.7
85.7
103.9

96.8
85.8
103.9

96.8
85.8
104.1

96.6
85.4
104.0

96.5
85.3
103.9

96.3
85.4
104.0

96.3
85.2
104.0

105.2

105.4

105.7

105.7

105.7

105.8

106.4

106.4

106.5

106.9

106.9

106.6

106.9

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

123

Current Labor Statistics:

35.

Price Data

U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

[1995= 100]

SITC
Rev. 3

2000

Industry
Jan.

0 Food and live animals..............................................
01
03
05
07

Meat and meat preparations.........................................
Fish and crustaceans, mollusks, and other
aquatic invertebrates..................................................
Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry.........
Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, and manufactures
thereof.......................................................................

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

2001

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

93.7

93.6

93.1

94.0

92.3

91.3

91.5

91.7

91.2

91.5

90.2

92.3

92.5

97.8

98.2

99.1

100.2

100.2

99.1

98.1

98.9

99.0

95.5

95.7

97.3

95.5

106.8
102.0

107.9
102.1

108.0
101.2

111.0
100.7

109.6
96.8

109.1
95.7

110.7
97.2

113.5
97.6

112.6
97.8

110.7
100.9

109.3
96.8

109.1
104.1

107.1
105.6

50.7

49.8

67.2

64.7

61.0

61.1

59.8

59.5

56.8

55.8

54.5

54.1

51.9

111.2

111.4

111.7

111.9

112.4

113.0

112.5

112.9

113.6

113.5

113.3

113.2

113.2

Beverages...................................................................

107.9

108.2

108.5

108.7

109.4

110.1

109.4

109.9

110.7

110.6

110.7

110.6

110.4

2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels......................

93.6

94.7

94.3

93.8

91.9

90.7

90.7

89.6

88.9

89.8

87.7

88.5

87.5

Cork and wood.............................................................
Pulp and waste paper..................................................
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap...............................
Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s................

117.7
70.5
101.4
121.1

117.0
72.0
105.7
124.3

118.6
72.4
104.0
111.9

117.6
75.1
101.7
110.1

112.9
77.0
99.6
106.7

110.1
80.1
100.7
92.7

107.0
80.7
101.2
101.8

102.2
81.4
102.1
101.3

99.7
82.0
101.6
103.0

101.6
83.4
102.3
104.3

97.7
83.4
100.1
99 1

101.7
83.4
99.3
97.1

95.5
84.3
101.1
102.2

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related products...........
33
Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials...
34
Gas, natural and manufactured....................................

145.2
146.1
147.8

165.7
167.9
161.4

165.4
166.6
170.5

148.5
147.1
171.5

154.3
154.2
167.5

172.0
171.0
195.4

170.6
168.5
202.9

172.1
169.9
205.4

189.0
187.6
218.1

186.3
181.8
242.6

188.4
183.4
248.0

177.9
162.5
321.9

171.3
152.9
338.4

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s........................
52
Inorganic chemicals...........................................
53
Dying, tanning, and coloring materials..........................
54
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products........................
55
Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations.......
57
Plastics in primary forms.............................................
58
Plastics in nonprimary forms........................................
59
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s........................

92.2
88.3
88.9
98.2
89.6
93.7
79.3
100.0

92.7
89.0
89.3
98.2
89.6
93.0
79.0
101.6

92.8
88.8
88.4
97.3
89.7
93.9
80.4
100.6

93.4
89.8
88.0
97.3
89.4
93.9
80.3
100.0

94.3
90.7
87.4
97.3
89.9
94.0
80.8
100.9

94.1
91.5
86.1
96.8
89.6
94.3
80.8
99.7

95.5
92.5
87.6
97.5
89.9
95.5
81.5
100.2

95.9
92.6
88.6
97.3
89.4
95.4
80.9
100.0

95.4
92.5
87.9
96.7
88.8
95.3
80.8
101.1

95.1
93.1
87.0
96.0
87.6
96.0
80.0
100.4

94.7
93.7
86.9
95.7
87.2
95.9
79.5
100.4

94.9
94.2
86.9
95.7
86.9
95.8
78.6
100.5

95.3
96.6
88.8
94.6
87.4
95.5
80.4
101.6

6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials....

94.5

95.5

98.0

97.5

97.1

97.6

98.0

98.8

97.9

97.6

97.3

97.3

98.3

92.7

92.8

92.3

92.4

92.5

91.8

92.1

91.9

91.7

91.6

91.5

91.6

91.6

86.6
100.8
98.9
95.7

86.9
101.2
104.4
96.1

87.1
100.8
115.1
96.1

88.8
100.9
110.3
95.9

89.6
100.7
106.9
95.9

89.1
100.5
110.7
95.7

89.5
100.9
112.5
95.8

89.4
100.9
118.7
95.4

91.4
100.8
114.4
95.4

91.6
100.2
115.7
95.2

91.9
100.2
114.3
94.9

92.2
100.2
114.4
95.1

92.0
100.7
121.0
95.5

1 Beverages and tobacco............................................
11

24
25
28
29

62
64
66
68
69

Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.........................................
Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp,
and paperboard.........................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s......................
Nonferrous metals........................................................
Manufactures of metals, n.e.s.......................................

7 Machinery and transport equipment...........................
72
74

77
78

Machinery specialized for particular industries..............
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.,
and machine parts......................................................
Computer equipment and office machines....................
Telecommunications and sound recording and
reproducing apparatus and equipment.......................
Electrical machinery and equipment.............................
Road vehicles......................................................

85

Footwear........................................................

88

Photographic apparatus, equipment, and supplies,
and optical qoods, n.e.s..............................................

75
76

124

Feb.

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

89.8

89.8

89.6

89.7

89.8

89.6

89.6

89.5

89.3

89.2

89.1

89.0

88.9

97.7

97.9

97.3

97.1

97.0

96.1

96.7

96.5

95.9

95.7

95.4

95.3

95.9

97.0
61.5

96.7
61.4

97.0
61.0

96.9
60.5

96.7
60.2

96.2
60.0

96.7
59.9

96.4
59.9

96.1
59.8

95.5
58.8

95.3
58.8

95.4
58.7

95.8
58.3

85.2
82.4
102.4

85.2
82.2
102.6

84.9
82.2
102.6

84.5
83.0
102.7

84.7
83.5
102.7

84.6
83.3
102.8

84.3
82.8
102.8

84.2
82.7
102.7

84.1
82.6
102.6

83.9
82.7
102.9

83.7
82.5
102.9

83.6
82.2
102.8

82.9
82.0
102.8

100.8

100.9

100.7

100.5

100.7

100.3

100.9

101.0

100.9

100.8

100.7

100.6

100.9

92.2

91.7

91.8

91.8

91.9

91.6

92.5

92.1

91.4

91.4

91.0

90.7

91.2

36.

U.S. export price indexes by end-use category

[1995 = 100]

2000

Category
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

2001
Nov.

Dec.

ALL COMMODITIES.....................................................

95 4

95 8

96 8

96 ?

96 4

96 3

96 9

96 n

96 6

96 5

96 fi

96 d

96 6

Foods, feeds, and beverages.....................................

86.3
85.4
98.3

87.2
86.0
100.9

87.1
86.2
97.8

87.8
87.1
97.0

88.3
87.7
96.6

87.1
86.2
98.1

85.1
84.0
97.9

82.8
81.3
99.7

85.3
84.3
97.9

85.8
84.6
99.5

86.7
85.7
98.2

87.3
86.7
95.7

88.1
87.3
98.3

Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products.....

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Jan.

92.1

93.6

95.2

94.6

95.2

95.2

95.5

95.4

96.6

96.2

95.8

95.1

95.3

75.2

76.9

77.7

78.2

78.2

78.2

77.9

80.3

81.9

82.3

82.0

82.9

82.6

Fuels and lubricants................................................
Nonagricultural supplies and materials,
excluding fuel and building materials....................
Selected building materials.....................................

122.7

131.3

143.6

127.8

132.9

135.6

141.1

137.9

155.0

146.9

150.7

146.2

144.8

89.7
89.2

90.4
89.5

91.0
90.1

91.9
90.4

92.1
90.0

91.9
89.9

91.7
89.6

91.7
90.5

91.4
89.4

91.6
89.8

90.8
89.0

90.3
89.0

90.7
88.7

Capital goods.............................................................
Electric and electrical generating equipment..........
Nonelectrical machinery..........................................

96.1
98.3
92.1

96.0
98.8
91.9

96.0
98.8
91.8

96.1
98.7
91.9

96.1
98.9
91.9

96.1
99.2
91.7

96.1
99.1
91.6

96.1
99.7
91.6

96.2
99.9
91.5

96.1
99.5
91.5

96.2
99.6
91.5

96.3
99.7
91.5

96.5
100.0
91.5

Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines...................

103.9

103.8

104.2

104.2

104.2

104.1

104.4

104.4

104.5

104.5

104.4

104.4

104.4

Consumer goods, excluding automotive....................
Nondurables, manufactured...................................
Durables, manufactured......................................... .

102.4
102.8
101.0

102.5
102.6
101.4

102.3
102.4
101.0

102.4
102.3
101.3

102.4
102.4
101.3

102.3
102.1
101.3

102.5
102.4
101.5

102.4
102.4
101.4

102.2
102.2
101.3

102.3
102.4
101.2

102.2
102.2
101.2

102.0
102.0
101.1

102.0
101.8
101.3

Agricultural commodities............................................
Nonagricultural commodities......................................

83.2
96.8

84.0
97.2

84.4
97.6

85.1
97.4

85.6
97.7

84.4
97.6

82.6
97.8

80.9
97.7

83.5
98.0

83.9
97.9

84.7
97.8

85.7
97.6

86.1
97.8

Industrial supplies and materials................................


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

125

Current Labor Statistics:

37.

Price Data

U.S. import price indexes by end-use category

[1995 = 100]

2000

Category
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

2001

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

ALL COMMODITIES.....................................................

97.2

99.2

99.3

97.9

98.3

99.6

99.7

99.9

101.0

100.6

100.6

99.8

99.4

Foods, feeds, and beverages....................................
Agricultural foods, feeds, and beverages................
Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products.....

93.6
88.4
107.2

93.3
87.6
108.1

92.5
86.6
108.3

93.3
86.7
110.8

91.9
85.2
109.8

91.1
84.1
109.7

91.1
83.7
110.5

91.3
83.2
112.9

90.7
82.5
112.5

90.7
83.0
111.2

89.4
81.9
109.5

90.9
84.1
109.1

90.5
84.0
107.7

Industrial supplies and materials................................

111.0

118.6

119.8

114.3

115.9

121.8

121.8

122.8

127.6

126.6

126.9

123,7

122.3

Fuels and lubricants................................................
Petroleum and petroleum products.....................

144.2
145.8

164.7
167 5

163.7
166 2

147.7
147 4

153.3
154 0

170.6
17f) 4

169.2
188 0

170.9
1RQ 5

187.4

184.5

186.7

176.2

170.7

Paper and paper base stocks.................................
Materials associated with nondurable
supplies and materials..........................................
Selected building materials.....................................
Unfinished metals associated with durable goods...
Nonmetals associated with durable goods.............

82.1

82.8

83.1

85.6

86.8

87.0

87.5

87.6

89.8

90.4

90.6

91.0

91.0

89.2
110.5
97.4
87.2

89.7
110.1
100.3
88.0

90.4
112.1
107.1
87.6

91.2
111.9
104.3
87.8

92.1
109.1
102.0
87.8

91.7
105.0
105.0
87.0

92.7
103.4
106.5
87.7

93.4
100.2
109.5
87.6

92.8
98.7
105.9
87.2

92.8
99.3
105.6
87.3

92.6
97.2
104.1
87.1

93.3
99.1
103.8
86.9

93.8
95.4
107.3
87.7

Capital goods.............................................................
Electric and electrical generating equipment..........
Nonelectrical machinery..........................................

81.7
91.8
78.3

81.6
91.8
78.2

81 3
92.1
77.9

81 4
93.9
77.7

81 2
94.2
77.5

80 0

80 q
94.1
77.1

80 7

80 8

94.3
77.1

93.7
77.0

93.5
76.8

93.4
76.4

93.1
76.3

93.1
76.1

92.9
76.0

Automotive vehicles, parts, and engines...................

102.1

102.2

102.2

102.3

102.6

102.7

102.8

102.7

102.5

102.6

102.7

102.7

102.7

Consumer goods, excluding automotive....................
Nondurables, manufactured....................................
Durables, manufactured..........................................
Nonmanufactured consumer goods........................

97.5
100.4
94.1
101.5

97.4
100.4
93.8
102.0

97.1
100.3
93.5
100.1

97.1
100.3
93.4
100.3

97.0
100.1
93.4
99.7

96.5
99.5
93.2
98.0

96.8
99.8
93.4
99.5

96.8
100.0
93.2
99.2

96.6
99.8
93.0
99.6

96.6
99.8
92.8
99.8

96.5
99.8
92.8
99.1

96.4
99.6
92.8
98.8

96.5
99.8
92.8
99.5

38.

U.S. international price Indexes for selected categories of services

[1995= 100]

1999

Category
Mar.

June

2000

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Air freight (inbound)......................................................
Air freight (outbound)...................................................

88.0
92.7

86.2
92.8

87.9
92.7

90.7
91.7

88.9
91.7

88.4
92.8

88.5
92.6

87.4
92.6

Air passenger fares (U.S. carriers)...............................
Air passenger fares (foreign carriers)..........................
Ocean liner freight (inbound)........................................

104.5
98.9
102.6

112.3
106.3
133.7

114.2
108.6
148.0

106.8
102.2
139.4

107.3
102.6
136.3

113.3
107.9
143.0

115.5
109.1
142.8

111.9
103.2
142.8

126

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

39.

Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted

[1992 = 100]____________________________________________________________________________

Quarterly indexes
Item

IV

I

II

2000

1999

1998

1997

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

Business
108.7
115.6
101.8
106.3
116.7
110.2

110.0
117.4
103.2
106.7
116.3
110.3

110.3
118.9
104.1
107.8
115.1
110.5

110.8
120.3
105.0
108.6
114.5
110.7

111.8
121.6
105.7
108.8
114.6
110.9

112.5
123.0
106.4
109.3
115.1
111.4

112.7
124.3
106.8
110.4
114.2
111.8

114.0
125.9
107.4
110.5
114.4
111.9

116.1
127.1
107.6
109.5
116.9
112.2

116.6
128.2
107.5
110.0
118.2
113.0

118.6
130.4
108.6
110.0
120.0
113.7

119.3
132.2
109.1
110.8
119.5
114.0

120.2
134.6
110.3
112.0
118.7
114.5

108.4
115.0
101.3
106.1
117.8
110.4

109.6
116.8
102.6
106.5
117.4
110.5

110.1
118.3
103.6
107.5
116.2
110.7

110.5
119.8
104.5
108.4
115.7
111.0

111.4
120.9
105.1
108.6
115.8
111.2

111.9
122.1
105.6
109.0
116.7
111.8

112.0
123.4
106.0
110.2
115.8
112.2

113.4
125.0
106.6
110.2
116.1
112.4

115.6
126.3
107.0
109.3
118.6
112.7

116.2
127.6
107.0
109.8
120.1
113.6

118.0
129.4
107.8
109.7
121.8
114.1

118.8
131.4
108.5
110.6
121.4
114.5

119.5
133.5
109.4
111.8
120.6
115.0

109.6
111.9
98.5
101.7
102.1
100.6
156.8
114.9
106.3

110.6
113.7
99.9
102.3
102.8
100.7
150.8
113.5
106.4

111.7
115.2
100.9
102.6
103.1
101.2
147.7
113.0
106.4

113.1
116.7
101.8
102.5
103.2
100.7
152.0
113.8
106.7

113.7
117.8
102.4
103.2
103.6
102.1
145.3
113.1
106.8

114.6
119.0
103.0
103.2
103.9
101.3
150.6
113.9
107.2

115.3
120.3
103.3
103.7
104.3
102.2
148.6
114.0
107.5

116.6
121.8
103.9
104.0
104.5
102.9
144.4
113.5
107.5

118.3
123.0
104.2
103.9
104.0
103.4
147.0
114.5
107.5

119.2
123.9
103.9
104.0
104.0
104.2
152.2
116.4
108.1

120.8
125.8
104.8
104.3
104.2
104.9
156.3
118.0
108.8

122.1
127.7
105.4
104.8
104.5
105.5
153.0
117.6
108.9

119.8
113.4
99.8
94.7

121.7
115.4
101.4
94.9

123.2
116.8
102.2
94.8

125.7
118.0
103.0
93.9

126.8
119.0
103.4
93.9

128.9
119.9
103.7
93.0

130.2
121.2
104.1
93.1

131.9
122.8
104.7
93.1

135.0
124.1
105.2
91.9

137.7
125.7
105.4
91.2

139.8
127.0
105.7
90.8

142.1
129.1
106.6
90.9

Nonfarm business

Nonfinancial corporations
_
_
_
_
_
-

Manufacturing

Unit labor costs..............................................................

144.0
131.8
108.0
91.5

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

127

Current Labor Statistics:

40.

Productivity Data

Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years

[1996 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]
Item

1960

1970

1980

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Private business
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons....................................
Output per unit of capital services..............................
Multifactor productivity.................................................
Output............................................................................
Inputs:
Labor input..................................................................
Capital services...........................................................
Combined units of labor and capital input..................
Capital per hour of all persons......................................

45.6
110.4
65.2
27.5

63.0
111.1
80.0
42.0

75.8
101.5
88.3
59.4

90.2
99.3
95.3
83.6

91.3
96.1
94.4
82.6

94.8
97.7
96.6
85.7

95.4
98.5
97.1
88.5

96.6
100.3
98.1
92.8

97.3
99.7
98.4
95.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.0
100.5
101.1
105.2

104.8
100.1
102.6
110.6

54.0
24.9
42.3
41.3

61.0
37.8
52.4
56.7

71.9
58.6
67.3
74.7

89.4
84.2
87.7
90.8

88.3
86.0
87.5
95.0

89.3
87.7
88.8
97.0

91.8
89.8
91.1
96.8

95.6
92.6
94.6
96.3

98.0
96.0
97.3
97.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.7
104.7
104.0
101.5

106.4
110.4
107.7
104.7

48.7
120.1
69.1
27.2

64.9
118.3
82.6
41.9

77.3
105.7
90.5
59.6

90.3
100.0
95.6
83.5

91.4
96.6
94.7
82.5

94.8
97.9
96.6
85.5

95.3
98.8
97.1
88.4

96.5
100.3
98.1
92.6

97.5
99.9
98.6
95.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
100.2
100.9
105.1

104.5
99.8
102.4
110.6

50.1
22.6
39.3
40.5

59.3
35.5
50.7
54.8

70.7
56.4
65.9
73.1

89.2
83.5
87.3
90.3

88.0
85.4
87.1
94.7

89.0
87.3
88.4
96.8

91.8
89.5
91.0
96.5

95.4
92.3
94.4
96.3

97.8
95.9
97.2
97.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.8
104.9
104.2
101.5

106.6
110.8
108.0
104.7

41.8
124.3
72.7
38.5

54.2
116.5
84.4
56.5

70.1
100.9
86.6
75.3

92.8
101.6
99.3
97.3

95.0
97.5
98.3
95.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.9
101.1
100.4
103.3

105.0
104.0
102.6
108.7

109.0
105.0
105.0
113.4

112.8
104.5
106.1
116.9

117.1
105.6
109.8
123.5

124.3
106.5
113.2
130.7

92.0
30.9
51.3
38.2
28.2
52.9

104.2
48.5
85.4
44.8
48.8
67.0

107.5
74.7
92.5
75.0
73.7
87.0

104.8
95.8
99.9
92.5
92.5
98.0

100.4
97.9
100.1
93.6
92.1
97.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.4
102.2
103.7
105.7
103.0
102.9

103.6
104.5
107.3
111.3
105.1
106.0

104.0
108.0
109.5
112.8
110.0
107.9

103.7
111.9
107.0
120.4
108.9
110.2

105.5
116.9
103.9
120.4
114.2
112.5

105.2
122.8
109.2
127.2
116.8
115.5

Private nonfarm business
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons....................................
Output per unit of capital services..............................
Multifactor productivity................................................
Output............................................................................
Inputs:
Labor input...................................................................
Capital services...........................................................
Combined units of labor and capital input..................
Capital per hour of all persons......................................

Manufacturing (1992 = 100)
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.....................................
Output per unit of capital services..............................
Multifactor productivity................................................
Output......................................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons.....................................................
Capital services...........................................................
Energy..............................................................
Nonenergy materials....................................................
Purchased business services......................................
Combined units of all factor inputs..............................

128

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

41.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years

[1992= 100]

Item

1960

1970

1980

1990

1991

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Business
Output per hour of all persons......................................
Compensation per hour................................................
Real compensation per hour.........................................
Unit labor costs..............................................................
Unit nonlabor payments................................................
Implicit price deflator.....................................................

48.8
13.7
60.0
28.0
25.2
27.0

67.0
23.5
78.9
35.1
31.6
33.9

80.4
54.2
89.4
67.4
61.5
65.2

95.2
90.7
96.5
95.3
93.9
94.8

96.3
95.0
97.5
98.7
97.0
98.1

100.5
102.5
99.9
101.9
102.5
102.2

101.9
104.5
99.7
102.6
106.4
104.0

102.6
106.7
99.3
104.1
109.4
106.0

105.4
110.1
99.7
104.5
113.3
107.7

107.8
113.5
100.6
105.3
117.1
109.7

110.8
119.6
104.6
108.0
115.1
110.6

113.8
125.1
107.1
109.9
115.1
111.8

118.6
131.4
109.0
110.7
119.1
113.8

51.9
14.3
62.8
27.5
24.6
26.5

68.9
23.7
79.5
34.4
31.3
33.3

82.0
54.6
90.0
66.5
60.5
64.3

95.3
90.5
96.3
95.0
93.6
94.5

96.4
95.0
97.5
98.5
97.1
98.0

100.5
102.2
99.6
101.7
103.0
102.2

101.8
104.3
99.5
102.5
106.9
104.1

102.8
106.6
99.2
103.7
110.4
106.1

105.4
109.8
99.4
104.2
113.5
107.6

107.5
113.1
100.2
105.2
118.0
109.8

110.4
119.0
104.0
107.7
116.3
110.8

113.2
124.2
106.4
109.7
116.8
112.3

118.1
130.5
108.2
110.5
121.0
114.3

55.4
15.6
68.3
26.8
28.1
23.3
50.2
30.2
28.8

70.4
25.3
84.7
34.8
35.9
31.9
44.4
35.1
35.6

81.1
56.4
93.1
68.4
69.6
65.1
68.8
66.0
68.4

95.4
90.8
96.7
95.9
95.2
98.0
94.3
97.1
95.8

97.7
95.3
97.8
98.8
97.5
102.1
93.0
99.7
98.3

100.7
102.0
99.5
101.0
101.3
100.2
113.2
103.5
102.1

103.1
104.2
99.4
101.1
101.0
101.3
131.7
109.0
103.7

104.2
106.2
98.8
102.0
101.9
102.2
139.0
111.6
105.1

107.5
109.0
98.7
101.2
101.4
100.6
152.2
113.8
105.5

108.4
110.3
97.8
101.5
101.8
100.9
156.9
115.2
106.2

112.3
115.9
101.3
102.6
103.2
101.2
148.9
113.4
106.6

116.2
121.1
103.7
103.7
104.2
102.5
147.6
114.0
107.4

41.8
14.9
65.2
35.6
26.8
30.2

54.2
23.7
79.5
43.8
29.3
34.9

70.1
55.6
91.7
79.3
80.2
79.8

92.8
90.8
96.6
97.8
99.7
99.0

95.0
95.6
98.1
100.6
99.0
99.6

101.9
102.7
100.2
100.8
100.9
100.9

105.0
105.6
100.8
100.7
102.8
102.0

109.0
107.9
100.4
99.0
106.9
103.9

112.8
109.3
99.0
96.9
109.9
104.9

117.1
111.4
98.8
95.1
109.6
104.0

124.3
117.3
102.6
94.4
104.4
100.5

131.5
122.0
104.5
92.8

Nonfarm business
Output per hour of all persons......................................
Compensation per hour................................................
Real compensation per hour.........................................
Unit labor costs..............................................................
Unit nonlabor payments................................................
Implicit price deflator.....................................................

Nonfinancial corporations
Output per hour of all employees.................................
Compensation per hour................................................
Real compensation per hour.........................................
Total unit costs..............................................................
Unit labor costs............................................................
Unit nonlabor costs......................................................
Unit profits.....................................................................
Unit nonlabor payments................................................
Implicit price deflator.....................................................

_
-

-

Manufacturing
Output per hour of all persons......................................
Compensation per hour................................................
Real compensation per hour.........................................
Unit labor costs..............................................................
Unit nonlabor payments................................................
Implicit price deflator.....................................................

140.9
128.4
106.5
91.1

-

_

-

-

March 2001

129

Dash indicates data not available.


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

Monthly Labor Review

Current Labor Statistics:
42.

Productivity Data

Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit Sic industries

[1987 = 100]
Industry

SIC

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

104
122
131
142

101.5
111.7
101.0
101.3

113.3
117.3
98.0
98.7

122.3
118.7
97.0
102.2

127.4
122.4
97.9
99.8

141.6
133.0
102.1
105.0

159.8
141.2
105.9
103.6

160.8
148.1
112.4
108.7

144.2
155.9
119.4
105.4

138.3
168.0
123.9
107.2

159.0
176.6
125.2
114.0

186.3
187.3
128.7
111.9

Meat products..............................
Dairy products.......................................
Preserved fruits and vegetables......
Grain mill products.......................
Bakery products....................................

201
202
203
204
205

100.1
108.4
97.0
101.3
96.8

99.2
107.7
97.8
107.6
96.1

97.1
107.3
95.6
105.4
92.7

99.6
108.3
99.2
104.9
90.6

104.6
111.4
100.5
107.8
93.8

104.3
109.6
106.8
109.2
94.4

101.2
111.8
107.6
108.4
96.4

102.3
116.4
109.1
115.4
97.3

97.4
116.0
109.1
108.0
95.6

103.2
119.5
111.7
118.7
99.3

102.8
119.7
116.5
128.7
102.1

Sugar and confectionery products..............
Fats and oils......................................
Beverages..............................
Miscellaneous food and kindred products..........
Cigarettes....................................

206
207
208
209
211

99.5
108.9
105.6
107.0
101.2

101.8
116.4
112.2
99.1
109.0

103.2
118.1
117.0
99.2
113.2

102.0
120.1
120.0
101.7
107.6

99.8
114.1
127.1
101.5
111.6

104.5
112.6
126.4
105.2
106.5

106.2
111.8
130.1
100.9
126.6

108.3
120.3
133.5
102.9
142.9

113.8
110.1
135.0
109.1
147.2

117.1
120.0
135.5
103.9
147.2

123.2
138.3
137.4
113.2
152.2

Broadwoven fabric mills, cotton.....................
Broadwoven fabric mills, manmade...................
Narrow fabric mills......................................
Knitting mills.............................
Textile finishing, except wool.......

221
222
224
225
226

99.6
99.2
108.4
96.6
90.3

99.8
106.3
92.7
108.0
88.7

103.1
111.3
96.5
107.5
83.4

111.2
116.2
99.6
114.0
79.9

110.3
126.2
112.9
119.3
78.6

117.8
131.7
111.4
127.9
79.3

122.1
142.5
120.1
134.1
81.2

134.0
145.3
118.9
138.3
78.5

137.3
147.6
126.3
150.3
79.2

130.9
161.9
107.7
149.9
94.0

135.1
167.3
114.1
149.9
100.5

Carpets and rugs........................................
Yarn and thread mills..........................
Miscellaneous textile goods..................
Men's and boys' furnishings.............................
Women's and misses' outerwear..........

227
228
229
232
233

98.6
102.1
101.6
100.1
101.4

97.8
104.2
109.1
100.1
96.8

93.2
110.2
109.2
102.1
104.1

89.2
111.4
104.6
108.4
104.3

96.1
119.6
106.5
109.1
109.4

97.1
126.6
110.4
108.4
121.8

93.3
130.7
118.5
111.7
127.4

95.8
137.4
123.7
123.4
135.5

100.2
147.4
123.1
134.7
141.6

100.3
150.1
117.9
152.4
151.5

103.0
154.2
120.3
166.9
153.1

Women's and children's undergarments...............
Hats, caps, and millinery....................................
Miscellaneous apparel and accessories................
Miscellaneous fabricated textile products..............
Sawmills and planing mills.................................

234
235
238
239
242

105.4
99.0
101.3
96.6
100.7

94.6
96.4
88.4
95.7
99.6

102.1
89.2
90.6
99.9
99.8

113.6
91.1
91.8
100.7
102.6

117.4
93.6
91.3
107.5
108.1

124.5
87.2
94.0
108.5
101.9

138.0
77.7
105.5
107.8
103.3

161.3
84.3
116.8
109.2
110.2

174.5
82.2
120.1
105.6
115.6

196.3
83.5
105.2
117.0
117.5

215.2
99.4
109.8
118.0
120.4

Millwork, plywood, and structural members..........
Wood containers..................................
Wood buildings and mobile homes.....................
Miscellaneous wood products.................
Household furniture.......................

243
244
245
249
251

98.8
103.1
97.8
95.9
99.4

97.1
108.8
98.8
102.4
102.0

98.0
111.2
103.1
107.7
104.5

98.0
113.1
103.0
110.5
107.1

99.9
109.4
103.1
114.2
110.5

97.0
100.1
103.8
115.3
110.6

94.5
100.9
98.3
111.8
112.5

92.7
106.1
97.0
115.4
116.9

92.4
106.7
96.7
114.4
121.6

89.9
106.6
101.1
123.1
121.8

92.5
107.0
99.7
132.3
127.5

Office furniture................................
Public building and related furniture.......
Partitions and fixtures..............................
Miscellaneous furniture and fixtures....
Pulp mills.............................

252
253
254
259
261

94.3
109.6
95.7
103.6
99.6

97.5
113.7
92.4
101.9
107.4

95.0
119.8
95.6
103.5
116.7

94.1
120.2
93.0
102.1
128.3

102.5
140.6
102.7
99.5
137.3

103.2
161.0
107.4
103.6
122.5

100.5
157.4
98.9
104.7
128.9

101.1
173.3
101.2
110.0
131.9

106.4
181.5
97.5
113.2
132.6

117.9
186.5
121.4
102.2
104.4

113.8
205.3
127 7
123.1
108.9

Paper mills................................
Paperboard mills.................................
Paperboard containers and boxes.............
Miscellaneous converted paper products........
Newspapers...................................

262
263
265
267
271

103.9
105.5
99.7
101.1
96.9

103.6
101.9
101.5
101.6
95.2

102.3
100.6
101.3
101.4
90.6

99.2
101.4
103.4
105.3
85.8

103.3
104.4
105.2
105.5
81.5

102.4
108.4
107.9
107.9
79.4

110.2
114.9
108.4
110.6
79.9

118.6
119.5
105.1
113.3
79.0

111.6
118.0
106.3
113.6
77.4

107.0
124.2
110.1
121.7
79.0

110.8
127.6
114.4
124.8
83.0

Periodicals..............................
Books.......................................
Miscellaneous publishing.........................
Commercial printing................................
Manifold business forms.................

272
273
274
275
276

97.9
99.1
96.7
100.0
98.7

98.3
94.1
89.0
101.1
89.7

93.9
96.6
92.2
102.5
93.0

89.5
100.8
95.9
102.0
89.1

92.9
97.7
105.8
108.0
94.5

89.5
103.5
104.5
106.9
91.1

81.9
103.0
97.5
106.5
82.0

87.8
101.6
94.8
107.2
76.9

89.1
99.3
93.6
108.3
75.2

100.1
102.2
114.5
109.2
78.9

97.6
97.1
114.2
110.7
76.4

Greeting cards..............................
Blankbooks and bookbinding..............
Printing trade services............................
Industrial inorganic chemicals..................
Plastics materials and synthetics.................

277
278
279
281
282

100.1
95.6
99.9
105.7
98.8

109.1
94.2
94.3
104.3
99.7

100.6
99.4
99.3
106.8
100.9

92.7
96.1
100.6
109.7
100.0

96.7
103.6
112.0
109.7
107.5

91.4
98.7
115.3
105.6
112.0

89.0
105.4
111.0
102.3
125.3

92.5
108.7
116.7
109.3
128.3

90.8
114.5
126.2
110.1
125.3

92.2
115.3
124.2
116.1
133.8

104 5
124.7
127.6
145.7
142.6

Drugs.........................................
Soaps, cleaners, and toilet goods.................
Paints and allied products.....................
Industrial organic chemicals..............
Agricultural chemicals.......................

283
284
285
286
287

101.0
102.0
101.4
109.9
103.7

102.8
100.6
103.3
110.4
104.3

103.8
103.8
106.3
101.4
104.7

104.5
105.3
104.3
95.8
99.5

99.5
104.4
102.9
94.6
99.5

99.9
108.7
108.8
92.2
103.8

104.9
111.2
116.7
99.9
105.0

108.7
118.6
118.0
98.6
108.5

112.1
120.9
125.6
99.0
110.0

112.6
130.4
127.2
112.9
120.4

105.3
129.2
128.8
111.3
117.0

Mining
Gold and silver ores...................................
Bituminous coal and lignite mining................
Crude petroleum and natural gas................
Crushed and broken stone..................

Manufacturing

See footnotes at end of table.

130

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

42. Continued-Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit sic industries
[1987= 100]
Industry

SIC

Miscellaneous chemical products.........................
Petroleum refining................................................
Asphalt paving and roofing materials...................
Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products.........
Tires and inner tubes...........................................

289
291
295
299
301

95.4
105.3
98.3
98.4
102.9

95.2
109.6
95.3
101.9
103.8

97.3
109.2
98.0
94.8
103.0

96.1
106.6
94.1
90.6
102.4

Hose and belting and gaskets and packing..........
Fabricated rubber products, n.e.c........................
Miscellaneous plastics products, n.e.c.................
Footwear, except rubber......................................
Flat glass.............................................................

305
306
308
314
321

103.7
104.2
100.5
101.3
91.9

96.3
105.5
101.8
101.1
90.7

96.1
109.0
105.7
101.1
84.5

Glass and glassware, pressed or blown...............
Products of purchased glass................................
Cement, hydraulic................................................
Structural clay products........................................
Pottery and related products................................

322
323
324
325
326

100.6
95.9
103.2
98.8
99.6

100.2
90.1
110.2
103.1
97.1

Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products...............
Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral products.........
Blast furnace and basic steel products.................
Iron and steel foundries........................................
Primary nonferrous metals...................................

327
329
331
332
333

100.8
103.0
112.6
104.0
107.8

Nonferrous rolling and drawing.............................
Nonferrous foundries (castings)...........................
Miscellaneous primary metal products.................
Metal cans and shipping containers......................
Cutlery, handtools, and hardware.........................

335
336
339
341
342

Plumbing and heating, except electric..................
Fabricated structural metal products.....................
Metal forgings and stampings...............................
Metal services, n.e.c.............................................
Ordnance and accessories, n.e.c.........................

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

101.8
111.3
100.4
101.5
107.8

107.1
120.1
108.0
104.2
116.5

105.7
123.8
104.9
96.3
124.1

107.8
132.3
111.2
87.4
131.1

110.1
142.0
113.1
87.1
138.8

120.2
149.2
120.8
97.2
148.5

120.9
155.8
129.5
100.7
145.2

92.4
109.9
108.3
94.4
83.6

97.8
115.2
114.4
104.2
92.7

99.7
123.1
116.7
105.2
97.7

102.7
119.1
120.8
113.0
97.6

104.6
121.5
121.0
117.1
99.6

107.4
121.0
124.7
126.1
101.5

112.4
125.5
130.2
129.4
107.6

111.7
133.2
134.6
111.6
114.0

104.8
92.6
112.4
109.6
98.6

102.3
97.7
108.3
109.8
95.8

108.9
101.5
115.1
111.4
99.5

108.7
106.2
119.9
106.8
100.3

112.9
105.9
125.6
114.0
108.4

115.7
106.1
124.3
112.6
109.3

121.4
122.0
128.7
119.6
119.3

128.2
125.3
133.1
116.1
116.1

135.1
120.0
134.1
115.4
127.6

102.4
95.5
108.1
105.4
106.1

102.3
95.4
109.7
106.1
102.3

101.2
94.0
107.8
104.5
110.7

102.5
104.3
117.0
107.2
101.9

104.6
104.5
133.6
112.1
107.9

101.5
106.3
142.4
113.0
105.3

104.5
107.8
142.6
112.7
111.0

107.3
110.4
147.5
116.2
110.8

109.2
112.7
155.0
121.7
116.0

113.4
117.1
152.3
121.7
125.0

95.5
102.6
106.6
106.5
97.8

93.6
105.1
105.0
108.5
101.7

92.7
104.0
113.7
117.6
97.3

91.0
103.6
109.1
122.9
96.8

96.0
103.6
114.5
127.8
100.1

98.3
108.5
111.3
132.3
104.0

101.2
112.1
134.5
140.9
109.2

99.2
117.8
152.2
144.2
111.3

104.0
122.3
149.6
155.2
118.2

112.3
126.4
140.9
160.8
113.1

115.0
131.1
139.7
155.8
115.2

343
344
346
347
348

103.7
100.4
101.5
108.3
97.7

101.5
96.9
99.8
102.4
89.8

102.6
98.8
95.6
104.7
82.1

102.0
100.0
92.9
99.4
81.5

98.4
103.9
103.7
111.6
88.6

102.0
104.8
108.7
120.6
84.6

109.1
107.7
108.5
123.0
83.6

109.2
105.8
109.3
127.7
87.6

118.6
106.5
113.6
128.4
87.5

127.2
110.0
120.2
123.5
100.5

131.3
112.5
125.9
128.5
94.6

Miscellaneous fabricated metal products..............
Engines and turbines...........................................
Farm and garden machinery................................
Construction and related machinery.....................
Metalworking machinery.......................................

349
351
352
353
354

101.4
106.8
106.3
106.5
101.0

95.9
110.7
110.7
108.3
103.5

97.5
106.5
116.5
107.0
101.1

97.4
105.8
112.9
99.1
96.4

101.1
103.3
113.9
102.0
104.3

102.0
109.2
118.6
108.2
107.4

103.2
122.3
125.0
117.7
109.9

106.6
122.7
134.7
122.1
114.8

108.3
136.6
137.2
123.3
114.9

106.2
134.2
141.0
131.8
118.6

112.4
142.8
148.7
137.1
120.2

Special industry machinery..................................
General industrial machinery................................
Computer and office equipment...........................
Refrigeration and service machinery.....................
Industrial machinery, n.e.c....................................

355
356
357
358
359

104.6
105.9
121.4
102.1
106.5

108.3
101.5
124.2
106.0
107.1

107.5
101.5
138.1
103.6
107.3

108.3
101.6
149.6
100.7
109.0

106.0
101.6
195.7
104.9
117.0

113.6
104.8
258.6
108.6
118.5

121.2
106.7
328.6
110.7
127.4

132.3
109.0
469.4
112.7
138.8

134.0
109.4
681.3
114.7
141.4

130.1
110.1
937.0
114.8
129.7

125.9
112.4
1345.8
121.3
127.6

Electric distribution equipment..............................
Electrical industrial apparatus
Household appliances..........................................
Electric lighting and wiring equipment...................
Communications equipment.................................

361
362
363
364
366

105.4
104.6
103.0
101.9
110.5

105.0
107.4
104.7
100.2
107.2

106.3
107.7
105.8
99.9
121.4

106.5
107.1
106.5
97.5
124.5

119.6
117.1
115.0
105.7
146.7

122.2
132.9
123.4
107.8
150.3

131.8
134.9
131.4
113.4
166.0

143.0
150.8
127.3
113.7
170.9

143.9
154.3
127.4
116.9
190.3

143.9
163.9
138.1
121.4
221.0

147.8
162.6
151.7
129.3
228.4

Electronic components and accessories...............
Miscellaneous electrical equipment & supplies......
Motor vehicles and equipment..............................
Aircraft and parts.................................................
Ship and boat building and repairing.....................

367
369
371
372
373

109.0
102.8
103.2
100.6
99.4

119.8
99.6
103.3
98.2
97.6

133.4
90.6
102.4
98.9
103.7

154.7
98.6
96.6
108.2
96.3

189.3
101.3
104.2
112.3
102.7

217.9
108.2
106.2
115.2
106.2

274.1
110.5
108.8
109.6
103.8

401.5
114.1
106.7
107.9
98.0

514.9
123.1
107.2
113.0
99.2

610.5
124.6
116.5
114.1
104.3

764.4
130.5
125.7
140.4
101.6

Railroad equipment..............................................
Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts...........................
Guided missiles, space vehicles, parts.................
Search and navigation equipment........................
Measuring and controlling devices........................

374
375
376
381
382

113.5
92.6
104.1
104.8
103.7

135.3
94.6
110.6
105.8
101.7

141.1
93.8
116.5
112.7
106.4

146.9
99.8
110.5
118.9
113.1

147.9
108.4
110.5
122.1
119.9

151.0
130.9
122.1
129.1
124.0

152.5
125.1
118.9
132.1
133.8

150.0
120.3
121.0
149.5
146.4

148.3
125.5
129.4
142.2
150.5

183.2
120.6
126.6
148.9
143.0

191.7
127.8
132.1
148.8
147.3

Medical instruments and supplies.........................
Ophthalmic goods................................................
Photographic equipment & supplies......................
Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware.....................
Musical instruments..............................................
See footnotes at end of table.

384
385
386
391
393

105.2
112.6
105.6
100.1
101.8

107.9
123.3
113.0
102.9
96.1

116.9
121.2
107.8
99.3
97.1

118.7
125.1
110.2
95.8
96.9

123.5
144.5
116.4
96.7
96.0

127.3
157.8
126.9
96.7
95.6

126.7
160.6
132.7
99.5
88.7

131.5
167.2
129.5
100.2
86.9

139.8
188.2
128.7
102.6
78.8

146.3
202.6
121.6
117.2
83.9

159.4
211.7
125.9
111.7
83.5

March 2001

131


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

1995

Monthly Labor Review

1996

1997

1998

Current Labor Statistics:

Productivity Data

42. Continued--Annual indexes of output per hour for selected 3-digit sic industries
[1987 = 100]

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Industry

SIC

Toys and sporting goods........................................

394

104.8

106.0

108.1

109.7

104.9

114.2

109.7

113.6

119.9

125.1

134.8

Pens, pencils, office, and art supplies....................
Costume jewelry and notions..................................
Miscellaneous manufactures..................................

395
396
399

108.3
102.0
102.1

112.9
93.8
100.9

118.2
105.3
106.5

116.8
106.7
109.2

111.3
110.8
109.5

111.6
115.8
107.7

129.9
129.0
106.1

135.2
143.7
108.1

144.1
142.2
112.8

127.9
116.1
109.3

147.6
122.9
109.5

108.4
105.2
99.9
99.5

114.6
109.3
99.7
95.8

118.5
111.1
104.0
92.9

127.8
116.9
103.7
92.5

139.6
123.4
104.5
96.9

145.4
126.6
107.1
100.2

150.3
129.5
106.6
105.7

156.2
125.4
106.5
108.6

167.0
130.9
104.7
111.1

170.1
132.4
108.3
111.6

130.1
109.5
108.5

481
483
484
491,3 (pt.)
492,3 (pt.)

106.2
103.1
102.0
104.9
108.3

111.6
106.2
99.7
107.7
111.2

113.3
104.9
92.5
110.1
105.8

119.8
106.1
87.5
113.4
109.6

127.7
108.3
88.3
115.2
111.1

135.5
106.7
86.7
120.6
121.8

142.2
110.1
85.6
126.8
125.6

148.1
109.6
86.7
135.0
137.1

159.5
105.8
84.4
146.5
145.9

160.9
101.1
87.6
150.5
158.6

171.2
100.8
88.0
157.2
153.4

Lumber and other building materials dealers........
Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores.........................
Hardware stores.....................................................
Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores....

521
523
525
526
531

101.0
102.8
108.6
106.7
99.2

99.1
101.7
115.2
103.4
97.0

103.6
106.0
110.5
83.9
94.2

101.3
99.4
102.5
88.5
98.2

105.4
106.5
107.2
100.4
100.9

110.5
114.7
105.8
106.6
105.7

118.3
130.2
112.7
116.6
108.6

117.6
135.3
108.5
117.2
110.9

121.7
140.2
112.1
136.6
118.4

122.2
143.8
111.2
128.1
123.5

133.0
166.0
125.3
136.1
129.4

Variety stores..........................................................
Miscellaneous general merchandise stores...........

533
539
541
542
546

101.9
100.8
98.9
99.0
89.8

124.4
109.8
95.4
97.6
83.3

151.2
116.4
94.6
96.8
89.7

154.2
121.8
93.7
88.4
94.7

167.7
136.1
93.3
95.8
94.0

184.7
159.7
92.8
93.7
86.5

190.1
160.9
92.5
91.1
87.2

203.2
163.9
91.2
89.1
86.8

229.2
164.9
89.4
81.1
81.7

247.6
168.2
89.2
84.7
75.4

262.5
189.9
90.2
89.9
65.0

551
553
554
561
562

103.4
103.2
103.0
106.0
97.8

102.5
101.6
105.2
109.6
99.5

106.1
102.7
102.6
113.7
101.5

104.1
99.0
104.3
119.2
103.0

106.5
100.0
109.7
118.2
112.2

107.6
98.7
115.2
115.5
118.4

108.7
102.6
120.4
117.9
119.3

107.1
105.7
126.3
117.5
128.5

108.2
104.6
125.1
125.7
142.3

107.8
104.2
125.0
132.2
145.8

108.0
107.0
130.6
145.5
154.8

Shoe stores.............................................................
Furniture and homefurnishings stores...................
Household appliance stores...................................
Radio, television, computer, and music stores......

565
566
571
572
573

102.0
102.7
98.6
98.5
118.6

104.9
107.2
100.9
103.5
114.6

104.5
106.1
101.8
102.8
119.6

106.4
105.1
101.5
105.2
128.3

111.7
111.5
108.4
113.9
137.8

114.5
113.2
107.6
117.0
152.7

120.4
126.3
108.8
121.2
177.0

133.8
134.5
112.0
138.7
196.7

138.8
146.9
118.6
141.8
204.6

142.1
143.5
119.4
155.5
215.1

145.6
136.4
121.6
184.5
258.9

Eating and drinking places.....................................
Drug and proprietary stores...................................
Liquor stores..........................................................
Used merchandise stores.......................................
Miscellaneous shopping goods stores...................

581
591
592
593
594

102.8
101.9
98.2
105.3
100.7

102.2
102.5
101.1
104.9
104.2

104.0
103.6
105.2
100.3
104.2

103.1
104.7
105.9
98.6
105.0

102.5
103.6
108.4
110.4
102.7

102.8
105.4
100.7
112.1
106.5

101.1
105.7
99.1
115.4
111.9

100.9
106.9
103.7
117.3
117.8

99.5
109.6
112.8
129.8
120.0

100.5
115.4
108.9
138.0
123.7

101.1
117.7
113.9
158.4
131.5

Nonstore retailers..................................................

596
598
599

105.6
95.6
105.9

110.8
92.0
103.1

108.8
84.4
113.7

109.3
85.3
103.2

122.1
84.4
111.6

127.5
92.7
117.3

143.3
100.7
125.0

146.1
114.2
126.2

165.5
115.8
139.5

177.2
113.4
147.3

193.5
112.0
157.6

Commercial banks..................................................
Hotels and motels..................................................
Laundry, cleaning, and garment services...............
Photographic studios, portrait.................................
Beauty shops..........................................................

602
701
721
722
723

102.8
97.6
97.2
100.1
95.1

104.8
95.0
99.7
94.9
99.6

107.7
96.1
101.8
96.6
96.8

110.1
99.1
99.2
92.8
94.8

111.0
107.8
98.3
97.7
99.6

118.5
106.2
98.9
105.9
95.7

121.7
109.6
104.0
117.4
99.8

126.4
110.1
105.5
129.3
103.5

129.7
109.7
108.7
126.6
106.3

133.0
107.9
108.0
133.7
107.5

133.0
108.8
113.5
153.4
108.4

Barber shops..........................................................

724
726
753
783

108.8
102.5
105.7
107.1

111.6
97.9
108.1
114.3

100.2
90.9
106.9
115.8

94.1
89.5
98.7
116.0

112.1
103.2
103.3
110.8

120.8
98.2
104.0
109.8

117.7
103.8
112.3
106.5

114.6
99.7
119.5
101.4

127.6
97.1
114.1
100.5

149.0
101.3
115.2
99.8

153.0
107.0
121.2
101.3

Transportation
Railroad transportation............................................
4011
Trucking, except local' ..........................................
4213
U.S. postal service' ...............................................
431
Air transportation 1................................................ . 4512,13,22 (pts.)

Utitlities
Telephone communications...................................
Radio and television broadcasting.........................
Cable and other pay TV services...........................
Electric utilities........................................................
Gas utilities..............................................................

Trade

Meat and fish (seafood) markets............................

New and used car dealers.....................................
Auto and home supply stores.................................
Gasoline service stations........................................
Men's and boy's wear stores..................................

Retail stores, n.e.c..................................................

Finance and services

Automotive repair shops........................................
Motion picture theaters..........................................

Refers to output per employee.

n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified

Refers to ouput per full-time equivalent employee year on fiscal basis.

132

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

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

43. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data
seasonally adjusted
Annual average
Country

1999

1999

2000

I

II

2000
III

IV

I

II

III

IV

United States....

4.2

4.0

4.3

4.3

4.2

4.1

4.1

4.0

4.0

4.0

Canada.............
Australia...........
JaDan1..............
France1.............
Germany1.........
Italy1,2...............
Sweden1...........

6.8
7.2
4.7
11.2

5.8
6.6
4.8
9.7

7.1
7.5
4.7
11.4

7.1
7.4
4.8
11.3

6.8
7.1
4.8
11.2

6.2
7.0
4.7
10.8

6.0
6.8
4.8
10.2

5.8
6.7
4.7
9.7

5.8
6.3
4.7
9.6

5.7
6.5
4.8
9.2

8.7
11.5
7.1
6.1

8.3
10.7
5.9

8.8
11.8
7.1
6.2

8.8
11.7
7.0
6.1

8.8
11.5
7.1
5.9

8.7
11.2
7.1
5.9

8.4
11.3
6.7
5.8

8.3
10.8
6.0
5.5

8.2
10.6
5.6
5.4

8.1
10.1
5.2
-

United Kingdom1!

-

1Preliminary to r 2000 for Japan, France, Germany (unified), Italy,
and Sweden and for 1999 onward for the United Kingdom.
2 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter.

dicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual
figures. See "Notes on the data" for information on breaks in
series. For further qualifications and historical data, see
C o m p a r a tiv e

NOTE: Quarterly figures for France and Germany are
calculated by applying annual adjustment factors to current
published data, and therefore should be viewed as less precise in-

C iv ilia n

t r ie s , ! 9 5 9 - 2 0 0 0

Labor

F o rc e

S ta tis tic s ,

Ten

C oun­

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mar. 16, 2001).

Dash indicates data not available.

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

133

Current Labor Statistics:

44.

International Comparison

Annual data: Employment status of the working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts, 10 countries

[N um bers in thousands]

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

United States1...........................................................
Canada.....................................................................
Australia....................................................................
Japan........................................................................

126,346

128,105

132,304

133,943

136,297

137,673

139,368

140,863

14,168
8,562
65,040

129,200
14,299
8,619
65,470

131,056

14,128
8,490
64,280

14,387
8,776
65,780

14,500
9,001
65,990

14,650
9,127
66,450

14,936
9,221
67,200

15,216
9,347
67,240

15,513
9,470
67,090

15,745
9,682
66,990p

France......................................................................

24,470
39,130

24,570
39,040

24,640
39,140

24,780
39,210

24,830
39,100

25,090
39,180

25,210
39,480

25,540
39,520

25,860
39,630

-

22,940
6,780
4,591
28,610

22,910
6,940
4,520
28,410

22,570
7,050
4,443
28,310

22,450
7,200
4,418
28,280

22,460
7,230
4,460
28,480

22,570
7,440
4,459
28,620

22,680
7,510
4,418
28,760

22,960
7,670
4,402
28,870

23,130
7,750
4,430

-

Employment status and country
Civilian labor force

Germany2..................................................................
Italy...........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Sweden.....................................................................
United Kingdom.........................................................

-

29,090p

Participation rate3
66.4
65.9
63.9
63.4
55.8
58.3
47.5
57.7
65.7
63.1

1InitoH
Canada.....................................................................
Australia....................................................................
Japan........................................................................
France......................................................................
2
riormanx/
Italy...........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Sweden.....................................................................
United Kingdom.........................................................
Employed

66.2
66.7
64.1
63.2
55.9
58.9
47.7
56.8
67.0
63.7

66.3
65.5
63.6
63.3
55.6
58.0
47.9
58.2
64.5
62.8

66.6
65.2
63.9
63.1
55.5
57.6
47.3
59.0
63.7
62.5

United States1...........................................................
Canada.....................................................................
Australia....................................................................
Japan........................................................................

117,718
12,747
7,676
62,920

118,492

120,259

12,672
7,637
63,620

12,770
7,680
63,810

123,060
13,027
7,921
63,860

fiormanw2
Italy...........................................................................
Netherlands..............................................................
Sweden.....................................................................
United Kingdom.........................................................

22,120
36,920
21,360
6,380
4,447
26,090

22,020
36,420
21,230
6,540
4,265
25,530

21,740
36,030
20,270
6,590
4,028
25,340

21,730
35,890
19,940
6,680
3,992
25,550

66.6
64.9
64.6
62.9
55.3
57.3
47.1
58.9
64.1
62.7

66.8
64.7
64.6
63.0
55.5
57.4
47.1
60.3
64.0
62.7

67.1
65.0
64.3
63.2
55.3
57.7
47.2
60.6
63.3
62.8

67.1
65.4
64.4
62.8
55.7
57.7
47.6
61.4
62.8
62.7

67.1
65.8
64.2
62.4
56.0
57.9P
47.8
61.5
63.2P
62.9P

124,900
13,271
8,235
63,890
21,910
35,900
19,820
6,730
4,056
26,000

126,708
13,380
8,344
64,200
21,960
35,680
19,920
6,970
4,019
26,280

129,558
13,705
8,429
64,900

131,463
14,068
8,597
64,450

133,488
14,456
8,785
63,920

22,090
35,570
19,990
7,110
3,973
26,740

22,520
35,830
20,210
7,360
4,034
27,050

22,970
36,170
20,460
7,490
4,117

67.2
65.9
64.7
62.0P
135,208
14,827
9,043
63,790p
_
-

27,330p

Employment-population ratio4
United States1...........................................................
Canada.....................................................................
Australia....................................................................
Japan........................................................................
Germany2..................................................................
Italy...........................................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom.........................................................

61.7
60.2
57.9
61.8
50.6
55.5

61.5
58.9
57.0
62.0
50.0
54.4

58.5
56.6
61.7
49.0
53.4

62.5
59.0
57.7
61.3
48.7
52.8

62.9
59.4
59.1
60.9
48.8
52.6

59.1
59.1
60.9
48.5
52.2

63.8
59.7
58.8
61.0
48.5
52.0

64.1
60.4
59.2
60.2
49.1
52.3

44.5
53.4
64.9
58.0

44.0
54.4
62.0
56.7

43.0
54.4
58.5
56.2

42.0
54.8
57.6
56.5

41.5
54.9
58.3
57.2

41.6
56.5
57.7
57.6

41.6
57.4
56.9
58.3

41.9
58.9
57.6
58.7

8,628
1,381
814
1,360
2,350
2,210

9,613
1,496
925
1,420
2,550
2,620

8,940
1,530
939
1,660
2,900
3,110

7,996
1,359
856
1,920
3,060
3,320

1,229
766
2,100

7,236
1,271
783
2,250

2,920
3,200

3,130
3,500

6,739
1,230
791
2,300
3,130
3,910

6,210
1,148
750
2,790
3,020
3,690

5,880
1,058
685
3,170
2,890
3,460

1,580
400
144
2,520

1,680
390
255
2,880

2,300
460
415
2,970

2,510
520
426
2,730

2,640
510
404
2,480

2,650
470
440
2,340

2,690
400
445
2,020

2,750
310
368
1,820

2,670
260
313

_

1,760p

-

61.7

63.2

64.3
61.3
59.6
59.4
49.8

64.5
62.1
60.4
59.0P
_
-

52.8P
42.3
59.4
58.7P
59.1p

_
-

Unemployed
United States1...........................................................
Canada.....................................................................
Australia...................................................................
Japan.......................................................................
Germany2.................................................................
Italy...........................................................................
Sweden....................................................................
United Kingdom........................................................

7,404

5,665
918
638
3,200p

_
-

-

Unemployment rate
United States1...........................................................
Canada.....................................................................
Australia...................................................................
Japan.......................................................................
Germany2.................................................................
Italy..........................................................................

6.8

7.5

9.8
9.6
2.1
9.6
5.6

10.6
10.8
2.2
10.4
6.7

6.9
10.7
10.9
2.5
11.8
7.9

6.1

5.6

4.9
8.2
8.6
3.4
12.4
9.9

4.2

4.0

8.5
8.5
3.2
11.8
8.2

5.4
8.7
8.6
3.4
12.5
8.9

4.5

9.4
9.7
2.9
12.3
8.5

7.5
8.0
4.1
11.8
9.3

6.8
7.2
4.7
11.2
8.7

11.2
7.2
9.6
9.7

11.8
7.1
9.1
8.7

11.7
6.3
9.9
8.2

11.9
5.3
10.1
7.0

12.0
11.5
3.4
4.0
8.4
7.1
6.3 _____ f i j f

5.8
6.6
4.8P
9.7P
8.3P
10.7P

7.3
10.2
6.9
5.9
5.6
6.5
9.3
3.1
5.6
United Kingdom.........................................................
8.8
10.1
10.5
1Data for 1994 are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years. For
additional information, see the box note under "Employment and Unemployment Data"
in the notes to this section.
2 Data from 1991 onward refer to unified Germany. See C o m p a ra tiv e C iv ilia n L a b o r
F o rc e S ta tis tic s , T e n C o u n trie s, 1 9 5 9 -2 0 0 0 , Mar. 16, 2001, on the Internet at

3 Labor force as a percent of the working-age population..

http://stats.bls.gov/flsdata.htm .

data are not available, p = preliminary.

134

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

_

5.9P

4 Employment as a percent of the working-age population.
NOTE: See Notes on the data for information on breaks in series for the United
States, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Dash indicates

45.

Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries

[1992 = 100]
Item and country

1960

1970

1980

1988

1989

1990

1991

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Output per hour

United States..................................................
Canada..........................................................
Japan.............................................................
Belgium........................................................

70.5
75.1
63.9
65.4

96.9
90.9
84.8
92.0

95.7
93.7
89.5
96.9

96.9
95.7
95.4
96.8

97.8
95.3
99.4
99.1

102.1
104.5
100.5
102.5

107.3
109.9
101.8
108.4

113.8
111.0
109.3
113.2

117.0
109.5
115.8
115.5

121.1
112.8
121.4
122.4

127.0
112.5
120.4
123.6

134.8
115.2
124.1
124.5

66.5
77.2
65.9
69.2
76.7
73.1
56.1

87.5
91.5
86.7
93.7
92.1
90.5
82.3

91.9
94.6
89.4
97.1
94.6
93.2
86.2

93.5
99.0
92.5
98.6
96.6
94.6
88.3

96.9
99.0
95.2
99.6
97.5
95.5
92.2

100.6
101.6
102.9
101.4
100.6
107.3
104.0

108.5
110.1
105.6
112.7
101.4
119.4
106.8

114.5
113.2
109.3
117.7
102.0
121.9
104.8

115.0
116.8
109.5
119.7
102.0
124.5
103.2

122.6
122.4
111.5
125.7
103.0
133.0
104.0

124.0
126.7
111.1
127.8
103.9
135.6
104.6

128.9
128.5
112.9
103.9
139.5
109.2

75.8
86.0
59.9

103.2
110.1
84.6

102.4
112.6
90.2

101.6
108.6
96.3

98.3
99.0
101.4

103.5
104.6
96.0

111.1
113.2
95.4

118.4
118.1
100.6

121.3
119.8
106.7

127.7
128.1
111.1

133.5
133.1
103.6

139.3
141.3
103.9

91.3
88.7
85.3
80.4
77.4
103.6
90.7
87.2

100.8
92.2
90.9
94.5
92.8
105.3
109.8
101.4

104.3
97.2
94.0
98.1
96.9
101.3
110.9
105.4

102.7
99.1
99.1
99.6
100.1
100.2
110.1
105.3

101.7
99.8
102.3
99.2
100.6
98.3
104.1
100.0

99.0
95.7
92.5
96.4
98.2
102.7
101.9
101.4

109.3
100.3
95.2
102.2
104.2
106.7
117.1
106.1

114.7
104.9
95.3
107.2
107.8
109.0
128.4
107.8

109.7
104.6
93.5
105.6
108.4
110.1
131.1
108.2

112.6
109.7
96.3
108.3
114.1
115.7
138.6
109.6

115.3
111.5
100.9
110.3
116.6
117.6
144.6
109.9

111.5
114.2
102.2
111.4
114.0
150.7
109.7

107.5
114.6
93.8
119.7
101.1

106.6
121.2
99.8
101.5
107.2

107.1
120.2
100.8
102.3
104.7

104.8
113.5
100.9
104.3
103.7

100.4
103.9
102.0
101.5
102.1

101.4
100.1
95.6
94.7
94.8

103.6
103.0
93.7
93.6

104.0
106.4
92.0
92.0

103.7
109.4
92.2
91.0

105.5
113.5
91.5
89.8

105.2
118.3
86.1
90.5

103.3
122.7
83.8
91.5

38.7
14.C
18.0
29 9
21.8
29.2
20.2
18.6
36.7
27.3
31.2

56.6
38.0
32.9
52 7
43.0
52.0
37.9
38.1
57.8
52.2
44.7

34.2
10.7
30.7
40.8
31.0
41.5
21.9
31.7
56.5
45.9
67.7

60.6
38.8
57 6
68.0
64.1
70.9
45.8
59.5
89.1
80.7
90.3

92.1
88.3
76.3
170.7
136.5
142.3
142.3
108.7
170.6
154.0
168.3
217.3

104.4
107.1
102.3
174.7
129.0
149 0
136.3
120.9
156.2
154.3
154.7
202.1

110.5
122.0
111.8
135.0
124.0
155.3

99.3
108.9
99.0
114.3
121.4
123.2

99.3
109.7
99.8
107.1
119.0
122.3

100.1
107.7
101.5
103.7
116.4
119.2

103.3
104.2
101.0
100.8
109.0
108.5

91.0
93.6
96.9
102.1
94.9
97.5

86.5
96.7
92.4
105.2
98.1
99.4

United States...................................................
Canada...........................................................
Japan..............................................................
Belgium...........................................................
Denmark.......................................................
France............................................................
Germany.........................................................
Italy.................................................................
Netherlands.....................................................
Norway............................................................
Sweden...........................................................
United Kingdom...............................................

14.9
9.9
4.3
5.4
4.6
4.3
8.1
1.6
6.4
4.7
4.1
3.1

23.7
17.0
16.5
13.7
13.3
10.3
20.7
4.7
20.2
11.8
10.7
6.3

55.6
47.7
58.6
52.5
49.6
40.8
53.6
28.4
64.4
39.0
37.3
33.2

84.0
77.8
79.2
81.1
82.9
81.6
79.1
69.3
87.7
83.3
71.8
67.7

86.6
82.5
84.2
85.9
87.7
86.0
83.2
75.9
88.5
87.2
79.4
72.9

90.8
89.5
90.7
90.1
92.7
90.6
89.4
84.4
90.8
92.3
87.8
80.9

95.6
94.7
95.9
97.3
95.9
96.2
92.1
93.6
95.2
97.5
95.5
90.5

102.7
99.6
104.6
104.8
104.6
103.0
106.1
107.5
103.7
101.5
97.2
104.3

105.6
100.4
106.7
106.1
105.6
112.3
107.8
108.2
104.4
99.8
106.5

108.4
118.5
112.8
110.6
109.2
106.3
107.4

110.2
125.2
120.3
113.2
113.6
114.2
108.2

113.0
128.0
125.4
115.8
118.7
119.7
111.4

114.9
128.9
123.0
118.3
126.2
123.3
117.0

Unit labor costs: National currency basis
United States...................................................
Canada...........................................................
Japan..............................................................
Belgium............................. .............................
Denmark.........................................................
France............................................................ .
Germany.........................................................
Italy..............................................................
Netherlands.....................................................
Norway............................................................
Sweden...........................................................
United Kingdom...............................................

25.6
30.9
30.1
15.4
19.5
27.8
7.9
34.4
12.9
15.0
9.8

30.1
43.3
41.7
25.2
24.0
39.8
12.4
52.9
20.4
20.6
14.1

78.8
63.2
91.7
80.3
55.0
61.3
69.4
43.1
93.0
50.8
51.0
59.1

86.7
85.2
93.4
88.1
88.2
93.3
86.5
79.9
93.6
90.4
79.4
82.2

90.5
88.0
94.0
88.7
88.1
93.6
87.9
84.9
91.1
92.2
85.1
84.6

93.7
92.3
95.0
93.0
93.6
96.8
90.3
91.3
92.1
95.6
92.8
91.6

97.7
99.7
96.5
98.1
96.3
99.3
93.1
98.4
95.5
100.0
100.0
98.2

100.6
97.6
104.1
102.3
100.1
102.4
104.5
104.4
102.3
100.9
90.6
100.3

98.5
94.3
104.9
97.9
93.0
97.3
102.0
102.1
96.0
102.9
83.6
99.7

94.8
95.5
100.1
96.4
93.8
94.7
104.7
103.2
94.0
107.1
87.2
102.5

93.5
95.9
95.8
95.6
100.9
95.9
107.2
109.9
94.6
111.4
91.7
104.8

92.0
95.9
93.8
93.3
102.0
92.2
104.6
112.4
92.2
115.2
90.0
107.1

92.4
98.8
96.2
93.7
102.8
92.7
101.8
110.8
92.5
121.5
90.9
111.9

Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis
United States...................................................
Canada...........................................................
Japan...........................................................
Belgium...........................................................
Denmark...................................................
France.............................................................
Germany.........................................................
Italy..............................................................
Netherlands.....................................................
Noway............................................................
Sweden...........................................................
United Kingdom...............................................

32.0
10.9
19.4
13.5
21.1
10.4
15.6
16.0
11.3
16.9
15.6

34.8
15.3
27.0
20.3
23.0
17.1
24.4
25.7
17.8
23.1
19.2

78.8
65.3
51.3
88.3
58.9
76.8
59.6
62.0
82.3
63.9
70.3
77.8

86.7
83.6
92.4
77.0
79.0
82.9
76.9
75.6
83.2
86.1
75.4
82.9

90.5
89.8
86.3
72.3
72.6
77.6
73.0
76.2
75.5
82.9
76.8
78.5

93.7
95.6
83.1
89.5
91.3
94.1
87.3
93.8
88.9
95.0
91.3
92.5

97.7
105.1
90.9
92.3
90.8
93.1
87.5
97.6
89.8
95.7
96.3
98.2

100.6
91.4
118.8
95.1
93.2
95.6
98.6
81.8
96.8
88.3
67.7
85.3

98.5
83.4
130.1
94.2
88.3
92.9
98.2
78.1
92.8
90.7
63.1
86.5

94.8
84.1
135.1
105.2
101.1
100.6
114.1
78.0
103.0
105.0
71.2
91.6

93.5
85.0
111.7
99.3
105.0
99.2
111.3
87.8
98.6
107.1
79.7
92.6

92.0
83.6
98.3
83.7
93.1
83.6
94.1
81.3
83.0
101.1
68.6
99.3

92.4
80.5
93.1
83.0
92.6
83.2
90.3
78.6
82.0
100.0
66.6
105.0

France...........................................................
Germany........................................................
Italy................................................................
Netherlands....................................................
Norway......................................................
Sweden..........................................................
United Kingdom..............................................

_

Output

United States..................................................
Canada..........................................................
Japan.............................................................
Denmark.........................................................
France............................................................
Germany.........................................................
Italy.................................................................
Netherlands.....................................................
Norway........................................................
Sweden..........................................................
United Kingdom...............................................

_

Total hours

United States...................................................
Canada...........................................................
Japan.............................................................
Belgium..........................................................
Denmark......................................................
France............................................................
Germany.........................................................
Italy.................................................................
Netherlands....................................................
Norway.....................................................
Sweden...........................................................
United Kingdom...............................................

-

-

_

_

_

_

89 5
78.7
97.1
90.8
112.3
104.2
105.4

«« «

or, r.

84.2
98.0
91.6
106.9
105.3
102.9

01 0
80.1
96.5
90.5
107.9
105.3
104.8

79.6
99.3
91.2
113.2
106.6
105.0

79.5
98.6
109.8
108.0
100.5

107.9
103.6
109.5
109.2

109.3
102.8
110.9
112.0

111.4
106.7
113.9
115.2

117.3
110.8
115.8
116.0

123.2
110.8
117.7
116.0

_

Compensation per hour

-

-

-

_

_

_

119.3
130.8
126.5
_

133.4
127.4
122.6
91.4
98.1
94.9
93.4
108.9
92.6
101.8
112.0
_

128.5
91.3
112.3
91.4
79.8
105.7
79.3
94.1
79.6
86.6
75.9
_

102.2
64.3
102.8

- Data not available.
NOTE: Data for Germany for years before 1992 are for the former West Germany. Data for 1992 onward are for unified Germany.


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

135

Current Labor Statistics:
46.

Injury and Illness

Occupational injury and illness rates by industry,1United States
Incidence rates per 100 fu ll-tim e w orkers3

Industry and type of case

1989 1

1990

1991

1992

CO
o>
o>

PRIVATE SECTOR

1988

1994 4 1995 4

1996 4 1 9 9 7 4 1998 4

1999 4

5

Total cases..................................................
Lost workday cases......................................................
Lost workdays.........................................................
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing

8.6
40
76.1

8.6
4.0

8.8

8.4

8.9

78.7

84.0

86.5

93.8

10.9

11.6

10.8

11.6

100.9

112.2

108.3

126.9

8.5
3.8

8.4
3.8

8.1
3.6

7.4
3.4

7.1
3.3

6.7
3.1

6.3
3.0

11.2
5.0

10.0
4.7

9.7
4.3

8.7
3.9

8.4
4.1

7.9
3.9

7.3
3.4

6.8
3.9

6.3
3.9

6.2
3.9

5.4
3.2

5.9
3.7

4.9
2.9
-

4.4
2.7
-

12.2
5.5

11.8
5.5

10.6
4.9
”

9.9
4.5

9.5
4.4

8.8
4.0
-

8.6
4.2
-

11.5
5.1

10.9
5.1

9.8
4.4

9.0
4.0

8.5
3.7

8.4
3.9
-

8.0
3.7
-

5

Total cases.................................................
Lost workday cases....................................
Lost workdays........................................................

10.9
& fi
101.8

Mining

Total cases.....................................................
Lost workday cases...........................................
Lost workdays..............................................

8.8
5.1
152.1

8.5

8.3

7.4

7.3

137.2

119.5

129.6

204.7

14.6
6,8
142.2

14.3
fi ft
143.3

14.2

13.0

13.1

147.9

148.1

161.9

General building contractors:
Total cases............................................................
Lost workday cases..............................................
Lost workdays........................................................

14.0
64
132.2

13.9
6,5
137.3

13.4
6.4
137.6

12.0

12.2

132.0

142.7

Heavy construction, except building:
Total cases......................................................
Lost workday cases.............................................
Lost workdays.....................................................

15.1
7.0
162.3

13.8
6.5
147.1

13.8
6.3
144.6

12.8
6.0
160.1

12.1
5.4
165.8

11.1
5.1

10.2
5.0

9.9
4.8

9.0
4.3

8.7
4.3

8.2
4.1

7.8
3.8

Special trades contractors:
Total cases............................................
Lost workday cases.............................
Lost workdays.....................................

14.7
7.0
141.1

14.6
6.9
144.9

14.7
6.9
153.1

13.5
6.3
151.3

13.8
6.1
168.3

12.8
5.8

12.5
5.8

11.1
5.0

10.4
4.8

10.0
4.7

9.1
4.1

8.9
4.4

13.1
5.7
107.4

13.1
5.8
113.0

13.2
5.8
120.7

12.7
5.6
121.5

12.5
5.4
124.6

12.1
5.3

12.2
5.5

11.6
5.3

10.6
4.9

10.3
4.8

9.7
4.7
-

9.2
4.6
-

14.2
5.9
111.1

14.1
6.0
116.5

14.2
6.0
123.3

13.6
5.7
122.9

13.4
5.5
126.7

13.1
5.4

13.5
5.7

12.8
5.6

11.6
5.1

11.3
5.1

10.7
5.0

10.1
4.8

19.5

18.4

18.1

16.8

16.3

15.9
7.6

15.7
7.7

14.9
7.0

14.2
6.8

13.5
6.5

189.1

177.5

172.5

13.2
6.8

172.0

13.0
6.7

165.8

Furniture and fixtures:
Total cases............................................
Lost workday cases........................
Lost workdays......................................

16.6
7.3
115.7

16.1
7.2
-

16.9
7.8

15.9
7.2
-

14.8
6.6
128.4

14.6
6.5

15.0
7.0

13.9
6.4

12.2
5.4

12.0
5.8

11.4
5.7

11.5
5.9

Stone, clay, and glass products:
Total cases.......................................
Lost workday cases...................................
Lost workdays.............................

16.0
7.5
141.0

15.5
7.4
149.8

15.4
7.3
160.5

14.8
6.8
156.0

13.6
6.1
152.2

13.8
6.3

13.2
6.5

12.3
5.7

12.4
6.0

11.8
5.7

11.8
6.0

10.7
5.4

Primary metal industries:
Total cases.................................
Lost workday cases..............................
Lost workdays.....................................

19.4
8.2
161.3

18.7
8.1
168.3

19.0
8.1
180.2

17.7
7.4
169.1

17.5
7.1
175.5

17.0
7.3

16.8
7.2

16.5
7.2

15.0
6.8

15.0
7.2

14.0
7.0

12.9
6.3

18.8
8.0
138.8

18.5
7.9
147.6

18.7
7.9
155.7

17.4
7.1
146.6

16.8
6.6
144.0

16.2
6.7

16.4
6.7

15.8
6.9

14.4
6.2

14.2
6.4

13.9
6.5

12.6
6.0

Total cases............................................
Lost workday cases..........................
Lost workdays...................................

12.1
4.7
82.8

12.1
4.8
86.8

12.0
4.7
88.9

11.2
4.4
86.6

11.1
4.2
87.7

11.1
4.2

11.6
4.4

11.2
4.4

9.9
4.0

10.0
4.1

9.5
4.0

8.5
3.7

Electronic and other electrical equipment:
Total cases..............................................
Lost workday cases..........................
Lost workdays...................................

8.0
3.3
64.6

9.1
3.9
77.5

9.1
3.8
79.4

8.6
3.7
83.0

8.4
3.6
81.2

8.3
3.5

8.3
3.6

7.6
3.3

6.8
3.1

6.6
3.1

5.9
2.8

5.7
2.8

17.7
6.6
134.2

17.7
6.8
138.6

17.8
6.9
153.7

18.3
7.0
166.1

18.7
7.1
186.6

18.5
7.1

19.6
7.8

18.6
7.9

16.3
7.0

15.4
6.6

14.6
6.6

13.7
6.4

Instruments and related products:
Total cases....................................
Lost workday cases.....................................
Lost workdays.........................

6.1
2.6
51.5

5.6
2.5
55.4

5.9
2.7
57.8

6.0
2.7
64.4

5.9
2.7
65.3

5.6
2.5

5.9
2.7

5.3
2.4

5.1
2.3

4.8
2.3

4.0
1.9

4.0
1.8

Miscellaneous manufacturing industries:
Total cases.................................
Lost workday cases............
Lost workdays.............................

11.3
5.1
91.0

11.1
5.1
97.6

11.3
5.1
113.1

11.3
5.1
104.0

10.7
5.0
108.2

10.0
4.6
“

9.9
4.5

9.1
4.3

9.5
4.4
-

8.9
4.2
-

8.1
3.9
-

8.4
4.0
-

Construction

Total cases.......................................................
Lost workday cases...................................................
Lost workdays................................................

Manufacturing

Total cases..............................................
Lost workday cases......................................
Lost workdays..............................................
Durable goods:
Total cases.....................................................
Lost workday cases.........................................
Lost workdays.........................................

'

Lumber and wood products:
Total cases..............................................
Lost workday cases...............................
Lost workdays...........................................

Fabricated metal products:
Total cases.......................................
Lost workday cases.....................
Lost workdays.......................................
Industrial machinery and equipment:

Transportation equipment:
Total cases................................
Lost workday cases...................
Lost workdays....................................

S e e fo o tn o te s a t e n d o f ta b le .

136

Monthly Labor Review


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

March 2001

-

_

46.

Continued—Occupational injury and illness rates by industry,1United States
Industry and type of case2
1988

1989

1

1990

1991

1992

1 9 9 3 4 1994 4 1995 4 1996 4 1997 4 1 9 9 8 4

1999 4

N o n d u r a b le g o o d s :
T o t a l c a s e s ........................................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ...........................................................................

11.4
5.4

11.6
5.5
107.8

11.7
5.6
116.9

11.5

5.5

11.3
5.3

10.7
5.0

10.5
5.1

9.9
4.9

9.2
4.6

8.8
4.4

8.2
4.3

7.8
42

18.5
9.2
169.7

18.5
9.3
174.7

20.0
9.9
202.6

19.5
9.9
207.2

18.8
9.5
211.9

17.6
8.9

17.1
9.2

16.3
8.7

15.0
8.0

14.5
8.0

13.6
7.5

12.7
7.3

9.3
2.9
53.0

8.7
3.4
64.2

7.7
3.2
62.3

6.4
2.8
52.0

6.0
2.4
42.9

5.8
2.3

5.3
2.4

5.6
2.6

6.7
2.8

5.9
2.7

6.4
3.4

5.5
22

9.6
4.0
78.8

10.3
4.2
81.4

9.6
4.0
85.1

10.1
4.4
88.3

9.9
4.2
87.1

9.7
4.1

6.7
3.1

7.4
34

64
3,2

8.1
3.5
68.2

8.6
3.8
80.5

8.8
3.9
92.1

9.2
4.2
99.9

9.5
4.0
104.6

9.0
3.8

7.4
3.3

7.0
3.1

6.2
2.6

5.8
28

13.1
5.9
124.3

12.7
5.8
132.9

12.1
5.5
124.8

11.2
5.0
122.7

11.0
5.0
125.9

9.9
4.6

9.6
4.5

8.5
4.2

7.9
3.8

7.3
3.7

7.1
3.7

7.0
3.7

6.6
3.2
59.8

6.9
3.3
63.8

6.9
3.3
69.8

6.7
3.2
74.5

7.3
3.2

6.9
3.1

6.7
3.0

6.4
3.0

6.0
2.8

5.7
2.7

5.4
28

5.0
2,6

7.0
3.3
59.0

7.0
3.2
63.4

6.5
3.1
61.6

6.4
3.1
62.4

6.0
2.8
64.2

5.9
2.7

5.7
2.8

5.5
2.7

4.8
2.4

4.8
2.3

4.2
2.1

4.4
23

-

-

7.0
3.2
68.4

6.6
3.3
68.1

6.6
3.1
77.3

6.2
2.9
68.2

5.9
2.8
71.2

5.2
2.5

4.3
2.2

3.9
1.8

4.1
18

16.3
8.1
142.9

16.2
8.0
147.2

16.2
7.8
151.3

15.1
7.2
150.9

14.5
6.8
153.3

13.9
6.5

11.9
5.8

11.2
5.8

10.1
55

11.4
5.6
128.2

13.6
6.5
130.4

12.1
5.9
152.3

12.5
5.9
140.8

12.1
5.4
128.5

12.1
5.5

10.6
4.3

9.8
4.5

10.3
5.0

8.9
5.1
118.6

9.2
5.3
121.5

9.6
5.5
134.1

9.3
5.4
140.0

9.1
5.1
144.0

9.5
5.4

9.3
5.5

8.2
4.8

7.3
4.3

7.3
44

-

-

7.8
3.5
60.9

8.0
3.6
63.5

7.9
3.5
65.6

7.6
3.4
72.0

8.4
3.5
80.1

8.1
3.4

6.7
3.0

6.5
28

61
27

7.6
3.8
69.2

7.7
4.0
71.9

7.4
3.7
71.5

7.2
3.7
79.2

7.6
3.6
82.4

7.8
3.7

6.5
3.2

6.5
3.3

6.3
33

7.9
3.4
57.6

8.1
3.4
60.0

8.1
3.4
63.2

7.7
3.3
69.1

8.7
3.4
79.2

8.2
3.3

7.9
3.3

7.5
3.0

6.8
2.9

6.5
2.7

6.1
25

-

-

-

2.0
.9
17.2

2.0
.9
17.6

2.4
1.1
27.3

2.4
1.1
24.1

2.9
1.2
32.9

2.9
1.2

2.7
1.1

2.6
1.0

2.4
.9

2.2
.9

7
.5

8

-

-

-

-

5.4
2.6
47.7

5.5
2.7
51.2

6.0
2.8
56.4

6.2
2.8
60.0

7.1
3.0
68.6

6.7
2.8

5.6
2.5

5.2
2.41

L o s t w o r k d a y s .............................................................................
F o o d a n d k in d re d p ro d u c ts :
T o t a l c a s e s ....................................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ..........................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s .....................................................................................
T o b a c c o p ro d u c ts :
T o t a l c a s e s ...............................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s .....................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ...................................................................

_

_

T e x t i l e m il l p r o d u c t s :
T o t a l c a s e s .......................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ..........................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ................................................................................

8.7
4.0

-

8.2
4.1

7.8
3.6

-

_

_

A p p a r e l a n d o t h e r t e x tile p ro d u c ts :
T o t a l c a s e s ....................................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ..........................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s .........................................................................

8.9
3.9

8.2
3.6

_

-

_

P a p e r a n d a llie d p r o d u c ts :
T o t a l c a s e s ...............................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s .............................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ........................................................................

■

■

P r i n t in g a n d p u b lis h i n g :
T o t a l c a s e s .......................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ..........................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ..............................................................................

_

C h e m ic a ls a n d a llie d p r o d u c ts :
T o t a l c a s e s ...........................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ...........................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s .................................................................

_

_

P e tr o le u m a n d c o a l p ro d u c ts :
T o t a l c a s e s ............................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ..................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ......................................................................

4.7
2.3

-

4.8
2.4

4.6
2.5

-

-

_

R u b b e r a n d m is c e lla n e o u s p la s tic s p r o d u c ts :
T o t a l c a s e s ...........................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ..................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s .....................................................

14.0
6.7

-

12.9
6.5

-

12.3
6.3

_

_

L e a th e r a n d le a t h e r p r o d u c ts :
T o t a l c a s e s .......................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ..................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ...................................................

12.0
5.3

-

11.4
4.8

-

-

10.7
4.5
_

Transportation and public utilities
T o t a l c a s e s .........................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s .............................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s .....................................................................

9.1
5.2
-

8.7
5.1
-

Wholesale and retail trade
T o t a l c a s e s ..........................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ..................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ..........................................................................

-

7.9
3.4
_

7.5
3.2
_

6.8
2.9
_

W h o le s a le tra d e :
T o t a l c a s e s ................................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s .............................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ........................................................

_

7.7
3.8
-

7.5
3.6
_

6.6
3.4
_

R e ta il tra d e :
T o t a l c a s e s .............................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ..............................................................

6.9
2.8
-

Finance, insurance, and real estate
T o t a l c a s e s ......................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s ..........................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ..........................................................

Services
T o t a l c a s e s ..................................................................
L o s t w o r k d a y c a s e s .............................................
L o s t w o r k d a y s ...........................................................

-

6.5
2.8
-

6.4
2.8
-

6.0
2.6
-

4.9
22

1 Data for 1989 and subsequent years are based on the S ta n d a rd In d u s tria l C la ss­
1987 Edition. For this reason, they are not strictly comparable with data
for the years 1985-88, which were based on the S ta n d a rd In d u stria l C la ssifica tion
M a n u a l, 1972 Edition, 1977 Supplement.

N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays;
EH = total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year; and
200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50
weeks per year).

2 Beginning with the 1992 survey, the annual survey measures only nonfatal injuries and
illnesses, while past surveys covered both fatal and nonfatal incidents. To better address
fatalities, a basic element of workplace safety, BLS implemented the Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries.

4 Beginning with the 1993 survey, lost workday estimates will not be generated. As of
1992, BLS began generating percent distributions and the median number of days away
from work by industry and for groups of workers sustaining similar work disabilities.
5 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976.
Dash indicates data not available.

ific a tio n M a n u a l,

3 The incidence rates represent the number of Injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per
100 full-time workers and were calculated as (N/EH) X 200,000, where:


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

Monthly Labor Review

March 2001

137

Current Labor Statistics:

47.

Injury and Illness

Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure, 1993-98
Fatalities

1998

1993-97

19972

Average

Number

Event or exposure1

Number

Percent

Total.......................................................................................

6,335

6,238

6,026

100

Transportation incidents......................................................................

2,611
1,334
652
109
234
132
249
360
267
388
214
315
373
106
83

2,605
1,393
640
103
230
142
282
387
298
377
216
261
367
109
93

2,630
1,431
701
118
271
142
306
373
300
384
216
223
413
112
60

44
24
12

1,241
995
810
75
110
215

1,111
860
708
73
79
216

960
709
569
61
79
223

16
12
9

1,005
573
369
65
290
153
124

1,035
579
384
54
320
189
118

941
517
317
58
266
129
140

16

668
591
94
139
83
52

716
653
116
154
87
44

702
623

10

111

2

156
97
51

2

586
320
128
43
120
70
101
80

554
298
138
40
123
59
90
72

572
334
153
46
104
48
87
75

9
6
3

199

196

205

3

26

21

16

Highway incident...........................................................................
Collision between vehicles, mobile equipment..........................
Moving in same direction........................................................
Moving in opposite directions, oncoming................................
Moving in intersection.............................................................
Vehicle struck stationary object or equipment...........................
Noncollision incident...................................................................
Jackknifed or overturned—no collision...................................
Nonhighway (farm, industrial premises) incident..........................
Overturned..................................................................................
Aircraft...........................................................................................
Worker struck by a vehicle............................................................
Water vehicle incident...................................................................
Railway..........................................................................................
Assaults and violent acts.....................................................................

Homicides......................................................................................
Shooting.....................................................................................
Stabbing.....................................................................................
Other, including bombing..........................................................
Self-inflicted injuries.......................................................................
Contact with objects and equipment...............................................

Struck by falling object...............................................................
Struck by flying object................................................................
Caught in or compressed by equipment or objects......................
Caught in running equipment or machinery...............................
Falls............................................................................................................

Fall from ladder..........................................................................

Fall on same level.........................................................................

Contact with overhead power lines............................................
Contact with temperature extremes..............................................

Oxygen deficiency........................................................................

Other events or exposures9...............................................................

3

1 Based on the 1992 BLS Occupational Injury and Illness

2

4
2
5
6
5
6
4
4
7
2
1

1
1

4
9
5
1

4
2
2
12

3
1

1

2
1
1

1

Includes the category "Bodily reaction and exertion."

Classification Structures.
2 The BLS news release issued August 12, 1998, reported a
total of 6,218 fatal work injuries for calendar year 1997. Since
then, an additional 20 job-related fatalities were identified,
bringing the total job-related fatality count for 1997 to 6,238.

138

Monthly Labor Review


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

NOTE: Totals for major categories may include sub­
categories not shown separately. Percentages may not add to
totals because of rounding. Dash indicates less than 0.5
percent.

March 2001

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Freebies From BLS Keep You Inform ed
The Bureau's series of issue papers provides you with succinct, up-to-the-minute background data in a
readily digested form. They're convenient, current, and easy to read and free. To be added to the Issues
in Labor Statistics mailing list (No. 336), write to: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Publications and
Special Studies, Room 2850, 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE., Washington, DC 20212-0001, or FAX the cou­
pon below to (202) 606-7891.
H ere are som e recent Issues—

•
•

Health Insurance Premiums Dominate Health care Budget of Consumers
Violence in the Workplace Comes Under Close Scrutiny

•

Part-time Work: A Choice Or A Response

•

The Demographics of Family Spending

•
•

What’s Behind U.S. Competitiveness?
Unpaid Family Leave

•

Outdoor Occupations Exhibit High Rates of Fatal Injury

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Displacement Spreads to Higher Paid Managers and Professionals
Health and Social Services Provide Rich Soil for New Occupations
Injuries to Caregivers in Patients’ Homes
Workers Are On the Job More Hours Over the Course of the Year
Health Expenditures and the Aging Population
Looking for a Job While Employed
Serious Injuries Befall Workers Struck by Objects
Who’s Not Working?
Employer-sponsored Childcare Benefits
Spending Patterns of High and Low-income Households
Auto Dealers Are Fewer, Bigger, and Employ More Workers
Computer Ownership in the 1990s

Yes, please add my name to mailing list J336, Issues in Labor Statistics.

Name________________________ ________________________________
Organization____________________________________________________
Street_______


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

Where are you publishing
your research?
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes articles on the
labor force, labor-management relations, business
conditions, industry productivity, compensation,
occupational safety and health, demographic trends
and other economic developments. Papers should be
factual, and analytical, not polemical in tone.
Potential articles, as well as comments on

3

material published in the Review, should be
submitted to:
Editor-in-Chief
M onthly Labor Review
Bureau of Labor Statistics
W ashington, DC 20212
Telephone: (2 0 2)69 1 -59 0 0
E-mail: mlr@ bls.aov

Need more research, facts, and analysis?
Subscribe to Monthly Labor Review today!
United States Government

IN F O R M A T IO N
Credit card orders are welcome!

Order Processing Code:

Fax your orders (202) 512-2250

*5338

□

Phone your orders (202)512-1800

YES,

please send_______ subscriptions to:
M onthly Labor R eview (M LR) at $43 each ($53.75 foreign) per year.
For privacy protection, check the box below:
□ Do not make my name available to other mailers

The total cost of my order is $ ___________.
Price includes regular shipping & handling and is subject to change.

Check method of payment:
Name or title

(Please type or print )

Company name

Room, floor, suite

□

Check payable to: Superintendent of Documents

HU

□ GPO Deposit Account

Street address

□ VISA
State

City
;J3 -

□ MasterCard

Daytime phone including area code

(e x p ira tio n d a te )

—

—

—

Thank you for your order!

—

Purchase order number (optional)

Mail to:

□ Discover

Zip

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,

Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954
Important: Please include this completed order form with your
remittance.

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

Authorizing signature

12/99

Obtaining Information from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Office or topic

Internet address

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Division of Information Services

http://vvvvvv.bls.gov
http://vwvvv.bls.gov/opbinfo.htni

bisdata staff@bls.gov

http://vwvvv.bls.gov/ceshome.htm
http://vwwv.bls.gov/790home.htm
http://vwwv.bls.gov7cpshome.htm
http://vwwv.bls.gov/lauhome.htm
http://vwwv.bls.gov7cevvhome.htm
http://vwwv.bls.gov/oeslioiiie,htm
http://vwvw.bls.gov/laulionie.htm
http://vwwv.bls.gov7nlshome.htm

cesinfo@bls.gov
data_sa@bls.gov
cpsinfo@bls.gov
Iausinfo@bls.gov
202_info@bls.gov
oesinfo@bls.gov
mlsinfo@bls.gov
nlsinfo@bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/cpihome.htm
http://vvvwv.bls.gov/ppihome.htm
http://vwwv.bls.gov7ipphome.htm
http://www.bls.gov/csxhonie.htm

cpsinfo@bls.gov
ppi-info@bls.gov
ippinfo_ipp@bls.gov
cexinfo@bls.gov

Employment and unemployment

Employment, hours, and earnings
National
State and local
National labor force statistics
Local area labor force statistics
Ul-covered employment and wages
Occupational employment statistics
I Mass layoff statistics
^ Longitudinal data
Prices and living conditions

Consumer price indexes (CPI)
Producer price indexes
Import and export price indexes
Consumer expenditures

Compensation and working conditions

National Compensation Survey
Employee benefits
Employment cost trends
Occupational compensation
Occupational illnesses and injuries
Collective bargaining data

http://www.bls.gov7comhome.htm
http://www.bls.gov/ebshome.htm
http://www.bls.gov7ecthonie.htm
http://www.bls.gov/ocshonie.htm
http://www.bls.gov/oshhome.htm
http://www.bls.gov/cbahome.htm

ocltinfo@bls.gov
odtinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
oshstaff@bls.gov
cbainfo@bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/lprhome.htm
http://www.bls.gov/iprhome.htm
http://www.bls.gov/mprhome.gov

dpivveb@ils.gov
dipsweb@bls.gov
dprweb@bls.gov

Projections
Occupational Outlook Handbook

http://www.bls.gov/einphome.htm
http://www.bls.gov/ocohome.htm

oohinfo@bls.gov
oohinfo@bls.gov

Foreign labor statistics

http://www.bls.gov/flshome.htm

flshelp@bls.gov

Productivity

Labor productivity (quarterly)
Industry productivity
Multifactor productivity
Employment projections

BLSinfoAtlanta@bls.gov
Bl NinfoBoston@bls.gov
BLSinfoChicago@bIs.gov
BLSinfoDallas@bIs.gov
BLSinfoKansasCity@bls.gov
BLSinfoNY@bls.gov
BLSinfoPhiladelphia@bls.gov
BLSi nfoSF@bls.gov
( Other Federal statistical agencies

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

http://www.fedstats.gov

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Postal Square Building, Rm. 2850
2 Massachusetts Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20212-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Address Service Requested

MLR
FEDER442F ISSDUE004R
1
FE DE RA L RE SE RV E BANK OF STLOU
CAROL T H A X TO N L I B R AR Y UNIT
PO BOX 442
S A I N T LOUI S
MO
63166

S ch ed u le of release dates for BLS Statistical series
MLR table
number

Series

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

Employment situation

March 9

February

April 6

March

May 4

April

Productivity and costs

March 6

4th quarter

May 8

1st quarter

U.S. Import and Export
Price Indexes

March 15

February

April 11

March

May 10

April

34-38

Producer Price Indexes

March 16

February

April 12

March

May 11

April

2; 31-33

Consumer Price indexes

March 21

February

April 17

March

May 16

April

2; 28-30

Real earnings

March 21

February

April 17

March

May 16

April

14, 16

April 26

1st quarter

Employment Cost Indexes


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

1; 4-20
2; 39-42

1-3; 21-24