Full text of Monthly Labor Review : May 1959, Vol. 82, No. 5
The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
\t
CK
A 15-Article Special Section
Labor and Labor Relations
on the West Coast
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
J ames P. Mitchell, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
E w an C lague,
R
H enry
J.
H erm an
W.
D
Commissioner
J. M y ers,
obert
F it z g e r a l d ,
B.
uane
Deputy Commissioner
Assistant Commissioner
B yer,
Assistant Commissioner
E v ans,
Assistant Commissioner
P h il ip A r n o w ,
Assistant Commissioner
Arnold E. Chase, Chief, Division of Construction Statistics
H. M, D outv, Chief, Division of Wages and Industrial Relations
J o seph P. G oldberg, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
L eon Greenberg , Chief, Division of Productivity and Technological Developments
R ichard F. J ones, Chief, Office of Management
W alter G. K eim , Chief, Office of Field Service
P aul R. K erschbaum, Chief, Office of Program Planning
L awrence R. K lein , Chief, Office of Publications
H yman L. L ewis , Chief, Office of Labor Economies
F rank S. M cE lroy, Chief, Division of Industrial Hazards
H . E. R iley , Chief, Division of Prices and Cost of Living
Abe R othman, Chief, Office of Statistical Standards
M orris W eisz, Chief, Division of Foreign Labor Conditions
Seymour L. W olfbein , Chief, Division of Manpower and Employment Statistics
Regional Offices and Directors
NEW ENGLAND REGION
W endell D. M acdonald
18 Oliver Street
Boston 10, Mass.
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Maine
Rhode Island
Massachusetts Vermont
SOUTHERN REGION
B runswick A. B agdon
1371 Peachtree St, NE.
Suite 540
Atlanta 9, Ga.
Alabama
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Florida
S o u th C arolin a
Georgia
Tennessee
Louisiana
Texas
Virginia
Mississippi
M ID D L E ATLANTIC REGION
H erbert Bienstock
Acting Director
341 Ninth Avenue
New York 1, N.Y.
Delaware
New York
Maryland
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
District o) Columbia
NORTH CEN TRA L REGION
Adolph O. B erger
105 West Adams Street
Chicago 3, 111.
Illinois
Missouri
Indiana
Nebraska
Iowa
North Dakota
Kansas
Ohio
Kentucky
South Dakota
Michigan
West Virginia
Minnesota
Wisconsin
W ESTERN REGION
M ax D. K ossoris
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco 11, Calif.
Arizona
New Mexico
California
Oregon
Colorado
Utah
Idaho
Washington
Montana
Wyoming
Nevada
The Monthly Labor Review is for sale by the regional offices listed above and by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington 25, D.C.—Subscription price per year—S6.25 domestic; $7.75 foreign. Price 55 cents a copy.
The distribution of subscription copies is handled by the Superintendent of Documents. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the editor-in-chief.
Use o f fu n d » for p r in tin g th is p u b lic a tio n a p p r o v e d bu th e D irec to r o f th e B u rea u o f th e B u d g e t ( O c to b er 1 1 ,1956),
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR • BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
L a w r e n c e R . K l e i n , Editor-in-Chief
M a r y S. B e d e l l , Executive Editor
CONTENTS
Labor and Labor Relations on the West Coast
489
492
502
509
518
524
530
536
539
543
547
552
558
564
572
West Coast Labor: Its Past and Its Prospects
Inmigration and Its Effect on Labor Force Characteristics
Economic Growth Patterns in Washington and Oregon
Shifts in California’s Industrial and Employment Composition
Farm Labor: Supply, Policies, and Practices
Trends in Wages, Earnings, and Per Capita Income
Trade Union Characteristics, Membership, and Influence
Major Trends in Labor Relations
Association Bargaining
The Use of Arbitration
The Trucking Industry
The Maritime Industry
The Lumber Industry
Unemployment Disability Insurance in California
The Development of Health Insurance Plans
Departments
587
579
583
584
588
592
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Union Conventions, June 16 to July 15, 1959
Significant Decisions in Labor Cases
Chronology of Recent Labor Events
Developments in Industrial Relations
Book Reviews and Notes
Current Labor Statistics
May 1959 • Voi. 82 • No. 5
An Expression of Gratitude to the Authors
Even the most profound thanks to the 15 authors listed below, whose work
comprises this West Coast issue, would be a meager expression of the grati
tude of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We remain in their debt. This senti
ment also applies to the forbearance they displayed over many months in the
face of what to them must have seemed editorial tyranny, although no effort
was made to make their point of view conform with any official policy respect
ing the general subject matter.
Associate Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of
California, Los Angeles
B e n j a m in A aron,
M in e r
H. B a k e r , Vice President and Economist, Seattle-First National Bank
Research Associate, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of
California, Los Angeles
a r t . F. C h e it , Associate Research Economist, Institute of Industrial Relations, and
Visiting Associate Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley
I r ving B e r n s t e in ,
F
V a rden F u e l e r , Professor
of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, University of
California, Berkeley
J o s e p h W. G a r b a r in o , Associate Professor of Industrial Relations and Associate Research
Economist, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley
I. G e r s h e n s o n , Chief, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, California
Department of Industrial Relations
M argaret S. G ordon , Associate Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of
California, Berkeley
V a n D u s e n K e n n e d y , Professor of Industrial Relations and Research Associate, Institute
of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley
M a u r ic e
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
C l a r k K err , President,
P aul
L.
K l ein so r g e ,
M.
W.
R.
T h a y n e R o b so n ,
R eder ,
University of California
Professor of Economics, University of Oregon
Professor of Economics, Stanford University
Assistant Professor of Economics and Assistant Research Economist,
Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Los Angeles
Professor of Industrial Relations and Director, Institute of Industrial
Relations, University of California, Berkeley
A r th ur M. R o ss,
H. S c h n e id e r , Assistant Research Economist, Institute of Industrial Relations,
University of California, Berkeley
B etty V .
West Coast Labor:
Its Past and Its Prospects
C lark K err
h e y e a r 1959 will be remembered on the West
Coast for three highly significant events—the
inauguration of regular transcontinental jet air
service, the admission of Alaska into the union,
and the enactment of the Hawaii statehood bill.
The first of these events is an important landmark
in the long series of developments which have
broken down the barrier of remoteness from the
great population centers of the East, while, with
the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, the Pacific
Coast loses its historic position as the westernmost
outpost of the Nation and assumes a new role as a
vital link between the two outlying States and the
continental United States. Although it is difficult
to predict the ultimate impact of these events on
the future development of the Far West, there is
little doubt that in the long run, they will con
tribute to the economic expansion of the area.
Thus the Monthly Labor Review could hardly
have chosen a more appropriate time for the ap
pearance of an issue especially concerned with
labor markets on the Pacific Coast. The last such
issue appeared in April 1947 and was inevitably
focused chiefly on the dramatic changes that had
occurred during World War II. Yet it was clearly
too early to evaluate the long-run significance of
the wartime shifts. Now, 12 years later, the an
alyst is in a far better position to consider the
effects of the decisive changes that have occurred
since the 1930’s.
As one of the contributors to the 1947 issue, I
am particularly impressed by another important
advantage which the contributor to this issue has
over his predecessor of a dozen years ago. The
statistical tools at his disposal are immensely su
perior to those available in 1947. As a result of a
notable program of Federal-State cooperation, in
which the U.S. Department of Labor has played
an important role, there has been a steady im
T
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
provement in the quantity and quality of statistical
data relating to population changes and labor
market conditions in the various States. Although
there is still room for improvement, the articles in
this issue provide impressive evidence of the wealth
of current statistical information available.
Industrial Relations on the Pacific Coast
Historically, the distinguishing features of in
dustrial relations on the Pacific Coast have been
closely associated with the special economic char
acteristics of the region. For nearly a century
from the 1840’s onward, the economic development
of the coastal States was heavily dependent on the
growth of their extractive industries. To the ex
tent that manufacturing activity emerged, it was
largely concentrated in industries processing the
products of farm and forest or in industries serv
ing local markets. Lumber, fresh and canned
fruits and vegetables, wheat, wine, oil, and movies
became the major “export” products. Outside of
the lumber industry, durable goods manufacturing
was relatively underdeveloped by comparison with
the major industrial centers of the East and Middle
West.
Of secondary but by no means negligible im
portance in the economic development of the Pa
cific Coast was the role of its port cities in the
growth of trade and communication throughout
the Pacific area. And a third factor of consider
able significance was the attraction of the region
for tourists and, particularly in southern Califor
nia, for winter residents and elderly retired people.
Thus, from an early period, trade, transporta
tion, and service industries accounted for a rela
tively large proportion of the labor force. In
California, moreover, the early development of
giant farms, which had widely fluctuating
requirements for hired labor, meant that agricul
ture never accounted for as large a proportion of
year-round employment as in the farm States of
489
490
the Middle West. The comparative underrepre
sentation of family-sized farms also meant that
the rural areas of California never became as im
portant a source of labor supply for its cities as
did the rural areas of the Middle West and South,
although there was both seasonal and cyclical
migration of a floating labor supply back and
forth between farm and city.1
Another predominant characteristic of the
Pacific Coast, its remoteness from other important
sources of labor supply, played a major role in
determining the course of development of its labor
relations. Despite substantial inmigration, labor
tended to be a relatively scarce factor of produc
tion. Wage rates were high from the days of the
Gold Rush onward, and though wage differentials
between the Pacific Coast and the Nation as a
whole tended to decline, an appreciable difference
remained. Union activity developed early, par
ticularly in the San Francisco and Seattle areas,
and, because of the difficulty of importing non
union workers, employers were handicapped in
combatting union demands.
Given the structure of employment, unions
gained most of their strength in nonfactory in
dustries. Although factory workers were success
fully organized in some instances, such nonfactory
groups as the longshore, maritime, trucking, and
building trades became the major centers of union
ism. There were also relatively early attempts to
organize workers in retail and wholesale trade,
and in some of the service industries. In most of
these nonfactory industries, there were compara
tively few large employers, and unions were in a
position to subject the numerous small employers
to whipsawing maneuvers. This helps to account
for the many, though generally abortive, attempts
to form employer associations during the first few
decades of the present century.2 But from the
middle 1930’s onward, stable employer associations
developed rapidly, and multiple-employer bar
gaining became the predominant pattern, particu
larly in the San Francisco and Seattle areas.3
Finally, the prevalence of violence and sharp
industrial conflict in West Coast labor relations
was likewise associated with its industrial struc
ture. Important centers of union strength were in
the mining, martime, and lumber industries, all of
which were distinguished by their high “propen
sity” to strike.4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
Changes Since the 1930*s
The casual observer of regional economic data
will be particularly struck by the rapidity of pop
ulation growth on the Pacific Coast in the last few
decades and by the marked growth and diversifica
tion of manufacturing activity. Yet, as Margaret
S. Gordon shows, the statistics for the geograph
ical division as a whole are somewhat misleading,
since they reflect chiefly what has been happening
in California. Only during World War I I did
Washington and Oregon experience spectacular
population growth. Also, Washington’s economy
lias been much less affected by industrial develop
ment than that of California, while Oregon con
tinues to be heavily dependent on its lumber
industry.
Furthermore, the extent of industrial diversifi
cation that has occurred, even in California,
should not be exaggerated. As the Gershenson
and Gordon articles indicate, much of the growth
in manufacturing employment has taken place in
the aircraft and other defense-related industries.
Along with the increase in manufacturing activ
ity, there has been a rise in the proportion of union
membership in manufacturing. Nevertheless, in
1956, as Bernstein shows, nonfactory unions still
accounted for a substantially larger proportion of
total union membership in California, and prob
ably also in the Pacific Northwest, than in the
Nation as a whole. In other respects as well, the
distinctive features of West Coast industrial rela
tions still prevail, though many of the contrasts
between the Pacific Coast and the Nation are less
marked than before World War II. The degree
of union penetration continues to be greater than
in the Nation, but, with the increase of union
strength elsewhere, the difference is not quite as
1 See L. V. F u ller, The Supply of A g ricu ltu ral L abor as a F a c
to r in the E volution of F a rm O rganization in C alifornia, H earin g s
on V iolations of F re e Speech and R ig h ts of L abor Before a Sub
com m ittee of th e S enate C om m ittee on E d u catio n and L abor (76th
Cong., 3d sess.), P t. 5 4 : A g ricu ltu ral L abor in C alifornia, 1940,
pp. 19777-19898.
2 See R obert E. L. K night, A H isto ry of L abor R elation s in
N o rth ern C alifornia, 1900-1918, to be published by th e U niversity
of C alifo rn ia P ress.
3 See C lark K err an d Lloyd H. F isher, M ultiple-E m ployer B a r
gain in g : T he San F rancisco E xperience, in R ich a rd A. L ester an d
Joseph S hister, editors, In sig h ts in to L abor Issu es (New York,
M acm illan Co., 1948), pp. 25—61.
i
See C lark K e rr an d A braham Siegel, The In te rin d u s try P ro
pensity to S trike— An In te rn a tio n a l C om parison, in A rth u r Kornh auser, R obert D ubin, A rth u r M. Ross, editors, In d u s tria l Con
flict (New York, M cG raw -H ill Book Co., Inc., 1954), pp. 189-212.
WEST COAST LABOR
great.5 Similarly, though multiple-employer bar
gaining continues to be more highly developed on
the West Coast than elsewhere, it has probably
become more prevalent in other parts of the
Nation in the postwar years.
Perhaps the most marked contrast with the pre
war situation in industrial relations is that the
Pacific Coast no longer stands out as an area of
particularly acute industrial conflict. In part,
this is a reflection of the maturing of collective
bargaining relationships, but it also reflects to
some extent the changes in the industrial distribu
tion of union membership that have occurred and
the special factors that have led to a decline in
conflict “on the waterfront.” 6
In one respect, there has been virtually no
change since before World War II. Wage rates
on the Pacific Coast continue to be comparatively
high, and, as Reder indicates, there is little evi
dence of an appreciable decline in wage differen
tials between the Pacific Coast and the Nation
since 1940.
Changing Position of Southern California
No discussion of changes in Pacific Coast labor
markets during the last few decades would be
complete without some reference to the shift in
the distribution of population and economic activ
ity toward southern California. By 1958, the 11
counties of southern California accounted for an
estimated 47 percent of the entire population of
the Pacific Coast, as compared with about 37 per
cent in 1930.7 A similar shift has occurred in the
distribution of the labor force. The rapid indus
trial development of southern California has been
accompanied by marked changes in labor market
conditions in the area. Until World W ar II,
factory wage rates in the Los Angeles area were
distinctly lower than in the other major metro
politan areas of the Pacific Coast. As Reder
shows, this difference has been narrowing. Fur
thermore, Los Angeles has long since ceased to be
an “open shop” community, and, as Bernstein
indicates, the Los Angeles area probably had more
union members than the San Francisco area by
the end of World War II. Since then, it has
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
491
continued to gain ground by comparison with the
older centers of union strength.
The Outlook for the Future
The long-run outlook is certainly for continued
industrial development of the Far West. Despite
the present heavy dependence on defense-related
employment, there has been an encouraging
growth of other types of manufacturing activity,
particularly in such young industries as electron
ics, which are not totally dependent on the defense
program. The growth of the West Coast market,
moreover, has stimulated the growth of construc
tion, the manufacturing of consumer goods, and
trade and service activities. Industrial develop
ment in Alaska and Hawaii is likely also to benefit
the Pacific Coast.
As industrial development proceeds, differences
in labor market conditions and industrial rela
tions patterns between the Pacific Coast and the
Nation will probably continue to narrow. But
the changes will not necessarily take place
smoothly. In the past, the growth of population
and economic activity on the Pacific Coast has
not occurred gradually, but in a series of spurts,
and this tendency is unlikely to disappear.
5'Troy’s d a ta on union m em bership ind icate th a t, in 1939,
27.1 percent of n o n ag rieu ltu ral em ployees on th e Pacific C oast
w ere union m em bers, a s com pared w ith 21.5 p ercen t in the
N ation. I n 1953, th e corresponding percentages w ere 39.1 fo r
th e Pacific C oast a n d 32,6 fo r the N ation. Thus, th e difference
h as increased slightly in num erical term s b u t h as declined some
w h a t in percentage term s. See Leo T roy, D istrib u tio n of Union
M em bership am ong th e S tates, 1939 an d 1953 (New York, N a
tio n a l B ureau of Econom ic R esearch, Inc., 1957), pp. 4 -5 an d
18.
e See th e a rtic le by B e tty V. H. S chneider on pp. 552-557 of th is
issue an d h er In d u stria l R elations in the W est C oast M aritim e
In d u stry (Berkeley, U n iv ersity of C alifornia, I n s titu te of I n
d u s tria l R elations, 1958), See, also, S chneider an d A braham
Siegel, In d u s tria l R elations in th e Pacific C oast Longshore I n
d u stry (Berkeley, U niversity of C alifornia, I n s titu te of In d u s tria l
R elations, 1956), a n d C lark K err an d Lloyd H. F ish er, Conflict
on th e W a te rfro n t (in A tla n tic M onthly, Boston, Septem ber
1949, pp. 1 7 -2 3 ).
7 T he 11 counties a re Im perial, Inyo, K ern, Los Angeles,
Orange, R iverside, San B ernardino, S an Diego, S an L uis Obispo,
S a n ta B a rb ara, and V entura. F o r estim ates of th e population of
these counties in 1958, see C a lifo rn ia’s P o p u latio n in 1958
(S acram ento, C alifo rn ia D ep artm en t of F inance, 1958). F o r
1930 population of these counties, see U.S. Census of P o p u la tio n :
1950, Vol. I, tab le 5. P o p u latio n d a ta fo r th e Pacific C oast m ay
be fo u n d in tab le 1 of M a rg aret S. G ordon’s a rtic le on p. 494
of th is issue.
Inmigration and Its Effect on
Labor Force Characteristics
Population and employment gains on the West
Coast have caused industrial and labor force shifts
more generally in line with national trends.
M argaret S. G ordon
o t h t h e p o p u l a t i o n and the labor force of the
Pacific Coast region have more than doubled dur
ing the quarter of a century since the beginning of
the depression of the 1930’s. The intervening
years have been characterized by striking changes
in the industrial characteristics of the region and
by a heavy influx of workers from other parts of
the Nation to take advantage of the expansion of
job opportunities that has accompanied the
region’s industrial development.
B
Population Growth
In 1958, approximately 1 out of every 9 persons
in the United States lived in the three Pacific Coast
States, compared with about 1 out of 15 in 1930.
California’s growth substantially outpaced that of
its two northern neighbors, with the result that
its share of the population of the region rose
steadily to more than three-fourths of the total
by 1958 (table 1). The more rapid growth of Cal
ifornia in recent decades, which represented a
continuation of a trend that had prevailed since
about 1910, has been associated with a more
diversified industrial development.
During the 1940’s, the population growth of all
three Pacific Coast States was in large part at
tributable to net inmigration, but in the 1950’s,
the proportion of growth resulting from this factor
fell off somewhat in California and very sharply
in the Pacific Northwest, as shown below:
Net inmigration as percent of population growth 1
California
1940 to 1950____
1950 to 1957____
72. 3
58. 7
Oregon
66. 3
21. 2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Labor Force Changes
The rapid population growth of the Pacific
Coast States in recent decades has been accom
panied by an almost equally rapid growth of the
labor force and by substantial changes in the in
dustrial distribution of employment. Yet the
changes that have occurred have differed among
the three States in significant respects.
Industrial Characteristics. Although agriculture
still plays an important role in the economies of the
Pacific Coast States, the proportion of workers
employed in agriculture has declined substantially
in recent decades, as it has in the Nation.1 In the
nonagricultural sector of the economy, the changes
in California have been considerably more pro
nounced than in the Pacific Northwest.
Washington
61. 0
19. 9
1 Computed from estimates in Current Population Reports, Population
Estimates, Series P-25, No. 72, M ay 1953, and No. 186, Oct. 27 1958, U.S.
Bureau of the Census. Data on net total inmigration were used for these
computations, whereas those in table 5 refer to net civilian inmigration.
492
In fact, only about a fifth of the growth of Ore
gon and Washington was attributable to migration
in the latter period.
The decline in the proportion of growth attrib
utable to migration reflects not only the fall in the
rate of net inmigration but also a sharp rise in the
rate of natural increase, as compared with the
early 1940’s. Although birth rates on the Pacific
Coast had been considerably lower than in the
Nation as a whole throughout the 1930’s, they rose
sharply during World War I I and have since
tended to fluctuate very close to the national level.
Meanwhile, death rates have continued their slow
downward trend.
1 F o r f u rth e r discussion of changes in th e fa rm labo r force,
see th e a rtic le by V arden F u lle r (pp. 518—523 of th is issu e ), an d
fo r a m ore d etailed discussion of changes in th e in d u s tria l dis
trib u tio n of em ploym ent, see th e a rtic le s by M aurice I. G ershen
son an d M iner H . B aker (pp. <509—517 an d 502—508 of th is issu e).
493
INMIGRATION AND THE LABOR FORCE
The most significant development in California
has been an increase in the proportion of workers
engaged in manufacturing, which has been concen
trated in the durable goods industries—particu
larly in the aircraft industry. By 1958, Califor
nia’s employment structure resembled the Nation’s
more closely than before World War II, but the
proportion of workers engaged in manufacturing
was still appreciably lower than in the Nation and
distinctly lower than in some of the heavily indus
trialized States.
Industrial changes in Washington since 1940
have been similar in some respects to those in Cali
fornia, but with important differences. Neither
the proportion of nonagricultural employees en
gaged in manufacturing nor the heavy preponder
ance of manufacturing workers in the durable
goods industries has changed appreciably in
Washington. Within the durable goods sector,
however, the proportion of workers in the lumber
industry has fallen sharply, while the percentage
in the aircraft industry has risen markedly and the
metal products and machinery industries have
made substantial gains in relative importance.
Currently, both Washington and California are
substantially less dependent on the processing of
products of the extractive industries but consid
erably more dependent on defense-related employ
ment than before World War II.
Oregon has experienced less industrial develop
ment than either Washington or California in re
cent decades. The proportion of nonagricultural
employees engaged in manufacturing has fallen
somewhat, while, within manufacturing, employ
ment continues to be heavily concentrated in the
lumber industry.
Other Labor Force Characteristics. In other re
spects, changes in the Pacific Coast labor force
have been largely consistent with nationwide
trends and with the industrial development that
3 S ix teen th C ensus of th e U nited S tates, 1940, P o pulation,
C h a ra c te ristic s of th e N onw hite P o p u latio n by Race, tab les 13,
25, 30, 37, andl 43.
3 U.S. C ensus of P o p u latio n , 1950, S pecial R eport, Series P -E ,
No. i3B, ta b le 20.
* Ibid., No. 3C, tab le 6.
5 See th e d a ta on estim ated n e t m ig ratio n in E v e re tt S. Lee and
o th ers, P o p u latio n R ed istrib u tio n an d Econom ic G row th, U nited
S ta te s, 1870-1950, Vol. I (P h ilad e lp h ia, A m erican P hilosophical
Society, 1957), tab le P -1 .
8 S ix teen th Census of th e U n ited S tates, 1940, P o pulation,
In te rn a l M ig ratio n in th e U nited S tates, 1935-1940, Color an d
Sex of M ig ran ts, tab le 16.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
has occurred. Between 1940 and 1950, the propor
tion of women in the labor force rose appreciably
and has undoubtedly continued to increase during
the 1950’s, although recent data are not available.
The percentage of nonwhites among workers on
the Pacific Coast has tended to be comparatively
small, but it has been somewhat higher in Cali
fornia than in the Pacific Northwest and increased
appreciably in California during the 1940’s,
largely as a result of a sizable influx of Negroes.
In 1940, nonwhites represented only 5.2 percent of
the California labor force, and the majority of
these were Orientals.2 By 1950, the proportion
of nonwhites had risen to 7.0 percent, of whom
two-thirds were Negro.3 Mexican-Americans con
stitute another sizable minority group in Cali
fornia, but not in the Pacific Northwest. While
there are no data on the number of MexicanAmericans in the labor force, persons with Span
ish surnames represented 6.2 percent of Cali
fornia’s labor force in 1950.4
Changes in the occupational distribution of
employed workers on the Pacific Coast have been
consistent with nationwide trends, but the dis
tribution itself has differed materially from the
nationwide pattern, particularly in California and
Washington, and these differences, which are con
sistent with industrial differences, tend to persist
(table 2). The most recent data show that whitecollar workers represent a slightly larger propor
tion of employed workers in all three Pacific Coast
States than in the Nation, but the most pro
nounced differences from the national pattern
occur in individual occupational groups.
Changing Characteristics of Migrants
California. Despite a wealth of statistical evi
dence to the contrary, the popular myth that most
migrants to California are retired Iowa farmers
is still widely prevalent. Actually, the majority
of inmigrants tend to be comparatively young
adults.5 Most of the inmigrants, moreover, come
from urban areas of other States and settle in
urban areas of California.6 The regional sources
of interstate migration to California have gradu
ally been shifting westward, and, by 1950, threefifths of all California residents originating from
other States had been born west of the Mississippi
(table 3). However, between 1940 and 1950, the
494
T a ble 1.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
P opula tio n
and
L a bor F orce , P acific C oast S t a tes
and
U n it e d S t a t e s , S elec ted Y e a r s , 1 9 3 0 -5 8 1
[Numbers in thousands]
Item
California:
Population.............. .............. .............. . ...........................
Labor force 1___ _____ ____ _______________ _______
Oregon:
Population_______________________ ______________
Labor force 1__________________________ . . . ______
Washington:
Population____________ ____ __________ ______ ___
Labor force 1______________________________ ______
1930
(April)
1940
(April)
1950
(April)
1958
(July)
Percent increase
1930 to 1940 1940 to 1950 1950 to 1958 1930 to 1958
5,677
2,499
6,907
2,948
10, 586
4,411
2 14,337
6,311
21.7
18.0
53.3
49.6
35.4
43.1
152.5
152.5
954
409
1,090
453
1,521
620
2 1,773
723
14.2
10.9
39.6
36.7
16.5
16.7
85.9
76.8
1, 563
664
1, 736
717
2,379
958
2 2, 769
1,155
11.1
7.9
37.0
33.7
16.4
20.7
77.1
74.0
Pacific Coast:
Population________ ____________ ________________
Labor force 1_____________________ . . ___________
8,194
3, 572
9,733
4,118
14,487
5, 988
2 18,879
8,189
18.8
15.3
48.8
45.4
30.3
36.8
130.4
129.3
United States:
Population_____________________ ________________
Labor force 1_______________ ____ _________. . . _.
122, 775
48, 595
131, 669
52, 789
150,697
60,054
173,260
73.104
7.2
8.6
14.5
13.8
15.0
21.7
41.1
50.4
69.3
70.0
71.0
71.6
73.1
73.7
75.9
77.1
2.5
2.3
3.0
2.9
3.8
4.6
9.5
10.1
6. 7
7.4
7.4
7.8
9.6
10.0
10.9
11.2
10. 4
5.4
29.7
28.2
13.5
12.0
62.7
51.4
California as percent of Pacific Coast:
Population................ ............................................................
Labor force_____________________ _ __________ .
Pacific Coast as percent of United States:
Population___________________
_______________
. . . ________
Labor force________________ . . .
1 Labor force data for 1930 refer to gainful workers; for later years, to the
total labor force. Moreover, labor force data for 1958 are not strictly
comparable with the earlier data because (1) the labor force tends to rise
seasonally between April and July, (2) the Current Population Survey tends
to yield a higher labor force estimate for the Nation as a whole than the
decennial census, and (3) the 1958 labor force estimates for States are based,
not on household survey data, but on an estimate of employment derived
chiefly from establishment reports, plus an estimate of unemployment
based on unemployment insurance data and information from other sources.
The effect of these differences is probably to overstate somewhat the increase
from earlier years to 1958 for both the States and the Nation.
2Preliminary.
N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
westward shift in sources of migration was much
less pronounced than in the previous decade.7
Also worthy of comment is the sharp rise that has
occurred in recent decades in the relative import
ance of the West South Central States as a source
of inmigration.
While migrants have contributed to the growth
of the labor force at all levels of skill, the occupa
tional distribution of employed persons who have
moved to California in recent decades has tended
to vary in accordance with the labor market con
ditions that prevailed at the time they entered the
State. This can be demonstrated on the basis of
several sets of data, of which the most recent are
from the statewide California Health Survey of
1954-55 (table 4).8 Among the male migrants of
recent decades, those who moved to the State dur
ing the World War I I and Korean conflict periods,
when the demand for manual workers rose sharply,
were considerably more likely to be employed in
blue-collar jobs in 1954-55 than the migrants of
the 1930’s or the late 1940’s. Among the women,
the proportion of World War I I migrants em
ployed in blue-collar jobs was likewise relatively
high.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source: Population and labor force, 1930-50, U.S. Census of Population,
1950, pt. 1, table 51, and pts. 5, 37, and 17, table 26. Population, July 1958.
Current Population Reports, Population Estimates, Series P-25, N o. 189,
N ov. 13, 1958, U.S. Bureau of the Census. State labor force estimates, July
1958: California, Employment and Unemployment in California, N o. 60,
October 1958, Departments of Employment and Industrial Relations;
Oregon, Estimated Oregon Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment,
1958, Unemployment Compensation Commission; Washington, The Wash
ington Labor Market, No. 156, October 1958, Employment Security Depart
ment. Total labor force estimates have been derived by adding Armed
Forces to State civilian labor force estimates. United States labor force,
July 1958, Current Population Reports, Labor Force, Series P-57, N o. 193,
August 1958, U .S. Bureau of the Census.
On the other hand, the comparatively high pro
portion of white-collar workers, particularly
farmers and managerial workers, among the pre1930 migrants reflects not so much the particular
labor market conditions at the time they entered
the State as their relatively high average age and
the influence of certain long-term changes in the
occupational structure. Similarly, in comparing
the occupational distribution of workers who never
lived outside the State and of the most recent mi7 In fa c t, if we exam ine th e decade-to-decade increase in th e
num ber of persons born in o th er S tates, by geographical division
of b irth , we find t h a t th e E a s te rn S ta te s co n trib u te d 38 percen t
of th e 1940-50 increase, a s com pared w ith only 17 percen t of
th e 1930-40 increase. See M a rg aret S. Gordon, E m ploym ent
E xpansion an d P o p u latio n G row th : T he C a lifo rn ia E xperience,
1900-1950 (Berkeley, U niversity of C alifo rn ia P ress, 1954),
tab le A—3, A ppendix.
8 F o r a discussion of o th e r d a ta re la tin g to th e occupational
c h a ra c te ristic s of m ig ra n ts, see ibid., pp. 13-17. See, also, W ar
ren S. Thom pson, G row th an d C hanges in C a lifo rn ia’s P o p u la
tion (Los Angeles, T he H aynes F o u n d atio n , 1955), chs. 14 an d
16.
9 T hese differences, am ong both m en and women, are, to some
ex ten t, re la te d to differences in th e racial d istrib u tio n of m i
g ra n ts of v arious periods. A special ta b u la tio n from th e C ali
fo rn ia H ealth Survey (n o t show n) in d icates t h a t 14 p ercen t
of th e 1940-44 m ig ra n ts (of all ages) w ere Negro, b u t t h a t the
p ercentage of Negroes h a s tended to decline qu ite sh arp ly am ong
th e im m ig ran ts of m ore recen t periods.
495
INMIGRATION AND THE LABOR FORCE
grants, the somewhat higher average age of the
former group must be kept in mind.
Pacific Northwest. Changes in the characteristics
of migrants to the Pacific Northwest in recent dec
ades have been similar to those for California but
with some noteworthy differences. Data from the
1940 Census suggest that inmigrants to the Pacific
Northwest States are somewhat more likely to have
come from rural areas than are those who migrate
10 See foo tn o te 6.
11 S ix teen th C ensus of th e U nited S tates, 1940, P opulation,
I n te rn a l M ig ratio n in th e U nited S tates, 1935-1940, Econom ic
C h a ra c te ristic s of M ig ran ts, tab le 14. C om parison of th e 1935-40
d a ta fo r C alifo rn ia w ith th e d a ta p resen ted in tab le 4 suggests
th a t th e m ig ra n ts of th e 1930’s (w ho cam e in chiefly in th e la tte r
h a lf of th e decade); experienced a su b s ta n tia l am o u n t of upw ard
o ccu p atio n al m obility betw een 1940 a n d 1954-55.
12 F o r th e m etro p o litan a re a s of Oregon and W ashington, com
p ariso n s w ere m ade betw een th e occupational c h a ra c te ristic s of
m ig ra n ts— fro m o u tsid e each a re a — of th e 1949-50 period (1950
Census) an d th e 1935t-40 period (1940 C ensus).
13 U n fo rtu n ately , a n n u a l d a ta on n e t civilian in m ig ratio n
in to Oregon an d W ash in g to n a re n o t available, except fo r very
recen t years. I n in te rp re tin g th e d a ta on n e t to ta l inm igration
fo r these tw o S tates, i t should be k ep t in m ind th a t th e rela
tio n sh ip betw een n e t to ta l in m ig ratio n an d n e t civilian in m ig ra
tio n w ill depend on th e relatio n sh ip betw een n e t changes in the
A rm ed F orces sta tio n ed w ith in th e S ta te an d n e t changes in th e
civ ilian popu latio n a ttrib u ta b le to e n try in to or w ith d ra w a l from
th e A rm ed F orces. D a ta fo r C alifo rn ia in d icate t h a t n e t civilian
in m ig ratio n exceeded n e t to ta l in m ig ratio n in 1941, 1944, 1945,
1947, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1954, 1956, an d 1957, See C alifo rn ia’s
P o p u latio n in 1958 (S acram ento, C alifornia D ep artm en t of F i
nance, 1958).
I t should also be noted t h a t d a ta on to ta l em ploym ent a re n o t
av ailab le fo r Oregon an d W ashington d u rin g th e W orld W ar I I
period. Unofficial estim ates have been m ade by in te rp o la tin g on
th e basis of th e b ehavior of n o n a g ric u ltu ra l em ploym ent. See
fo o tn o te 1, tab le 5, fo r source.
T a b l e 2.
P er c e n t D ist r ib u t io n
of
and
to California.10 Related to this difference is the
fact that Pacific Northwest inmigrants are more
likely to have been born in nearby States. Further
more, although inmigration from the West South
Central States has risen somewhat in recent dec
ades, it plays a far less important role than in the
case of California, whereas the West North Central
States are relatively more important as sources of
migration to the Pacific Northwest.
Employed workers who had migrated to Wash
ington and Oregon during 1935-40 were somewhat
more heavily concentrated in unskilled occupations
in 1940 than were all employed workers in the two
States, as was the case, also, for California.11 Data
on the occupational characteristics of migrants
from outside these States are not available for more
recent periods, although there is some evidence
that fluctuations similar to those in California
have taken place.12
Employment and Net Inmigration Changes
Marked fluctuations in population growth and in
net inmigration have been associated with pro
nounced variations in the rate of employment ex
pansion. A comparison of year-to-year changes
in employment and net inmigration for each of the
Pacific Coast States indicates considerable similar
ity in the fluctuations of the two series, with
changes in net inmigration tending, for the most
part, to lag somewhat behind changes in employ
ment.13 (See chart.) Furthermore, the substan-
E mployed P er so n s b y M ajor O ccu pa tion al G r o u p , P acific C oast S tates
U n ited S ta t e s , S elec ted Y e a r s , 194 0 -5 5
California
Oregon
United States
Washington
Major occupational group
1940
(April)
A ll employed persons______________
1940
(April)
1954-55
1950
(April)
1940
(April)
1950
(April)
1940
(April)
1950
(April)
1954
(April)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
White-collar workers.
.
______
Professional, technical, and kindred workers.
Farmers and farm managers______
Managers, officials, and proprietors, except
farm_____ _ _
_ _ _____
Clerical and kindred workers — _
___
Sales workers_________ __
_ _ _____
46.1
10.6
4.1
47.9
11.1
2.8
48.9
12.2
2.3
46.5
8.5
11.4
45.3
8.7
6.9
44.7
8.6
8.6
45.9
9.9
5.4
44.0
7.9
11.5
44.6
8.7
7.7
45.3
9.4
6.4
10.8
11.5
9.1
11.3
14.1
8.6
12.1
15.1
7.2
10.2
9.0
7.4
10.9
11.3
7.5
10.5
9.4
7.6
10.3
12.5
7.8
8.1
9.7
6.8
8.9
12.3
7.0
10.0
13.0
6.5
Blue-collar workers .
____
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers. _
Operatives and kindred workers__
Private household workers______
Service workers, except private household..
Farm laborers and foremen...
____
Laborers___
—
_________
53.1
13.2
15.0
3.5
9.3
5.8
6.3
51.9
15.2
15.3
2.1 Ì
8.8 /
3.9
5.6
51.1
17.8
16.1
9 1 f
9’ 1 1
2.8
5.3
52.3
11.4
13.7
3.0
7.5
6.3
10.4
53.5
13.6
15.4
1.7
8.0
4.8
10.0
54.3
13.3
14.6
2.9
7.8
5.0
10.7
52.7
15.8
14.9
1.6
8.7
3.5
8.2
55.0
11.5
17.9
4.6
7.1
6.9
7.0
54.0
13.8
19.8
2.5
7.6
4.2
6.1
54.6
13.6
20.4
3.0
' 8.6
3.3
5.7
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.3
.9
1.3
Occupation not reported____
—
1950
(April)
_____
.9
1. 0
N ote : Because of rounding, sums of subtotals may not equal totals.
Source: 1940 and 1950, U.S. Census of Population, 1950, Vol. II, pt. 1,
table 54, and pts. 5, 37, and 47, table 29. California, 1954-55, based on the
502324— 59-------2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
California Health Survey (see source, table 4). United States, 1954, Current
Population Reports, Labor Force, Series P-57, No. 142, M ay 1954, U.S.
Bureau of the Census.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
496
191$ to 191$. Nonagri cultural employment
reached its wartime peak in California and Oregon
in the summer of 1943, and in Washington in the
summer of 1944. Thereafter, cutbacks in aircraft
and shipyard employment spearheaded a moder
ate decline in employment until V -J Day, after
which a sharp drop occurred. The net increase in
employment from 1942 to 1945 was far smaller
than in the 1940-42 period. Labor market condi
tions were much tighter, since the unemployed had
largely been drawn back into employment in the
earlier period, and the draft cut far more sharply
into the supply of civilian workers in 1942-45.
Net civilian migration to all three Pacific
Coast States reached a spectacular peak during
this period and far exceeded the increase in
employment.16
tially higher influx into California in recent years
has been associated with the State’s relatively more
rapid employment expansion. In addition, be
cause California is more highly urbanized,14 its
metropolitan areas have not been able to rely on
inmigration from intrastate rural areas to supply
as large a proportion of their increased needs for
workers as have the metropolitan areas of the
Pacific Northwest.
The relationships between fluctuations in net
inmigration and changes in labor market condi
tions since the beginning of World W ar I I can be
more adequately interpreted if we review the
major developments during shorter intervals.
19Jfi to 191$. From 1940 to 1942, all three Pacific
Coast States experienced a sharp rise in civilian
employment that was associated with the indus
trial mobilization of the defense period and the
first year of the war, with the rate of employment
expansion substantially exceeding the nationwide
rate (table 5). Shipyard employment shot up
ward in all three States, while in California and
Washington, both aircraft and Government em
ployment also skyrocketed. In addition, construc
tion of defense installations contributed to the
demand for workers. Net migration to California
and Washington rose substantially during this
period, but in Oregon, a rise in net inmigration
did not occur until 1942, and there was actually
net outmigration in 1941. Furthermore, the data
suggest that net inmigration was relatively far
more important in contributing to the increased
number of employed workers in California than
in the Pacific Northwest.15
T a b l e 3.
P er c e n t D ist r ib u t io n
of
D
u C alifo rn ia h as long been highly urbanized, an d 81 p ercen t of
its pop u latio n resided in u rb an a re a s in 1950. A t th e tim e of
th e 1950 Census, W ashington occupied a n in te rm e d ia te positio n
am ong th e th re e S tates, w ith 68 p ercen t of its population classi
fied as urb an , w hile Oregon w as le a s t urbanized, w ith only a little
m ore th a n a h a lf of its population in u rb an areas.
15 K e rr’s stu d y of m ig ra tio n to th e S eattle a re a show s t h a t
am ong th e m ig ra n ts e n terin g w ar p la n ts in th e S eattle-T aco m a
are a from J a n u a ry 1940 to F e b ru ary 1942, 32 p ercen t w ere from
o th e r p a rts of W ashington, an d 22 p ercen t w ere from Oregon.
P o rtla n d ’s w a r production boom g ot u n d er w ay la te r th a n
S e a ttle ’s, an d some of those who h ad m ig ra te d from P o rtla n d to
S eattle in 1940-41 la te r re tu rn e d to th e fo rm er area. See C lark
K err, M igration to th e S e a ttle L abor M arket A rea, 1940—1942
(S e attle , U n iv ersity of W ashington P u b licatio n s in th e Social
Sciences, A ugust 1942), Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 129-188.
16 M ig ran ts w ere en terin g jobs t h a t h ad form erly been held by
m em bers of th e A rm ed Forces, an d th e ra n k s of m ig ra n ts w ere
sw elled by an influx of w ives a n d ch ild ren of servicem en who w ere
sta tio n ed on th e P acific C oast or w ere being se n t to Pacific
th e a te rs of w ar. On c h a ra c te ristic s of w artim e m ig ra n ts to
congested pro d u ctio n areas, see P o p u latio n , Series CA-3, Nos. 2,
3, 5, 6, an d 8, M arch to Ju n e 1944, U.S. B ureau of th e Census.
P acific C oast S tate R e s id e n t s B orn in O t h e r S t a t e s ,
B i r t h , S e l e c t e d Y e a r s , 1 9 30-50
Oregon
California
Geographic division of birth
by
G eog raph ic
iv is io n o f
1930
(April)
1940
(April)
1950
(April)
1930
(April)
1940
(April)
Washington
1950
(April)
1930
(April)
1940
(April)
1950
(April)
All residents bom in other States.................
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
New England...........................................
Middle Atlantic____________________
South Atlantic__ __________________
East North Central__ ______________
East South Central..................................
West North Central________________
West South Central................................ .
M ountain_________________________
Pacific, other than State of residence___
4.3
11.2
3.3
24.1
4.4
26.5
10.3
11.3
4.7
3.3
9.4
3.2
20.2
4.1
27.7
15.7
11.7
4.7
3.3
9.8
3.8
18.1
4.4
24.7
21.1
10.8
4.1
1.8
5.4
2.3
22.3
2.8
33.9
4.5
11.2
15.8
1.3
3.9
1.9
17.4
2.4
38.3
6.1
12.3
16.3
1.2
3.3
2.1
13.5
2.5
36.2
9.6
13.3
18.3
2.4
6.5
3.0
25.5
2.7
34.9
3.4
11.1
10.4
1.8
5.0
2.8
21.3
2.4
38.4
4.4
12.8
11.0
1.9
4.9
3.5
16.5
2.9
36.8
7.9
14.4
11.2
N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1930, Vol. II, table 21; 16th Census
of the United States, 1940, Population, State of Birth of the Native Popula-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion, table 20; U.S. Census of Population, 1950, Special Report, Series P -E ,
No. 4A, table 13.
INMIGRATION AND THE LABOR FORCE
497
Net Inmigration/ Employment, and Unemployment, California, Washington, and Oregon,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1930-57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
498
building, port activities, and Government installa
tions, did not take the form, to any appreciable
extent, of conversion from civilian to wartime
production. Thus, the postwar period was char
acterized by sharp cutbacks in war-related em
ployment, rather than by reconversion.17
191(5 to 1950. The 5 years following the war rep
resented a period of readjustment on the Pacific
Coast. Although, to a casual observer, labor mar
ket conditions were not noticeably depressed and
there was a marked expansion of employment in
industries serving the consumer, unemployment
rates tended to be substantially higher throughout
this period than in the Nation as a whole.
Whereas many eastern and midwestern factories
reconverted to peacetime production shortly after
the war, there were relatively few opportunities
for reconversion on the Pacific Coast. This was
largely attributable to the relatively limited de
velopment of heavy industry on the Pacific Coast
before the war. Wartime expansion, which was
highly concentrated in aircraft production, ship17 A lthough th e sh a rp e s t cutbacks occurred rig h t a f te r V—J Day,
shipbu ild in g em ploym ent tended to decline th ro u g h o u t th e 5-year
period. T he num ber of fa c to ry em ployees in A pril 1950, com
p ared w ith Ju ly 1945, w as low er by 21 p ercen t in C alifornia, 24
p e rcen t in Oregon, an d 36 p ercen t in W ashington, w h ereas in th e
N ation, th e decline am ounted only to 9 percent.
See S tate
E m ploym ent, 1939-56, a n d Em ployees in N o n ag ricu ltu ral E sta b
lish m en ts, by In d u stry D ivision, Ja n u a ry 1939 to M ay 1950 (U.S.
B u reau of L ab o r S ta tistic s , 1957 an d 1951, resp ectiv ely ).
T a b l e 4.
P er c e n t D ist r ib u t io n
op
1950 to 1953. During the Korean hostilities, em
ployment increased relatively rapidly on the Pa
cific Coast, but the pattern of expansion differed
among the three States. In all three, nearly half
of the increase in nonagricultural employees was
in manufacturing. In California, nearly half of
the rise within manufacturing occurred in the
aircraft industry, and most of the remainder in
ordnance, metal products, machinery, and electri
cal machinery. In Washington, the expansion was
somewhat less heavily concentrated in war-related
industries. Oregon’s experience was quite differ
ent; only a small proportion of the rise was in
war-related industries. Unemployment rates
dropped sharply in all three States and California
experienced a marked rise in net inmigration,
E m ployed W orkers in C a l if o r n ia b y M ajor O ccu pa tio n al G r o u p , Y e a r
I n m ig r atio n , a n d S e x , 1 9 5 4 -5 5 1
op
Year of inmigration 2
Major occupational group and sex
Total
Have not
lived out
side State
M e n ._____ __________________________________________
1900-29
1940-44
1930-39
1945-49
1950-54
_____
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
White-collar workers____________ _______ ____ ____ ________
Professional, technical, and kindred workers___________
Farmers and farm managers___________________ . _____
Managers, officials, and proprietors, except farm..................
Clerical and kindred workers.................... ............... ..............
Sales workers___________________________ . . . ________
41.8
11.1
3.2
13.9
6.4
7.2
47.0
11.0
5.3
15.4
7.2
8.1
46.8
10.3
5.4
19.7
5.0
6.4
40.2
10.6
2.7
14.8
4.6
7.5
34.7
7.9
1.7
10.7
7.3
7.1
44.1
13.6
1.5
13.3
7.6
8.1
33.6
12.4
Blue-collar workers___________________________ ____ _____ _
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers _ _ . _
Operatives and kindred workers____________________ __
Service workers, including private household___________
Farm laborers and foremen______ ________________ . . .
Laborers____ ____ ________ _______________________ _
58.2
24.5
16.7
6.3
3.5
7.2
53.2
21.1
16.2
4.8
3.9
7.2
53.3
20.7
15.3
8.9
2.7
5.7
59.9
24.7
18.3
7.7
3.1
6.1
65.4
28.7
17.5
6.1
3.1
10.0
56.0
23.1
16.0
6.3
2.5
8.1
66.5
32.3
17.6
4.2
W omen__ ____________________________________ ____ _________
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
White-collar workers.________ ___________________________
Professional, technical, and kindred workers____________
Farmers and farm managers__________________ ________
Managers, officials, and proprietors, except farm________
Clerical and kindred workers.. ____________ ____ _____ _
Sales workers..................................... .........................................
65.6
14.9
75.6
16.1
66.9
13.9
55.3
9.1
63.2
15.8
62.6
17.0
7.9
35.2
7.2
7.0
45.1
7.0
68.4
15.8
1.2
11.6
29.9
9.9
11.3
31.9
8.9
6.2
33.8
6.2
8.1
33.6
5.7
4.3
35.3
6.0
Blue-collar workers______________________________________
Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers...... ......................
Operatives and kindred workers_______________________
Service workers, including private household___________
Farm laborers and foremen_____ _______ _____________ _
Laborers.. _________________________________________
34.4
1.8
14.8
15.9
1.2
24.3
1.9
11.0
9.1
2.0
31.5
33.1
2.2
14.5
15.6
44.7
2.5
16.7
24.4
36.9
1.5
15.6
16.3
1.8
1. 7
37.5
2.3
17.5
16.3
1.1
.4
.7
\ Excludes pre-1900 migrants and persons whose occupation or year of inmigration was not reported.
2 Year of the most recent move to California.
N ote : Because of rounding, sums of subtotals may not equal totals.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
.4
.3
.5
13.9
15.3
.4
1.4
.9
.6
.2
.9
.2
.9
7.7
6.6
6.0
5.5
6.9
.3
Source: California Health Survey (special tabulation arranged through the
courtesy of Dr. Lester A. Breslow, chief, Bureau of Chronic Disease, California State Department of Public Health). For description of sample, see
g } ‘h in California (Sacramento, California Department of Public Health,
INMIGRATION AND THE LABOR FORCE
T a ble 5.
499
N et C iv il ia n I n m ig r atio n , P acific C oast S t a t e s , a n d S elec ted L a bo r M a r k e t D ata , P a cific C oast
S tates a n d U n it e d S t a tes , F or S elec ted P e r io d s , 194 0 -5 7
Item
April 1940 to
July 1942
July 1942 to
July 1945
July 1945 to
April 1950
April 1950 to
July 1953
July 1953 to
July 1957
April 1940 to
July 1957
C alifornia
Change in civilian employment:
Number (in thousands)__________
P e rc e n t_____________
N et civilian inmigration:
Total (in thousands)____________ _____
Average annual (in thousands)______
Unemployment rate at end of period. .
856
32.8
375
10.8
194
5.1
974
554
246
4.1
1,468
489
2.0
567
119
8.8
977
301
3.6
1 156
140.1
110
i 1.8
i 20
13.7
114
19
8.4
JLo. o
3,088
118.5
226
3.6
4,471
259
3.6
1.8
312
80.0
3.5
Ot7
10
3.4
361
21
3.4
5.0
444
72.9
Oregon
Change in civilian employment:
Number (in thousands)_______
Percent___ ____ _____
N et civilian inmigration:
Total (in thousands)_____
________
Average annual (in thousands)________
Unemployment rate at end of period. . . .
24
11
187
62
(2)
<*>
23
W ashington
Change in civilian employment:
Number (in thousands)____________
Percent___ ____________
N et civilian inmigration:
Total (in thousands)______
___
Average annual (in thousands). ___
Unemployment rate at end of period_____
i 263
>43.2
i 52
i 5.9
-84
-9 .1
163
19.4
86
317
106
2.4
-49
-10
8.3
2.7
3.1
443
26
3.1
-1,170
-2 .1
1.7
4,268
7.8
5.7
4,452
4,101
6.5
4.3
20, 581
44.1
4.3
38
«
1
86
U nited States
Change in civilian employment:
Number (in thousands)______________
P e rc e n t____ _____
Unemployment rate at end of period___
8,930
19.1
4.8
1 Official estimates of civilian employment for Washington, July 1942, and
for Oregon, July 1942 and July 1945, are not available; unofficial estimates
were developed by interpolating on the basis of the behavior of employment
of nonagricultural wage and salary workers, published in report on State
Employment, 1939-56 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1957).
2 N ot available.
Source: Employment and unemployment: California, Employment and
Unemployment in California, No. 57, April 1958, Departments of Employ
ment and Industrial Relations, Estimated Civilian Employment in Califor
nia, 1940-1957, and Handbook of California Labor Statistics (biennial),
Department of Industrial Relations; Oregon, Estimated Oregon Labor Force,
while in Washington there was a shift from the
net outmigration of the 1945-50 period to a very
slight net influx of migrants. The drop in net
migration to Oregon is somewhat surprising, but
it seems likely that there was net migration from
Washington to Oregon in 1945-50 and that this
movement dropped off in 1950-53.
1953 to 1957. Between the end of the Korean con
flict and the beginning of the 1957—58 recession,
California was the only Pacific Coast State to ex
perience a relatively rapid rise in employment, as
compared with the Nation. But even in Califor
nia, the rate of expansion was more moderate than
in 1950-53 and was somewhat less heavily concen
trated in manufacturing. Within manufacturing,
however, the same industry groups that had ac
counted for most of the 1950-53 expansion again
dominated the rise. In Washington, aircraft em
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7.6
2.4
Employment, Unemployment (annual), Unemployment Compensation
Commission; Washington, Labor Force and Employment in Washington
State (annual), Employment Security Department; and United States,
Current Population Reports, Labor Force, Series P-50, selected issues, U.S.
Bureau of the Census. The 1940 Census figure for civilian employment in
Oregon in April 1940 (see source, table 1) was used in the computations, but
State estimates which differ slightly from 1940 Census figures were used for
California and Washington (see sources cited above) and, in the case of
Washington, the estimate refers to March 1940.
N et civilian inmigration, Current Population Reports, Population Esti
mates, Series P-25, Nos. 72, 97, and 186, M ay 1953, August 6,1954, and October
27, 1958, U .S. Bureau of the Census.
ployment more than doubled during this period, as
the State’s aircraft industry expanded to meet the
needs of the jet age, but sluggishness in the con
struction and lumber industries held back the
total gain in employment. Oregon was relatively
more severely hit by the decline in lumber employ
ment and experienced only a slight increase in
total employment in 1953-57.
Only in California was the unemployment rate
below the nationwide rate throughout the period,
although unemployment rates were comparatively
low in all three States in July 1957. Although net
civilian migration to California fell below the rate
of 1950-53, on an average annual basis, it continued
to be an important factor in population growth.
Oregon experienced a slight increase in the esti
mated annual average influx and Washington a
substantial increase over the negligible level of
1950-53.
500
Reasons for Inmigration
Employment Changes. In an earlier study of Cal
ifornia’s population growth, covering a longer
period, a hypothesis bearing on the relationship
between changes in employment and in inmi
gration was suggested:
Although migration to California has tended to increase
after every depression, the most marked spurts in inmigra
tion cannot be interpreted merely as a response to improv
ing economic conditions. The periods of heaviest inmi
gration have been associated with periods of unusually
rapid economic development, when the rate of economic
expansion in the State has exceeded that of the Nation.
Such periods have tended to coincide, moreover, with
periods of rapid expansion of economic activity in the
Nation as a whole. * * *
After a time, which has varied in length according to the
special circumstances in each period, the increase in the
rate of inmigration has begun to outrun the rate of expan
sion of employment opportunities. As this occurred, job
opportunities became somewhat less favorable, and the
rate of net inmigration slowed down. Some of the inmi
grants became discouraged and left the State, and those
who remained found increasing difficulty in obtaining
jobs.18
Historically, the periods of unusually rapid eco
nomic development have been associated with the
exploitation of unusually favorable investment
opportunities in California. In recent decades,
the periods of most rapid expansion have occurred
during World War I I and the Korean conflict,
when specific locational advantages encouraged a
boom in aircraft production, shipbuilding, and
other war-related activities.
In general, our hypothesis seems to be equally
applicable to the population growth of Oregon
and Washington. As pointed out earlier, however,
the metropolitan areas of the Pacific Northwest
appear to have a relatively greater capacity to
attract intrastate migrants, and hence net inmigra
tion into these States is likely to be somewhat
smaller in relation to employment increases than
in California.
Climate. An alternative interpretation of Cali
fornia’s population growth has been presented by
E. L. Ullman, who argues that California’s mild
climate has been the primary factor in attracting
migrants and that the heavy influx of population
has in turn stimulated the expansion of employ
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
ment by attracting footloose industries and en
couraging the growth of industries serving local
markets.19
We are dealing here with a chicken-and-egg
type of problem. Have the jobs attracted the
people, or have the people created the expanding
job opportunities ? Climate has undoubtedly been
an important factor in attracting people to Cali
fornia, but decisions as to the timing of migration
appear to depend very largely on what is happen
ing to job opportunities. Furthermore, the really
large spurts in net migration have been associated
with the expansion of industries which not only
have nationwide markets but for which California
has specific locational advantages, and the expan
sion of these industries has in turn stimulated an
expansion of employment in footloose and local
market industries. This sequence of events was
particularly well demonstrated during the 1940’s,
when, as a result of wartime restrictions and labor
shortages, much of the expansion of residential
building and of trade and service activities to
serve an enlarged population did not occur until
after the war.20 I t is also important to recognize
that the climate has played a role in stimulating
the demand for labor, as well as the supply, par
ticularly in the aircraft industry, where a mild
climate has advantages as a locational factor.
This general interpretation holds even more
clearly for the Pacific Northwest, where an
equable climate prevails but where, in recent
decades, net inmigration has not been heavy except
during World War II.
Wage Differentials. Along with the climate, the
relatively high wage rates that have prevailed on
the Pacific Coast throughout most of the 20th
century have undoubtedly played a highly signifi
cant role in attracting migrants to the region but,
18 G ordon, op. cit., p. 91.
19 A m enities as a F a c to r in R egional G row th (in The Geo
g rap h ical Review, New York, J a n u a ry 1954, pp. 1 1 9 -1 3 2 ). In
p a r tia l su p p o rt of U llm an’s position is th e fa c t th a t C alifo rn ia
an d F lo rid a are th e tw o S ta te s th a t have a ttr a c te d by f a r th e
la rg e st num bers of in te r s ta te m ig ra n ts in recen t years. See th e
estim ates of n e t in m ig ratio n fo r th e 1950-57 period in C u rren t
P o p u latio n R eports, P o p u latio n E stim ates, Series P -2 5 , No. 186,
O ctober 27, 1958, U.S. B ureau of th e Census.
20 F o r f u rth e r discussion of th ese relatio n sh ip s, see George H.
H ildebrand an d A rth u r Mace, J r., The E m ploym ent M ultiplier in
an E xpanding In d u s tria l M arket, Los Angeles County, 1940-1947
(in Review of Econom ics a n d S ta tistic s , Cam bridge, M ass.,
A ugust 1950, pp. 2 4 1 -2 4 9 ).
501
INMIGRATION AND THE LABOR FORCE
from a long-run point of view, their importance
has probably diminished as wage differentials
between the Pacific Coast and the Nation have
narrowed.21 I t is conceivable, but somewhat un
likely, that if average wages on the Pacific Coast
were to approach the national level or even fall
below it, net inmigration might continue because
of the climate and generally attractive living con
ditions of the region.
Such a development would be unlikely because
a substantial decline in wage differentials would be
symptomatic of a decline in the relative rate of
expansion of employment opportunities. On theo
retical grounds, during periods of full employ
ment, we would expect some tendency for wage
differentials between the Pacific Coast and the
Nation to vary with relative rates of change in
employment, even in the short run. California
weekly earnings in manufacturing did rise in
relation to those in the Nation during World War
II and fell quite sharply after the war, but the
ratio of California to national earnings has varied
relatively little since about 1947. I t is likely that
a wartime increase occurred, also, in Washington
and Oregon, although average earnings data are
not available for the war period. Per capita in
come data for Oregon and Washington indicate a
marked rise in relative incomes in the war period
21 F o r f u rth e r discussion of wage differentials, see th e article
by M. W. R eder on pp. 524—529 of th is issue.
22 T he fa ilu re of C alifo rn ia per c a p ita incom e to rise, relativ e
to th a t in th e N ation, reflects th e less im p o rta n t re lativ e position
o f a g ricu ltu re, in w hich incom es rose sh a rp ly d u rin g th e w ar.
I t m ay also be re la te d to th e fa c t th a t C alifo rn ia per c a p ita
incom e w as considerably h igher, re lativ e to t h a t in th e N ation,
before th e w ar th a n in th e case of Oregon a n d W ashington.
and a decline thereafter.22 There is little evidence,
however, that regional wage differentials are
likely to vary enough in the short run to affect the
rate of migration, except in a period of very pro
nounced changes such as World War II.
Conclusion
An analysis of this type should conclude with a
forecast, but everything that has been said serves
to emphasize how hazardous a forecast of future
rates of migration to the Pacific Coast States must
be. Only in the event of a marked rise in the rate
of employment expansion—which would be un
likely to occur in the absence of a pronounced in
crease in the Nation—would net migration to Cali
fornia be likely to rise very much above present
levels. In the case of the Pacific Northwest, the
experience of the last 25 years suggests that an
increase in employment somewhat comparable to
that of World War I I would be required to raise
migration rates much above present low levels.
In all three States, moreover, the number of
young residents entering the labor market is un
doubtedly beginning to increase and will rise
sharply in the next few years, as those born after
the beginning of World War I I reach the age of
18 or so. Unless the rate of employment expan
sion accelerates, this development is likely to mean
increased competition for available jobs and a less
favorable labor market for potential inmigrants,
who are predominantly young adults. All things
considered, a somewhat reduced rate of net inmi
gration appears probable in the absence of a sharp
rise in the rate of employment expansion.
Migratory farm laborers move restlessly over the face of the land, but they
neither belong to the land nor does the land belong to them. They pass
through community after community, but they neither claim the community
as home nor does the community claim them. Under the law, the domestic
migrants are citizens of the United States but they are scarcely more a part
of the land of their birth than the alien migrants working beside them.
—Migratory Labor in American Agriculture, 1951 Report of tbe President’s Commission
on Migratory Labor, p. 3.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Balanced industrial expansion has not persisted in recent years,
but real possibilities exist that diversification will overcome the
instability of aircraft and the decline of forest products.
Economic Growth Patterns in
Washington and Oregon
M in e r
H. B a k e r
T he P acific N orthwest generally is identified as
one of the “growingest” areas of the United States,
and, in fact, there is a tendency to regard the entire
West as a homogeneous unit which has experienced
rapid and uniform growth throughout the past two
decades. Over half of the West’s population and
almost two-thirds of its growth in recent years,
however, are contained in the State of California.
The Pacific Northwest, second in the West to Cali
fornia in economic importance, experienced a sub
stantial increase in population during World War
I I but more recently has barely exceeded the na
tional growth rate.1
The West looks somewhat different in detail
than it does in total. Between 1940 and 1958, the
total population of the 11 Western States increased
82 percent while the national increase was 31 per
cent. When the 11 States are grouped into three
regions (table 1), however, it is clear that, while
all three regions have surpassed the national pat
tern, the Pacific Southwest has far outpaced the
other two. If the growth is divided chronologi
cally as well as geographically, the result is even
more revealing. The Pacific Southwest, greatly
stimulated by the economic revolution of World
War II, subsequently receded only moderately in
its rate of growth. The Pacific Northwest, like
wise greatly affected by the war, dropped off more
sharply in the postwar years to a narrow margin
over the national rate. The Mountain States,
which lagged during the war, have since caught
fire economically and are moving ahead more rap
idly than the Pacific Northwest.
502
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In each case, this record of population growth
can be explained by developments in the industries
which provide the employment base of the respec
tive regions. The events of the war years make it
clear, if there were any question, that primarily
it is employment opportunities which attract pop
ulation rather than vice versa.2 It may also be ob
served, without prejudging the future, that the
moderation of growth in the Pacific Northwest
since the war is little more than the return to a
pattern which was normal for three decades before
the war. From 1910 to 1940, in fact, no part of
the West exceeded the national growth rate sub
stantially except the Pacific Southwest.
Manufacturing Employment
Wartime Expansion, 1940-46. World W ar II
transformed the economic pattern of the Pacific
Northwest and provided support for the greatest
numerical population and labor force increase in
the region’s history. The 3-year period from 1940
to 1943 raised the manufacturing employment of
the two States from 216,000 to 475,000 and put
241.000 of the total into the shipbuilding and air
craft industries.3 (See table 2.) Some of these
additional workers came from the unemployed,
1 In th is discussion, th e tw o S ta te s of W ashington a n d Oregon
a re designated' fo r th e sake of convenience as th e Pacific N o rth
w est. U sually th e region is considered to include n o rth e rn
Idaho a n d w estern M ontana as well. R egional boundaries nec
essarily a re som ew hat a rb itra ry , as is th e concept of th e W est
itself.
2 F o r fu rth e r discussion of th e re latio n sh ip betw een in m ig ra
tio n an d th e labor force, see th e a rtic le by M a rg aret S. Gordon on
pp. 492-501 of th is issue.
3 T hese figures exclude th e G overnm ent sh ip y a rd a t B rem er
ton, W ash., classified in governm ent, w hich employed over
30.000
a t its w artim e peak.
503
ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
some were women who had not worked before, and
some came from other local activities which re
placed them with women or not at all. The great
majority, however, were lured from other parts of
the country by the dual attractions of patriotism
and high wages. After the war, thousands de
sired to remain, and remain they did to the extent
that there was economic opportunity.
By 1946, the wartime 475,000 in manufacturing
had dropped to 291,000, still a one-third increase
over 1940. This broader foundation of manufac
turing called for more workers in the secondary
activities—trade, services, and utilities—which
had been seriously undermanned throughout the
war years. The result was a short and relatively
smooth transition, with adequate employment op
portunities to support the wartime population
growth. Thus, the more modest growth of the
postwar period was projected from a new base.
Net Impact of World War II. The first full post
war year, 1946, was the low point of employment
following the curtailment of war industries. At
that point, the overemployment of the war years
had been corrected and the quick reshuffling of the
employment pattern was largely completed. On
balance, a 28-percent increase from 1940 in the
Pacific Northwest’s population had been matched
by a 28-percent increase in employment. (See
table 3.) With agriculture and self-employment
declining, the overall rise in employment required
an increase of 42 percent in wage earners—35 per
cent in manufacturing and 46 percent in nonmanu
facturing activities. The disparity between the
latter two figures reflects partly the national trend
toward an increasing proportion of employment
in trade and service activities and partly the un
usual growth of government and construction as
a result of the war.
The 35-percent increase in manufacturing for
the 6-year period amounted to 74,700 new jobs.
Almost one-third of the total, 24,400, was the re
maining net gain in aircraft and shipbuilding.
The forest industries (basic lumber products, ply
wood, and pulp and paper) had added only 3,100.
The other 47,200 new jobs were in diversified man
ufacturing activities: 14,000 in food processing,
including not only an increase to meet local needs
but also the growth of canning and freezing plants
to serve a national market; 4,400 at the Hanford
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 1. P e r c e n t I n c r e a se in th e P o pu l a t io n ,1
U n it e d S t a tes a n d R e g io n s op th e W e s t ,2 S elected
P e r io d s , 1 940-58
Region
1940 to
1946
1946 to
1952
1952 to
1958
Total,
1940 to
1958
United States_________
6.1
11.2
11.2
31.3
Total West___________
Pacific Southwest__
Pacific Northwest__
Mountain States___
26.2
35.8
28.3
3.8
19.7
22.5
12.1
19.5
20.3
24.7
11.7
15.7
81.7
107.4
60.7
43.6
1 Total population excluding Armed Forces overseas, as of July 1 of each
year.
2 The composition of the regions used here is as follows: Pacific Southwest—
Arizona, California, and Nevada; Pacific Northwest—Oregon and Washing
ton; and Mountain States—Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah,
and Wyoming. See also text footnote 1.
Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-25, various issues, U.S.
Bureau of the Census.
Works, a major nucleonics installation operated
for the Atomic Energy Commission by a private
contractor; 4,000 in aluminum plants whose loca
tion was a product of wartime need and cheap
hydroelectric power; the rest scattered, mostly
among metals and machinery industries which
were serving a growing market within the region.
Conversion to a peacetime industrial economy
by no means was complete in 1946. The shipyards
were declining during the year but their average
employment was still high. The aluminum indus
try and the Hanford Works also were in process
of adjusting, but in their cases employment was
far lower than it would later be. All things con
sidered, however, 1946 employment provides an
adequate measure of the net impact of the war. It
also marks off a period of convenient length for
comparison with the postwar years which fol
lowed it.
The Middle Years, 1916-52. The years immedi
ately following World War I I naturally did not
duplicate the forced industrial growth which had
occurred during the war period, but the lesser ex
pansion of the industrial base which they brought
was still very encouraging. From 1946 to 1952,
employment in manufacturing in the Pacific
Northwest increased by 46,600, or 16 percent.
Food processing, having reached its employment
peak in 1946, registered a 7,300 loss for this 6-year
period. Thus, there was a gain of 53,900 apart
from food processing, which compared favorably
with the 60,700 increase for the same industries
from 1940 to 1946.
The use of 1952 as a reference year is appropri
ate for two reasons. First, it was close to the peak
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
504
T a ble 2. M a n u fa c t u r in g E m ploym ent in t h e P acific
N o r th w est ,1 A n n u a l A v e r a g e s , S elec ted Y e a r s ,
194 0 -5 8
[In thousands]
Year
Total
1940________
1943________
1946________
1949________
1952....... ........
1955................
1958 5............
215.8
474.5
290.5
294.7
337.1
345.7
346.1
Forest
products s
122.5
122.6
125.6
142.4
161.0
158.0
135.2
Shipbuilding
and aircraft
11.5
‘ 241.4
35.9
28.3
38.0
46.6
74.0
All other 3
81.8
110.5
129.0
124.0
138.1
141.1
136.9
i Washington and Oregon; see text footnote 1.
i Includes basic lumber products, plywood, and pulp and paper.
3 Combines the “ food processing” and “ other manufacturing” categories
of table 3.
,
^
. .
,,
i Includes 204,900 in shipbuilding and 36,500 m aircraft manufacture; the
wartime peak in aircraft alone was 43,900 in 1944, well below the 66,200 of 1958.
s Preliminary.
Source: Washington Employment Security Department and Oregon
Unemployment Compensation Commission.
of employment in the forest industries. Second,
it reflected the full effect of the Korean conflict.
Thus, it is a suitable midpoint to measure against
both the immediate postwar situation 6 years
earlier and the current condition of the region 6
years later.
The outstanding development of the 1946-52 pe
riod in employment was the resurgence of the for
est industries. This new strength was a matter
both of larger volume of timber cut, reflected in
17,500 additional jobs in basic lumber products,
and of greater diversification of product, attested
by the 17,900 new jobs in the production of ply
wood 4 and pulp and paper. In total, the forest
industries increased their share of manufacturing
employment from 43 percent to 48 percent between
1946 and 1952. Prior to the war, in 1940, the fig
ure had been 57 percent.
A second development of these early postwar
years was a comeback by the aircraft industry.
From a low of 10,800 in 1946, employment rose
to 24,000 in 1949, then dipped to 19,500 in 1950,
but again picked up after the beginning of the
Korean conflict and reached 29,800 in 1952. The
net gain for the 6-year period was largely bal
anced by losses in the shipbuilding industry,
which had still had part of its wartime strength
in 1946. The expansion of the aircraft industry
during this period foreshadowed its emergence as
the dominant expansionary force in the Pacific
Northwest economy in the period to follow.
Diversified manufacturing picked up another
16,400 of employment in these years. There were
both pluses and minuses in these activities, but
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
most of the net change again was accounted for
by the Hanford Works and the aluminum in
dustry. All of the remaining increase took place
after the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, which
gave the economy a lesser dose of the same sort
of stimulation it had experienced in the war years.
The Era of Aircraft, 1952-58. The favorable
picture of industrial growth has not persisted in
the last 6 years, and therein lies the cause for
a measure of concern about the region’s future.
Between 1952 and 1958, the overall increase in
manufacturing employment was only 9,000, or 3
percent. The aircraft industry more than
doubled its employment, however, from 29,800 to
66,200. Aircraft excluded, there was a net loss
of 27,400 manufacturing jobs, and this loss was
accounted for largely by a steep decline in the
forest industries.5
During this recent period, then, the aircraft
industry increased from 9 percent to 19 percent
of the region’s manufacturing employment, while
the forest industries declined from 48 percent to
39 percent. Measured by employment, there was
virtually no industrial growth either in total or
in the diversified industries which would do most
to balance the region’s economy. While the popu
lation increase was virtually as much as in the
earlier postwar years and continued to shade the
national average, it was not supported by employ
ment gains, and what employment gains there
were, were far more than covered by a single
industry. This industry, of course, is one which
depends largely on expenditures for national de
fense and is particularly vulnerable to sharp drops
in employment.
Intrarégional Differences. I t is well to note that
the employment situation described for the re
gional total does not apply equally to the parts.
The aircraft industry is entirely in Washington;
in fact, it consists of one major firm in the Seattle
area. The forest industries cover the entire re
gion, but are far more important in Oregon than
in Washington and have been moving south over
i Plyw ood production norm ally is classified as p a r t of th e
lum ber a n d wood products group b u t is tre a te d se p ara te ly here
because of its different grow th p a tte rn .
5 W ith in th e to ta l, plywood a n d pulp an d paper continued to
increase, b u t only by 4,800 com pared w ith 17,900 in th e previous
6 years. M ost of th e em ploym ent loss of 25,800 in basic lum ber
p ro d u cts occurred in th e p a s t 2 years.
ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
505
a period of years. Oregon, lacking the help of
the aircraft industry, had a net loss of 10 percent
in manufacturing employment between 1952 and
1958; Washington, on the other hand, had a net
gain of 12 percent, which is more than accounted
for by the aircraft industry. In Oregon in 1958,
forest products still comprised 58 percent of all
factory employment; in Washington, they were
down to 27 percent, while aircraft was 31 percent
of the total.
In terms of net change in manufacturing em
ployment from 1940 to 1958, the aircraft industry
contributed 71 percent of the total in Washing
ton, and the forest industries 53 percent of the
total in Oregon. The forest industries in Wash
ington registered a net loss.6 It oversimplifies the
situation a bit, however, to say that Washing-
ton’s growth in manufacturing has been largely
aircraft and Oregon’s largely forest products.
Both have very substantial increases in diversified
manufacturing, although not in the past few years,
and both have recently been losing ground in the
forest industries.
Primary and Secondary Activities
The discussion thus far has been directed pri
marily to manufacturing, since it is, in large meas
ure, the key to growth in total employment and
population. Agriculture, which plays a similar
role, has been declining as an employment factor
in the Pacific Northwest, although not as much as
nationally: 7 from 1940 to 1958, the loss was esti
mated at 10 percent compared with a national loss
of 39 percent.8 Mining, another primary activity,
has declined drastically in this region but its em
ployment was relatively small to begin with. In
total, the Pacific Northwest’s employment in pri
mary industries—manufacturing, agriculture, and
mining—has increased 27 percent versus 60 per
cent for manufacturing alone.9 At the same time,
the proportion of the population outside the labor
force and the proportion of the labor force em
ployed in secondary activities have both increased.
(See table 4.) Nationally, a mere 4-percent in-
8 B asic lum ber suffered th e loss, a decrease of 23,900, or 42
p e r c e n t; plywood an d pulp an d p ap er increased th e ir em
p loym ent by 11,000, or 74 percent.
7 F o r a discussion of fa rm lab o r on th e Pacific Coast, see th e
a rtic le by V arden F u lle r on pp, 518-523 of th is issue.
8 T he estim ates of a g ric u ltu ra l em ploym ent and th e self-em
ployed are m uch less reliable th a n n o n a g ric u ltu ra l em ploym ent.
To some ex ten t, m oreover, th e a u th o r h as h ad to im provise these
e stim ates w here d a ta were n o t available in sufficient detail.
9 Logically, one should ad d fo re stry and fishing to th e p rim a ry
in d u stries, b u t th ey a re relativ ely sm all em ployers an d in fo rm a
tio n is in ad eq u ate. The a u th o r does n o t subscribe to th e concept
of “com m odity” em ploym ent, including co n stru ctio n , since con
stru c tio n , like tra d e an d services, is largely dependent on th e
econom ic h e a lth of th e p rim a ry in d u stries.
T a ble 3.
P o pu la tio n , L abor F orce ,
and
Item
E m plo y m e n t 1
in th e
P acific N o r th w est ,2 S e l ec ted Y e a r s , 194 0 -5 8
Number of persons (in thousands)
Percent change
1940
1946
1952
1958 3
Population______________________________________
Civilian labor force___________ ________ __________
Unemployment_______________________________
Employment. _______________________ _______
2,826
1,219. 3
154.3
1,065.0
3,626
1,476.1
117.2
1,358. 9
4,066
1, 648. 8
65.2
1, 579. 0
4,542
1, 757. 4
126.9
1, 627. 7
Agricultural___________ _________________ .
N onagricultur al:
Self-employed 4____ ___________ ____________
Wage and salary workers_______________________
177.0
172.3
167.9
169.5
718.5
164.4
1,022.2
212.9
1,198. 2
M anufacturing___________________________________
Food processing_____________________ _________
Basic iumber products_________ _____ _ _______
Plywood. __________________ _ _________
Pulp and paper__ ____________________ ____
Aircraft and shipbuilding__________ ___________
Other manufacturing__________________________
215.8
36.1
102.9
5.4
14.2
11.5
45.7
290.5
50.1
100.3
8.0
17.3
35.9
78.9
337.1
42.8
117.8
21.7
21.5
38.0
95.3
Nonmanufacturing___________ _________________ .
Mining_________ ___________________________
Contract construction_________________________
Transportation and public utilities_______________
Trade________ _____ ___ ____________________ .
Service and miscellaneous 5_____________ _______
Government_______ __________ ____ __________
502.7
6.7
33.8
78.7
166.7
99.4
117.4
731.7
4.2
54.5
109.2
235.6
143.3
184.9
861.1
4.2
71.9
115.2
273.9
177.6
218.3
1 Employment and labor force figures are annual averages; population
estimates relate to July 1.
2 Washington and Oregon; see text footnote 1.
3 Preliminary.
4 Includes unpaid family workers and domestic service workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1940 to 1946 1946 to 1952 1952 to 1958 1940 to 1958
28
21
-24
28
12
12
-4 4
16
158.9
-3
-3
223.1
1,245. 7
-3
42
30
17
5
4
32
73
346.1
40.9
87.2
24.0
24.0
74.0
96.0
35
39
-3
48
22
212
73
16
-1 5
17
171
24
6
21
3
-4
-2 6
11
12
95
1
60
13
-1 5
344
69
543
110
899.6
2.8
66.9
104.6
279.2
197.9
248.2
46
-3 7
61
39
41
44
57
18
0
32
5
16
24
18
4
-3 3
-7
-9
2
11
14
79
-5 8
98
33
67
99
111
12
7
95
3
-5
61
44
-1 8
53
—10
5 Includes finance, insurance, and real estate.
Source: Employment, Washington Employment Security Department
and Oregon Unemployment Compensation Commission; population and
labor force, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
506
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
for Oregon’s long lead in entering the most recent
recession.
crease in employment in manufacturing, agricul
ture, and mining from 1940 to 1958 has supported
increases of 23 percent in the labor force and 31
percent in population. The 27-percent rise in these
industries in the region has supported increases
of 44 percent in the labor force and 61 percent in
population. The ratio of primary employment
to total employment has declined in the region, as
nationally, but has been consistently somewhat
lower.10
Seasonality
One very obvious characteristic of the economy
of the Pacific Northwest is its high degree of
seasonality, this again being due in consider
able measure to the forest industries, although
food processing also plays an important part. As
might be expected, seasonal employment move
ments in Oregon are somewhat larger than in
Washington. Normally, the high month in both
States is September and the low month, January.
Based on the experience of a 10-year period from
1948 to 1957, the high and 1owt months normally
are 106.0 and 93.5 percent of trend for Oregon,
104.0 and 95.1 percent for Washington. Na
tionally, the high and low seasonal factors are
102.1 (December) and 98.4 (February).
Stated in a single figure, the mean seasonal de
viation nationally is 0.9 percent, compared with
2.5 percent for Washington and 3.6 percent for
Oregon.11 There is some indication, as might be
expected with the lumber industry declining in
relative importance, that the seasonal pattern is
becoming less pronounced. During 1953-57, the
mean seasonal deviation was 15 percent less for
Washington and 22 percent less for Oregon than
in the period 1948-52.12
Cyclical Fluctuations
Clearly, the economy of a region as remote from
other population centers as the Pacific Northwest
is likely to exhibit unique characteristics. I t has
often been said, sometimes carelessly, that the
effects of the business cycle lag in this region and
that cyclical variations are deeper and more pro
longed. Recent experience bears this out only in
part. (See table 5 and chart.) In the three re
cession periods since World War II, Oregon em
ployment has turned down in advance of the
Nation on all three occasions and Washington two
times out of three. In two of the three recessions,
however, the low point nationally was a month or
two ahead of both States. The magnitude of
decline from peak to trough has been greater re
gionally except for the experience of Washington
in the 1957-58 recession, influenced by unusual
strength in the aircraft industry.
These comparisons really do not indicate much
except the obvious fact that the regional economy
is greatly dependent on forest products and there
fore is affected by the national trend of residen
tial construction activity as well as the general
business cycle. The former, of course, accounts
T a ble 4.
10 T his is largely explained by th e relativ ely large regional
em ploym ent in governm ent, w hich is classified as secondary b u t
w hich in some cases— defense in sta lla tio n s— e ith er is engaged in
p rim a ry a c tiv ity or h as a sim ilar im pact on th e economy.
11 T hese a re th e average m onthly deviations from th e tre n d
line calculated from a centered 12-m onth m oving average.
12 W ashington : 1948-52, 2.74 p e rc e n t; 1953-57, 2.33 p ercen t.
Oregon : 1948-52, 4.19 percent ; 1953-57, 3.27 percent.
S ig n if ic a n t L abor F orce R a tio s , P acific N
o r th w est1 and
U n it e d S t a t e s , S elec ted Y e a r s , 1 9 4 0 -5 8
[In percent]
Pacific Northwest
Ratio of—
1940
1946
1952
United States
1958
1940
1946
1952
1958
Labor force to population_________________
43.1
40.7
40.6
38.7
42.2
41.1
40.4
Unemployment to labor force______ _
12.7
7.9
4.0
7.2
14.6
3.9
2.7
6.8
Wage and salary workers to total employment_______
67.5
75.2
75.9
76.5
67.5
74.7
78.8
79.0
Primary em ploym ent2 to total employment__________
37.5
34.4
32.2
31.2
44.7
42.8
39.2
34.4
Manufacturing employment to total wage and salary
workers. __________
30.0
28.4
28.1
27.8
33.6
35.0
33.8
30.6
1 Washington and Oregon; see text footnote 1.
Includes agriculture, mining, and manufacturing.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
39.6
S ource : Pacific Northwest, table 3; United States, table 3 and data from
the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
507
ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Outlook
Whatever the unusual characteristics of the
Pacific Northwest economy—one-sided industrial
pattern, seasonality, sensitivity to cyclical char
acteristics—they are less in evidence today than
they were before the war. Largely this is a re
sult of the war. The economy is much larger,
better balanced, but no longer growing rapidly.
The questions which control the future are these:
Has the industrial growth of recent years brought
a new distortion due to too great dependence on
the aircraft industry? Will the resource-based
industries, notably those based on timber, assist
the total growth of the region or continue to lag ?
Is there a reasonable possibility that industrial
activities other than aircraft and forest products
will furnish an expanding employment base?
The happy assumption that population will
flock to the Pacific Northwest and bring with
it the support for more industry is substantiated
neither by history nor logic. The population will
come, or at least remain, only to the extent that
there is economic opportunity. The experience
of the past few years is not encouraging on this
score, but this should not too quickly be accepted
as a guide to the future. First of all, it should
be noted that 1958 was a recession year. Accord
ingly, the unfavorable aspect of the recent past
is exaggerated by comparing the bottom of the
cycle (1958) with a point well up on a rising
curve (1952). It is fair to assume that the forest
industries, down 18,000 in employment in the last
2 years, will improve substantially as their markets
improve; likewise, that diversified manufactur
ing activities, down 9,000 in the same period, will
return to a normal trend. These developments
will modify, but not substantially change, the pic
ture of a region in which resource-based indus
tries have been declining and recent growth has
come almost entirely from defense-based indus
tries, notably aircraft. In each of the three
major categories of industry, however, there is
more to be considered than the cold statistics of
past employment.
With regard to the aircraft industry, the recent
growth of employment poses a problem for the
region only to the extent that this employment
must be regarded as unstable. I t is impossible
at any time to see more than a few months ahead
in the aircraft industry. The transition from
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Nonagricultural Employment, Seasonally Adjusted,
Washington, Oregon, and United States, 1947-58
1947-49=100
WASHINGTON
Source: See footnotes toTable 5.
manned aircraft to missiles inevitably is going
to mean less manpower per dollar of expenditure,
however, and it is almost certain that the industry
will not continue to employ as many as 70,000
in the Pacific Northwest. At the same time, there
is every reason to expect that it will continue to
be a major part of the industrial base. This is
an important measure of diversification in a re
gion which in the past has been dependent on raw
materials. Aircraft has introduced a new risk,
but it is a different type of risk.
As to forest industries, the poor showing of 1958
was partly due to cyclical factors which will cor
rect themselves, but it is also clear that the long
term trend has been far from favorable. The man
power requirements of the lumber industry have
been steadily reduced by mechanization. Up to a
few years ago, this was more than offset by an in
creased cut of timber; more recently, it has been
accentuated by a reduced cut. The reduced cut
resulted partly from the decrease in the supply of
timber and partly from the dwindling market for
lumber in competition with other building mate
rials. Looking ahead, it is a reasonable assump-
508
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
T a b l e 5.
T im in g a n d I m pa c t of T h r e e P o st w a r R e
c e s s io n s
on
N o n a g r ic u l t u r a l E m p l o y m e n t 1 i n
W a s h i n g t o n , O r e g o n , a n d U n it e d S t a t e s
Item
1948-49:
Date of peak 2_ _ ___
Date of trough___ __
Percent of decline___
Date of recovery____
1953-54:
Date of p eak 2______
Date of trough______
Percent of decline__
Date of recovery__ _
1957-58:
Date of peak 2______
Date of trough______
Percent of decline___
Washington
Oregon
United States
November 1948 August 1948
January 1950
February 1950
7.1
7.7
August 1950
June 1950
October 1948
November 1949
3.7
June 1950
February 1953 February 1953
August 1954
July 1954
3.9
6.9
December 1954 August 1955
July 1953
August 1954
3.4
June 1955
June 1957
May 1958
3.2
July 1957
April 1958
4.4
June 1956
May 1958
6.4
1 Based on seasonally adjusted figures; for Washington and Oregon, sea
sonal corrections based on data for the years 1948-57 were calculated by the
author; for the United States, data for years prior to 1953 are from the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and later data are from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
3 Peak calculated as highest 3-month average, centered on month of refer
ence.
tion that both supply and demand will be greater
than in the recent past. Much of the region has
been in a period of transition to a second-growth
timber economy which, over a period of time, will
support an increased production of lumber. A
need for this increased production is virtually
assured by population growth alone. Moreover,
the continued diversification of product, reflected
in rising employment for plywood and pulp and
paper, may become even more pronounced in the
future. I t is very unlikely, then, that the employ
ment decline of recent years will extend further
into the future. There may, in fact, be a rather
sharp reversal.
Apart from forest products and aircraft, the
opportunities for diversifying the regional econ
omy in other directions are about as numerous as
the number of industries on the national scene.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Only in forest products, aircraft, and food prod
ucts does the region produce more than its share of
the national total. Thus, even apart from further
development of natural resources, the regional
market itself is a potential attraction for more
industry. Both Washington and Oregon have
become aware in recent years that growth will not
come easily in the future and are making strong
efforts through State and local agencies to encour
age industrial expansion.
I t may well be, although time alone will tell,
that the concentration of population in the Pacific
Northwest has reached a point where many indus
tries which previously produced elsewhere for this
market will find it feasible to establish production
facilities in the region. This does not belie the
earlier conclusion that industry precedes rather
than follows population in the first instance. As
an area grows, however, based on industry, it is
also able to support more industry. One of the
most important developments of the past 5 years
has been the entry into the Pacific Northwest of
the petroleum refining industry, utilizing crude oil
from foreign sources. There have also been a series
of developments in the chemical industry, some
of them assisted by the recent availability of nat
ural gas which has been piped into the region be
cause of a growing market. Electronics, although
still a small part of the Pacific Northwest econ
omy, has been the most rapidly growing industry
in the region. These are the types of development
which may hold the key to the future of the region.
Honesty dictates the conclusion that the Pacific
Northwest is no longer an outstanding growth area
but does not suggest by any means that it has ex
hausted its opportunities.
Shifts in California’s Industrial
and Employment Composition
Increase in employment since 1946 is three times the national rate;
manufacturing now leads in the State, but construction, govern
ment, and finance have also risen sharply.
M aurice
I. G e r s h e n s o n
extraordinary growth in the population
and the labor force of California following World
W ar I I has been accompanied by significant al
terations in the complexion of the State’s economy
and its pattern of employment. Some of the fac
tors accounting for the shifts are related to na
tionwide changes; others reflect conditions pe
culiar to California. Some of the changes parallel
national changes; others run counter to trends in
the Nation as a whole.
Total civilian employment in California, in
cluding both employers and the self-employed as
well as wage and salary workers, registered a rise
from 3.8 million to 5.6 million between 1946 and
1958, or 46 percent (table 1). This rate of in
crease was about three times that in the country as
a whole. Wage and salary workers accounted for
7 of every 8 additions to the State’s civilian em
ployment during this period. (See table 2.)
Not all industries in California shared equally
in the postwar growth, however. Larger than
average gains in employment were recorded in
manufacturing, construction, government, and
finance. Very little rise occurred in mineral ex
traction. In between these extremes lie varying
rates of increase in service, trade, transportation
and utilities, and agriculture. These differential
growth rates have reshaped California’s economic
pattern.
T he
Industry Trends
Manufacturing. Most dramatic has been the
change in manufacturing, in which there has been
both an extremely large rise and a far-reaching
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
shift in the industrial distribution of employment.
Immediately after World War II, California’s
factory employment dropped precipitately and
then fluctuated in a narrow range until the out
break of the Korean conflict triggered a vigorous
upsurge. After hostilities ceased, the trend con
tinued upward as a result of the defense buildup
in the cold war. Total employment in manufac
turing climbed above the peak of World War I I
to a new alltime high of 1,286,000 in 1957 and
dropped back to 1,222,000 in 1958. Between 1946
and 1958, there was a net rise of 67 percent. As
a result of this rapid growth, the proportion of
total civilian employment in manufacturing went
from 19.0 percent in 1946 to 21.8 percent in 1958.
In 1940, the ratio was 17.1 percent.
In the relatively short period since 1940, Cali
fornia’s economic structure has changed from a
raw material producing economy with heavy em
phasis on trade and service activities to one in
which manufacturing dominates. Before World
War II, manufacturing ranked third among the
industry divisions, behind trade and service in
terms of employment. By 1953, manufacturing
forged ahead to the number one place. I t has
held this place ever since, except that in 1958, it
slipped slightly below trade.
Growth in three defense-connected industries—•
aircraft, ordnance (including missiles), and elec
trical equipment—accounts for the largest part of
the postwar rise. These three industries employed
103,200 wage and salary workers, or almost 15
percent of all manufacturing employees, in 1946
(table 3). In 1958, they employed 382,200, or al
most a third of the manufacturing total. During
these 12 years, aircraft crowded out food as the
principal manufacturing industry in California in
terms of employment.
509
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
510
Machinery, fabricated metal products, instru
ments, and other metalworking industries also
expanded rapidly. Altogether, the durable goods
group doubled in the past 12 years.
At the same time, nondurable goods employ
ment increased by only 25 percent, or less than
half as much as the rise in population. Within
the nondurable goods category, food processing
is the dominant industry. California is pre
eminent in the production of canned, dried, and
frozen fruits and vegetables, canned seafood, and
wine. The pack of canned fruits and vegetables
rose from 35 million cases in 1939 to 111 million
in 1957. The tuna pack nearly tripled in the
same period. There has also been an especially
marked growth in the production of frozen fruits
and vegetables. The output of beverages, both
alcoholic and nonalcoholic, is well above prewar
levels, as is the production of other food prod
ucts. In fact, California accounts for 85 percent
of all the wine produced in the United States.
Because of technological improvements, how
ever, California has been able to produce this
ever-increasing quantity of food products for
T a ble 1.
C iv il ia n E m p l o y m e n t 1 in C a l if o r n ia ,
I n d u s t r y , S elec ted Y e a r s , 1940-58
by
[Number in thousands]
Industry
1940
1946
1949
1950
1953
1957
1958
Total____________________ 2,703 3,848 4, 084 4,202 4, 957 5,636 5,606
Agriculture, forestry, and
fishing..- .
.
_____
Mineral extraction_________
Construction_____________
Manufacturing_____ _____
Transportation, communication, and utilities________
Trade______________ ___
Finance, insurance, and real
e s ta te .______ _ _______
Service___ _______________
Government______________
317
46
128
461
400
36
216
731
431
37
257
739
424
466 488 480
40
40
35
37
289 321
353
357
797 1,103 1, 286 1, 222
197
659
302
898
313
957
314
354 381
363
974 1, 083 1, 227 1,226
124
505
266
145
619
500
168
658
525
174
662
533
203
744
643
244
876
741
249
888
785
Percent distribution
Total____________________ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Agriculture, forestry, and
fishing___ _ _________
Mineral extraction________
Construction______ ______
Manufacturing. _________
Transportation, communication, and utilities________
Trade__ ______
_____
Finance, insurance, and real
estate___ _____ ____ _
Service________ . . . ____
Government______________
11.7
1.7
4.7
17.1
10.4
.9
5.6
19.0
10.5
.9
6.3
18.1
10.1
.8
6.9
19.0
9.4
.8
6.5
22.3
8.7
.7
6.3
22.8
8.5
.7
6.4
21.8
7.3
24.4
7.8
23.4
7.7
23.4
7.5
23.2
7.1
21.8
6.8
21.8
6.5
21.9
4.6
18.7
9.8
3.8
16.1
13.0
4.1
16.1
12.9
4.1
15.7
12.7
4.1
15.0
13.0
4.3
15.5
13.1
4.4
15.8
14.0
1 Includes employers, self-employed, unpaid family workers, and domestic
servants, as well as wage and salary workers.
N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items m ay not equal
totals.
Source: California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of
Labor Statistics and Research.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
western, national, and international markets with
only a relatively moderate rise in food-processing
employment. On the other hand, substantial in
creases were recorded in the following nondurable
goods industries: paper products, printing and
publishing, chemicals, and apparel.
Trade. Trade has always held a leading place
in the California economy. Except during the
war, more persons were employed in trade than
in any other industry division until 1953, when
manufacturing took over first place. As popula
tion grew, so did employment in wholesale and
retail trade, but at a lesser rate, reflecting many
technological factors including the development
of supermarkets. Technological improvements,
coupled with the ascendancy of manufacturing,
are responsible for the fact that trade now ac
counts for less than 22 percent of total employ
ment, compared with more than 21 percent be
fore the war.
Service. The service division embraces a hetero
geneous group of industries with diverse trends.
In some groups, employment has expanded more
rapidly than population. These include the medi
cal, legal, engineering, educational, and other pro
fessional services, and business services and
employment agencies. In all other service groups,
employment increased less than population. In
one industry—motion picture production, distri
bution, and exhibition—there was even a decline—
close to 25 percent in the past 12 years. The prin
cipal reason for this has been the competition from
television.
Despite the huge expansion in California’s
tourist trade and in business travel, there has been
only a very small increase in wage and salary
workers in hotels and lodging places. The Cali
fornia hotel occupancy rate dropped from 93 per
cent in 1946 to 74 percent in 1958.1 Motels, which
are largely owner operated, have taken over the
greater part of the increased tourist business.
Since 1946, the number of motels in California
has doubled.2
In California as elsewhere, technological im
provements in laundries, coupled with the grow1 See th e H o rw a th A ccountant (New York, H o rw ath an d Horw a th ), F eb ru ary 1959, p. 9.
2 C alifo rn ia D ep artm en t of In d u s tria l R elations, D ivision of
Housing.
CALIFORNIA’S INDUSTRIAL AND EMPLOYMENT COMPOSITION
T a b l e 2.
W age
and
S alary W orkers
511
in C a l if o r n ia N onag r ic u ltur a l E s t a b l ish m e n t s , 1
S elected Y e a r s , 1 940-58
by
I n du stry ,
[In thousands]
Industry
Total wage and salary workers________
__ . . . ___________ __
1940
1946
1949
1950
1953
1957
1,931.8
2,972. 6
3,088.1
3,209. 4
3,877. 0
4,481.0
4,450.1
40.0
(2)
(2)
92.1
440.2
188.3
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
524.2
(2)
(2)
98.3
282.4
266.3
33.5
24.5
9.0
177.7
706.7
291.5
97.4
11.5
95.8
56.4
30.4
737.1
189.2
547.9
116.9
409.0
500.2
250.2
250.0
34.4
26.0
8.4
204.4
701.5
300.7
83.0
9.7
102.0
65.8
40.3
767.2
207.7
559.5
134.2
420.9
524.6
201.2
323.4
32.3
23.3
9.0
235.0
759.7
301.2
87.2
8.7
103.1
62.6
39.6
783.1
211.7
571.5
142.1
422.8
533.3
190.0
343.3
37.3
27.4
9.8
261.5
1,060.8
339.4
89.2
7.7
124.0
74.3
44.1
881.1
234.3
646.8
166.7
487.6
642.7
248.9
393.8
36.9
26.5
10.4
288.2
1,240. 7
364.6
73.3
8.0
145.2
91.8
46.3
1,009.0
273.0
736.0
204. 7
596.2
740.7
234. 1
506.7
34.4
24.7
9.7
292.5
1,176.9
346.0
65.1
4.5
142.8
87.0
46.7
1,005. 9
276.5
729.5
208.3
601.6
784.5
233.5
551.0
Mineral extraction____. _______ _ _ _
_ ...
_ _________
Crude petroleum and natural gas production____ ___________
Other mineral extraction__ ___ . . .
_____ . . _
Construction3. . . . ___ _______ ________ _________ . . .
Manufacturing___ . _ __________ ____________ _ _______
Transportation, communication, and utilities . . .
. . . ________
Railroads. . _________ . ___ . . .
......
Local railways and bus lines___________
___. . . . _ __
Other transportation. _______
___ . . . .
_ _______
Telephone and telegraph___ _________ _ . . ___ . . . ____
Utilities: Electric, gas, and water ______ . . . . __________
T rade_______ . . . ___________ _ ___
Wholesale . ______
. . ________
______ _
Retail__ _____________________ __________
________
Finance, insurance, and real estate 4____ . . _______ . . . . _
Service__ _ ___ _ . ___ _ . . . _ . ______
Governm ent5__________ _________ _ _ _. _________ _
Federal. _____
. . . .
______
___ ..
State and local_______ _____________ _______________
(2)
(2)
1958
1 Excludes employers, self-employed, unpaid family workers, domestic
servants, and agricultural workers.
2 N ot available.
3 Includes employees of construction contractors and operative builders;
does not include force-account and government construction workers.
4 Excludes employees of operative builders.
8 Includes all civilian employees of Federal, State, and local governments
regardless of the activity in which the employee is engaged.
N ote: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal
totals.
Source: California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor
Statistics and Research.
ing use of automatic laundry equipment both at
home and in do-it-yourself commercial establish
ments, have reduced employment requirements in
the laundry industry. This reduction has held
down employment in the personal service indus
tries, so that it has risen very little.
The net result of the diverse trends has been
a drop in the service division’s share of total
employment to well below prewar levels.
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing. California
leads all States in cash income from agriculture.3
Contrary to the downward trend in the Nation as
a whole, employment in agriculture, forestry, and
fishing in the State has increased in the past 12
years and is now well above prewar levels. A sub
stantial part of the California agricultural work
force in 1958 consisted of foreign contract work
ers, largely Mexican nationals. At the harvest
peak, they numbered 92,000 and averaged 48,000
during the year.4 Although total employment in
agriculture has increased, this industry’s share of
the State’s economy has been declining steadily.
These changes in employment reflect the signifi
cant change in the crop pattern in California
which has occurred in the postwar period. Acre
age has been reduced in specialty crops, particu
larly fruits and nuts, but total yield has held
above prewar levels because of greater produc
tivity. At the same time, acreage in field crops has
increased considerably; cotton, the most striking
example, has become the State’s most important
cash crop. In truck crops, there has been an in
crease both in acreage and in yield per acre. This
increased output has been partly for the larger
local market for fresh vegetables and partly for
the expanding national market for processed vege
table products, of which tomatoes and berries are
the most notable examples.5 Despite the shift to
the more labor-intensive field crops, agricultural
Government. Government employment at the
State and local level has increased steadily in
the postwar period to provide the services re
quired by an expanding population. In 1958,
about one of every seven employed persons in
California worked for a Federal, State, or local
agency. Before the war, the ratio was about
1 in 10. The 1958 distribution of government
employment compares with that for 1946 and
1948 as follows:
1946
Federal (civilian)_____________ ________
Department of Defense________ . . .
N ondefense____ _________. . . . . .
State and local______
________
E d u c a tio n .____ _
_____ _ _
Other State and local . _ ________
1948
(in thousands)
250.2
181.7
68.5
250.0
94.5
155.5
3 T he F arm Incom e S itu a tio n , Septem ber 1958
198.8
120.7
78.1
302.2
109.1
193.1
1958
233.5
141.5
92.0
551.0
241.9
309.1
(U .S . D epart-
m en t of A g ricu ltu re, A g ricu ltu ral M arketing S ervice).
4 C a lifo rn ia D ep artm en t of E m ploym ent. F o r f u rth e r discus
sion of th e fa rm lab o r situ a tio n , see th e a rtic le by V arden F u ller
on pp. 518-523 of th is issue.
5 C alifo rn ia B lue Book, 1958 (S acram ento, S ta te P rin te r,
1958), p. 816.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
512
T a ble 3.
W age
and
S alary W o r k e r s 1
in
C a l if o r n ia M a n u f a c t u r in g ,
by
I n d u s t r y , S elec ted Y e a r s , 1 9 4 6 -5 8
[In thousands]
Industry
1946
1947
1949
1950
1953
1957
1958
Total.................. ....................................................... .................................
706.7
721.8
701.5
759.7
1,060. 8
1,240. 7
1,176.9
Durable goods___________________ . ..............................................Ordnance and accessories__________________________________
Lumber and wood products (except furniture)_______ . ...........
Furniture and fixtures______________________________ _____
Stone, clay, and glass products_____________ _______________
Primary metal industries.._______ __________ ______________
Fabricated metal products (except machinery and transportation
equipment)____________________________________________
Machinery (except electrical)___________ __________________
Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies.............. ................
Transportation equipment________________ _______________
Motor vehicles and equipment__________________________
Aircraft and parts____________________
____ ______
Ship and boat building and repairing________ ___________
Instruments and related products_________ _______________
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries_____________________
397.1
.2
35.7
0
30.1
0
401.8
.3
44.0
23.0
32.1
34.9
378.4
.4
45.3
22.4
32.1
34.2
426.0
.7
52.7
24.8
34.8
40.1
693.5
13.8
58.4
25.7
38.0
46.4
846.7
32.9
60.4
27.9
38.9
48.8
789.2
41.5
59.5
26.5
37.2
43.6
0
57.0
19.3
135.2
13.9
83.7
36.9
0
0
49.9
58.3
20.4
117.3
17.7
77.7
21.0
7.5
14.1
45.6
47.2
22.3
107.5
20.9
78.8
7.2
7.2
14.2
53.9
49.4
29.5
115.9
23.6
85.7
6.2
8.6
15.4
76.4
78.0
66.6
256.6
29.9
213.3
13.0
13.0
20.6
81.3
93.9
101.9
319.6
34.2
273.0
11.9
16.9
24.3
78.6
81.8
98.9
282.1
28.7
241.8
11.2
16.0
23.7
Nondurable goods......................... ..........................................................
Food and kindred p roducts................................. ...........................
Fish canning and preserving__________. . . . . . ___________
Fruit and vegetable canning and preserving......... ...................
Tobacco manufactures_________________________ _______ -Textile mill products_____ ______ _________________________
Apparel and other fabricated textile products____________ . . .
Paper and allied products__________________________ ______
Printing, publishing, and allied industries------ ---------------------Chemicals and allied products............................................ .............
Petroleum products................................................................-..........
Rubber products... . . . ________________ ________________
Leather and leather products................................. ..........................
309.6
124.5
5.8
46.0
1.2
6.4
43.7
10.6
39.3
29.1
33.7
14.6
6.5
320.0
127.0
8.4
42.1
1.1
6.8
45.8
11.0
43.3
29.7
35.7
14.1
5.7
323.1
129.3
9.0
41.1
1.0
6.8
48.1
11.9
46.9
28.6
33.2
11.9
5.3
333.7
132.3
9.8
41.1
.9
7.5
51.2
13.5
47.8
29.6
32.4
13.1
5.4
367.3
139.3
7.5
45.8
.4
7.6
55.4
18.3
52.8
35.7
35.6
16.1
6.2
394.0
143.4
4.8
48.2
.1
6.2
55.7
23.5
63.5
39.1
37.7
18.3
6.4
387.7
143.8
6.1
47.6
.1
5.9
54.3
23.0
63.2
38.1
37.1
15.7
6.6
1 Excludes employers and self-employed; includes wage and salary workers,
administrative, supervisory, sales, technical, and office personnel,
force-account construction workers, and production and related workers.
2 Not available.
i. e .,
productivity has increased both in terms of land
and labor.
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities.
As in the Nation, the trend of employment in rail
roads and in local transportation has been sharply
downward in California. These two groups com
bined have cut their work force by 36 percent since
1946. More than offsetting these losses have been
substantial gains in other transportation, princi
pally trucking and air transportation, where
nearly 50,000 jobs have been added for a net post
war increase of about 50 percent. Larger increases
were registered both in communication and in such
other utilities as electric and gas companies, as
facilities were expanded to keep pace with the
growth in population and business
Despite these healthy gains, however, the down
ward drag of railroads and local transportation
cut the entire division’s share of total civilian em
ployment from 7.3 percent in 1940 and 7.8 percent
in 1946 to 6.5 percent in 1958.
Construction. California’s growing need for more
homes, schools, stores, offices, hospitals, roads, and
factories has meant a high level of employment in
construction. In the postwar years, California
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N Ote : Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
Source: California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor
Statistics and Research.
has accounted for around one-eighth of the Na
tion’s total dollar volume of construction6 and for
around one-sixth of the country’s housing starts.7
The rise in the State’s construction employment
since 1946, when wartime restrictions were re
moved, has exceeded population growth. Between
1946 and 1958, the construction work force in
creased 65 percent. This industry’s share of total
civilian employment rose from 4.7 percent in 1940
to 6.4 percent in 1958.
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. The finance
division has had the largest relative postwar in
crease of any of the industry divisions. But em
ployment was depressed in 1946 because wartime
manpower shortages had not yet been made up.
As personnel became available, and as new branch
banks, savings and loan offices, insurance estab
lishments, brokerage offices, and other financial in
stitutions were opened, employment began to rise
rapidly. By 1958, this industry division employed
twice the number in 1940. Its share of total em
ployment had recovered to 4.4 percent in 1958
from 3.8 percent in 1946, but remained below the
1940 ratio of 4.6 percent.
0California Blue Book, 1958, op. cit., p. 822.
7U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
CALIFORNIA’S INDUSTRIAL AND EMPLOYMENT COMPOSITION
Mineral Extraction. Mineral extraction since
World War I I has employed less than 1 percent
of all civilian employees in California and is the
only division in which employment is currently
lower than before World War II. The wartime
loss was never recovered, and since 1946, employ
ment has fluctuated between 35,000 and 41,000.
More than two-thirds of these workers are engaged
in crude petroleum production.
513
Chart 1. Employment Patterns in California and
United States, 1946-58
Area Changes
Industry shifts in some of the metropolitan
areas of the State have been even more pronounced
than in the State as a whole, largely because of
mushrooming industrial employment and popu
lation growth. A big shift has taken place in the
past 9 years in the distribution of nonfarm em
ployment as between manufacturing and nonman
ufacturing in four of the State’s five largest met
ropolitan areas.8 In the other—the San Francisco-Oakland area—the distribution remained
practically unchanged, as shown in the following
tabulation:
N o n fa r m w age a n d
salary workers
Los Angeles-Long Beach_____ _____
Manufacturing...... .............. ...........
N onmanufactur ing.............. _____
19A9
1958
(in thousands)
1,391.2 2,145.4
383.0
702.2
1,008.2 1, 443.2
Percent of total
1949
1958
100.0
27.5
72.5
100.0
32.7
67.3
San Francisco-Oakland........................
Manufacturing________ _ ...........
N onmanufacturing........— ...........
785.4
158.2
627.2
936.3
185.7
750.6
100.0
20.1
79.9
100.0
19.8
80.2
San Diego_______________________
Manufacturing__________ _____
N onmanufacturing_______ _____
127.0
23.7
103.3
221.9
66.5
155.4
100.0
18.7
81.3
100.0
30.0
70.0
San Jose___________________ _____
Manufacturing__________ ...........
N onmanufacturing.............. _____
75.2
20.9
54.3
145.5
49.1
96.4
100.0
27.8
72.2
100.0
33.7
66.3
Sacramento_________ ____ ________
Manufacturing _________ _____
N onmanufacturing_______ _____
89.5
8.7
80.8
142.2
20.8
121.4
100.0
9.7
90.3
100.0
14.6
85.4
In 1958, these five areas accounted for 81 percent
of all nonagricultural workers in the State and
87 percent of all manufacturing employees.
Los Angeles-Long Beach. Manufacturing, with
nearly a third of all nonfarm employees in 1958,
has become the dominant activity in the Los
Angeles-Long Beach area. The area holds 43 per-
cent of the State’s population, but accounts for 60
percent of all California manufacturing
employees.
Three industries—aircraft, electrical equipment,
and ordnance (including missiles)—employed 39
percent of all factory workers in the area in 1958.
Despite the sharp decline in motion picture em
ployment since 1946, service continues as one of
the area’s most important industry divisions.
Movies are still being produced in Hollywood,
and the tourist business continues to expand. The
number of out-of-State residents who visited
southern California as tourists increased from
2,945,000 in 1946 to 4,363,000 in 1957.9
San Francisco-0aMand. Population and employ
ment have grown at a more moderate rate in the
San Francisco-Oakland area than in the other
large metropolitan areas.
8Comparable data prior to 1949 not available.
The area is noted as a distribution center and
0 Estimates of All-Year Club of Southern California (Los
also as the financial capital of the West. Located
Angeles).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
514
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
T a b l e 4. N u m b e r of E m p l o y e d P e r s o n s p e r 1,000
P o p u l a t io n i n C a l if o r n i a , b y I n d u s t r y , S e l e c t e d
Y e a r s , 1940-58
Industry
T o ta l________ _________
Agriculture, forestry, and
fishing____ ____
. ...
Mineral extraction_________
Construction _____________
Manufacturing_______ . . .
Transportation, communica
tion, and utilities_________
Trade____
_____
Finance, insurance, and real
estate...
______ .
Service_________________ _
Government... _______ . . .
1940
1946
1950
1953
1957
1958
391.8
413.9
402.6
421.9
406.4
388.4
45.9
6.7
18.6
66.8
43.0
3.9
23.2
78 6
40 6
3.4
27. 7
76 4
39 7
3.4
27.3
93 9
35 2
2.9
25. 5
92 7
33 2
2.6
24.7
84 7
28.6
95. 5
32.5
96 6
30.1
93 3
30.1
92 2
27.5
88 5
25 2
85 0
18. 0
73. 2
38.6
15 6
66.6
53.8
16 7
63 4
51.1
17 3
63 3
54.7
17 6
63 2
53.4
17.3
61 5
54.4
N ote : Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
Source: Population data from the California Department of Finance;
employment data from the California Department of Industrial Relations,
Division of Labor Statistics and Research.
here are the headquarters of many of the largest
banks, insurance companies, mining companies,
and utilities in the State; also the regional offices
of many Federal agencies. Trade is the leading
industry division in terms of employment, with
manufacturing in second place followed closely
by government. This area does not have the high
concentration of defense-based employment found
in other areas. Manufacturing is diversified, with
food processing the leading component.
San Diego. In the San Diego area, employment
has expanded considerably in all industries except
agriculture and mineral extraction. The largest
relative gain has been in manufacturing, where
aircraft and missiles have played the leading role;
manufacturing, with nearly a third of all nonfarm
wage and salary workers, now employs more
people than any other industry division. Air
craft and missiles account for nearly 80 percent
of all manufacturing employees in this area.
Moreover, San Diego is headquarters for the 11th
Naval District, and the Naval Training Center
and other military installations employ a large
number of civilian workers. Thus, the economy
of the area is heavily based on defense-supported
industries.
San Jose. Orchards have given way to factories
and homes in the San Jose area. An agricultural
community before the war, this has become north
ern California’s fastest growing industrial area.
Fairly well diversified manufacturing has become
the dominant economic activity. Factory em
ployment has increased by 135 percent since 1949,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
while other nonfarm employment has risen 78
percent. This area has become the center of re
search and development in electronics and missiles.
Sacramento. The seat of the State Government
and the center of a rich agricultural region, the
Sacramento area in recent years has had a rapid
expansion of manufacturing employment, largely
the result of activities related to missiles. From
less than 9,000 manufacturing workers a decade
ago, the number climbed to nearly 21,000 in 1958,
bringing the proportion of total nonagricultural
wage and salary workers in manufacturing from
9.7 to 14.6 percent. Government—Federal, State,
and local—continues as the major industry divi
sion, accounting for 38.1 percent of all nonfarm
employees in the area.
Employment and Population Ratios
Not only has the California employment pat
tern changed in terms of relative distribution
among the industries, but some significant shifts
have taken place in relation to population. (See
table 4.)
Reflecting both the increased proportion of
children in the population and technological fac
tors, the trend in the ratio of employment to popu
lation has been downward in the agriculture, serv
ice, trade, mineral extraction, and transportation
divisions. Thus, relative to population, it takes
fewer people to grow food and fiber and produce
oil and fewer people to distribute goods and pro
vide services and utilities.
The ratio has increased during the postwar pe
riod in each of the other four divisions. In manu
facturing, it has risen well above prewar levels,
as a result of the cumulative effect of the World
War I I and post-Korean expansions in defense
industries. In construction, the ratio moved up
sharply in 1947 and 1948 and has fluctuated in
a relatively narrow range since then. In finance,
the trend in the ratio has been slightly upward
since 1946, but the 1958 percentage remained
below that of 1940. Although at a higher level
than before the war, the ratio of total govern
ment employment to population has not varied
a great deal since 1946. The ratio of State and
local government employment to population has
increased sharply during the period, while the
Federal ratio has dropped.
515
CALIFORNIA’S INDUSTRIAL AND EMPLOYMENT COMPOSITION
Chart 2.
Employment1 in Three Recessions, California and United States
T O T A L N O N A G R IC U L T U R A L
INDEX
INDEX
101
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
INDEX
MANUFACTURING
INDEX
101
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
1 Indexes of seasonally adjusted employment, with the base month being
the prereeession peak.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
S ource: California, California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research; United States, U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
516
Comparisons of State and National Trends
The diverse trends have shifted the industrial
pattern of employment in California and also have
narrowed differences between the State and na
tional patterns.
Industrial Distribution. Significant is the fact
that, since 1946, the trend in the proportion of
employment in goods-producing industries has
been generally upward in California in contrast
to the downward trend in the United States as
a whole. (See chart 1). In California, the pro
portion of all nonfarm wage and salary workers
in goods-producing industries (construction, min
ing, and manufacturing) increased from about 31
percent in 1946 to 34 percent in 1958. In the
United States, the proportion decreased—from 41
to 37 percent. Conversely, in the services sector,
the California ratio dropped from 69 percent in
1946 to 66 percent in 1958, while in the United
States as a whole, the proportion in services in
creased from 59 to 63 percent.
Despite the rapid expansion of manufacturing
employment in California, the proportion of non
farm employment in this industry division, cur
rently around 26 percent, is well under that for
the United States of approximately 31 percent.
The differences in nonmanufacturing industries
are of lesser magnitude.
The extent to which the California pattern has
drawn closer to that of the United States can be
seen from the following tabulation:
P e rc en t o f n o n fa r m e m p lo y m e n t
m o
Total___ —
—
.
Manufacturing
._
Trade._
. ---------- _
Government__________
Service_______________
Transportation, com
munication, and
utilities_____
—
Finance___ ____ _
Construction--------------Mineral extraction__
1958
U n ite d
S ta tes
C a li
fo rn ia
U n ite d
S ta te s
C a li
fo rn ia
100.0
100. 0
100. 0
100. 0
33. 6
21.7
13. 1
10.8
22.
27.
13.
14.
8
1
8
6
30.
22.
15.
12.
6
0
6
7
26.
22.
17.
13.
9.
4.
4.
2.
9.
5.
4.
2.
7
1
8
1
7.
4.
5.
1.
7
7
3
4
4
5
0
9
4
6
6
5
7. 8
4. 7
6. 6
.8
Note that the California-United States differences
were smaller in 1958 than in 1940 for every indus
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
try division except government and construction.
The sum of the differences in 1940 was 23.2 per
centage points. By 1958, the aggregate of the dif
ferences was reduced to 9.6 percentage points.
Cyclical Sensitivity. In view of California’s rapid
growth and the major shifts in its economy, how
did the State fare during the Nation’s three post
war recessions? Chart 2 presents the course of
total nonagricultural employment and manufac
turing employment in the United States and Cali
fornia during these recessions.
In 1948-49, both the severity of the decline and
the timing of recovery were practically the same
in the United States and California. The down
turn, however, began somewhat earlier in Cali
fornia.
The 1953-54 downturn was considerably milder
in California so far as the extent of the drop was
concerned. Furthermore, nonagricultural em
ployment in California recovered to the prereces
sion high 16 months after the downturn, while it
took the Nation 23 months to get back to the pre
vious peak. In manufacturing, California recov
ered in 19 months and then began to record new
highs, whereas U.S. factory employment, which
turned up from the recession low at about the same
time as California, had not regained the 1953 peak
when the economy turned down again in 1957.
In 1957-58, California again had a more favor
able experience than the Nation as a whole, meas
ured by total nonagricultural employment. The
extent of the decline from the mid-1957 peak was
not as great—2.5 percent in California and 4.5
percent in the United States. Significant is the
fact that by the close of 1958, nonagricultural
employment in California was back to the alltime
peak established some 18 months earlier. In sharp
contrast, United States nonfarm employment was
still about 3 percent under the 1957 peak.
California’s better record is largely a reflection
of the continued high rate of population growth.
Those industries directly related to population—
construction, trade, government, service, and
finance—contributed a great deal to the recovery
of total employment to prerecession levels.
While California fared much better than the
Nation in the 1957-58 recession in terms of total
nonfarm employment, the story is somewhat dif-
CALIFORNIA’S INDUSTRIAL AND EMPLOYMENT COMPOSITION
ferent for manufacturing. The magnitude of the
drop in this industry division was almost as great
in California as in the United States—9 and 10
percent, respectively. By December 1958, manu
facturing employment had recovered to within 4.5
percent of the prerecession peak in California and
within 7.8 percent in the United States.
TJnemploymerit. The unemployment record also
shows that California came through the recent
recession better than the United States as a whole.
Unemployment averaged 6.0 percent of the Cali
fornia civilian labor force in 1958 as against 6.8
percent in the Nation. This is quite different
from California’s experience in previous reces
sions.
After World War II, mass layoffs in shipbuild
ing and aircraft, industries heavily concentrated
in California, brought a sharp increase in the
State’s unemployment, which in 1946 averaged
8.8 percent of the labor force, more than twice the
national rate of 3.9 percent. The California rate
remained above that for the Nation for a number
of years thereafter because of the disruptions
caused by the war and because of the continued
augmentation of the labor force by inmigration.
In the 1948-49 recession, the unemployment
rate rose to a postwar high of 9.2 percent of the
labor force in California, considerably above the
United States ratio of 5.5 percent. I t was not
until 1954 that the relationship between the two
rates was reversed. As already described, the
1953-54 recession was milder in California than
in the United States. Unemployment in 1954
averaged 4.6 percent of the labor force in Cali
fornia, a little under the United States rate of 5.0.
In every year since 1954, California’s unemploy
ment rate has been under that for the Nation as
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
517
a whole. This reflects the high proportion of de
fense-related industries in California which has
imparted a measure of relative employment sta
bility to the State’s economy in the past few years.
Conclusion
The outlook for the near future is for continued
recovery without any significant shifts in the em
ployment pattern. Encouraging is the fact that
total employment in the first month of 1959 was
at the highest January level on record, and unem
ployment dropped below the year-ago figure for
the first time in 2 years. This was also the first
time since the start of the 1957-58 recession that,
on a year-to-year basis, employment increased
more than the labor force. Nevertheless, 359,000
Californians were unemployed, representing 6.1
percent of the labor force.
How much unemployment can be reduced will
depend upon the outcome of the race between in
creased labor force and new jobs. Over the long
run, we can look to further industrial growth.
Despite the huge postwar growth of factory em
ployment, the number of workers in manufactur
ing still constitutes a smaller proportion of the
total work force in California than in the Nation
as a whole. The shift of manufacturing opera
tions to California will continue as the population
of the West expands. The people will be here,
and plants will inevitably come here to serve
them, thus increasing employment in nondefense
manufacturing industries and in service, trade,
government, and utilities. Significant also is the
fact that those industries now classified as defense
oriented, and which have had the most rapid rise,
are the ones which will be in the forefront in the
space age ahead.
Farm Labor: Supply, Policies, and Practices
A farm manpower policy of improved working con
ditions is part of the price of an adequate and
efficient domestic labor supply.
V a r d e n F u ller
As i n t h e N a t i o n at large, one of the most out
standing changes affecting farm manpower in the
Pacific Coast States during the past decade has
been a sharp decline in agricultural employment.
The decline has been greater in family workers
than in hired workers, since the proportion of all
farm work done by hired workers tends to in
crease as smaller farms are consolidated and the
average size of farm rises. I t is notable, however,
that employment in both categories of labor has
declined relatively less in the Pacific region than
nationally, probably because mechanization in
fruits and vegetables, which are major crops in
this region, has proceeded somewhat slowly.
Also, the lesser decline in family labor may be
due to the fact that the Pacific Coast States have
had smaller proportions of low-income farms.
(See chart.)
Composition of the Work Force
The composition of the farm work force con
tinues to differ not only from the national average
but also among the three States. Hired workers
constitute approximately three-fifths of average
annual employment of all farm workers in Cali
fornia and just less than one-third in Oregon and
Washington. The comparative national propor
tion is one-fourth.1 Classified in accordance with
the composition of the work force, the California
farming system is hired labor dominant, whereas
the systems of the two other Pacific States are op
erator dominant, even though their proportions
of hired workers exceed the national average.
Another significant change of the past decade
has been the substantial reduction in the numbers
and proportions of interstate migratory workers.
518
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Pacific States, and California particularly,
once were known for their dependence upon mi
gratory labor. In the 1930’s, the interstate mi
gratory movement into California involved an
estimated 150-200 thousand workers annually.
Now, the estimates range from 15 to 20 thousand,
or less than one-tenth of California’s domestic
seasonal employment in recent years.2 This sub
stantial change has resulted from a marked tend
ency of recent migrants to “settle down,” which
probably reflects little more than the existence
of a comparatively more favorable economic cli
mate for doing so. The total of interstate mi
grants reported for Oregon and Washington
combined is nearly as large as that in California
but since their aggregate domestic seasonal em
ployment is smaller, their interstate migrants
represent larger proportions—from one-fifth to
one-third in recent years. The decline in inter
state migrancy has not, however, meant immo
bility; seasonal intrastate migration now substi
tutes to a considerable extent for the prior
interstate movement; meanwhile, increased local
commuting and expanding day-hauls also pre
serve a high level of mobility in the farm work
force.
The Pacific States also show sharp contrasts in
their postwar dependence upon foreign seasonal
labor. Oregon and Washington have not used
significant numbers of foreign workers, whereas
California usage has been more than double the
national average, as shown in the tabulation on
the following page.
1 Based on d a ta in F arm E m ploym ent (U.S. A g ricu ltu ral M ar
keting Service, S ta tis tic a l B u lletin 236, Septem ber 1958), an d
F arm L abor (U.S. A g ricu ltu ral M arketing S ervice), 1958 issues.
2 T he num ber of w orkers is from C alifornia A nnual F a rm L abor
R eports, 1956 an d 1957 (S acram ento, C alifo rn ia S ta te D e p a rt
m ent of E m ploym ent, F a rm P lacem en t Service) : th e proportio n
of dom estic seasonal em ploym ent is based on various 1953-58
issues of E m ploym ent a n d W age Supplem ent, F a rm L abor M arket
D evelopm ents (U.S. B u reau of E m ploym ent S ecu rity ).
FARM LABOR: SUPPLY, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES
S e a so n a lly hired fo reig n w o rk ers -per 1,000 dom estic w orkers
M id - S e p te m ber of—
1
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
--------------------
U n ited
S ta te s
C a lifo rn ia
93
113
136
200
187
218
185
250
444
512
441
506
O regon
W a sh in g to n
12
0
21
35
21
14
10
1
4
13
9
0
1 Peak of seasonal hiring in each year.
Source: Calculated from data reported in Employment and Wage Supple
ment, Farm Labor M arket Developments, various 1953-58 issues (U.S.
Bureau of Employment Security).
Mechanization and other technological changes
have, in fact, reduced or eliminated some peaks of
seasonal labor need that were troublesome in the
years before World War II. Hop picking has
been completely mechanized; from two-thirds to
three-fourths of California cotton is machine har
vested (virtually all of it could be machine picked,
if necessary) ; sugar beets are harvested mechani
cally, but the mechanization of preharvest work
lags. In the harvesting of most vegetables and
soft fruits, mechanization has been limited to aids
which perform portions of the task or ease the
hand worker’s burden but do not perform the ulti
mate selection and separation of the product. In
prunes, olives, and tree nuts, harvesting can be
completely done by machine but with a fairly
narrow margin of cost advantage, particularly
when quality is considered. Some tasks, such as
the thinning of fruit and hoeing of weeds, are
being eliminated or greatly reduced by new chem
ical techniques.
Two decades ago it was expected that the strides
of mechanization would tend to level sharp sea
sonal labor peaks, thus making the farm labor
problem more manageable. Unfortunately, the
peaks of seasonal labor need still remain—partly
because technological change has reduced nonpeak
as well as peak labor requirements and partly be
cause of further expansion in labor-intensive
crops.
Economic Status of Farm Workers
With these changes in the size and characteris
tics of the work force have come changes in the
economic status of farm labor. There is no doubt
that the levels of living for both operators and
hired workers have improved as compared with
prewar conditions, yet it is also true that rural
poverty remains persistently apparent. The roots
of poverty for the hired laborer are not, however,
502324— 59------ 3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
519
identical with those for operators; consequently,
each group needs separate consideration.
Hired Farm Worders. As in preceding decades,
the hired farm worker is prone to poverty because
he has no work for substantial portions of the
year and when he does work, his earning rate is
low. In 1957, the amount of farm employment
for farm wage workers who worked at least 25
days averaged 125 days, the lowest since 1945.3
The adverse situation of 1957 was not a chance
variation but was consistent with the experience
of other recent years.4 If this increasingly
shallow farm employment record were being
supplemented by larger amounts of nonfarm em
ployment, the overall picture would be more favor
able; but here, too, the experience is adverse.
Nonfarm work by these workers also fell to a new
low (an average of 19 days) in 1957.5 Further
more, migratory workers (defined as those who
cross county lines temporarily) did not achieve
an employment advantage over the nonmigratory.
Because of the instability of farm employment
and the fact that many farm workers are marginal
participants in the labor force, statistical meas
ures of employment, earnings, and annual incomes
are elusive. The most incidental employment is
removed from the above averages by the elimina
tion of those whose farm employment was less
than 25 days in the year. Women workers ac
count for approximately one-fourth of those
working 25 days or more. It is likely that the
majority of women workers are not available for
employment during the full year. Consequently,
to estimate the amount of income which is not
realized by farm workers because of time lost and
low earning rates, greater reliability is attained if
major emphasis is given to the employment ex
perience of male workers.
The national average wage income (farm and
nonfarm work combined) of men hired for 25 or
more days of farm work in 1957 was $1,087. The
1957 average earning per day was $6.25 in farm
work (143 days) and $8.55 in nonfarm work (22
days) .6 If daily earnings in farm work had been
equal to those in nonfarm work, the annual in3 T he H ired F arm W orking F orce of 1957 : A P ro g ress K eport
(U.S. A g ric u ltu ra l M arketing Service, Septem ber 1958), p. 4.
4 Ibid., 1954 an d 1956 rep o rts.
5 Ibid., 1957 rep o rt, p. 4.
6 Ibid., p. 7.
520
Pacific Coast States Farm Employment, Hired and
Family Labor, 12-Month Averages, 1947-57
come would have been larger by $329. The aver
age male farm worker in 1957 spent more time
in idleness than in work; if only half of his idle
time could have been salvaged, his income would
have been 60 to 80 percent larger, depending upon
the proportions of farm and nonfarm employ
ment. Although no equivalent figures are avail
able by States or regions, it is probable that farm
workers in the Pacific Coast States have had a
slightly more favorable employment experience
and a better daily earning rate. There is, how
ever, no reason to suppose that, in the Pacific
States or in any other region, the employment and
earning situation is one to be regarded as satis
factory from the perspective of either the wel
fare of the people involved or the effective utili
zation of the manpower resource.
Farm Operators. The persistence of low average
incomes among farm operators is usually attrib
uted to the adverse price consequences of surplus
production, which in turn is attributed to the un
anticipated productivity of technological im
provements. Alternative remedies for low farm
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
operator incomes have been recommended or tried
in several forms, centering mainly upon price sup
ports and upon control of land use, both of which
have proved to be rather unmanageable. Cur
rent interest in “agricultural adjustment” centers
mainly on the possibility of reducing the labor re
source employed in agriculture. Acceleration of
the relocation of low-income farm families is a
part of the Rural Resource Development Program
initiated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
in 1955.
The argument that there is an agricultural
labor surplus (in the operator and family labor
category) runs in these terms: Technological ad
vance has made it possible for a farm operator,
with little or no increase in hired labor, to farm
a much larger acreage; despite the tendency to
consolidate farms, a substantial proportion of
commercial farms are still too small to give full
employment to the operator or to his equipment;
if the movement of low-income farmers into non
farm occupations could be accelerated, those re
maining could earn more satisfactory incomes;
hence, the reasoning goes, there is a labor surplus
in agriculture which, if reallocated, would im
prove the income position of those making the
shift and also enhance the general welfare by
making more effective use of labor resources.
Meeting Seasonal Labor Shortages
Incongruously, or at least anomalously, there
is a simultaneous labor shortage in agriculture.
Growers of cotton, sugar, vegetables, and fruits
use large numbers of hand laborers for short sea
sonal periods. In the postwar labor market, these
employers have encountered difficulty in obtain
ing enough help. To relieve this situation, con
tinuation of the wartime emergency program of
importing alien seasonal farm workers was sought
and achieved. Even as the national farm labor
requirement has declined, the extended emergency
alien labor program has attained a magnitude of
some five times its maximum wartime level.7
The argument for the existence of a farm labor
shortage runs in these terms: Farm employers pre
fer to use domestic labor; however, unemployed
domestic workers ostensibly available for farm
7
E m ploym ent and W age Supplem ent, op. cit., and M ig rato ry
L abor in A m erican A g riculture, R ep o rt of th e P re sid e n t’s Com
m ittee on M igratory L abor (1951), p. 40.
FARM LABOR: SUPPLY, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES
work have been found not to be eager to take
up this category of employment ; when they have
been induced to try it, they have been found not
to be reliable and satisfactory workers; hence,
to meet seasonal employment needs, the domestic
force has to be supplemented by temporarily con
tracted foreign workers—principally from Mex
ico, but also Jamaica, the Bahamas, and Japan.
521
“Reasonable efforts . . . to attract domestic
workers” are defined in terms of comparability
with conditions required by disadvantaged foreign
workers rather than in terms of any degree of
comparability with employment standards gen
erally prevailing for other major segments of the
national economy. When the current phase of the
foreign labor program for agriculture was ini
tiated in 1951, job and employment standards for
The Alien Labor Program. Even more anom
farm workers—particularly for those doing sea
alous than the coexistence of a labor surplus and
sonal hand work—were distinctly substandard.
a labor shortage in agriculture is the coexistence
Subsequent improvements in other major segments
of separate and essentially divergent programs to
of the economy have increased the differences.
solve each of these problems. To solve the prob
“Reasonable efforts . . . to attract domestic
lem of surplus labor in agriculture, as previously
workers” have in practice had no reference to the
indicated, low-income farm families are encour
standards and conditions prevailing elsewhere in
aged to migrate into nonagricultural industries;
the national economy. Moreover, these efforts
simultaneously, to solve the labor shortage prob
have not in fact included all of the features re
lem, aliens are imported for temporary work.
quired for alien labor. One important feature
The question of whether it is feasible or desir
required in the alien labor contracts is a mini
able to try to meet agriculture’s labor deficiencies
mum employment guarantee; only in rare and ex
with agriculture’s domestic labor surpluses has
ceptional instances is any such guarantee offered
not been formally and systematically examined.
to domestic workers other than Puerto Ricans.9
Under Public Law 78 (82d Cong., 1st sess.), which
Such employment guarantees are usually handled
authorizes the Secretary of Labor to recruit and
through associations of farm employers rather
transport workers from Mexico,8 certain restric
than by individuals. In the wartime emergency
tions apply, including the provision that—
period and in connection with the contracting of
No workers recruited under this title shall be available
Puerto Ricans and aliens, the association approach
for employment in any area unless the Secretary of
to the hiring of seasonal farm labor has demon
Labor has determined and certified that (1) sufficient
strated
marked advantages. Individual farmers
domestic workers who are able, willing, and qualified are
can
depend
on a central labor supply; with an
not available at the time and place needed to perform the
allocation program built upon an aggregation of
work for which such workers are to be employed, (2) the
employment of such workers will not adversely affect the
irregular needs, fewer workers are required to
wages and working conditions of domestic agricultural
meet the need. This uses the labor supply more
workers similarly employed, and (3) reasonable efforts
effectively and, at the same time, improves the
have been made to attract domestic workers for such
incomes
of individual workers. Yet the potenti
employment at wages and standard hours of work com
alities of such systems of organization for do
parable to those offered to foreign workers.
mestic workers have been tried only incidentally
This statutory provision affords to the domestic
and superficially.
labor force a set of protections that are minimal
National manpower policy for agriculture (at
in degree and static in concept. I t implies that
least
in respect to hired labor) is not directed to
the only responsibility of the Nation to the do
ward
the attainment of these objectives. On the
mestic worker is to avoid making his conditions
contrary,
it is directed toward assuring that the
worse. It makes no allowance for improvement.
labor supply at “prevailing” terms will not be in
8
The re c ru itm e n t an d im p o rtatio n of M exican w orkers is conveniently short.
Government officials must
governed by P ublic L aw 78, w hich w as originally enacted in 1951
account for their actions if a crop loss due to labor
a n d h a s since been extended a num ber of tim es, an d by th e term s
of an in terg o v ern m en tal agreem ent.
shortage is alleged; they need account to no one
“For the labor supply countries other than Mexico, the con
as to whether any fraction of the 150-200 million
tractual arrangements are less formal and involve the respective
governments to a lesser extent. Puerto Rican workers come to
man-days of domestic labor resources that go to
the mainland for seasonal farm employment under contractual
waste could have been salvaged. Even at average
arrangements negotiated between the Commonwealth authorities
and private farm employers’ associations.
farm earning rates, failure to utilize these unused
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
522
days of labor resource means a loss to the individ
uals concerned and the national economy of ap
proximately a billion dollars10—more than the
gross value of all farm products marketed in the
States of Oregon and Washington in 1956 or 1957.
Effects on Employment Relations. Meeting the
seasonal labor needs of agriculture and at the
same time avoiding poverty in the domestic labor
force that performs this work are objectives not
easily reconciled. Yet, the difficulties notwith
standing, steps in reconciliation of the respective
interests of farm employers and workers can and
will be taken if there is need for doing so. A
labor force can be used with much greater effec
tiveness if the employment relation is not com
pletely casual ; if labor is scarce and its available
worktime needs to be conserved, there are many
possibilities of arranging the work on farms and
among farms toward this end. Under the pressure
of wartime emergency, some steps in these direc
tions were taken. But in subsequent years, when
foreign labor has been readily available, there has
been no necessity for experimenting with possi
bilities of decasualizing employment relationships
or improving the utilization of the domestic work
force. On the contrary, the employment relation
has become even more impersonal and casual.
This tendency toward greater casualization of
the employment relationship for seasonal workers
is largely attributable to current farm manpower
policies and programs under which the employer
is largely relieved of the responsibility to recruit
or otherwise to undertake to assure himself of a
labor supply. In prewar years, even when the
labor supply was generally excessive, individual
employers felt a responsibility to encourage the
return in following seasons of workers who had
proved to be satisfactory. This was done through
requests to return, promises of employment pref
erence, post card checks in advance of the season,
and other such communications. There may be
several reasons for the discontinuance of stabilized
and personal employment relations, but mainly the
reason appears to be that farm employers now
have come to expect that the Farm Placement
Services will procure them a labor supply, if not
from domestic, then from foreign sources.
Furthermore, the recruitment and referral
methods used by the Farm Placement Services
are prejudicial to the generation and maintenance
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
of stable, personal employment relationships.
Mass recruitment and referral conducted through
the press, radio, and television do not bring identi
fied employers and identified workers together.
Rather, these techniques may impel either too
many or too few workers into an area to satisfy
the labor requirement of a particular crop. Under
such an open-ended and uncertain arrangement,
the farmer seems well advised to satisfy his labor
needs at the earliest possible moment rather than
await the arrival of former workers whose reap
pearance cannot be guaranteed. I t has not been
uncommon in California for workers to return to
farms at which they have worked previously only
to find the on-farm housing already occupied by
such mass-recruited workers or by Mexicans.
In consequence of the lack of reliable employ
ment relations, labor contractors continue to find
a role that is useful to both employer and worker,
for a person with some experience as an employ
ment intermediary can help to reduce uncertainty
and ineffectiveness for both parties. However,
the role of the labor contractor apparently has
diminished. In prewar years, the contractor was
likely to arrange with a farmer to assume all re
sponsibility for a particular harvest. Currently,
he is more likely to be a bus owner who recruits
and transports workers on a day-haul basis. The
worker pays him for transportation; the farmer
pays him a small commission on units of work
completed by the workers he brings. Typically,
only casual relations now exist between contractor
and worker and between contractor and farmer.
The increasing casualization of the work force
may be one of the reasons for the lack of success
in organizing farm workers. In part, this may
also be attributed to the fact that farm workers
are excluded from protections in the right to or
ganize and to bargain collectively that are avail
able to most other workers under the Labor Man
agement Relations Act of 1947. The organiza
tions of farm employers that in prewar years were
10
About 2,200,000 persons did 25 days or m ore of farm w ork
du rin g 1957. T he 1,673,000 m en averaged 165 days of em ploy
m ent ; th e 527,000 women, 78 days. The m en averaged $6.25
per day of fa rm w ork ; th e women, $3.50. I f i t is assum ed th a t
these m en w ere available fo r an ad d itio n a l 100 days of w ork an d
th e wom en fo r an a d d itio n a l 60 days, th e forgone earning s, a t
fa rm earn in g ra te s, a re as fo llo w s :
M en:
167,300,000 days @ $6.25 = $1, 045, 625, 000
W om en: 31,620,000 days @ $ 3 .5 0 =
1 1 0 ,6 7 0 ,0 0 0
$1,156, 295, 000
FARM LABOR: SUPPLY, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES
largely devoted to resisting unionization of work
ers are now concerned mainly with obtaining for
eign contract labor and influencing the terms on
which these workers are obtained.
Recent Accomplishments. Even if one regards
the postwar role of the Federal Government in
respect to farm manpower as predominantly un
progressive, as this writer does, it can be said that
there have been positive accomplishments at the
Federal level and also that interest in the eco
nomic status and welfare of farm workers has
generally increased at the State and local levels.
The decision of the Federal administration to
stem the massive “wetback” traffic of illegal im
migration of Mexican farm workers and to keep
it at a reasonable minimum—a policy inaugurated
in 1954 and continued thereafter—can be listed as
an important accomplishment. The extension of
old age, survivors, and disability insurance to
farm people, on terms which cover a substantial
proportion of hired farm workers, is clearly a sig
nificant forward step. The appointment of the
President’s Committee on Migratory Labor, com
posed of the Secretaries of Labor, Agriculture,
Interior, and Health, Education, and Welfare,
and the Administrator of the Housing and Home
Finance Agency, is another accomplishment.
This Committee has served to integrate the inter
ests and activities in the Federal departments and
also to encourage actions by the States, particu
larly through comparable State committees or
commissions. Both the Federal and State bodies
have been mainly concerned with such matters as
the housing, safe transportation, and child wel
fare of domestic migratory workers.
In the Pacific region, migratory labor commit
tees have recently been established in Oregon and
Washington. Oregon’s committee has sponsored
an extensive factfinding survey. Although Cali
fornia has no formal State organization to deal
with the problems of migratory labor, several
State advisory committees and local semipublic
and private groups have shown an increasing con
cern with the welfare of seasonal and migratory
farm worker families. This interest has helped
to motivate experiments and programs in schools
and in medical, health, and child welfare serv
ices—all directed toward more effective local serv
ices for families that are not well integrated into
communities.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
523
Also on the favorable side, it may be reported
that, in some respects, farm employers’ attitudes
have become less resistant. Although farm em
ployer organizations still oppose the inclusion of
farm workers in unemployment insurance and
their coverage under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Labor Management Relations Act,
as well as a prospective fair employment prac
tices act (in California), these organizations and
their individual members have accepted the ex
tension of the Social Security Act to agricultural
workers and have improved on-farm housing and
transportation equipment. Farm employers also
have been responsive to extensions of local health,
welfare, and educational services to migratory
families.
These accomplishments in behalf of one of the
Nation’s most enduring segments of poverty are
all to be commended, particularly as they relate to
the enhancement of abilities for self-reliance.
*
*
*
Yet such accomplishments are all severely lim
ited by the restraint of the differentiated economic
environment that national and State policies have
established for farm employment. By the series
of exemptions and exclusions that apply, farm
workers are removed from the standards and pro
tections that other major occupational categories
enjoy. The conditions of domestic farm workers
are more closely correlated with the terms on
which alien labor may be obtained from underde
veloped countries than with prevailing standards
in their own country.
In consequence, the possibilities for occupa
tional satisfaction and the making of an accept
able livelihood are severely limited so long as the
worker stays in agriculture. Unless farm man
power policies are redirected toward improve
ment of the economic environment for farm em
ployment and toward effective utilization of the
work force, it can be expected that the domestic
farm labor supply will continue to diminish. Ex
cept where extraordinary local efforts are made
to plan and to organize the utilization of students
and others who are only temporarily seeking
work, the domestic labor supply also can be ex
pected increasingly to be composed of workers
who have limited capabilities, who are discrimi
nated against in nonagricultural employment, or
who for other reasons do not seek employment in
more rewarding pursuits.
Trends in Wages, Earnings, and
Per Capita Income
The West Coast has always been the high-wage area
of the country, but the differential has been steadily
declining.
M. W . R
ed er
T h e W est C oast is, and traditionally has been,
the high-wage region of the United States. West
ern workers had a marked advantage during the
latter part of the 19th century. This advantage
has been gradually eroded, and the forces responsi
ble for this erosion show no signs of abating.
The secular decline in the wage advantage of the
West Coast has rarely proceeded at a fast pace.
Although available data make a precise statement
impossible, it is likely that the only two periods of
rapid decline were during the two World Wars.
During the interwar period, there appears to have
been comparatively little change in the position
of the region relative to the country as a whole;1
even the depression of the 1930’s had but a negli
gible effect on the relative per capita real income
of the Far Western States.2 However, since 1940
the rise in per capita income in these States has
failed to keep pace with the rise occurring else
where, so that their relative position has declined.
Measures of the West Coast Wage Advantage
In the past, both the occupational and the in
dustrial distributions of the West Coast labor
force were such that per capita earnings would
have been higher in these States than in the
country as a whole, even if wage rates for compa
rable jobs had not been higher in the West. In
other words, the pre-1940 wage advantage of this
region was probably due to the joint effect of
several interacting factors. For example, the West
524
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Coast States had a larger fraction of their popu
lation in the labor force than did the rest of the
country.3 But this is not the whole story, for the
western wage advantage also appears in the data
on service income per worker shown in table 1.
Also the region’s wage advantage has been, and
remains, appreciably greater in agriculture than
elsewhere. As a result, the secular decline in the
importance of agriculture has been a factor in the
overall decline in West Coast earnings relative to
those of the rest of the country.
The Effect of Labor Force Composition. Obvi
ously, a comprehensive analysis of the causes of
the West Coast relative decline would be de
sirable, but detailed analyses of the sources of
regional differences in earnings have so far been
made only for single years in the late 1940’s. The
studies in question attempt to divide interstate
differences in earnings into two portions: (1) that
due to differences in industrial and/or occupa
tional composition of the labor force and (2) that
due to differences in annual earnings in “similar”
1 T his sta te m e n t is tr u e w ith respect to both th e c o u n try a s a
w hole and each region sep arately , w ith th e exception of th e
M ideast. T h e displacem ent (d u rin g th e 1920’s and 1930’s) of th e
F a r W est by th e M ideast, as th e region of m axim um p er cap ita
income, w as due to th e sh a rp rise of th e l a tte r (d u rin g th e
1920’s), r a th e r th a n th e decline of th e form er, re la tiv e to th e
country as a whole.
2 The F a r W est includes N evada as w ell as C alifornia, W ash
ington, an d Oregon. However, N evada’s w eight is so sm all rela
tive to th e o th e r th re e S ta te s t h a t i t h a s only a negligible
effect on th e regional average.
3 T his is evidenced by th e f a c t th a t, in th e W est C oast S tates,
th e incom e per w orker is low er re lativ e to th e n a tio n a l av er
age th a n incom e per cap ita. See R. A. E a ste rlin , S ta te Incom e
E stim ates, in E. S. Lee an d others, P o p u latio n R ed istrib u tio n an d
E conom ic G row th, U nited S tates, 1870-1950 (P h ilad e lp h ia,
A m erican P hilosophical Society, 1957), tab le Y -2, p. 754.
WAGES, EARNINGS, AND PER CAPITA INCOME
employment.4 To make this division, it is neces
sary to “standardize” the earnings data for dif
ferent States in one way or another. One method
for doing so assumes that the average annual
earnings in each occupation were the same in each
State as in the country as a whole, i.e., that the
difference between reported average earnings in
the State and in the Nation was due solely to dif
ferences in occupational composition. In this ap
proach, the national average earnings for each
occupation are multiplied by the number of per
sons employed in the occupation in each State
and the sum of the products for all occupations
in the State is then divided by the total number
of workers in the State. In 1949, the reported
average earnings of workers in California, Ore
gon, and Washington were 11, 8, and 5 percent
higher, respectively, than the national average
($2,556); but when earnings are standardized in
the above manner, California and Washington
were about 1 percent and Oregon about 5 percent
below the national average.5 Performing an anal
ogous operation on the earnings in each industry
brings average annual earnings for 1949 in all
three States below the national average—by 5
percent in California, and in Oregon and Wash
ington, 13 and 8 percent respectively.6
If we were to take these results literally, we
should conclude that both the occupational and
industrial composition of the West Coast tended,
as of 1949, to pull earnings below the national
average. From this it would follow that the
area’s observed wage advantage, at that time, must
have been due entirely to the fact that its workers
earned more in specific occupations and industries.
However, the matter is not so simple; it is pos
sible to compute each State’s average earnings on
the assumption that the Nation’s occupational (or
4 See F ra n k A. H an n a, A nalysis of I n te rs ta te Incom e D ifferen
tia ls : T heory an d P ra ctice, in R egional Incom e (P rin ceto n , N .J.,
N a tio n al B u reau of Econom ic R esearch, Inc., 1957), S tudies in
Incom e a n d W ealth, Vol. 21, pp. 1 1 3 -1 6 1 ; also F . H. H anna,
C o n trib u tio n of M an u fac tu rin g W ages to R egional Differences in
P e r C a p ita Incom e (in Review of Econom ics an d S ta tistic s,
Cam bridge, Mass., F eb ru ary 1951, pp. 1 8 -2 8 ).
5 F ra n k A. H an n a, op. cit., tab le 1, p. 122.
0 F ra n k A. H an n a, op. cit., table 10, p. 150.
7 F o r d etailed d iscussion of th is p oint, See discussion of F ra n k
A. H a n n a ’s pap er by E . F. Denison, G. H. B orts, an d R. M. W il
liam s in R egional Incom e, op. cit., pp. 161-193.
8 L ily M ary D avid an d H a rry Ober, In te rc ity W age Differences,
1945-46 (in M onthly L ab o r Review, Ju n e 1948, pp. 5 9 9 -6 0 8 ).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
525
industrial) distribution corresponded to that of
a given State, instead of the reverse, or some com
promise between the two might equally well be
used,7 and the results will vary with the formula
chosen. The available data suggest that the con
clusion drawn here is substantially valid; how
ever, caution should be used in applying it.
Earnings on Comparable Jobs. Surveys of oc
cupational earnings by the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics provide another measure of the West Coast
wage advantage. In 1945^16, the BLS surveyed
straight-time average hourly earnings for com
parable jobs in a number of industries in 22 cities,
including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle,
and Portland, Oreg.8 The cities were ranked ac
cording to earnings for comparable work in four
industry groups—bakeries, metalworking, retail
trade, and “other nonmanufacturing”—and ac
cording to estimated average earnings of workers
in all major manufacturing industries combined.
All four West Coast cities ranked sixth or higher
in every job category studied, and San Francisco
and Seattle were either first or tied for second.
T a b l e 1. R a t io of S e r v ic e I n c o m e 1 i n W e s t C o a st
S t a t e s to N a t io n a l A v e r a g e , A g r ic u l t u r e a n d
N o n a g r ic u l t u r e , S e l e c t e d P e r io d s , 1880-1951
State
Service income per worker, State as percent of
United States
1880
1900
1919-21
average
1949-51
average
Total
California______ . ___
Oregon_________ ____
Washington....... - _____
182
135
128
150
123
136
139
111
111
117
111
106
211
183
204
175
119
133
113
96
95
111
104
109
Agriculture
California____ _ _____
Oregon_______________
Washington____________
234
161
117
221
150
148
Nonagriculture
California_____________
Oregon_______ _
W ashington___________
138
128
131
124
113
122
1 Service income is the sum of wages and salaries (excluding employee
contributions to social insurance and “ other labor income” such as cash
sickness compensation) and proprietors’ income, with imputed rents of farm
dwellings included in the agricultural component of service income.
Source: R . A. Easterlin, State Income Estimates, in E. S. Lee and others,
Population Redistribution and Economic Growth, United States, 1870-1950
(Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society, 1957). Total is computed
from table Y-2, p. 754; agriculture, from table Y-3, p. 755; and nonagri
culture, from table Y-4, p. 756.
526
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
In manufacturing as a whole, all West Coast cities
were tied (with Pittsburgh) for third place, 10
percent higher than the median city.
In early 1951, the BLS conducted another study
of wage rates in 11 cities (including San Francisco-Oakland and Portland, Oreg.) and, since
1953, has made annual surveys in 17 to 19 major
labor markets, including San Francisco-Oakland,
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Portland, and, in some
years, Seattle.9 In all of these studies, wage levels
in the California cities rank at or very near the
top for both office workers and indirect manual
workers10in plants; they are 5 to 10 percent more
than in New York City for office help and 7 to 15
percent more for plant workers.11 Portland
wages are somewhat lower than those in San
Francisco or Los Angeles in all job categories;
they average, for plant workers, about 5 percent
more, and for office workers, 1 or 2 percent less,
than in New York.
Manufacturing Wages. All West Coast States
also rank very high with respect to average hourly
earnings in manufacturing. In 1957, Washing
ton stood third (behind Nevada and Michigan),
California was fourth, and Oregon and Ohio
were tied for fifth.12 Despite the long-term de
cline in relative per capita earnings in the Coast
States, it is doubtful that there has been much
change since the 1930’s in their relative manu
facturing earnings.13 For example, between 1939
and 1947, the per capita income of the Far West
ern States fell from 130.6 percent of the national
average to 124.1 percent, but average annual pro
duction worker wages in manufacturing fell only
from 113.4 to 113.0 percent of the national aver
age.14 Moreover, while the relationship of aver
age hourly earnings in California manufacturing
T a b l e 2. A vera g e H ourly E a r n in g s op F actory
P r oduction W orkers in W e s t C oast S ta tes as
a P e r c en t of N a tio na l A v er a g e , S elec ted Y e a r s ,
1 9 4 0 -5 8
Year
1940_____________
1947_______________________
1948__________________
1951. ___________
1955________________________
1957________________________
1958_________________________
California
113.0
114.8
113.3
111.3
112.2
112.1
114.1
Washington
118. 5
118.9
115.4
113.0
114.1
Oregon
122.0
120.2
112.6
112.7
Source: Employment and Earnings, M ay 1954 and July 1958 (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics), tables SC-1, SC-2, and SC-5; for 1958, un
published data from the BLS.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 3. R e l a t io n sh ip B e t w e e n E a r n in g s in S killed
a n d U n sk il l e d O c cu pa tio n s in
M a n u f a c t u r in g ,
F a r W e s t 1 a n d U n it e d S t a t e s , S elected P e r io d s ,
1 907-47
[Average earnings for representative unskilled occupations=100]
Region
United States:
1907_______________ _____ __________________
1918-1919_______________ ______ ____________
1931-1932................. .................. .........................
1937-1940___________________________________
1945-1947.— ___________________ __________
Far West: 1
1907_______________________________________
1918-1919___________________________________
1931-1932_________ __________________ _____
1937-1940_________________ ____ ____________
1945-1947___________________________________
Index for median
skilled occupation
205
175
180
165
155
185
170
160
145
1 See text footnote 2.
Source: Harry Ober, Occupational Wage Differentials, 1907 to 1947 (in
M onthly Labor Review, August 1948, p. 130).
to the corresponding countrywide average has
fluctuated somewhat since 1940, in 1958 it was
actually higher than it had been in the earlier
year (table 2). In Oregon, the ratio has de
clined rather sharply and in Washington, some
what less. But, since employment in California
far outweighs that in the other two States com
bined, it is clear that the data in table 2 do not
suggest any persistent trend toward a decline in
the relative hourly earnings of western manufac
turing workers since 1940.
Skill Differentials. On the West Coast, the com
parative absence of immigrants and of a large
rural population has resulted in smaller skill dif
ferentials than in any other section of the country.
In 1907, skilled wage rates were 85 percent higher
9
L. E a rl Lewis, C ity C om parisons of W age Level an d Skill
D ifferentials (in M onthly L abor Review, Ju n e 1952, pp. 6 4 3 -6 4 7 ).
T he subsequent studies have been sum m arized in th e follow ing
issues of th e R e v ie w : O ctober 1954, O ctober 1955, Septem ber
1956, O ctober 1957, an d November 1958.
i° W orkers in m aintenance, custodial, an d m aterial-h an d lin g
jobs.
11 P ay levels fo r each group of jobs in each a re a a re expressed,
fo r th e sake of convenience, as percentages of like groups in New
York City. T he sam e in d u stry an d occupational w eights a re
used fo r a ll cities. In 1953-54, th e city indexes ran g ed fro m 86
to 108 fo r office w orkers and from 72 to 114 fo r p la n t w orkers.
12 E m ploym ent an d E arn in g s, Ju ly 1958 (U.S. B ureau of L abor
S ta tis tic s ), pp. 162-173.
13 See M. S. Gordon, E m ploym ent E x p an sio n an d P o p u latio n
G r o w th : T he C alifo rn ia E xperience (B erkeley, U niversity of
C alifonia, I n s titu te of In d u s tria l R elations, 1954)» pp. 83-85.
I t is also qu ite possible t h a t th e re h as been little change in th is
ra tio since th e 1920’s, though d a ta a re n o t available to su p p o rt
th e conjecture.
u C. A. R. W ardw ell, R egional T ren d s in th e U n ited S ta te s
Econom y (U.S. D ep artm en t of Commerce, 1951), table 27, p. 87.
WAGES, EARNINGS, AND PER CAPITA INCOME
than unskilled in the Far West, as compared with
105 percent for the United States as a whole
(table 3). By 1945-47, the differential on the
West Coast had declined, but slightly less than in
the country as a whole. As a result, skill dif
ferentials remained smaller on the West Coast
than in other sections of the country—45 percent
compared with 55 percent nationwide.
From 1953 to 1958, skill differentials were re
duced in cities in the South, but there was no
appreciable movement either in the cities of the
Far West or in other sections of the country.15
Probably skill differentials, like other earnings
differentials, have been reduced (in real terms)
by the rise in fringe benefits as a fraction of total
compensation; however, it is far from clear that
this has had an appreciable effect upon regional
variations in skill differentials.
Wage Variations Within the Far West
Historically, San Francisco and Seattle have
been the high wage cities of the West Coast, with
Portland somewhat lower and Los Angeles
bringing up the rear. As of March 1940, the
spread in average hourly earnings in manufactur
ing between Los Angeles and San Francisco was
almost 15 percent.16 World War I I saw a great
reduction in intercity wage differentials, so that
by 1946, factory earnings in all four of the major
West Coast cities were bunched closely together,
the spread being 2-3 percent.17 The range
widened somewhat in the early postwar years, and
by 1951 was 6 percent, with average hourly earn
ings in manufacturing in San Francisco and
Seattle at $1.85, Portland at $1.82, and Los Angeles
at $1.74.18 Since 1951, the difference between the
high and the low city has increased slightly, to
almost 8 percent, but the ranking of the cities is
different: In 1958, San Francisco was still high
est, with earnings of $2.56, but Portland was low
at $2.38 and Los Angeles and Seattle were tied at
$2.42.19
527
Another view of the wage structure of West
Coast cities is afforded by the labor market sur
veys of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 195354 survey showed that San Francisco-0akland
pay levels were slightly below those of Los An
geles for office workers but were 6 to 7 percent
higher for plant workers. The differential in
favor of San Francisco was somewhat greater for
custodial workers than for other types of plant
jobs. Portland paid 8 to 9 percent less than Los
Angeles for office help, but only about 2 percent
less for plant workers. The 1957-58 survey
showed little change in relative pay rates among
the cities from those of 1953-54, either for office
or plant workers. Seattle, which was included
only in the latter survey, showed about the same
pay levels as Portland.
Yet another aspect of the West Coast earnings
structure is revealed by the figures on per capita
personal income. These figures, of course, reflect
the behavior of income shares other than employee
compensation; however, their behavior is roughly
indicative of divergences in interstate per capita
wage payments. As shown in table 4, between
1940 and 1946, Oregon gained most and California
actually lost ground with respect to the rest of
the country. Since then, California has more
nearly retained its relative position than Wash
ington, and Oregon has done worse than the
others. While the causes of this divergence in the
trends in per capita income are many and com
plex, certain factors are fairly obvious. Expan
sion of high-wage employment in durable goods
production has proceeded at a far more rapid pace
in California than in the Pacific Northwest. In
addition, lumbering and the production of wood
products, which bulk large in the economies of
Oregon and Washington (especially the former),
have been in a rather unprosperous state in recent
years. The relative growth of California’s popuT a b l e 4. P er C a pit a I ncome of F a r W e s t e r n S ta tes 1
as P e r c e n t of U n it e d S t a t e s , S elec ted Y e a r s ,
1 929-57
Area
1929
1940
1946
1950
1957
15 See A. N. Ja rre ll, Job P ay Levels an d T rends in 19 L abor
M arkets, 1957—58 (in M onthly L abor Review, Novem ber 1958,
Far W e st1_________
129
132
127
120
119
tab le 6, p. 1255).
California_______
142
141
132
120
124
10
N. B. Belloc, W ages in C alifo rn ia (Berkeley, U niversity of Oregon________
97
112
105
107
94
C alifo rn ia, I n s titu te of In d u s tria l R elations, 1948), tables 9 and
Washington____
107
111
112
112
105
10, pp. 31-32.
17 Belloc, op. cit., tab les 19 an d 20, pp. 60-61.
1 See text footnote 2.
18 E m ploym ent an d E arn in g s, op. cit., M ay 1954, table SC-2.
Source: Survey of Current Business (U.S. Department of Commerce
10U.S. B u reau of L abor S ta tistic s , unpublished d ata.
Office of Business Economics), August 1956, p. 11, and August 1958, p. 10.
502324— 59-------4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
528
lation and industry has also given an extra boost
to its construction industry.
Factors in Regional Wage Differences
The wage advantage of the West Coast in the
19th and early 20th centuries was due to a unique
(for the United States) configuration of labor
supply and employment opportunities. The grad
ual erosion of this advantage has been due to the
growing economic similarity of this region and
the rest of the country.
Prior to World W ar I, West Coast labor mar
kets differed from those elsewhere mainly because
of a greater scarcity of labor relative to the supply
of land, raw materials, and capital. The relatively
scant supply of labor was due to two facts: (1)
the West Coast experienced an influx of immi
grants to a much smaller degree than the East;
and (2) it did not have a comparatively dense
rural population whose overflow could act as a
brake upon urban wage rates, especially of the
unskilled.20 Higher incomes did attract migrants
from the East, but the deterrents to westward
movement were, for a long time, sufficient to per
mit substantial wage differentials to persist, pro
vided that demand conditions established them.
Until 1920, labor demand on the West Coast was
derived mainly from the demand for its abundant
raw materials, and from the needs of ports and
commercial centers such as San Francisco and
Seattle. As the remuneration of labor in such ac
tivities was a comparatively small part of the cost
of the final product, the burden of high relative
wages could be borne.
The distinguishing characteristics of the West
Coast labor force, which made a substantial con
tribution to its differential wage-earning capacity,
have become blurred in the course of its rapid
growth. The migrations of the past two decades
have brought it relatively more Negroes and poor
ly educated whites of rural background than it
had previously.21 And the rapid expansion of
manufacturing employment in the past decade,
relative to the national rate, has brought the in
dustrial and occupational composition of the Pa
cific States appreciably closer to that of the coun
try as a whole. Furthermore, the prospect of
higher real incomes22 has worked to attract an
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
increasing share of the Nation’s population to the
West Coast; the pull has been especially strong
during the period of relatively full employment
since 1940. The main reason for this is the search
by the Nation’s labor force for higher real in
comes. This search is frustrated by shortages of
employment opportunities such as existed in the
1930’s, but is a factor when jobs are available.
It is reasonable to suppose that eventually this
process will eliminate income differences between
locations—except for those necessary to equalize
their net attractions—but this will require at least
another two or three decades. In the meantime
we may expect to see, as we have since 1940, a
gradual shrinking of the West Coast earnings ad
vantage, coupled with a continuing tendency for
the area to increase its share of the Nation’s labor
force.
But the changing relative wage status of the
West Coast cannot be understood without consid
eration of developments in the rest of the country.
Prior to World War I, large-scale immigration
and the overflow of a relatively dense (as com
pared with the West Coast) rural population kept
labor markets, especially unskilled, in the rest of
the country “looser” than on the West Coast.
This state of affairs was ended by the labor short
age of World War I, which materially reduced
the wage advantage of the western States. Then,
the termination of immigration in the early 1920’s
prevented a restoration of the prewar labor mar
ket situation. A concomitant process gradually
diminished differences in marketable skills by
broadening educational opportunities and elimi
nating the predominantly uneducated immigrant.
It is not clear whether these forces had any effect
on the distribution of wage income in the 1920’s.
But whatever might have happened in the 1920’s,
the depression of the 1930’s drastically “loosened”
labor markets and obscured whatever effect other
“ 'This sta te m e n t applies m ore s tric tly to C a lifo rn ia th a n to
Oregon an d W a s h in g to n ; see th e a rtic le by M a rg a re t S. G ordon
on pp. 492^501 of th is issue.
21 I t m ig h t w ell be asked w hy th e re la tiv e increase in Negroes
and poorly ed ucated w hites did n o t w iden th e skill differen tials
on th e W est Coast. T he im plied answ er is t h a t th is increase
p revented skill differentials from n arro w in g m ore th a n they did.
22 C orrection fo r regional price differences h a s b u t little effect
upon th e re lativ e per c a p ita incom e figures in tab le 4. See A bner
H u rw itz a n d C. P . S tallings, In te rre g io n a l D ifferentials in P er
C a p ita R eal Incom e Change, in R egional Incom e, op. cit., pp.
195-270, especially table A -9, pp. 260-261.
WAGES, EARNINGS, AND PER CAPITA INCOME
factors might have had. However, in the tight
labor markets of the early 1940’s—and ever since—
we have seen the fruits of restricted immigration
and broadened educational opportunities. Chief
among these have been marked decreases in differ
entials in annual earnings related to skill, occupa
tion, industry, and color,23 which have inevitably
had repercussions on regional differentials; i.e.,
they have pulled down (relative to national aver
ages) those regions having a “favorable” 24 labor
force composition, such as the West Coast, and
pushed up those with an “unfavorable” composi
tion, such as the South.
Since 1945, hourly wages for given jobs in
Pacific Coast cities have been little if any higher
than in various other places. Wages in San Fran
cisco and Los Angeles are among the highest in
the country, but they are no higher than in De
troit or Cleveland and not much higher than in
23 See H. P . M iller, Incom e of th e A m erican P eople (New York,
Jo h n W iley & Co., 1955), ch. V I I I ; also Changes in th e In d u s
tr ia l D istrib u tio n of W ages in th e U nited S tates, 1939-1949, in
An A p p raisal of th e 1950 Census Incom e D a ta (P rin ceto n , N .J.,
N atio n al B ureau of E conom ic R esearch, Inc., 1958), Studies in
Incom e a n d W ealth, Vol. 23, pp. 355-419.
24 I.e., a lab o r force h av in g relativ ely m ore m em bers in various
high-w age categories th a n th e co u n try as a whole.
25 In 1949, am ong u rb an places of less th a n 50,000 persons and
am ong th e ru ra l fa rm p opulation, th e Pacific region had the
h ig h est m edian incom e of th e nine regions in th e country.
Among S ta n d a rd M etro p o litan A reas (SM A’s) of over 500,000,
i t ran k ed t h i r d ; am ong SMA’s of 250,000-499,999, i t ranked
six th ; an d am ong SMA’s of 100,000-249,999, i t ran k ed th ird .
See E d w in M ansfield, C ity Size a n d Incom e, 1949, in Regional
Incom e, op. cit., tab le 3, p. 277.
28 T h is sta te m e n t applies m ore to C alifo rn ia th a n to Oregon
an d W ash in g to n ; see M a rg aret S. G ordon, pp. 492-501 of th is
issue.
529
Chicago. San Francisco and Los Angeles do pay
higher wages than Minneapolis, St. Louis, Mil
waukee, etc., but the same could not be said of
Portland. In short, the high-wage cities on the
Coast pay little more for comparable jobs than
the high-wage cities in the central part of the
United States. However, the Pacific Coast has
relatively fewer low-wage urban areas to offset
the high-wage centers than other regions. This
difference is reflected in the fact that the income
advantage of the Pacific Coast is much more
distinct in small towns than in large cities.25
The lack of a low-wage tail on the Pacific Coast
is the result of its comparatively thin agricultural
population. The lack of a surplus farm popula
tion has also been a major factor in keeping un
skilled labor comparatively scarce and skill differ
entials smaller than in other parts of the country.26
In the preceding explanation of regional differ
ences in wage levels and structure, no attempt has
been made to consider the possible influence of
differing degrees of unionism as between the West
Coast and other regions or as between areas with
in the West. Differing degrees of unionism are
sometimes assigned a significant role in explaining
wage phenomena, but the author believes that
regional differences in unionism are largely the
result of the same underlying factors to which he
has attributed regional wage differences. Cer
tainly there are phenomena of detail that reflect
the independent effect of unionization, but this
writer doubts that their analysis would compel
alteration of the broad outlines here sketched.
As far as can be ascertained, the first demand by a group of California
workers for higher wages was made by the carpenters and joiners of San
Francisco in the winter of 1849. The prevailing rate was $12 per day; on
November 10, they asked that it be raised to $16. This was refused, and a
strike resulted. On November 18, the issue was compromised, the employers
agreeing to pay $13 per day until December 7, after which they were to pay
$14.
—Ira B. Cross, A History of the Labor Movement in California (Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1935), p. 14.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Trade Union Characteristics,
Membership, and Influence
Organization is chiefly nonfactory and leads the
country in penetrating the “difficult” areas of poten
tial membership.
I rvin g B e r n s t e in
U nionism on the Pacific Coast has a rich and
dramatic history, with roots that dig deep into
the past, despite the relative youthfulness of the
region. In November 1849, during the Gold Rush,
the carpenters of San Francisco struck to raise
their daily wage from $12 to $16. In 1850, the
typographical workers and the teamsters of San
Francisco formed unions, and it is probable that
the boatmen followed their lead.
Many dramatic incidents of American labor
history have taken place on the Pacific Coast: the
Gold Rush, the Chinese exclusion movement of
the late 19th century, the bombing of the Los
Angeles Times in 1910, the San Francisco Pre
paredness Day bombing of 1916, the Seattle Gen
eral Strike of 1919, the San Francisco General
Strike of 1934, the North American Aviation
strike of 1941 that led President Roosevelt to
send in Federal troops, the Hollywood jurisdic
tional strike of 1946. Coast labor has had its
colorful figures—the gold miner, the Chinese
coolie, the seaman, the fruit tramp, the singing
bum (often a Wobbly), the wetback, the long
shoreman, the logger, the over-the-road truckdriver, the motion picture star. And it has con
tributed its share of outstanding union men whose
careers, if not always admirable, were invariably
interesting: Dennis (“The Chinese Must Go”)
Kearney; Andrew Furuseth, who dedicated him
self to the welfare of the seamen; Jim and John
McNamara of the Ironworkers and the bomb;
P. H. (“Pinhead”) McCarthy, lord of the build
ing trades and mayor of San Francisco; Tom
Mooney of the Molders and San Quentin; Harry
Bridges of the Longshoremen, the Left, and the
General Strike; tough Harry Lundeberg of the
Sailors Union of the Pacific; Dave Beck of the
Teamsters and the fast buck.
530
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
This long history, these dramatic incidents and
colorful leaders, and the economic landscape of
the region have joined to produce a distinctive
Pacific Coast labor movement. While these
unions share many features with labor organiza
tions in the remainder of the Nation, they also
have unique regional characteristics, most of
which are coastwide in extent.
Trade unionism is presently a significant force
in the three Pacific Coast States. If we are to
gage it by the number of union members, it is
more important here than in the Nation as a
whole. In California, much the most populous
of these States, there were 1,689,500 members in
1956, or 38.8 percent of the 4,354,600 wage and
salary workers employed in nonagricultural estab
lishments. In the same year, there were 17,385,000
union members in the continental United States,1
or 33.6 percent of the 51,766,000 employees in non
agricultural establishments. The extent of or
ganization in Washington and Oregon is even
higher. In 1953, according to Troy, Washington
was the most unionized State in the United States,
Oregon ranked fifth, and California was thir
teenth.2
1 E xcludes m em bers of in tr a s ta te unaffiliated unions (prob
ably num bering 500,000 or m ore) a s w ell as an unknow n num ber
of m em bers of n a tio n a l or in te rn a tio n a l unions who w ere u n
employed!, in the Arm ed F orces, etc.
2 The source of n a tio n a l d a ta is th e B u reau of L abor S ta tistic s.
I ts figures a re published in th e D irectory of N atio n al and I n te r
n a tio n a l L abor U nions in th e U nited S tates, 1957 (B ull. 1222,
1957). T he C alifornia series ap p ears in th e an n u a l publication
of th e D ivision of L abor S ta tistic s an d R esearch of th e S tate
D ep artm en t of In d u s tria l R elatio n s— U nion L abor in C alifornia.
I ts series began in 1950. F o r a v ariety of reasons, th e 1950 fig
ures a re n o t fully co n sisten t w ith those t h a t follow ed, and fo r
th e purpose of th is paper, th e series w ill be considered to have
begun w ith 1951. The 1953 ran k in g of W ashington an d Oregon
is from Leo T roy, D istrib u tio n of U nion M em bership am ong th e
S tates, 1939 an d 1953 (New York, N atio n al B u reau of Econom ic
R esearch, Inc., 1957), p. 18. F o r m ore recen t estim ates of
union m em bership in these S tates, th e a u th o r is indebted to J. H.
D avis of th e W ashington S ta te L abor Council an d Tomm y Scan
lon of th e Oregon S ta te L abor Council.
THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT
Recent Membership Trends
Union membership in California has been grow
ing in recent years (table 1). Between 1951 and
1958, the labor movement added 263,100 persons
to its ranks, a gain of 18.2 percent. Growth is
also evident in the number of local unions in the
State. Between 1951 and 1958, there was a net
increase of 366, a rise of 11.4 percent.
The advance in membership and organization
has been both persistent and undramatic. In only
2 years—1954 and 1958—has the number of mem
bers turned down and, in each case, quite mod
estly. The obvious cause in both 1954 and 1958
was the general recession in business activity. In
no year did the unions enjoy a dramatic increase
in membership, as they had in the late 1930’s and
early 1940’s. This is because the conditions that
create such breakthroughs—major wars and re
covery from severe depressions—did not occur
during this short period.
When the advance in membership is discounted
by California’s spectacular expansion in employ
ment, however, the performance of the unions
becomes less impressive. The relative number of
nonagricultural wage and salary earners who be
long to labor unions has actually fallen from 40.8
percent in 1951 to 38.3 percent in 1958. Put an
other way, between 1951 and 1958, membership
advanced only 18.2 percent in contrast with an
employment rise of 26.1 percent.
The reasons for the failure of California’s labor
movement to grow relatively are complex, and
the data are insufficient to permit a comprehensive
anaylsis. An important factor has been the ina
bility of the unions to keep up with rising em
ployment in manufacturing. I t appears that the
proportion of manufacturing employees who were
union members declined from 52 percent in 1951
to 46 percent in 1957. Part of this drop must be
laid to the marked shift, notable in the aircraftmissile industry, from blue- to white-collar em
ployment. The remainder may perhaps be ex
plained by the difficulty of maintaining pace with
a proliferation of new small plants, especially in
southern California.
Industrial Distribution. Table 2 reveals the in
dustrial distribution of California’s union mem
bers for 1951 and 1957. A most significant
feature of California unionism, stemming from
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
531
the nature of its economy, is its predominantly
nonfactory membership. For American unions as
a whole, according to the Bureau of Labor Statis
tics, only 51 percent of the membership was in
nonmanufacturing industries in 1956. In Cali
fornia, by contrast, industries other than manu
facturing accounted for 67 percent of the mem
bership in 1957. In substantial part, this is
explained by the great importance of construction
in a rapidly expanding economy as well as more
intensive organization by California unions. The
building trades supplied 19 percent of California’s
membership in 1957, in comparison with less than
12 percent for all American unions in 1956. The
nonfactory character of California’s unions is not
new; in 1951, the relationship between the two
industry groupings was identical.
The most important membership gains have
been in heavy manufacturing, in construction, in
public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in
hotels and restaurants and miscellaneous services,
and in public employment. The union advances
in metals and machinery, transportation equip
ment, and other manufacturing reflect the rapid
industrialization of California’s economy. The
gains in construction stem from general economic
growth. Those in the other nonmanufacturing
industries represent a significant breakthrough
for union organization into largely new ground.
For major industry groupings, estimates of
California union membership as a percentage of
employment in 1957 were as follows:
Percent
C o n s tru c t io n ________________________________________
1 117
Transportation and warehousing_______________
Public utilities_______________________________
47
87
M a n u fa c tu rin g ______________________________________
45
Trade and service____________________________
Mineral extraction____________________________
28
13
This unusual statistic is explained by two factors: the intermittency of
employment and the fact that many unionized building tradesmen work in
industries other than construction.
Source: See text footnote 2.
1
These figures provide a basis for comparing the
extent of organization in California with that in
the other Pacific Coast States. Table 3 presents
Oregon’s approximate union membership by in
dustry in 1958. These estimates are supported
by the BLS survey of 148 establishments in the
Portland labor market in April 1958. Of their
51,070 employees, approximately two-thirds were
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
532
plant workers3 and the remainder office personnel.
The proportion of plant workers covered by labormanagement agreements was 85-89 percent in
manufacturing, over 95 percent in public utilities,
and 60-64 percent in retail trade. The corre
sponding percentages for office employees were less
than 5 percent in manufacturing, 60-64 in utili
ties, and 35-39 in trade.4
Despite marked differences in the economic de
velopment of Oregon and California, the pattern
of unionization is similar. In both States, con
struction as well as transportation and warehous
ing are completely or almost entirely organized,
manufacturing is approximately half unionized,
about three-tenths of the workers in trade and
service are union members, and only a minor frac
tion of those in the extractive industries have
joined. The only significant deviation is in public
utilities. Here Oregon is almost wholly and Cali
fornia is not quite half organized.
Table 4 reveals Washington’s approximate
union membership distribution by industry in
1958. Washington is, as previously noted, the
most highly unionized of the Pacific Coast States.
In contrast with Oregon, the following industries
show a greater concentration of membership:
petroleum, chemicals, and rubber; transportation
equipment; “other manufacturing” ; motion pic
tures (chiefly theaters); and government. Only
in the case of food and kindred products does
Oregon take the lead.
Geographic Distribution. The geographic distri
bution of union membership within each of the
Pacific States is related mainly to urban indus
trialization and to a lesser extent to natural re
source location. Western Washington, which
T a ble 1.
C a l ifo r n ia U n io n M e m b e r s h ip
L ocals , 1 9 5 1 -5 8 1
and
U n io n
Membership
Year i
Number (in thou Percent of employment
in nonagricultural
sands)
establishments
1951_____
1952_____
1953_____
1954_____
1955_____
1956_____
1957_____
1958_____
1,443.1
1, 503. 4
1, 577.9
1, 566.1
1, 618. 5
1, 689. 5
1, 736. 7
1, 706. 2
i Data relate to July 1 of each year.
S o urce : See text footnote 2.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40.8
40.2
40.5
40.6
39.3
38.8
38.6
38.3
Number
of locals
3, 218
3,355
3,382
3, 384
3,430
3,432
3,490
3, 584
T a b l e 2.
C a l if o r n ia U n io n M e m b e r sh ip
1951 a n d 1957 1
Industry
by
I n du stry,
1951
1957 i
Number Per
(in thou cent
sands)
Number Per
(in thou cent
sands)
1,443.1
100
1, 736. 7
100
M anufacturing..... .................. .............
468.1
33
575.0
33
Food and kindred products----------------------- --------------Textiles and apparel
Lumber and furniture. ______________
Printing and publishing. . . . - - - - - -Petroleum, chemicals, and rubber--------Metals and machinery------ ------------------Transportation equipm ent_____ _____
Other manufacturing----- ----------------------
115.7
25.6
42.5
23.7
32.3
112.1
87.1
29.1
8
2
3
2
2
8
6
2
114.0
22. 5
40.8
29.7
36.0
141.5
144.4
46.1
7
1
2
2
2
8
8
3
975.0
67
1,161. 7
67
12.5
266.5
191.7
55. 2
156.3
1
18
13
4
9.5
328.8
201.4
66. 2
220.3
87.0
6
100.4
6
76.9
80.9
48.0
5
6
3
73.9
103.8
57.4
4
6
3
T otal________________________________
Nonmanufacturing-
-----------------
Agriculture, fishing, and mineral extraction _______ _________ -- ----------------Construction. ---------------------------------Transportation and warehousing... -- .
Public utilities-----------------------------------Trade, wholesale and retail _
---------Eating and drinking places, hotels and
other lodging p la c e s_________________
M otion picture production, distribution,
service, and theaters ____ _____ ___
Miscellaneous services_________ ______
Government------- ----------------------- --------
h
(2)
19
12
13
1 Data relate to July 1 of each year.
2 Less than 0.5 percent.
Source: See text footnote 2.
contains most of the metropolitan areas, is more
highly organized than the eastern part. In Ore
gon, according to the Oregon State Labor Council,
80 percent of the members live west of the Cas
cades, mainly in the Willamette Valley and in
the coastal towns. In the case of California, it is
possible to deal with local areas precisely and to
note several interesting recent developments.
Table 5 presents the geographic distribution of
California’s membership in 1954 and 1957, ranked
by rate of growth.5 I t reveals a dramatic rela
tive shift from the north to the south. Of the
five leading districts in rate of growth, four are
southern. These four districts comprise the
whole region generally referred to as southern
California. The Southeast ranks first, Santa
Barbara-Ventura is second, San Diego is fourth,
and Los Angeles-Long Beach ranks fifth. The
explanation for this growth in the south is rapid
urbanization, industrialization, and population
expansion.
3
Em ployees engaged in m aintenance, pow erplant, custodial,
an d m a te ria l m ovem ent occupations, as w ell as those in d irect
production occupations, w hich w ere n o t surveyed.
i
O ccupational W age Survey, P o rtla n d , Oregon, A pril 1958
(BLS Bull. 1224-16, 1958), p. 14.
s I t is n o t possible to employ ea rlie r d a ta fo r co m parative p u r
poses because of changes in are a definitions in 1954.
THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT
T a ble 3.
533
O regon U n io n M e m b e r s h ip , A ppro xim a te
E x t e n t b y I n d u st r y , 1958
Percent of organization
Industry
1-20
21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100
M anufacturing
Food and kindred products....................... .
Textiles and apparel________ ____ _______
Lumber and furniture____ _______ _____
Printing and publishing________________
Petroleum, chemicals, and rubber______
Metals and machinery_________ ._ ______
Transportation eq u ip m en t.--___________
Other manufacturing___________________
X
X
x
x
X
x
x
X
N ONMANUFACTURING
Agriculture, fishing, and mineral extrac
tion___________ . __________________
Construction______ . . . _______________
Transportation and warehousing________
Public utilities________ - ...... ...................
Trade, wholesale and retail____ _______ _
Eating and drinking places, hotels and
other lodging places______ _ ________
M otion picture production, distribution,
service, and theaters______ ___________
Miscellaneous services_____ ___________
Government__________ _______________
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
S o urc e : See text footnote 2.
Historically, San Francisco was known as a
“union” town and Los Angeles as “open shop,”
but this has long since ceased to be the case. The
probability is that the number of union members
in Los Angeles first exceeded that in San Fran
cisco at the end of World War II. By 1957, the
southern city’s lead had widened to 201,000.
Nevertheless, unions in the Bay area have pene
trated more deeply. In 1957, according to the
California Division of Labor Statistics and Re
search, union members constituted 50 percent of
employment in San Francisco-Oakland, 35 per
cent in Los Angeles-Long Beach, and 37 percent
in San Diego. If San Diego continues to grow at
the rate which it has enjoyed in the past decade,
California will before long have a third major
center of trade union strength.
The waning of San Francisco in relation to
other cities has been accompanied by the decline
of the maritime unions. The seamen and the long
shoremen once played decisive roles in West Coast
unionism and their main stage was San Francisco
Bay. They are now supporting players. This
has stemmed in part from the decline of the Amer
ican merchant marine, but more importantly, from
the rapid growth of other organizations. Now
adays, Los Angeles Joint Council 42 of the Team
sters alone has more members than the Sailors
Union of the Pacific and the International Long
shoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union combined.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 5 also demonstrates that unions have been
entering new localities and small communities.
This is most evident in the case of the Southeast,
embracing Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernar
dino Counties, which has no large cities and was
heretofore little unionized. Much the same may
be said of Santa Barbara-Ventura and the Sacra
mento Valley, in which the growth of union mem
bership has exceeded the statewide rate. If it were
possible to break down the data for San Fran
cisco Bay and Los Angeles-Long Beach, the same
tendency would doubtless be in evidence. I t is
likely, for example, that such outlying and for
merly agricultural areas as Santa Clara County,
the San Fernando Valley, the Antelope Valley,
and Orange County have seen a higher relative
growth in membership than have the cities of San
Francisco and Los Angeles.
Special Features of West Coast Unionism
Pacific Coast unionism differs from unionism in
the Nation as a whole in having made a deeper,
though hardly complete, penetration into those
sectors which are difficult to organize. Retail
workers in food markets and drugstores are gen
erally union members, and in some communities,
the same is true in the department stores. Sev
eral of the southern California aircraft companies
bargain with unions representing their engineers.
T a b l e 4.
W a sh in g to n U n io n M e m b e r s h ip , A pp r o x i
mate E x t e n t b y I n d u s t r y , 1958
Percent of organization
Industry
1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100
M anufacturing
Food and kindred products_______ _____
Textiles and apparel__________________
Lumber and furniture._______ _________
Printing and publishing___ ___________
Petroleum, chemicals, and rubber_______
Metals and machinery..................... ...........
Transportation equipment_____________
Other manufacturing__________________
x
X
x
x
x
X
X
x
N ONMANUFACTURING
Agriculture, fishing, and mineral extrac
tion______________________________
Construction___ ________ ___________
Transportation and warehousing________
Public utilities___
. _____________
Trade, wholesale and retail_____________
Eating and drinking places, hotels and
other lodging places.__________ ___ ___
Motion picture ~produ ction, distribution,
service, and theaters_________________
Miscellaneous services_________________
Government_____________ _____ _____
S o urce : See text footnote 2.
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
534
T a ble
5.
C a l if o r n ia U n io n M e m b e r s h ip
1954 a n d 1957 1
by
A rea,
[Membership in thousands]
Percent
change
Area
1954 1
1957 1
Total..................... - ................................................
1,566.1
1,736.7
+11
Ron th past (3 counties) _
- _______
¡Ranta Barbara—Ventura (2 counties)_______
Racramento Valley (8 counties) __________
San Diego C ounty______________ ________
T,n<5 Angeles-Long Beach (2 counties!_____
North Coast (4 counties)_________________
Ran Francisco Bay (9 counties) _
Ran Joaquin Valley (8 counties)
______
"Mountain (17 counties) _
_ ______
Hentral Ooast (4 counties)________________
46.2
17.1
57.7
71.6
688.3
14.1
517.3
97.2
31.7
24.9
62.0
22.8
68.4
83.0
763.5
15.7
559.5
105.1
33.6
23.1
+34
+33
+19
+16
+11
+11
+8
+6
-7
i D ata relate to July 1 of each year.
S o urc e : See text footnote 2.
Many small towns are well organized. Even agri
culture has been breached; the packing shed work
ers are unionized and the dairy farm workers in
the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas belong to
the Teamsters. Government employees, especially
in Washington and Oregon, are frequently union
members.
The pattern of unionization is coastwide. The
labor movement in each of the three States is pre
dominantly nonfactory. This is especially the
case in Washington, where construction, transpor
tation and warehousing, and public utilities are
highly organized and trade, restaurants and ho
tels, and government are relatively well organized.
The nonmanufacturing character of unionism
on the Pacific Coast, as might be expected, is re
flected in the international unions that lead in
membership. The five ranking organizations in
California, Oregon, and Washington (all A FLCIO affiliates except the Teamsters) are the fol
lowing :
Rank
California
1— Teamsters
2__ Machinists
3__
4__
5__
Oregon
Carpenters
Teamsters
Woodworkers
Carpenters
Hotel Workers 1 Hotel Workers
Machinists
Retail Clerks
Washington
Teamsters
Machinists
Hotel Workers 1
Carpenters
Woodworkers
1 H o tel a n d R e s ta u ra n t Em ployees an d B a rten d ers In te rn a
tio n a l Union.
S ource : See text footnote 2.
Excepting the Machinists, a large part of
whose membership is in the aircraft industry in
California and Washington, these organizations
are predominantly nonfactory. The coastwide
pattern is apparent in the fact that four inter
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
nationals—the Teamsters, Machinists, Carpenters,
and Hotel and Restaurant Employees—make the
“big five” in all three States. The fifth is the
Woodworkers in Washington and Oregon, but it
is the Retail Clerks in California, where the lum
ber industry is relatively less important.6 Be
cause of the weight of this industry in Oregon,
the Teamsters drop to second behind the Car
penters.
In premerger terms, the Pacific Coast is pre
eminently AFL country. Of the six unions listed,
five were formerly affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor; only the Woodworkers were
in the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Of
the 15 largest unions in California in 1957, only
2 were at one time CIO; the Auto Workers
ranked 8th and the Steelworkers 10th. Of Cali
fornia’s union membership just prior to merger,
according to the Division of Labor Statistics and
Research, 81 percent was AFL, 12 percent CIO,
and 7 percent independent. A recent estimate for
Washington by its State Labor Council was 80
percent AFL, 15 percent CIO, and 5 percent un
affiliated. For Oregon, an estimate by its State
Labor Council, excluding the unaffiliated, was 80
percent AFL and 20 percent CIO.
These figures may overestimate the importance
of the former CIO unions in the Pacific Coast
labor movement, because much of their member
ship was concentrated in branch plants of nation
wide steel, automobile, farm equipment, rubber,
electrical, and meatpacking companies. The
unions that represent their employees locally,
however, have looked for leadership to the centers
of power in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Akron, Wash
ington, and Chicago.
The unions that have been most influential in
the region have historically organized in essen
tially local product-market industries and have
enjoyed a large measure of autonomy in relation
to their internationals. This has been the case
with the building trades, the printing trades, the
metal trades, and the Teamsters. Local leaders,
by and large, conducted collective bargaining and
ran their organizations without interference from
above. Growing integration of the national econ
omy, centralization within unions, and pooled wel6
See th e artic le on th e lum ber in d u stry by P a u l L. K leinsorge
on pp. 558-563 of th is issue.
THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT
fare and pension funds have, however, produced
changes.
The union that best illustrates this tension be
tween centrifugal and centripetal forces is the
Teamsters. A generation ago Teamster locals on
the Pacific Coast had little more than a nodding
acquaintance with their international in Indian
apolis or, for that matter, with each other. Since
then, the rapid growth of the over-the-road truck
ing industry has tended to pull them together.7
Moreover, Dave Beck’s massive changes in the
union’s structure, first as head of the Western
Conference and later as international president,
spurred centralization. His successor, James R.
Hoffa, has diligently pursued the same objective,
thus far with only middling success in the West.
Most of the industries in which the union operates
there retain their local product markets, and deepseated traditions of autonomy are not easily
erased.
The nonfactory character of West Coast indus
try and unionism has had a marked impact upon
the region’s collective bargaining, notably by fos
tering association bargaining.8 The region’s rel
atively numerous small employers have found it
necessary to organize themselves in self-defense
against strong unions. Association bargaining
predominates in northern California, in Oregon,
and in Washington. Multifirm bargaining is
probably more highly developed in the San Fran
cisco Bay area than in any other labor market in
the United States. Even in southern California,
with its large manufacturing companies, multi
employer bargaining covers a majority of the
workers under agreements.
The Circumstances of Success
The relative success of West Coast unionism
arises from a variety of causes. I t goes back in
time to the Gold Rush, which immediately estab
lished San Francisco as an important trade union
center. The history of labor on the Coast over the
last 110 years reflects the gradual extension of the
San Francisco pattern of organization and bar7 See th e a rtic le on th e tru c k in g in d u stry by R. T hayne Robson
on pp. 547-551 of th is issue.
8 See th e a rtic le s on asso ciatio n b arg ain in g by Van Dusen
K ennedy on pp. 539-542 of th is issue.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
535
gaining to the other communities, large and small,
of California, Oregon, and Washington—and, for
that matter, of the intermountain States. This
movement from its inception was mainly non
factory, and it organized workers, like retail
clerks, who were nonunion elsewhere. The pat
tern included, as well, the employer association,
which has spread from the Bay area throughout
the region. This type of association is designed
for collective bargaining and cannot function un
less the workers are unionized. In many trades,
therefore, the associations and unions have joined
forces to organize both the employers and the
workers. Another factor of importance has been
the phenomenal growth of the Teamsters in Wash
ington and California. This organization’s
power over transportation has been used as a
lever to unionize many nontrucking workers,
sometimes within the Teamsters and at other
times in other international unions. With eco
nomic power has come political strength, which,
in turn, has created a climate favorable for fur
ther unionization. Washington, Oregon, and
California have had administrations and legis
latures friendly to unions. Social legislation is
advanced, and there are no laws that inhibit union
growth. Voters in Washington in 1956 and in
California in 1958 decisively rejected “right-towork” legislation. Relative strength in agricul
ture and food and drug retailing is probably ex
plained in part by the fact that large-scale opera
tions in these industries emerged earlier on the
Pacific Coast than elsewhere. The packing shed
“factory” and the supermarket are easier to union
ize than the family farm and the corner grocery
store. Finally, these States have a number of
large projects, like the Bonneville Dam, at which
the Federal Government engages in collective
bargaining with its employees.
The development of unionism on the Pacific
Coast may foreshadow the future of the Ameri
can labor movement. If the latter is to continue
to grow, it must penetrate those industries pres
ently poorly organized, like trade, finance, insur
ance, services, and government, as well as those
localities now little unionized, including the
smaller communities. Success might lie in follow
ing the pattern that is already emerging on the
Pacific Coast.
Major Trends in Labor Relations
Intense conflict has largely abated on the West Coast. Despite
considerable change, including organization of “open-shop” Los
Angeles, distinguishing features, such as widespread association
bargaining and the dominance of former AFL unions, persist.
A rthur M. R oss
I n 1947, the Monthly Labor Review devoted a
special issue to the subject of Labor in California
and Pacific Northwest. One of the contributed
articles, by Clark Kerr, dealt with collective bar
gaining on the Pacific Coast.1 He noted that
union activity dated back to the Gold Rush days
in California; that an increasingly powerful trade
union movement had emerged; that workers had
organized more intensively than in other parts of
the Nation; that a tradition of aggressive action
had developed; that employers had counterorganized in strong and active associations; and that
multiemployer contracts had become the standard
pattern.
Twelve years later, it has become appropriate
once more to examine the status of unionism, em
ployer policies, and collective bargaining in the
rapidly growing Pacific Coast region. The five
articles which follow in this issue of the Review
deal with association bargaining, arbitration, and
labor-management relations in three of the leading
industries—trucking, lumber, and ocean shipping.
Since the subject matter of these articles is neces
sarily selective, it may be helpful to describe some
of the background developments in a more
general way.
The major trends of the past 12 years can be
summarized in four general propositions:
1. Some of the traditional distinctions between
the Pacific Coast and the rest of the country are
of declining importance.
To begin with, the industrial structure of em
ployment on the Pacific Coast is no longer greatly
different from that of the United States as a
whole.2 The growth of the Los Angeles area
536
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(see p. 537) has contributed to this result. In
1958, 26.7 percent of nonagricultural employees
in California, Oregon, and Washington were in
manufacturing industries, as compared with 30.6
percent in the United States. In wholesale and
retail trade, the corresponding figures were 22.6
and 22.0 percent; in financial and service activi
ties, 17.7 and 17.4 percent; in government employ
ment, 18.1 and 15.6 percent.3
Neither is the degree of union organization
greatly different. In 1953, when comparable
figures for all 3 States were last obtained, Wash
ington and Oregon were among the 5 most highly
organized States, it is true; but 12 States, mostly
in the Middle West, were more highly organized
than California.4 Moreover, almost 80 percent of
West Coast nonagricultural employment is found
in California, where the proportion of nonfarm
wage and salary earners enrolled in unions is
closer to the national average—38.8 compared
with 33.6 percent in 1956.5
The historical wage differential enjoyed by
workers of the Pacific Coast States is not so great
as it formerly was.6 On the other hand, certain
differences have persisted—particularly the great
er use of multiemployer bargaining and the lower
1 Collective B a rg ain in g on th e P acific C oast (in M onthly
L abor Review, A pril 1947, pp. 650 -6 7 4 ).
2 F o r fu rth e r discussion of changes in in d u s tria l em ploym ent,
see th e a rtic le s by M aurice I. G ershenson an d M iner H. B aker on
pp. 509—517 an d 502—508 of th is issue.
3 S ta te d a ta com puted from figures p resen ted in G ershenson an d
B aker, op. cit. ; n a tio n a l d a ta com puted fro m figures in E m ploy
m ent and E arn in g s, F e b ru a ry 1959 (U.S. B ureau of L abor S ta tis
tic s), tab le A—1.
4 Leo T roy, D istrib u tio n of U nion M em bership am ong th e
S tates, 1939 andl 1953 (New York, N atio n al B ureau of Econom ic
R esearch, Inc., 1957), p. 18.
6 See Irv in g B e rn stein ’s a rtic le on pp. 530-535 of th is issue.
0
F o r a d etailed discussion of wages, see th e a rtic le by M. W.
R eder on pp. 524—529 of th is issue.
MAJOR TRENDS IN LABOR RELATIONS
incidence of strike activity on the Pacific Coast.
Van Dusen Kennedy shows that a majority of
the employers and about two-thirds of the em
ployees involved in collective bargaining are cov
ered by association contracts. The development of
an 11-State bargaining unit in the intercity truck
ing industry is described by R. Thayne Robson.
Centralized welfare and pension plans, as well
as disputes settlement procedures, have already
been attained, and uniform over-the-road and lo
cal cartage wage rates throughout the region are
in prospect. Kennedy has also ascertained that
“the aggregate volume or severity of unionmanagement conflict in the Pacific Coast States
in the postwar period has been significantly less
in relation to nonagricultural employment and
union membership than in the United States as
a whole.”
2.
Older labor organizations with a craft union
background, as contrasted with the newer unions
of the former Congress of Industrial Organiza
tions, are still 'predominant.
The Teamsters, the Machinists, the Carpenters,
and the Hotel and Restaurant Employees are
listed among the five largest unions in each of the
Pacific Coast States.7 Completing the list are the
Retail Clerks in California and the Woodworkers
in Oregon and Washington. Of these, only the
Woodworkers was a CIO affiliate. Moreover, in
California only 2 of the 15 largest unions (the
Auto Workers and the Steelworkers) have a longestablished tradition of organization on an in
dustrial basis, as compared with 6 of the largest
15 in the United States.8
This is not to say that craft or “horizontal”
bargaining units are predominant on the West
Coast. The Machinists are organized on an in
dustrial or “vertical” basis in the aircraft indus
try; likewise the Lumber and Sawmill Workers
(an affiliate of the Carpenters) in lumber camps
and mills, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers in power companies, and the
Teamsters in canneries and dairies. Neverthe
less, the craft union background of the largest
organizations helps to explain several significant
7 B ern stein , loc. cit.
8 U nion L ab o r in C alifo rn ia, 1957 (S an F rancisco, C alifornia
D ep artm en t of In d u stria l R elations, D ivision of L abor S ta tistic s
an d R esearch, 1958), p. 1 3 ; and D irectory of N atio n al an d I n
te rn a tio n a l L abor U nions in th e U nited S tates, 1957 (U.S. B u
reau of L abor S ta tistic s, Bull. 1222, 1957), p. 11.
9 Union L abor in C alifornia, op. cit., p. 15.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
537
facts: (1) West Coast unions have placed less
emphasis on political activity, labor education,
and other functions outside the sphere of colleclective bargaining than have some of the newer
“CIO-type” unions in the East. (2) Most local
and regional bodies are not so subject to central
direction and programming as would be the case,
let us say, within the Auto Workers or Steel
workers. (3) Pattern bargaining is not so per
vasive as in the East. (4) There has not been
as much stress on fringe benefits, particularly in
the economic security field; there was a lag of
several years in negotiating pension plans, and
supplemental unemployment benefits are not wide
spread except in branch plants of eastern
corporations.
3. The most significant development of recent
years has been the rapid growth of the Los A n
geles area.
Population growth and industrial buildup in
the Los Angeles area are sufficiently notorious,
but the increase in union membership has been
equally notable. At one time it was customary
to contrast “open-shop” Los Angeles with “closedshop” San Francisco. By 1957, there were nearly
60 percent more union members in the Los An
geles Metropolitan Area than in the San Fran
cisco Metropolitan Area. Although the degree
of organization was still greater in San Francisco
(about 50 percent, as compared with 35 percent
from Los Angeles), it had been outweighed by
the industrial and labor force expansion of the
southern area.9
The flavor of industrial relations in Los Angeles
is distinctly different from that in other Pacific
Coast centers. Los Angeles has many large man
ufacturing plants. Whereas the bulk of organized
workers in the region as a whole are covered by
multiemployer agreements, the proportion is
smaller in Los Angeles. Furthermore, the volume
of grievance arbitration, relatively small elsewhere
on the Pacific Coast, is quite large in southern
California. Benjamin Aaron attributes this fact
to the recency of organization, the prominence of
large manufacturing plants, and the greater num
ber of industrial unions. Employers place more
emphasis on personnel management and human
relations programs than in other areas, while close
and cordial relations with unions are perhaps not
valued so highly. For example, most of the em
ployer support for California’s recently defeated
538
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
Basic Agreement was signed in 1926. Jurisdic
tion and representation disputes among the nu
merous Hollywood craft unions were endemic for
Year
Man-days of idle Union membership Man-days lost per
ness
100 union members
many years, however, and led to at least six major
work stoppages between 1933 and 1946. Since the
1946_________
636.0
6,090,000
957,600
1947_________
223.2
2,440,000
1,093, 200
great strikes of 1945 and 1946, interunion contro
1948_________
268.3
2, 790,000
1,039, 700
1949_________
169.9
2,040,000
1, 200, 700
versy has become quiescent and gives no present
1950_________
120.3
1,630,000
1,354, 500
1951_________
1,210,000
83.8
1,443,100
indication of reviving.10
1952_________
4,410,000
293.3
1, 503,400
187.6
1953_________
2, 960,000
1, 577,900
In contrast, although labor-management rela
1954_________
68.3
1,070,000
1, 566,100
108.7
1955_________
1, 760,000
1, 618, 500
tions have improved in the lumber industry, in
72.2
1956_________
1, 220,000
1, 689, 500
1957_________
90.4
1,570,000
1,736,700
terunion competition has remained relatively
undiminished. Paul L. Kleinsorge notes that:
S o urc e : Union Labor in California (San Francisco, California Department
of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research), annual
“Progress has been made toward a better under
issues, and Analysis of Work Stoppages (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics),
annual issues.
standing between the parties, and in general their
relations, although not on a high level of amica
“right-to-work” ballot proposition came from the
bility, at least are no longer at the depths of
southern part of the State.
hostility.” Relations between the Lumber and
4.
Labor-management conflict, as well as inter
Sawmill Workers and the International Wood
union rivalry, has abated to a considerable extent,
workers of America remain poor, on the other
reflecting a general trend in American industrial
hand. “All of the old animosities remain,”
relations.
Kleinsorge states. “Raiding and the struggle for
Betty V. H. Schneider points out that, until the
supremacy continue. Prospects for reconciliation
last few years, “shipping had been regularly dis
in the near future appear to be extremely dim.”
rupted by disputes either between unions and
In the airframe industry, there are two major
management or between unions. . . . Today, such
unions—the Machinists and the Auto Workers.
evidence of inability to reconcile conflicting in
Relations between the companies and the unions
terests has all but disappeared. . . . Whereas
have been improving gradually during the 1950’s,
the industry lost approximately 11 million manparticularly at North American Aviation, Inc.,
days through stoppages between 1934 and 1952,
after the Auto Workers’ strike of 1953. Further
there have been only about 175,000 man-day losses
more, the two labor organizations, once bitterly
since. . . . There has also been a sharp reduction
competitive, have cooperated in various ways, in
in the interunion rivalry which tended to compli
cluding a no-raiding agreement in 1950, a mutual
cate and perpetuate differences between the bar
assistance pact in 1953, and a procedure for shar
gaining parties.”
ing information during contract negotiations.
The motion picture industry serves as another
The accompanying table shows that man-days
example. Here there has been practically no con
of idleness because of strikes, in relation to the
flict on purely economic issues since the Studio
number of union members, have generally de
clined in California during the postwar period.
10
H ugh Lovell an d T asile C arter, Collective B a rg ain in g in th e
Unfortunately, comparable statistics are not
M otion P ic tu re In d u stry (Berkeley, U n iv ersity of C alifornia,
available for Oregon or Washington.
I n s titu te of I n d u s tria l R elations, 1955), pp. 14-26, 52^54.
M an-D
ays
op
I d l e n e s s a n d U n io n
C a l if o r n i a , 1 9 4 6 -5 7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
M e m b e r sh ip
in
Association Bargaining
About two-thirds of all workers represented by unions
are covered by association bargaining, which contributes
to fewer, but at times larger, strikes.
V a n D usen Kennedy
M ultiemployer bargaining units are a character
istic of Pacific Coast labor relations. I t is prob
able that between two-fifths and half of the bar
gaining units in the Pacific Coast States today are
multiemployer units. This means that a large
majority of the employers and nearly two-thirds
of the employees involved in collective bargaining
in these States are covered by association bar
gaining.1 By comparison, in the country as a
whole, it is likely that about one-sixth of all bar
gaining units, covering around one-third of em
ployees under contracts, are multiemployer.2
The greater prevalence in the Far West of as
sociation bargaining, whose beginnings can be
traced back to the Gold Rush days, has resulted
primarily from the unusually high proportions of
employment and union penetration which exist in
industries such as construction, trucking and
warehousing, retail and wholesale trade, services,
lumbering, shipping, canning, motion picture pro
duction, and small-scale metal manufacturing,
which are most subject to multiemployer bar
gaining. Moreover, the high concentration of em
ployment in a few metropolitan areas in these
States has helped to foster union penetration and
the resulting spread of association bargaining.
Emulation has probably played a part also in an
area where this bargaining structure is so widely
used and has many champions.
Given these special features of the Pacific Coast
environment, association bargaining developed in
each industry for the usual internal reasons.
Most important is the fact that joint action
through an association gives small- or moderate
sized employers operating in a competitive market
some equality of bargaining power in dealing
with a single strong union organization. Fur
thermore, stabilization of troublesome features of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
competitive markets is an objective which both
unions and employers seek through multiemployer
bargaining. Multiemployer units and agreements
may also be effective devices for protecting in
cumbent unions and employers from the conse
quences of interunion conflict. Finally, associ
ation bargaining has the administrative advantage
of merging many separate negotiations into one,
thus permitting optimum use of labor relations
expenditures and personnel on both sides.
Scope of Association Units
The scope of association bargaining units in the
Pacific Coast States varies widely; it is shaped
by product market factors, the composition of
unions, the policies of unions and employers, his
torical pattern, and in a few cases, government
determination of the bargaining unit. There is
great variation in geographical coverage. The
most common unit embraces a local urban prod
uct market, as in the services and retail trade, but
the geographical extent of such units varies within
the broad boundaries and multiple communities
1 A stu d y by th e U.S. B ureau of L abor S ta tis tic s indicated
th a t, of th e Pacific C oast agreem ents on file w ith th e B u reau in
1951, 38 percent, covering 71 p ercen t of th e em ployees u n d er th e
agreem ents, involved m ultiem ployer bargaining. See Collective
B a rg ain in g S tr u c tu r e s : 'The E m ployer B arg ain in g U nit, B L S Re
p o rt 1 (1953), p. 12. A la te r stu d y show ed t h a t 44 percent of
th e Pacific C oast agreem ents in effect in 1953 covered m u lti
em ployer b arg ain in g u n its. See N eil C ham berlain, The S tru c
tu re of B a rg ain in g U n its in th e U nited S ta te s (in In d u s tria l
an d L abor R elations Review, Ith a c a , N.Y., October 1956, pp.
1 -2 5 ).
In C alifo rn ia alone, 54 percent of all agreem ents on file w ith
th e S ta te D e p artm en t of I n d u s tria l R elations in 1955 involved
association b arg ain in g u n i t s ; th ey covered n early tw o -th ird s of
th e w orkers affected by th e agreem ents on file, t h a t is, practically
a ll C alifornia w orkers u n d er c o n tra c ts outside th e ra ilro a d in
d u stry . See U nion L abor in C alifornia, 1955 (S an F rancisco,
C alifo rn ia D ep artm en t of In d u s tria l R elations, D ivision of L abor
S ta tis tic s an d R esearch, 1956), pp. 19—20.
2
T hese pro p o rtio n s obtained in 1951, w hen th e B ureau of
L abor S ta tis tic s analyzed th e b arg ain in g u n its u n d er 11,460
agreem ents covering 8,410,000 w orkers. See Collective B a r
gain in g S tru c tu res, op. cit., p. 2. I t is unlikely t h a t th e p ro
p o rtio n s have increased appreciably in th e in terv en in g years.
539
540
of modern metropolitan areas. In the San Fran
cisco Bay area, for example, many more or less
comparable association units exist within partic
ular communities on the several sides of the Bay,
whereas other bargaining units in such local
market industries as construction, warehousing,
and the metal trades are truly regional, since they
cover workers and employers in as many as six
or more of the nine counties comprising the San
Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Area.
Numerous regional bargaining units reach be
yond metropolitan areas but do not extend
throughout the Pacific region. These are found in
such industries as lumbering,3 fishing, pulp and
paper, canning, and sections of the construction
industry in California. There are also a few
coastwide units, the best known covering the long
shoremen and the seamen.4 A few multiemployer
bargaining situations based primarily on the
Pacific Coast extend outside the coastal States.
Examples include the wood products industry of
the Northwest, the Operating Engineers and the
heavy construction contractors in California and
Nevada, and the 1958 bargaining between the
Western Conference of Teamsters and groups of
trucking associations covering both long-lines and
local cartage drivers in 11 Western States.5
The nature of union organization is a strong in
fluence in the occupational and industrial cover
age of association bargaining units. Indeed, in a
number of instances, the union has been the mov
ing party in the organization of an employer
association with which it could deal. In construc
tion, printing, and parts of the metal trades,
bargaining units tend to follow craft lines, while
employer associations dealing with industrial
unions nearly always follow industry lines.
Where a local union crosses industry lines, as do
a number of warehouse and Teamster locals, the
result may be an interindustry unit.
In large metropolitan areas, local market special
ization often determines the scope of both union
and multiemployer organization. Thus, the
Teamsters union often charters different locals
within an area for drivers in the dairy, bakery,
laundry, taxicab, beverage, and construction in
dustries, with each local representing employees
in a different bargaining unit. In retail trade,
hotels and restaurants and other service indus
tries, printing and publishing, and the metal
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
trades, bargaining units tend to correspond with
the specialized and noncompeting subdivisions of
each industry.
Market forces and employer organization and
policy have brought about multilocal union bar
gaining units in such industries as construction,
trucking, hotels and restaurants, and motion pic
ture production. In a few cases, locals of two or
more national unions have joined in single bar
gaining units. In still other cases, national unions
are parties to association bargaining.
Expansion of the bargaining unit, to which the
structure of association bargaining lends itself, is
also evident on the Pacific Coast. A major rea
son is economic growth. As industries and urban
areas have expanded, employment among associ
ation members has risen and new employers have
entered existing associations. In addition, in
some situations, union organizations above the
local level or employer associations or both have
pressed successfully to enlarge units of bargain
ing, notably in construction in California and in
the regional trucking and maritime industries.
The average size of association units in the
Pacific Coast States is larger than that of single
employer units. In California, association agree
ment coverage in 1955 averaged over 760 workers,
versus 400 in single employer units.6
Characteristics of Association Bargaining
Because multiemployer bargaining is most com
mon in competitive markets where many small
operating and employment units are confronted
by a single strong union organization, it is more
apt than single employer bargaining to be charac
terized by certain combinations of economic, in
dustrial, labor market, and job conditions. These
are competitive markets, nonmanufacturing in
dustries, wide diversity of operating and job con
ditions between employers and in each bargaining
unit, craft and occupational unionism, irregulari
ties in individual job conditions, high rates of en3 See th e a rtic le by P a u l L. K leinsorge on pp. 558-563 of th is
issue.
4 See th e a rtic le by B e tty V. H. S chneider on pp. 552-557 of
th is issue.
6
See th e a rtic le by R. T hay n e Robson on pp. 547-551 of th is
issue.
6
Union L abor in C alifornia, 1955, loc. cit. A pproxim ately
th e sam e rela tio n sh ip holds n a tio n a lly ; see C h a racteristics of
M ajor U nion C o n tracts (in M onthly L abor Review, Ju ly 1956,
pp. 807-8 0 8 ).
541
ASSOCIATION BARGAINING
tering and leaving each industry among employ
ers and employees and of movement between
employers by workers, and special problems in
controlling labor supply. In adapting to these
conditions and their attendant problems, associa
tion bargaining has acquired distinctive features
which are evident on the Pacific Coast and which
would probably obtain wherever this form of bar
gaining might be developed to the same degree.
Organizationally, the distinctive fact is that the
individual employer surrenders a measure of his
authority to an association and that a significant
portion of the union’s dealings is with an associa
tion rather than with individual employers. On
the employer side, this delegation of authority
confronts the association with many problems of
organization, discipline, collective action, and con
tract administration which it must resolve in such
a way as to match the unified strength of the union
and at the same time remain responsive to the
diverse interests of the members. The amount of
authority and the functions delegated to employer
associations vary greatly. The most developed
and organized associations not only negotiate con
tracts but also may assume primary responsibility
for handling grievances and for administering
such matters as pension and welfare plans and
unemployment compensation claims. As associa
tion units grow in size and experience and the pro
visions of contracts increase in number and com
plexity, the trend among employer associations is
toward more professionalization and the delega
tion of increasing labor relations responsibilities
by employer members. Apparently this trend is
more widely evident and has developed further
in the Pacific Coast region than in most other parts
of the Nation. In a number of Pacific Coast com
munities, for example, a special kind of federated
employer association has been developed to provide
a variety of services to member associations and to
employers in many industries.
Unions too must adapt themselves to the special
requirements of bargaining with one association on
behalf of members who work for many different
employers in scattered small units of employment.
One result of such adaptation has been the officecentered, business-agent type of unionism so com
mon in trucking, construction, trade, and service.
7
See, fo r exam ple, George O. B ahrs, T he S an F rancisco E m
ployers Council (P h ilad e lp h ia, U n iv ersity of P en n sy lv a n ia P ress,
1948).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Other features of association bargaining, which
are also traceable to the special conditions of its
environment, are not entirely absent from single
employer bargaining but tend to be more common
or more intensively developed in multiemployer
labor relations. These elements include a strong
concern for union security, which often includes
some measure of union control of hiring such as
hiring halls, dispatching arrangements, and ap
prenticeship agreements; relative inattention to
questions of managerial prerogatives ; the spelling
out of detailed work rules appropriate to the spe
cial job conditions of each unit; and a system of
contract administration less formal than the
grievance procedure in large single employer units
but marked by the union’s initiative, preoccupa
tion with job control, and need to police contract
observance by scattered members and employers.
Consequences and Implications
The consequences of enlarging the scope of bar
gaining units from a single to a multiemployer
basis have been the subject of much controversy in
the United States. Opposition to such enlarge
ment has focused mainly on the accompanying loss
of self-determination for the parties, the alleged
increase in union power, and the higher potential
costs to the public of strikes and market mo
nopoly. These criticisms have been directed par
ticularly at industrywide bargaining units of na
tional or broad geographic coverage. Such units
do exist on the Pacific Coast, but the great major
ity of units in these States are local in character.
Unquestionably, there are critics of multiemployer
bargaining on the Pacific Coast but the prevailing
view which distinguishes this region, including its
employers,7 is that this form of bargaining helps
to solve more problems than it creates.
Association bargaining on the Pacific Coast has
definitely achieved one of the major employer
goals—greater equality of bargaining power. But
its effectiveness in this respect has not altered the
basic fact that, in most of the industries which
bargain on this basis, unions are the dominant fac
tor in labor relations. Association bargaining has
undoubtedly helped to stabilize labor costs as a
competitive element by introducing wide uni
formities in conditions of employment and effec
tive means for their enforcement. I t does not seem
to have promoted union-employer collusion in non-
542
labor relations matters. Multiemployer units
have also helped to stabilize existing patterns of
union representation in the face of rival unionism
and dynamic economic growth. The effect of as
sociation bargaining on Pacific Coast wage levels 8
is difficult to isolate from other influences. At
least, it has not produced widening differentials
over other regions, and the more equal bargaining
power achieved by a number of the stronger em
ployer associations may have been one factor in
the narrowing of certain differentials.
There is no evidence to show whether association
bargaining on the Pacific Coast has been accom
panied by more or less industrial strife than single
employer bargaining. Probably there are fewer
strikes in association units; each strike is greater
in involvement and cost for the parties,9 and, since
the stoppages often involve consumer goods and
services that cannot be stockpiled and whose con
sumption cannot be deferred, they cause immedi
ate public inconvenience and annoyance as well as
losses of working time and sales that cannot be
recouped. Even so, fewer strikes in association
units might cause more man-days of idleness.
Considering that two-thirds of all employees
covered by bargaining in the three Pacific Coast
States are in multiemployer units as against only
one-third in the Nation as a whole, a comparison
between strike experience in these States and in
the Nation, relative to nonagricultural employ
ment and union membership, may have general
relevance to the question. For the 12-year period
1946-57, the three States together accounted for
7.7 percent of all work stoppages, 7.6 percent of
all workers involved in stoppages, and 8.7 per8 See th e a rtic le by M. W. R eder on pp. 524-529 of th is issue.
9 C lark K err a n d Lloyd F ish er, M ultiple-E m ployer B a rg a in in g :
T he San F ran cisco E xperience, in R. A. L ester and J . S hister,
In sig h ts In to L abor Issues (New York, M acm illan Co., 1948),
pp. 53-54.
10 A nalysis of W ork Stoppages (U.S. B ureau of L abor S ta tis
tic s), a n n u a l issues.
11 E m ploym ent an d E arn in g s, M ay 1954 an d Ju ly 1958 (U.S.
B u reau of L abor S ta tis tic s ), pp. 50 a n d 66, an d 84 an d 98,
respectively.
12 C alifornia, Oregon, a n d W ashington to g e th e r w ere estim ated
to account fo r 10.4 p ercen t of to ta l U.S. union m em bership in
1939 an d 12.2 p ercen t in 1953. See Leo T roy, D istrib u tio n of
Union M em bership am ong th e S tates, 1939 and 1953 (New York,
N atio n al B u reau of E conom ic R esearch, Inc., 1957), p. 8. The
fa c t t h a t th e re are probably m ore nonunion em ployees in b arg ain
in g u n its in th e r e s t of th e N atio n th a n in th e th re e C oast
S ta te s m ay help account fo r th e figures on w ork stoppages being
h ig h er in re la tio n to union m em bership in th e r e s t of th e N ation,
b u t i t is n o t likely to be the w hole explanation.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
cent of total man-days of idleness occurring in
the United States as a whole.10 During this pe
riod, the Pacific Coast share of total nonagricul
tural employment rose gradually from around
9.5 percent to 11 percent.11 From incomplete evi
dence, it would appear that during the same pe
riod, the Pacific Coast accounted for 10-12 per
cent of total union membership in the Nation.12
The comparison based on these figures indicates
that the aggregate volume or severity of unionmanagement conflict in the Pacific Coast States
in the postwar period has been significantly less
in relation to nonagricultural employment and
union membership than in the United States as
a whole. I t is also pertinent to note that the
volume of strike idleness in the Coast States has
fluctuated very widely during the period and that
in each of the several years when these States re
corded a larger volume of strike idleness relative
to the national average, there was at least one
strike, usually a prolonged one involving many
workers, in an association unit in a Coast State.
This record seems to support the general observa
tion that association bargaining leads to fewer,
bigger strikes but that over a period of time the
reduction in number of strikes may more than
offset the effects of their larger size.
Perhaps the most fundamental contribution of
association bargaining is that it has been an ef
fective means for rationalizing employment con
ditions and introducing professional expertise and
central responsibility for labor relations in many
industries which are characterized by great di
versity, irregular market conditions and employ
ment relations, and an absence of standardizing
technologies. In such industries, because of the
prevalence of small employers, there had been
little development of systematic personnel man
agement and labor relations functions.
A final result of association bargaining is to
reduce the degree of self-determination in labor
relations even in small employer, local market
industries. The continued growth in the size of
employer associations and in the geographic scope
of bargaining units, the development of multi
local union units, the delegation of employer au
thority to associations, and union reliance on
salaried business agents, all tend to move labor
relations away from the work level in the indi
vidual establishment.
Widespread application in California contrasts
with relatively little reliance on the practice in
Washington and Oregon.
The Use of Arbitration
B e n j a m i n A aro n
F or the W est C oast as a whole, the salient fea
ture of labor arbitration is diversity: The insti
tution is well established and frequently resorted
to in California, but it has never been fully ac
cepted and is used much less in Oregon and in
Washington. Between northern and southern
California, less fundamental but quite marked dif
ferences exist in arbitration practices.
Amount of Arbitration
There are no reliable statistics on the volume
of arbitration generally. Qualified observers in
Oregon and Washington agree, however, that the
outstanding feature of arbitration in those States
is that there is so little of it. The Federal Medi
ation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) advises
that for the period July 1, 1957, to date, “there
was less arbitration [in total volume] in the north
western part of the United States than all other
regions,” and that “arbitration is not growing in
the Northwest to the extent that it is so doing in
California and the remainder of the United
States.” 1 This is surprising in view of the fact
that in Washington at least, according to a study
made in 1951, 98 out of 140 agreements included
provisions for arbitration of grievances.2 In Ore
gon, on the other hand, observers report that a
relatively small proportion of collective agree
ments in a few key industries even include pro
visions for the arbitration of grievances. A
typical agreement in the lumber industry,3 for
example, provides for a five-step grievance pro
cedure but makes no reference to arbitration. Re
liance upon self-help rather than upon arbitration
has been traditional in this industry, although
employers were somewhat more receptive to the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
idea of arbitration in former years, when the
unions were less hesitant about striking over dis
putes arising during the contract period. In re
cent years, however, the strike weapon has proved
completely impracticable for disposing of an in
creasing number of grievances, and the unions
have attempted to establish arbitration procedures
in their agreements. Now the employers are said
to be unwilling to abandon the traditional pattern
of dispute settlement; at any rate, arbitration has
not yet gained much of a footing in the industry.
There are several other factors that probably
inhibit the growth of arbitration in the Pacific
Northwest. At least two of the dominant union
organizations in the region, the Teamsters and the
construction trades, have consistently relied upon
self-help to settle their disputes with employers.
On the industry side, employer associations are a
favored type of organization,4 and most of the
associations follow patterns set by a few big firms.
The prospect of having association wide precedents
established in arbitrations between unions and a
number of small concerns may contribute to man
agement’s coolness toward this method of disputes
settlement. Finally, the introduction of arbitra
tion as a result of the opening of branch plants by
companies with long-established grievance and ar
bitration provisions has been far less frequent in
Oregon and Washington than in California, and
very few outside influences have been brought to
bear on the Northwest’s patterns of labor-manage
ment relations.
1 L e tte r from th e G eneral Counsel, FM CS, to th e w riter, J a n
u ary 6, 1959.
2 P h ilip W. C a rtw rig h t an d A dam Gifford, Collective B a rg a in
ing A greem ents in th e S ta te of W ashington, 1951; A P re lim in ary
R eport C irculated fo r C ritical C om m ent (S e attle , U niversity of
W ashington, I n s titu te of L abor Econom ics, 1952), tables 1 and
30.
3 See th e a rtic le on th e lum ber in d u stry by P a u l L. K leinsorge
on pp. 558-563 of th is issue.
4 See th e a rtic le on asso ciatio n b arg ain in g by V an D usen K en
nedy on pp. 539-542 of th is issue.
543
544
There also appears to be a lack of arbitrators in
the Pacific Northwest, but whether this is a con
tributory cause or simply the result of the rela
tively small amount of arbitration in that region
is difficult to say. Importing arbitrators from
other areas is expensive and discourages resort to
the process; but by the same token, local residents
who would like to serve as arbitrators are thereby
deprived of the opportunity to gain the experience
necessary to make them acceptable to the parties.
The situation in California is markedly differ
ent. An authoritative study made in 1951 ana
lyzed arbitration provisions in 1,707 union agree
ments within the State.5 Of these, 77 percent
provided for arbitration of grievances or of con
tract terms. While this figure represents a greater
percentage than in the Northwest, it is less than
the national average, which was 89 percent in
1952.6 Manufacturing industries showed a greater
acceptance of arbitration than nonmanufacturing:
At least 70 percent of the agreements in 17 manu
facturing classifications provided for arbitration,
and in 8 classifications, arbitration provisions were
found in 90-100 percent of all agreements. Cor
responding figures for nonmanufacturing showed
only eight and two classifications, respectively,
with these percentages.
The volume of grievance arbitration for the
State as a whole is substantial, although reliable
data are lacking. In northern California, how
ever, the amount of grievance cases is relatively
small, probably because of the maturity of bar
gaining relations, the absence of any large number
of sizable manufacturing plants, and the pre
ponderance of craft unions, which do not resort
to arbitration as much as do industrial unions.
In southern California, the reverse is true: There
is a high volume of grievance arbitration, and this
can be largely attributed to the relatively recent
large-scale union organization in industry, the
prevalence of big manufacturing plants in the air
craft, automobile, rubber, and steel industries, and
the greater number of industrial unions.
Arbitration of new contract terms, as distinct
from grievances arising under existing agree
ments, also occurs more frequently than average in
California. Most of these cases involve wages.
Bernstein found, on the basis of reported awards
during 1945-50, that California ranked third
in the Nation in the volume of wage arbitrations.7
By contrast, Washington ranked seventh, with
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
less than a third of California’s cases, and Oregon
was tenth. FMCS reports that since July 1,1957,
there has not been a single new contract arbitra
tion case in Oregon or Washington involving se
lection of an arbitrator from its panel.8
The study of California agreements previously
referred to revealed that 122 out of 1,707 provided
for the arbitration of disputes over new or revised
agreements. About three-fifths (74) of these
provisions were in nonmanufacturing, the princi
pal classifications being construction (16), retail
trade (16), and hotels and restaurants (10). Of
the 48 manufacturing agreements with similar
provisions, 23 were in printing and publishing.9
Formal Character of the Process
Arbitration throughout the West Coast has al
ways been more formal in character than in most
other areas. In Oregon and Washington, as well
as in California, one or both of the parties are
usually represented by an attorney or a profes
sional industrial relations consultant. Verbatim
transcripts of the proceedings are frequently
taken, although this practice is somewhat more
common in California than in Oregon or Wash
ington. Posthearing briefs are customarily filed.
On infrequent occasions, the arbitrator may even
be asked to issue a subpena.
The factors conditioning this particular devel
opment of the institution are not entirely clear.
A number of competent observers give consider
able weight to the influence of Senator Wayne L.
Morse of Oregon, who was a prominent arbitrator
in the region in the years immediately preceding
World War II. Senator Morse favored the socalled “judicial approach” to arbitration and left
a strong imprint upon the practice.
Another important factor is the growing tend
ency of many employers and unions to invest
greater responsibility and authority in outside
practitioners in the conduct of all phases of labormanagement relations. This is especially true in
5
A rb itra tio n P rovisions in C alifornia U nion A greem ents (S an
F rancisco, C alifornia D e p artm en t of In d u s tria l R elations, D ivi
sion of L abor S ta tistic s and R esearch, 1951).
9
See A rb itra tio n P ro visions in C ollective A greem ents, 1952
(in M onthly L abor Review, M arch 1953, pp. 261-266),.
7 Irv in g B ernstein, T he A rb itra tio n of W ages (Berkeley an d
Los Angeles, U n iv ersity of C alifornia P ress, 1954), p. 21.
8 See fo o tn o te 1.
8
A rb itra tio n P ro visions in C alifornia U nion Agreem ents, op.
cit., pp. 8-11.
THE USE OF ARBITRATION
cases of association bargaining involving a num
ber of employers and local unions.
While arbitration hearings are formal, they are
seldom conducted with the technicality of court
proceedings. Indeed, the practitioners repre
senting the parties show a much greater flexibility
and sophistication than do less experienced lay
men, who often tend to be far more legalistic than
the lawyers. The specialists are more willing, for
example, to stipulate facts not in issue or to per
mit without challenge the introduction of relevant
hearsay evidence. The consensus among West
Coast arbitrators, supported by a substantial
number of management and union spokesmen, is
that the experienced practitioners representing
employers and unions almost invariably contribute
substantially to the effectiveness of the process.
Institutional Arrangements
The great majority of arbitration on the West
Coast is of the ad hoc variety; that is, the arbi
trator is selected to serve only in a particular case
or group of cases. This arrangement is preserved
even when, as frequently happens, the parties
agree upon the same arbitrator for each new case.
According to the 1951 study of California agree
ments, approximately two-thirds of those with
arbitration clauses provided for an arbitration
board rather than for a single arbitrator.10 In
practice, however, the parties frequently waive the
requirement of a board and submit the issue to the
neutral arbitrator. Even if the arbitration board
is retained the partisan members often stipulate
that no executive session of the entire board will
be required, and arrange simply to concur with
or to dissent from the chairman’s decision after
he has announced it.
Provisions for a permanent single arbitrator or
board chairman11 are relatively rare on the West
Coast, even in California. The best known ar
rangements of this type are in the aircraft, can
nery, garment, hotel and restaurant, longshore,
and long-distance trucking industries, but in none
of these does the case load approach the volume
of some of the midwest and eastern umpireships.
10 Ibid., p. 11.
11 H ereafter, th e term “u m p ire” w ill be used to denote both the
p erm an en t single a r b itra to r a n d th e perm an en t ch airm an of an
a r b itra tio n board.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
545
There are several reasons why umpireships
are seldom found on the West Coast. In Oregon
and Washington, as previously noted, recourse to
arbitration is too infrequent to make such an ar
rangement feasible. In California, the volume of
arbitration, while high, is widely diffused among
a large number of enterprises. Moreover, even
when the arbitration case load in a single plant
or company is sufficiently great to warrant the
employment of an umpire, the parties in Cali
fornia tend to preserve the ad hoc nature of the
proceeding by selecting the arbitrator for each
case from a list of three to five persons, who are
often named in the agreement. By this device,
employers and unions hope to assure themselves
of the services of men who, at least in time, will
become familiar with the nature and the problems
of the enterprise, yet who will not be likely to
build up such close relations with representatives
of either side that their neutrality may be chal
lenged.
Similarly, mediation by the arbitrator, in the
manner sometimes practiced by umpires in the
Midwest and East, is generally discouraged on
the West Coast. This fact is associated with
prevalence of arbitration of the ad hoc variety,
since an umpire is often cast in the role of mediator
as a result of his close and continuing relationship
with both sides.
In a number of California industries, of which
automobiles, rubber, and steel are the principal
examples, many of the larger plants are covered
by national agreements providing for arbitration
of all grievances by an umpire. All of these
agreements are negotiated in the Midwest or East,
however, and the use of this system derives from
practices previously established in those areas.
The fact that the umpire may visit the West Coast
only infrequently and that grievances referred to
arbitration must sometimes be held in abeyance
for some time, pending his arrival, has led to oc
casional local dissatisfaction.
Despite the comparative rarity of umpire sys
tems in California, some of them have contributed
markedly to the improvement of labor-manage
ment relations in specific companies. North
American Aviation, Inc., is an interesting case in
point. The collective agreement between the
company and the United Automobile Workers
provides generally for the submission of unre-
546
solved grievances to an umpire. During the in
cumbency of the present umpire (1951 to date),
the number of grievances submitted to him from
the company’s Los Angeles plant has decreased
from 50 in 1951 to 2 in 1957.
According to the umpire, the reason for the
gradual decline in the number of grievances is
that certain basic issues have finally been resolved,
either through the arbitration process or through
collective bargaining. Thus, the parties were at
odds for some time over the standards to apply
in promotions under a clause stating that “em
ployees with the longest seniority will be given
preference in the advancement to higher paid jobs
when ability, merit, and capacity are equal.” The
union attempted to persuade the umpire to adopt
the standard introduced through arbitration
under the General Motors Corp. contract, namely,
that the senior employee bidding for the vacancy
should be awarded the job unless a junior bidder
was “head and shoulders” above him. Having
failed to persuade the umpire in a series of cases,
the union finally abandoned the attempt.
The parties were also in sharp disagreement
over the company’s rules against smoking in the
plant. Mass violations by the employees led to a
number of disciplinary actions, some of which
were referred to the umpire. Eventually, how
ever, the parties, mindful of employee discontent
and guided in part by the umpire’s previous de
cisions, settled the problem through collective
bargaining, by agreeing that smoking would be
permitted but only in designated areas.
The West Coast also has its share of purely
indigenous and unique procedures for the arbi
tration of disputes. One of the most interesting
is that used by the Central Board of Adjustment
in the California cannery industry. The board’s
agenda are prepared by the secretaries of the
union and employer groups. Cases are presented
rather informally. Then the secretary of each
group designates four voting members of the
board for the particular case. None of the voting
members is connected with the company or local
union involved. The eight partisan members
meet with the impartial chairman in executive
32 Oreg. Rev. S tat., sec. 33.210.
13 Rev. Code of W ash., sec. 7.04.010.
14 Calif. Code of Civil P rocedure, pt. 3, tit. 9, secs. 1280-1293.
15 43 Calif. (2d) 788, 278 P . (2d) 905 (1955).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
session. When a motion is made, a secret ballot
is taken, and the chairman counts the ballots and
simply announces that the motion has been
adopted or defeated. All grievances arising
under the master agreement, except those in
volving new job classifications, are handled in this
manner.
The interesting and unique feature of this
process is that none of the arbitration board mem
bers, including the impartial chairman, discloses
how he has voted. If the tally is 5 to 4, it may
be presumed that the partisan groups voted in a
bloc, but no one can ever be sure. Moreover, the
chairman, contrary to the usual practice, does not
prepare a written opinion explaining the result.
Court Review
The Oregon arbitration law specifically ex
cludes from its coverage all disputes arising out
of collective bargaining agreements.12 Review of
labor arbitration awards is thus governed by the
State’s common law. The Washington statute, on
the other hand, provides that agreements to arbi
trate existing or future disputes between employ
ers and employees are valid, enforceable, and ir
revocable, save upon such grounds as exist in law
or equity for the revocation of any agreement.13
In neither State, however, has there been a sig
nificant number of cases involving court review
of arbitration awards.
The California statute,14 which is more elab
orate, recognizes the validity and enforceability
of arbitration awards in labor-management dis
putes, but provides that such awards may be va
cated by a court where: (1) The award was
procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) the arbitrators were corrupt; (3) the arbi
trators were guilty of procedural or other miscon
duct; or (4) the arbitrators exceeded their
authority or failed to make a mutual, final, and
definite award.
Suits to vacate arbitration awards are not in
frequent in California, although in relative terms
the total number is not great. The most promi
nent of such cases in recent years is Black v. Gut
ter Laboratories,15 in which the California
Supreme Court ruled that an award contrary to
public policy, as determined by the court, is illegal
and void and will not be enforced.
The Trucking Industry
A classic example of the growth of multiemployer bargain
ing; industrial relations though maturing are, like the
industry itself, in a state of transition.
R. T h a y n e R obson
T h e r a p i d a n d e x t e n s i v e g r o w t h of the trucking
industry and the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters and their strategic position in the
transportation system of the United States have
focused attention on labor relations in this indus
try. Since World War II, the revenues of motor
freight carriers have almost tripled and the num
ber of trucks has doubled.1 Employment in
trucking and warehousing may soon equal that of
the railroads.2 On the West Coast, the industry’s
growth, which has exceeded the national rate,
tells only part of the story. Equally significant
has been the change from a local product market
oriented industry to a vast intercity network of
truck lines providing fast and efficient freight
movement on a transcontinental basis.
In the 11 Western States,3 which constitute a
unit so far as collective bargaining in the industry
is concerned, the trucking industry consists of ap
proximately 1,600 firms with 100,000 employees.
Over 70 percent of these totals are concentrated
in the three coastal States, with California alone
accounting for nearly 50 percent.4
The spectacular growth of intercity trucking
has brought important changes in the structure
of collective bargaining in the industry, resulting
in a steady broadening of the geographic scope
of contract coverage.5 This trend has been ap
parent throughout the industry since about 1936,
when the first area agreement (i.e., covering driv
ers in more than one State) was signed in the
Northwest. Too often the growth of the larger
bargaining unit is attributed solely to union pol
icy. The changes in the bargaining structure,
however, reflect the basic change in the nature of
the industry and were encouraged by union and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
employers alike. Those union officers who fore
saw the growth of the industry, and the changes
that would be necessary, consequently rose to po
sitions of leadership in the Teamsters union.
In addition to the growth of the bargaining
unit, there have been important developments in
recent years concerning the centralization of
agreement administration, the union’s policy on
wages, and the pension program and other issues.
Some of the developments discussed here, and a
few of the practices which have grown up in the
industry, are of great political importance and
may warrant important changes in public policy.
A discussion of the political aspects of collective
bargaining is, however, beyond the scope of this
article.
1 A ccording to th e I n te rs ta te Commerce Com m ission, “revenues
of m otor c a rrie rs of p ro p erty rose to an index figure of 278.5
in 1957” on a 1947 base, an d th e sh a re of to ta l ton-m iles hauled
by tru c k increased from 9.7 percent in 1939 to 19.1 percent in
1957. See 72d A nnual R eport of th e I n te rs ta te Commerce Com
m ission, F isca l Y ear E nded Ju n e 30, 1958, p. 3.
I n 1945, to ta l tru c k re g istra tio n s w ere 5,079,802, w hereas in
1957, they h ad risen to 10,900,000. See M otor 'Truck F a c ts
(D etro it, A utom obile M a n u fac tu rers A ssociation, 1958), p. 21.
2 T rucking and w arehousing, as defined here, includes th e in
te rc ity an d local ca rta g e operations of fo r-h ire carrie rs, as w ell
as th e sto rag e of farm products, f u rn itu re an d household goods,
and com m ercial goods. I t excludes delivery an d w arehouse fa c ili
ties operated by business concerns (e.g., d airies and bakeries) fo r
th e ir own use.
E m ploym ent in Class I railro ad s averaged 841,500 w hile em
ploym ent in tru c k in g a n d w arehousing w as 793,200 in 1958, com
pared w ith 1,352,000 an d 551,000, respectively, in 1947. See
E m ploym ent an d E arn in g s, F eb ru ary 1959, and M onthly L abor
Review, December 1949 (U.S. B ureau of L abor S ta tis tic s ), pp.
10 an d 699, respectively.
3 A rizona, C alifornia, Colorado, Idaho, M ontana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, U tah, W ashington, an d W yoming.
4 E stim a te s based on union d a ta , confirm ed by analyses of U.S.
B ureau of th e Census em ploym ent d a ta an d tru c k re g istra tio n s
by S tates.
5 T eam ster P re sid e n t Ja m es R. Hoffa h a s pred icted t h a t a
single m a ste r c o n tra c t covering 500,000 tru ck in g in d u stry
d riv ers an d dockw orkers across th e c o u n try m ay be n eg o tiated
in 1961. See S outhern C alifornia T eam ster, Decem ber 24, 1958,
p. 1. Some m anagem ent officials in th e la rg e r tru ck in g com
panies also fav o r n a tio n a l agreem ents.
547
548
The Bargaining Structure
The growth of the intercity trucking industry
has forced substantial changes in traditional bar
gaining relationships and in the structure and
government of union and management organiza
tions. Until about 20 years ago, strong, autono
mous local unions bargained with local draymen’s
associations in all segments of the trucking indus
try. With the growth of intercity trucking,
union and employer groups in this segment of the
industry sought to bargain separately. The poli
cies set by local cartage interests were felt to be
unacceptable for two major reasons. First, the
geographic scope of the local cartage bargain,
confined to a local union or to a city, was felt to
be inadequate for drivers who continually moved
into and out of the jurisdictions of several local
unions. Second, the wide variety of practices in
local cartage seemed unduly restrictive to the new
and more aggressive segment of the trucking in
dustry. Local cartage operations were character
ized by a large number of small firms with low
capital investments which were hampered by poor
management and inadequate and inefficient facil
ities. In this environment, restrictive work prac
tices developed.
Over-the-road companies and their drivers
found it difficult at best to administer and observe
a great number of contracts containing many pro
visions not appropriate to their problems. The
sizable investment required for large intercity
trucks and equipment, which was mostly financed
with credit raised within the industry, plus the
need to meet external competition with flexible
and efficient service, made it imperative that inter
city trucking companies obtain maximum equip
ment utilization, with rapid turn around time,
and quick loading and unloading en route. To
accomplish this, their local pickup and delivery
work had to be carefully scheduled and free from
unnecessary delays. The working rules and
practices of local cartage, such as the rule pre
venting work before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m., which
existed in some West Coast cities, were a deter
rent to the intercity trucking business. Even
when the special needs and problems of intercity
trucking were generally recognized, the labor re
lations decisions continued for some time to be
made for the most part through the uncoordinated
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
efforts of union and management groups in which
local cartage interests were dominant.
Confronted with this situation, both union and
management had to create new levels of authority
within their respective organizations to deal with
problems arising on a broader scale. The union
formed conferences, starting in 1937 with the
Western Conference,6 which divided the country
into four sections, and then established trade di
visions along industry lines. The trucking com
panies, because of their competitive nature, were
highly distrustful of each other and, while recog
nizing the need to deal with problems on a broader
basis, were unable to move as rapidly as the union.
Nevertheless, new employer associations were
formed to represent the intercity trucking firms.
Both the union drivers and the management in
intercity trucking wanted “stability” with uni
form wage rates and uniform working rules in
line with their particular needs.
The transition in the West from local union to
conference level bargaining was not easy, and it
is doubtful that it could have been accomplished
without a mutual interest. The first area con
tracts were in the Northwest in 1936, covering
some over-the-road drivers in Washington, Ore
gon, Montana, and Idaho, but these were soon
curtailed in scope. In the period through World
War II, statewide agreements were negotiated for
Washington, Oregon, Montana, and other States.
Two agreements were negotiated for California,
one for the north and the other for the south of
the State. There were also two trucking agree
ments each in Utah, Idaho, and Colorado. Ari
zona had a single agreement that reached into
New Mexico and to El Paso, Tex. These first
statewide or areawide agreements were not a com
plete departure from local cartage control. In
every case, the dominant metropolitan area
within the scope of the agreement set the bargain
ing pattern in local cartage negotiations, the work
ing rules and practices of local cartage remained
intact, and the over-the-road drivers, while getting
some special consideration, did not threaten local
autonomy. In this situation, the whipsaw worked
very well for local cartage unions as between areas.
The early postwar years resulted in minor
changes in the formal bargaining structure,
9
T he W estern C onference includes, besides the 11 W estern
S tates, A laska, w estern C anada, an d H aw aii.
THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY
mostly involving the smaller States and the car
riers of special products like livestock and oil.
But a number of trends foreshadowed changes in
the bargaining structure. First, the intercity
industry continued to expand, and mergers and
consolidations resulted in the formation of a num
ber of fairly large companies. The Teamsters
claimed recently that 14 transcontinental carriers
handled 75 percent of the freight and employed
40 percent of the employees in the for-hire truck
ing industry in the Western States.7 Second,
many large intercity trucking companies, through
merger and consolidation and by conscious policy,
acquired substantial interests in local cartage
through pick-up and delivery operations. Third,
the new levels of authority developed by the
union gained increased influence in union decision
making. Fourth, dissatisfaction with the admi
nistration of manifold contracts with different
provisions and conflicting interpretations in
creased. In short, the advantages of master con
tracts with uniform provisions and uniform
interpretation were accepted by the new leadership
on both sides of the bargaining table.
In 1955, a strike lockout of 24 days occurred
throughout the 11 Western States, with most but
not all Teamster groups participating. The out
come of the strike was a fairly uniform settlement
for all over-the-road drivers and a slightly dif
ferent settlement of uniform value for local
cartage drivers and other groups. These contracts
included a uniform pension program which
quickly spread to most other parts of the Team
sters’ jurisdiction in the Western States. Two ad
ditional things came out of these negotiations.
First, the contracts had a common termination
date in May 1958. Second, a joint commitment
was made, according to both industry and union
people, that a master (11 Western States) contract
would be negotiated for intercity trucking in 1958.
During the 1958 negotiations, the union formed
two conferencewide committees, one with author7 S o u th ern C alifo rn ia T eam ster, A ugust 20, 1958, p. 7.
8 T he p a rtie s to th is agreem ent, w hich ru n s u n til Ju n e 30,
1961, a re : A rizona M otor T ruck League, C alifornia T rucking
A ssociations, Inc., In te rm o u n ta in O perators League, T ruck Oper
a to rs L eague of Oregon, W ashington M otor T ra n s p o rt A ssocia
tion , W estern E m p ire O perators A ssociation, W estern Sleeper
O perato rs A ssociation, T ru ck O p erato rs’ L eague of M ontana,
Inc., an d th e W estern Conference of T eam sters, to g eth er w ith
106 T e a m ste r locals.
W ages w ere n o t covered by th e m aste r agreem ent, b u t were
covered in su pplem ental agreem ents.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
549
ity to conclude a contract for over-the-road truck
ing, the other with authority limited to the rec
ommendation of a local cartage settlement to the
local unions. The employers formed the Western
States Employers’ Policy Association and a com
mittee with power to negotiate for intercity truck
ing. These employers, while not representing
local cartage officially, also held the balance of
power in local cartage negotiations. Local car
tage groups in Seattle and San Francisco, how
ever, continued to negotiate individual settle
ments.
Agreement was reached in May on an overthe-road master contract for the 11 States cover
ing nonmoney issues such as recognition, dues
checkoff, jurisdiction, and a number of other im
portant matters.8 Most important, the agreement
established a new grievance procedure. (See
p. 550.) The agreement on economic issues was
not reached until the middle of September, after
a work stoppage of more than a month.
There was a good deal of jockeying in the 1958
negotiations over whether the employers also
would negotiate an 11-State master agreement for
local cartage. The employers’ committee which
officially represented intercity trucking took the
position that it was not authorized to negotiate
such an agreement. However, it was generally
understood by both union and management groups
that the agreement on economic issues, even if
it could not take the form of a master agreement,
had to provide for uniform increases within local
cartage, as well as within over-the-road opera
tions. Difficulties arose over the agreement on
the economic package when the international
union and some local cartage unions refused to
approve the proposed economic settlement until
it contained a cost-of-living escalator clause and
some provision for the systematic reduction of
wage differentials between low and high areas
in the Western Conference. With the goal of
wage parity in sight and with international union
approval, certain local cartage groups attempted
to reach the goal more rapidly than terms of a
new agreement might permit. The OaklandAlameda County group struck to obtain parity
with San Francisco, the high-wage city, and was
successful. Then, when the Sacramento Valley
locals decided to do likewise, their strike precipi
tated a lockout by the employers in the 11 Western
550
States which lasted from August 11 until Sep
tember 16, 1958. The work stoppage resulted in
a compromise victory for the union and involved
a good deal of tugging and hauling on the organi
zational structures of both union and manage
ment. I t clearly demonstrated, however, that the
employers—through the Western States Em
ployers’ Policy Association, which was largely in
fluenced by the California Trucking Associa
tions—were improving in their ability to main
tain control in management ranks to deal with
collective bargaining.
The final settlement on economic issues, which
was accepted by all locals in the 11 western States,
contained the escalator, plus additional wage in
creases for all low-wage areas to reduce differen
tials. The local cartage drivers received a 20-centan-hour increase plus the amounts necessary to
achieve wage parity with San Francisco, while the
over-the-road drivers received increases in each of
the 3 years covered by their contract of 10 cents
an hour or % cent a mile. Most observers in the
union and the industry expect that negotiations
in 1961 will produce a master contract for local
cartage and will further strengthen the over-theroad agreement by including more provisions in
the master contract.
The Administration of Agreements
For purposes of contract administration, the
1958 master agreement in intercity trucking re
placed 35 separate agreements.9 I t provides, as
the final step of its disputes settlement procedure,
for a Joint Western Labor-Management Commit
tee of three representatives and six alternates
from each side and an impartial chairman with
binding powers of arbitration. Pending failure
at earlier steps, this committee will handle all
“questions, disputes, and controversies arising
under [the] agreement or any supplement . . ., or
between the parties as to employer-employee re
lations covered by this agreement. . . . ” 10 This
joint western committee has broad and important
powers over the administration of this agreement.
In all probability, consistent and uniform in
terpretation of this agreement by a continuing
organization will provide the desired “stability.”
This kind of grievance procedure, similar to that
of the Teamsters Central States contract except
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
for the provision of an impartial chairman, can
be an important weapon in the hands of the overthe-road trucking interests to discipline recalci
trant members on both sides, and others on the
fringes of the industry.
Below the joint western committee, at step
four in the procedure set up in the 1958 master
agreement, are the following joint area commit
tees : One each for the States of Washington, Ore
gon, and Montana; three for California and Ne
vada; one for Colorado and Wyoming; one for
Utah and Idaho; and one for Arizona, New Mex
ico, and El Paso, Tex. These groups correspond
roughly to the scope of the previous bargaining
units. Earlier steps in the procedure are at the
local union and employer level.
Although the local cartage contracts will be
administered at the local level as in the past, the
conferencewide administration of the over-theroad agreement will undoubtedly have an impor
tant influence upon their administration. Where
common problems arise, the settlement reached by
the joint western committee for intercity truck
ing is likely to become a standard for local cart
age as well. Since both parties expect a master
contract for local cartage in 1961, they will be
looking to the over-the-road agreement and its
administration as a basis from which to work in
local cartage.
Union Policy on Wages
The maximizing of uniform wages has long
been a goal of the Teamsters international union
and its component parts, and the employers are
agreed that uniformity in wages must come. As
of July 1, 1958, the Pacific region (including Ne
vada) led all other regions with an average union
hourly wage rate for drivers in city trucking of
$2.55.1:L The Mountain region, which encom
passes the seven States comprising the remainder
of the Western Conference, on the other hand,
had the lowest average drivers’ rate in the coun
try—$2.16 an hour. The San Francisco-Oakland
9 T h ere a re still 35 or m ore supplem ents to th e m aste r agree
m ent.
10 E leven W estern S ta te s O ver-the-R oad M a ster A greem ent,
p. 2.
11 U nion W ages an d H o u rs : M o to rtru ck D rivers an d H elpers,
Ju ly 1, 1958 (U.S. B u reau of L abor S ta tistic s, B ull. 1246, 1959),
pp. 8 an d 29.
THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY
area had the highest drivers’ rate of any city—•
$2.64 an hour. In the last negotiations, San
Francisco settled independently, before the master
contract was reached, on a 1-year contract which
raised base rates for drivers to $2,475 an hour.
Subsequently, the Oakland-Alameda County driv
ers obtained rates equal to San Francisco, and
those in the Sacramento Valley locals were
granted wage parity with San Francisco as of
January 1, 1959. The agreement also provided
for additional area increases that would establish
a uniform base rate of $2,475 an hour by May 1,
I960,12 throughout the Western States; in some
areas, these will amount to over 60 cents an hour.
Once wage uniformity is obtained, there is fur
ther reason to expect a master contract for both
local cartage and over-the-road operations in 1961.
There is much concern among employers over
the rather high wage increases that a program
of wage uniformity produces. There is good rea
son to believe, however, that the broader bargain
ing units strengthen the employers more than the
union, and thus the employers should be in a
better position to restrain the size of wage in
creases in the future.
Pensions and Other Issues
The negotiation of a conferencewide pension
program for trucking employees in 1955 and
1956 undoubtedly helped those who favored
broader bargaining units. The case for a confer
encewide agreement which would grant vesting of
rights to workers who move around without leav
ing the industry had strong appeal for the union,
12
In som« a reas w here th e ag reem en t also provided fo r a
g ra d u a l red uctio n in th e workweek fro m 48 to 40 h o u rs w ith o u t
an y red u ctio n in take-hom e pay, th e d a te on w hich w age p a rity
w ith S an F rancisco w ill be achieved w as delayed fo r 6-12 m onths.
5 0 2 3 2 4 ^ -5 9 -------5
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
551
which called a sizable number of strikes over this
demand and won most of them. The plan is in
sured by the Prudential Insurance Co. and ad
ministered through union offices. In the 1958
trucking negotiations, the employers’ contribution
was increased to 10 cents an hour. When this
program was begun for the trucking industry,
the union hoped that it would eventually cover
all 300,000 Teamsters in the Western Conference.
The union has made substantial progress toward
that goal.
Each industry has certain problems which are
somewhat unique ; in trucking, working schedules
based on regular runs, delivery requirements, and
other special considerations such as government
regulation present interesting problems. Hours of
work and conditions of work are important con
siderations which have such unique aspects as
government-imposed maximum worktime limita
tions. Safety problems in the trucking industry
are also different from those in most other in
dustries. Lastly, the truckdriver is not subject to
close supervision while he is behind the wheel, and
individual workers can exercise considerable lati
tude in driving habits. These technological fac
tors, as well as the industry’s economic charac
teristics, give collective bargaining in the truck
ing industry its own form, flavor, and structure.
*
*
*
One of the outstanding features of unionmanagement relations in the trucking industry is
the dynamic and experimental approach taken by
both parties. Each seems willing to accept
change as a constant diet and to seek solutions to
problems through collective bargaining. The in
dustry is still in transition, and it will probably
be another 25 years before it attains the degree of
stability in its economic structure and labor re
lations that are found in some other industries.
Changes in economic and political pressures have brought an end
to a long record of strikes, interunion rivalry, and employer dis
unity and have created a situation in which peaceful bargaining
is now possible.
The Maritime Industry
B etty
V. H. S c h n e id e r
T he c h a r a c t e r of labor-management relations in
the Pacific Coast maritime industry has changed
substantially in the last few years. Previously,
shipping had been regularly disrupted by disputes
either between unions and management or between
unions. In the 19 years following recognition of
the unions in 1934, the industry experienced six
lengthy coastwide strikes and hundreds of job
stoppages and ship delays by longshoremen and
seamen. The seven unions involved—one of long
shoremen, three of unlicensed seamen, and three
of officers1—engaged in seemingly endless juris
dictional battles and in vigorous annual competi
tions to gain the most favorable contract improve
ments. The employers, badly split either by com
petition or by the distinct problems faced in dif
ferent shipping trades, were particularly suscep
tible to union maneuvers and were inclined to
conduct their labor affairs with regard to oppor
tunity and day-to-day expediency.
Today, such evidence of inability to reconcile
conflicting interests has all but disappeared.
Since the clash of employers and the Interna
tional Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s
Union (ILWU) in 1948, the industry has had only
one major strike—that called in 1952 by the
Sailors Union of the Pacific (SUP) in what was
primarily a “whipsawing” action to better im
provements which had gone to firemen. Whereas
the industry lost approximately 11 million mandays through stoppages between 1934 and 1952,
there have been only about 175,000 man-day losses
since. (See table.)
There has also been a sharp reduction in the
interunion rivalry which tended to complicate
and perpetuate differences between the bargaining
parties. The unions of sailors, firemen, and stew552
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ards have federated (to form the Pacific District
of the Seafarers’ International Union) and are
expected to merge. The SUP and ILWU appar
ently have almost given up efforts to gain power
and influence at the expense of each other. In
addition, certain of the unions have recently made
moves toward cooperation or merger with their
East Coast counterparts.
The merging of the two respective organizations
of longshore employers and shipowners in 1949
into a single coastwide group—the Pacific Mari
time Association (PMA)—has been followed by
a decided reduction in the employers’ coordination
problems. Breakaways from central policy for
the purpose of making separate settlements with
the unions are much less frequent than in former
years.
Negotiations on the coast level have been con
ducted without breakdowns and contracts have
tended to be set for longer periods than was com
mon prior to the 1950’s. Although the present
longshore contract runs from 1958 to 1959, the six
offshore contracts which were also open in 1958
will run to 1961, with wage reviews in 1960.
Whipsawing on the seagoing side has become rare.
An arbitrary connection in the size of their wage
increases which was maintained for years by the
ILWU and SUP was finally broken in 1958 nego
tiations. The more moderate approach at the top
has been reflected on the job and port levels: Job
stoppages and ship delays have fallen off and most
1 T he longshorem en’s union— th e In te rn a tio n a l L ongshorem en’s
an d W arehousem en’s Union (IL W U )— is in d ep en d en t; th e th re e
unlicensed seam en’s unions— th e S ailors Union of th e Pacific
(S U P ), th e M arine F irem en, O ilers, W a terten d ers an d W ipers
A ssociation (M FO W ), an d th e M arine Cooks an d S tew ards As
sociation (M CS), form erly th e N atio n al Union of M arine Cooks
an d S tew ards— a re affiliates of th e S e a fa re rs’ In te rn a tio n a l
Union (A F L -C IO ) ; an d th e th re e officers’ unions— th e In te rn a
tio n a l O rganization of M asters, M ates an d P ilo ts (M M P), th e
M arine E n g in e ers’ Beneficial A ssociation (M E B A ), an d th e
A m erican Radio A ssociation (A RA ), form erly p a r t of th e A m eri
can C om m unications A ssociation— are A F L -C IO affiliates.
THE MARITIME INDUSTRY
local disagreements are being handled at lower
rather than higher stages of the grievance proce
dure. Finally, the employers’ public attacks on
the actions and motives of ILWU President Harry
Bridges are now a thing of the past.
Factors Influencing Labor Relations
The erratic course of industrial relations in the
western maritime industry and the present climate
of compromise cannot be easily explained. Far
too many historical, economic, and political fac
tors have influenced the actions of the parties to
allow for either a brief or simple analysis.2 How
ever, it is possible to summarize a few of the more
important reasons for the problems which have
arisen and some of the ways in which employers
and unions have tried to protect their interests.
Historical Background. Before the 1930’s, mari
time workers had an exceptionally long history of
seldom successful attempts to correct severe
abuses. By land standards, wages were low and
working conditions particularly depressed. Most
emloyers were violently antiunion and were able
to prevent effective combination. Organizations
of workers struggled for over half a century be
fore they obtained reluctant, but permanent, rec
ognition on the West Coast in 1934.3 The re
sentment which had been built up on both sides
was carried over into the new relationship and
continued to affect attitudes and actions for some
years.
2 F iv e docum ented stu d ies dealing w ith labor-m anagem ent re
la tio n s in th e in d u stry have been published in recen t y e a r s :
Jo sep h P . Goldberg, The M aritim e S to ry : A StudCr in LaborM anagem ent R elatio n s (Cam bridge, M ass., H a rv a rd U niversity
P ress, 1958) ; W ytze G o rter an d George H. H ildebrand, The
Pacific C oast M aritim e Shipping In d u stry , 1930-1948 (Berkeley
a n d Los Angeles, U n iv ersity of C a lifo rn ia P ress, 1954), Vol. I I ;
C harles P . L arrow e, Shape-up a n d H irin g H all (B erkeley and
Los Angeles, U n iv ersity of C alifo rn ia P ress, 1955) ; B e tty V. H.
S chneider, In d u s tria l R elatio n s in th e W est C oast M aritim e I n
d u stry (Berkeley, U n iv ersity of C alifornia, I n s titu te of In d u s
tr ia l R elatio n s, 1958) ; Schneider andi A braham Siegel, In d u stria l
R elatio n s in th e P acific C oast L ongshore In d u s try (Berkeley,
U n iv ersity of C alifornia, I n s titu te of In d u s tria l R elations, 1956).
3 W estern m aritim e u nions w ere first organized in the 1880’s.
B etw een 1901 an d 1903, unions of sailors, firem en, cooks and
stew ard s, engineers, an d longshorem en w ere able to obtain con
tr a c ts w ith coastw ise o p erato rs, an d re la tio n s w ere m ain tain ed
w ith th is group u n til th e end of W orld W ar I. How ever, in 1919,
strik in g longshorem en w ere defeated a n d a com pany union w as
c re a te d ; in 1921, seam en lo st th e ir c o n tra c ts in a sim ilarly
unsuccessfu l strik e.
4 P acific M aritim e A ssociation figures ; G orter and H ildebrand,
op. cit., pp. 75—107, 3 4 7 ; a n d E. G. M ears, M aritim e T rad e of
W estern U nited S ta te s (P a lo A lto, Calif., S tan fo rd U niversity
Press, 1935), passim.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
553
W o rk S t o p p a g e s
Number of
stoppages
Year
1934 . .
1935
1936
1937
1938 . .
1939 . .
1940 . .
1941 - 45 .
1946 . .
1947 . .
1948 . .
1949 . .
1950 . .
1951 . .
1952 . .
1953 . .
1954 . .
1955 . .
1956 . . . .
1957 . —
i n t h e P a c if ic C o a st
d u s t r y , 1934—57 1
Number of
men involved
M a r it im e I n
Total duration
of stoppages
(days)
Man-days
lost
1, 100,000
470.000
3, 600,000
250.000
52.000
390.000
81.000
2
3
2
__________________ 2
__
2
..
7
..
1
14,000
7,950
38,650
6,040
5,350
21,750
1,330
8
4
3
72,400
7,100
29,750
130
2, 100,000
3
3
15
7
18
16
16
6,600
9,500
750
4,965
15,009
15,233
1,473
9
64
3
62
28
14
27
30.000
546,000
..
__________________
__________________
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
83
102
60
60
19
100
60
108
21
2, 200,000
36,000
12.000
54.300
80.300
20,800
5,383
1 For 1934-48, covers all stoppages which involved 1,000 or more men; for
1949-57, all stoppages which involved 6 or more men for a full shift or longer.
S ource : Analysis of Work Stoppages in the Pacific Coast Maritime In
dustry, 1957, Research Report (San Francisco, Pacific Maritime Association,
1958), p. 3.
Trade Trends. An unfavorable economic en
vironment can offer serious barriers to the achieve
ment of peaceful industrial relations, especially
when, as in the case of the maritime industry,
labor represents a high proportion of total
operating costs. With the exception of the World
War I I and Korean periods, West Coast maritime
employers have had to face an especially difficult
trade situation for about 30 years.
For example, western shipping not only is sub
ject to the usual sharp short-term fluctuations in
demand occasioned by wars, foreign aid, trade
barriers, etc., but also has suffered a long-term de
cline in volume, principally because of the shift
of cargo to lower cost land transport—trucks, rail
ways, and pipelines. Prior to 1930, total dry
cargo tonnage handled in Pacific ports showed a
steady increase, although there were some ad
justment problems after World War I. But with
the depression of the 1930’s came set-backs from
which the industry has never recovered, in spite
of the industrial boom experienced generally in
the Pacific Coast States. Throughout most of
the post-World War I I period, dry tonnage fig
ures matched those of the depression years. ISTot
until 1955 did tonnage (23.5 million tons) exceed
that carried in 1930 (21 million tons). A rapid
rise in the following 2 years, owing almost en
tirely to an increase in cargo carried by foreign
vessels, raised the annual total in 1957 to onethird above the 1930 figure.4
554
The situation, insofar as American operators
are concerned, is considerably worse than the
figures indicate. The dry tonnage figures cited in
clude all cargo carried to and from the West
Coast, and the proportion carried by vessels
of foreign origin is, and has been, higher
than it was in the 1930’s. The number of Ameri
can ships in operation from western ports dropped
from 386 in 1948 to approximately 158 in 1958, even
though cargo passing over the docks reached the
greatest volume in coast history. Probably the
record of the coastwise dry cargo fleet offers the
most striking example of contraction in the in
dustry: In 1930, 147 ships were in operation; in
1958, there were 5.5
Job Security. Employment practices in the in
dustry have also created special problems. The
majority of longshoremen and seamen have al
ways been hired on a single job or trip basis. In
termittent periods of unemployment are almost
impossible to avoid. Even during periods when
total shipping is not fluctuating, local demand for
labor varies with the pattern of ship arrivals.
However, when, as was common prior to the mid1930’s, admittance to the labor pool is unre
stricted, the results are generally an oversupply
of men and chronic unemployment. For the mar
itime worker, then, a limited labor force is es
sential to security. On the other hand, it is vital
from the employers’ point of view that a large
enough group of workers be available to meet
needs at peak periods.
Job control was the major cause of the Pacific
Coast maritime strikes of 1934 (83 days) and
1936-37 (98 days), and was one of the primary
reasons for that of 1948 (95 days).
In the first of these strikes, the longshoremen
won in arbitration (by the National Longshore
men’s Board appointed by President Roosevelt)
what amounted to a closed shop, control over the
size of the labor force, and a hiring system which
guaranteed equal earnings. The award called for
hiring halls operated and supported jointly by
management and the union, but with union-elected
dispatchers. All hiring henceforth was to be in
rotation from limited lists of registered men.
Joint port committees, with veto power on each
side, were given the power to change the size of
the lists. The unlicensed seamen’s unions, how
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
ever, obtained only preference of employment.
This was the cause of approximately 250 short
strikes of seamen in 1935 and 1936, as the unions
attempted to prevent nonunion men from sailing
and to prevent hiring other than from union
rotation lists.
At the expiration of contracts in late 1936,
another strike was inevitable. The employers
were bent on regaining at least some of their
former discretion in the hiring of longshoremen;
seamen were determined to duplicate the gains of
dockworkers. For the second time, the unions
won. Longshoremen retained their hiring system
unchanged and unlicensed seamen obtained the
right to dispatch all men through union-operated
hiring halls.
The question of job control did not arise again
until negotiations were opened with the ILWIJ
in 1948: The employers, armed with the prohibi
tion on the closed shop in the Taft-Hartley Act,
requested exclusive control of longshore halls.
One of the most fascinating power struggles in
recent American labor history followed. A vigor
ous employer campaign, including a refusal to
bargain on the basis of Communist influence in
the ILWTJ, failed to have an effect either on the
union or the rank and file and ended in a change
in employer leadership and an excellent contract
for the union, with no change in hiring hall pro
cedure. The end of what has been called both a
strike and a lockout marked the beginning of a
complete change in longshore relations.
Interunion Conflict. There is no doubt that, with
the exception of job control, interunion friction
has had the most important long-run effect on
labor-management relations. Under the best of
circumstances, seven craft unions might have had
trouble reconciling their interests in a declining
industry. However, as it developed, union poli
cies on economic goals, jurisdiction, strike strat
egy, and even day-to-day attitudes toward em-
BPacific M aritim e A ssociation figures.
S hipping in th e U nited S ta te s as a w hole h a s experienced
sim ilar changes. I n 1957, only ab o u t 19 p ercen t of to ta l cargo
tonnage (d ry an d w et) w as being carrie d on A m erican flagships,
as opposed to 41 p e rcen t in 1930 a n d 68 p ercen t in 1945. Aver
age em ploym ent on A m erican ships In 1955, 1956, and 1957 was
low er th a n a t any tim e since before W orld W ar II, in sp ite of th e
fa c t th a t to ta l to n n ag e p assin g th ro u g h A m erican p o rts h as m ore
th a n trip le d since 1940. See S ta tis tic a l A b stra c t of th e U nited
S ta te s : 1958 (U.S. B ureau of th e Census, 1958), pp. 584, 595.
THE MARITIME INDUSTRY
ployers came to be influenced not only by the
special interests of individual unions but also by
the pressures resulting from the extensive battle
between the late Harry Lundeberg of the Sailors
and Harry Bridges of the Longshoremen.
Lundeberg and Bridges rose to leadership
during the 1934 strike and brought with them
radical political philosophies which encompassed
the class struggle and challenged the goals of
pragmatic business unions of the AFL school.
But, at the same time, their views on the role
trade unions should play were not similar: Lunde
berg had a syndicalist background and favored
reliance of the workers on economic action;
Bridges, on the other hand, strongly advocated
the use of political means. A break was not long
in coming. After a violent split with Bridges in
1938, following Bridges’ attempt to push the
SUP into the Congress of Industrial Organiza
tions, where the new National Maritime Union
had jurisdiction over seamen, Lundeberg rejected
radicalism, led the Sailors back to the AFL, and
wholeheartedly accepted the tenets of conservative
unionism. The two men, who had been friends
and allies and who controlled the largest and
strongest organizations in the industry, became
bitter enemies.
In the American Federation of Labor with the
Sailors at that time were the Masters, Mates and
Pilots; the Cooks and Stewards, Engineers, and
Radiomen went with the Longshoremen into the
CIO; only the Firemen decided to remain inde
pendent. There ensued extended struggles not
only between the SUP and the ILWU but among
all the unions in various changing combinations.
Generally, it was difficult for the smaller unions
to refuse identification with the policies of either
the SUP or the ILWU. Without the protection
of one of the two, a weaker group was open to
raids or refusal of important strike support. The
result was a choosing of sides and a long-term
war of attrition.
Relations between management and labor could
hardly fail to reflect such strains. Minor juris
dictional disputes became major negotiating is
sues. At the bargaining table, each union pursued
aggressive campaigns to insure concessions which
8 P reviously, th e S ailo rs U nion of th e P acific w as th e only
SIU —A FL affiliate on th e W est Coast. T he M asters, M ates and
P ilo ts had been in th e A F L since W orld W ar I, b u t u n d er a
se p a ra te c h a rte r.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
555
would give its settlements a slightly more favor
able appearance. The unions played off employ
ers against one another to achieve certain
advantages; in turn, the employers capitalized on
splits between the unions. Factionalism, in
trigue, power politics, and irresponsibility kept
the industry in a turmoil.
Peace in the Industry
Settlement of the longshore dispute of 1948
opened a new era in the western maritime in
dustry. Unqualified acceptance of the ILWU and
its leadership by the employers ended a 14-year
power struggle. After their fifth coastwide stop
page, shipowners and stevedoring firms were ap
parently willing to try a new approach to the
longshore union. The time was propitious for
peace from the union’s point of view, too: Charges
of Communist domination by the CIO had al
ready forewarned of the ILW U’s possible expul
sion from the federation and subsequent jurisdic
tional threats. The parties’ weapons of the past—
strikes, lockouts, personal vituperation, legalistic
bargaining, reliance on third parties for settle
ments—were discarded. The “New Look,” as the
change came to be called, has endured to the
present.
Reduction in TJnion Rivalries. With the arrival
of the New Look, the last of the seven maritime
unions had achieved institutional security. But
the absence of serious trouble stemming from em
ployer-union relations did not greatly reduce
interunion tensions. Only the ILWU now
showed a reluctance to be drawn into disputes of
any sort. Competition, particularly among the
three unlicensed seamen’s unions, continued into
the early 1950’s.
Beginning with the independent Marine Fire
men’s affiliation with the Seafarers’ International
Union (AFL) in 1953,6 however, there has been a
gradual, and recently a rapid, reduction in all
forms of interunion rivalry. In 1955, after the
SUP had won a 7-year battle to break the National
Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards (expelled
from the CIO in 1950) and to replace it with a
new SIU affiliate, all three unions of unlicensed
seamen federated in the Pacific District of the
SIU. Subsequently, the group pooled its pension
funds and in 1958 negotiated a single contract
556
with the PMA. Full merger in the near future
is likely.
The death of the powerful and influential Harry
Lundeberg in January 1957 unquestionably had
the effect of further reducing tensions among the
unions. Lundeberg’s forceful efforts over the
years to gather seamen of all crafts into the AFL,
and the aggressive, highly personal feud between
Bridges and Lundeberg were major factors in
creating unrest. Aside from a few minor dis
agreements in the jurisdictional field, the ILWU
and SUP have recently left each other in peace.7
There have been other moves toward union co
operation in the maritime field. West Coast
Masters, Mates and Pilots and Marine Engineers
conducted simultaneous negotiations with em
ployers in 1958. The respective former AFL and
CIO miions of marine engineers and radio oper
ators have started working together on certain
subjects of common interest; the engineers have
agreed to merge in I960.8 In an unprecedented
action in 1958, the ILWU and the Teamsters
cooperated in northern California warehouse
negotiations.
Moreover, until recently, there seemed to be a
possibility that the ILWU and the International
Longshoremen’s Association (ILA-Ind.) of the
East Coast might form some sort of loose formal
relationship. Since 1954, the ILWU has been
lending moral support to the ILA in various of
its struggles with the employers and other unions;
in 1956, the ILWU stopped work at West Coast
ports on East and Gulf Coast ships for 3 days in
sympathy with an ILA strike; there have been
exchange visits of local officials and rank-and-file
members; during 1958, the two unions cooperated
on a national safety legislation program. The
situation has changed somewhat in the last 6
months, however. In January 1959, the ILA ap
plied for readmission to the AFL-CIO. The
following month, the Executive Council of the
AFL-CIO appointed a committee to investigate
the affairs of the ILA, including the extent of
possible collaboration with the ILWU. Since
that time, there has been no evidence that the
ILWU and the ILA will move closer together,
although the organizations are not officially
unfriendly.
It is evident that the factors which divided
maritime unions in the past have either lost force
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
or have been superseded by a more pressing need
to cooperate. The AFL-CIO merger in 1955
eliminated a highly divisive influence. In addi
tion, maritime unions now affiliated with the
AFL-CIO are not subject to such severe ideo
logical cleavages as were common before the CIO
purges of 1950.9 The recent cooperation of the
ILWU and California Teamsters, as well as that
between the ILWU and the ILA, is undoubtedly
related in part to the fact that the three unions
share exile from the rest of the labor movement.
Economic Factors. As cooperation has become
easier, the need for it has become greater. With
the transfer of ships to the so-called “flags of con
venience” by owners seeking to reduce operating
costs,10 the number of jobs available for American
seamen has been drastically curtailed. Both po
litical action on the “runaway flags” issue and
attempts to increase legal protection of the unionoperated hiring hall have called forth unusual
displays of unity on the part of all seafaring
unions.11
On the West Coast, the seriousness of the ship
ping situation was reflected in last year’s offshore
negotiations.12 Only radio operators received a
wage increase and it was based on the sacrifice of
certain overtime allowances. Masters and Mates,
7 D uring th e strik e of ILW U su g a r w orkers in H aw aii in early
1958, M orris W eisberger, SUP se c re ta ry -tre a su re r, publicly of
fered h is un io n ’s support. A changed atm osphere is also evi
d en t on th e local level. F o r exam ple, on occasion, w hen sh o rt
ages of longshorem en have occurred, ILW U d isp a tc h ers have
called on SU P h alls fo r e x tra men.
The only ju risd ic tio n a l tro u b le of a p e rsis te n t n a tu re exists in
th e fishing an d fish cannery in d u stries, w here both th e ILW U
an d th e SIU h ave larg e a reas of influence. H owever, in th e la s t
3 years, th ere h as been no renew al of th e 80-year-old “ scope of
w ork” disputes over th e loading of co astal vessels a n d in -p o rt
ship re p a ir an d cleaning.
8 T he A m erican Radio A ssociation and th e M arine E n g in e ers’
Beneficial A ssociation, both form erly in th e CIO a n d now in th e
A F L -C IO , have ju risd ic tio n on th e W est C oast. However, on
th e E a s t C oast, th ey h ave been subject to th e com petition of
th e R adio Officers Union an d the B rotherhood of M arine E ngin eers-S IU , both form erly in th e A FL a n d now also in th e
A FL-C IO .
9 F a r leftw in g elem ents in th e unions now in th e A F L -C IO
w ere e ith e r purged o r have been b ro u g h t u n d er in te rn a l control.
10 T ax ad v an tag es and low er labor costs are citedi as th e p rin
cipal reasons fo r th e re g istra tio n of ships in C osta Rica, H o n
duras, L iberia, an d P an am a.
11 F o r discussions of th e c u rre n t s itu a tio n w ith regard to
m aritim e h irin g h a lls and th e T a ft-H a rtle y law , see Goldberg,
op. cit., an d L arrow e, op. cit.
12 An average of ap proxim ately 7,000 W est C oast unlicensed
seam en w orked d u rin g th e fo u rth q u a rte r of 1958. T h e m em ber
ship of th e th re e unlicensed unions is estim ated to be 18,000.
THE MARITIME INDUSTRY
Engineers, Sailors, Firemen, and Stewards settled
for improvements in fringe benefits. No new wage
reviews are scheduled until 1960.
There have been recent attempts in the unions
to protect the jobs of high seniority members and,
at the same time, to spread work. For example,
at the beginning of this year, the shipping rules
of the Sailors were revised to raise the number of
years of qualifying employment required for top
seniority preference from 3 to 6 and also to re
duce the time a member may sail continuously on
one ship from 360 to 210 days.
Longshoremen face similar threats. Although
total tonnage is increasing and all cargo, Ameri
can and foreign, is handled by American dockworkers, the need for manpower will drop sharply
if recent developments in cargo handling tech
niques are widely adopted. The trend is toward
increasing the size of the unit handled and reduc
ing the number of handlings of each unit. For
example, companies on both coasts are presently
experimenting with truck-trailer ships and pre
packed unit containers.
The ILWTJ and the PMA have engaged in ex
tensive discussions on how best to meet the labor
problems mechanization will bring. The parties
have so far reached general agreement that the
benefits of increased productivity will be shared
with the work force and that the union will not
stand in the way of experiments in cargo
handling.
In an obvious effort to start preparing for the
future, the ILWU successfully negotiated in 1958
a reduction in the two daily standard work shifts
from 9 to 8 hours. In addition, a third shift of
5 hours was added, for which 9 hours of straight
time is to be paid. In theory, the employers have
13 Since 1934, W est C oast longshorem en had worked a sta n d a rd
s h if t of 6 stra ig h t-tim e an d 3 overtim e hours. The p resen t a r
ran g em en t allow s 6 straig h t-tim e an d 2 overtim e hours.
11 All p o rt areas have suffered confusion and some job stop
pages d u rin g th e changeover to th e 8-hour sh ift. A lthough the
reduced sh ift w ill be in effect fo r th e d u ra tio n of th e 1-year con
tra c t, a 90-day tr ia l period w as established a t th e end of w hich
(N ovem ber 18, 1958) th e p a rtie s w ere to m easure resu lts a g ain st
ex p ectatio n s in term s of conform ance w ith th e co n tract. The
d isru p tio n caused by th e change, however, led to a postponem ent
of such an ex am in atio n u n til th e spring of th is year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
557
gained 3 working hours a day. In practice, the
workday has been reduced by 2 hours, as the third
shift has been worked only in Seattle. The im
mediate stumbling block is lack of agreement on
the wage for foremen who would work the third
shift. However, there is some doubt whether the
shift will ever be widely used except during emer
gencies. Many employers believe the third shift
would be far too expensive for regular use.
Rank-and-file longshoremen have not been hap
py with the 8-hour standard shift (the original
proposal barely passed in a coastwide referen
dum) . In spite of an increase in the straight-time
rate last June, earnings for a standard shift are
less than they were under the old system.13 There
is a possibility that shift length will be reconsid
ered at negotiations this year.14 However, it is
far more likely that the ILWU will want to retain
the shorter shift and will try for substantial wage
increases and possibly a guaranteed annual wage
for registered longshoremen. There are signs that
the employers will show less interest in the shift
system than in a reduction in gang size (now 18
men).
Indications at present are that this year’s Pa
cific Coast longshore negotiations may be quite
important in terms of the parties’ efforts to ration
alize conflicting interests in productivity and job
security. That the issues at stake will lead to a
change in the atmosphere of accommodation
which has prevailed for so long between the
ILWU and the PMA seems doubtful, although
such a change is certainly possible if either side
should choose to press for big concessions. Little
cause for such immediate pressure appears to
exist. Business and employment opportunities in
longshoring continue to be good owing to the boom
in foreign trade, and changes in cargo handling
methods have taken place very slowly and in lim
ited areas. There seems reason to suppose that
progress toward mutually satisfactory solutions
will be made over the long run if the present mod
erate approach of the ILWU and PMA to pro
ductivity and mechanization problems can be
continued.
Competing unions and extremes in establishment size complicate
bargaining relations and encourage diverse settlements.
The Lumber Industry
P aul
L. K leinso rg e
a b o r -m a n a g e m e n t
r e l a t io n s
in the Pacific
Coast lumber industry have ranged from very
bad to fairly good. I t is doubtful that they ever
have been excellent, but it is also doubtful that
the worst situations in the past will be repeated.
Progress has been made toward a better under
standing between the parties, and in general their
relations, although not on a high level of amica
bility, at least are no longer at the depths of
hostility.
While this improvement was in progress, cer
tain procedures for handling labor relations
evolved, usually on an opportunistic basis. How
ever, a spirit of individualism pervades the
industry, and no practice can be designated as
typical without immediately calling forth an ex
ception. The development of two unions in the
industry has added to the confusion. Moreover,
the existence of numerous employers’ associations
plus the extremes of giant firms and very small
operations has led to diversity in collective bar
gaining settlements. Nevertheless, some trends
are apparent, particularly with respect to wages
and fringe issues, and the methods developed by
union and employer organizations for determin
ing and enforcing collective bargaining programs.
L
Economic Background
The lumber industry is important in the econ
omy of the Pacific Coast States, particularly
Oregon, and the three States combined account
for nearly half of all lumber produced in the
United States.1 In terms of employment, there
is wide variation in the industry’s importance
within the region.2 In 1957, 71,900 people were
employed in the lumber industry in Oregon, or
15.1 percent of the State’s nonagricultural em
ployment. By contrast, the industry’s 60,400 em
ployees in California represented only 1.3 per558
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cent of total nonagricultural employment, while
the 46,100 lumber workers in Washington ac
counted for 5.8 percent of its employment.3
Employment in the lumber industry is closely
related to the volume of residential construction.
In 1952, residential building took about fourtenths of the lumber consumed in the United
States.4 The Northwest lumber industry may be
particularly sensitive to changes in the volume of
homebuilding, since it is said that 85 percent of
fir production goes into residential construction.5
For example, between 1955 and 1957, when total
housing starts declined by almost 22 percent, em
ployment in Oregon’s lumber industry fell by
over 13 percent (if plywood, where employment
rose during these 3 years, is excluded, employ
ment dropped 18 percent).6
1 In 1955, th e th re e S ta te s produced 47.1 p ercen t of th e t o t a l ;
th e ir n e a re st com petitor, th e South A tla n tic S tates, produced
17.9 percent. See S ta tis tic a l A b stract of th e U nited S t a t e s :
1958 (U.S. B ureau of th e Census, 1958), p. 699. Of the th ree
C oast S tates, Oregon is th e h eav iest producer, C alifornia is sec
ond, an d W ashington th ird . In 1954, Oregon produced n early
9 billion board-feet (or ab o u t 25 p ercen t of th e N atio n ’s to ta l) ;
C alifornia, over -5 billion board-feet (o r ab o u t 14 p ercen t) ; an d
W ashington, 3 billion board-feet (o r nearly 9 p e rc e n t).
See
1955-1956 S ta tistic a l Y ear Book (P o rtla n d , Oreg., W est C oast
L um berm en’s A ssociation, December 31, 1957), p. 7.
2 In th e em ploym ent sta tis tic s given in th e text, th e lum ber
in d u stry is defined to include lum ber an d wood pro d u cts except
f u r n i t u r e ; it th u s includes logging, saw m ills, plywood, an d
m iscellaneous wood products. T he d a ta a re from th e U.S. Bu
reau of L abor S ta tistic s unless otherw ise noted.
3 In Oregon, th e only S ta te fo r w hich m ore detailed in fo rm a
tion is available, over h a lf th e lum ber w orkers a re em ployed in
saw m ills, ab o u t one-sixth in logging, an d ab o u t th ree-ten th s In
plywoood an d m iscellaneous wood products. See Oregon Covered
E m ploym ent an d P ayrolls, 1957 (Salem , Oreg., U nem ploym ent
C om pensation Com m ission, R esearch a n d S ta tis tic s D ivision,
1958), p. 6.
*• T im ber Resources fo r A m erica’s F u tu re (U.S. D ep a rtm e n t of
A g riculture, F o re st Service, F o re st R esources R e p o rt 14, J a n u
ary 1958), p. 375.
5 W. C. B allaine, d irecto r, B ureau of B usiness R esearch, U ni
v ersity of Oregon. P ro d u ctio n d a ta fo r 1955 show t h a t of th e
17.6 billion board-feet of lum ber produced in th e Pacific C oast
S tates, about 7.5 billion w ere Douglas fir, chiefly from w estern
Oregon an d W ashington ; 5 billion w ere pine from ea ste rn O re
gon an d W ashington an d from C a lif o r n ia ; an d over 2.5 billion
w ere redwood, alm ost exclusively from C alifornia.
See T he
Lum berm an, H andbook of th e W estern F o re st In d u strie s, 1957
(P o rtla n d , Oreg., M iller F reem an P u b lic a tio n s), p. 11.
9 U.S. B ureau of L abor S ta tistic s.
THE LUMBER INDUSTRY
History of Unionism
The early history of the labor movement in the
Pacific Coast lumber industry is one of frustra
tions and failures.7 Independent unionism, after
30 years of tenuous existence, practically disinte
grated during the 1920’s because of the collapse
of the building boom in 1926 and the nationwide
depression beginning in 1929.
In the 1930’s, stimulated by the Lumber Code
Authority established under the National Indus
trial Recovery Act, the AFL chartered several
“federal” locals, which in 1933 formed the North
west Council of Sawmill and Timber Workers
Unions. In 1935, the A FL Executive Board gave
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join
ers jurisdiction over the lumber industry and the
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union (LSW ).8
Unfortunately, this move did not achieve unity
among the newly organized workers, many of
whom resented the dominant position of the Car
penters union and regarded industrial unionism
as the logical type of organization for the lumber
industry. In addition, the leadership was char
acterized by personal antagonisms and ambitions,
as well as ideological differences. The result was
a split in 1937 of the workers into two camps, one
remaining with the Carpenters in the AFL and
the other joining the CIO as the International
Woodworkers of America (IW A), with open and
frequently violent warfare between the two
groups. By 1940, however, with the two groups
about equal in strength, the hot war had subsided
and the cold war period (with occasional flareups)
T F o r d etails of th e early h isto ry of th e labor m ovem ent in the
P acific C oast lum ber in d u stry , see V ernon H. Jensen, Lum ber
a n d L ab o r (New York, F a r r a r & R in eh a rt, Inc., 1945), pp.
114-147. See also M a rg aret S. Glock, C ollective B a rg ain in g in
th e Pacific N o rth w est L um ber In d u stry (Berkeley, U niversity of
C alifo rn ia, I n s titu te of In d u s tria l R elations, 1955), pp. 6-9.
8 C lark K err, Collective B arg ain in g on th e Pacific C oast (in
M onthly L abor Review, A pril 1947, p. 661).
9 M a rg a re t S. Glock, op. cit., pp. 10—19.
10 C lark K err, op. cit., p. 662.
11 In 1945, fo r exam ple, w hen th e IW A se ttled fo r 12.5 cents an
h o u r w hile th e LSW held o u t fo r an d g ot 15 cents, th e em ployers
g ra n te d th e IW A’s dem and fo r an ad d itio n al 2.5 cents. In
1958, th e situ a tio n w as reversed : th e LSW accepted a 7.5-cent
increase, b u t th e IW A la te r reached an agreem ent fo r 12.5 cents,
a n d th e LSW convinced the em ployers th a t its m em bers should
be given th e e x tra 5 cents.
12 M a rg aret S. Glock, op. cit., pp. 39-49.
18 F o r in stan c e, in A u gust 1958, th e IW A w as successful in
o u stin g th e LSW as b arg ain in g ag en t a t th e W eyerhaeuser T im
ber Co. p la n t a t N o rth Bend, Oreg. A sim ilar re su lt was achieved
by th e IW A in th e Pacific Plyw ood Co. p la n t a t D illard, Oreg.
502324— 59------ 6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
559
had begun. Both groups were strong enough to
pursue collective bargaining actively with the em
ployers and did. The employers, in turn, faced
with permanent union organizations, developed
associations geared to collective bargaining rather
than to union breaking.9
During World War II, the two unions found
themselves in an advantageous bargaining posi
tion, because of a manpower shortage due in part
to the demands of the shipyards and aircraft
factories. They reinforced their advantage by
submerging their rivalry in favor of common in
terests, particularly in dealings with such Gov
ernment agencies as the National War Labor
Board and its West Coast Lumber Commission.
They thus achieved substantial across-the-board
increases in wages and fringe benefits, greater
standardization of individual job rates, and con
tract provisions for maintenance of membership
(at the behest of the National Defense Mediation
Board, the predecessor of the War Labor
Board 10). Both unions were in a much stronger
position at the war’s end than in 1940.
After the war, union rivalry revived and in
creased in intensity. In the postwar rounds of
increases, neither union has been able to gain a
significant wage advantage over the other.11 The
long and costly strike by both unions in 1954, un
fortunate as it was to all concerned, marked one
of the few occasions when there was a degree of
cooperation between the two unions. They agreed
to respect each other’s picket lines, they exchanged
some information, and they entered a no-raiding
pact, but they did not bargain together.12 When
the strike ended, the rift widened once more. Nor
did the AFL-CIO merger in 1955 bridge the differ
ences between the LSW and the IWA. Shortly
after the merger, the IWA called for the appoint
ment of committees to plan for a single union in
the lumber industry, but no progress has been
made. In fact, negotiations in September 1958,
which brought equal wage advances for both
unions, resulted in even greater estrangement, with
the LSW accusing the IWA of undercutting its
position for a larger increase and the IWA re
torting that the LSW was unrealistic in its de
mands. All of the old animosities remain. Raid
ing and the struggle for supremacy continue.13
Prospects for reconciliation in the near future
appear to be extremely dim.
560
Extent of Unionization14
Interunion rivalry has absorbed the IWA and
LSW to such an extent that they appear to have
neglected their function as organizing agencies.
About 50 percent of Pacific Coast lumber produc
tion is unorganized, and according to some em
ployer estimates, this percentage is growing. In
the Northwest, the larger companies, because their
timber holdings and other investments are so great
they cannot afford to liquidate and move, appear
to have accepted the unions, though in some in
stances grudgingly. But in the redwood area of
California, some of the largest companies have so
far resisted organization efforts, which have been
somewhat less intense than in the Northwest. In
general, the smaller companies, particularly those
in small communities, are not organized. Two
factors contribute to the lack of unionization
among small employers: (1) Frequently the
workers are strongly attached to their jobs because
of a close relationship with the employer, and their
pay and working conditions usually reflect union
gains in other firms; (2) the smaller operator,
rather than accept unionization, may move to
another area or go into another business.
It is difficult to reconcile the membership claims
and counterclaims of the two unions, but probably
overall their strength is nearly equal, although the
IWA has more members in the Western States and
Canada. The LSW claims a membership of 55,000
in the Western States, with about 41,000 in Cali
fornia, Oregon, and Washington. The IWA
claims 32,000 in the three Pacific Coast States, plus
36,000 in western Canada. The LSW is strong in
the Puget Sound Area, in eastern Washington
and Oregon, and in California. The IWA
dominates in western Washington (except the
Puget Sound Area), on the Oregon coast, from
Bend to Klamath Falls in central Oregon, and in
western Canada. Both unions are very active in
Oregon’s Willamette Valley. The IWA has
greater strength in the fir areas, the LSW in pine
and redwood. About two-thirds of the IWA mem
bers work in the woods and about one-third in the
mills; the proportions are reversed in the LSW.
Recently, the IWA has entered into a mutual
assistance agreement with the International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers looking toward merger within 2 years.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
Since the Pulp and Sulphite Workers has a total
membership of about 165,000, such a merger would
enhance greatly the prestige of the IWA. In addi
tion, the IWA is in the process of merging eight
of its district councils into a Western Regional
Council in order to achieve greater efficiency and
effectiveness in its own structure. This move is
primarily an adjustment to the union’s growth and
to changes in the industry, rather than a realinement of forces for interunion warfare.
Wages and Other Contract Provisions
In general, the collective bargaining agreements
in the Pacific Coast lumber industry cover union
security, grievance procedures, seniority, safety,
and economic matters. In addition, some contracts
contain provisions for special problems such as
fire fighting and the handling of “unfair” lumber
products. Union security clauses usually provide
for the union shop, but in the giant Weyerhaeuser
Timber Co., with the exception of its pulp mills,
maintenance of membership prevails. Because the
accident rate is high in the industry, safety is an
important collective bargaining consideration.
The IWA particularly has stressed safety in its
contracts, which usually provide for safety com
mittees composed of representatives of both
management and employees to devise methods of
accident prevention, to inspect and report on
safety conditions, to investigate accidents, and to
protect the rights of injured employees under the
company rules and the State laws. Although the
industry has experienced great technological
changes, none of the contracts appears to restrict
the introduction of technological improvements.
In spite of the fact that labor-saving devices have
displaced many workers, the unions generally have
accepted the changes without violent protest.
Wages. Wage rates are relatively high in the
Pacific Coast lumber industry. A cutter may earn
as much as $50 a day, and he is able to collect
unemployment insurance during the off-seasons.
Logging operations may be maintained from 6 to
12 months per year, depending upon the location
and the weather, but they average about 9 months.
14 Much of the in fo rm atio n in th is section w as obtained th ro u g h
in terv iew s w ith union leaders, em ployer rep resen tativ es, an d
governm ent officials w orking in th e field of labor relatio n s in th e
lum ber in d u stry .
THE LUMBER INDUSTRY
The base rates (for common labor) of $2,055 per
hour for fir and redwood and $2 for pine are
fairly standard throughout the industry, but only
10 percent of the workers are at the base rate.
Skilled labor rates depend upon the local supply
of labor; if a construction project moves into an
area, for instance, wage rates in the local lumber
industry are likely to rise, because construction
labor rates are higher. Since small companies
tend to pay the rates established by the large
operations in the area, an area pattern may develop
without spreading to other areas where conditions
may be different. Average hourly earnings in
1957 in Douglas fir logging and saw milling, ex
cluding paid vacations and holidays, were $2.75
and $2,252 respectively.15 (In September 1958,
the unions gained 7.5 cents an hour.)
Wage rates are higher in the lumber industry
in the western United States than in western
Canada. The IWA, the dominant lumber union
in British Columbia, bargains separately for its
U.S. and Canadian groups. Hourly wage rates
are 21 cents lower on the British Columbia coast
than in the Douglas fir area of Oregon and Wash
ington, and 32.5 cents lower in the interior of
British Columbia than in the Inland Empire.16
Lumber producers in the western United States
complain bitterly about these wage differentials,
since Canadian lumber competes with American
lumber, particularly in the eastern United States
markets which can be reached by sea. To reach
these markets, moreover, the Canadians can
use foreign ships from British Columbia ports,
whereas Americans shipping from West Coast
ports are required by law to use American ships
at considerably higher freight rates. Wage dif
ferentials in the lumber industry also exist be
tween the western and the southeastern part of the
United States; average hourly earnings are well
over $1 less in the South than in the West.17
Supplemental Benefits. Wage rates by job classi
fication for the LSW are in general somewhat
higher than those for the IWA, but the difference
is offset by the difference in fringe benefits. Since
15 L ogging L um ber F a c ts (P o rtla n d , Oreg., L um berm en’s I n
d u s tria l R elatio n s Council, Inc., 1958), p. I—1.
16 L um ber In d u stry P re v ailin g B ase R a te s fo r Common L abor
(W estern Region) (P o rtla n d , Oreg., L um berm en’s In d u stria l
R elatio n s Com m ittee, 1958), p. 1. T h e In la n d E m pire includes
Idaho, M ontana, n o rth e a ste rn Oregon, an d ea ste rn W ashington.
17 Logging L um ber F a c ts, op. cit., p. 1-10.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
561
1950, the IWA has taken part of its collective bar
gaining gains in paid holidays (six is now the
standard number) and health and welfare plans.
The LSW, on the other hand, has permitted its
locals to choose between fringe benefits and cash,
but has tended to take its gains in cash, although
recently some locals have preferred a settlement
including paid holidays, and have arranged for
health and welfare plans to begin in 1959. Both
the IWA and the LSW contracts provide for paid
vacations of 1 week after 1 year of service, but the
IWA contract provides 2 weeks after 3 years’
service as compared with 2 weeks after 5 years for
the LSW. Fringe items vary from company to
company and from union to union, since economic
conditions vary with different operations.
The IWA program for fringe benefits includes
paid holidays, paid vacations, pensions, and a
health and welfare plan comprising life insurance,
accident and sickness insurance, and hospitalmedical coverage. Much of this program already
has been achieved to some extent, and the IWA is
pushing for further improvements. Recently the
number of hours required to qualify for vacation
pay was lowered from 1,400 to 1,200 per year, and
a 6-cent-an-hour night-shift differential has been
added for loggers working the “hoot owl” shift
between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. during fire
weather when the woods are closed during the day
time. The union wants to establish (but has not
yet succeeded) a 6-hour day, 30-hour week, and a
third week of vacation with pay. At present,
IWA is working on a job evaluation plan with
the Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. One of its imme
diate objectives is to extend its pension plan, cur
rently confined to Weyerhaeuser, to other com
panies, and to improve the pension benefits. The
Weyerhaeuser plan is noncontributory and pro
vides pensions for employees who retire at age 65
after at least 10 years’ service. The pensions
amount to 1 percent of the worker’s average gross
monthly earnings during the 10 years prior to re
tirement times the number of years of continuous
service, minus an amount equal to one-half of his
primary benefit under old-age pension laws.
Some employers argue that a pension plan is un
realistic in the lumber industry except for large
companies owning enough timber resources to keep
them in business for many years. They say there
is no reason to have a pension plan, even from the
562
point of view of the worker, if the company is
going out of existence within the next few years.
However, if the tendency for large companies to
buy up small companies and their timber holdings
should continue, most of the industry might get
close enough to a sustained yield basis to make a
general pension plan entirely practical.
The Approach to Bargaining
There are 10 timber employers’ associations in
Oregon and Washington and 3 in California.18
Some employers never have been members and
others, such as Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., the
largest, have withdrawn from association mem
bership. Still others may belong to several asso
ciations. It is estimated that association members
employ about 40 percent of the workers in the in
dustry in the Northwest, but less (perhaps 25 per
cent) in California. While the associations differ
as to product and geographical coverage and, to
some extent, as to the services provided to their
members, they have a common primary purpose:
they all operate in the field of labor relations. The
associations may act singly, in groups, or on a com
pletely united basis, and the larger ones deal with
both unions. A settlement reached by one of the
unions with a large company or an association may
set a pattern for the year, but not necessarily so.19
Employer Negotiating Practices. Typically, each
employer association has a board to determine
policy, subject to membership approval, and
calls a membership meeting after the unions’ de
mands have been received. In most instances, the
member companies are represented in bargaining
by an association negotiating committee which is
empowered only to recommend a settlement.
Usually the association’s recommendation is ac
cepted, but any company may accept, modify, or
reject the recommendation, and, if it wishes, enter
into negotiations on its own.
In the unusual circumstance, when a master
agreement covering a group of employers is being
negotiated, the association may have the authority
to sign for the group—for example, the Plywood
& Door Manufacturers Industrial Committee in
its negotiations with the Plywood District Coun
cil, IWA. In most cases, after the general terms
of the agreement have been reached, each em
ployer signs with each of his local unions a sep
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
arate contract which probably contains additional
provisions related to the local situation. There
is opportunity, therefore, for considerable diver
sity even among the contracts of employers be
longing to the same association and accepting the
same general settlement. The actual diversity,
however, is not as great as might be expected,
since employers exert pressure on each other to
keep in line, and the union influence is toward
standardization. Still, a spirit of individualism
prevails among the employers. They may not
often stray far, but they have maintained their
right to be rugged individualists, and their ac
tions sometimes prove that they really are.
The spirit of individualism among the employ
ers accounts in part for the existence in Oregon
and Washington of so many associations, none of
which is large and strong enough to enforce for
mal control over its members. The employers
have shown, however, that they can bring their
associations together to act effectively when the
situation requires united action. In 1958, three
of the associations in the Northwest negotiated
together, following a caucus with the others and
probably with their backing. The events leading
to this cooperative action began in 1957, when
neither union was able to secure a wage increase
from most employers. With the industry hard
hit by the decline in residential construction ac
tivity, the IWA proposed on May 2, 1958, that
its contracts be extended to the anniversary date
in 1959, subject to a wage reopening on Septem
ber 16, 1958, if conditions had improved by that
time. The LSW, however, made demands
amounting to 12.5 cents, citing wage rates in the
construction industry and the fact that the Pulp
18 In Ja n u a ry 1959, these w ere as fo llo w s: G rays H a rb o r Saw
m ills & Loggers, In d u s tria l C onference B oard, L um berm en’s I n
d u s tria l R elations Council, Inc., Oregon C oast O perators, Ply->
wood & Door M a n u fac tu rers In d u s tria l C om m ittee, Inc., Lum ber
O perators A ssociation, N o rth w est In d u s tria l R elations Council,
W illam ette V alley Lum ber O perators A ssociation, T im ber P ro d
u cts M a n u fac tu rers’ A ssociation, an d P ine In d u s tria l R elatio n s
Council, Inc., a ll in Oregon a n d /o r W ashington ; an d th e S acra
m ento Valley A ssociated In d u strie s, th e N o rth ern C alifo rn ia
Lum ber O p erato rs’ A ssociation, and th e S outhern C alifornia
R etail L um berm en’s A ssociation in C alifornia.
19 The settlem en ts m ade by W eyerhaeuser in 1950, 1951, an d
1952 w ere adopted by th e r e s t of th e in d u stry but, in 1953, when
W eyerhaeuser g ra n te d a 5-cent hourly increase, m ost of th e
re s t of th e in d u stry refused to follow . T hen, in 1954, w hen
W eyerhaeuser g ran ted 2.5 cents, th e unions, a f te r a strik e,
u ltim ately got 7.5 cen ts from m ost of th e o th e r em ployers. In
1957, th e G eorgia Pacific Plyw ood Corp. gave 5 cents an hour,
a s did th e W illam ette N atio n al Co., b u t m ost of th e r e s t of th e
In d u stry refused to ra ise wages.
THE LUMBER INDUSTRY
and Sulphite Workers had been given greater in
creases than the LSW. The LSW struck several
individual companies but no industrywide strike
was called. Since the LSW was fearful that the
IWA would cross its picket lines and raid its
membership, it pressed for a settlement prior to
the September 16 date set by the IWA for the
reopening of its contracts. But on September 9,
the three associations made the same offer at the
same time to both unions: an increase of 7.5 cents
an hour, effective September 1. Both unions ac
cepted within minutes of each other.
Union Preparation for Bargaining. The two
unions follow somewhat different systems in de
termining the demands which will be presented
to the employers, but each procedure permits co
ordination of the locals’ demands and yet leaves
room for local negotiations on local matters. In
the LSW, the Western Council coordinates the
activities of the district councils under its juris
diction. Its executive committee, composed of one
member from each district council, develops a
bargaining program based upon economic and
statistical data supplied by experts employed by
the union. The program is taken to the locals,
explained, submitted to a membership vote for
approval, and, finally, is brought before the con
vention of the Western Council for formal action.
When the LSW reaches overall agreement with
an association (or group of associations), the
parties sign a joint recommendation. The actual
agreements are signed by the local union and the
individual employer. Locals may bargain with
employers on their own, but their agreements are
watched closely by the district councils to see that
they are not contrary to the general policy of the
union. For instance, local unions could take the
1958 settlement of 7.5 cents in cash, in paid holi
days, in some other fringe benefit, or in some com
bination of fringe benefits and/or cash, as long as
the total value of their agreements was not less
than 7.5 cents an hour. Locals also negotiate on
issues considered to be so local in character that
they are not included in the overall demands.
Employers object to this system, since an em
ployer who has accepted the overall settlement
may be subject to bargaining over further cost
items because of local conditions. In such in
stances, the employer’s local bargaining position
is very weak because items included in the over
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
563
all settlement can no longer be used as bargaining
pawns. The system, however, appears to be wellestablished.
In the IWA, all local unions are requested dur
ing November to prepare a list of items which
they would like to submit for negotiation. Each
of the eight district councils (now in the process
of being merged, as noted) then selects, by ma
jority vote of delegates from its locals, the items
to be submitted to the IWA Northwest Regional
Negotiating Committee, composed of one elected
representative from each district council.
In March, the committee holds a conference, to
which each local within the eight district councils
sends delegates (in proportion to its per capita
membership) and at which the delegates make the
final decision on the negotiating program for the
year. The adopted program is referred back to
the locals for presentation to the employers. Each
local also decides whether to authorize the North
west Regional Negotiating Committee to repre
sent it in negotiations. Most of them so elect,
but a local may negotiate on its own.
If negotiations break down, the negotiating
committee may conduct a membership referendum
on authorizing a strike. Any settlement reached
by the negotiating committee is also submitted to
a membership vote for acceptance or rejection.
The final agreements are in all cases signed by the
local unions, although occasionally they are also
countersigned by the district council, as is cur
rently the case with the Plywood District Coun
cil. In 1958, the IWA local settlements were
quite uniform, considerably more so than those
of the LSW which varied according to local action
on fringe benefits.
*
*
*
The outstanding characteristic of collective bar
gaining practices in the Pacific Coast lumber in
dustry is their diversity. Yet if the trend toward
consolidation of smaller firms into larger firms is
continued, unionization will probably become
more widespread and the collective bargaining
settlements more standard. There is, however, no
indication that strict industrywide bargaining is
destined to be the rule rather than the occasional
exception. The long-established differences on
both sides of the bargaining table, though modi
fied by changing conditions and attitudes, are
likely to continue well into the future.
Unemployment Disability
Insurance in California
A fter 12 years, the system is operatively sound, hut
possible benefit changes may strain reserves and
necessitate larger contributions.
E
a r l
F.
C
h e it
W hen t h e California legislature amended the
State unemployment insurance law to include
benefits for nonoccupational disability, it was
bringing the last important hazard to individual
economic security under social insurance protec
tion. California workers had gained compensa
tion for occupational disability in 1911, for un
employment in 1935, and, after three unsuccessful
legislative assaults, won benefits for nonoccupa
tional disability in a 1946 special session. No
other West Coast State has adopted these non
occupational disability benefits; a Washington
legislative proposal in a 1950 referendum was re
jected by the voters.
Although the legislative histories of the three
California social insurance programs involved
different and often unrelated issues, the three sys
tems faced remarkably similar problems in their
very early stages: Each was beset by the same
doubts and uncertainties about solvency and
administrative feasibility, and each began with a
relatively modest benefit program. Initial sol
vency of the Unemployment Compensation Dis
ability Benefits system was so much in doubt, in
fact, that congressional permission was obtained
to use certain unemployment insurance funds.1
However, today, on the 13th anniversary of the
adoption of the California unemployment disabil
ity insurance program, none of these doubts about
it remain. The system’s financial reserves have
multiplied nearly five times since the first year,
and it has become a near-model of administrative
efficiency. State-plan total administrative costs
564
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
are but 6 percent of total disbursements. During
an inflationary period, the system has increased
both the amount and duration of real weekly
benefits and has added hospital allowances. Since
maximum weekly dollar benefits of California’s
three social insurance systems involve different
duration and percentage limits, they are not com
pletely comparable. Given the objectives of the
systems, however, the weekly benefits under dis
ability insurance are the most liberal: Maximum
weekly benefits are equal to or exceed those under
the other two programs, and hence restore the
largest portion of lost wages. Thus, as table 1
shows, in the first 12 years of operation, the dis
ability insurance program’s maximum weekly
benefits have outstripped benefits for unemploy
ment compensation and permanent disability
under workmen’s compensation. To the extent
that California’s three social insurance programs
can be compared, disability insurance clearly
stands unchallenged as the best one.
This judgment is supported by those most di
rectly interested in the program. Workers, in
surance carriers, State-plan personnel, doctors,
and employer and union representatives, though
they point to a variety of imperfections in the
system, are nonetheless remarkably unanimous in
their agreement that the California disability in
surance system works well to restore a portion of
lost wages to workers unemployed due to nonoccu
pational disability, and to offset partly the costs of
hospitalization.
1 S en ato r W illiam F . K now land of C a lifo rn ia sponsored an
am endm ent to th e Social S ecurity A ct w hich m ade employee
co n trib u tio n s to unem ploym ent in su ran ce available fo r d isa b ility
benefits, effective A ugust 10, 1946 (In te rn a l R evenue Code of
1954, sec. 3 3 0 4 (a ),(4) ( A )) . T he 1944 an d 1945 em ployee con
trib u tio n s w ere so m ade available.
DISABILITY INSURANCE IN CALIFORNIA
Major Statutory Provisions
This favorable evaluation applies to many of
the nonindemnity aspects of the program as well.
Since these have been described and analyzed
many times,2 they can be briefly summarized here.
Financed by a 1-percent employee payroll tax
on the first $3,600 of wages a year, the disability
program is in many ways an extension of the un
employment compensation insurance system: It
is administered by the same agency (the Depart
ment of Employment), has the same wage credit
type of eligibility requirements, and covers the
same workers. Essentially all California workers
who have earned $300 or more during a fourquarter base year may be eligible for benefits, with
the exception of six excluded groups (agricultural
workers; government employees; employees of
interstate railroads; domestic workers; self-em
ployed persons; and workers in nonprofit reli
gious, educational, and charitable institutions).
Covered workers who become disabled while un
employed are covered under an “extended liabil
ity” account which is part of the State plan, but
financed both by that plan and private carriers.
A covered worker who cannot perform his reg
ular or customary work because of nonwork-connected illness and who files a timely claim is en
titled to benefits after a 1-week waiting period.
Weekly benefits are related by a sliding scale to
highest quarter earnings in the base period. The
maximum weekly benefit is $50, the minimum, $10.
If a claimant is hospitalized, he is eligible for the
weekly benefit without a waiting period, and also
for a hospital allowance of $12 a day for up to 20
days. A 26-week duration limit on benefits ap
plies to each illness, but no limitations are imposed
on the number of claims which may be filed in a
benefit year. No benefits are allowed for illness
connected with pregnancy unless, 28 days after
its termination, a covered worker is still unable to
perform her regular or customary work.
2 See, fo r exam ple, C alifo rnia D isability In su ra n c e P ro g ram
(U.S. B u reau of E m ploym ent S ecurity, 1952), a n d S ta te D isabil
ity In su ra n c e (in M anagem ent Record, N atio n al In d u s tria l Con
feren ce B oard, New York, Ju n e 1958, pp. 2 2 3 -2 2 9 ).
3 Benefits a re payable fo r nonw ork-connected d isa b ility ir re
spective of w orkm en’s com pensation p aym ents fo r p erm an en t
d isab ility .
4 New Jersey , New York, Rhode Islan d , a n d ra ilro a d w orkers.
5 C om parison of T em porary D isability In su ra n c e Law s, Decem
ber 1958 (U.S. B u reau of E m ploym ent S ecurity, R eport No. U 142, 1958).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
565
T a b l e 1. M a x i m u m W e e k l y B e n e f i t A m o u n t s U n d e r
C a l i f o r n i a S o c ia l I n s u r a n c e P r o g r a m s , 1 9 1 1 - 5 8
Workmen’s compensation
Effective date
Sept. 1 , 1911_.
Aug. 14, 1929.
Jan. 1, 1938 L.
Feb. 1, 1939-,
Aug. 4, 1943..
M ay 21, 1946.
Dec. 1, 1946..
Jan. 1, 1948...
Sept. 22, 1951.
Jan. 1, 1952...
Jan. 1, 1954...
July 1, 1954..
Sept. 7, 1955..
Jan. 1,1956—
Sept. 11, 1957.
Jan. 1, 1958—
Temporary
disability
Permanent
disability
$20. 83
25.00
$20. 83
25.00
30. 00
30. 00
Unemploy
ment com
pensation
Unemploy
ment com
pensation
disability
benefits
$15.00
18.00
20. 00
30.00
25. 00
35. 00
40. 00
35.00
30.00
33.00
50.00
40.00
40.00
$ 20.00
25. 00
30.00
35.00
40.00
50.00
1 Although the unemployment compensation law was enacted in 1935,
benefits did not become payable until January 1, 1938.
S o urce : California Department of Employment, D ivision of Research
and Statistics, and Department of Industrial Relations.
Initial claims must be filed by mail and require
certification of illness by an authorized person.
In addition to licensed doctors of medicine, the
law authorizes osteopaths, chiropractors, dentists,
chiropodists, optometrists, and certain religious
practitioners to provide such certification within
the scope of their license. Claims are not paid if
the worker is entitled to unemployment insurance,
to temporary disability workmen’s compensation
benefits equal to or in excess of the benefit amount,3
or to a wage continuation that equals his regular
full-time earnings. An appeals procedure exactly
like that in unemployment insurance is available
to claimants whose claims are denied.
The program is underwritten by the State plan
unless a majority of employees in a given company
vote for coverage under a private (voluntary) in
surance plan. By law, these private plans must
equal the provisions of the State plan in all re
spects and be better in at least one. Frequently
this takes the form of reduced waiting periods.
Selected coverage, claims, and benefit data for
the program are presented in table 2.
Comparison With Laws of Other States
California’s disability insurance program com
pares very favorably with the other four systems 4
now in operation. The latest detailed comparison
of-the statutory provisions of all five disability
insurance laws issued by the U.S. Bureau of Em
ployment Security 5shows that among the systems
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
566
California alone offers hospital benefits, and has
highest maximum weekly benefits. However, the
average amount and duration of benefits are
somewhat less than those under the railroad
workers’ program. Although the diversity of
statutory provisions prevents rigorous comparison
of the five systems, the overall standards of Cali
fornia’s law clearly compare favorably with those
of the other four laws.
Reasons for the Program’s Success
The vigorous growth of the California unem
ployment disability insurance program can be
attributed to a combination of circumstances.
Employee Financing. While employee financing
is a cause of the system’s rapid progress, it was
also an influential factor in the program’s initial
acceptance. For almost a decade prior to enact
ment of the unemployment disability law, trade
unions had complained to the legislature that Cal
ifornia was one of the three States in which em
ployees were contributing to unemployment com
pensation—a program which, in their view, only
employers should be required to finance. These
unions argued that in order to justify continued
employee taxes, an unemployment compensation
system should be adopted which would pay bene
fits to all unemployed persons regardless of the
reason for their unemployment. Legislative pro
posals to enact such a system were defeated in the
1941, 1943, and 1945 legislatures by a combina
tion of employer, insurance carrier, and medical
association opposition.
T a ble 2.
C overage
and
B e n e f it s U
nder
Employers, as well, were displeased with the
State unemployment tax law, which, despite
mounting unemployment insurance reserves, re
quired them to pay a minimum of 1 percent of
taxable payrolls. This combination of labor and
management dissatisfaction led to a proposal in
the 1946 legislative session that workers get dis
ability compensation by diverting their 1 percent
unemployment insurance contributions and em
ployers, in turn, get a merit rating system with
no minimum tax rate.
In that session, workers got their disability
compensation—which remains essentially the same
today except for liberalization of benefits and the
addition of hospital benefits; and in the 1947
regular legislative session, employers won their
new tax schedule that permitted the tax rate to
go down to zero. Not all employers endorsed this
compromise. Those with irregular and seasonal
employment felt that they had gained nothing to
offset the lost employee contributions to the unem
ployment program. But their influence was out
weighed by the large employers—particularly
public utilities. Insurance carriers endorsed the
program once they were made part of it and
medical opposition declined, perhaps in the hope
that this program would preclude adoption of
proposals for State prepaid medical care plans.
In their approach to the legislature, labor
spokesmen have always followed the line that dis
ability insurance involves workers’ money and
that, consistent with the goals of the system and
fiscal responsibility, workers should be able to
use it in more generous amounts if they so choose.
C a l if o r n i a U n e m p l o y m e n t C o m p e n s a t io n D
P r o g r a m , 1946-58
Year
Average
percent of
labor force
covered 1
? 45Q fiOO
57
57
54
56
59
59
60
59
60
62
62
9 h i 900
?. 41 ft’ 000
2, 5 2 5 , 000
2,762,500
2,939,200
3,074,500
3,057,400
3,256,300
3,480,600
3,596,000
1950_____________
1951_____________
1952_____________
1953_____________
1954_____________
1955_____________
1956_____________
1957_____________
1958_____________
l All plans.
(3)
2 State plan only.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(3)
Total
Paid claims
weeks
per 1,000 eligi
compensated
ble workers
(3)
63 4
64 0
73.3
75.8
83.6
88.0
88.7
89.0
92.9
96.8
(3)
a N ot available.
940,743
1,016,053
1,024,860
1,052,895
975,951
1,067,446
1,177,853
1,344,794
1,317,362
1,397,353
1,554,388
1,792,950
Average
Average
weeks dura weekly bene
tion per claim fit amount
9.0
9.3
10.2
10.4
10.1
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.5
9.0
9.0
(3)
B e n e f it s
Hospital benefits 2
Basic benefits 2
Average
covered
em ploym ent 1
i s a b i l it y
$18.95
21.80
22.81
22.75
22.69
24.84
26.03
29.33
30. 47
32. 91
34.17
38.01
Total
days
compensated
345,606
331,141
420,077
477,596
593,082
627, 624
730,756
818,205
1,151,281
Average
days per
claim
7.7
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.3
(3)
Average
daily bene
fit payment
$8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
9.73
10.00
10.00
10.00
11.81
S ource : California Department of Employment, Division of Research
and Statistics.
DISABILITY INSURANCE IN CALIFORNIA
As the history of benefit schedules shows, the legis
lature has found this logic very persuasive.
Fortuitous Fiscal Circumstances. Probably even
more impressive to the California legislature than
the employees’ desire for higher benefits was the
fact that from the beginning the employees’ con
tributions far outweighed the cost of the higher
benefits. Given the fixed premium rate, the sys
tem’s benefits could be liberalized for years with
out increasing taxes.
The first premium collections under the law
were made on May 21, 1946. Benefits were to
begin 1 year later, or 90 days after “the Social
Security Board or other higher authority” de
termined that the workers’ contributions for
1944-45 could be transferred from the Federal
unemployment trust fund, whichever came earlier.
Although the Social Security Board ruled against
the transfer, congressional permission was ob
tained, as previously noted, to use the wage earn
ers’ 1944 and 1945 U I contributions for disability
insurance. Thus financially buttressed, the sys
tem began paying benefits on December 1, 1946.
At the end of 1946, the fund had an accumu
lated reserve of $28.8 million6 and, despite the
rapid liberalization of the program and the in
troduction of hospital benefits, the fund con
tinued to show uninterrupted growth until 1957.
In that year, for the first time, total expenditures,
including all benefits—basic, hospital, and ex
tended liability—and all administrative expenses,
were slightly more than total receipts. (See table
3.) In fact, the average expense ratio for the
first 9 years of the program—during which four
legislative adjustments doubled the original $20
weekly benefit without increasing taxes7—was 71
percent.
Finally, of course, the high level of employ
ment which generally prevailed during the early
years of the program withheld considerable bene
fit strain. Low levels of unemployment mini
mized State-fund benefit expenses for unemployed
workers and thus helped to produce its satisfac
tory fiscal results.
6 T his included only $200,000 of p a s t employee contributions.
A n other $104.5 m illion w as av ailab le fo r tr a n s f e r b u t h a s never
been rem oved from th e unem ploym ent t r u s t fund.
7 The only ta x in crease w en t into effect on Ja n u a ry 1, 1958,
when th e ta x base w as raised from $3,000 to $3,600.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
567
T a ble 3. S tate F u n d R e c e ip t s , O pe r a t in g E x p e n s e
R atio s , a n d R e s e r v e s , C a l if o r n ia U n em pl o y m e n t
C o m pe n sa tio n D isa b il it y B e n e f it s P rogram , 1946-58
Year
1946_____
1947_____
1948_____
1949_____
1950_____
1951_____
1952_____
1953_____
1954_____
1955_____
1956_____
1957...........
1958_____
Total annual
receipts
(in millions)
$51.7
47.1
37.7
36.6
38.7
41.7
45.8
49.5
54.7
59.1
61.4
69.7
Total annual expenditures as Fund reserves
percent of total annual revenue at end of year1
(in millions)
39.4
51.6
66.3
76.2
67.5
74.7
79.1
94.9
90.2
95.5
105.3
122.1
$28 8
6L0
84.0
96.1
104.0
115.8
125.1
133.7
136.0
141.6
144.3
141.1
125.7
1 See text footnote 6.
S o urce : California Department of Employment, Division of Research
and Statistics.
Administrative Advantages. The disability pro
gram also benefited from the push that a strong
labor movement with long experience in the prob
lems of social insurance programs could give it.
The State, too, had a history of social insurance
experience to call on, and it provided a competent
staff, new and excellent quarters and equipment,
and adequate research money for the program.
As a result, comprehensive statistical data have
always been available for current evaluation of
the program.
Moreover, compared with workmen’s compen
sation and unemployment insurance, disability in
surance is much simpler to administer and this
has certainly been a big factor in the success of
the California program. Consider the adminis
trative issues involved in questions of coverage
and eligibility for benefits. Under workmen’s
compensation, the injury must arise out of or oc
cur in the course of employment in order to be
compensable. The first administrative questions,
therefore, involve these two elements. Thereafter,
depending on the particular case, many additional
determinations may be required, such as the degree
of disability (i.e., total or partial) ; the duration
of the disability (temporary or permanent) ; the
average earnings of the worker; and the amount
of medical care “reasonably required to cure or
relieve from the effects of the injury.” In dis
ability insurance, the only question is whether or
not the covered claimant is able to perform his
usual occupation. This question is also easier to
handle than the comparable “able and available”
issue that arises in unemployment insurance.
568
Furthermore, unlike unemployment and work
men’s compensation, there is no adversary situa
tion in the disability program, where the claim
ant is, in a sense, seeking his own money.
When difficult questions arise in determining
whether a disability is occupationally connected,
the disability program again takes the easy route.
I t pays benefits while the question is being de
cided by the State Industrial Accident Commis
sion. If the commission rules that the disability
is compensable, a lien procedure on workmen’s
compensation benefits for temporary disability re
turns the money to the disability program. Thus,
the burden of hearings and proof is left to the
commission.
Virtually none of the medical problems of work
men’s compensation arise under the disability sys
tem. Since the fund pays no fees directly to doc
tors, the troublesome question of freedom of
choice of physician is not involved. Nor is the
disability program concerned with the extent (or
measurement) of disability—it must know only
whether or not the claimant is sick. Thus, it
avoids what is perhaps the most difficult of all
issues facing the workmen’s compensation system.
Indeed, given the rather limited total benefits
that a single disability claim commands, it seems
to have placed administrative emphasis upon the
rights of the claimant. Unlike the practice some
times found under workmen’s compensation, ben
efit payments are not often stopped pending a
determination of illness, malingering, or coverage.
Where doubts exist, disability insurance seems to
resolve them in the claimants’ favor.
Realinement of Bargaining Forces. Finally, a
significant force for liberalizing California’s un
employment disability law has come from the
change in the traditional position of private in
surance carriers in legislative controversies over
social insurance. Benefit changes in each of the
social insurance programs tend to be the result
of an agreement among the affected parties which
can gain legislative acceptance. In unemploy
ment compensation, only employer and union rep
resentatives are parties to the agreement, but
workmen’s compensation and disability insurance
involve private carriers.
Workmen’s compensation is wholly employer
financed, and three-fourths of the risk is under
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
written privately. Benefits are fixed by law but
to individual employers the choice of insurer, and
to a lesser extent, the premiums, are negotiable.
In disability insurance, maximum worker-paid
premiums are fixed by law but benefits beyond
those required by law and choice of carrier can
be affected by employee negotiation. This ar
rangement of interests has given private carriers
an incentive to aline with employer representa
tives in the workmen’s compensation legislative
bargain, and to side with union representatives
when disability insurance is at stake. Conse
quently, there is less legislative resistance to
changes in unemployment disability benefits than
is the case with workmen’s compensation—par
ticularly with respect to benefits for permanent
disability.
This realinement of bargaining forces did not
occur accidentally, and a price is paid for its con
tinuance. In 1949, to counteract carrier opposi
tion to more liberal benefits, the State Federa
tion of Labor voted to oppose voluntary plans
by proposing to withdraw all its members from
them. Under this threat of losing what was then
an extremely profitable business, private carriers
began to reconsider their position and, by 1951,
they appeared jointly with the State Federation
to request more liberal benefits.
In return for this cordial attitude of the pri
vate carriers, the AFL has agreed over the years
to three changes in the program: (1) a removal
of the assessment on carriers which helps finance
State supervision of private plans; (2) an in
crease in the tax base to $3,600; and (3) a suspen
sion of the adverse selection provision, under
which at least 20 percent of private-plan mem
bers were to be women.
Thus, in exchange for a more liberal program,
labor has sought to make the underwriting of
this risk profitable for private carriers. Califor
nia employers have reacted slowly to this situa
tion. Since they pay no taxes under the disability
program and are not directly parties in interest,
they have become only indirectly involved in its
legislative development. With this coalition of
forces, and only indirect employer interest as a
basis for legislative opposition, the program has
improved rapidly. Nevertheless, in the past few
years, the disability program has become the ma
jor bargaining wedge by which labor has sought
DISABILITY INSURANCE IN CALIFORNIA
to improve benefits in workmen’s compensation
and unemployment insurance. Thus, employers
are increasingly seeking a more influential voice
in the development of the program.
Operating Issues
Finance and Coverage. In 1957, for the first time
in the history of the California disability insur
ance system, expenditures of the State plan ex
ceeded income, as already indicated. In 1958,
the fund’s deficit was five times as large as in
1957, despite an $8 million increase in revenues.
Although detailed data are not yet available, it
is possible to identify the major factors which
caused payments to outstrip revenues. Two fac
tors pushed disbursements up $22 million: The
January 1, 1958, increase in weekly benefits from
$40 to $50; and a sharp upturn in the demands
on the extended liability account which, in turn,
was caused by the high levels of unemployment
during the year. In addition to the higher levels
of unemployment, two factors retarded revenue
growth: The usual time lag in the income flows
into the fund, and the impossibility of achieving
the full effect of the 1958 increase in the tax base
until wage rates increase somewhat. Evidence
that private carriers are feeling a similar squeeze
had appeared even before 1957.
With the present law and filing rate, the fund
(and the carriers) are in no short-run danger,
but since the fortuitous annual surpluses are gone,
and California unemployment continues at about 6
percent of the labor force, benefit increases will
now have to be accompanied by increases in taxes
if the system’s solvency is to remain unchallenged.
This situation, in turn, is bound to affect any
efforts to extend coverage to some of the groups
now outside the program.
In contrast to the rapid revisions in weekly
benefit rates, the coverage provisions of the pro
gram have remained unchanged from the outset.
During the first year the disability system was in
operation, 57 percent of California’s civilian labor
force was covered; changes in the structure of
California’s economy have moved the coverage
8
Jo h n S. Bickley, T he Im p a c t of a S ta te D isability A ct on
In su ra n c e C o m p an ies: A S tudy of th e C alifornia E xperience
(Colum bus, Ohio S ta te U n iv ersity , B ureau of B usiness R esearch,
R e search M onograph No. 71, 1954).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
569
figure up slightly to a current 62 percent. Two
of the excluded groups—the self-employed and
government workers—have never seriously sought
coverage. Government employees have a good
sick-pay plan, and the self-employed have no ef
fective lobby and could not easily fit into a wageloss replacement system. A third group—rail
road workers—have their own program under the
Eailroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Since
coverage for agricultural workers, domestics, and
workers in nonprofit religious, educational, and
charitable institutions has never had strong leg
islative support, these groups were not brought
under the system when funds were available and
there is little likelihood that they will be now.
Abuse. The claims and certification procedure,
together with the absence of an adversary inter
est, prompts two questions about claimants:
1. How many who are not really sick withdraw
from the labor market and receive benefits?
2. How many work and draw benefits at the
same time?
Private carriers have not reported information
which answers these questions directly. They
have indicated concern with malingering, par
ticularly by secondary wage earners, and with de
termining when a disabled person can return to
work.8 They do not seem, however, to consider
benefit abuse a serious overall problem.
This view is also taken by the administrators of
the State plan, who have reported no abuse of the
law’s broad certification procedure. An early
check revealed that about 89 percent of all claims
were being certified by physicians, that osteopaths
accounted for about 8 percent, chiropractors, 3
percent, and religious practitioners, about 0.5 per
cent. In recent years, the State plan has not even
kept the tally. Investigations have not found
abuse problems related to the type of credentials
in certification.
Claims control is maintained through several
devices. The State plan, through informal checks
on certifying physicians, has developed consider
able knowledge about claims validity. The plan’s
medical director, from the experience of thousands
of similar claims, has established norms for hypo
thetical prognoses for most types of ailments. If
a filed claim exceeds a norm period, it is investi
gated. The program budget provides for investi-
570
State Plan and Voluntary Plan Proportions of
Covered Employment, 1947-57
gâtions of 15 percent of its claims. One-third of
these are performed by physicians and the re
mainder by program personnel who make un
scheduled visits for this purpose.
Relationship to Other Programs. No problems
are involved in the administrative relationship of
disability insurance to unemployment insurance.
Benefits cannot be collected under both systems
because, with the mutually exclusive definitions of
eligibility, the single administrative procedure
prevents the approval of dual claims.
A complex legal relationship exists with work
men’s compensation, however. No benefits are
payable under the disability insurance program
for permanent occupational disabilities, and, as
previously indicated, no double benefits are per
mitted except where temporary disability benefits
under workmen’s compensation are smaller than
the disability insurance benefits. In actual prac
tice, the potential administrative nightmare of
this latter provision has been avoided by keeping
workmen’s compensation benefits for temporary
disability at least equal to those for disability in
surance, and the legal problem has been min
imized by paying disability insurance benefits
pending a determination by the Industrial Acci
dent Commission of whether the disability is work
connected.
One problem that arises here, and on which no
data are available, is the pressure reportedly put
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
by employers (particularly self-insured employ
ers) on employees to file for disability benefits
even when injury is occupational in origin, thus
shifting the financial burden of disability to the
employees’ program.
To most employers, a much more significant in
terrelationship between the three programs is with
respect to the legislative process. The disability
insurance program has become the major lever
through which the benefits in the other programs
have been increased in recent years, and thus, em
ployers have a keen interest in it despite the fact
that they pay no taxes under the law.
State Plan Versus Private Carriers. Private car
riers, desirous of protecting a good medical care
business and confident that they could profitably
compete with the State at a common premium,
were extremely anxious to become part of the Cal
ifornia system. Thus, it was at carrier insistence
(and with labor support) that the provision was
enacted that private plans must be as good as the
State plan in all respects and better in at least
one. It has made selling easier.
During the first 4 years of the system, it seemed
that private carriers might run the State plan
into oblivion: in 1947, they had 18 percent of the
market; by 1951, 52 percent. Yet, curiously, their
portion of the total business has declined every
year since 1951 to its present level of 44 percent.
(See chart.) Although it is impossible to gen
eralize about all private plans, a series of factors
is involved in the decline in the private carriers’
share:
1. Many carriers wrote this risk while it was reward
ing—during the early years—but have ceased to do so
now that profit margins are narrow. A few have found
the negotiated package deals involving employer-financed
supplements to be unprofitable and let the State plan take
over.
2. Some carriers never produced the volume of business
to make it profitable for them; for others it was a mere
“loss leader.”
3. Some sought out the better risks and dropped the
others when poor experience developed.
4. The recent drop in aircraft employment seriously af
fected private plan coverage.
5. As a group, private carriers are finding it increas
ingly difficult to compete with the State plan.
That private carriers should have competitive
trouble with the State plan seems doubtful on its
face. Since the system was introduced, the pro-
571
DISABILITY INSURANCE IN CALIFORNIA
tections afforded the State plan by the adverse
selection clause and by permitting it to assess pri
vate plans to help cover the cost of supervising
them have, as indicated earlier, been suspended.
Therefore, the State plan has the added adminis
trative expense of inspecting and approving pri
vate plans and also of checking on their perform
ance.9 Admittedly private carriers have high ac
quisition expenses, but they also have better risks
(younger employees, fewer women, and claims of
much shorter average duration) than the State
plan. Nevertheless, a combination of reasons has
given private carriers high costs and decreased
profits:
1. The more liberal provisions (often no waiting pe
riod) under private plans. This factor is partly a situ
ation of the carriers’ own doing, since it was partly at
their urging that the law provided that private plans must
be equal to and in at least one respect better than the
State plan. Also these liberal private plans are a product
of vigorous bargaining.
2. The high filing rate10 under those plans. Several
reasons are responsible for th is: (1) Many private plans
require no waiting period. (2) Workers insured under
private plans seem more conscious of their rights than
do employees covered under the State plan, probably be
cause private coverage comes about only after an em
ployee election which usually involves considerable dis
cussion of alternatives and a sales presentation by car
riers. (3) Filing is easier under private plans because
they are often administered by an employer’s personnel
office. Thus, under an employer-administered plan, a
worker reporting back from an illness is automatically
handed the necessary papers (possibly certified on the
spot by a company doctor), whereas under the State plan,
an employee probably has to go back to his physician
0 In 1955, th e la s t fu ll year w hen th e assessm ent a g a in st
p riv a te p lan s w as in effect, th e cost of supervising them was
$1,083,000, or 32 percent of to ta l a d m in istra tiv e expenses.
10
F o r th e 8-year period 1948-55, th e filing ra te , th a t is, th e
num ber of eligible claim s p er 1,000 eligible w orkers, fo r volun
ta r y p lan s w as 101.1, fo r th e S ta te plan (nonextended lia b ility ),
68.1, fo r all S ta te plan, 76.9.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
after securing his papers. (4) The administrative
standards of eligibility and disqualification may be more
lax under employer-administered plans than under the
State plan.
3.
The premium discounts offered some groups by pri
vate carriers. Discounts below 1 percent of taxable pay
rolls are often extended to groups with favorable
experience, as a result of keen competitive bidding by
carriers for the better risks.
Conclusion
By American social insurance standards, the
rate of progress of California’s disability insur
ance program has been truly remarkable. After
12 years of rapid liberalization, however, the pro
gram has reached a fiscal position in which for the
first time expenses are exceeding revenues. Given
present filing rates and benefit levels, financial re
serves are in no short-run danger. Five liberaliz
ing amendments are, however, under debate in the
1959 California legislative session. These would
(1) increase maximum benefit duration to 39
weeks; (2) provide for dependents’ allowances;
(3) enable long-term claimants to recapture wait
ing-period benefits; (4) extend maximum hospital
benefits to $20 a day for 20 days; and (5) increase
maximum weekly benefits to $65.
The added cost of the first proposal would be
relatively minor. But adoption of the others
would seem to require higher taxes, or a broader
tax base. As a consequence, it may be assumed
that only limited modifications of the system will
be adopted this year. It may also be assumed
that unless more liberal employer supplements or
increased worker contributions improve some
what the lot of private carriers, the competition
between them and the State fund will also find a
balance in which the carriers will continue to
underwrite the better risks but will underwrite a
smaller overall portion of the total risk.
Privately financed programs date back to the last
century and the region has a reputation for bold
innovation by union, employer, and other groups.
The Development of
Health insurance Plans
J o se ph W . G a r barino 1
T he West Coast has a long tradition of special
arrangements in medical care and its reputation
for innovation is being maintained by current de
velopments.
Even before 1900, the combination of sparse set
tlement and great distances led to the establish
ment of a wide variety of medical facilities for
the care of the workers in the mines and the for
ests of the West and on the far-flung railroads.
The great construction projects of the 20th cen
tury also often generated a need for unusual
forms of medical care organization. Some of
these employer arrangements are still in existence;
they range from the venerable company doctor to
elaborate medical care plans such as that of the
Southern Pacific Railroad. From a modest pro
gram established in 1869, the Hospital Depart
ment of the Southern Pacific has come to operate
a 450-bed hospital in San Francisco, a 90-bed
hospital in Tucson, Ariz., and 18 emergency hos
pitals scattered around the system, utilizing the
part-time services of almost 700 physicians to care
for some 74,000 members of the plan.
These programs not only provide medical care
for substantial numbers of workers but they have
influenced the development of other types of
plans. The existence of the Southern Pacific
medical plan influenced the establishment of one
of the larger and older of the “independent” pre
payment group practice plans in the United
States, the Ross-Loos Medical Group in Los An
geles (established in 1929 and having a current
enrollment of some 140,000 members, including
dependents). The Oakland-based Kaiser Foun572
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
dation Health Plan which, with the United Mine
Workers Welfare Fund and the Health Insur
ance Plan of Greater New York, makes up the
“big three” of the independent plans, grew out
of experience originally gained in providing medi
cal services for large-scale construction projects.
In addition to these relatively unusual forms of
medical organization, the three Pacific Coast
States have produced some other experiments in
medical economics. During the 1930’s, a feature
of the workmen’s compensation law in Washing
ton led the county medical societies in that State
to pioneer in sponsoring establishment of medi
cal service plans that were the forerunners of the
present Blue Shield organizations.2 In 1939,
when the medical profession in California was
faced with a serious legislative proposal for a
compulsory State health insurance program, it
drew on the experience of the Washington county
societies’ Medical Service Bureaus in setting up
the California Physicians Service (CPS), the first
statewide profession-sponsored insurance plan
for medical care. Reflecting the circumstances of
its origin, CPS initially offered unusually compre
hensive coverage and the scope of coverage, al
though it has narrowed, is still somewhat broader
than most other Blue Shield plans. Broader
coverage appears to be generally a characteristic
of the Blue Shield plans in the other West Coast
States as well. As a further noteworthy point,
1 M ost of th e m a te ria l in th is a rtic le is tak en from a fo rth
com ing book by th e au th o r, H ealth P la n s a n d Collective B a r
gaining, to be published by th e U n iv ersity of C alifo rn ia P re ss in
1959.
2 V oluntary P re p ay m en t M edical Benefit P la n s (Chicago, A m er
ican M edical A ssociation Council on M edical Services, 1955),
p. 9. T he first county service bureau w as actu ally established
in 1917 b ut a larg e m a jo rity d a te from th e early 1930’s.
HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS
in all three States, the local Blue Cross and Blue
Shield organizations compete with each other in
offering both medical and hospital insurance
coverage.
As for State health insurance, probably no
State has seen as vigorous and sustained a drive
for such a program as has California. Proposals
for a compulsory State system had been in the
air for several years prior to 1939 and one version
had actually been endorsed by the State medical
society in a decision that was later reconsidered.3
The administration of Democratic Governor Culbert Olson (1938-42) actively supported a State
system of health insurance and official support
was continued in successive administrations of
Republican Governor Earl Warren, with bills
being introduced in the legislature in 1945, 1947,
and 1949. Partly as a result of this activity, hos
pital benefits were added to California’s Unem
ployment Compensation Disability law in 1950.
As a consequence, some 60 percent of the labor
force in California has been participating in a
form of compulsory State hospital insurance for
almost a decade.
In the last few years, developments in dental
care insurance show promise of bolstering the
West Coast’s position as an active force in social
experimentation. Dental associations in Wash
ington, Oregon, and California have sponsored
the incorporation of dental service corporations
which could eventually become the base for a type
of Blue Shield program for dentistry. As of
1958, these were the only dental-society-sponsored
service corporations of this type in operation in
the United States.
In another area of health service, the Cali
fornia Optométrie Association officially sponsors
California Vision Services (CVS), a nonprofit
corporation working to stimulate the inclusion of
3 H e a lth In su ran ce, The CMA, an d th e G overnor (in C alifornia
M edicine, S an F ran cisco , C alifo rn ia M edical A ssociation, A pril
1950, pp. 2 5 6 -2 5 8 ).
4 T he E x te n t of V o lu n tary H ealth In su ra n c e Coverage in th e
U n ited S ta te s as of Dec. 31, 1956 (New York, H e a lth In su ran ce
Council, 1957), pp. 16—17. D a ta a re fo r th e m ost common single
form of c o v erag e; t h a t is, h o sp ital in su ran ce except fo r C ali
fo rn ia , w here su rg ical in su ran ce is som ew hat m ore common.
T hese figures do n o t include th e h o sp italizatio n coverage u nder
th e C alifo rn ia D isab ility Law. T he differential in coverage noted
in th e te x t is m uch less m arked in m edical a n d surgical insurance.
5 C alifo rn ia d a ta on collectively bargained h ealth plans in th is
section are from C alifo rn ia D ep artm en t of In d u s tria l R elations,
In d u s tria l R elatio n s R eports, No. 13 (San F rancisco, May 1957),
pp. 3 -4 , unless o therw ise indicated.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
573
optometric care in health insurance programs as
well as underwriting its own service benefit op
tometric coverage in the Blue Shield pattern.
CVS was the first profession-sponsored service
corporation in this field, and similar corporations
are reported to have been organized in 11 other
States.
Health Insurance and Collective Bargaining
In the three West Coast States combined, the
proportion of the total population with some form
of private health insurance is substantially below
the average for the United States as a whole. At
the end of 1956, only Washington, with 67.6 per
cent coverage, approached the national average
(69.3 percent), with Oregon and California re
porting 63.0 percent and 58.7 percent, respectively.4
The reasons for California’s relatively low level
of coverage are not immediately apparent, but one
factor may be the existence of the substantial
hospital expense protection (currently 20 days at
$12 a day) under the State’s Unemployment Com
pensation Disability Benefits program. In addi
tion, the weekly cash benefits under that program
are themselves a form of indemnity during periods
of illness, since money, after all, is the all-purpose
benefit. However, the other States (Rhode
Island, New Jersey, and New York) with such
programs do not show the same low proportion
of private health insurance coverage.
Figures for health insurance coverage under
collective bargaining agreements are available
only for the State of California.5 That State
reported that approximately 1,158,000 workers
were covered by some form of negotiated health
insurance in January 1957. Although data on
the number of dependents covered are not avail
able, it seems reasonable to assume that at least
one-third and probably two-fifths of the 7.9 mil
lion persons with some form of health insurance
in California were covered by a collectively bar
gained health plan.
Compared with the Nation as a whole, the fol
lowing tentative conclusions about the situation
in California seem to be warranted on the basis
of available evidence:
1. The inclusion of health insurance in collec
tive bargaining contracts got a late start in Cali
fornia. In 1950, about 7.5 million workers were
covered by negotiated health and welfare plans
574
for the Nation,6 and only an estimated quarter
of a million workers were covered in California.7
2. In spite of a late start, a somewhat higher
proportion of all private health insurance in force
appears to be accounted for by negotiated health
plans at the present time. The proportion of all
persons with some form of coverage at the end
of 1956 who were employees covered by negoti
ated plans was about 15 percent in California and
10 percent in the United States as a whole.
3. The employer pays the full cost of such cov
erage in a larger proportion of plans in Cali
fornia. In January 1957, the employer paid the
full cost of insurance for about 90 percent of the
workers covered by negotiated health plans in
California. By contrast, some indication of the
situation in the United States in late 1955 is found
in a study of 300 negotiated health and insurance
plans each covering 1,000 or more workers, which
showed that only 45 percent of the workers were
insured under noncontributory plans.8
These differences from the national pattern can
probably be attributed to the combination of the
high degree of union organization among Cali
fornia workers and the type of industrial, and
therefore union, structure that prevails in the
State. For example, the predominance of rela
tively small employers, the importance of nonmanufacturing employment, and the prevalence
of the older unions formerly affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor explain the rela
tively slow development of extensive fringe bene
fit systems.
Special Features of Negotiated Medical Plans
As in the rest of the Nation, most negotiated
health plans in California follow the ortho
dox indemnity health insurance pattern. Nev
ertheless, significant variations within and from
this pattern have occurred.
The Teamsters Security Fund. Within the pat
tern of indemnity insurance, perhaps the most
important organizational innovation has been the
Teamsters Security Fund (TSF), which repre
sents a major example of the trend toward unionbased insurance groups rather than companybased groups. Set up by the Western Conference
of Teamsters in 1950, TSF began as an adminis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
trative agency for the union’s health program;
the complexity of the Teamster’s bargaining rela
tionships placed a premium on rationalizing the
administration of programs of this kind. In
1956, for example, the northern California
regional office of TSF handled the health plan af
fairs of two Teamster joint councils, with 32 em
ployer-employee welfare trusts involving some
7,000 separate employers in a wide variety of in
dustries and about 75,000 workers and their de
pendents. Four other regional offices covered the
rest of the 11 Western States that make up the ter
ritory of the Western Conference. The fund of
fices determine eligibility, collect contributions,
review and process claims, and pay benefits.
In addition, centralized administration permits
workers to change employers within the regional
office’s jurisdiction without losing eligibility for
benefits.
The Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. In the
area of independent health plan operation, the
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan has been con
ducting a unique “free choice” program for about
a decade. The Kaiser Plan is a comprehensive
group practice health plan operating its own hos
pitals and clinics and furnishing service benefits
to more than 600,000 members in the San Fran
cisco, Los Angeles, and Portland-Vancouver
areas. In 1948, it began promoting the concept
of offering the members of insured groups a choice
between the Kaiser type of coverage and the usual
indemnity insurance coverage. With the growth
of collectively bargained plans providing for uni
versal coverage of the group, Kaiser made this
choice system a prerequisite for its participation
in negotiated health insurance programs. While
there were a number of reasons for the adoption
of this policy, two of the most important were:
(1) I t permitted the Kaiser Plan to participate
in a union-management health program even
though some of the workers might not want this
form of coverage or might not have access to a
8 E m ployee Benefit P la n s U nder C ollective B argaining, Mid1950 (U.S. B ureau of L abor S ta tistic s , Bull. 1017, 1951), p. 1.
T H e a lth P lan s, L ife In su ran ce, P ensions in C alifo rn ia Union
A greem ents, 1950 (S an F rancisco, C a lifo rn ia D ep artm en t of I n
d u stria l R elations, 1950), p. 3 a n d supplem ent.
8 A nalysis of H e a lth a n d In su ra n c e P la n s U nder C ollective B a r
gaining, L a te 1955 (U.S. B ureau of L abor S ta tistic s, Bull. 1221,
1957), p. 5.
HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS
Kaiser clinic or hospital, and (2) it protected
both the plan and the participating unions or em
ployers from the charge of enrolling a captive
membership. Interest in this experiment has
been widespread and the approach has been intro
duced in other areas of the country, e.g., by the
Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York.
At present, Kaiser participates in about 30 dual
choice plans in the San Francisco Bay area which
are part of negotiated health insurance programs.
Experience with the choice system has varied ac
cording to special circumstances. As a very
rough generalization, it appears that groups of
fered a choice between a comprehensive service
plan and an indemnity-type plan tend to divide
about evenly between the two if they lack previous
experience with either. In groups which al
ready have one or the other type of coverage,
about one-third of the workers change to the new
alternative when a choice becomes available. A
new choice is permitted annually.
The dual choice system has permitted Kaiser,
as a local independent health plan, to participate
in the national health program of the automobile
industry wherever Kaiser facilities are available.
In addition, Kaiser and the United Steelworkers
have worked out a different approach that permits
Kaiser to share in some of the medical business
generated by the national health plans of the
Bethlehem Steel Co. and the U.S. Steel Corp.
Under this system, Kaiser offers coverage supple
mental to the national plan at the worker’s ex
pense. The supplemental program allows the
worker and his family to get the full range of
Kaiser’s comprehensive services, with the national
plan paying the Kaiser organizations for the basic
hospital and medical-surgical coverage just as it
pays other cooperating Blue Cross hospitals and
the Blue Shield medical service plans. A worker
can also still secure care on a free choice basis if
he does not desire Kaiser services. Both the
choice and the supplemental systems permit a
wider variety of medical arrangements to be
offered the individual worker and encourage local
experimentation in forms of medical organiza
tion. For instance, they would permit either a
union health center or an organization such as
Michigan’s Community Health Association to par
ticipate in many plans in which they could not
hope to service all members in all areas.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
575
The PM A —IL W U Fund. An interesting experi
ment involving a medical-society-sponsored health
plan has been worked out between the welfare fund
of the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) and
the International Longshoremen’s and Warehouse
men’s Union (ILWU) and the medical society of
San Joaquin County (California). In 1954, the
county medical society organized a subsidiary
corporation, the San Joaquin Foundation for
Medical Care, to experiment with health insurance
coverages. Since almost 90 percent of the practic
ing physicians of the county are members of the
foundation, the PMA-ILWU fund saw an oppor
tunity to work out a special form of coverage for
the 700 ILWU longshoremen in San Joaquin
County. The foundation and the welfare fund
have developed a very comprehensive health plan
that permits the ILWU members to secure care
from any member of the foundation on a service
benefit basis without income limitations. The
fund pays a monthly premium per member to the
foundation for medical-surgical care and pro
vides hospital insurance through an insurance
company. The foundation distributes its income
among the member-doctors on the basis of a unit
value fee schedule devised by the State medical
society under which the values of individual medi
cal services are quoted in “units” rather than in
dollars. The dollar value of the unit depends
on the total number of units of service rendered
and on the total amount of money available for
benefits in a given time period. Thus, the doctors
underwrite the risk in the event that utilization is
greater than assumed in the premium ratesetting
process. The plan has been in effect since July
1955 under a year-to-year contract and both parties
have expressed satisfaction with its results. In
that time, one 20-percent premium increase has
been negotiated; and in 1958, the cost for both
medical and hospital coverage for the worker and
his family was $16.61 per month.
Absence of Union Health Centers. It is interest
ing that no union health center of any consequence
has been established on the West Coast, although
the San Francisco Labor Council proposed a center
in 1952 and large locals of unions such as the Hotel
and Restaurant Employees sponsor such programs
elsewhere. This is probably due in part to the
availability of large prepayment group practice
576
plans such as the Ross-Loos Medical Group, the
Kaiser Health Plan, and the Group Health Coop
erative of Seattle that provide somewhat the same
type of program. I t may also be due to the rela
tively high wage levels and associated fringe con
tributions in the area and the resulting willingness
and ability of many funds to pay for indemnity
insurance, with its free choice of physician.
Prepaid Vision Care Programs9
In July 1954, the Alameda-Contra Costa
County (California) Optometric Association be
gan to study establishment of group vision-care
programs. Within a year, a nonprofit corpora
tion, California Vision Services (CVS), had been
established under the association’s sponsorship.
In July 1956, the first group contracts for pre
paid vision care were signed with two labor unions
in the San Francisco Bay area. In February
1957, CVS secured the official sponsorship of the
California Optometric Association. CVS oper
ates four types of plans for vision care, but only
two have become operative on a substantial scale.
In its most interesting activity, CVS functions
as a service corporation in the familiar Blue Shield
pattern in underwriting a prepaid service benefit
optometric care plan providing full coverage to
beneficiaries. Participating optometrists (slightly
more than two-thirds of the State’s licensed op
tometrists are currently members) agree to accept
CVS fees as full payment and to accept reduced
fees in the event of higher-than-expected utiliza
tion. Premium charges vary with the composition
of the group covered but range from $1 to $1.42
per member per month. About 12,000 persons are
currently covered by this program, virtually all
in negotiated plans.
In addition to selling its own coverage, CVS
attempts to promote inclusion of an indemnity
optometric benefit in the typical health insurance
contract. In this case, the coverage is underwrit
ten by the insurance company holding the basic
contract and provides fixed amounts of indemnity
for services, with the insured member paying any
additional charge. About 100,000 persons are cov
ered by this type of contract, at premiums rang
ing from 27 to 44 cents per member per month.
As the unions with solvent, satisfactory basic
health plans look for new forms of coverage for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
their members, this type of benefit will probably
grow in importance.
Dental Care Plans10
For a number of years, a few health plan or
ganizations have offered their members some form
of dental service as part of their benefit program
(e.g., the St. Louis Labor Health Institute). In
the past 5 years, developments on the West Coast
have gone beyond these group practice dental
clinic arrangements and may have laid the foun
dation for the adoption of a Blue Shield type of
approach to the problem of dental insurance.
By 1954, two major collectively bargained
dental care plans had been launched on the
West Coast. The plan of the Los Angeles Joint
Executive Board of the Hotel and Restaurant Em
ployees follows the pattern of a contract with a
closed-panel dental group. Its noteworthy fea
ture is the very broad scope of care provided the
approximately 20,000 persons covered by the plan.
The benefit handbook of the plan describes its
coverage as follows: “All necessary dental care
will be provided for the complete functional res
toration of the mouth. Emphasis is also placed on
aesthetic (cosmetic) restoration of teeth, which is
so important to members who meet the public in
their work.” The plan covers workers and one
designated dependent and, in addition to the cos
metic and restorative work, also provides ortho
dontic care for children. Charges of $15 and
$30 are made for partial and full dentures. Bene
fits continue after retirement. Fees to the closedpanel group are not handled through a prepay
ment mechanism but are based on charges for
actual chair-hours of service rendered. In 1957,
such payments averaged $71 per patient and to
taled about $0.5 million.
The other major plan, inaugurated in 1954 by
the PMA-ILWU Welfare Fund as an experi
mental program, is less comprehensive in its cov9 In fo rm atio n in th is section w as obtained from Jo u rn a l of th e
C alifornia O ptom etric A ssociation (Los A ngeles), December 1958—
Ja n u a ry 1959, an d George Rice, E xecutive D irector, C alifo rn ia
Vision Services, O akland.
10 Some of th e follow ing in fo rm atio n is from P re p ay m en t
P la n s fo r D ental Care, A New Type of F rin g e Benefit, an unpub
lished paper subm itted to th e G rad u ate School of B usiness Ad
m in istra tio n , JTniversity of C alifornia, by T hom as A. Russell,
in p a r tia l fulfillm ent of requirem ents fo r th e M.B.A. degree,
1959.
HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS
erage, but it has sought from the beginning to
develop methods of financing dental care that
would permit relatively complete free choice of
dentist. To reduce the cost, the plan was limited
to the longshoremen’s children from ages 4 to 14
inclusive and excluded orthodontics, cosmetic care,
and major oral surgery. The program has uti
lized three different methods of providing care for
the 12,000 children eligible under the plan. Each
of the employees has a choice between an in
demnity plan and a dental service corporation
plan, with those employees who have access to
either of two closed-panel groups enjoying a third
alternative. Overall, the indemnity program cur
rently enrolls about 1,400 children, about 2,400
are enrolled in the two closed-panel plans, and the
remaining 8,200 are covered by three dental serv
ice corporations.
In both the Los Angeles and the San FranciscoOakland areas, the PMA-ILWU Welfare Fund
contracted with a large closed-panel dental group
for dental care on a service benefit basis. At pres
ent, the fund pays a “deposit” of $75 for initial
care and $55 for maintenance care annually per
child enrolled by the panels. There are no dollar
maximums for covered care. At the end of each
contract year, any surplus remaining after serv
ices are paid for according to the panel’s fee sched
ule is returned to the welfare fund.
The indemnification program utilizes the ad
ministrative machinery of a commercial insurance
carrier. It provides each enrolled child with an
annual maximum of $75 for initial care and $55
for maintenance care. Service may be secured
from any dentist who is a member of a State
dental association or who is eligible for member
ship. Dentists are reimbursed by the insurance
11 T he D en tal Service C o rporation (U.S. D ep artm en t of H ealth,
E d u catio n , an d W elfare, P ublic H ealth Service P u b licatio n 570,
195 8 ), p. 2.
12 C alifo rn ia is unique in hav in g had tw o “ S ta te ” d en tal a s
sociatio n s fo r years. T he C alifornia S ta te D en tal A ssociation
o p erates in n o rth e rn C alifo rnia w ith th e S outhern C alifornia
D e n ta l A ssociation h av in g seceded from th e p a re n t body. T he
S o u th ern C alifo rn ia D en tal A ssociation decided a g a in s t th e estab
lish m en t of a service co rp o ration.
T he Oregon co rp o ratio n does n o t require p a rtic ip a tin g d en tists
to accep t th e fee schedule as fu ll paym ent.
13 F o r one view point of th e issues, see C. E dw ard Rutledge,
D.D.S., D e n tis try ’s G re a te s t Challenge (in J o u rn a l of the Cali
fo rn ia S ta te D en tal A ssociation and th e N evada S ta te D ental
Society, N ovem ber-D ecem ber 1958, pp. 4 5 7 -4 6 2 ). See also th e
e d ito ria l in th e sam e issue, T he C alifornia D en tal Service Cor
p o ratio n , Socialism o r R ealism ?, pp. 454—455.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
577
carrier according to a fee schedule but may charge
higher fees by agreement with the patient’s par
ents. The PMA-ILWU fund pays the insurance
carrier the cost of benefits plus a 2-percent ad
ministrative charge.
In addition, the PMA-ILWU fund approached
the various State dental associations for assist
ance in developing a better free choice alternative
to panel practice. Out of these discussions came
the formation of the Washington State Dental
Service Corporation (WSDSC) in 1954, “the first
statewide dental service corporation ever organ
ized by a State dental association.” 11 Dental
service corporations based on similar principles
have been established in both Oregon and north
ern California.12
In the WSDSC, participating dentists must be
members of the State dental association and about
900, or two-thirds of the practicing dentists in
the State, were members in 1958. These dentists
agree to accept the fees listed in the service cor
poration’s fee schedule as full payment for their
services. In 1958, the fund was paying the
WSDSC $75 for initial care and $55 for mainte
nance care for each enrolled child, and there were
no maximum benefits for covered services. After
the corporation pays fees and deducts 8 percent
of total receipts for administrative costs, any
moneys remaining are returned to the PMAILWU fund. The corporation withholds 5 per
cent of the payments to participating dentists to
build a reserve.
Some indication of the cost of the PMAILW U’s open-panel coverage through the dental
service corporations can be gleaned from the ex
perience of the northern California corporation.
Between July 1, 1957, and September 25, 1958,
1,680 children were treated by participating den
tists at an average cost of about $58 for dental
care (excluding administrative costs but includ
ing the 5-percent retention from the dentists’ fee
income by the corporation).
The service corporation program has supplanted
the indemnity insurance system everywhere ex
cept in southern California, where the dental as
sociation has taken a stand against its operation.
The critical question at this stage of development
is how large a role the dental profession will au
thorize the service corporations to play in the
financing of dental care.13 At the end of 1958,
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
578
the corporations were providing service only to
the ILWU children and the recipients of public
assistance in the three States. The northern Cali
fornia corporation has been approached by a num
ber of major unions, by associations of city and
county employees, and by the Federal Business
Association representing Federal employees in the
San Francisco Bay area. The fact that a large
closed-panel dental group operating in Oakland
and San Francisco has already begun enrollment
of members of the Federal Business Association
suggests that the local service corporation may
expand the scope of its activities.
Such an expansion would be another example
of a major innovation in economic security pro
grams touched off by developments growing out
of collectively bargained welfare plans on the
West Coast. In addition to increasing the sums
devoted to security programs, the plans have acted
to change the way in which the consumer market
operates by introducing a rudimentary form of
collective bargaining into medical economics.
The growth of private health insurance in the United States . . . had its
origin in the Depression but the greatest impetus came during the period when
Americans were politically embroiled in debate over proposals for national
compulsory health insurance and Californians were disputing the Olson and
Warren proposals for a similar State program. Private health insurance
plans were rapidly advanced as alternatives to governmental programs.
Equally important was the simultaneous growth of organized labor and
collective bargaining. The wartime wage stabilization program and its
encouragement of “fringe benefits,” the effect of National Labor Relations
Board and U.S. Supreme Court decisions in making such benefits a routine
matter for collective bargaining, management’s increasing concern for “human
relations” in industry and the continuing postwar emphasis on “health and
welfare plans” all helped to accelerate the growth of voluntary health
insurance.
This marriage of medical care and industrial relations has had a decisive
influence upon the growth and character of health insurance and other medical
institutions. The vast majority of insured persons . . . owe their health
insurance to an employee benefit plan, paid for in full or in part by their
employers, who are now contributing about $1 billion a year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
—Herman M. Somers and Anne R. Somers, Private Health Insurance (in California
Law Review, University of California, Berkeley, August 1958, pp. 376-378).
Significant Decisions
in Labor Cases*
Labor Relations
Welfare Fund Contributions. The U.S. Supreme
Court held 1 that unpaid contributions due from
an employer to a union welfare fund, payable to
and administered by the trustees of the fund, and
required by a collective bargaining agreement are
not entitled to priority in bankruptcy proceedings
as being “wages . . . due to workmen” under sec
tion 64(a) (2) of the Bankruptcy Act.2
Under a collective bargaining agreement, the
employer in this case was obligated to pay $8 a
month per full-time employee to the trustees of a
union welfare fund. Title to the funds, property,
and income was held by the trustees, who were
authorized to collect all contributions and control
the fund. In the bankruptcy proceeding, the
trustees filed proofs of a claim for unpaid con
tributions due by the employer and asserted a pri
ority for the amounts that had accrued during
the 3 months immediately preceding the bank
ruptcy, alleging that these contributions were en
titled to priority as “wages . . . due to workmen.”
This priority, disallowed by the referee, was
granted on review by both a Federal district court
and the court of appeals.
In reversing the lower courts, the Supreme
Court held that these contributions do not have
the customary attributes of wages, since they
are flat sums for each workman, and the amount
is not related to hours or productivity. Nor, the
court asserted, are the contributions “due to work
men.” The obligation was to the trustees, rather
than the workmen. In addition, the court rea
soned, the contributions do not satisfy the purpose
for which Congress established the priority:
“
to provide the workman a ‘protective cushion’
against the economic displacement caused by his
employer’s bankruptcy.” Inasmuch as these con
tributions are paid to the fund trustees, they do
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
not benefit the workman in the period of financial
distress.
In the opinion of the dissenting justices, an em
ployer’s share of the costs of a welfare plan is
compensation for services, regardless of the form
it takes, and it has long been held that compen
sation for services rendered is a valid definition
of “wages” within the meaning of the priority sec
tion of the Bankruptcy Act and elsewhere.
Furthermore, the fact that the money is actually
paid to persons other than the workmen does not
alter the character of the obligation due the work
men as compensation for services.
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards. A United
States court of appeals held 3 that section 301(a)
of the Labor Management Relations Act confers
jurisdiction on the Federal district courts to en
force an arbitration award for vacation pay due
employees under a collective bargaining contract.
In this case, a dispute concerning the interpreta
tion of the vacation pay provisions of a collec
tive bargaining agreement was submitted to an
arbitrator pursuant to arbitration terms in the
contract. When the employer refused to honor
the arbitrator’s decision, the union instituted ac
tion in a Federal district court. Holding that
the union was entitled to a judgment enforcing
the award, the district court averred that it had
jurisdiction to enforce the award under section
301 of the LMRA.
The court of appeals, in affirming the judgment
of the district court, cited two recent decisions of
the U.S. Supreme Court construing section 301.
In the first case, the Supreme Court held 4 that
the section does not authorize a suit by a union
♦P repared in th e U.S. D ep artm en t of L abor, Office of th e Solici
tor. T he cases covered in th is a rtic le rep re se n t a selection of the
significant decisions believed to be of special in te re st.
No
a tte m p t h as been m ade to reflect a ll recen t ju d icial an d adm in
is tra tiv e developm ents in th e field of labor law or to ind icate
th e effect of p a r tic u la r decisions in ju risd ic tio n s in w hich con
tr a ry re su lts m ay be reached based upon local s ta tu to ry pro
visions, th e existence of local precedents, or a different approach
by th e courts to th e issue presented.
1 U nited S ta te s v. E m bassy R e sta u ra n t, In c. (U.S. Sup. Ct.,
M ar. 9, 1950).
2 11 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 104.
3 A . L . K ornm an Go. v. A m algam ated C lothing W orkers (C.A.
6, Feb. 25, 1959).
4 A ssociation o f W estinghouse Salaried E m ployees v. W estinghouse E lectric Corp., 348 U.S. 437 (1955). See M onthly L abor
Review, Ju n e 1955, p. 679.
579
580
seeking a judgment in favor of individual em
ployees for unpaid wages. Subsequently, the Su
preme Court held5 that under section 301 a Fed
eral district court does have jurisdiction of a suit
by a labor organization to require an employer to
arbitrate a grievance pursuant to an arbitration
provision in a collective bargaining contract.
Thus, a distinction was drawn between suits for
the benefit of individuals and suits for the bene
fit of the organization.
The present case, the court of appeals indicated,
goes one step further than the preceding deci
sions. The arbitration has been completed, and
the union seeks enforcement of an award on be
half of the employees. Since the district court
may order compliance with arbitration provisions,
the court reasoned, it must necessarily have juris
diction to enforce the resulting awards. Other
wise, the arbitration provisions would be useless.
The dissenting judge reasoned that this action
was not to compel arbitration, but to enforce an
arbitration award. Being an action to enforce
an arbitration award for the benefit of individual
employees, it is controlled by the ruling of the
Supreme Court concerning individual rights
under a collective bargaining contract, i.e., that
section 301 does not authorize a suit by a union
seeking a judgment in favor of individuals. Al
though the Federal courts have no jurisdiction,
he concluded, an adequate remedy is provided by
the State courts.
Member Action To Compel Financial Reports.
A United States court of appeals held6 that a
Federal district court does not have jurisdiction
of an action by union members seeking to compel
the union to furnish them with the financial re
ports as provided by sections 9(f) and (g) of the
Labor Management Relations Act.
In this case, 12 members of a union, asserting
that they had exhausted all the processes avail
able within the organization, brought an action
to compel the union to refrain from taking dis
criminatory action against them, to hold a valid
election pursuant to the terms of the union’s
constitution and bylaws, and to make and furnish
an audit and financial report. The district court
dismissed the action on the ground that it did
not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
In affirming the opinion of the district court, the
court of appeals pointed out that discriminatory
action is an unfair labor practice and, therefore,,
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National
Labor Relations Board. With respect to contrac
tual rights, the court found that section 301(a) of
the LMRA gives the district courts jurisdiction
of suits for violation of contracts between employ
ers and labor organizations or between labor or
ganizations. The instant suit, between a labor
organization and its members, does not come
within the terms of the provision.
Sections 9(f) and (g) of the LMRA have been
construed by the Supreme Court as provisions
merely describing advantages that may be gained
by compliance with their conditions, with which
a labor organization may elect to comply or not
comply as it chooses.7 Therefore, the court of
appeals held that the original jurisdiction of the
district courts over civil actions arising under
acts of Congress regulating commerce8 does not
give rise to Federal jurisdiction to enforce com
pliance of these sections.
Unemployment Compensation
Self-Incrimination Disqualification, No. 1. The
Superior Court of Pennsylvania held9 that a
claimant (1) who had failed to deny an allegation
of Communist Party affiliation before a congres
sional committee, (2) who was later discharged by
his employer—a Government contractor engaged
in defense work—for refusing to answer the em
ployer’s questions concerning such alleged affilia
tion, and (3) who pleaded the privilege against
self-incrimination when asked such questions by
the unemployment compensation authorities, was
ineligible for benefits under the Pennsylvania Un
employment Act.10
6 T extile W orkers Union v. L incoln M ills o f A labam a, 353 U.S.
448 (1957). See M onthly L abor Review, A ugust 1957, pp.
976-977.
9 A dam s v. In te rn a tio n a l B rotherhood o f B oilerm akers (C.A.
10, Dec. 3, 1958). T he o rig in al opinion of th e c o u rt (noted in
M onthly L abor Review, M arch 1959, pp. 294—295) h a s been
am ended an d th e d issen tin g opinion w ith d raw n .
7 U nited M ine W orkers v. A rkansas Oak F looring Co., 351 U.S.
62 (1956).
«28 U.S.C. § 1337 (1952).
8 A u lt v. U nem ploym ent C om pensation B oard o f R eview (P a .
Super. Ct., H a rris b u rg D ist., Dec. 11, 1958).
10 43 P u rd o n ’s P a. S ta ts. A nn., §75 1 et. seq. (1952) (as
am ended Supp. 1958).
DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES
The claimant was discharged after a hearing
held by his employer on the question of whether
he should be dismissed. The claimant was advised
at that hearing that he had been identified under
oath before a congressional committee as being a
member of the Communist Party ; that the com
mittee had given him an opportunity to deny such
affiliation but he had failed to do so ; that the em
ployer was important to national defense, and that
one affiliated with the Communist Party was be
lieved by the employer to be a security risk to
him. Told that the employer would receive any
evidence the claimant wished to produce, the
claimant presented a statement in which he made
no denial that he was a member of the Communist
Party and refused to discuss with his employer
whether the specific charges made against him be
fore the congressional committee were true or false.
After discharge, the claimant applied for un
employment compensation. At the hearing before
the unemployment compensation referee, he re
fused to answer whether he was presently a Com
munist Party member ; whether he had ever given
information concerning internal conditions at the
employer’s plant to any member of that party and
whether he had attended conventions of the
Communist Party,,
In affirming the denial of compensation by
the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation
Board, the court held that the claimant’s refusal
to answer his employer’s questions regarding the
charge against him was willful misconduct con
nected with his work within the meaning of the
section of Pennsylvania Unemployment Compen
sation Act which read: “An employee shall be
ineligible for compensation for any week . . . in
which his unemployment is due to his discharge
or temporary suspension from work for willful
misconduct connected with his work . . .” 11 The
court reasoned that an employer engaged in defense
work could be expected to ask an employee whether
charges of Communist Party affiliation made
against him before a congressional committee were
true and that refusal to discuss such charges
(ii 43 P u rd o n ’s P a. S ta ts. Ann., § 8 02(e) (Supp. 1958).
n F ino v. E .S .B . and S u n R a y D rug Co. (Md. Ct. of Appeals,
J a n . 19, 1959).
is Md. Code (1 9 5 1 ), A rt. 95A, § 5 (b ).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
581
frankly and fully was a willful disregard of such
employer’s interests and a disregard of standards
of behavior which the employer had a right to
expect of him. The court concluded that, there
fore, the employer was justified in discharging the
claimant for willful misconduct. This misconduct
was connected with his work, the court stated,
because it “is important to the security of all of
us that manufacturers of plants producing ma
terials which are used for defense should not have
in their employ people whose loyalty is so seri
ously thrown into question as a result of their
own actions and conduct.”
The court declared that the claimant must be
denied compensation for his refusal to answer
questions put to him by the unemployment com
pensation authorities, and stated that reason to be
“entirely aside from the refusal of the claimant
to answer questions . . . before his employer.”
The court indicated that the questions of the au
thorities had a bearing upon whether the employer
was justified in refusing to continue the employ
ment and, therefore, upon the claimant’s right to
compensation.
/Self-Incrimination Disqualification, No. 2. The
Court of Appeals of Maryland held12 that a
restaurant waitress who failed to deny an allega
tion of Communist Pary affiliation before a con
gressional committee, and was subsequently dis
charged because her employer feared her presence
would cause a loss of business, was not ineligible
for unemployment benefits under the Maryland
unemployment insurance law.13
The claimant was identified through radio, tele
vision, and the newspapers as a waitress in the
employer’s restaurant who had refused to respond
to questions posed by a congressional committee
relating to her affiliations with the Communist
Party. When her employer received threats by
customers to discontinue their patronage, he dis
charged the claimant, believing the adverse pub
licity she had created would hurt his business.
The employer made no attempt to interrogate the
claimant about her alleged connection with the
Communist Party. Thereafter, the claimant’s re
quest for unemployment benefits was denied by
the Board of Appeals of the Maryland Employ
ment Security Board, pursuant to a finding that
582
her discharge, and consequent unemployment, was
due to her “actual or threatened, deliberate and
willful misconduct connected with [her] work,”14
an express disqualification in the statute. This
holding was affirmed by the Maryland Superior
Court.
In reversing the adverse decision of the lower
court, the court of appeals reasoned that if it as
sumed, without deciding, that the refusal to
answer questions propounded by the committee
was misconduct, the crucial question was whether
such misconduct was connected with her work
within the meaning of the statute. The miscon
duct must be incident to the work, or directly re
lated to the employment status, the court asserted.
The mere fact that the misconduct adversely af
fects the employer’s business is not enough and,
in this instance, there is no suggestion that the
claimant’s retention would create any other
hazards.
Self-Incrimination Disqualification, No. 3. The
Court of Appeals of Maryland held15 that claim
ants formerly employed by a contractor engaged
in defense work, who had failed to deny an alle
gation of Communist Party affiliation before a
congressional committee and who were subse
quently discharged for refusing to answer their
employer’s questions concerning the alleged affili
ation, taking the position that the questions were
irrelevant and immaterial, were ineligible for
benefits under the Maryland unemployment
insurance law, except those benefits accuring prior
to the employer’s hearing.16
The five claimants, employed in a plant which
had a number of defense contracts with the Gov
ernment, were suspended when their employer
learned that they had been identified as members
of the Communist Party and had refused to
answer questions concerning their alleged affili
ation before a congressional committee. Subse
quently, the employer conducted hearings at
which the claimants refused to answer questions
similar to those propounded by the committee,
“ Ibid.
15 0 8 tro fsk y and S e if v. E .S.B . and th e B eth le h em S te e l Co.
(Md. Ct. of Appeals, Ja n . 19, 1959).
10 Md. Code (1951), A rt. 95A, § 5 (b ).
17 E x cep t in so far as th e case w as rem anded fo r a m odification
of th e order fixing th e d ates of disqualification.
M See F ino x. E .S .B . and S u n B u y D rug Co., supra.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
averring that the questions were irrelevant, im
material, and in no way connected with the claim
ants’ job performances. At the conclusion of the
hearings, the claimants were discharged. There
after, the requests of the claimants for unemploy
ment benefits were denied by the Board of Appeals
of the Maryland Employment Security Board as
a result of a finding that their loss of employ
ment was due to their actions at the hearings
conducted by their employers, which actions
constituted misconduct connected with their wTork
within the meaning f the disqualification pro
visions in the Maryland unemployment insurance
statute.
In affirming17 the judgment of the lower court
which had upheld the decision of the Board of
Appeals of the Maryland Employment Security
Board, the court of appeals distinguished the de
cision from a similar one, handed down on the
same day, wherein it held that refusal to answer
questions of a congressional committee was not
misconduct connected with the work.18 In the
instant case, the court asserted, the discharge was
based on a failure to answer at a company hearing.
In addition, the objections to the questions pro
pounded at the company hearing were not based
on the privilege against self-incrimination but on
relevance and materiality. Inasmuch as the
Communist Party “has been frequently character
ized as engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the
Government by force and violence, and partic
ularly by the sabotage of essential industries in
the event of war,” the court reasoned that alleged
Communist affiliations of its employees are rele
vant to a manufacturing concern with Government
orders.
With respect to the question of whether the
misconduct was work connected, the court rea
soned that employing an alleged security risk is
far different from employing a person whose mis
conduct may merely have an adverse economic
effect on the business. While neither employee
may be suitable, the security risk may be unreli
able as well. The trustworthiness and reliability
of an employee, the court averred, is conduct con
nected with the work when the employer is an
industry essential to defense.
Benefits were allowed, however, for the period
preceding the company hearing as that event es
tablished the date of disqualification.
Chronology of
Recent Labor Events
March 3, 1959
S t a t e s A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l announced the
indictment by a Federal grand jury in Scranton, Pa., of
Dominic J. Alaimo, a committeeman of United Mine
Workers Local 8005, for allegedly accepting $30,755 in
periodic payoffs over 5 years from the Knox Coal Co. for
a “sweetheart” contract. The company and two officials
were charged in a separate indictment with making the
payments which are forbidden by the Taft-Hartley Act.
On March 9, a similar indictment was returned by a
Hudson County (N.J.) grand jury against two Local 262
officials of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union—Anthony Auriema and George Braverman—for
allegedly receiving bribes from the C. F. Mueller Co.
( See also p. 586 of this issue.)
T h e U n it e d
March 9
T h e U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t ruled that contributions owed
by a bankrupt employer to a welfare fund, pursuant to
a collective agreement, are not entitled to priority in
bankruptcy proceedings as being “wages . . . due to
workmen” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act.
The case was U n ite d S t a t e s v. E m b a s s y R e s t a u r a n t , In c.
(see Chron. item for Apr. 16, 1958, MLR, June 1958, and
p. 579 of this issue).
T h e U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t denied review in O lip h a n t
B r o th e r h o o d o f L o c o m o tiv e F ir e m e n a n d E n g in e m e n
v.
in
which a lower court had held that refusal by a union
certified under the Railway Labor Act to admit a Negro
to membership because of his race did not violate the
Negro’s rights under the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment (see Chron. item for Nov. 26, 1958, MLR,
Jan. 1959). Review was denied by reason of “the ab
stract context in which the questions sought to be raised
are presented in the record.”
F e d e r a l c o u r t of a p p e a l s in Cincinnati upheld a
lower court decision that the national collective bargain
ing agreement establishing the United Mine Workers
Welfare and Retirement Fund and providing for union
security “to the extent and in the manner permitted by
law” is legal and enforceable under the Tennessee Rightto-Work Law. The case was F e n tr e s s C o a l & C o k e Co. v.
L e w is .
(See Chron. item for Mar. 6, 1958, MLR, May
1958.)
T he
March 11
the Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union ratified
a 3-year contract with the National Association of Blouse
Manufacturers, Inc., covering about 14,000 workers in the
States of Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. The
terms included a 7-percent wage increase for pieceworkers
and $4 to $6 a week for weekworkers and other benefits.
( See also p. 584 of this issue.)
M em bers o f
A F e d e r a l g r a n d j u r y in New York City indicted Local
25 of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union,
five individuals (including Charles Kreindler, the local’s
manager and an ILGWU vice president), and three trade
associations for allegedly having conspired since 1949 to
fix prices and allocate customers in the women’s blouse
industry. ( See also p. 585 of this issue.)
March 12
L. N. D. W e l l s , J r., the union-nominated member of the
board of monitors of the Teamsters (see Chron. item for
Jan. 23, 1958, MLR, Mar. 1958), submitted his resigna
tion to U.S. District Judge F. Dickinson Letts (who had
appointed the monitors), saying he could not afford to
give the monitorship the “almost full-time attention” it
requires. ( See also p. 585 of this issue.)
Daniel B. Maher, a Washington, D.C., lawyer, was ap
pointed on March 18 to succeed Mr. Wells.
March 13
T h e G o v e r n o r o f I n d i a n a signed a bill permitting con
current receipt by jobless workers of both State unem
ployment benefits and private supplemental unemploy
ment benefits. (See Chron. item for June 11, 1958, MLR,
Aug. 1958.)
Two days earlier, a similar law was approved by the
Governor of Ohio. (See Chron. item for May 15, 1956,
MLR, July 1956, and p. 586 of this issue.)
T h e F e d e r a l c o u r t of a p p e a l s in Chicago ruled that
a railroad union’s demand upon an employer that cer
tain jobs should not be abolished except with the union’s
consent was not within the Railway Labor Act’s scope
of mandatory bargaining. The court held that the em
ployer’s acceptance of the union demand would have en
abled the union to prevent the necessary modernization
of the railroad. The case was C h ic a g o a n d N o r th W e s t
e rn R a i l w a y Co. v. O r d e r o f R a ilr o a d T e le g r a p h e r s .
March 31
P r e s i d e n t E i s e n h o w e r signed a bill which extended until
June 30, 1959, the optional Federal loans to States for
continuation of unemployment compensation benefits to
jobless workers who have exhausted their State UC
benefits. (See Chron. item for June 4, 1958, MLR,
Aug. 1958.)
583
502324— 59-
-7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Developments in
Industrial Relations*
Wage Developments and Collective Bargaining
Apparel and Textiles. A 3-year contract for
about 14,000 blouse makers was ratified on March
11 by members of the International Ladies’ Gar
ment Workers’ Union employed by member com
panies of the National Association of Blouse
Manufacturers, Inc. The settlement—covering
workers in the States of New York, New Jersey,
and Connecticut—included wage increases of 7
percent for pieceworkers and $4 to $6 weekly for
weekworkers, increased minimum weekly guaran
teed earnings, and, for pieceworkers, liberalized
overtime provisions and provided 6i/2 paid holi
days. (Weekworkers already receive 6y2 paid
holidays.) A severance pay plan, to be financed
by employer contributions of 0.5 percent of pay
rolls, was also established.
An offer of a pay increase averaging 7.5 cents
an hour by Dan River Mills, Inc., was accepted
by members of the South Virginia Joint Board
of the United Textile Workers. The increase—
effective March 9—affected about 10,000 employees
in Danville, Va. The union contract was not
scheduled to expire until May 31, 1959. How
ever, Dan River Mills had reported in February
that it was planning to make pay adjustments
following reports by a number of other Southern
textile firms of pay increases for their workers,
most of whom are unorganized.1
In March, the two major garment unions an
nounced collective bargaining proposals. On
March 3, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers said
it would seek a 15-cent-an-hour wage increase plus
changes in fringe benefits for about 100,000 shirt,
pajama, and cotton garment workers under a re
opening clause of an agreement running until
June 1, 1961; the latest general wage increase for
this group of workers went into effect in 1956.2
584
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The International Ladies’ Garment Workers
sent bargaining notices to four coat and suit man
ufacturers’ associations on agreements expiring
May 31 and affecting almost 50,000 workers.
Union spokesmen said they would not seek a gen
eral wage increase but instead ask for the right
to seek increases whenever the Consumer Price
Index rises 5 percent above its July 1957 level;
current contracts permit wage negotiations based
on changes over the May 1953 level. The latest
increase under these contracts was in December
1957.3
Other Manufacturing. A 7-cent-an-hour pay in
crease, retroactive to February 1 for 7,000 work
ers, and an additional 6-cent raise scheduled for
1960, were agreed to in mid-February by repre
sentatives of the International Longshoremen’s
and Warehousemen’s Union (Ind.) and seven pine
apple companies in Hawaii. An unusual union
security clause—described as a “dues shop” ar
rangement—was set up. Employees have a choice
of joining the union and paying union dues, re
maining outside the union but paying dues, or
remaining out of the union and paying the equiva
lent of union dues to a fund to be divided equally
among three health organizations. The ILWU
had been seeking a union shop.
In early March, the United Mine Workers Dis
trict 50 (Ind.) and the Dow Chemical Co. an
nounced terms of a 3-year agreement for about
6,200 workers at the company’s Midland, Mich.,
division. The settlement provided for a 6-centan-hour wage increase in each contract year, ad
ditional increases for step-rate adjustments, and
gradual incorporation into base rates of the exist
ing cost-of-living allowance—8 cents in each of the
first 2 years and 3 cents in the last year. The
escalator clause was continued. Other changes
included provision for an eighth paid “personal”
holiday—to be taken by individual workers at
any time during the year—and increased shift
♦P repared in th e D ivision of
B ureau of L abor S ta tistic s, on
published m aterial.
1 See M onthly L abor Review,
2 See M onthly L abor Review,
3 See M onthly L abor Review,
W ages an d In d u s tria l R elations,
th e b asis of cu rre n tly available
A pril 1959, p. 428.
Septem ber 1956, p. 1072.
December 1957, p. 1497.
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
differentials and health and welfare and minimum
pension benefits.
Communications and Services. Two large Bell
Telephone system affiliates negotiated contracts
with representatives of the Communications
Workers during March that generally followed
the pattern set by the Wisconsin Telephone Co.
and the union in January 1959.4 On March 18,
the union and the Southwestern Bell Telephone
Co. signed a 15-month contract for about 46,000
workers in six States. According to the CWA,
the wage increase averaged 8.2 cents an hour and
ranged from $2 to $5 a week for plant depart
ment employees and from $2 to $3 for traffic em
ployees, effective March 15. Wage increases at
the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co. ranged
from $1 to $4.50 for about 17,500 plant and traf
fic department employees in northern California
and Nevada. An additional 50 cents a week for
certain top craft jobs is to become effective No
vember 1, 1959. Both settlements provided a
fourth week of vacation after 30 years’ service
and pension improvements.
Union Developments
Teamsters. On March 11, the U.S. Senate Select
Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor
or Management Field resumed hearings concern
ing the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
concentrating on its activities in the Chicago
area. Testimony by committee investigators in
cluded charges that Joseph P. Glimco, president
of Taxicab Local 777, had used union funds to fi
nance his successful defense in a trial on charges
that he had extorted money from businessmen and
from the officers of his local by requiring them to
sign for higher salaries than they received. Mr.
Glimco refused to answer most questions by in
voking the Fifth Amendment.
A committee investigator also alleged that four
officials affiliated with Chicago Local 710 had al
legedly made more than $1 million since 1952
4 See M onthly L abor Review, M arch 1959, pp. 301-302.
B See M onthly L ab o r Review, M arch 1958, p. 300.
0 See M onthly L ab o r Review, M arch 1957, p. 367.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
585
through excessive commissions collected by the
Dearborn Insurance Co. on union welfare poli
cies, plus salaries, Christmas bonuses, and vaca
tion allowances. (The $1 million allegedly in
volved did not include allowances for expenses.)
Two of the men mentioned—John T. O’Brien (an
international vice president as well as secretarytreasurer of Local 710) and Frank T. Brown (for
mer president and now president emeritus of the
local)—were reportedly involved as secret share
holders in the insurance company that collected
the commissions. Mr. O’Brien, when questioned
about his finances, also invoked the Fifth
Amendment.
On March 12, L.N.D. Wells, Jr., the unionnominated member of the Teamsters monitor
board,5 announced his resignation. Mr. Wells ob
served that “the affairs of the Teamsters union
are greatly improved over those prevailing when
the present administration took office.” However,
he listed several necessary improvements which
remain to be made in the union constitution. He
was succeeded by Daniel D. Maher, a Washing
ton, D.C., lawyer.
Ladies’ Garment Workers. In New York, a Fed
eral grand jury on March 11 indicted a local of
the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’
Union, three trade associations (including the
National Association of Blouse Manufacturers
previously mentioned), and five individuals on
charges of conspiring to restrain and monopolize
trade and commerce in the manufacture of wom
en’s blouses in New York, New Jersey, Connecti
cut, and Pennsylvania. The alleged conspiracy,
the Government indictment said, violated provi
sions of the Sherman Anti-trust Act by fixing
prices and allocating customers. David Dubinsky, president of the ILGWU, said the indictment
was antilabor and “a return to the days of the
1890’s when the Sherman Act was used not to bust
trusts but to cripple unions.” Mr. Dubinsky said
the union’s only interest was “to put an end to
substandard labor conditions” ; furthermore, he
declared that the Federal Trade Commission had
previously “upheld very similar agreements in the
garment industry as legal under the antitrust
laws.” 6
586
George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO,
also charged that the indictment represented an
attempt to use antitrust legislation against unions
and against the ILGWU in particular for “en
gaging in traditional practices whose only pur
pose is the protection of union wages, hours, and
working conditions.”
The National Labor Relations Board in Febru
ary had found the ILGWU and its Pennsylvania
Joint Board guilty of unfair labor practices
against the Slate Belt Apparel Contractors As
sociation, charging that the union had refused to
deal with a former local union official who subse
quently became a bargaining representative for
the employers’ group. The Board had ruled the
ILGWU was illegally interfering with the em
ployers’ right to select their bargaining represent
ative, and ordered the union to drop its ban
against negotiating with management representa
tives who are former union officials. President
Dubinsky asserted that the Board’s decision would
impair the union’s ability to enforce ethical prac
tices standards as between business and labor; he
said the union would make a court fight against
the order.
Mergers. Further steps toward amalgamation of
the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association and
the Brotherhood of Marine Engineers, first re
vealed in October 1957,7 were taken in March as
members of the two unions began a mail referen
dum vote on the proposal to merge. The voting
period was to run until late May at which time
the results were scheduled to be announced at the
MEBA’s convention in Miami, Fla. The execu
tive boards of both unions had previously voted
their approval in late February. Under the
merger terms, the BME will be incorporated into
Local 101 of the MEBA, which has jurisdiction
over the Great Lakes area where the BME mem
bership is principally located; bargaining will be
conducted by Local 101 for all of the contracts
held by the BME.
In the entertainment field, Actors’ Equity As
sociation and the American Guild of Musical
Artists appointed a committee to study the pos
sibility of a merger. The study was undertaken
as a result of previous efforts to revise a long
standing jurisdictional agreement. Both unions
are affiliates of Associated Actors and Artists.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
Indictments. Two officials of a local of the Re
tail, Wholesale and Department Store Union
were indicted by a Hudson County (N.J.) grand
jury on charges of accepting bribes from the per
sonnel director of C. F. Mueller Co. of Jersey
City, N.J. Named in the indictments were
Anthony Auriema and George Braverman, presi
dent and business agent, respectively, of Local
262. Counsel for the accused said the charge of
bribery to insure labor peace was “ridiculous be
cause the contract with Mueller’s is . . . one of
the most difficult in the industry for manage
ment.”
In another indictment, Eugene C. James, sec
retary-treasurer of Local 46 of the independent
Laundry, Cleaning and Dye House Workers In
ternational Union, was on trial in Chicago in a
Federal district court on charges of income tax
evasion. The Laundry Workers Union was ex
pelled from the AFL-CIO in December 1957 on
the grounds that it had failed to remove corrupt
elements from its ranks ; Mr. James, former secre
tary-treasurer of the international union, had
previously been accused by the Senate Labor Sub
committee on Welfare and Pension Funds of be
ing involved in the embezzlement of almost $1
million in welfare funds.8
Legislative Developments
Enactment by the Indiana legislature of two
bills on March 7 liberalized State unemployment
benefits and amended State laws to permit con
current receipt of private supplemental unemploy
ment benefits (SUB) and State benefits. The law
on SUB. amended one passed in 1957 which re
quired all State unemployment compensation pay
ments to be reduced by the amount of SUB re
ceived. State unemployment compensation was
raised to a weekly maximum of $36 (from $33)
and the maximum duration period was extended
from 20 to 26 weeks. Union pressure to have
the State’s “right-to-work” law repealed was not
successful, however.
The Ohio legislature similarly authorized con
current receipts of full State unemployment com
pensation along with SUB. More than 400,000
7 See M onthly L abor Review, December 1957, p. 1503.
8 See M onthly L abor Review, F eb ru ary 1957, p. 209.
587
DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
union members in Ohio are reportedly covered by
SUB agreements; in some cases, these funds had
been held in escrow pending court litigation,9 and
in others, attempts had been made to work out an
alternative benefit arrangement. North Carolina
and Virginia are the only remaining States having
a specific legislative ban on simultaneous pay
ments, but a court challenge of simultaneous pay
ments of SUB and State unemployment compen
sation has been pending in California.
In Colorado, the State’s weekly unemployment
compensation schedule was liberalized to provide
maximum benefits equaling 60 percent of the
eligible employee’s normal pay or 50 percent of
the average weekly pay in the State, whichever is
lower. Currently, the statewide average pay in
covered employment is $84; the previous ceiling
on weekly benefits was set at $35. A 1958 tem
porary increase in the maximum duration of un9 See M onthly L ab o r Review, F e b ru a ry 1959, pp. 177-178.
employment benefits from 26 to 32y2 weeks was
made permanent.
In early March, more than 3,000 building
tradesmen met in Washington, D.C., at a confer
ence sponsored by the AFL-CIO Building and
Construction Trades Department, to develop a
legislative program. Their proposals included en
dorsement of Title VI of the Kennedy-Ervin bill
that would legalize prehire agreements in the con
struction industry, validate employer contribu
tions to apprentice training and pooled vacation
funds, and reduce the 30-day grace period in
union shop agreements in the construction indus
try to 7 days. Other union proposals called for
broadening the Davis-Bacon Act to include fringe
benefits in the determination of prevailing wages
to be paid by firms handling Government con
struction contracts, a “bold and serviceable hous
ing program,” and Federal aid for construction
of schools and for raising teachers’ salaries.
Union Conventions, June 16 to July 15, 1959
D a te
June 22
June 26
July 6
July 13
July 15
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
O r g a n iz a tio n
.Retail Clerks International Association
Communications Workers of America
American Newspaper Guild
National Federation of Salaried Unions (Ind.)
International Brotherhood of Operative Potters
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen
Airline Communications Employees Association (Ind.)
P la c e
Los Angeles, Calif.
Cleveland, Ohio
New York, N.Y.
.Atlantic City, N.J.
Montreal, Canada
.St. Paul, Minn.
Denver. Colo.
Book Reviews
and Notes
E ditor’s N ote.—Listing
of a 'publication in this
section is for record and reference only and
does not constitute an endorsement of point
of view or advocacy of use.
Special Reviews
Patterns of Mobility, 1910-1950—The Norristown
Study: A Method for Measuring Migration
and Occupational Mobility in the Community.
By Sidney Goldstein. Philadelphia, Uni
versity of Pennsylvania Press, 1958. 254 pp.,
bibliography. $7.50.
This book, a product of a research program
sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, pre
sents a new method for measuring historical mi
gration flows and occupational movements in
American cities and applies this method to an
analysis of mobility patterns of male workers in
Norristown, Pa., during the period 1910 to 1950.
About half of this study is devoted to method
ology. The more conventional research ap
proaches to analysis of population and occupa
tional changes in American communities have
included use of decennial census statistics, sample
household surveys, or case history studies. None
of these methods permits the reconstruction of
gross migration or occupational movements over
a period of years in the past. The author demon
strates that these gross movements can be esti
mated, in the case of the adult male population,
through the use of a sample drawn from com
mercial city directories, in conjunction with birth,
death, and school records.
The resulting analysis adds a new dimension to
the understanding of population and labor face
dynamics at the community level. It has per
mitted measurement of the relative contributions
of inmigration, natural population growth, and
internal occupational shifts in meeting the chang
ing labor demands of the Norristown economy
588
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
over a longrun period. The patterns of occupa
tional shifts revealed by this study also provide
insight as to secular changes in rates and direction
of occupational movement in a particular com
munity.
The “directory-vital statistics” method devel
oped by Dr. Goldstein suffers from some necessary
limitations—the geographical limitation to the
city limits of Norristown and the limitation in
population coverage to adult males, 18 years and
over. For these and other reasons, it is doubtful
whether this approach can prove a satisfactory
substitute for the sample population survey tech
nique of the Bureau of the Census in measuring
current population and labor force movements.
It does, however, offer a promising avenue of his
torical research into the comparatively unexplored
field of migratory and occupational flows at the
community level and from this standpoint de
serves careful study by labor market analysts and
urban sociologists.
— H arold W ool
Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Manpower Personnel and Research
The Long View and the Short—Studies in Economic
Theory and Policy. By Jacob Viner. Glen
coe, 111., Free Press, 1958. 462 pp. $7.50.
A group of students and friends have published
this collection of essays in honor of Jacob Viner’s
65th birthday. These studies, which appeared
over a period of three decades, include 12 papers
collected under the title Economic Theory and
Policy and 8 papers in the field of History of
Economic Thought, followed by an address on
Scholarship in Graduate Training, a number of
shorter book reviews, and finally, a complete list
of Jacob Viner’s publications.
Usually, a reviewer is expected to summarize
the content of a book, to identify its main con
tribution to the literature on the topic, and to
criticize any weaknesses or faults he may find.
Such a review of this volume would require
nothing less than a critical appraisal of the lifetime
work of Jacob Viner. This task would not lie
within the competence of this reviewer, even if
unlimited space were available.
I can only say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading
(or rereading) these essays. The selection shows
the breadth of Viner’s scholarship, his concern
with government policies, and the charm and at
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
times biting sharpness of his writing. It helps to
identify his position in the modern history of
economic thought.
Viner is a conservative in his economics which
means that he tries to adapt the traditional clas
sical teaching to existing reality. He facetiously
calls himself a reactionary, but he is much too
realistic in his thinking to rigidly adhere to dogmas
such as that of laissez faire. In his paper Adam
Smith and Laissez-faire, which is my favorite in
this collection, he shows the development in Adam
Smith’s thinking from the deistic dogmas of the
“invisible hand” to the much more pragmatic
Wealth of Nations. Viner’s interpretation makes
Smith appear almost as a forerunner of the “new
economics.”
In a few cases, Viner goes out of his way to
show that classical theories are not necessarily
refuted by the existing reality. When contrasting
concentration of corporate power with the classical
ideal of free competition, he refers to the “unre
strained grant of corporate charters” as one of
the reasons for the development of concentration
of economic power. This is meant to bring reality
into accord with the classical teaching that monop
olistic developments are the result of special
privileges granted by the State.
While Viner delights in discovering modern
traits in early writers, he is very impatient with
the modern representatives of the “new economics”
who would throw the classical teaching overboard
as irrelevant. He is very critical of J. M. Keynes
as the economist in contrast to his admiration for
Lord Keynes as the statesman. He reviewed the
UN experts’ report on National and International
Measures for Full Employment (1949) in an
article entitled “Full Employment at Whatever
Cost.” I happen to agree with Viner in much of
his criticism. But that article is one example in
which he permitted his critical faculties to run
unrestrained. He is “unsympathetic” with respect
to the means proposed by the experts to reach full
employment. Viner is, however, also critical of
regarding full employment as a primary objective
and is willing to accept “failure to attain it by a
significant margin” although in this case he “would
have the unemployed generously taken care of.”
Whether one agrees or not with the policy
positions Viner has taken at various times, one
must respect the manner in which he states his
value judgments on the one hand and his economic
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
589
reasoning on the other. In an early (1922)
essay, Viner said, “The economist should not
refrain from making his special contribution to
decisions of public importance because of a doc
trinaire adherence to an academic standard of
scientific uninterestedness more appropriate—or
less wasteful—in the physical laboratory than in
the field of the social sciences.” Viner has made
important contributions to important public de
cisions in the past and one can look forward to
his making further contributions in the future.
— G erhard C olm
National Planning Association
Nationalization in Britain: The End of a Dogma.
By R. Kelf-Cohen. New York, St. Martin’s
Press, Inc., 1959. 310 pp., bibliography,
$5.50.
Between 1945 and 1949, a Labor Party Gov
ernment in Great Britain enacted a series of
measures nationalizing the coal industry, various
branches of inland transport, electric power, gas,
and iron and steel. In 1953, a Conservative Gov
ernment reversed the nationalization action in the
iron and steel industry and a branch of transport.
This volume, by R. Kelf-Cohen, a retired civil
servant who was associated with the administra
tion of these nationalized industries, is apparently
the first serious attempt to appraise at length and
in point the approximately 10 years’ experience
with the nationalization program. Mr. KelfCohen, who describes himself as one who was
once enamored with Socialism, is thoroughly dis
illusioned with nationalization, which he describes
as largely a failure.
He attributes this failure to a variety of fac
tors but gives special emphasis to: (1) lack of
effective advance planning to meet the practical
problems involved in a change of ownership and
control; (2) the serious state of deterioration of
these industries at the time of nationalization;
(3) failure to recognize the necessity for an able
managerial staff; and (4) most important, the
failure of the trade unions in the nationalized in
dustries to adapt their traditional points of view
to the new situation, particularly by cooperating
with efforts to improve operations.
In the light of this judgment, the author is
shocked by the recent Labor Party discussion of
590
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
renationalizing the iron and steel industry and
long-distance truck haulage, together with several
new proposals to control other private sectors of
the economy without nationalization.
The volume appears to be a competent account
of the nationalization program of Great Britain
and makes very interesting reading. Any serious
proposals for further nationalization in Great Bri
tain will have to deal with this critique of the
past.
— H arry W eiss
Mobilization Coordinator
U.S. Department of Labor
ington, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Standards, 1958. 24 pp. Free.
[P u b l ic ]
P e r s o n n e l P a n o r a m a , 1 9 5 8 : I , P e r s o n n e l L e g is
l a tio n in th e 8 5 th C o n g r e s s. By Harvey Dean Brown ;
I I , U .S . S t a t e a n d L o c a l a n d C a n a d ia n D e v e lo p m e n ts .
By Keith Ocheltree. { I n Public Personnel Review,
Chicago, January 1959, pp. 5-19. $2.)
By Melvin J. Segal. { I n
Labor Law Journal, Chicago, March 1959, pp. 175179,202. $1.)
S e c o n d a r y B o y c o t t L o o p h o le s .
Manpower
F a r m L a b o r D e v e lo p m e n ts in 1958 a n d O u tlo o k f o r 1959.
By Albert L. Shostack. { I n Labor Market and Em
Employment and Unemployment
By William R. McIntyre. Wash
ington (1156 19th Street NW.), Editorial Research
Reports, 1959. 18 pp. (Vol. I, 1959, No. 1.) $2.
L a g in E m p lo y m e n t.
A n I n v e s t i g a ti o n
S t a t e W o r k m e n 's C o m p e n s a tio n L a w s — A C o m p a riso n
o f M a jo r P r o v is io n s . By Donald L. Ream. Wash
ployment Security, U.S. Department of Labor, Bu
reau of Employment Security, Washington, Febru
ary 1959, pp. 10-15. 30 cents, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.)
o f th e L o c a l E m p lo y m e n t M u ltip lie r .
By Fred Panzer. { I n Industrial Bulletin,
State Department of Labor, New York, February
1959, pp. 6-10.)
By Gerald Everett Thompson. { I n Review of Eco
nomics and Statistics, Harvard University, Cam
bridge, Mass., February 1959, pp. 61-67. $2.)
R ig h t P e o p le .
Atlanta, Georgia Department
of Labor, Employment Security Agency, 1958. 46 pp.
M a n p o w e r D e v e lo p m e n ts in
F a r m L a b o r in G e o rg ia .
Copenhagen, Statistiske Departement, 1958.
58 pp. ( Statistiske Meddelelser,
l.Rsekke, 170.Bind, 4.Haffte.) Kr.2.
A r b e jd s lg s h e d e n , 1957.
Industrial Relations
C a n a d a , 1958.
{ I n Labor
Gazette, Canadian Department of Labor, Ottawa,
February 1959, pp. 138-146. 50 cents; 25 cents in
Canada.)
E m p lo y m e n t F o r e c a s tin g a n d M a n p o w e r P o lic y in F ra n c e .
{ I n International Labor Review, Geneva, February
1959, pp. 189-203. 60 cents. Distributed in United
States by Washington Branch of ILO.)
o n I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s , 19 5 8 S e r ie s .
Ann
Arbor, University of Michigan, Bureau of Industrial
Relations, 1958. 247 pp. (Bull. 26.) $4.50, Publica
tions Distribution Service, University of Michigan.
A ddresses
O u ts ta n d in g
B ooks
in
I n d u s tr ia l
R e la tio n s ,
1958.
Princeton, N.J., Princeton University, Industrial Re
lations Section, March 1959. 4 pp. Selected Refer
ences, 86.) 30 cents.
E m p lo y m e n t R e la tio n s h ip s U n d e r th e Y u g o s la v S y s t e m
o f M a n a g e m e n t b y th e W o r k e r s . By Moma Markovic.
{ I n International Labor Review, Geneva, February
1959, pp. 141-157. 60 cents. Distributed in United
States by Washington Branch of ILO.)
Labor Law
A n n u a l D ig e s t o f S t a t e a n d F e d e r a l L a b o r L e g is la tio n ,
J a n u a r y 1 , 1 9 5 8 - D e c e m b e r 31, 1958.
By Maxine
Anderson. Washington, U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Standards, 1959. 70 pp. (Bull.
200.) 25 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Wash
ington.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Personnel Management and Practices
I n f o r m a tio n
a n d C o m m u n ic a tio n P r a c ti c e in I n d u s tr y .
Edited by T. E. R. Singer. New York, Reinhold
Publishing Corp., 1958. 304 pp. $8.75.
E x e c u tiv e M a n a g e m e n t
F r o m P e o p le . By
of
P e r s o n n e l— G e ttin g
R e s u lts
Edward C. Schleh. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958. 208 pp., bibliog
raphy. $5.95.
Washington, Bureau of
National Affairs, Inc., 1958. 13 pp. (Personnel Poli
cies Forum Survey 50.) $1.
R a is in g E m p lo y e e P r o d u c t iv i ty .
New
York, American Management Association, 1958. 155
pp. (Management Report 16.) $3.75; $2.50 to AMA
members.
P r o b le m s a n d P r a c ti c e s in I n d u s t r i a l R e la tio n s .
S u p e r v is o r S h o u ld K n o w .
By Lester R.
Bittel. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959.
451 pp., bibliography. $7.95.
W hat E very
591
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES
Wages, Salaries, and Hours of Work
Productivity
By Solomon Fabricant. New York, National Bureau of Economic Re
search, Inc., 1959. 49 pp. (Occasional Paper 63.) $1.
W a g e s a n d R e la t e d B e n e fits , 19 L a b o r M a r k e ts , 1 9 5 7 -5 8 —
E a r n in g s T r e n d s , I n t e r c i t y C o m p a r is o n s , O c c u p a
tio n a l E a r n in g s , S u p p le m e n ta r y P r a c tic e s . By Otto
By J. P. Davison
and others. London, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.,
1958. 306 pp. 35s.
Hollberg and Alexander N. Jarrell. Washington, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1959. 93 pp. (Bull. 1224-20.) 50 cents, Superintend
ent of Documents, Washington.
B a s ic F a c ts on P r o d u c t i v i t y C h a n g e.
P r o d u c t i v i t y a n d E c o n o m ic I n c e n tiv e s .
Rehabilitation
M in n e s o ta S t u d ie s in V o c a tio n a l R e h a b i li t a ti o n : I I , A
S t u d y o f R e f e r r a l I n f o r m a ti o n (Bull. 22, 31 pp.) ; I I I ,
A F o llo w -u p S t u d y o f P la c e m e n t S u c c e s s (Bull. 23,
28 pp.) ; I V , A S t u d y o f 1,637 D i v is io n o f V o c a tio n a l
R e h a b i li t a ti o n C o u n se le e s (Bull. 24, 44 pp.) ; V, M e th
o d o lo g ic a l P r o b le m s in R e h a b i li t a ti o n R e s e a r c h (Bull.
25, 32 pp.) ; V I, A S u r v e y o f th e P h y s i c a l l y H a n d i
c a p p e d in M in n e s o ta (Bull. 26, 57 pp.). Minneapolis,
O c c u p a tio n a l W a g e S u r v e y : D e n v e r , C olo., D e c e m b e r 1958
(Bull. 1240-7, 15 pp., 20 cents) ; P h ila d e lp h ia , P a ., N o
v e m b e r 195 8 (Bull. 1240-8, 25 pp., 30 cents). Wash
ington, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1959. Available from Superintendent of
Documents, Washington.
W a g e S t r u c t u r e : A u to D e a le r R e p a ir S h o p s , S u m m e r 1958.
University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center,
1958. Free.
By Harry F. Bonfils. Washington, U.S. Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1959. 32 pp.
(BLS Report 141.) Free.
R e h a b i li t a ti o n S e r v i c e s in C a n a d a — P a r t I I , P r o v in c ia l
a n d L o c a l P r o g r a m s . Ottawa, Canadian Department
U n io n W a g e P o li c y in H e a v y C o n s tr u c tio n : T h e S t. L a w
r e n c e S e a w a y . By Donald E. Cullen. ( I n American
of National Health and Welfare, Research and Sta
tistics Division, 1959. 222 pp., bibliography. (Health
Care Series, Memorandum 9.)
Economic Review, Menasha, Wis., March 1959, pp.
68-84, bibliography. $1.50.)
Unemployment Insurance
S ig n if ic a n t F in d in g s o n th e I m p a c t o f th e 1 9 5 7 -5 8 R e c e s
s io n m R e la t i o n to U n e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r a n c e . By
William Haber, Fedele F. Fauri, Wilbur J. Cohen.
Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, School of Social
Work, Coordinating Committee of Social Welfare
Research, 1959. 18 pp.
A d e q u a c y o f B e n e f its
U n d e r U n e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r a n c e .
Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Employment Security, 1958. 73 pp. (BES U-70 R.)
Free.
S t u d y o f th e P o s t E x h a u s tio n E x p e r ie n c e o f F lo r i d a U n
e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r a n c e C la im a n ts , O c to b e r 1, 1 9 5 5 S e p te m b e r 30, 1 9 5 6 . Tallahassee, Florida Industrial
Commission, 1958. 104 pp.
V o lu n ta r y Q u it D is q u a lif ic a tio n in U n e m p lo y m e n t I n s u r
a n c e — T h e I o w a E x p e r ie n c e . By Fred Slaviek. Iowa
City, State University of Iowa, College of Commerce,
Bureau of Labor and Management, 1958. 70 pp. (Re
search Series 20.) 50 cents.
A v a il a b l e f o r W o r k : T h e P e n n s y lv a n ia U n e m p lo y m e n t
C o m p e n s a tio n I n te r p r e t a t io n . By Earl Brubaker and
Monroe Newman. University Park, Pennsylvania
State University, College of Business Administration,
Bureau of Business Research, 1958. 26 pp., bibliogra
phy. (Bull. 61.) 50 cents.
5 0 2 3 2 4 -5 9 -
-8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
E x p e r ie n c e W i t h a C o s t-o f-L iv in g P a y P la n . By William
Monat. ( I n Public Personnel Review, Chicago, Janu
ary 1959, pp. 43-48. $2.)
Miscellaneous
By Richard W. Lindholm and
Paul Driscoll. New York, Harcourt, Brace and Co.,
1959. xii, 499 pp., bibliography.
O u r A m e r ic a n E c o n o m y .
By Clark Lee Allen,
James M. Buchanan, Marshall R. Colberg. New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959. 501 pp. 2d ed.
$6.50.
P r ic e s , In c o m e , a n d P u b lic P o lic y .
B io g r a p h y o f a n I d e a l : T h e D ia m o n d A n n i v e r s a r y H is to r y
o f th e F e d e r a l C iv il S e r v ic e .
By Charles Cooke.
Washington, U.S. Civil Service Commission, 1959. 170
pp. 55 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Wash
ington.
By Oliver C. Cox. New
York, Philosophical Library, Inc., 1959. 500 pp., bibli
ography. $7.50.
T h e F o u n d a tio n s o f C a p ita lis m .
Warsaw, Central Statistical
Office of the Polish People’s Republic, 1958. 602 pp.
R o c z n ik S t a t y s t y c z n y , 1958.
R e p o r t on P r ic e s , W a g e s , a n d L a b o r S t a t i s t i c s o f N e w
Z e a la n d , 1957. Wellington, New Zealand Department
of Statistics, 1958. 96 pp.
Current Labor Statistics
CONTENTS
A.—Employment
594 Table A -l.
Estimated total labor force classified by employment status, hours
worked, and sex
595 Table A-2. Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry
599 Table A-3. Production or nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establish
ments, by industry
Table A-4. Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by State 1
Table A-5. Employees in manufacturing, by State 1
603 Table A-6. Insured unemployment under State programs and the program of
unemployment compensation for Federal employees, by geographic
division and State
604 Table A-7. Unemployment insurance and employment service programs, selected
operations
B.—Labor Turnover
Table B -l. Labor turnover rates in manufacturing 2
Table B-2. Labor turnover rates, by industry2
C.—Earnings and Hours
605 Table C -l.
2.
620 Table C—
621
Table C—3.
621 Table C-4.
622 Table C-5.
623 Table C-6.
Table C-7.
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers
by industry
Average weekly earnings, gross and net spendable, of production
workers in manufacturing industries, in current and 1947-49 dollars
Indexes of aggregate weekly man-hours in industrial and construc
tion activities
Indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls in industrial and construction
activities
Average hourly earnings, gross and excluding overtime, of production
workers in manufacturing, by major industry group
Gross average weekly hours and average overtime hours of production
workers in manufacturing, by major industry group
Hours and gross earnings of production workers in manufacturing, by
State and selected area 1
1 This table is included in the March, June, September, and December issues of the Review.
3
The labor turnover tables (B-l and B-2) have been dropped from the Review pending a general revision of the Current Labor Statistics section because,
beginning with January 1959 data, the categories for which labor turnover rates are published differ from those previously published. Current data are avail
able m onthly in Employment and Earnings or may be obtained upon request.
592
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
593
CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
CONTENTS— Continued
D.—Consumer and Wholesale Prices
624
625
626
627
627
Table D -l. Consumer Price Index—United States city average: All items and
major groups of items
Table D-2. Consumer Price Index—United States city average: Food, housing,
apparel, transportation, and their subgroups
Table D-3. Consumer Price Index—United States city average: Special groups
of items
Table D-4. Consumer Price Index—United States city average: Retail prices
and indexes of selected foods
Table D-5. Consumer Price Index—All items indexes, by city
Table D-6. Consumer Price Index—Food and its subgroups, by city
Table D-7. Indexes of wholesale prices, by major groups
Table D-8. Indexes of wholesale prices, by group and subgroup of commodities
Table D-9. Indexes of wholesale prices for special commodity groupings
Table D-10. Indexes of wholesale prices, by stage of processing
Table D -ll, Indexes of wholesale prices, by durability of product
E.—Work Stoppages
628 Table E -l.
Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes
F.—Building and Construction
Table F -l.
629 Table F-2.
Table F-3.
Table F-4.
Table F—
5.
630 Table F-6.
Expenditures for new construction
Contract awards: Public construction, by ownership and type of
construction
Building-permit activity: Valuation, by private-public ownership,
class of construction, and type of building
Building-permit activity: Valuation, by class of construction and
geographic region
Building-permit activity: Valuation, by metropolitan-nonmetropolitan
location and State
Number of new permanent nonfarm dwelling units started, by owner
ship and location, and construction cost
G.—Work Injuries
Table G -l. Injury-frequency rates for selected manufacturing industries
# This table is included in the January, April, July, and October issues of the Review.
Current figures for the tables on the Consumer Price Index, con
struction expenditures, and building-permit activity were not available
when this issue went to press, because of the advanced publication
date.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
594
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
A.—Employment
T able A -l.
Estimated total labor force classified by employment status, hours worked, and sex
[In thousands]
Estimated number of persons 14 years of age and over 1
1959
Employment status
Mar.
Feb.
1958
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.*
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
Annual average
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1958
1957*
Total, both sexes
Total labor force............................ ........ 70,768 70,062 70,027 70, 701 71,112 71,743 71,375 72,703 73,104 73,049 71,603 70,681 70.158
71,284
70,746
67, 510
5,198
1,753
1,153
845
1,045
401
62,311
57,239
44,206
7,789
3,346
1,899
6,072
2,945
1, 373
503
251
68, 647
4,681
1,833
959
438
785
667
63,966
58,122
44,873
7,324
3, 047
2,876
5, 844
3,827
1,361
457
199
67,946
2,936
1, 485
650
240
321
239
65,011
58,789
46,238
6,953
2,777
2,821
6,222
4,197
1, 413
416
196
Total labor force................ ..................... 48, 360 48,073 47,981 48,190 48, 418 48, 756 48,759 50,017 50,359 50,005 48,858 48,396 48,126
Civilian labor force------------------------- 68,189
Unem ploym ent-................................. 4,362
Unemployed 4 weeks or less------ 1,365
823
Unemployed 5-10 weeks _____
629
Unemployed 11-14 weeks -------767
Unemployed 15-26 w eeks.- —___
777
Unemployed over 26 weeks------Employment....................................... 63, 828
Nonagricultural ____________ 58, 625
Worked 35 hours or more----- 46, 292
Worked 15-34 hours------------ 6. 915
Worked 1-14 hours------------- 3,496
With a job but not at work A 1,920
Agricultural _ ______________ 5,203
Worked 35 hours or m ore.. . 3,226
Worked 15-34 hours----------- 1,273
523
Worked 1-14 hours...............
With a Job but not at work A
181
67, 471
4,749
1,600
1,176
509
727
737
62, 722
58, 030
44, 968
7, 745
3,424
1, 894
4,692
2, 677
1,217
479
318
67,430
4,724
1,861
1,044
444
557
818
62,706
58,013
46,044
6,880
3, 288
1,801
4,693
2,772
1,132
504
285
68,081
4,108
1,706
771
328
520
782
63, 973
59,102
47i 076
6,960
3,313
1, 753
4,871
2,845
1,266
522
238
68,485
3,833
1,632
695
272
499
735
64,653
58,958
44,114
9,915
3,146
1,783
5,695
3, 750
1,369
390
187
69, 111
3,805
1,522
667
225
581
811
65,306
58,902
46,522
7, 221
3,062
2,094
6, 404
4,690
1, 212
376
126
68,740
4,111
1,569
644
436
673
888
64,629
58, 438
40, 719
6, 381
2, 751
2, 586
6,191
4.263
1,348
436
144
70,067
4, 699
1,716
933
399
678
972
65,367
58, 746
44, 440
6,099
2, 522
5,684
6,621
4,668
1,339
405
209
70,473
5,294
2,069
1,198
357
798
872
65,179
58,461
42,289
6,336
2,749
7,087
6,718
4,442
1, 564
485
228
70, 418
5,437
2,569
875
372
931
689
64,981
58,081
45,352
6,668
2,863
3,198
6,900
4,861
1, 533
399
107
68,965
4,904
1, 778
930
444
1,146
605
64,061
57, 789
45,819
7,147
3,224
1,799
6, 272
4,452
1,370
348
103
68,027
5,120
1,725
933
577
1,301
685
62,907
67,349
44,166
7,840
3,190
2,153
5,558
3,561
1,390
444
162
Males
48, 802
48, 649
46, 510
3,743
41, 767
37,340
30, 552
4,087
1.427
1,273
4,427
2,777
1,000
420
230
46,197
3,155
43,042
38,240
31,390
3,736
1,329
1,784
4,802
3, 413
857
353
179
45,882
1,893
43, 989
38,952
32,546
3,461
1,197
1,748
5.037
3, 716
842
309
171
Total labor force___________________ 22 408 21, 989 22,046 22, 510 22,695 22,987 22,617 22,686 22, 745 23,043 22,745 22,286 22,032
22, 482
22,097
Civilian labor force _______________ 22,376
Unemployment-.................................. lj 391
E m p lo y m e n t.
20,985
N o'nagricul tural______________ 20,287
Worked 35 hours or more___ 13,985
Worked 15-34 hours_______ 3, 586
Worked 1-14 hours................. 1,992
With a job but not at work A
725
Agricultural ____________ ____
698
Worked 35 hours or more___
225
Worked 15-34 hours_______
367
Worked 1-14 hours________
95
With a job but not at work A
10
22, 451
L 526
20 924
19,882
13,483
3,589
1, 718
1,093
1,042
414
504
104
20
22,064
1,043
21,021
19, 837
13, 692
3,491
1,680
1,073
1,184
482
571
107
25
Civilian labor force____________ ____ 45, 813
Unemployment__________________ 2, 971
Employment____________________ 42, 842
Nonagricultural______________ 38,338
Worked 35 hours or more----- 32,307
Worked 15-34 hours_______ 3,330
Worked 1-14 hours................ 1, 504
With a job but not at work A 1,194
Agricultural. _______________ 4,505
Worked 35 hours or more___ 3,001
Worked 15-34 hours_______
906
Worked 1-14 hours.......... ......
428
With a job but not at work A
172
45, 514
3,359
42,156
37,991
31,433
3,882
1,456
1,220
4,165
2,509
928
425
303
45,417
3,282
42,135
37,981
32,005
3,434
1,399
1,143
4,154
2,582
854
448
270
45, 601
2, 902
42, 699
38, 464
32,423
3,418
1,414
1,210
4, 235
2, 644
933
443
216
45,822
2,504
43,318
38,614
30,966
5,160
1,294
1,195
4,704
3,362
866
308
168
46,155
2,454
43,701
38,693
32,547
3,505
1,261
1,378
5,008
3,961
660
281
106
46,155
2,615
43, 539
38,623
32, 714
3,119
1,122
1,669
4,916
3,691
787
313
126
47,412
3,081
44,331
39,040
31,608
3,065
1,154
3, 214
5,291
4,058
742
307
184
47,759
3,513
44,247
38,901
30,078
3,362
1,312
4,149
5,346
3,906
912
330
198
47,406
3,521
43,884
38,588
32,141
3,418
1.246
1,782
5,296
4,214
733
261
89
46,252
3,266
42,986
37, 962
31.862
3, 555
1,395
1,151
5,024
3,930
753
247
93
45, 774
3,492
42,282
37, 578
30,867
4,027
1.395
1,289
4,704
3,281
947
329
147
Females
21, 957
1,391
20, 566
20! 039
13, 534
3,863
1,968
673
527
168
290
54
15
22,013
l, 442
20, 571
20,032
14,039
3,446
1,889
658
539
190
278
56
15
22, 479
1,206
21, 273
2<k 638
14, 653
3,542
1,900
544
635
201
333
80
21
22, 663
L 329
21,334
20,343
13,147
4, 755
1,852
589
991
388
503
82
19
1 Estimates are based on information obtained from a sample of households
and are subject to sampling variability. Data relate to the calendar week
ending nearest the 15th day of the month. The employed total includes all
wage and salary workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid workers in
family-operated enterprises. Persons in institutions are not included.
Because of rounding, sums of individual items do not necessarily equal
totals.
* Beginning with January 1957, two groups numbering between 200,000 and
300,000 which were formerly classified as employed (under “with a job but
not at work”) were assigned to diSerent classifications, mostly to the unem
ployed. For a full explanation, see Monthly Report on the Labor Force,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
22,956
Ï, 351
21, 605
20, 209
13, 975
3,717
1,801
716
1,396
729
552
95
21
22,586
A 496
21. 090
19,815
14,006
3,263
1,629
918
1,275
572
561
123
18
22,655
1, 619
21 036
19,706
12,833
3,035
1,368
2,471
1,330
610
597
98
25
22,714
il 781
20,933
19', 560
12,211
2,974
1,437
2,939
1,373
536
652
156
29
23,012
1,915
21,096
19,493
13,210
3,250
1,617
1,416
1,603
647
801
138
18
22, 713
1,638
21,075
19,826
13. 757
3,592
1,829
648
1,249
522
617
100
10
22,254
1,629
20,625
19; 770
13,299
3,813
1,795
864
855
280
444
115
15
22,000
1, 456
20, 544
19; 899
13,654
3,701
1,919
625
645
169
373
83
20
February 1957 (Current Population Reports, Labor Force, Series P-57,
No. 176).
1 Survey week contained legal holiday.
* Includes persons who had a job or business but who did not work during
the survey week because of illness, bad weather, vacation, or labor dispute.
Prior to January 1957, also included were persons on layoff with definite
instructions to return to work within 30 days of layoff and persons who had
new jobs to which they were scheduled to report within 30 days. Most of
the persons in these groups have, since that time, been classified as unem
ployed.
Souses: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
595
A.—EMPLOYMENT
T a ble
A-2.
Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1
[In thousands]
Annual
average
1958
1959
Industry
Mar.2 Feb 2 Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
Total employees............................................. 50,812 50, 306 50,310 51,935 51,432 51,136 51, 237 50,576 50,178 50,413 49,949 49, 726 49,690 52,162 51, 766
687
92.8
Mining....................... ...................................
M etal_____________________________
Iron_____________________________
Copper___________________________
T-e.ad and zinc
Anthracite_________________________
Bituminous coal_____________________
176.8
Crude-petroleum and natural-gas production_________ ________ ______
Petroleum and natural-gas production
(except contract services)__ _______
Nonmetallic mining and quarrying..........
103.9
Contract construction_________ _______ _
Nonbuilding construction.___________
Highway and street construction_____
Other nonbuildlng construction...........
Building construction________________
General contractors . _________ .
Special-trade contractors____________
Plumbing and heating____________
Painting and decorating____ ______
Electrical work__________________
Other special-trade contractors_____
2,420
694
93.4
31.0
30. 2
12.5
704
93. 6
30.9
30.2
12.7
713
93.4
30.3
30.2
12.7
712
93.7
31.2
29.6
12.1
708
90.6
31.9
27.5
11.1
711
90.7
31.8
28.4
11.4
708
88.8
29.9
27.7
11.5
705
90.3
30. 4
27.1
12.1
717
92.9
30.4
28.2
13.3
711
91.7
28.7
28.2
13.7
716
91.2
27.6
28.1
13.9
733
95.9
31.3
28.9
14.1
809
111.2
38.9
32.6
16.7
807
108.8
35.1
33.3
17.4
18.0
188.0
19.5
192.4
19.6
192.2
19.5
190.5
19.3
189.1
18.5
187.2
18.1
184.5
19.4
179.6
19.2
190.1
20.0
192.2
19.6
199.0
22.8
206.3
28.4
230.0
29.3
228.6
292.7
296.3
300.7
296.7
296.6
301.5
304.7
302.9
303.2
297.8
298.8
302.6
326.2
324.8
180.4
181. 1
182.7
182.9
184.0
187.8
190.4
190.8
190.4
187.8
188.7
189.3
193.8
192.3
101.9
102.6
107.3
111.2
112.4
113.0
111.6
112.4
111.8
109.5
107.6
105.0
113.3
115.2
2,251 2,343 2,486 2,784 2,887 2,927 2,955 2,882 2,806 2,685 2,493 2,316 2,808 2,929
520
439
586
593
415
437
652
672
670
656
647
611
506
605
164.0 175.7 217.0 286.7 317.3 328.4 326.1 318.1 311.1 280.5 214.7 162.6 250.1 257.9
251.0 261.6 289.0 318.1 335.1 343.5 343.6 337. 7 335.8 330.0 305.2 276.2 335.6 335 3
1,836 1,906 1,980 2,179 2,235 2, 255 2,285 2. 226 2,159 2,074 1,973 1,877 2,222 2,336
620.5 650. 8 677.8 769.0 789.2 802.1 825. 0 811.0 789. 4 764.0 720.9 688.4 869.3 970.0
1, 215.8 1, 255. 3 1,302.5 1, 410.3 1, 445.3 1,453.0 1,459. 5 1,414.9 1,369.8 1, 309.9 1, 252.0 1,188. 6 1,352. 7 1. 366 0
287.9 295.8 308.6 315.3 323.7 321.9 318.7 311.6 299.6 285.9 282.3 284.7 321.7 328.7
140.7 147.8 163.8 181.6 189.4 193.5 200.7 197.4 180.4 171.2 152.5 139.0 164.2 170 9
169.8 170.9 177.4 179.3 183.9 187. 1 182.2 173.9 166.9 162.6 160.8 163.2 188.9 186 2
617. 4 640.8 652.7 734.1 748.3 750. 5 757.9 732.0 722.9 690.2 656.4 601.7 677.9 680.2
15,925 15,772 15,674 15,749 15,795 15,536 15,755 15,462 15,161 15,206 15,023 15,104 15.355 16,782 16,903
Manufacturing ......................... ...... ........ .
Durable goods..................................... 9,180 9, 063 8,990 8,989 8, 982 8, 663 8, 814 8, 571 8,496 8, 564 8,480 8, 564 8,742 9,821 9.835
Nondurable goods________________ 6,745 6,709 6,684 6, 760 6, 813 6,873 6,941 0,891 6,665 6, 642 6, 543 6, 540 6,613 6,961 7,068
Durable ooods
Ordnance and accessories_____________
Lumber and wood products (except
furniture)__________________ ____
Logging camps and contractors.............
Sawmills and planing mills__________
Millwork, plywood, and prefabricated
structural wood products_________
Wooden containers_________________
Miscellaneous wood products________
Furniture and fixtures________________
Household furniture________________
Office, public-building, and professional furniture__________________
Partitions, shelving, lockers, and fixtures__ ________________________
Screens, blinds, and miscellaneous
furniture and fixtures_____________
Stone, clay, and glass products________
Flat glass_______________ ________
Glass and glassware, pressed or blown
Glass products made of purchased glass.
Gem eut, hydraulic
Structural clay products._____ ______
Pottery and related products___ _____
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster prodU C tS —
______________________
___________
Cut-stone and stone products................
Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral
products
135.1
136.5
137.3
136.1
133.9
129.2
130.4
128.5
127.2
125.4
123.5
122.8
121.9
129.3
131.9
617.4
609.3
80.3
302.8
612.4
81.4
302.7
630.3
89.4
309.8
645.2
96.2
317.2
659.3
100.3
324.5
655.1
99.0
324.4
645.7
94.7
323.7
637.0
92.8
320.0
643.3
100.2
318.4
606.6
81.1
307.1
585.1
71.6
296.7
579.9
69.0
295.3
654.6
87.1
331.6
735 6
108.0
378. 6
128. 3
43.7
54.2
130. 2
44.3
53.8
132. 8
44.8
53.5
133. 4
44.9
53.5
135.1
45.7
53.7
133.6
45. 2
52.9
131.4
43.6
52.3
128.0
44.6
51.6
127.0
45. 6
52.1
121.3
45.2
51.9
120.4
44.1
52.3
118.7
44.2
52.7
128.7
49.7
57.5
135.7
54.5
58.8
376.9
275.2
374.4
272.4
369.8
267.5
373.5
271.1
374.3
271.7
369.9
266.4
360.2
258.4
345.5
248.6
346.4
246.5
343.0
244.7
343.9
245.9
351.1
251.0
375.6
265.9
380.1
267.2
44.3
44.6
44.8
45.0
44.8
45.6
44.5
41.2
42.3
41.9
43.1
43.7
48.0
48.4
33.9
33.9
34.5
37.9
37.9
—
378.5
33.8
—
531.7
34.1
34.2
34.2
34.5
35.0
34.8
33.7
34.3
23.6
23.3
23.3
23.2
23.3
22.9
22.5
22.0
23.3
22.5
21.0
21.9
23.8
26.6
509.5
24. 3
95.3
17.7
38. 6
68.6
45.3
507.2
23.5
93.7
17.4
39. 4
70.1
44.6
519.0
23.3
96.0
17.3
41.7
74.2
45.1
522.1
22.4
96. 4
17.3
42.3
75.1
45.3
519.4
16.4
97.6
17.3
42.8
76.0
44.7
535.0
31.9
98.9
16.7
43.1
75.9
43.9
526.3
30.3
96.9
16.0
42.6
76.1
42.6
519.4
28.3
97.3
15.6
42.6
75.2
42.1
513.4
27.7
95.9
15.4
43 2
73.0
41.9
#01.8
26.3
93.6
15.1
42.7
71.2
41.9
498.5
27.3
92.8
15.3
41.2
70.0
44.0
499.1
28.2
93.8
15.7
40.1
69.0
44.9
552, 5
34.7
98.8
17.9
42.0
80.4
49.8
563.3
35.1
95 9
17.8
43 6
86.6
54.1
107. 5
17.7
107.1
17.9
110.1
18.3
112.6
18.5
114.1
19.0
116.3
19.0
115.4
18.3
112.9
18.7
110.8
18.4
107.5
17.9
103. 5
18.3
101.2
17.8
112.0
19.0
116 2
19 5
94.5
93.5
93.0
92.2
91.5
89.3
88. 1
86.7
87.1
85.6
86.1
88.4
97.9
94.5
Primary metal industries_____________ 1,226. 7 1,194. 8 1,165. 5 1,155.4 1,139. 7 1,107. 7 1,103.3 1,073.2 1,060. 9 1,070. 5 1,053.4 1,065.6 1,104.0 1,309. 7 1,312. 6
Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling
m ills..._____ ___________________
592. 6 569. 3 564.2 557. 9 554.5 540.7 525.4 516. 5 523.9 508.1 509.8 528.9 642.7 630.2
214.4 210. 8 208.2 203.5 188.3 194.1 185.8 189.0 189.6 189.7 193.9 200.4 233.8 243.0
Iron and steel foundries___ _________
Primary smelting and refining of non69.0
57.1
53.4
53.7
53.0
68.1
67 8
53.5
53.8
55.3
54.9
54.9
54.3
55.1
ferrous metals___________________
Secondary smelting and refining of
11.5
11.1
11.3
13.2
14 0
11.4
10.9
10.9
11.3
11.9
11.9
11.8
11.8
11.5
nonferrous metals__________ _____
Rolling, drawing, and alloying of non110.3 110.2 110.0 108.7 106.8 105.6 104. S 103.6 102.9 101.1 103.6 104.4 115.3 118.2
ferrous metals____________ _______
53.2
55.1
57.7
71.4
53.9
77 9
58.9
56.0
54.5
62.4
61.5
58.7
62.8
Nonferrous foundries_______________
62.1
Miscellaneous primary metal Indus142.1
165.2
161.8
133.8
134.4
134.8
139.2
136.0
134.8
147.9 146.0 144.0 142.0 134.4
tries___________________________
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
596
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
T able A-2.
Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
1959
1958
Annual
average
Industry
M ar . 2 Feb.2 Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods—Continued
Fabricated metal products (except ord
nance, machinery, and transporta
tion equipment)................................... l, 065.4 1,049. 5 1,052.8 1,057.6 1,061.2 1,028. 2 1,056.5 1,022.3
62.3
56.6
55.3
59.3
Tin cans and other tinware...................
55.6
58.3
63.2
Cutlery, handtools, and hardware-----135.0 136.1 136.2 134.4 115.6 131.5 124.5
Heating apparatus (except electric)
113.7 109.0 109.2 112.5 113.9 112.5 110.1
and plumbers’ supplies_______ ____
Fabricated structural metal products.
284.0 288.0 294.8 298.5 304.8 308.8 307.1
Metal stamping, coating, and engrav
223.7 227.1 226.4 223.3 207.8 217.1 202.2
ing....................... .................................
48.2
47.7
43.8
Lighting fixtures-.............. .....................
48.0
48.0
46.0
43.3
55.8
55.2
Fabricated wire products___________ ...........
56.7
56.8
56.0
51.4
53.0
Miscellaneous fabricated metal prod
132.1 132.2 131.7 130.2 127.8 125.3 120.5
ucts.......................................................
998.1 1,004.4
61.2
59. £
121.4 124.8
987.2
57.6
1 2 1 .6
998,9 l, 021.3 1,132.3 1,119.0
5Q 1 58.5
56.3
55.9
123.2 130.2 144! 9 149.2
106.3
303.8
107.0
301.6
105.8
296.9
108.4
298.0
108.9
300.9
fin 0
3 2 5 !2
121.0
302.4
199.0
41.7
50.0
202.0
42.5
60.1
198.8
41.4
49.4
201.3
42.6
49.7
207.0
44.5
51.4
245 3
51 4
238.7
50.5
61.5
5 9 .0
114.7 116.5 115.7 119.4 122.5 137.4 137.2
Machinery (except electrical)................... 1, 567.7 1, 544. 2 1, 513. 8 1,493.9 1, 474. 7 1,461.6 1,466.4 1,436.9 1,449. 8 1, 471.9 1, 485.5 1,523.4 1, 558.9 1 737 9 1, 730.1
96.4
91. 2 92.3
97.2
Engines and turbines_____________..
96.3
95.9
90.2
89.2
92.1
90.0
93.2
95.0
90 4
84.1
Agricultural machinery and tractors...
150.2 132.7 123.9 123.1 139.5 138.2 134.7 136.1 136.0 136. i 143.9 145.5 148 4
Construction and mining machinery..
124.3 123.7 120.2 114.1 115.7 116.9 118.5 119.0 118.7 119.6 124.6 129.0 153 1 150.0
153.1
Metalworking machinery___________
224.7 220.5 218.5 215.1 209.2 210.8 205.6 2 1 1 .6 218.1 225.3 231.0 239.8 287! 6 284.3
Special-Industry machinery (except
metalworking machinery)— ......... —
158.7 157.3 156.1 155.4 154.8 155.4 155.1 154.3 156.8 158.6 162.0 164.9 181 0 187 8
General Industrial machinery________
214.8 213.8 213.0 212.2 211.0 212.6 211.6 212.5 217.8 219. C 223.4 231.0 254 8 ¿50* 7
Office and store machines and devices.129.7 129.0 130.6 130.3 129.1 127.2 124.1 123.6 124.2 1 2 2 .1 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .2 137.7 m i
Service-industry and household ma
chines__________________________
181.2 177.7 173.6 171.2 165.9 165.2 158.5 163.8 165.7 167.2 171.1 173.7 189 9
Miscellaneous machinery parts--------264.3 261.9 261.6 257.4 245.2 247.8 238.6 239.7 244.6 244.8 252.4 257.8 289! 0 209.2
278.8
Electrical machinery........................... ...... 1,182. 6 1,177.4 1,170.1 1,166. 2 1,164.9 1,119. 5 1,133.1 1,104.6 1,078. 5 1,079.9 1,077.6 1,092.3 1,114.4 1, 223.3 1 , 2 0 2 .1
Electrical generating, transmission,
distribution, and Industrial appa
386.3 384.9 381.9 377.2 361.1 367.9 363.7 360.2 362.4 365.0 372.0 381.6 420 2 416.1
ratus —................................................
35.4
35.4
35.9
37.0
35.3
Electrical appliances..............................
34.6
33.1
31.9
31.8
33.5
34.8
34.9
40 9
28.2
28.0
28.0
26.9
Insulated wire and cable.....................
26.2
24.6
23.2
27.6
24.4
23.7
24.3
24.9
27.2
26.4
65.7
68.0
65.2
50.5
58.4
Electrical equipment for vehicles_____
67.8
63.8
57.8
68.1
57.7
60.7
64.0
75 9
73.9
26.1
26.1
26.0
25.6
Electric lamps....................—.................
25.8
25.2
25.1
24.6
25.5
26.2
26.8
27.8
30 9 28.5
585.6 583.0 582.5 582.6 576.0 569.4 554.6 636.6 532.3 526.7 528.3 535.3 579' 8 557.8
Communication equipment_________
46.8
48.0
Miscellaneous electrical products..........
44.1
46.7
46.9
46.0
45.1
44.2
45.4
44.8
45.4
45.9
49! 8
49.6
Transportation equipment...................... 1, 683.6 1, 682. 7 1, 688. 7 1, 681.4 1, 670.4 1,461.8 1,572.2 1,500. 3 1, 528.6 1, 547.8 1, 546.4 1, 570.0 1, 620.2 1,878 1 1 823 4
724.1 732.1 716.8 702.7 506.4 613.0 548.9 579.2 592.9 596.4 605.5 648.8 780 3 ' 809! 9
Motor vehicles and equipment_______ —
756.6 756.8 767.4 767.3 763.1 763.7 755.2 751.2 751.2 742.8 754.2 756.0 861* 7 809 3
Aircraft and parts..... ............. ................
455.3 456.7 462.0 462.6 459.7 460.9 458.9 455.9 454.2 445.5 456.6 457.8 522
A ircraft..___ _____ ____ _________
494* 4
148.8 148.4 152.0 152.1 152.6 153.9 150.9 151.3 151.7 151.6 152.3 152.4 179 31 107* 1
Aircraft engines and parts..... .............
Aircraft propellers and p arts.......... . _________
14.9
15.1
15.8
16.2
17.2
15.7
17.0
18.0
18.8
19.3
19.8
20.3
20 5 10 *9
Other aircraft parts and equipment. . _________ 137.6 136.6 137.6 136.9 134.6 131.9 128.2 126.0 126.5 126.4 125.5 126.1 139 8
9
Ship and boat building and repairing.. _________ 144.5 144.8 142.3 146.0 142.2 140.9 141.1 142.1 146.9 146.7 144.8 145.9 148 8 13o!
Shipbuilding and repairing________ _________ 123.2 124.7 122.4 127.1 124.7 124.6 125.3 124.7 127.6 125.5 123.7 125.4 126 9 130.0
inQ g
Boatbuilding and repairing............... _________
21.3
19.9
20.1
17.5
18.9
16.3
15.8
17.4
2 1 .2
19.3
2 1 .1
20.5
21 9 2 o! 2
48.2
Railroad equipment - _______________
46.3
45.8
39.9
44.5
44.5
45.3
47.3
62.2
47.8
57.1
60.2
71 6 04 3
Other transportation equipment........... —
9.3
9.1
8.7
10.2
9.9
1 0 .1
9.8
8.8
9.0
8.3
8.4
8.7
9 .7
9 !9
Instruments and related products........... 324.9 324.2 320.7 320.2 318.8 316.9 313.0 309.1 306.8 308.6 309.3 313.7 317.4 3 3 7 .9 3 3 5 .6
Laboratory, scientific, and engineering
60.1
59.5
Instruments___________________
58.7
57.9
58.2
57.8
57.5
57.5
56.9
57.1
58.1
58.3
65.1
64.9
Mechanical measuring and controlling
87.9
86.0
85.6
instruments.......................................
84.7
83.6
81.4
85.5
81.1
82.2
82.2
83.5
84.7
90
9
87.2
15.1
15.0
Optical Instruments and lenses______
15.0
14.6
15.0
14.4
13.8
13.6
13.7
13.5
13.4
13.3
13.9
13.9
Surgical, medical, and dental Instru
42.3
42.3
ments________________________
42.1
41.4
41.3
41.2
41.1
41.0
41.4
41.3
41.4
41.7
42
0
41.0
24. 6 24.3
Ophthalmic goods. ......... .......................
24.0
23.6
22.0
23.8
23.1
23.0
23.6
23.6
23.9
24.3
25.2
25 7
63.8
64.1
64.9
64.9
Photographic apparatus........................ —
64.8
65.1
64.8
64.9
64.8
64.9
65.7
66.5
08* 5
70 0
30.4
29. 5 29.9
Watches and clocks________________
29.9
29.2
29.8
27.8
25.3
26.1
26.6
27.7
28.6
30.8
3 4 !4
466.1
457.8
447.0 459.3 478.0 484.6 478.6 463.7 444.0 452.8 445.9 449.5 453.6 490.0 501 0
Miscellaneous manufacturing Industries..
45.0
45.0
Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware—
45.8
46.1
46.3
45.3
43.1
42.6
43.1
42.5
43.2
44.1
46 3 49 9
17.6
17.3
Musical Instruments and parts______ —
17.3
17.1
17.4
16.7
15.9
14.7
15.7
15.7
16.1
16.2
18 2
18 5
70.6
65.0
Toys and sporting goods......... ..............
71.6
92.9
85.2
92.9
89.7
84.2
84.9
81.3
79.3
75.8
90 6 94 0
—
29.0
29.0
Pens, pencils, other office supplies........
29.4
29.9
29.9
29.6
29.8
28.7
31. 5 31.9
32.1
31.9
31
9
32
0
60.1
59.8
Costume jewelry, buttons, notions___ —
59.0
60.9
61.8
61.0
59.6
54.6
53.9
56.0
55.0
58.3
61 4 04 5
88.1
86.6
Fabricated plastics products_________ —
87.9
87.4
85.9
87.1
82.8
80.6
79.1
80.0
80.9
83.8
87
5
91.
5
147.4 144.3 148.3 151.2 149.4 147.2 142.8 138.6 141.6 141.5 142.9 143.5 150.0 154 ! 1
Other manufacturing industries............ —
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products...................... 1,384. 5 1,377.9 1,384. 5 1,438.6 1, 488. 5 1, 555. 4 1, 623. 2 1,621.4 1, 529.7 1,484.3 1, 416.6 1, 385.3 1,379.2 l, 509.8 1, 548.6
300.5 304.3 312.2 313.4 313.1 312.7 310.0 307.2 306.8 302.0 294.1 297.5 326.2 337 0
Meat products........................................
92.3
91.6
Dairy products........................................
93.5
93.9
96.8 101.3 105.7 107.4 107.2 103.4
99.1
97.5 104.9 108 7
162.4 161.3 181.1 211.6 271.7 347.0 342.0 254.5 210.1 174.3 169.9 157.7
Canning and preserving.........................
233 3
113.2 113.3 112.2 113.3 115.7 117.0 117.0 116.0 115.3 112.2 111.3 111.7 220.8
Grain-mill products________________
114.3 118 4
279.9 280.3 282.3 283.9 285.9 285.4 286.0 287.3 287.4 283.3 281.9 282.1 287.2 288 4
Bakery products___________________
26.3
Sugar......... ....................................... ......
30.5
41.0
46.0
42.5
28.9
26.8
27.1
26 7 27.4
25.7
25.1
31.3
31 6
73.2
74.3
Confectionery and related products___
79.0
82.0
81.9
80.3
75.5
68.6
70.4
71.3
71.0
74.0
77. 5 78! 7
196.1 196.2 202.5 208.5 209.5 211.0 216.6 220.2 216.8 205.3 198.1 200.3 209.9 213
Beverages............................... ................
0
134.0 132.7 134.8 135.9 138.3 139.6 141.8 141.4 142.7 138.3 134.2 133.3 137.7 139 ! 5
Miscellaneous food products_________
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
597
A.—EMPLOYMENT
T able A-2.
Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
Annual
average
1958
1959
M ar.2 Feb.2 Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
Manufac taring—Continued
Nondurable goods— Continued
80.8
Tobacco manufactures______ _____ ___
_______________
Cigarettes
Cigars
_____________________
Tobacco and srmfT
Tobacco stemming and redrylng_____ ...........
957.8
Textile-mill products------------------------Pcoiirfnp ar,d combing plants
Yarn and thread mills___ __________
Broad-woven fabric mills___________
Narrow fabrics and small wares
Knitting mills
.
__ _
Dyeing and finishing textiles--------...
Carpets, rugs, other floor coverings- _
Hats (except cloth and millinery)
Miscellaneous textile goods........ ........... ...........
86.5
37.3
27.3
6.4
15.5
88.9
37.1
27.3
6.4
18.1
93.3
37.0
28.7
6.5
21.1
95.5
37.2
29.1
6.5
22.7
104.1
36.6
29.1
6.5
31.9
106.8
36.9
28.7
6.5
34.7
96.3
36.9
28.6
6.5
24.3
79.4
36.3
27.7
6.4
9.0
80.1
36.5
28.7
6.5
8.4
79.7
36.0
28.6
6.6
8.6
80.0
35.8
28.7
6.4
9.1
950.6
5.3
108.3
397.9
29.1
209.3
86.8
47.5
10.3
56.1
946.1
5.4
108.6
398.2
28.7
205.6
86.0
46.7
10.0
56.9
953.1
5.5
109.8
399.8
28.8
210.1
86.4
46.3
9.9
56.5
958.4
5.3
110.1
400.2
28.5
215.6
86.2
45.9
10.2
56.4
954.7
5.3
109.3
399.0
28.4
217.1
85.3
45.3
9.8
55.2
951.4
5.3
109.0
399.2
28.2
216.2
84.8
44.6
9.9
54.2
946.4
5.6
108.3
398.1
27.6
215.3
84.9
43.3
10.4
52.9
920.4
5.5
104.4
392.9
26.8
204.6
82.9
41.7
9.9
51.7
930.6
5.4
106.9
394.3
26.9
208.7
83.8
42.2
10.4
52.0
921.8
5.0
106.2
393.0
26.4
203.3
83.9
42.4
10.3
51.3
928.0
6.0
106.9
398.8
26.7
199.9
84.9
44. 5
9.7
51.6
84.3
35. 6
29.8
6.5
12.4
94.1
34.6
32.6
6.6
20.3
98.1
34.2
34.5
7.0
22.4
935.9 1,004.8 1,057. 6
5.0
6.6
5.5
107.7 116.0 122.7
404. 5 428.7 456.9
27.2
29.1
29.8
197.7 214.5 221.1
84.6
91.7
88.4
46.1
54.3
51. 5
10.1
12.3
10.6
53.0
60.5
62.2
Apparel and other finished textile proda c t s ___ _____ _________ ______ 1,209.9 1, 204.9 1,180. 4 1,183. 8 1,183.2 1,181.2 1,184.3 1,172.1 1,120. 7 1,122. 5 1,113. 4 1,115. 5 1,148.2 1,198.6 1,211.2
109.6 109.1 109.0 106.2 106.4 109.7 107.2 103.1 107.4 105.7 101.5 109.8 117.6 123.1
Men's and boys' suits and coats
Men’s and boys’ furnishings and work
321.6
315.3 316.4 315.9 317.4 317.7 314.5 307.3 310.4 304.2 302.7 311.1 316.5 317.4
clothing
__________________
358.7 346.7 346.8 345.2 339.9 343.5 348.9 328.1 319.2 328.8 332.8 333.8 352.1 354.2
Women's outerwear________________
117.0 115.1 116. 8 118.7 117. 5 115.1 112.6 106.5 109.9 110.0 114.0 115. 5 119.6 120.9
Women's children's undergarments
20.4
12.1
14.9
18.9
20. 4 16.7
13.8
18.7
21.1
23.7
20.6
18.5
16.8
19.9
Millinery
__ _________________
71.8
67.9
70.3
75.4
73.8
74.8
76.0
75.4
74.0
76.1
73.5
73.4
78.0
74.8
Children’s outerwear____ __________
9.7
8.8
11.1
10.3
11.3
10.7
10.4
11.9
11.2
9.4
9.4
10.5
12.0
12.0
F ar goods
_____________
55.7
63.9
53.9
58.3
59.2
59.5
53.1
55.6
62.7
56.1
58.1
59.9
57.5
60.3
Miscellaneous apparel and accessories
Other fabricated textile products........... ........... 129.4 132.0 134.2 135.1 133.0 131.0 123.5 119.3 119.7 118.1 119.0 120.4 130.5 128.9
552.2 549.4 548.8 551.0 553.7 553.8 554.5 550.2 537.8 542.0 539.3 541.7 543.6 566.3 567.7
paper and allied p ro d u cts.___________
270.0 270.2 270.2 271.4 270.7 271.7 272.3 265.3 267.9 266.8 268.1 268.0 277.4 278.0
Pulp, paper and paperboard mills____
149.7 150.2 152.5 154.3 154.1 153.2 149.9 146.0 147.2 146.2 145.8 147.2 155.3 155.7
Paperboard containers and boxes_____
129.7 128.4 128.3 128.0 129.0 129.6 128.0 126. 5 126.9 126.3 127.8 128.4 133.6 134.0
Other paper and allied products______
Printing, publishing and allied Industries. 858.6 853.3 851.3 857.4 856.8 858.3 854.8 847.8 844.2 847.2 845.5 850.9 854.2 857.9 850.5
317.6 316.4 318.1 318.8 318.2 316.1 315.7 315.8 316.9 316.1 314.9 3l5. 5 315.0 311.9
Newspapers
61.5
61.8
60.8
61.7
64.4
60.0
60.1
59.5
62.4
61.8
61.9
61.7
62.6
63.0
Periodicals
55.2
54.3
54.7
53.6
54.8
55.5
54.0
55.4
54.3
56.2
56.2
56.1
55.6
55.3
________________
Books
222.8
219.1
221.5
223.9
221.2
218.1
219.5
218.0
220.2
220.7
221.7
219.9
221.5
220.5
Commercial printing_____________
65. 7 66.7
65.4
65.4
64.3
65.2
65.2
65.0
65.4
66.4
66.2
65.6
65.1
66.8
Lithographing _____________________
17.8
18.8
18.3
21.1
19.5
19.6
20.5
20.5
19.6
20.5
21.9
22.4
21.7
19.6
Greeting cards
43.9
44.4
44.8
45.4
44.4
46.1
46.0
45.4
44.2
44.2
44.4
44.2
44.6
44.0
Bookbinding and related industries Miscellaneous publishing and printing
70.6
67.1
70.2
69.5
67.5
69.5
66.6
67.5
66.9
67.4
68.1
67.6
67.5
67.9
services
_____________________
Chemicals and allied products_________ 836.3
Industrial Inorganic chemicals_______
Industrial organic chemicals_________
Drugs and medicines----------------------- ...........
Soap, cleaning and polishing prepara___ _ __________
tions Paints, pigments, and fillers_________
Gum and wood chemicals____ _
Fertilizers
__ ________ ____.__
Vegetable and animal oils and fats___
Miscellaneous chemicals......................... ...........
232.8
Products of petroleum and coal
Petroleum refining__ ___ ______
Coke, other petroleum and coal
products
_________ - ___
827.7
100.5
315.0
103.5
823.5
100.5
313.6
103.4
823.7
99.9
312.8
103.0
823.7
100.5
312.2
102.7
825.1
100.0
311.3
102.7
821.4
100.7
311.1
103.2
816.0
101.0
310.4
103.9
805.9
100.8
305.9
103.7
809.0
101.7
305.8
102.9
816.8
102.1
306.1
102.6
826.6
103.7
309.0
102.9
825.4
104.4
310. 5
102.7
844.8
108.2
323.6
100.0
833.2
108.6
318.1
96.7
50.2
73.8
7.5
36.7
39.8
100.7
50.2
73.5
7.5
35.2
40.5
99.1
50.3
73.7
7.6
33.2
41.7
101.5
50.5
73.7
7.6
32.0
42.8
101.7
50.9
73.8
7.8
34.1
42.8
101.7
51.1
74.0
7.8
32.9
38.9
101.7
50.0
74.4
7.8
30.9
36.0
101.6
49.2
73.4
7.9
30.2
35.3
99.5
48.5
72.3
7.7
33.7
36.1
100.3
47.9
71.2
8.0
42.7
35.8
100.4
47.8
71.6
7.9
46.3
36.5
100.9
48.2
72.3
7.9
41.1
37.4
100.9
50.0
75.4
8.5
35.8
40.5
102.8
50.1
75.6
8.4
36.0
40.9
98.8
227.0
181.4
232.3
186.6
233.6
187.5
235.1
188.5
233.1
186.0
238.7
191.5
239.2
192.9
239.7
193.5
239.1
192.6
238.3
192.9
237.9
193.3
238.4
194.2
249.5
199.1
252.1
200.8
45.6
45.7
46.1
46.6
47.1
47.2
46.3
46.2
46.5
45.4
44.6
44.2
50.4
51.3
259.0
258.5
102.4
21.3
134.8
258.8
103.8
21.2
133.8
257.2
103.4
21.2
132.6
253.7
102.1
21.2
130.4
252.8
101.0
21.4
130.4
245.3
99.7
21.1
124.5
238.9
98.1
20.6
120.2
233.0
96.6
20.1
116.3
233.5
96.8
20.5
116.2
230.5
96.3
20.6
113.6
234.7
98.4
20.7
115.6
243.6
102.5
20.9
120.2
265.2
110.0
21.9
133.3
269.2
111.5
24.1
133.6
Leather and leather products____ . . . . . . . 372.6
Leather: tanned, curried, and finished.
Industrial leather belting and packing.
Boot and shoe cut stock and findings...
Footwear (except rubber)
Luggage__ _ ___ ______________
Handbags end small leather ffoods _
Gloves and miscellaneous leather goods.1...........
See footnotes at end of table.
373.5
38.1
4.7
19.7
250.6
14.8
32.1
13.5
369.3
38.3
4.6
19.7
249.0
14.5
30.8
12.4
368.3 363.9
38.4
38.2
4.4
4.5
18.6
19.5
245.2 238.6
16.0
15.3
31. S 33.5
13.5
14.6
354.2 360.3
37.8
37.9
4.1
4.3
17.6
17.8
230. C 237.1
15. i
16.0
33.2
32.7
15.01 15.2
362.5
37.3
3.9
18.4
240.6
15.8
31.4
15.1
354.5 353.3
37.8
36.3
3.6
3.7
18.1
18.1
238.8 237.2
14.8
14.7
27.3
28.0
14.9 i 14.5 1
340.6
37.2
3.7
17.3
229.5
14.4
24.6
13.9
339.4
37.3
3.3
17.1
226.9
14.2
26.5
13.5
360.4
38.4
4.3
17.8
241.8
14.3
30.6
13.21
369.9
40. 7
4. 0
18.9
243.8
15.6
30.1
16.2
879.8
42.7
5.0
19.8
246.3
16.3
32.8
16.9
Rubber products-----------------------------Tires and Inner tubes_______________
Rubber footwpar
Other rubber products______________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
598
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
T a ble
A-2.
Employees in nonagricultural establishments, by industry ^Continued
[In thousands]
1959
1958
Annual
average
Industry
F e b .2
Transportation and public utilities..............
Transportation............................ ..............
Interstate railroads__________________
Class I railroads........ ............................ .
Local railways and buslines__________
Trucking and warehousing........................
Other transportation and services............
Buslines, except locaL...........................
Air transportation (common carrier)...
Pipe-line transportation (except nat
ural gas)...................................... .........
Communication_____________________
Telephone................ ...............................
Telegraph........ ........................................
Other public utilities........ - .......................
Gas and electric utilities____________
Electric light and power utilities.......
Gas utilities......................... ................
Electric light and gas utilities com
b in e d ................................................
Local utilities, not elsewhere classi
fied...................................................
3,869
2,534
744
~591~
Jan .
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
3,832 3,836 3,881 3,885 3,897 3,886 3,897 3,907 3,904 3,874 3,883 3,910 4,151 4,161
>, 496 2,498 2,538 2,536 2, 546 2, 523 2, 520 2, 526 2, 527 2, 499 2,503 2,524 2,741
773
930.2 928. 5 952.0 951.0 961.0 959.8 957. £ 957.9 957.1 945.8 951. 9 965.8 1,123. 4 2,
5
811. 8 810. 7 824.0 831.1 841.5 839.9 844.4 837. 5 836.5 825.5 828.8 840.3 984. 8 1,190.
1,042.
6
92. 7 93.0
94.2
94.1
94.0
94.7
95.1
95.4
95. £ 96.7
97.0
97.3 103. 6 109 5
811.6 802. 5 830.0 822.6 811.2 781.5 787. C 790.7 790.4 774.2 770.4 779.8 812.3 803. 6
661. 5 673.9 662.4 668.3 679.9 686.9 672.4 681.8 683.4 682.0 683.6 680.7 701. 8 669. 1
38. 7 40. 3 39.9
40.3
41.5
42.5
43.2
43.2
42.8
42.1
41.4
41.0
42. 9 42. ft
140.1 140.6 124.6 134.6 141.1 141.3 142.0 142.7 143.3 141.2 141.0 142.0 144.6 130.5
24.8
743
705. 0
37.1
593
570.3
254.1
150. 6
25.0
744
706.0
37. 2
594
571. 5
254. 3
150. 8
25.1
747
709.1
37.3
596
573.8
254.9
151.5
25.2
751
712.6
37.4
598
575.2
255.8
151.5
25.4
25.8
752
757
713.7 718.8
37.5
37.7
606
599
576. 5 582.7
256.6 259. 4
151.8 153.4
26.4
764
725.6
37.8
613
589.1
261.9
155.6
26.7
769
730.3
38.3
612
588.8
262. C
155.1
26.5
772
732.7
38.5
605
581.9
260.0
152.3
25.8
777
737.9
38.6
598
575.4
257. 7
149.8
25.7
783
743.5
38.5
597
574.4
257.6
149.3
25. 5
789
749.3
39.0
597
574.3
257.6
149.1
26. 4
810
768.2
41. 4
600
577. 2
258. 7
149.0
25 9
795
751. 2
42 6
593
569. 1
25ft 2
145.3
165.6
166.4
167.4
167.9
168.1
169.9
171.6
171.7
169.6
167.9
167. 5
167.6
169.5
173.6
22.4
22. 5
22.5
22.7
22.9
23.1
23.5
23.5
23.2
23.0
23.0
22.8
23.0
2,371
622. 3
89. 5
893. 5
765. 9
2,363
618.9
87.1
891.0
765.8
2,373
618.6
86 .8
892.3
775.3
2,374
616.5
85.9
892.3
778.9
2,380
615. 5
85. 2
894.2
785.0
2,392
616.4
84.8
900.3
790.8
2,413
621.9
85.6
906.1
799.2
2,410
621.6
85.2
903.7
799.6
2,391
615.0
83.8
895. 6
796.3
2,370
610. 4
83.3
892.3
783.5
2,356
612.2
83.2
893.8
766.8
2,348
612. 4
83. 8
892.7
759.1
2,348
602. 8
83. 8
869. 6
792.0
? 308
578 7
89 4
895 9
821 ! 1
6,333
467. 6
6,314
460.9
6,384
467.6
6,426
473.6
6,463
478.6
6,472
526.6
6,452
608.3
6,465
607.0
6,488
538.1
6,455
510.0
6,384
499.9
6,267
476.4
6,336
531.0
6 160
305.1 306.5
164. 7 165.9
177. 8 176.9
307.3
166.9
179.2
309.0
168. 3
183.1
311.0
169.8
191.3
311.6
166.5
195.3
314.3
163.1
195.6
317.7
167.1
193.9
318.1
173.4
192.6
314.1
172.1
193.5
310.6
168.9
192.9
310.8
164.6
185.9
326.3 339 3
169. 8 165 8
204.1 223.4
23.6
Wholesale and retail trade_____________ 11,055 10,989 11,052 11,976 11,382 11,225 11,151 11,011 10,984 11,035 10,961 10,940 10,939 11,302 11 221
Wholesale trade_____ _______________ 3,014 5,024 3,028 3,065 3,052 3, 039 3,016 2, 994 2,989 2,980 2, 960 2,982 3, 010 3,065 3,008
Wholesalers, lull-service and limited
function....... ......................................
, 776. 3 1, 775. 2 1, 801.0 1, 791.2 1, 776. 6 1, 762. 7 1, 744.6 1, 737.1 1, 730. 2 1, 713. 9 1, 722. 5 1, 737. 8 1, 772.1 1 754 ft
Automotive........................... ...............
130. 2 129. 5 129.1 128.8 127.9 127.8 127.6 127.4 126.3 124.1 124.3 124.4 123.3 118,8
Groceries, food specialties, beer, wines,
and liquors....... ...... .........................
306. 6 307.4 312.6 311.9 307.7 306.1 299.0 300.8 297.4 293.5 297.8 302.8 303.4 305.0
Electrical goods, machinery, hardware,
and plumbing equipment.......... .
440. 2 438.9 440.5 439.7 438.2 437.4 437.0 436.1 435.9 434.2 436.5 441.2 457.1 455.2
Other full-service and limited-function
wholesalers_____ _____ ________
899.3 899.4 918.8 910.8 902.8 891.4 881.0 872.8 870.6 862.1 863.9 869. 4
875 ft
Wholesale distributors, other.................
, 247. 2 1, 252. 6 1,264. 4 1,261.0 1, 262. 8 1, 253. 2 1,249. 7 1, 252. 2 1, 249. 8 1,245. 7 1. 259. 4 1, 271. 8 1, 888.3
293.1 1 254 3
Retail trade_______ ______ __________ ,041 Ï, 965 8,024 8, 911 8,330 8,186 8,135 8, 017 7,995 8, 055 8,001 7,958 7,
929 8 237 8 213
General merchandise stores ................... 1,378. 4 , 352. 5 1,397. 2 1,942. 6 1, 575.3 1, 473.8 1, 420.8 1, 350. 9 1,336. 7 1, 361.0 1,358. 4 1,351.5 L 331.
7 1, 457.1 1, 455. 7
Department stores and general mailorder houses......................................
873.9 908.9 1,260.1 1, 022. 7 946.1 908.1 870.8 863. 5 876. 7 872.4 864.5 856.9 944. 4 943 8
Other general merchandise stores___
478. 6 488. 3 682. 5 552. 6 527. 7 512.7 480.1 473. 2 484.3 486.0 487.0 474. 8 512. 7 511 Q
Food and liquor stores______________ 1, 599. 5 , 596. 7 1, 582. 5 1,629. 6 1, 610.8 1, 597.3 1, 595. 5 1. 582.1 1, 590. 7 1, 594.1 1,593. 6 1,591.7 1,598.3
573. 9 1 549 4
Grocery, meat, and vegetable markets
, 160. 4 1,152.0 1,179. 7 1,168. 6 1,156. 4 1,146. 7 1,130. 6 1,139.1 1, 140.1 1,140.7 1,139. 3 1,150. 0 1,
9 1 ft76 P
Dairy product stores and dealers___
218 9 218. 8 220.0 221.0 222. 4 230.2 234.3 234.0 233.2 229.6 227.6 225. 7 1,106.
231 ft
234.
Other food and liquor stores_______
217. 4 211. 7 229.9 221.2 218. 5 218.6 217.2 217.6 220.8 223.3 224.8 222.6 232. 37 233 6
Automotive and accessories dealers___ 771.2 768. 4 766.3 781.2 763.0 754. 5 755.0 756.6 755. 2 755.7 756.6 757.2 768.0 804. 2 809 ft
Apparel and accessories stores............... 580.0 562.0 582.0 717.2 619.3 602. 5 590.4 546. 7 552. 4 591.8 586.7 583. 7 576. 2 604. 6 61ft 3
Other retail trade....... ........................... 3, 711. 9 , 685. 8 3, 696. 2 3, 840.1 3, 761.7 3, 757. 5 3, 773. 6 3,780.9 3, 759.6 3. 752.0 3,705. 4 3,673. 9 3, 654.3 3. 796 8 3 795 4
Furniture and appliance stores..........
389.1 390. 8 410.7 397.2 392. 4 388.5 385.1 384.5 385.6 385.0 385.4 387.3 394 8 395 8
Drug stores................................ .........
359. 9 357.9 393.7 360.1 356.9 355.2 353.2 352.9 351.9 349.3 347.7 345.7 354.7 34L2
Finance, Insurance, and real estate______
Banks and trust companies........... ..........
Security dealers and exchanges________
Insurance carriers and agents_________
Other finance agencies and real estate__
2,3 8 3
Service and miscellaneous......... ..................
Hotels and lodging places........................ .
Personal services:
Laundries________________ _____ _
Cleaning and dyeing plants...................
Motion pictures____________________
6,374
Government_________________________
Federal *___________________________
Executive___ _________ ___________
Department of Defense______ ____
Post Office Departm ent..... ................
Other agencies............................... ......
Legislative....... ........................................
Judicial___________________ ______
State and local
......................................
State.................................................. ......
Local_____ ______________ ________
Education................ ..............................
Other____________________ ______
8 ,099
2,152
5, 947
8,064 8,024 8,373 8,074 8,040 7,943 7,678 7,664 7,866 7,870 7,850 7,822 7,626 7 277
, 155 2,157 2,487 2,172 2,173 2,174 2,192 2,192 2,184 2,151 2,150 2,141 2, 217 9 909
, 127. 5 2,129. 6 2, 460.4 2,145. 5 2,145. 6 2, 146.8 2,164.6 2,164. 7 2,156. 8 2,123. 8 2,123. 5 2,114. 7 2,190. 2 9 183 1
948.9 954.2 958. 5 961.6 963.0 962.5 967.6 968.8 966.5 958.3 956.9 953.8 007. 3 1 034 1
539. 3 540.0 861.0 542.7 538.8 539.0 541.6 538.9 535.9 528.2 530. 5 531.1 1, 551.
4 535 3
639. 3 635.4 640.9 641.2 643.8 645.3 655.4 657.0 654.4 637.3 636.1 629.8 631.
5 613 7
22.3
22.3
22.1
22.1
22.0
22.2
22.2
22.2
22.3
22.0
21.9
21.9
22.1
91 9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.7
4. 6
4. 6
46
909 5,867 5, 886 5,902 5, 867 5, 769 5,486 5,472 5,682 5,719 5.700 5,681 5,409 5 0684 3
524. 8 1,516. 2 1, 517.4 1,517.6 1.517.1 1, 476.3 1, 443. 9 1,443.7 1, 466. 7 1. 473.1 1,462.9 1. 453. 6 1, 382.9 1 30ft 6
384.2 4,350. 6 4. 368.1 4,384.1 4, 349. 7 4, 292. 7 4,041.9 4,027. 9 4, 215.0 4, 245. 5 4, 237. 1 4, 227.0 4,025.
7 3 767 8
770.5 2, 735. 5 2, 742. 5 2, 742. 6 2,716.7 2, 573. 9 2,230. 2 2, 223. 2 2, 483. 2 2.608. 6 2, 617.6 2,628. 5 2, 401. 8 9 919 7
138.5 3,131.3 3,143. 0 3,159.1 3,150.1 3,195.1 3, 255.6 3, 248. 4 3,198. 5 3,110.0 3.082. 4 3,052.1 3,006. 8 2 , 848. 7
1 Beginning with the August 1958 issue, figures for 1956-58 differ from those
previously published because of the adjustment of the employment estimates
to 1st quarter 1957 benchmark levels indicated by data from government
social insurance programs. Statistics from 1957 forward are subject to revi
sion when new benchmarks become available.
These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full- and
part-time employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during,
or received pay for, any part of the pay period ending nearest the 15th of the
month. Therefore, persons who worked in more than one establishment
during the reporting period are counted more than once. Proprietors, selfemployed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic servants are ex
cluded.
2 Preliminary.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
515. 4
* Data for Federal establishments refer to continental United States; they
relate to civilian employees who worked on, or received pay for, the last dav
of the month.
J
* State and local government data exclude, as nominal employees, elected
officials of small local units and paid volunteer firemen.
N ote: For a description of these series, see Techniques of Preparing Major
BLS Statistical Series, BLS Bull. 1168 (1954).
e
J
S ource : U.8. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for all
series except those for the Federal Government, which is prepared by the
U.S. Civil Service Commission, and that for Class I railroads, which is
prepared by the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission.
A.—EMPLOYMENT
T able A-3.
599
Production or nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establishments, by industry 1
[In thousands]
1959
1958
Annual
average
Industry
M a r2 F e b .2
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
M ining______________________________
548
557
566
563
556
560
564
569
559
563
567
583
664
673
Metal______________________________
77.1
77.6
76.9
77.0
73.5
72.1
76.4
74.4
73.8
74.3
75.2
79.2
94.4
92.9
Iron_____________________________
26.4
26.4
26.7
25.8
25.7
27.3
27.3
25.3
25.8
24.1
22.9
26.4
30.4
33.9
Copper__________________________
25.0
25.1
24.4
25.0
22.5
23.2
22.4
22.0
22.9
22.8
22.9
23.7
27.3
28.3
Lead and zinc................................. ........
10.1
10.3
10.2
9.7
9.2
9.7
8.6
9.3
11.2
11.4
10.8
11.6
14.1
14.9
Anthracite_________________________
16.2
17.6
17.8
17.7
16.2
17.5
17.5
16.7
17.4
18.2
17.9
21.1
26.4
26.8
Bituminous coal_____________________
167.7 171.4 171.4 169. 5 168.3 166.2 163.3 158.0 169.2 171.3 177.3 184 2 208.4 208.8
Crude-petroleum and natural-gas pro
duction___________ _______ _____
202.4 205.6 209.7 2C5.8 205.7 210.8 213.3 211.8 211.4 206.2 206.7 210.4 238.0 245.4
Petroleum and natural-gas production
(except contract services)__________
106.1 106.3 108.0 108.1 109.3 112.9 115.2 115.6 114.8 112.3 113.1 113.9 122.6 128.0
Nonmetallic mining and quarrying_____
84.4
85.1
89.7
93.4
96.1
93.9
94.8
95.5
90.6
94.8
92.5
87.9
96.3
98 8
Contract construction. _______________
1,882 1,975 2,115 2,407 2,508 2,544 2,570 2,503 2,432 2,318 2,132 1,961 2,442 2.559
Nonbuilding construction_____________
343
366
434
532
581
596
580
598
573
448
370
538
515
520
Highway and street construction..........
140.1 151.8 192.9 261.8 292.3 303.4 301.0 293.0 285.6 255.8 191.1 140.0 226.8 234 8
Other nonbuilding construction______
202.8 214. 0 241.1 269.8 287.5 294.7 294.8 288.4 287.4 282.1 257.3 229.8 288.5 284.8
Building construction________________
1, 539 1, 609 1,681 1,875 1,928 1,946 1,974 1,922 1,859 1, 780 1, 684 1,591 1,927 2,039
General contractors________________
531.8 562.3 589.0 680.6 698.5 709.1 730.1 717.0 695.5 670.1 627.9 596.9 772.6 868 6
Special-trade contractors____________
1,007. 0 1,046. 5 1,092.0 1,194. 2 1,229. 9 1, 236. 9 1.244.0 1,204.5 1,163. 9 1,110.0 1,056.5 993.6 1.154.1 1,170. 0
Plumbing and heating____________
230.6 238.7 250.9 257.6 265.8 263. 6 260.3 253. 7 243.3 230.4 227.8 230.0 265.9 271.9
Painting and decorating___________
124.0 130.9 146.9 164.4 172.2 176.3 183.9 180.2 163. 5 155.1 137.1 124.1 150.1 157.4
Electrical work__________________
133.8 135.4 141.4 143.8 148.4 151.6 146.5 138.9 132. 5 128.9 127.1 128.7 151.7 149.7
Other special-trade contractors_____
518. 6 541. 5 552.8 628.4 643.5 645.4 653.3 631.7 624.6 595.6 564.5 510.8 586.4 591.0
Manufacturing______________________
12,088 11,949 11,855 11,930 11,981 11,721 11, 940 11,645 11,353 11,415 11,245 11, 310 11,542 12,911 13,195
Durable goods_____________ _____ 6,913 6,805 6, 739 6, 740 6, 742 6. 421 6, 579 6,339 6,270 6, 350 6, 269 6,337 6,502 7,523 7, 667
Nondurable goods________________ 5,175 5,144 5,116 5,190 5,239 5,300 5,361 5,306 5,083 5,065 4, 976 4, 973 5,040 5,388 5, 528
D u rable goods
73.2
Ordnance and accessories_____________
Lumber and wood products (except fur
552.5
niture)_________________________
Logging camps and contractors______
Sawmills and planing m ills...................
Mlllwork, plywood, and prefabricated
structural wood products__________
Wooden containers_________________
Miscellaneous wood products________
316.7
Furniture and fixtures_______________
Household furniture_______________
Office, public-building, and professional
furniture________________________
Partitions, shelving, lockers, and fix
tures__ ________________________
Screens, blinds, and miscellaneous fur
niture and fixtures_______________
433.9
Stone, clay, and glass products________
Flat glass............................ ...................
Glass and glassware, pressed or blown..
Glass products made of purchased glass.
Cement, hydraulic.___ _____ _____—
Structural clay products____________
Pottery and related products___ _____
Concrete, gypsum, and plaster products.
Cut-stone and stone products________
Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral
products................................................
Primary metal industries_____________ 1,012.9
Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling
mills___________________________
Iron and steel foundries_____________
Primary smelting and refining of nonferrous metals___________________
Secondary smelting and refining of nonferrous m e t a l s ._________________
Rolling, drawing, and alloying of nonferrous metals___________________
Nonferrotis foundries_______________
Miscellaneous primary metal industries.
Fabricated metal products (except ord
nance, machinery, and transporta
829.8
tion equipment)_________________
Tin cans and other tinware__________
Cutlery, handtools, and hardware____
Heating apparatus (except electric) and
plumbers’ supplies_______________
Fabricated structural metal products..
Metal stamping, coating, and engraving.
Lighting fixtures.......................... ...........
Fabricated wire products___________
Miscellaneous fabricated metal prod
ucts........................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
73.3
72.9
72.8
71.4
66.6
68.4
66.8
67.0
68.3
67.8
69.0
67.7
544.6
74 8
275.4
547.0
75.3
274.9
564.7
83.3
282.0
579.4
90.0
289.6
594.4
94.2
297.5
590.1
93.1
297.3
580.6
88.4
296.8
572.0
86.5
292.9
578.3
93.8
290.9
542.4
74.9
279.7
520.3
65.5
269.1
515.0
62.9
267.5
588.3 666.7
80. 1 100.3
303.5 349.2
107.3
39.8
47.3
315.6
237.5
109.5
40.4
46.9
312.6
234.6
111.9
40.8
46.7
308.6
230.0
112.2
40.9
46.7
312.3
233.6
114.0
41.8
46.9
313.2
234.4
112.4
41.2
46.1
309.8
229.6
110.5
39.5
45.4
300. 5
221.9
107.3
40.5
44.8
285.5
211.7
106.9
41.3
45.4
286.8
210.4
101.6
40.9
45.3
283.5
208.4
100.1
39.9
45.7
283.2
208.9
98.5
40.0
46.1
290.1
213.9
108. 3
45.5
50.9
314.2
228.9
34.6
34.6
34.9
35.2
35.0
36.0
35.1
32.0
32.9
32.7
33.5
33.9
38.2
39.1
25.1
25.3
25.7
25.6
25.8
26.5
26.2
24.8
25.2
24.8
24.8
25.4
28.4
28.6
18.4
413. 2
20. 7
80.7
14.7
31.6
58.8
38.9
85.5
15.2
18.1
411.3
19.9
79.0
14.4
32.3
60.4
38.3
85.2
15.4
18.0
421.9
19.7
81.3
14.3
34.4
64.4
38.7
87.8
15.8
17.9
426.2
18.8
82.1
14.3
35.0
65.5
38.9
90.3
16.0
18.0
422.3
12.1
83.2
14.2
35.4
66.2
38.4
91.7
16.4
17.7
438.1
28.0
83.9
13.7
35.7
66.1
37.7
94.0
16.5
17.3
429.7
26.4
82.2
13.1
35.3
66.3
36.6
93.0
15.6
17.0
422.0
24.4
82.2
12.7
35.2
65.4
35.8
90.3
16.1
18.3
416.5
23.9
80.8
12.5
35.7
63.3
35.7
88.4
15.9
17.6
404.9
22.4
78.4
12.2
35. 3
61.7
35.4
85.2
15.3
16.0
402.2
23.5
77.4
12.3
33.8
60.4
37.5
82.1
15.7
16.9
402.7
24.3
78.6
12.6
32.8
59.2
38.4
80. 1
15.2
18.7
456.0
30. 9
83. 4
15.0
35.0
70.3
43.3
90.6
16.5
20.6
470.7
31 4
81.0
15 1
36.7
76.8
47. 6
95.1
17.0
67.1
981.3
66.4
952.3
65.5
943.4
65.3
929.8
64.7
898.6
62.5
896.5
61.2
863.8
59.9
851.9
60.3
859.3
59.0
840.4
59.5
848.5
61.5
71.0
70.0
885.1 1,081. 6 1,097.4
491.9 468.6
184. 1 180.5
464.4
178.2
459.3
174.2
457.1
158.5
444.9
164.8
428.0
155.9
419.1
159.2
424.6
159.8
408. 3
159.8
407.3
163.5
426.8
169.6
537.0
201.6
532.6
211.7
54.5
76.9
83.8
114.7
50.2
52.3
319 2
230.9
42.4
42. 5
42.8
41.9
41.1
40.8
41.1
40.8
41.0
42.3
43.8
45.3
53.5
8.9
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.4
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.9
8.1
9.8
10.5
84.8
51.6
117.6
84.9
51. 2
115.7
84.8
50.8
113.7
83.6
50.3
111.8
81.9
47.6
104.0
81.0
47.7
109.1
80.3
44.9
105. 5
79.1
42.3
103.5
78.3
43.6
104.3
76.5
42.7
103.1
78.7
43.9
103.4
79.3
46.0
110.0
89.2
58.6
131.9
93.6
64.2
130.3
816.3
49.0
107.7
819.6
48.2
108.6
824.3
47.8
109.0
827.1
50.6
107.0
791.2
51.7
87.6
821.6
54.4
103.6
788.3
55.3
96.6
764. 9
53.4
93.4
772.6
52.3
96.7
755 9
50.0
93.4
765.8
48.9
94.8
786.6
48.3
101.4
892.5
51.4
115. 5
890.5
51.2
120.4
87.4
202.9
182.0
37. 2
45.3
82.5
206.1
186.1
37.4
45.8
82.4
211.7
186.5
37.6
44.9
86.1
214.7
183.1
37.5
45.1
87.8
219.9
166.2
32.8
44.4
86.5
224.8
175.6
35.9
42.3
84.1
223.8
160.9
33.2
40.7
80.4
220.5
158.1
31.6
39.2
81.4
218.9
161. 4
32.2
39.7
80.3
214.8
158.3
31.2
38.9
82.6
216.0
159.5
32.2
39.0
83.0
219.0
165.0
33.9
40.7
83.9
241.8
201.3
40.8
47.9
93.8
225.5
197.4
40.4
50.8
104.8
104.9
104.4
103.0
100.8
98.5
93.7
88.3
90.0
89.0
92.8
95.3
109.9
111.0
600
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
T able A-3.
Production or nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establishments, by
industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
1959
1958
Annual
average
Industry
M ar.2 Feb.2
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods—Continued
Machinery (except electrical)_________ 1,108.6 1,088.4 1,057.3 1,038. 2 1, 020.1 1,004. 5 1,007. 0
62.7
62.3
61.5
61.1
Engines and turbines..........................................
56.9
58.6
Agricultural machinery and tractors.................. 108.3
91.7
84.0
83.1
96.9
95.3
85.8
81.9
76.2
Construction and mining machinery................
84.9
78.4
77.3
Metalworking machinery................................... 163.9 159.9 157.8 155.0 149.1 150.5
Special-Industry machinery (except
metalworking machinery)________________ 109.6 107.7 107.0 106.2 105.0 105.3
General Industrial machinery............................. 135.8 134.4 133.7 132.9 131.7 132.0
88.4
Office and store machines and devices...............
88.0
87.8
88.5
87.7
86.3
Service-Industry and household ma
136.3 132.7 129.0 125.7 121.4 120.1
chines—
Miscellaneous machinery parts_________ ____ 198.0 195.9 194.9 190.9 178.5 180.5
Electrical m achinery........... ...... ............. .
Electrical generating, transmission,
distribution, and industrial appa
ratus__________________________
Electrical appliances.......... ...... ...........
Insulated wire and cable........................
Electrical equipment for vehicles____
Electric lamps........................................
Communication equipment_______«...
Miscellaneous electrical products-------
800.9
976.8
56.8
91.8
79.5
145.6
990.2 1,014.1 1,028.6 1,060.8 1,090.2 1,255. 7 1,278.7
56.5
58.1
60.8
64.2
62.3
68.3
61.2
94.0
94.5
95.2 101.0 101.5 105.7 108.4
79.8
79.8
80.1
84.3
87.6 109.4 111.8
151.7 157.6 164.0 168.7 175.9 218.2 218.7
104.5
130.3
82.7
103.7
131.0
82.1
105.8
136.2
83.1
107.5
137.2
81.7
110.1
140.7
81.3
112.3
146.8
81.8
125.9
166.3
99.2
133.3
172.7
95.2
113.3
172.3
118.5
172.9
120.7
178.3
121.7
180.4
125.8
186.6
127.8
192.3
141.2
221.5
160.1
217.3
796.6
791.3 1788.9
788.2
746.0
762.2
734.0
711.6
716.4
715.3
729.2
749.3
857.7
870.3
262.4
26.2
21.6
53.4
22.4
375.2
35.4
261.9
26.2
21.9
51.3
22.4
373.4
34.2
253.9
27.9
21.3
53.1
22.1
375.7
34.2
237. 7 244.2
25.5
26.3
20.2
20.9
49.2
35.9
21.4
21.8
372.0 368.4
31.4
33.3
238.6
24.1
18.6
44.3
21.3
354.9
32.2
235.1
23.0
17.3
43.3
20.8
340.6
31.5
237.7
22.8
18.5
43.5
21.6
339.7
32.6
239.6
24.4
17.7
43.1
22.3
336.1
32.1
245.9
25.6
18.3
45.6
22.8
338.7
32.3
253.5
25.5
18.8
48.7
23.8
346.3
32.7
288.4
31.2
20.9
59.3
26.1
395.8
36.0
297.2
39.6
20 9
59.0
25. i
392.0
36. S
258.3
26.8
21.7
50.8
22.3
375.1
33.9
Transportation equipment__________
1, 204.4 1, 204. 2 1, 215.6 1, 207.6 1,199. 0
Motor vehicles and equipment..........
569.1 580.5 566.8 554.1
Aircraft and parts________________
472.5 474.5 482.9 483.7
Aircraft_______________________
286.8 288.2 292.4 293.3
Aircraft engines and parts-----------88.8
88.4
90.6
90.5
Aircraft propellers and parts______
9.6
10.1
9.7
10.2
Other aircraft parts and equipment.
87.2
88.3
89.8
89.7
Ship and boat building and repairing..
120.6 121.2 118.6 122.4
Shipbuilding and repairing—..........
102.2 103.9 101.6 106.4
Boatbuilding and repairing.............
18.4
16.0
17.3
17.0
Railroad equipment______________
34.5
32.5
32,1
30.7
Other transportation equipment____
8.1
7.5
6.9
7.2
991.5 1,100.1 1,033. 6 1,062.9 1,083.8 1, 081.2 1,103.0 1,152.7 1, 383.6 1,354.1
357.8 462.9 402.2 432.7 443.5 446.3 453.5 495.7 630.1 648. 5
480.8 480.4 474.1 471.3 476.2 467.7 479.3 482.6 663.6 537.4
291.0 291.7 291.4 289.1 291.6 281.5 292.7 294.4 340.9 326.8
90.3
90.9
87.7
87.9
88.7
89.2
89.5
89.6 111.3 105.3
10.4
11.1
11.0
11.9
12.8
13.3
13.8
13.9
13.9
11.3
89.1
83.9
86.8
82.4
83.1
84.7
83.7
83.3
97.5
94 0
118.4 118.0 118.1 119.2 123.9 123.6 121.8 123.0 127.2 111.4
103.7 104.4 105.0 104.5 107.5 105.4 103.8 105. 5 108.5
93.9
13.1
14.7
13.6
16.4
14.7
18.2
18.0
17.5
18.7
17.5
26.1
31.2
30.5
32.7
33.0
37.0
41.8
44.5
54.7
48.6
8.4
8.0
8.3
6.9
7.0
7.2
6.6
6.6
8.0
8.2
207.2 204.9 199.2 195.9 199.1 200.4 204.1 207.8 226.2 230.3
Instruments and related products............ 212.1
Laboratory, scientific and engineering
instruments___________________________
Mechanical measuring and controlling
Instruments___________________________
Optical instruments and lenses_____________
Surgical, medical, and dental instru
ments_________________________________
Ophthalmic goods_______________________
Photographic apparatus_________ _________
Watches and clocks.............................................
211.6
209.1
209.6
209.0
32.4
32.5
32.1
32.0
31.7
31.6
30.8
30.6
31.2
31.4
31.8
32.2
36.6
37.7
58.7
10.3
57.2
10.1
57.2
10.0
57.5
10.0
56.8
9.6
56.0
9.5
53.4
9.1
53.4
8.9
54.1
9.2
54.4
9.1
55.6
9.1
56.6
9.1
62.1
10.3
61.1
10.6
27.9
19.1
38.5
24.7
27.6
19.0
38.7
24.0
27.7
18.8
39.6
24.2
27.0
18.5
39.8
24.2
27.0
18.2
39.6
24.3
27.0
17.9
39.2
23.7
26.6
17.9
38.9
22.5
27.0
17.6
38.5
19.9
27.2
18.2
38.3
20.9
27.2
18.2
38.8
21.3
27.2
18.4
39.8
22.2
27.5
18.8
40.4
23.2
28.9
19.6
43.7
25.0
28.5
20.3
44.1
28.0
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.. 367.9
Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware................
Musical instruments and parts..........................
Toys and sporting goods.....................................
Pens, pencils, other office supplies..... ................
Costume jewelry, buttons, notions__________
Fabricated plastics products...............................
Other manufacturing industries______ ______
359.9
35.2
14.6
57.4
21.5
48.7
68.9
113.6
349.7
35.3
14.3
52.0
21.2
48.4
67.6
110.9
360.4
35.9
14.3
57.6
21.6
47.4
68.7
114.9
379.4
36.3
14.4
71.4
22.1
49.2
68.4
117.6
385. 8
36.2
14.2
78.8
22.2
49.9
68.3
116.2
380.0
35.6
13.7
79.0
21.6
49.1
66.7
114.3
365.6
33.5
13.0
75.5
21.6
47.9
64.0
110.1
346.2
32.8
11.8
70.1
20.6
43.1
61.6
106.2
3.54.5
33.4
12.9
70.7
22.8
44.5
61.0
109.2
348.1
32.8
13.0
67.5
23.1
42.3
59.9
109.5
350.6
33.4
13.3
64.7
23.3
43.2
61.8
110.9
354.4
34.3
13.4
61.2
23.1
46.4
64.5
111.5
390.6
36.3
15.3
75.6
24.0
49.2
71.6
118.6
405.1
39.9
15.7
79.6
23.8
52.3
70.2
123.6
948.5
944.0
239.7
61.4
130.0
78.5
158.7
21.2
59.6
102.4
92.5
949.6 1,001.0 1, 050.1 1,115.2 1,178. 4 1,172.0 1,080. 6 1,038.7
242.5 250.2 250.9 250. 5 249.0 246.0 243.8 243.1
62.2
60.8
62.2
67.9
71.5
64.4
73.0
73.0
128.7 148.2 178.1 237.1 311.8 306.9 220.2 176.8
78.4
82. 5 82.4
77.0
78.3
81.4
81.0
81.0
159.4 162.0 164.0 166.1 165.8 166.3 167.1 167.5
40.4
21.4
23.4
25.3
35.5
21.6
36.8
21.4
60.7
64.5
67.6
66. 5 61.5
54.6
68.1
58.0
102.8 108.7 114.8 115.4 115.2 117.7 120.9 119.5
98.3
91.1
92.7
93.7
96.3
95.8
98.0
98.4
977.5
238.6
69.8
141.1
78.4
164.2
22.1
56.7
111.8
94.8
948.5
230.8
65.8
136.7
77.7
162.8
20.4
57.2
105.6
91.5
941.7 1,065.7 1,104.0
233.4 259.2 268 8
64.3
69.6
72.1
124.4 187.7 201.5
78.2
79.5
83.5
163.2 169.9 172.0
19.7
26.1
26.4
60.3
63.5
64.3
107.8 116.1 119.7
90.4
94.1
95.7
71.0
76.6
32.3
25.7
5.4
13.2
69.8
31.1
27.0
5.4
6.3
70.1
30.9
27.0
5.4
6.8
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products................
Meat products..................................
Dairy products_____ ______ ____
Canning and preserving..................
Grain-mill products_____________
Bakery products________________
Sugar_________________________
Confectionery and related products.
Beverages_____________________
Miscellaneous food products______
Tobacco manufactures......... ....................
Cigarettes________________________
Cigars______ _________ ___________
Tobacco and snufl...................... ..........
Tobacco stemming and redrying...........
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
78.8
32.0
25.6
5.4
15.8
83.0
32.1
27.0
5.4
18.5
85.0
32.2
27.3
5.4
20.1
93.6
31.7
27.4
5.5
29.0
96.1
32.0
27.0
5.5
31.6
85.5
32.0
26.9
5.4
21.2
69.5
31.3
26.1
5.4
6.7
70.2
31.5
27.1
5.4
6.2
74.2
30.7
28.0
5.4
10.1
84.4
30.2
30.9
5.5
17.8
89.5
30.7
32.8
5.9
20.1
A.—EMPLOYMENT
Table A-3.
601
Production or nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establishments, by
industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
1959
Industry
M ar.2 F eb.2
M anu
Annual
average
1958
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
far ta r i n g — C ontinued
N o n d u r a b le
goods—Continued
Textile-mill products.................................. 866.1
Scouring and combing plants........... .
Yarn and thread mills______________
Broad-woven fabric mills_____ _____
Narrow fabrics and smallwares_______
Knitting m ills.____ _______ _______
Dyeing and finishing textiles________
Carpets, rugs, other floor coverings___
Hats (except cloth and millinery)____
Miscellaneous textile goods___ ............. —
859.3
4.7
99.7
370.2
25.5
189.2
75.1
39.8
9.2
45.9
855.5
4.9
100.0
370.7
25.2
185.9
74. 5
39.0
8.8
46.5
862.2 867.0
4.9
4.8
101. 5 101.7
371.8 372.1
25.2
24.8
190.2 195.3
74.7
74.6
38.6
38.2
8.7
8.9
46.6
46.6
863.3
4.8
100.8
370.9
24.7
197.0
73.8
37.5
8.6
45.2
859.9
4.8
100 6
371.1
24.5
196.0
73.4
36.7
8.6
44.2
855.2
5.1
99.9
370.1
23.9
195.0
73.8
35.3
9.0
43.1
830.2
5.0
96.0
365. 3
23.2
184.2
71.7
33.8
9.0
42.0
839.7 830.5 837.2
4.4
14
4.0
98. 5 97. 5 98.3
366.7 365.5 371.6
23.2
23.3
22.9
188. 5 183.0 179.8
73 6
72.4
72.5
34.1
36.1
34.1
8.6
9.2
9.3
41.6
41.4
42.0
844.2
4.4
99.1
376.9
23.7
177.2
73. 4
37.6
9.1
42.8
912.9 965.9
5.0
6.1
107 2 113 7
401. 5 429 7
25.4
26.2
194. 3 201^2
77.1
80 1
42. 5 45 7
94
10 8
50. 5 52.4
Apparel and other finished textile products____________________________ 1081.1 1076.4 1051. 0 1,055.6 1, 053.3 1,051.2 1,055.3 1, 044.3
96.4
M en’s and boys’ suits and coats_____
97.0
96.5
95.0
93.9
97.4
93.8
M en’s and boys’ furnishings and work
e ln th ln g
293.2 286.6
288.1 287.6 289.1 289.6 287.0
322.4 310.2
311.1 308.2 303.1 306. 7 312.2
Womon’s outerwear________________
104.8 102.9
104.7 106.9 105.6 103.3 100.9
Women’s, children’s undergarments__
21.3
18.3
16.3
Millinery_________________________
14.5
18. 7 18.4
37.6
70.0
68.0
65.5
65.0
66.3
67.4
Children’s outerw ear.. ____________
66.3
6.9
8.1
9.4
7.1
8.2
Fur goods________________________
9.3
9.4
52.5
52.0
50.7
54.1
Miscellaneous apparel and accessories..
54.6
52. 7
53.8
110.9
112.9
108.6
113.7
102.5
111.8 110.1
Other fabricated textile products_____
992.0
90.8
993.6
95.1
984.7
93.3
986.7 1,017.7 1,064.5 1, 079. 8
89.3
97.2 105.3 110.9
279.9
291. 4
94.5
14.7
66.5
86
47. 4
98.2
283 2
282. 5
97.6
11.8
66.8
85
49 3
98 8
277.0
292.1
97.7
10.1
62.0
7.9
47.8
96.8
275.6
296.4
101.3
12.7
59.4
6. 5
48.0
97.5
284.3
295.7
103.3
18.0
63.3
7.2
49.9
98. 8
288. 9
312.0
106.8
16. 3
65 7
78
53 2
108 5
291
314
108
16
66
8
56
107
Paper and allied products.......................... 442.1
Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills___
Paperboard containers and boxes. ____
Other paper and allied products______
439.9
220.0
119.5
100.4
440.2
220.8
120.1
99.3
442.7
220.8
122.5
99.4
445.9
222.5
124.3
99.1
446.5
222. 2
124. 2
100.1
447.0
222,5
124.0
100. 5
441.7
222.7
120.0
99.0
429.0
215.4
116.1
97.5
433.4
218.8
117.1
97. 5
431.7
218.5
116.1
97.1
434.2
220.1
115. 6
98. 5
435.7
220.0
116. 7
99.0
458.8
229.1
125 2
104 5
463 4
230 4
127 2
105.8
Printing, publishing, and allied Industries............................ ............. ............. 550.4
Newspapers_______________________
Periodicals________________________
Books ___________________________
Commercial printing___________ ____
Lithographing_____________________
Greeting cards_____________________
Bookbinding and related Industries___
Miscellaneous publishing and printing
services_________________________
544.9
156.9
26.6
34.6
177.5
49.0
13.5
34.9
543.5
156.3
26.2
34.3
177.9
48.7
13.6
34.7
549.7
159.4
25.3
33.7
178.9
50.5
14.6
34.8
548.0
159.7
25.7
33.2
176.8
50.2
15.7
34.9
550.6
159.4
26.3
33.3
178.6
50.1
16.2
34.9
547.6
157.1
26.1
33.8
177.5
49.6
15.8
35.9
541.7
156.3
24.7
33.3
175.1
49.4
15.4
35.7
537.2
155. 7
24.1
32.9
174.6
49.1
14. 7
34.7
541.0
157. 5
24.6
33.1
176.0
49.3
14.7
34.8
540.4
157.4
25.6
33.3
175.7
49.6
13.2
34.2
544.7
155.9
25.8
33.7
178.1
49.6
12.8
34.8
547.0
156.2
25.9
34.3
178.9
49.8
12.3
35.2
553.2
156.1
25 6
35 2
181. 3
50 7
13 8
37.0
549.6
155 1
27
33 4
179 6
48 5
14 1
37.2
5
0
4
5
D
4
3
8
51.9
51.8
52.5
51.8
51. 8
51 8
51.8
51 4
51 0
51. 4
54 0
54. 4
53 5
53 9
Chemicals and allied products_________ 527.8
Industrial inorganic chemicals_______
Industrial organic chemicals..................
Drugs and medicines. ____________
Soap, cleaning and polishing preparatlo n s __________________________
Paints, pigments, and fillers..................
(him and wood chemicals
Fertilizers _______________________
Vegetable and animal oils and fats____
Miscellaneous chemicals____________
520.4
66.7
197.9
57.5
514.8
66.4
195.9
57.4
514.3
66.2
194. 7
57.2
514.0
66.5
1910
56.9
516.5
66.2
193.1
56.7
510.9
66.0
191.4
57.2
504.1
66.0
190.0
57.5
495.5
65.6
186.4
57. 5
500.1
66.9
186.8
57.4
510.0
67.3
187.7
57. 6
519.3
68.5
190.1
58.1
519.0
69.2
192.3
58.3
545.1
73.0
210.3
57.9
553.3
75.0
217.0
57.2
30.4
44.4
6.2
26.9
27.4
63.0
30.1
44.0
6.2
25.6
27.7
61.5
30.3
44.3
6. 2
23.6
28.6
63.2
30.7
44.2
6.2
22.5
29.6
63.4
31.3
44.4
6. 4
24.6
30.1
63. 7
31. 5
44.6
64
23.4
26.5
63.9
30.4
45.0
6. 4
21.4
23.9
63.5
29.7
44.0
65
20. 9
23.1
61. 8
29. 5
43.4
63
24.1
23.4
62. 3
29.0
42.4
66
33 1
23. 5
62.8
29.1
42.5
6. 5
36.7
24.6
63.2
29.6
43.0
65
31. 5
25. 5
63.1
30 7
45.9
72
26 7
28.1
65.3
30 3
47.0
71
27 3
28 6
63 8
Products of petroleum and coal............. . 155.3
Petroleum refining_________________
Coke, other petroleum and coal produ c t s ..__________________________
150.9
115.4
154.4
118.7
154.6
118. 5
155.9
119. 5
153.3
116.4
157.5
120.4
157.4
121.3
157.4
121. 5
157. 9
121.7
157.5
122 3
156. 7
122. 4
156.4
122. 7
168.0
128.1
172.2
131.0
35.5
35.7
36.1
36.4
36.9
37.1
36.1
35.9
36.2
35 2
34.3
33.7
39 9
41 2
Rubber products.. .................................. 200.6
Tires and inner tubes_________ _____
Rubber footw ear.___________ _____
Other rubber products______________
198.6
75.7
17.1
105.8
199.1
76.9
17.1
105.1
198.2
77.1
17.1
104.0
195.3
76.2
17.2
101.9
194.5
75.3
17.1
102.1
187.5
74.1
16.8
96.6
181.2
72.5
16.4
92.3
175.1
71.0
15.9
88.2
175.8
71.2
16.3
88.3
172.3
70.4
16 3
85.6
176.0
72.1
16. 5
87.4
184.0
76.0
16. 7
91.3
205.9
83.3
17.6
105.0
211.1
85
19 8
106 1
Leather and leather products__________ 332.2
Leather: tanned, curried, and finished.
Industrial leather belting and packing.
Boot and shoe cut stock and findings..
Footwear (except rubber)
Luggage . _______________________
Handbags and small leather goods........
Gloves and miscellaneous leather goods.
See footnotes at end of table.
333.2
33.8
3.6
17.7
225.8
12.4
28.2
11.7
329.3
34.1
3.6
17.8
224.1
12.1
26.9
10.7
328.7
34.2
3.5
17.6
220.7
12.8
28.1
11.8
324.3
34.0
3.4
16.6
214.2
13.6
29.7
12.8
315.0
33.7
3.3
15.9
205.9
13.6
29.4
13.2
321.0
33.6
3.2
15.7
212 9
13.2
29.0
13.4
323.2 316.7
33.1
32.2
2.9
2.7
16. 5
16.2
216.8 215 4
13.1
12.2
27.5
24.8
13.3
13.2
314.3
33.6
2.7
16.2
213 0
12.4
23.6
12.8
301 5 299.9
33 0 33.0
3.0
2.7
15.1
15. 4
205 4 202 4
12.0
11. 8
20.8
22.8
12.2
11.8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
320.0 329.2 339.0
34.2
36.4
38.4
3.2
3.5
3.8
15. 8
17.7
16.8
217 1 219 1 221 5
11. 7
13.1
13' 9
26.6
26.1
28.9
11.4
14.2
14.8
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
602
Table A-3.
Production or nonsupervisory workers in nonagricultural establishments, by
industry 1—Continued
[In thousands]
1959
1958
Annual
average
Industry
M ar.2 Feb.2 Jan.
Transportation and public utilities:
Other public utilities . _____________
Gas and electric utilities......................~
Electric light and power utilities___
Gas u tilitie s.___________________
Electric light and gas utilities combined _______________________
Local utilities, not elsewhere classified..
Wholesale and retail trade:
Wholesale tr a d e ____________________
Wholesalers, full-service and limitedfunction______________________
Automotive_____________________
Groceries, food specialties, beer,
wines, and liquors______________
Electrical goods, machinery, hardware, and plumbing equipment__
Other full-service and flmited-function wholesalers ______________
Wholesale distributors, other________
Retail trade:
General merchandise sto res..............
Department stores and general mailorder houses___________________
Other general merchandise stores___
Food and liquor stores_____________
Grocery, meat, and vegetable markets__________________________
Dairy-product, stores and dealers____
Other food and liquor stores________
Automotive and accassories dealers____
Apparel and accessories stores________
Other retail trade (except eating and
drinking places)________________
Furniture“and appliance stores..........
Drug stores_____________________
Dec.
Nov.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
526
506.2
219.0
135.5
528
507.9
219.5
135.6
530
510.0
219.7
136.6
532
511.4
220.5
136.4
533
512.9
221.0
137.1
540
519.7
223.9
139.0
547
525.8
226.3
141.1
548
526.9
226.6
141.4
541
520.4
224.9
138.9
534
513.8
222.4
136.3
534
513.4
222.5
136.0
534
513.7
222.8
135.7
540
619.0
226.0
136.4
535
513.8
219.6
133.4
151.7
19.8
152.8
19.9
153.7
19.9
154.5
20.2
154.8
20.4
156.8
20.6
158.4
21.0
158.9
21.1
156.6
20.7
155.1
20.5
154.9
20.4
155.2
20.3
156. 6
20.7
160.8
21.2
2,620
2,621 2,666
2,656
2,646
2,625
2,601
2.597
2, 593
2,571
2,592
2,617
2,695
2,661
1, 552.7 1, 549.7 1,582. 4 1, 574. 0 1, 560.3 1, 546. 3 1, 526. 3 1, 520. 6 1,514. 7 1. 499.1 1, 509. 5 1, 523. 8 1, 572. 2 1, 562. 6
112.7 112.2 112.3 112.2 111.3 111.3 111.0 110.7 109.6 107.5 107.9 108.0 108.4 104.3
—
274.7
275.1
281.0
280.4
276.3
275.5
268.2
269.8
267.1
263.3
267.2
272.2
273.4
275.1
381.2
380.5
383.2
382.5
381.6
380.1
379.8
379.0
378.4
376.9
379.8
383.8
402.7
402.0
784.1 781.9 805.9 798.9 791.1 779.4 767.3 761.1 759.6 751.4 754.6 759.8 787.7 781.2
1, 067.6 1,071.6 1, 083. 4 1, 082. 4 1, 085. 6 1,078. 3 1,074.4 1,076.6 1,077.9 1,072.3 1,082. 4 1,093.6 1,122. 6 1,098.1
1, 253.4 1, 296.8 1,840.7 1, 474. 3 1, 372.2 1,322. 9 1,252.8 1,238.6 1, 263. 6 1,259.9 1,251. 8 1,232.4 1,356. 5 1.355. 3
804.0 839.8 1,188.3 953.2 875.1 840.0 802.0 795.3 808.3 803.5 794.5 787.5 875. 9 876.4
449.4 457.0 652.4 521.1 497.1 482.9 450.8 443.3 455.3 456.4 457.3 444.9 480.6 478.9
1, 472.3 1, 455.6 1, 507.1 1, 488. 3 1, 475. 6 1,479. 8 1,468.2 1,478.0 1,481.1 1, 479.2 1, 477.6 1,484.0 1,465. 5 1, 440.9
—
—
1,089.6 1,078.3 1,108. 9 1, 097. 3 1, 084. 7 1,076.8 1,060. 5 1,069.6 1,070.5 1, 068.8 1,067. 5 1,078. 7 1,038.4 1,014.5
186.0 185.9 187.7 188.9 190.8 202.1 207.1 207.3 206.1 201.6 198.7 196.8 206.7 205.1
196.7 191.4 210.5 202.1 200.1 200.9 200.6 201.1 204.5 208.8 211.3 208.5 220.4 221.3
680.4 678.6 693. 5 676.3 667.5 667.2 670.1 668.6 668.9 669.5 670.0 680.4 719.3 727.1
513.0 531.6 665.5 568.1 551.8 540.7 496.8 603.0 541.9 536.3 633.8 526.1 556.6 565.5
2, 025.4 2, 035. 5 2,155.7 2, 072. 5 2, 062. 5 2,070. 5 2,065. 4 2,058. 3 2,049.6 2,025.2 2, 020.2 2,014. 5 2,094.6 2,104.5
351.7 353.3 373.8 360.6 355.5 352.0 349.3 349.1 350.5 350.4 349.9 351. 7 361.2 363.8
340.9 338.9 374.0 340.7 338.0 337.0 334.5 334. 2 332.5 330. 4 328.9 327.3 337.7 327.8
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August
1958 and coverage of the series, see footnote 1, table A-2.
Production and related workers include working foremen and all nonsuper
visory workers (including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, proc
essing, assembling, inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, ware
housing, shipping, maintenance, repair, janitorial, watchman services,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Oct.
product development, auxiliary production for plant’s own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely associated with the
aforementioned production operations.
* Preliminary.
S ou bc e : Ü .8 . Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
603
A.—EMPLOYMENT
T a ble
A-6.
Insured unemployment under State programs and the program of unemployment com
pensation for Federal employees,1 by geographic division and State
[In thousands]
Annual average
1958
1959
Geographic division and State
Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
Aug.
Sept.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
1958
1957
2, 537.4
1,465.8
182.8
18.4
7.7
4.7
90.0
17.8
44.2
200.0
19.4
8.3
4.7
96.6
19.8
51.2
173.4
17.6
7.5
4.1
87.6
16.1
40.4
132.4
13.4
5.9
2.9
64.2
11.4
34.5
126.7
11.1
5.8
2.6
59.3
11.0
36.9
137.6
13.4
7.7
2.8
62.4
12.0
39.3
153.6
14. 1
7.8
3.0
66.8
14. 5
47.4
190.3
16.4
9.2
3.3
85.0
19.2
57.1
204.8
18.7
10.1
3.7
91.2
20. 0
61.0
238.6
25.1
12.5
4.6
106.6
23.5
66.2
263.3
30.0
15.3
5.9
121.7
26 9
63.5
251.9
24.7
12. 5
6.8
119.7
27. 2
61.1
240.2
21.8
10. 5
6.9
113 9
27.0
60. 0
195.5
19.0
9. 6
4.4
90.8
19. 6
52.0
121.9
11.0
6.0
2.8
61.4
16.5
24.2
714.8
327.9
111.0
275.9
783.9
355.4
126.8
301.7
668.4
319.6
100.9
248.0
559.2
250.0
85.1
224.1
542.2
233.5
83.6
225.1
572.1
245.4
87.1
239.6
636.1
269. 7
95.8
270.5
735.2
334.4
110.2
290.6
780 2
358. 2
118 9
303.1
831.6
374.6
136.3
320.7
885.1
391.4
150.3
343.5
865.8
381.2
149. 4
336. 2
831 8
364. 5
145. 5
321. 8
724.6
322. 4
116. 9
285.2
427.6
189. 3
80. 5
157.9
445.8
107.1
48.5
130.4
122.2
37.5
451.6
117.1
52.2
130.7
110.5
41.0
403.5
106.6
43.7
109.2
106.2
37.9
350.9
88.0
33.7
93.8
105.0
30.4
369.2
90.6
33.9
95.5
120.0
29.3
444.7
108.5
39.9
109.1
155.7
31.6
570.8
138.0
53. 1
133.3
208.7
37.7
638.3
166.1
61.4
148.2
223.6
38.9
692.5
186.5
68.5
156.9
241.7
38.9
771.0
211.3
80.7
169.8
265.5
43.7
838.3
223.1
89.8
176.8
296.4
52.1
800.7
212 3
88.3
176.3
267.2
56.5
742.4
202.0
87.9
168 0
231.3
53.2
603.0
157.9
62.9
140. 5
200. 2
41. 5
283.8
65.6
33. 5
68. 2
93. 2
23 2
Missouri _____________________
North D akota___________________
South Dakota............. .........................
Nebraska
_ ___________
Kansas-------- ------ -----------------------
145.0
46.5
15.1
45.3
7.7
4.0
10.2
16.2
145.5
45.7
14.6
49.9
6.7
3.8
9.3
15.5
105.2
33.4
9.3
37.8
5.0
2.4
6.1
11.2
77.7
22.3
6.1
33.6
1.9
1.0
3.8
8.9
71.1
18.8
5.1
34.9
.6
.5
2.8
8.4
78.7
20.4
5.6
40.0
.5
.5
3.0
8.6
85.8
24.8
7.3
38.0
.7
.6
3.6
10.8
96.6
27.8
8.8
43.5
1.0
.7
4.2
10.5
104.6
31.4
9.4
47.4
1.2
.8
4.2
10.1
127.3
40.0
11 7
54 9
1.9
1.2
5.3
12.3
167.2
53.6
15.9
64.4
46
2. 6
8.5
17.6
188.2
58.1
20.9
63.7
7. 5
4. 3
12.4
21.2
185.2
56.0
22. 8
61.2
7.9
4. 5
12.4
20.3
120.4
36.3
11.8
47.9
3.3
80 0
22.6
8.9
30. 3
2. 4
6.3
13.0
5.4
8. 6
South Atlantic______________________
"Delaware
____________
M aryland____ __________________
District of C olum bia........................
V ir g in ia
__________
West Virginia___________________
North Carolina__________________
South Carolina_________________ Georgia................... ............................Florida...................................................
247.6
7.5
45.8
8.4
27.2
35.5
45.8
16.5
32.2
28.7
270.5
6.5
47.0
8.3
27.2
37.3
51.7
20.4
40.1
32.2
213.1
5.1
37.3
6.7
18.3
29.6
42.3
14.9
31.4
27.5
184.0
3.5
30.1
6.0
15.0
26.4
34.4
13.5
27.5
27.7
186.7
3.5
28.7
5.8
13.8
27.5
32.2
13.6
28.1
33.5
207.1
4.0
30.9
6.0
16.2
32.1
34.3
14.7
31.6
37.4
240.9
5.7
35.0
6.8
20.6
38.4
41.7
16.4
36.4
39.9
281.7
5.8
38.6
7.2
26.1
43.8
54.9
20.9
44.9
39.5
285.0
5.3
39.7
7.2
27 3
47.6
55.9
20.0
46.3
35.7
310.8
6.2
42.9
7.8
29.3
52. 7
63.5
22.5
50.5
35 2
326 2
6.9
46.5
8.9
31. 6
52.1
68. 5
23.8
52.5
35.4
313.7
6.5
47. 3
10.0
33. 2
47. 8
66. 5
22. 5
47.9
32.1
306.1
6.4
47.2
10.3
33. 8
44. 6
66. 7
23 0
46.0
27.9
261.3
5.3
38. 8
7.6
24.4
39. 9
52.0
19.4
40.7
33.2
154.7
3.1
17. 7
5.3
East South Central_________________
K entucky_______________________
Tennessee___ ___________________
Alabama
_ _ _ ____________
Mississippi_____ ______ — .............-
133.8
36.8
44.5
32.4
20.1
137.6
36.2
48.6
33.4
19.5
112.8
29.1
38.6
30.5
14.7
100.6
25.9
34.6
28.8
11.4
99.1
28.1
32.4
27.7
10.8
111.0
33.8
35.9
29.0
12.2
131.7
41.6
42.2
33.1
14.8
155.9
49.8
50.5
38.4
17.2
165.0
54. 1
52.7
37.9
20 3
188.1
61.3
59.6
44.2
23.0
200.5
66.1
64.0
46.1
24.2
196.3
60.6
65.1
45.9
24.7
200.1
57. 4
68.8
47.3
26.6
152.8
110.9
50.7
37. 4
18.5
40.2
22. 6
15.0
West South Central_______ __________
Arkansas _ ___________________
L o u is ia n a
_______________
146.5
23.3
36.5
21.7
64.9
147.2
23.6
36.0
23.0
64.6
115.5
18.0
26.8
18.2
52.5
102.3
14.3
23.7
15.7
48.7
101.4
12.6
24.4
14.1
50.3
110.1
12.9
25.9
15.2
56.1
120.7
15.5
26.2
17.4
61.6
129.9
17.9
27.3
19.0
65.6
133.6 153. 8
24.2
18.8
29.5
26.8
20. C 23.9
76.1
68.0
165.0
27.5
29.8
27.6
80.1
158.8
26. 4
28.4
28.2
76.9
147.1
27. 8
27.5
25. 8
66.0
130.2
20.1
26.7
20. 5
63.0
72.1
14.8
13.2
12.7
31. 4
51.0
9.1
8.1
2.6
8.4
4.1
7.8
6.2
4.8
39.1
6.0
4.9
1.6
7.0
3.6
7.4
4.5
4.1
30.2
4.0
2.7
11
5.4
3.4
7.2
3.4
3.0
32.3
3.8
2. i
1.1
6.7
3.4
7.9
4.0
2.7
36.0
4.1
3.4
1.4
6.1
4.3
9. 1
4.9
2.8
38.7
5.0
3.3
1.6
5.9
4.6
9.6
5. 6
3.2
41.1
5.9
3.0
2.0
6.8
4.8
9.1
6.0
3.6
51.7
7.8
4.1
2.6
9.4
5. 7
10.2
7.4
4.5
72.6
12.0
6.9
3.9
13.5
7.3
12.7
10.2
6.0
86.5
16.6
10.1
4. 4
15.8
7.6
13.4
11.7
6.8
90.2
17.9
12.6
4.3
16.0
7.3
12.4
12.4
7.3
53.6
8. 9
6.2
2.
9.3
5.2
9.7
7.2
4.6
34.5
6.3
5.2
1.7
5.1
3. 5
5.5
4.5
2.8
267.8
55.9
30.8
181.0
234.9
46.6
24.2
164.1
195.8
35.9
16.7
142.3
212.3
35.9
16.9
159.5
227.1
37.9
17.8
171.3
244.4
32.4
16.8
195.1
260.5
25.3
15.3
220.
311.0
35.1
20.7
255.2
384.1
47.6
31.1
305.4
413.7
59.2
39.8
314.6
420.0
68.1
45.2
306.6
295.9
46.0
26.9
222.9
180.3
33.3
22.9
124.1
Continental United States..................... - 2, 395.5 2, 517.9 2,110.8 1,781.2 1, 722. 4 1,905.8 2,202. 7 2. 510.9 2,667.3 2,984.0 3, 302.3 3. 275.5 3,163.1
New England-............................................New Hampshire_________________
Vermont___- .................. .............. .......
M assachusetts.. ______________
Rhode Island
_ __________
Connecticut................................. .........
Middle Atlantic____________________
N e w Y ork
New Jersey________________ ___
Pennsylvania.......................................
East North Central ..................................
Ohio
Illin o is
M ichigan...........................— ............ W isconsin............................................
West North C e n tr a l................................
Minnesota..................... .......................
O k la h o m a
____________
Texas...... ............ ................................
Montana ______________________
Idaho
_ _ ______
Wyoming...... ........................................
Colorado________________________
N ew Mexico____________________
A rizona......................... .....................U tah......................................................
Nevada...... ............................................
72.2
14.7
10.0
4.6
12.6
5.7
9.7
9.3
5.6
Pacific...........................................................
Washington.................... ...................
Oregon............. ....................................
California................. ......................... .
306.9
54.1
33.3
219.5
M o u n ta in
__________
66.7
13.0
10.2
4.0
10.9
5.2
9. C
8.6
5.5
314.8
60.7
36.2
217.6
1 Average of weekly data adjusted for spilt weeks in the month.
may not add to totals because of rounding.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Figures
14.1
39. 3
15.2
27.5
18.7
S o u r c e : U .S . Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security,
604
T a ble
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
A-7.
Unemployment insurance and employment service programs, selected operations 1
[All Items except average benefits amounts are In thousands]
1!159
item
Feb.
Employment service:
New applications for work____
Nonfarm placements
1958
Jan.
806
378
896
398
Dec.
737
406
Nov.
Oct.
740
413
775
514
Sept.
776
545
Aug.
725
489
July
812
459
1957
June
979
456
May
866
439
Apr.
954
404
Mar.
951
332
Feb.
Feb.
999
312
747
387
State unemployment insurance program s:!
Initial claims •____
1,277
1,790
1,924
1,258
1,259
1,251
1,186
1, 659
1,513
1,538
1,983
1,795
1,815
1,002
Insured unem ploym ent4 (average weekly volume)...............
2,396
2, 518
2, 111
1,781
1,722
1,906
2,203
2, 511
2,667
2,984
3,302
3,276
3,163
1,730
Rate of Insured unem ploym ent8
5.7
6.0
5.1
4.3
4.1
5.2
4.5
8.0
6.3
7.1
7.9
7.9
7.6
4.3
Weeks of unemployment compensated________________
8,628
9,532
7,997
5,939
7,157
7,776
8,583 10,277 10,879 12,020 13,055 12, 457 10, 793
6,118
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment........
$30.52 $30. 50 $30.41 $30.46 $30. 45 $30.66 $30.50 $30. 62 $30.80 $30.80 $30. 88 $30 53 $30 48 $27 85
Total benefits paid__________ $255, 671 $279, 461 $234,683 $174,470 $210, 300 $231,141 $255,432 $305, 638 $325,039
$363,550 $403,845 $370, 248 $320,181 $164, 860
Unemployment compensation for
veterans: •
Initial claims *________
Insured unemployment 4 (average weekly volume).. . . .
Weeks of unemployment compensated___ _________
Total benefits paid L ___ _____
Railroad unemployment InsuranceApplications 8__________
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)___________
Number of payments • ..
Average amount of benefit payment
....... . ....... .
Total benefits paid 18_______
All programs:11
Insured unem ploym ent4
9
13
14
12
13
14
19
30
38
24
27
30
31
28
31
28
26
27
39
53
78
78
74
80
81
72
49
113
$2, 993
131
$3,486
125
$3,311
102
$2,693
129
$3,391
193
$5,047
248
384
$6, 553 $10,151
333
$8,853
334
$8,922
368
$9, 833
345
$9,285
279
$7,546
207
$5, 594
23
8
17
22
20
17
20
21
117
80
17
20
24
27
11
94
217
122
311
125
287
121
229
113
272
118
260
119
286
128
250
101
252
128
307
146
338
149
319
140
284
67
138
$65. 57 $65. 68 $69.31 $70.15 $69. 91 $70.35 $69. 60 $59.44 $66. 85 $67.27 $68.59 $67.86 $67.52
$13, 752 $20, 345 $19,755 $16,030 $19,076 $18,144 $19,861 $14, 735 $16,651 $20,574 $23,153
$21,626 $19,093
$60.01
$8,252
2, 584
2,729
2,307
1,957
1,863
Average weekly Insured unemployment excludes territories: other Items
include them.
J Data Include activities under the program of Unemployment Compensa
tion for Federal Employees (UCFE), which became effective on January 1,
1955.
* An Initial claim is a notice filed by a worker at the beginning of a period
of unemployment which establishes the starting date for any Insured un
employment which may result If he is unemployed for 1 week or longer.
4 Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unem
ployment.
5 The rate of Insured unemployment Is the number of insured unemployed
expressed as a percent of the average covered employment In a 12-month
period.
6 Based on claims filed under the Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act
of 1952. Excludes claims filed by veterans to supplement State, U CFE, or
railroad unemployment Insurance benefits.
* Federal portion only of benefits paid jointly with other programs. Weekly
benefit amount for total unemployment is set by law at $26.
2,062
2,374
2,717
2,847
3,186
3,527
3,505
3,375
1,846
* An application for benefits Is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of
hls first period of unemployment In a benefit year; no application Is required
for subsequent periods in the same year.
« Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods; the aver
age amount is an average for all compensable periods. Not adjusted for
recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments.
10 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments.
11 Represents an unduplicated count of Insured unemployment under the
State, U CFE, and Veterans’ Programs, and that covered by the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act. Beginning with November 1958, includes
data for ex-servicemen under the program of Unemployment Compensation
for Ex-servicemen, effective October 27, 1958.
S o u r c e : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security
for all items except railroad unemployment insurance, which are prepared
by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board.
The labor turnover tables (B -l and B-2) have been dropped from the Review pending a general revision of the
Current Labor Statistics section because, beginning with January 1959 data, the categories for which labor turn
over rates are published differ from those previously published. Current data are available monthly in Employ
ment and Earnings or may be obtained upon request.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
605
C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
C.—Earnings and Hours
T able C -l.
Year and month
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1
Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly. hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
earn hours
ings
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Mining
1956: Average
1958: February........
March.........
April
M ay.............. ..
June________
J u ly
August
- September___
October_____
November___
December___
1959: January_____
February.......-
$98. 81
102. 21
98. 81
97.02
94.62
96.01
101.89
99. 96
101.24
102.14
102. 40
103. 60
105. 56
105.86
105.73
41.0
40.4
38.3
37.9
37.4
38.1
39.8
39.2
39.7
39.9
40.0
40.0
40.6
40.1
39.6
$2.41
2. 53
2.58
2.56
2.53
2. 52
2.56
2. 55
2. 55
2. 56
2. 56
2. 59
2.60
2.64
2.67
$96.83
98. 74
96.78
95.40
92.93
91.10
92.34
96.13
95.63
98. 04
98.30
100. 84
101.24
103.94
104.19
42.1
40.8
39.6
39.1
38.4
37.8
38.0
38.3
37.8
38.6
38.7
39.7
39.7
40.6
40.7
$2.30
2.42
2. 45
2.44
2. 42
2.41
2. 43
2.51
2.53
2. 54
2.54
2.54
2. 55
2.56
2.56
$96.71
103.49
99.63
96.93
93.96
94.23
98.28
104. 43
105.28
104. 80
101. 03
102. 60
101. 82
106.59
108.02
39.8
39.5
36.9
35.9
34.8
34.9
36.4
36.9
37.2
36.9
35.7
36.0
35.6
37.4
37.9
Lead and zinc
Copper
Iron
Total: Metal
1057: A verage
Coal
Metal
Total: Minins
$2.43 $100.28
2.62 97. 75
2.70 95.52
2.70 94.96
2.70 93.30
2.70 88.22
2. 70 85.56
2.83 89. 78
2.83 87. 71
2. 84 94.67
2.83 99.79
2. 85 105. 75
2.86 103. 42
2.85 106.82
2.85 107.43
43.6
40.9
39.8
39.9
39.2
37.7
36.1
37.1
35.8
38.8
40.4
42.3
41.7
42.9
42.8
$2.30 $89. 24
2.39 88. 97
2.40 84.50
2.38 85.10
2.38 84. 74
2. 34 83.89
2.37 86.03
2.42 86. 55
2.45 83.16
2. 44 83.16
2. 47 87.42
2.50 89.02
2.48 92.29
2.49 91.43
2.51 89.76
105R- A verage
1957: Average_____
1958: February____
M arch..'____
April________
M*ay________
June________
July________
August— __
September___
October_____
November. ..
December.......
1959: January_____
February........
$106.22
110. 53
100. 62
96. 37
90. 60
93. 30
106. 30
97.85
105. 90
106. 55
107. 76
107. 31
115. 82
114.71
113.84
37.8
36.6
33.1
31.7
30.0
31.1
35.2
32.4
35.3
35.4
35.8
35.3
38.1
36.3
35.8
Petroleum and nat
ural-gas produc
tion (except contract services)
$2.81 $101. 68
3.02 106. 75
3.04 110.83
3.04 110. 97
3.02 108. 81
3.00 107. 06
3. 02 110.57
3.02 110.83
3.00 106.67
3.01 110. 02
3.01 107. 60
3. 04 112.06
3. 04 108. 54
3.16 111.92
3.18 116.75
41.0
40.9
41.2
41.1
40.6
40.4
40.8
41.2
40.1
40.9
40.3
41.2
40. 5
41.3
41.4
Nonmetallic mining
and quarrying
$2.48 $85.63
2.61 87.80
2.69 81.00
2.70 83.22
2.68 85. 45
2. 65 89. 59
2.71 91.49
2.69 91.94
2.66 93.39
2. 69 95.34
2. 67 95. 37
2. 72 92.84
2.68 89.67
2.71 87.98
2.82 88.19
44.6
43.9
39.9
41.2
42.3
43.7
44.2
44.2
44.9
45. 4
45.2
44.0
42. 1
41.5
41.6
Total: Contract
construction
$1.92 $101.83
2.00 106.64
2.03 100.53
2. 02 106. 44
2. 02 107.88
2.05 111.08
2.07 110.11
2.08 111.90
2. 08 113. 70
2.10 114. 91
2.11 115. 82
2.11 110. 66
2.13 109. 43
2.12 111.03
2.12 106.64
Nonbuilding
construction—Con.
Other nonbuilding
construction
$2.14 $78. 96
2.17 81. 79
2.15 73.70
2.16 66. 25
2.14 58. 65
2.14 67. 60
2.14 80.96
2.18 79. 77
2.16 74.59
2. 20 80.08
2.18 77. 52
2. 22 78. 04
2.24 93.19
2.23 91.24
2.20 74.79
37.3
36.9
33.4
35.6
36.2
37.4
37.2
37.3
37.9
37.8
38.1
36.4
35.3
35.7
34.4
Nonbuilding construction
Total: Nonbuilding
construction
$2. 73 $101.59
2.89 105.07
3.01 96.21
2.99 101. 90
2.98 103. 45
2. 97 110. 56
2.96 108. 67
3.00 110. 57
3.00 114. 66
3.04 117. 32
3.04 118. 71
3.04 108.11
3.10 105. 36
3.11 105.88
3.10 99.91
40.8
39.8
35.5
37.6
38.6
41.1
40.7
40.8
42.0
42.2
42.7
39.6
37.9
38.5
36.2
$2. 49
2.64
2.71
2.71
2.68
2. 69
2. 67
2.71
2. 73
2.78
2. 78
2.73
2.78
2. 75
2. 76
Total: Building
construction
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Highway and street
construction
$97.63
98.66
85.26
88. 21
94. 57
105.84
103.25
106. 50
112. 31
114. 23
117. 04
102. 62
93.98
93.59
85.40
41.9
40.6
34.8
36.6
38.6
42.0
41.3
41.6
43.7
43.6
44.5
40.4
37.0
38.2
35.0
$2. 33
2.43
2.45
2. 41
2.45
2. 52
2.50
2. 56
2.57
2. 62
2.63
2.54
2.54
2.45
2.44
Special-trade contractors
General contractors
$95.04
98.89
91.58
100.04
101. 60
105.12
103. 46
104. 54
106. 48
105. 56
107. 01
103. 37
99.12
103.01
99.62
36.0
35.7
31.8
35.1
35.4
36.5
36.3
36.3
37.1
36.4
36.9
35.4
33.6
34.8
34.0
Total: Specialtrade contractors
$2.64 $107.16
2. 77 112.17
2.88 107.18
2.85 112. 29
2. 87 113.21
2.88 115.12
2.85 115.18
2. 88 116 89
2.87 117.90
2. 90 118. 99
2.90 119. 64
2.92 115. 73
2.95 116. 51
2.96 116.86
2.93 112.20
36.7
36.3
33.6
35.2
35.6
36.2
36.1
36.3
36.5
36.5
36.7
35.5
35.2
35.2
34.0
Plumbing and
heating
$2.92 $112.31
3. 09 118. 87
3.19 117.85
3.19 120. 80
3.18 121.77
3.18 121. 66
3.19 122. 47
3.22 124. 64
3. 23 124.97
3.26 126. 39
3.26 126. 39
3.26 121. 77
3. 31 127. 59
3.32 127.64
3.30 123.28
38.2
38.1
36.6
37.4
37.7
37.9
37.8
38.0
38.1
38.3
38.3
36.9
38.2
38.1
36.8
$2.94
3.12
3. 22
3.23
3. 23
3. 21
3. 24
3. 28
3.28
3.30
3.30
3.30
3. 34
3.35
3.35
Other specialtrade contractors
$3.17 $102.39
3.37 106.30
3.42 97.34
3. 46 105.43
3.49 106.64
3.52 110.09
3.55 109.51
3.58 111.51
3. 58 112. 46
3.62 113. 53
36. Í 114.12
3. 62 110. 66
3.63 107. 24
3.6' 108.54
3.63 103.04
Painting and
decorating
$99.81
103. 75
100. 78
103. 80
106. 91
106. 79
107. 71
108. 42
110. 76
110. 25
110.92
108. 73
109.10
107.52
104.63
34.9
34.7
32.3
33.7
34.6
34.9
35.2
35.2
35.5
35.0
35.1
34.3
34.2
33.6
32.8
$2.86
2.99
3.12
3.08
3. 09
3.06
3.06
3.08
3.12
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.19
3.20
3.19
Manufacturing
Durable goods
Special-trade contractors—-Continued
1Q5f>: A v erage
39.5
$125.22
39.2
1957: Average......... 132.10
37.5
1958'. February........ 128.25
38.2
132.17
M arch______
April
133.32
38.2
135.
52
38.5
M ay________
38.5
June________ 136.68
38.3
July________ 137.11
August______ 136. 76 38.2
September___ 140. 09 38.7
38.6
October......... . 140.12
November___ 134. 66 37.2
December....... 140. 48 38.7
38.3
1959: January_____ 139.41
February____ 137.94 38.0
See footnotes at end of table.
$2.40
2.63
2.68
2. 65
2.63
2.62
2.62
2. 59
2.59
2.60
2. 61
2.61
2.64
2.66
2.77
Building construction
36.4 $2.80
1956: Average_____ $104. 94 39.9 $2.63 $101. 92
2.96
36.1
39.2
2.81 106.86
1957: Average.......... 110.15
3.08
33.0
36.0
2.86 101.64
1958: February------ 102.96
35.2
3.06
2.88
107.
71
M arch______ 110. 30 38.3
A pril
35.5
3.06
38.6
2.85 108.63
110.01
3.06
36.3
2.86
111.
08
40.3
M ay________ 115.26
3.06
40.2
2.85 110. 77 36.2
June________ 114. 57
3.09
36.3
39.9
2.87 112.17
July________ 114.51
36.7
3.09
2.90 113. 40
August.. __ 116. 87 40.3
3.13
40.7
2.95 114. 25 36.5
September___ 120. 07
36.8
3.13
2.95 115.18
40.9
October_____ 120. 66
3.14
2.92 111. 16 35.4
November___ 113. 59 38.9
34.6
3.19
2.96 110.37
December___ 114. 55 38.7
35.0
3.19
38.7
2.96 111.65
1959: January_____ 114.55
34.0
3.18
37.1
2.97 108.12
February........ 110.19
Building construction—Continued
Electrical work
32.9
31.1
27.5
25.0
22.3
25.8
30.9
30.8
28.8
30.8
29.7
29.9
35.3
34.3
27.0
Contract construction
Mining—Continued
Coal —Continued
41.7
41.0
39.3
39.4
39.6
39.2
40.2
39. 7
38.5
37.8
40.1
40.1
41.2
41.0
40.8
A nthraciteJ
Total: Manufacturing
35.8 $2.86 $79. 99
35.2
3.02 82.39
3.11 80.64
31.3
33. £ 3.11 81.45
34.4
3.10 80.81
35.4
3.11 82.04
35.1
3.12 83.10
35.4 3.15 83.50
35.7
3.15 84. 35
3.18 85.39
35.7
36. C 3.17 85.17
34.8
3.18 86.58
33.2
3.25 88.01
3.24 87.38
33.5
32.1
3.21 88.001
Durable goods
40.4 $1.98 $86.31
39.8
2.07 88.66
2.1C 86. 46
38.4
38.6
2.11 87. 75
38.3
2.11 87.30
2.12 88. 37
38.7
2.12 89.89
39.2
39.2
2. lc 89.85
39.6
2.13 91.14
2.14 92. 46
39.9
2.14 91.85
39.8
39. £ 2.17 94.3C
40.2
2.1£ 96. 2£
39. £ 2.1£ 94.94
40.0
2.20 95.11
Nondurable goods
41.1 $2.10 $71.10
40.3
2.20 73. 51
2. 24 73.15
38.6
39. C 2.25 73.53
2. 25 73.14
38. Í
39.1
2.26 73.91
39.6
2.27 75.08
39.4
2.25 75.66
2. 2£ 76.04
39.8
40.2
2.30 77.03
2. 29 76.83
40.1
40.3
2.34 77.22
2. 36 78.01
40.5
40.4
2.35 77. 81
2.36 78. 01
40.3
Total: Ordnance
and accessories
39.5 $1.80 $91. 54
1.88 95.47
39.1
1.92 99.06
38.1
1.93 99. 72
38.1
1.94 100.12
37.7
1.94 99.88
38.1
1.94 100.94
38.7
39. C 1.94 100.94
39.4
1.95 100.69
1.95 103.00
39.5
39.4
1.95 103.00
39.4
1.96 103.16
1. 97 106. 43
39.6
1.98 105.00
39.5
39.4
1.98 103.73
41.8
40.8
40.6
40.7
40.7
40.6
40.7
40.7
40.6
41.2
41.2
41.1
41.9
41.5
41.0
$2.19
2.34
2.44
2.45
2.46
2.46
2.48
2.48
2. 48
2.50
2.50
2. 51
2.54
2.53
2.53
606
T able C 1.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings boars
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
hrly.
earn earn wkly.
earn
ings
ings hours ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Year and month
Durable goods—Continued
Lumber and wood products (except furniture)
Total: Lumber and
wood products (ex Sawmills and planing
mills »
cept furniture)
1956: Averaee, . .
$70. 93
1957: Average_____
72.04
1958: February___
70.43
M arch______
70.80
April................ 71.39
M ay________ 74. 45
June................ 76.14
July------------- 74.28
August______ 77. 74
September___ 80.12
October_____ 80.15
November___ 77.59
December....... 77.38
1959: January, . . . . 74.84
February____ 74.26
40.3
39.8
38.7
38.9
38.8
39.6
40.5
39.3
40.7
41.3
41.1
40.2
40.3
39.6
39.5
$1.76 $71. 51
40.4 $1.77
1.81 70.92
39.4
1.80
1.82 67.82
38.1
1.78
1.82 69.09
38.6
1.79
1.84 68.92
38.6
1. 79
1.88 73.05
39.7
1. 84
1.88 74.52
40.5
1.84
1.89 73.66
39.6
1.86
1.91 76. 70
40.8
1.88
1.94 77.68
41.1
1.89
1.95 77. 30
40.9
1.89
1.93 75.39
40.1
1.88
1.92 75.17
40.2
1.87
1.89 72. 31 39.3
1.84
1.88 73.42
39.9
1.84
Lumber and wood
Millwork
1956: Average_____ $72. 90
1957: Average_____ 75. 55
1958: February____ 74.28
March______
74.09
April............... 74.28
M ay________ 77. 57
June________ 79.13
July------------- 79. 73
August______ 82. 74
September___ 82. 91
October___..
82.54
November___ 80.95
December___
80.16
1959: January_____ 79.79
February____ 77.81
40.5
40.4
39.3
39.2
39.3
40.4
41.0
41.1
42.0
42.3
41.9
41.3
40.9
40.5
39.9
Plywood
$1.80
1.87
1. 89
1.89
1.89
1.92
1.93
1.94
1.97
1.96
1.97
1.96
1.96
1.97
1.95
Household furniture1
1956: Average
$65.77
1957: Average
66.63
1958: February____ 64.34
M arch............. 64.68
April________ 63. 34
M ay________ 63.00
June________ 65.23
July................. 65. 57
August..........
68.61
September___ 70.45
October_____
70.79
November___ 70.28
December___
71.14
1959: January_____ 69.26
February____ 69.43
40.6
39.9
38.3
38.5
37.7
37.5
38.6
38.8
40.6
41.2
41.4
41.1
41.6
40.5
40.6
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41.7
39.3
37.4
37.3
37.0
36.2
37.0
36.8
38.0
39.8
38.9
38.3
38.2
38.6
38.9
41.2
40.0
40.2
40.2
39.9
40.2
41.0
39.8
42.0
41.8
41.7
41.9
41.0
41.7
42.6
United States
$72.14
71.53
68.58
69. 87
69. 69
74. 03
75.52
74.64
77. 52
78.50
78.12
76.19
75. 79
72.73
74. 03
products
$1.85 $56. 71
1.90 56.23
1.95 53.39
1.95 54.67
1.96 55.10
1.98 56. 34
1.98 58.03
1.97 58.15
1.98 59. 60
2.03 59.68
2.05 59.09
2. 05 57. 31
2.05 57.38
2.05 57.02
2.08 57.38
Wood household fur
niture (except u p
holstered)
$2.09
2.17
2.20
2.21
2.20
2. 19
2.23
2.23
2.25
2.27
2. 27
2.27
2.29
2.28
2.29
Partitions, shelving,
lockers, and fixtures
$84.05
85.22
83. 44
84. 97
82.84
84.10
86.85
86.14
88. 48
87. 98
86.80
86.08
88. 65
87. 46
87. 75
41.0
40.2
38.1
38.8
38.0
38.4
39.3
38.8
39.5
39.1
39.1
38.6
39.4
38.7
39.0
40.8
39.6
37.6
38.5
38.8
39.4
40.3
40.1
41.1
40.6
40.2
39.8
39.3
39.6
39.3
West
39.9
39.4
38.0
37.9
36.7
35.5
36.9
37.3
39.9
40.7
41.3
41.1
42.1
39.1
40.1
$1.64
1.71
1.76
1. 76
1.76
1.78
1.77
1.77
1.77
1. 78
1.77
1.80
1.82
1.83
1.811
41.0
39.8
37.5
38.6
38.9
39.5
40.6
40.7
41. 4
41.1
40.0
39.6
39.4
39.4
39.5
39.4
39.1
37.5
36.4
36.7
38.5
40.6
41.4
41.7
41.8
40.7
39.1
4C.0
40.9
40.1
41.1
40.5
38.6
39.1
39.0
39.7
40.3
40.0
40.8
41.1
41.0
40.9
40.4
40.2
40.5
$2.33 $74. 48
40.7 $1.83
2.32 75.60
40.0
1.89
2.29 75. 46
39.3
1.92
2.30 75. 65 39.4
1.92
2. 30 76.04
39.4
1.93
2. 34 78.20
40.1
1. 95
2.34 79.58
40.6
1.96
2. 35 79.18
40. 4 1.96
2.37 82. 57
41.7
1.98
2.41 83.18
41.8
1.99
2.41 83. 42
41.5
2.01
2.40 83.21
41.4
2.01
2. 39 81.00
40.5
2.00
2. 37 81.41
40.5
2. 01
2. 36 81.61
40.6
2. 01
Furniture and fixtures
41.1
40.5
39.2
39.9
39.8
39.5
40.1
39.6
40.5
40.8
41.3
40.8
41.0
40.6
40.4
Total: Furniture and
fixtures
$1.46 $68. 95
1.52 70.00
1.55 67.97
1. 55 68.32
1.55 67.26
1.56 66. 91
1.58 69.06
1.59 68. 85
1. 59 72.09
1.59 73.80
1.60 73. 39
1.60 73. 03
1.60 74.16
1.61 72. 54
1.60 72. 32
Office, public-build
ing, and profes
sional furniture1
Flat glass
$1.96 $113.30
2.05 114.62
2.09 109.63
2.09 108.02
2. 09 104.80
2.09 105. 09
2 . 10 103. 32
2 . 11 108. 29
2.13 122.18
2.16 128. 94
2.11 78.12
2.14 123. 51
2.16 133.35
2.16 136. 75
2.17 141.80
41.2
40.5
38.2
37.9
36.9
37.4
36.9
37.6
41.0
42.0
28.1
40.1
42.2
42.6
43.1
40.8
40.0
38.4
38.6
38.0
37.8
38.8
38.9
40.5
41.0
41.0
40.8
41.2
40.3
40.4
$1.69
1.76
1. 77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.78
1.77
1.78
1.80
1.79
1.79
1.80
1.80
1.79
Wood office furniture
$1.82 $79. 61
41.9 $1.90 $71. 05
1.89 78.99
40.3
1.96 64. 71
1.94 77.40
38.7
2.00 61.82
1. 92 78.38
38.8
2.02 60.10
1.93 77.99
38.8
2.01 60. 38
1. 94 76. 42 38.4
1.99 60.64
1. 97 78.59
39.1
2.01 63.92
1.95 77. 81
39.1
1.99 63.11
1.97 82.22
40.5
2.03 64.94
41.1
1.97 83.84
2.04 66.41
1.97 81.80
40.1
2. 04 65.31
1.94 81.00
39.9
2.03 63.49
1.92 82. 62 40.3
2.05 67. 47
2.04 82. 21
40.1
2. 05 68.26
2. 00 82. 01
2. 04 67. 94
40.2
Stone, clay, and glass products
Total: Stone, clay,
and glass products
$80. 56
83.03
80. 67
81.72
81. 51
82. 97
84.63
84.40
86.90
88.78
86. 51
87.53
87.26
86. 83
87.89
39.0
38.2
37.6
37.7
37.4
39.0
39.3
38.9
39.8
39.9
39.9
38.8
39.2
37.1
38.5
Miscellaneous wood
products
$1.38 $60.01
1.42 61. 56
1.39 60. 76
1.40 61.85
1.41 61.69
1.43 61.62
1.44 63.36
1.47 62.96
1.45 64. 40
1.46 64. 87
1.44 66.08
1.40 65.28
1.43 65. 60
1.41 65.37
1.43 64. 64
Mattresses and
bedsprings
$1.80 $71. 71
1.84 73.90
1.85 72.75
1.85 69. 89
1.85 70.83
1.85 74.69
1.86 79.98
1.85 80. 73
1.86 82.15
1.87 82.35
1.89 80.18
1.89 75. 85
1.91 76.80
1.88 83.44
1.87 80. 20
Screens, blinds, and
miscellaneous fur
niture and fixtures
40.3
40.0
39.3
39.5
39.8
39.6
40.2
39.8
40.8
40.7
40.5
41.1
41.2
40.8
39.9
Wooden boxes, other
than cigar
$1.39 $56. 58
1.42 56.52
1.42 52.13
1.42 54. 04
1.42 54.85
1.43 56. 49
1. 44 58. 46
1.45 59. 83
1.45 60.03
1.47 60.01
1.47 57.60
1.44 55. 44
1.46 56.34
1.44 55. 55
1.46 56.49
Wood household fur
niture, upholstered
$2.05 $66.09
2.12 68. 40
2.19 69.17
2.19 69.52
2.18 70.05
2.19 70. 49
2.21 71.15
2.22 70.45
2.24 72.22
2.25 72.45
2. 22 71 69
2.23 73.98
2.25 74.98
2.26 74.66
2. 25 72.22
South
40.3 $1. 79 $49.09
41.6 $1.18 $90.87
39.3
1.82 49.29
40.4
1.22 88.62
38.1
1.80 48. 09 39.1
1.23 86.10
38.6
1.81 48.83
39.7
1.23 86. 71
38.5
1.81 48.83
39 7
1.23 86.02
39.8
1.86 49. 94 40.6
1.23 91.26
40.6
1.86 51.00
41.8
1.22 91.96
39.7
1.88 50. 43
41.0
1.23 91.42
40.8
1. 90 52. 33
42.2
1.24 94.33
41.1
1.91 52.15
42.4
1.23 96.16
40.9
1.91 52.58
42.4
1.24 96.16
40.1
1.90 52.20
42.1
1.24 93.12
40.1
1.89 51. 25 41.0
1.25 93.69
1. 86 51.25
39.1
41.0
1.25 87. 93
1.86 51.25
39.8
41.0
1.25 90.86
(except furniture)—Continued
Wooden containers »
$1.62 $59.20
41.4 $1.43 $71.82
1.67 59. 79 40.4
1.48 72.50
1.68 56.68
38.3
1.48 70.30
1.68 57.96
38.9
1.49 70.12
1.68 56. 77 38.1
1. 49 67.90
1.68 56. 77 38.1
1.49 65.68
1.69 58.05
38.7
1.50 68.63
1.69 58.20
38.8
1. 50 69. 01
1.69 61.20
40.8
1.50 74.21
1.71 63.08
1.52 76.11
41.5
1.71 63.69
41.9
1.52 78. 06
1.71 63. 38
1.52 77.68
41.7
1.71 63.54
41.8
1.52 80.41
1. 71 62.21
41.2
1.51 73. 51
1.71 62. 47
41.1
1. 52 74.99
Furniture and fixtures—Continued
Metal office furniture
1956: Average_____ $87.15
1957: Average_____ 85.28
1958: February........ 82.28
M arch______
82.43
April________ 81.40
M ay________ 79.28
June________ 82. 51
July................ 82. 06
August______ 85.50
September___ 90.35
October____
88.30
November___ 86.94
December___
87.48
1959: January_____ 88. 01
February____ 89.08
$76.22
76.00
78.39
78.39
78.20
79.60
81.18
78. 41
83.16
84.85
85. 49
85. 90
84.05
85. 49
88. 61
Millwork, plywood,
and prefabricated
structural
wood
products >
Sawmills and planing mills, general
42.8
40.7
38.4
37.1
37.5
37.9
39.7
40.2
41.1
42.3
41.6
40.7
42.7
42.4
42.2
$1.66
1.59
1. 61
1.62
1.61
1.60
1.61
1.57
1. 58
1.57
1.57
1.56
1.58
1.61
1.61
Glass and glassware,
pressed or blown *
$2. 75 $79. 40
2.83 83.58
2.87 84.56
2.85 86.00
2.84 83.85
2. 81 84.71
2.80 86. 40
2. 88 84.28
2.98 85.97
3.07 85.97
2. 78 87.67
3.08 87.16
3.16 87.16
3.21 86.11
3.29 87.78
39.7
39.8
39.7
40.0
39.0
39.4
40.0
39.2
39.8
39.8
40.4
39.8
39.8
39.5
39.9
$2.00
2.10
2.13
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.16
2.15
2.16
2.16
2.17
2.19
2.19
2.18
2.20
607
0.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able C -l.
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Avg. Avg.
wkly wkly.
earn horn's
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings hours
ings
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Year and month
Durable goods—Continued
Stone, clay, and glass products—Continued
O lass containers
1956: Average_____ $80.59
1957- Av p m f S
85.01
1958: February......... 86.69
March_______ 87.29
Apr1l
86. 58
M ay________
87.67
88. 75
J u n e _______
86. 37
July_________
August---------- 88. 07
September___
86. 58
October______ 88. 73
November _. 87. 23
December____ 86.98
1959: January_____
86. 98
February_____ 87.16
39.7
40.1
40.7
40.6
39.9
40.4
40.9
39.8
40.4
39.9
40.7
40.2
39.9
39.9
39.8
$2.03 $77.81
2.12 81.56
2.13 81.58
2.15 83. 67
2.17 79.92
2.17 80.14
2.17 81.79
2.17 80. 77
2.18 82.04
2.17 85.14
2.18 86. 40
2.17 87.25
2.18 87.12
2.18 84. 80
2.19 88. 40
Floor a n d w a ll tile
1956: Average-------1Q.A7- A v e r n p e
1958: February-------
March_______
ApHl
M ay________
J u n e _______
July_________
A ugust............
September___
O ctober... . . .
N ovember. ..
December____
1959: J a n u a r y _____
February_____
$73. 57
75.81
73. 54
74.30
74.11
76. 44
77.39
77.18
78. 59
79. 37
78.99
78.00
78. 60
78. 99
77. 82
P re sse d or b lo w n glass
40.2 $1.83
39.9
1.90
38.5
1.91
1.91
38.9
1.92
38.6
39.4
1.94
40.1
1.93
1.92
40.2
1.95
40.3
1.95
40.7
40.3
1.96
1.95
40.0
40. 1 1.96
1.96
40.3
39.5
1.97Í
39.7
39.4
38.3
39.1
37.7
37.8
38.4
38.1
38.7
39.6
40.0
39.3
39.6
38.9
40.0
$1.96 $69.12
2.07 70.67
2.13 67.30
2.14 68.20
2.12 67.88
2.12 68.99
2.13 69.72
2.12 70.25
2.12 72.68
2.15 75. 70
2.16 75.07
2.22 76.45
2.20 77. 64
2.18 72.89
2.21 72. 83
40.2
39.6
35.0
35.3
36.2
38.0
39.6
39.5
39.7
40.4
40.2
39.0
36.8
37.2
37.4
$1.81 $80.36
1.85 83.81
1.87 78.08
1.86 77. 95
1.87 78.40
1.93 80.19
1.94 83.25
1.94 86. 07
1.96 87.66
1.97 91.72
1.98 91.10
1.96 91.15
1.95 89.35
1.93 90.92
1.92 96.16
Cement, hydaulic
40.9 $1.69 $83.84
39.7
1.78 87.91
1.79 87. 47
37.6
38.1
1. 79 87.19
1.81 89.82
37.5
90.94
1.83
37.7
38.1
1.83 92.11
95.24
1.82
38.6
1.84 95.58
39.5
40.7
1.86 97. 82
1.84 96.70
40.8
41. 1 1.86 97.41
1.88 95.18
41.3
39.4
1.85 92. 98
39.8
1.83 93.53
C la y refractories
S e w e r p ip e
$72. 76
73.26
65. 45
65.66
67.69
73.34
76.82
76.63
77.81
79. 59
79.60
76. 44
71.76
71.80
71.81
Glass products made
of purchased glass
39.2
38.8
34.7
34.8
35.0
35.8
37.0
37.1
37.3
38.7
38.6
38.3
37.7
38.2
39.9
41.3
40.7
39.4
39.1
40.1
40.6
40.4
40.7
40.5
41.1
40. 8
41.1
40.5
39.4
39.8
$2.03 $73. 44
2.16 74.61
2.22 69.93
2.23 71.25
2.24 72.38
2. 24 74.28
2.28 76.17
2.34 76.19
2. 36 77.95
2. 38 79. 35
2.37 79.15
2.37 78.18
2.35 75. 85
2.36 75.66
2.35 77. 02
Pottery and related
products
$2. 05 $72.20
2.16 73. 48
2.25 73.08
2.24 73.24
2.24 71.60
2. 24 70.85
2.25 71.40
2. 32 70. 38
2. 35 71.71
2.37 74.30
2. 36 75. 52
2.38 77.29
2. 37 76.43
2.38 77.17
2.41 78.25
37.8
37.3
36.0
35.9
35.1
34.9
35.0
34.5
35.5
36.6
37.2
37.7
37.1
37.1
37.8
Structural clay
products 2
$1.91
1.97
2.03
2.04
2.04
2.03
2.04
2.04
2.02
2.03
2. 03
2.05
2. 06
2.08
2. 07
40.8
39.9
37.0
37.9
38.5
39.3
40.3
40.1
40.6
40.9
40.8
40.3
39.1
39.2
39.7
$1.80 $69.97
1.87 69.60
1.89 64.81
1.88 67.37
1.88 69.95
1.89 70. 82
1.89 72.80
1.90 72. 63
1.92 73.85
1.94 73. 33
1.94 74.03
1.94 73.39
1.94 68. 51
1.93 68. 40
1.94 68. 34
Concrete, gypsum, and
plaster products *
$81.88
82. 75
78.80
80.16
81.76
85. 77
88.20
89. 49
90. 50
90. 37
91.80
88. 91
86. 51
85. 67
86. 09
44.5
43.1
39.8
40.9
41.5
43.1
44.1
44.3
44.8
44.3
45.0
43.8
42.2
42.2
4.22
$1.84
1.92
1.98
1.96
1.97
1. 99
2.00
2.02
2.02
2.04
2. 04
2.03
2. 05
2.03
2. 04
1956: Average............ $69.87
1957: Average........... 70.98
1958: February____ 69.38
March_______ 71.96
73.21
April________
74. 98
M ay________
June_________ 74.26
July_________ 72.94
73.21
A u g u st_____
September___
75. 21
October______ 75.26
72.58
November___
December____ 72.07
1959: January______ 71.31
February_____ 72.04
41.1
40.1
39.2
40.2
40.9
41.2
40.8
40.3
40.9
41.1
40.9
40.1
39.6
39.4
39.81
$1.70 $83.23
1. 77 86.67
1.77 83.81
1.79 85.67
1.79 83.98
1.82 84.58
1.82 87. 74
1.81 85. 75
1.79 89.42
1.83 91.35
1.84 91.62
1.81 91.80
1.82 93. 94
1.81 94.16
1.81 94. 58
Blast furnaces, steel
works, and rolling
m ills1
1956: A verage_____ $102.06
1957: Average_____ 104. 79
1958: February____ 98.18
March_______ 100. 46
April
100.91
M ay________ 101.66
June_________ 106. 60
July________
111. 72
August............. 112.18
September___ 115.71
October............ 114. 52
November- . . 115. 50
December........ 116.40
1959: January______ 120. 08
February......... 122. 40
40.5
39.1
35.7
36.4
36.3
36.7
37.8
38.0
37.9
38.7
38. i
38.5
38.8
39.5
40.0
40.8
40.5
38.8
39.3
38.7
38.8
39.7
38.8
40.1
40.6
40.9
40.8
41.2
41.3
41.3
40.5
39.1
35.6
36.3
36.2
36.6
37.8
38.0
37.9
38.7
38.3
38.5
38.8
39.5
40.0
A b ra sive p r o d u c ts
$2.04 $88.62
2.14 90. 74
2.16 87.17
2.18 89.01
2.17 87.09
2.18 86. 95
2.21 87.89
2. 21 86.86
2. 23 87. 78
2. 25 92. 50
2. 24 95.18
2.25 95.58
2.28 98.88
2.28 98.08
2.29 97. 61
B la s t fu rn a c es, steel
w o rk s, a n d rollin g
m ills , except electrom eta llu rg ica l p r o d
u cts
$2.52 $102.47
2.68 105.18
2. 75 98.26
2.76 100. 55
2.78 101.00
2. 77 101. 75
2.82 106. 97
2. 94 112.10
2.96 112.56
2. 99 116.10
2.99 114.90
3.00 115.8f
3.00 116. 79
3.04 120. 48
30.6 122.80
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral
products *
$2.53
2.69
2.76
2. 77
2.79
2. 78
2.83
2.95
2.97
3.00
3.01
3.01
3.01
3. 05
3.07
40.1
39.8
37.9
38.7
37.7
37.0
37.4
37.6
38.0
39.7
40.5
40.5
41.2
40.7
40.5
E lectro m eta llu rg ica l
p r o d u c ts
$88.22
93.26
98.23
96.00
99. 55
97. 91
98.60
100. 65
99. 65
101. 45
100. 75
103.12
102.72
103.07
103.22
40.1
40.2
41.1
40.0
40.8
39.8
39.6
40.1
39.7
40.1
40.2
40.6
40.6
40. £
40.8
A sb e sto s p ro d u c ts
$2.21 $84. 65
2.28 89.87
2.30 85.36
2.30 84.50
2.31 84.07
2. 35 86.80
2.35 90.42
2. 31 88. 75
2. 31 95. 49
2. 33 94.39
2. 35 94.21
2. 36 92.21
2. 40 94. 66
2.41 95.99
2. 41 96.41
$2.20
2.32
2.39
2.40
2. 44
2. 46
2.49
2.51
2.51
2. 52
2. 5C
2. 54
2.52
2.52
2. 53
41.7
41.8
39.7
39.3
39.1
40.0
41.1
39.8
41.7
41.4
41.5
40.8
41.7
42.1
42.1
41.2
39.3
36.3
36.2
35.6
36.1
37.0
37.3
37.5
38.1
37.9
38.6
39.4
39.5
39.7
N o n c la y refractories
$2.03 $89.38
2.15 90. 20
2.15 81. 74
2.15 83.63
2.15 82.69
2.17 83. 78
2.20 87.97
2. 23 89. 67
2.29 92.13
2.28 99.18
2. 27 95.63
2.26 97. 64
2. 27 107.01
2.28 99. 43
2.29 103. 08
Iron and steel found-
$87.34
87. 64
82. 76
82.54
81.52
82. 67
85.10
86.16
86. 25
88. 77
87.92
91.87
94.17
94. 80
95.28
41.9
40.7
37.9
39.4
40.2
40.7
41.6
41.5
42.2
41.9
42.3
41.7
39.6
40.0
40.2
$1.67
1. 71
1.71
1.71
1.74
1. 74
1. 75
1.75
1.75
1. 75
1.75
1.76
1.73
1.71
1.70
C oncrete p ro d u cts
$78. 75
80.04
74.49
78.69
80.64
84.58
85.94
86. 78
87.75
87. 47
88.40
84. 39
80.34
80. 51
79. 32
45.0 $1. 75
43. 5 1.84
1.91
39.0
1.91
41.2
1.92
42.0
1.94
43.6
1.94
44.3
1. 95
44.5
1.95
45.0
1.97
44.4
1.96
45.1
43. 5 1.94
1.95
41.2
1.94
41.5
1.93
41.1
Primary metal
industries
Stone, clay, and glass products—Continued
Cut-stone and stone
products
B ric k a n d hollow tile
39.2
37.9
34.2
34.7
34.6
35.2
36.5
36.9
37.0
39. 2
38.1
38.9
41.0
39.3
39.8
$2.28
2.38
2.39
2.41
2.39
2. 38
2.41
2. 43
2.49
2. 53
2. 51
2.51
2. 61
2. 53
2.59
G ra y-iro n fo u n d rie s
$2.12 $83.84
2.23 84.15
2.28 78.94
2.28 79.39
2.29 78.62
2.29 80.86
2.30 83.03
2. 31 84.22
2.30 84.15
2. 33 87. 25
2. 32 85.88
2. 38 90.48
2.39 92.28
2.40 93.14
2.40 92.98
40.7
38.6
35.4
35.6
35.1
36.1
36.9
37.1
37.4
38.1
38.0
38.5
39.1
39.3
39.4
$2.06
2.18
2.23
2.23
2.24
2. 24
2.25
2. 27
2.25
2.29
2.26
2. 35
2.36
2.37
2. 36
Total: Primary metal
industries
$96. 52
98. 75
94.21
95.35
95.20
96.23
99.96
102.91
103.95
106. 74
106. 59
108. 08
109.45
110. 80
112. 72
40.9
39.5
36.8
37.1
36.9
37.3
38.3
38.4
38.5
39.1
38.9
39.3
39.8
40.0
40.4
$2.36
2. 50
2.56
2.57
2.58
2. 58
2.61
2.68
2.70
2.73
2.74
2. 75
2.75
2. 77
2.79
M a lle a b le -iro n fo u n d
ries
$83.84
84.63
84. 45
83.17
80.33
81.45
86.41
84.83
86.03
88.94
85.33
91.03
96.87
92. 75
94. 24
40.5
39.0
37.7
36.8
35.7
36.2
37.9
37.7
37.9
38.5
37.1
38.9
40.7
39.3
40.1
$2.07
2.17
2.24
2.26
2.25
2.25
2. 28
2.25
2.27
2.31
2.30
2.34
2.38
2.36
2. 35
608
Table C -l.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
w kly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
A vg. Avg. A vg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Year and month
Durable goods—Continued
Primary metal industries—Continued
S te e l fo u n d r ie s
1956: Average............ $95. 63
1957: Average........... 95.65
1958: February......... 90.38
March..............
89.28
April............... . 88.08
87.00
M a y ________
June.................. 88.81
July-------------- 91.50
91. 74
August______
92. 61
September___
October............ 94.35
95.73
November___
December.......
98.60
1959: January............ 100. 00
February____ 101.81
42.5
40.7
37.5
37.2
36.7
36.1
36.7
37.5
37.6
37.8
38.2
38.6
39.6
40.0
40.4
$2.25
2.35
2.41
2.40
2.40
2. 41
2.42
2. 44
2.44
2.45
2.47
2. 48
2. 49
2. 50
2.52
R o llin g , d ra w in g ,
a n d a llo y in g
o f co p p er
1956: Average...........
1957: Averaee_____
1958: February____
March..............
April________
M a y ...... ..........
June_________
July...................
August______
September___
October______
November___
December.......
1959: January............
February____
$95.18
94. 54
91.44
92.16
90.82
91.54
98.17
99.88
101. 52
102. 59
104.42
107.95
108. 89
107.19
109. 74
42.3
40.4
38.1
38.4
38.0
38.3
40.4
40.6
41.1
41.2
41.6
42.5
42.7
42.2
42.7
$2.25
2.34
2.40
2.40
2.39
2.39
2.43
2.46
2.47
2.49
2.51
2. 54
2. 55
2. 54
2. 57
Primary smelting
and refining of
nonferrous metals 1
$91.46
95.82
98.09
97.69
97.04
98.96
96.96
98.55
99. 54
101.05
102. 36
104.04
105. 06
105.16
104. 81
1956: Average_____
1957: Average_____
1958: February____
March_______
April________
M a y ________
June________
J u ly .................
August_____
September___
October______
November___
December___
1959: January______
February-........
$94. 48
99.05
96.90
95. 74
99.96
97.66
102.83
107. 74
112.34
105.18
110.00
108. 78
107. 56
110.28
109.93
40.9
40.1
38.0
37.4
39.2
38.0
39.4
40.2
41.3
39.1
40.0
39.7
39.4
40.1
39.4
H a rd w a re
1956: Average_____
1957: Average_____
1958: February____
March_______
April________
M a y .................
June..................
July...................
August______
September___
October______
November___
December___
1959: January______
February____
$83.44
89.13
85.31
85.03
82.66
85.80
88.93
86. 80
90.98
88.40
90.93
97.98
103.13
95.87
94.99
40.7
40.7
38.6
38.3
37.7
39.0
39.7
39.1
40.8
40.0
43.3
42.6
43.7
41.5
41.3
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$2.22 $88. 81
2.36 89.91
2.44 89.15
2.43 88.98
2.42 88.31
2. 43 87. 42
2.43 89.10
2.47 90. 46
2.52 89.24
2. 52 91.01
2. 54 91.54
2. 55 94. 89
2. 55 96.00
2. 54 96.74
2. 55 93. 61
R o llin g , d ra w in g ,
a n d a llo y in g
o f a lu m in u m
$90.90
96.00
100.80
102.62
102. 47
103.68
106.04
101. 26
107.20
108.27
110.97
112.19
110.16
108. 54
113.30
Primary metal in
dustries—Continued
W eld ed a n d heavyriveted p ip e
41.2
40.6
40.2
40.2
40.1
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.5
40.1
40.3
40.8
41.2
41.4
41.1
40.4
40.0
40.0
40.4
40.5
40.5
41.1
39.4
40.0
40.1
41.1
41.4
40.8
40.2
41.5
P r im a r y s m e ltin g a n d
refin in g o f c o p p e r,
lead, a n d zin c
41.5
40.5
39.8
39.9
39.6
39.2
39.6
39.5
38.8
39.4
39.8
40.9
41.2
41.7
40.7
$2.14
2. 22
2.24
2.23
2.23
2. 23
2.25
2.29
2.30
2.31
2. 30
2.32
2. 33
2.32
2.30
Nonferrous foundries
$2.25 $88.94
2.40 91.20
2. 62 89.24
2.64 89.71
2. 53 88. 86
2.56 90.87
2.58 93.60
2. 57 91.96
2.68 93.60
2.70 95.18
2.70 94.87
2.71 96.63
2.70 98. 95
2.70 98.16
2.73 97.44
40.8
40.0
38.3
38.5
38.3
39.0
40.0
39.3
40.0
40.5
40.2
40.6
41.4
40.9
40.6
P r im a r y refin in g o f
a lu m in u m
$95.34
103.68
109.35
109. 89
109.62
110.43
108.80
108. 78
115.20
117.38
118.90
117.74
118.49
117. 05
117. 74
40.4
40.5
40.5
40.7
40.6
40.6
40.0
39.7
40.0
40.9
41.0
40.6
41.0
40.5
40.6
$2.36 $85.04
2. 56 87.53
2. 70 85.24
2.70 85. 24
2.70 87.60
2. 72 85.72
2. 72 86.37
2.74 88.44
2.88 89.73
2. 87 90.72
2.90 93.15
2.90 93.34
2. 89 93.30
2.89 92. 43
2.90 i_ 92.03
Miscellaneous pri
mary metal
industries 1
$2.18 $100.14
2.28 100.85
2.33 96.77
2.33 96.90
2.32 96.14
2.33 97.02
2.34 101.14
2. 34 102. 83
2.34 104.15
2.35 106.13
2. 36 106. 93
2.38 109.48
2.39 111. 38
2.40 111. 38
2.40 112. 89
41.9
40.5
38.1
38.0
37.7
37.9
39.2
39.4
39.6
39.9
39.9
40.4
41.1
41.1
41.2
Secondary smelting
and refining of
nonferrous metals
42.1
40.9
39.1
39.1
40.0
39.5
39.8
40.2
40.6
40.5
41.4
41.3
41.1
40.9
40.9
$2.02
2.14
2.18
2.18
2.19
2.17
2.17
2.20
2.21
2.24
2. 25
2.26
2. 27
2.26
2. 25
Iro n a n d steel fo rg in g s
$2.39 $105.42
2.49 105.97
2.54 98. 89
2.55 99.53
2.55 97.94
2.56 98.58
2.58 101.46
2.61 103.60
2.63 101.57
2.66 104.34
2.68 104. 83
2.71 108.42
2. 71 113.12
2. 71 112. 56
2.74 114.49
42.0
40.6
37.6
37.7
37.1
37.2
38.0
38.8
37.9
88.5
38.4
39.0
40.4
40.2
40.6
$2.51
2.61
2.63
2. 64
2.64
2. 65
2. 67
2.67
2.68
2. 71
2. 73
2. 78
2.80
2. 80
2.82
Rolling, drawing, and
alloying of nonferrous
metals *
$93.38
95. 51
95.80
96.68
95.80
96.43
101.09
99. 75
103.02
104.60
106.30
108. 52
108. 94
106.97
110. 56
41.5
40.3
39.1
39.3
39.1
39.2
40.6
39.9
40.4
40.7
41.2
41.9
41.9
41.3
42.2
$2.25
2.37
2.45
2. 46
2.45
2. 46
2.49
2. 50
2.55
2. 57
2.58
2. 59
2.60
2.59
2.62
W ire d ra w in g
$96.83
96. 63
94.82
93.84
91.26
94.33
99.45
99.25
102.72
105.88
105.52
107.90
110. 40
107. 74
108. 58
42.1
40.6
38.7
38.3
37.4
38.5
40.1
39.7
40.6
41.2
40.9
41.5
42.3
41.6
41.6
$2.30
2.38
2.45
2.45
2. 44
2.45
2.48
2. 50
2.53
2. 57
2.58
2.60
2. 61
2.59
2. 61
Fabricated metal products (except ordnance, machinery, and transportation equipment)
Total: Fabricated
metal products
$2.31 $85.28
2.47 88.94
2. 55 86.36
2.56 87.42
2. 55 87.14
2.57 88. 65
2. 61 90.80
2. 68 91.20
2.72 92 . 52
2.69 93.89
2. 75 93.02
2.74 94. 66
2.73 96.00
2. 75 93. 96
2. 79 94.13
41.2
40.8
38.9
39.2
38.9
39.4
40.0
40.0
40.4
41.0
40.8
40.8
41.2
40.5
40.4
$2.07
2.18
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.29
2.28
2.32
2. 33
2.32
2. 33
Heating apparatus
(except electric) and
plumbers’ supplies »
$2.05 $79.99
2.19 83.95
2.21 84.97
2.22 85.41
2.19 85.14
2.20 84.75
2.24 87.07
2. 22 86.19
2.23 88. 58
2.21 92.03
2.10 92. 70
2.30 90.50
2.36 90. 90
2.31 89. 60
2.30 91.83
39.6
39.6
38.8
39.0
38.7
38.7
39.4
39.0
39.9
40.9
41.2
40.4
40.4
40.0
40.1
Tin cans and other
tinware
$92.20
96.88
98.42
100.36
98.74
102.59
106. 68
107.68
110.16
107. 78
106.55
108. 52
106. 45
106. 86
107.27
42.1
41.4
40.5
41.3
40.3
41.2
42.5
42.9
43.2
42.6
41.3
41.9
41.1
41.1
41.1
$2.19 $81.60
2.34 85.65
2.43 82. 56
2.43 82.94
2. 45 81.53
2.49 83. 21
2.51 85.67
2.51 84.46
2. 55 86.80
2.53 86.18
2.58 87.99
2. 59 92.77
2.59 96. 02
2.60 91.62
2. 61 91.21
S a n ita r y w a re a n d
p lu m b e r s ’ s u p p lie s
$2.02 $82.68
2.12 86.41
2.19 89.24
2.19 87.94
2.20 86.94
2.19 86.79
2.21 91.48
2. 21 88. 85
2.22 90.62
2.25 94.24
2. 25 92. 97
2.24 94.30
2. 25 95. 94
2.24 93.90
2.29 97.12
39.0
39.1
38.8
38.4
37.8
37.9
39.6
38.8
39.4
40.1
39.9
40.3
41.0
40.3
40.3
Cutlery, handtools,
and hardware *
40.8
40.4
38.4
38.4
38.1
38.7
39.3
39.1
40.0
39.9
41.7
41.6
42.3
40.9
40.9
$2.00 $72.62
2.12 74.77
2.15 72.58
2.16 74.11
2.14 75.26
2.15 75.85
2.18 75.46
2.16 75.83
2.17 75.05
2.16 76.78
2.11 78. 78
2.23 79. 77
2. 27 78. 98
2.24 77. 79
2.23 78.99
Oil b u rn ers, nonelec
tric heating a n d cook
in g a p p a r a tu s , n o t
elsew h ere cla ssified
$2.12 $79.00
2.21 82.58
2.30 82.64
2. 29 84.10
2.30 84.07
2.29 83.85
2.31 84.89
2.29 84. 85
2.30 87.42
2.35 91.27
2.33 92. 80
2.34 88.88
2.34 88.84
2.33 88.18
2. 41 89.20
39.9
39.7
38.8
39.3
39.1
39.0
39.3
39.1
40.1
41.3
41.8
40.4
40.2
39.9
40.0
C u tlery a n d edge tools
40.8
40.2
38.0
38.6
39.2
39.1
39.1
39.7
39.5
40.2
40.4
40.7
40.5
40.1
40.3
H a n d to o ls
$1.78 $82. 82
1.86 83.37
1.91 82.51
1.92 82.99
1.92 82.94
1.94 81.38
1.93 83.71
1.91 83.76
1.90 84.70
1.91 87. 25
1.95 88.31
1.96 89.38
1.95 89. 20
1.94 89.82
1.96 90.45
41.0
39.7
38.2
38.6
38.4
37.5
38.4
38.6
38.5
39.3
39.6
39.9
40.0
40.1
40.2
$2.02
2.10
2.16
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.17
2.20
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.23
2.24
2.25
Fabricated structural
S tr u c tu r a l steel a n d
metal products *
o rn a m en ta l m etalw ork
$1.98 $87.57
2.08 92.99
2.13 89.83
2.14 91.08
2.15 90.46
2.15 91.54
2.16 93.56
2.17 94.94
2.18 96.52
2.21 96.46
2.22 95.11
2.20 94.80
2. 21 95.04
2.21 92. 98
2.23 93.22
41.5
41.7
39.4
39.6
39.5
39.8
40.5
40.4
40.9
40.7
40.3
40.0
40.1
39.4
39.5
$2.11 $87. 57
2.23 94.73
2.28 89.38
2.30 91.31
2. 29 90. 91
2.30 93.09
2.31 94.02
2. 35 95.88
2.36 97.23
2.37 96.05
2. 36 94.56
2.37 93.46
2.37 92. 59
2.36 91.03
2. 36 92.12
41.5
42.1
39.2
39.7
39.7
40.3
40.7
40.8
41.2
40.7
39.9
39.6
39.4
38.9
39.2
$2.11
2.25
2.28
2.30
2. 29
2.31
2.31
2.35
2.36
2.36
2.37
2.36
2.35
2.34
2.35
609
C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able C -l.
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
M anufaeturing—0 ontinued
Year and month
Durable goods—Continued
Fabricated metal products (except ordnance, machinery, and transportation equipment)—Continued
Metal doors, sash,
frames, molding
and trim
1956: Average-------- $84.85
1957: Average_____ 89. 79
1958: February------ 86.58
86.36
M arch______
April............... 84.86
M a y „ ............ 87.52
June...... ........ . 88.75
July................. 90.68
August______ 91.30
Septem ber.,. . 91. 71
91.13
October_____
November___ 92.11
92.11
December___
1959: January_____ 86.24
February____ 87.30
40.6
41.0
39.0
38.9
38.4
39.6
39.8
40.3
40.4
40.4
40.5
40.4
40.4
38.5
38.8
$2.09 $87.98
2.19 92. 77
2.22 91.94
2.22 92.97
2.21 92.73
2.21 90.17
2.23 94.71
2.25 94.96
2.26 95.92
2.27 97.04
2.25 97.53
2. 28 97.44
2.28 98.58
2.24 97.69
2.25 96.07
Lighting fixtures
1956: Average-------- $76. 40
1957: Average-------- 79.80
1958: February____ 75. 75
74. 77
March______
April-....... ...... 75. 75
M ay________ 78.13
June................ 80.57
July................. 81.97
August______ 81.81
September___ 83.84
81.40
October_____
November___ 85.48
85.48
December___
1959: January-------- 85.03
February____ 84.00
40.0
39.7
37.5
37.2
37.5
38.3
39.3
39.6
40.3
40.7
40.7
40.9
40.9
40.3
40.0
Boiler-shop products
41.5
41.6
39.8
39.9
39.8
38.7
40.3
39.9
39.8
40.1
40.3
40.1
40.4
40.2
39.7
$2.12 $90. 52
2.23 93.56
2.31 92.80
2.33 91.64
2.33 92.43
2.33 95.24
2.35 97.47
2.38 96. 32
2.41 101. 70
2.42 101.22
2. 42 99.12
2.43 96.48
2.44 99.87
2.43 98.42
2.42 97.77
Fabricated wire
products
$1.91 $80.75
2.01 82.21
2.02 79.90
2.01 80.29
2.02 80.26
2.04 81.30
2.05 82. 92
2. 07 82.89
2.03 82.92
2.06 87.10
2.00 86. 48
2.09 86. 58
2.09 90. 25
2.11 88.75
2.10 88.10
41.2
40.1
38.6
38.6
38.4
38.9
39.3
39.1
39.3
40.7
40.6
39.9
41.4
40.9
40.6
42.3
41.4
40.0
39.5
39.5
40.7
41.3
40.3
42.2
42.0
41.3
40.2
41.1
40.5
40.4
$2.14 $87.76
2.26 90.13
2.32 87. 46
2.32 89.89
2.34 90.68
2. 34 92.40
2.36 93.03
2.39 93.26
2.41 92.10
2.41 95.40
2. 40 91.25
2.40 96.70
2.43 100.50
2.43 97.51
2.42 97.85
Miscellaneous fab
ricated metal
products 1
$1.96 $86.09
2.05 89.01
2.07 84.41
2.08 83. 71
2.09 81.75
2.09 83.22
2.11 85.97
2.12 87.86
2.11 90.68
2.14 93.98
2.13 93. 71
2.17 94.62
2.18 95.30
2.17 94.85
2.17 96.56
42.2
41.4
38.9
38.4
37.5
38.0
38.9
39.4
40.3
41.4
41.1
41.5
41.8
41.6
41.8
$2.04
2.15
2.17
2.18
2.18
2.19
2.21
2.23
2. 25
2.27
2. 28
2.28
2.28
2.28
2. 31
Fabricated metal
products (except
ordnance, machin
ery & transportation
equipment) —Con.
S crew -m a ch in e
p r o d u c ts
1956: Average-------1957: Average..........
1958: February-----March.............
A pril..............
M ay_______
June________
July------------August_____
September___
O cto b er------November___
December.......
1959: January_____
February___—
42.6
41.7
38.5
38.2
37.8
37.8
38.5
39.3
40.2
40.9
41.2
41.3
42.0
42.1
42.1
$85.63
87.99
81.24
80.98
79.76
79.76
82.01
84.10
86.43
88.34
89. 82
90.03
91. 56
91.78
92.62
T racto rs
1956: Average_____
1957: Average..........
1958: February____
March______
April________
M ay...............
June________
Ju ly ________
August______
September___
October_____
November___
December.......
1959: January_____
February........
$90.27
93.22
92. 25
94.24
98.21
102.97
100.44
103. 53
98.36
96. 75
98.89
90.21
99.33
105.82
108.26
40.3
39.5
37.5
38.0
39.6
40.7
39.7
40.6
39.5
38.7
39.4
35.1
38.8
40.7
40.7
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Metal stamping,
coating, and en
graving s
Sheet-metal work
41.2
40.6
38.7
39.6
39.6
40.0
40.1
40.2
39.7
41.3
40.2
40.8
41.7
40.8
40.6
Vitreous-enameled
products
$2.13 $66.64
2.22 70.49
2.26 68.26
2.27 74.34
2.29 66.60
2.31 72.00
2. 32 74.66
2. 32 79.76
2.32 73.49
2.31 81.06
2.27 82.03
2.37 82. 75
2.41 80.03
2. 39 75.48
2.41 80.54
M e ta l s h ip p in g
b arrels, d r u m s, kegs,
a n d p a ils
$97.36
98.64
98.06
95. 45
99.54
101.59
104. 66
107. 61
110. 25
115. 02
99.84
103.17
101.63
102.80
107.33
42.7
41.1
39.7
38.8
40.3
40.8
42.2
42.2
42.9
43.9
39.0
40.3
39.7
40.0
40.5
39.2
39.6
37.1
40.4
36.0
38.5
39.5
42.2
39.3
42.0
42.5
43.1
41.9
40.8
43.3
$1.70
1.78
1.84
1.84
1.85
1.87
1.89
1.89
1.87
1.93
1.93
1.92
1.91
1.85
1.86
41.0
40.6
38.0
37.1
37.7
36.9
38.4
38.2
38.3
38.7
39.7
40.1
40.5
39.9
40.0
$91.94
93.84
90.71
93.85
96.00
97.69
97. 93
97. 69
96.07
99.60
94.09
101.09
107.10
102.41
102.87
41.6
40.8
38.6
39.6
40.0
40.2
40.3
40.2
39.7
41.5
39.7
40.6
42.0
40.8
40.5
$2. 21
2.30
2.35
2.37
2.40
2. 43
2. 43
2. 43
2.42
2. 40
2.37
2.49
2. 55
2. 51
2.54
B o lts , n u ts,
w a sh ers, a n d
rivets
S te el sp r in g s
$2.28 $90. 61
2.40 95.41
2. 47 89.68
2.46 87.93
2.47 88.60
2.49 86.72
2. 48 91.01
2. 55 91.30
2. 57 91.54
2.62 92. 49
2.56 96.47
2. 56 97.04
2. 56 100.04
2.57 98.95
2.65 100.00
Stamped and
pressed metal
products
$2.21 $88. 41
2.35 91.08
2.36 84.64
2.37 83.25
2.35 78.59
2.35 81.54
2.37 84.98
2.39 86. 79
2. 39 91.64
2. 39 97. 76
2.43 97.94
2.42 99.30
2.47 100.01
2.48 99.78
2.50 102.00
42.3
41.4
38.3
37.5
35.4
36.4
37.6
37.9
39.5
41.6
41.5
41.9
42.2
42.1
42.5
$2.09
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.22
2. 24
2.26
2. 29
2.32
2.35
2.36
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.40
Machinery (except electrical)
Total: Machinery
(except electrical)
$2.01 $93.26
2.11 94.30
2.11 92.12
2.12 93.22
2.11 92. 75
2.11 93.38
2.13 94.25
2.14 93. 77
2.15 93. 77
2.16 95.60
2.18 94. 41
2.18 96.96
2.18 99.06
2.18 99.31
2.20 100.37
42.2
41.0
39.2
39.5
39.3
39.4
39.6
39.4
39.4
40.0
39.5
39.9
40.6
40.7
40.8
$2.21
2.30
2.35
2.36
2.36
2. 37
2. 38
2.38
2.38
2.39
2.39
2.43
2. 44
2.44
2.46
A g r ic u ltu r a l m a
chinery (ex cep t tra c
tors)
$2.24 $82.37
2.36 89.20
2.46 93.03
2.48 95. 47
2.48 93.26
2. 53 93.50
2. 53 94.60
2. 55 92. 27
2.49 91. 87
2.50 94.24
2.51 93.83
2.57 87. 79
2.56 95.00
2.60 93.30
2.66 101.19
39.6
40.0
40.1
40.8
40.2
40.3
40.6
39.6
39.6
40.1
40.1
37.2
40.6
39.7
41.3
S te a m en g in es, tu r
b in es, a n d w a ter
w h eels
Engines and
turbines 1
$95.45
99.55
100.50
102.16
100.00
99.75
102. 26
99. 57
101.12
104.49
105. 82
103.36
105. 97
107. 53
107. 04
41.5
40.8
40.2
40.7
40.0
39.9
40.1
39.2
39.5
40.5
40.7
39.6
40.6
41.2
40.7
$2.30 $101.33
2.44 113.05
2.50 104.68
2. 51 105.06
2.50 106.27
2.50 106.93
2.55 109.21
2. 54 108.13
2.56 111.93
2. 58 114. 65
2.60 116. 31
2.61 113. 24
2. 61 110. 37
2.61 109.69
2.63 107.29
Construction and
mining machinery J
$2.08 $92.23
2.23 92.84
2.32 89.47
2.34 89.24
2.32 89.24
2.32 89.94
2.33 90.09
2. 33 91.80
2.32 93.22
2. 35 94.25
2.34 94.09
2.36 96.00
2. 34 97.53
2.35 97.77
2.45 99.80
42.5
40.9
38.4
38.3
38.3
38.6
38.5
38.9
39.5
39.6
39.7
40.0
40.3
40.4
40.9
41.7
42.5
39.5
39.2
39.8
39.9
40.3
39.9
40.7
40.8
41.1
40.3
39.7
39.6
39.3
$2.43
2.66
2.65
2.68
2.67
2.68
2. 71
2. 71
2.75
2.81
2.83
2.81
2.78
2.77
2.73
C o n stru ctio n a n d m in
in g m a ch in ery, except
oilfield m a ch in ery
$2.17 $92.01
2.27 92.39
2.33 88.39
2.33 89.01
2.33 89.32
2.33 90.40
2. 34 90. 79
2.36 93.14
2.36 92.98
2.38 94.41
2. 37 92.90
2. 40 94.88
2.42 96.32
2.42 96.80
2.44 99.23
42.4
40.7
38.1
38.2
38.5
38.8
38.8
39.3
39.4
39.5
39.2
39.7
39.8
40.0
40.5
D ie se l a n d other in
te r n a l- c o m b u s tio n
en gin es, n o t else
w here classified
$94.21
95. 51
98.98
101.11
98.00
97.36
99.60
96. 72
97.36
101.40
102.31
100. 47
104. 70
107.17
107.01
41.5
40.3
40.4
41.1
40.0
39.9
40.0
39.0
39.1
40.4
40.6
39.4
40.9
41.7
41.0
$2.27 $86.80
2.37 91.31
2.45 92. 73
2. 46 94.95
2.45 95. 76
2. 44 98.01
2.49 97.28
2. 48 97. 84
2.49 95.04
2. 51 95.74
2.52 96. 47
2.55 88.69
2. 56 97.27
2.57 100.35
2.61 104.96
O ilfield m ach inery
a n d tools
$2.17 $92.45
2.27 93. 75
2.32 91.26
2.33 89.71
2.32 88.22
2.33 88.92
2. 34 88.69
2. 37 89.30
2.36 93.06
2. 39 94. 40
2.37 96.70
2.39 98.33
2.42 100.43
2.42 99.77
2.45 100.98
42.8
41.3
39.0
38.5
37.7
38.0
37.9
38.0
39.6
40.0
40.8
40.8
41.5
41.4
41.9
Agricultural machin
ery and tractors1
40.0
39.7
38.8
39.4
39.9
40.5
40.2
40.1
39.6
39.4
39.7
36.2
39.7
40.3
41.0
$2.17
2.30
2. 39
2. 41
2.40
2.42
2.42
2.44
2.40
2. 43
2.43
2.45
2.45
2.49
2. 56
Metalworking
machinery s
$2.16 $108.69
2.27 106. 57
2.34 101.09
2.33 103. 72
2.34 104.00
2.34 103.10
2.34 102.05
2. 35 99. 58
2.35 97.41
2. 36 99.31
2.37 99.31
2.41 102.17
2.42 105.15
2.41 106.90
2.41 109.86
45.1
42.8
39.8
40.2
40.0
39.5
39.4
38.9
38.5
39.1
39.1
39.6
40.6
40.8
41.3
$2. 41
2.49
2.54
2.58
2.60
2. 61
2.59
2.56
2.53
2. 54
2. 54
2. 58
2.59
2.62
2.66
610
Table C -l.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
'Con.
Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly. hrly.
earn earn hours earn
ings
ings
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Year and month
Durable goods—Continued
Machinery (except electrical)—-Continued
M e ta lw o r k in g
m ach tn ery (<except m a ca m e tools)
M a c h in e tools
1956: Average.......... $106.02
1957: Average_____ 100.86
1958: February____ 89. 77
90.92
M arch______
April............... 89.49
M'ay.. _........... 88.67
June................ 89.76
July................. 88.43
August............ 88.77
September___ 91.06
October_____ 91.82
November___ 93.27
December___ 95. 83
1959: January_____ 95.26
February____ 96.87
45.7
42.2
38.2
38.2
37.6
37.1
37.4
37.0
37.3
38.1
38.1
38.7
39.6
39.2
39.7
$2.32
2.39
2.35
2. 38
2.38
2.39
2.40
2.39
2.38
2.39
2.41
2.41
2. 42
2.43
2.44
P a p e r -in d u s tr ie s
m a ch in ery
1956: Average.......... $97. 65
1957: Average........... 96.78
1958: February........ 87.20
M arch______
87.16
A p ril_______ 86.24
89.20
M a y .......... .
June________ 88.31
J u ly ............... 88. 88
A ugust......... . 89.10
September___ 89. 72
91.14
October_____
November___ 94.07
96. 51
December___
1959: January_____ 95.87
February____ 96. 98
46.5
44.6
40.0
39.8
39.2
40.0
39.6
39.5
39.6
39.7
39.8
40.9
41.6
41.5
41.8
41.7
39.9
38.3
38.5
39.0
39.2
39.3
39.5
40. 9
41.1
39.3
39.5
39.9
39.6
39.3
1956: Average_____ $86. 24
1957: Average_____ 87. 30
1958: February____ 86. 78
March...........
89.04
April............... 85. 88
M ay________ 89.21
June................ 90.74
July— ......... . 91.31
August______ 91.31
September___ 94.89
October.......... 87.25
November___ 95. 34
December___ 97. 17
1959: January_____ 95.82
February____ 95.34
See footnotes at end of table
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40.3
39. 6
38.4
39.4
38.0
39.3
39.8
39.7
39.7
40.9
38.1
40.4
41.0
40.6
40.4
$2.26 $115.12
2.39 112. 67
2.46 109.06
2.47 112.74
2. 49 113. 30
2. 47 113.58
2.48 110. 70
2. 52 106. 00
2.56 101. 40
2. 54 103. 88
2.55 103. 22
2. 56 106.67
2. 56 110.42
2.58 113. 70
2.59 117.87
43.7
41.8
40.2
41.3
40.7
40.2
40.2
39.6
38.8
40.3
39.8
40.7
41.5
41.8
41.7
42.8
41.1
38.4
39.0
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.9
38.9
39.2
40.0
40.7
41.3
40.8
41.0
$2.14 $89.54
2. 21 88.53
2.26 89.62
2.26 89.31
2.26 85. 88
2.27 91.39
2.28 94.25
2.30 96.16
2.30 98. 23
2.32 111.60
2.29 101.40
2.36 97.93
2. 37 97.69
2.36 96.96
2.36 97.69
42.5
41.1
38.9
39.1
39.1
39.2
39.7
39.3
39.5
39.8
39.8
40.1
40.6
40.5
40.6
$2.18 $90.31
2.26 90.20
2.31 86. 91
2. 31 87.36
2.31 88.59
2.32 88. 65
2.34 91.20
2. 34 89.54
2.36 90.23
2. 37 91. 31
2.39 91.87
2. 40 92.73
2.41 94. 54
2.40 93.90
2.40 95.88
41.5
41.3
38.2
38.1
37.7
37.9
40.1
38.2
39.6
39.3
41.1
42.3
42.7
42.2
42.3
42.4
41.0
38.8
39.0
39.2
39.4
40.0
39.1
39.4
39.7
39.6
39.8
40.4
40.3
40.8
41.2
40.1
39.0
39.2
39.4
39.3
39.9
40.0
39.6
40.4
40.2
40.4
40.2
40.1
39.7
$2.19
2.25
2.33
2.34
2.33
2.32
2.34
2. 34
2.36
2. 36
2.37
2.39
2.40
2.41
2.41
41.0
40.0
39.5
39.7
39.2
37.9
38.6
38.5
38.7
38.9
38.8
39.5
40.3
39.6
39.6
41.9
41.0
40.1
40.3
40.3
40.2
40.6
40.9
41.2
40.9
40.8
40 4
40.7
41.1
40.7
43.0
41.6
39.0
38.7
38.7
38.8
39.4
38.3
38.5
38.5
38.2
38.6
38.9
39.4
39.3
41.4
40.5
40.3
40.6
40.2
40.0
40.4
41.0
40.4
40.6
40.5
40.7
40.6
40.5
40.2
$2.17 $86. 22
2.23 87.64
2.26 87.17
2. 26 90.52
2. 26 86.26
2.27 90. 74
2.26 91.20
2.26 91.77
2.27 91.64
2.24 93.32
2.24 82. 40
2.27 96.39
2.29 98.88
2.30 97.27
2.30 95.68
40.1
39.3
38.4
39.7
38.0
39.8
40.0
39.9
39.5
40.4
36.3
40.5
41.2
40.7
40.2
41.8
40.5
38.8
39.2
39.3
39.3
40.5
40.3
40.3
40.6
40. 6
40.5
40. 6
40.5
40.4
T y p e w r ite r s
$2.32 $82.60
2.42 76.64
2. 51 67. 82
2. 52 70.40
2.51 73.09
2.50 74.84
2.53 79. 60
2. 54 77. 42
2.56 77.40
2. 57 81.41
2. 59 82.01
2.62 83.63
2. 64 81. 39
2.64 81.37
2.65 79.76
R efrigerators a n d airc o n d itio n in g u n its
41.4
40.6
39.2
38.5
38.0
37.6
37.9
38.0
39.0
40.0
40.1
40.3
41. 1
41.6
41.5
$1.85
1. 91
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.94
1.96
1 96
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.98
2.01
1.99
1.99
B lo w e rs, exh au st and
v en tila tin g fa n s
$2.27 $86. 53
2.37 87.48
2.39 85. 75
2.39 86.24
2.39 86.07
2. 40 88.03
2. 41 89.91
2. 42 89. 87
2.44 90.68
2. 44 92. 57
2. 44 92. 97
2.45 92. 75
2. 46 92. 57
2.46 91.53
2.47 92.11
C o m p u tin g m ach ines
a n d cash registers
$96.05
98.01
101.15
102.31
100. 90
100.00
102.21
104.14
103.42
104. 34
104. 90
106.63
107.18
106.92
106.53
T ex tile m ach inery
$2.14 $76. 59
2.22 77. 55
2.27 75. 26
2.28 73.92
2.27 72.96
2.27 72.94
2.30 74.28
2.31 74.48
2.33 76.83
2.32 78.80
2. 33 79.00
2.33 79. 79
2. 33 82. 61
2.36 82. 78
2.37 82.59
C onveyors a n d conveyin g e q u ip m e n t
$2.13 $97. 61
2.20 98. 59
2.24 93. 21
2. 24 92.49
2.26 92. 49
2.25 93.12
2.28 94. 95
2.29 92.69
2. 29 93.94
2.30 93.94
2.32 93.21
2.33 94. 57
2.34 95. 69
2.33 96.92
2.35 97.07
S e w in g m achines
$1.96 $88. 97
2.03 89.20
2.07 89.27
2.11 89. 72
2.11 88.59
2.10 86.03
2.15 87.24
2.31 87. 01
2.18 87.85
2.16 87.14
2.14 86.91
2.14 89.67
2.17 92.29
2.12 91.08
2.15 91.08
F o o d -p ro d u cts m ach inery
$2.10 $89.67
2.17 91.02
2. 21 91.03
2.22 91.88
2.22 91.48
2.23 91.25
2.24 93.38
2.25 94.48
2. 26 96.00
2.27 94. 89
2.27 95.06
2.29 94.13
2. 30 94.83
2.30 97.00
2.31 96.46
Office and store machines and devices 2
$2.17 $90.23
2.28 90.23
2.31 90.87
2.31 91.73
2.32 91. 80
2.31 91.18
2. 34 93.37
2. 32 93.60
2.34 93. 46
2.33 95. 34
2. 33 95.27
2.32 96.56
2. 34 96. 48
2.32 96.64
2.32 95.68
C o m m ercia l la u n d r y .
dry-clea n in g
and
p r e ss in g m ach ines
40.7 $2.20 $81.34
39.0
2. 27 83.84
38.3
2. 34 79.07
39.0
2.29 80.39
36.7
2. 34 79. 55
38.4
2.38 79.59
39.6
2.38 86.22
39.9
2. 41 81. 37
41.8
2.35 86.33
45.0
2.48 84.89
41.9
2. 42 87.95
40.3
2.43 90.52
40.2
2. 43 92.66
39.9; 2.43 89.46
40.2
2.43 90.95
42.8
41.5
39.6
39.5
39.3
39.3
39.4
39.4
39.7
40.2
40.2
40.5
41.1
41.3
41.3
P u m p s , a ir a n d gas
co m p re sso rs
-
41.8
41.3
39.0
39.2
39.4
38.3
38.9
39.6
38.9
40.7
40.5
40.1
42.0
40.3
42.0
Special-Industry machinery
(except
metalworking machinery) *
$2.53 $89.88
2. 59 90.06
2.66 87. 52
2. 71 87.69
2.73 87.25
2. 75 87.64
2.72 88.26
2. 65 88. 65
2.60 89.72
2. 61 91.25
2.60 91.25
2.66 92. 75
2.68 94. 53
2.72 94.99
2.78 95.40
M e ch a n ic a l
stokers
a n d in d u s tr ia l f u r
naces a n d ovens
$2.22 $90. 71
2.30 94.16
2.35 90. 09
2.34 90. 55
2.33 91.41
2.33 88.47
2.35 91.03
2. 34 91.87
2. 36 91.03
2.38 94.83
2. 41 94. 37
2. 44 93.03
2.45 98.28
2.44 93.50
2.44 97.44
D o m e stic la u n d r y
e q u ip m e n t
45.5
43.5
41.0
41.6
41.5
41.3
40.7
40.0
39.0
39.8
39.7
40.1
41.2
41.8
42.4
General Industrial
machinery *
$2. 35 $92. 65
2.39 92.89
2. 42 89.86
2.42 90.32
2. 42 90.32
2. 43 90.94
2.43 92.90
2.44 91.96
2.45 93.22
2. 47 94. 33
2.45 95.12
2.48 96.24
2. 48 97. 85
2.52 97.20
2.55 97.44
M e ch a n ic a l
p o w e rtra n sm is s io n eq u ip m en t
$2.17 $95.02
2. 25 94.53
2.32 90.24
2.32 91.26
2.32 89. 94
2.33 90.17
2. 33 91.18
2. 37 91.03
2.39 91.80
2. 44 93. 30
2.41 96. 40
2.42 99.31
2. 44 101.19
2.44 99.55
2.44 100.04
Service-industry and
household machines *
43.1
41.6
38.7
38.8
38.8
37.9
38.4
38.7
38.9
38.6
39.1
39.5
40.2
39.9
40.4
P r in tin g -tra d e s m a chinery a n d e q u ip
m en t
$2.10 $102. 70
2.17 99.90
2.18 97.28
2.19 99.95
2.20 98.49
2. 23 97.69
2.23 97.69
2.25 96.62
2. 25 95. 06
2. 26 99. 54
2.29 97. 51
2.30 100. 94
2. 32 102. 92
2.31 105.34
2.32 106.34j
I n d u s tria l tru ck s,
tra cto rs, etc.
1956: Average........... $90. 49
1957: Average_____ 89. 78
1958: February____ 88. 86
March______
89.32
A p ril.............. 90. 48
M ay________ 91.34
June................ 91. 57
93. 62
July-----------August............ 97.75
September___ 100. 28
October_____
94.71
November___ 95. 59
December___ 97. 36
1959: January_____ 96.62
February____ 95.89
$97. 41
99.42
95.20
95. 84
96. 61
93. 61
95.23
97. 52
99. 58
98.04
99.71
101.12
102. 91
102. 94
104.64
M a ch in e-to o l accessortes
41.3
39.3
34.6
36.1
37.1
37.8
39.6
39.1
38.7
40.5
40.2
40.4
39.7
39.5
39.1
$2.07
2.16
2.21
2. 20
2.19
2.24
2.22
2.23
2.25
2. 28
2.29
2.29
2. 28
2.26
2.28
3
$2.00
1.95
1.96
1.95
1.97
1. 98
2.01
1.98
2. 00
2. 01
2.04
2.07
2. 05
2.06
2.04
Miscellaneous machinery parts *
$2.15 $89.87
2.23 91.62
2. 27 90.23
2.28 90.85
2.27 90.62
2.28 91.01
2.28 92.34
2. 30 91.64
2.32 92.73
2.31 94.47
2.27 92. 51
2.38 98.16
2. 40 98. 81
2.39 98.40
2.38 98.40
41.8
40.9
39.4
39.5
39.4
39.4
39.8
39.5
39.8
40.2
39.2
40.9
41.0
41.0
41.0
$2.15
2.24
2.29
2.30
2.30
2.31
2.32
2.32
2.33
2.35
2.36
2.40
2. 41
2.40
2.40
0.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able C -l.
611
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Durable goods—Continued
Year and month
Electrical machinery
Machinery (except electrical)—Continued
F abricated p ip e , fittin g s, a n d valves
1P 56 ; A v e r a g e ............
1957 : Average-------1958 : February____
March______
A p ril
M ay________
June - _____
.T illy
August______
September___
October_____
November___
December___
January_____
February__
1959 :
1956 : Average___ ...
1957 : Average_____
195* : F e b r u a r y
1959 :
M arch______
April_______
M ay ______
June________
July________
August______
September___
October____
November___
December___
January. ___
February____
$ 88 .
99
91.13
90.94
90 . 55
90 . 48
89.63
90.39
91.87
92.04
93.30
94.33
95 . 68
96 . 72
95.12
94.88
41 .2
40 .5
39 .2
39 .2
39 .0
38 .8
39 .3
39 .6
39 .5
39 .7
39 .8
40 .2
40.3
39 .8
39 .7
$ 2 .1 6
2 .2 5
2 .3 2
2.31
2 .3 2
2.3 1
2.3 0
2 .3 2
2 . 33
2 . 35
2.3 7
2 .3 8
2 .4 0
2.3 9
2 .3 9
Average_____
Average_____
February____
M arch______
1959 :
August______
September___
October.. __
November___
December.......
J a n u a ry .___
February____
$ 90.31
2.2 4
2 .2 8
2 .2 9
2 .2 9
2 .3 0
2 . 30
2 .2 9
2 . 31
2 .3 4
2.31
2 .4 8
2 . 47
2 . 44
2.4 5
92.96
90 . 74
91.60
92 . 23
92.86
94 . 54
93.03
94 . 54
95.65
93 . 38
97.10
98.71
99.42
99.42
$ 8 0 .16
2.1 2
2.1 4
2 .1 5
2.1 4
2 .1 7
2 .1 9
2 .1 9
2 .1 9
2.1 8
2 . 21
2.21
2 . 24
2.2 5
2.2 6
81.61
81.12
82.32
82.08
83.28
85 . 57
85 . 75
83 .1 3
87 . 08
85 . 57
88 . 75
90 . 27
86.46
86.27
41 .2
40 .0
3 8 .6
38 .3
38 .6
38 .8
39.1
39 .0
39 .4
39 .5
40.0
40 .3
40 .5
40 .6
41 .4
$ 80.60
83.10
84 . 42
83.44
81.81
82.28
82 . 40
83 . 00
84 . 37
87.12
88 . 22
92.06
87 . 74
89.55
87 . 30
39 .9
39 .2
38 .2
38.1
37 . 7
37 .4
37 . 8
3 7 .9
38 .7
39 .6
40.1
41.1
39 .7
3 9 .8
38 .8
$
67 . 25
70 . 22
71.43
71.06
72 . 96
72 . 94
74 . 86
72 . 77
74.30
76 . 81
76 . 82
77 . 81
77.03
75.45
77.03
39.1
38 .8
38 .2
3 8 .0
38 . 4
38 .8
39 .4
38 . 1
38 .9
3 9 .8
39 .6
3 9 .7
39 . í
3 8 .3
39 .1
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40.9
40.2
39 .0
3 9 .2
3 8 .9
39 .1
3 9 .8
3 9 .7
3 9 .4
4 0 .5
3 9 .8
4 0 .9
41 .6
4 0 .4
40.5
$
2.1 2
2.21
2 .1 9
2 .1 7
2.2 0
2 .1 8
2 .1 9
2.1 8
2.2 0
2.2 0
2.24
2 . 21
2.2 5
2.2 5
$ 84 .
71
85.08
81.60
82 . 42
82 . 42
81.80
87 . 36
88.18
84 . 24
88.20
88 . 62
89 . 04
92 . 01
89.03
86.32
43 .0
41 . 5
40.0
40.4
40 . 4
40.1
41 .8
42 . 6
40.5
4 2 .0
42.2
42 .2
43.4
42 .6
41 .5
$
1.97
2 . 05
2 . 04
2.04
2 . 04
2 . 04
2.09
2.0 7
2.0 8
2.10
2.10
2.11
2.12
2 .0 9
2 .0 8
1.72
1.81
1. 87
1. 87
1.90
1.88
1.90
1.91
1. 91
1.93
1.94
1.96
1.96
1.97
1.97
$ 95 .
94 .
24
3Ç
92.04
91 . 8 C
92 . 59
93 .2 2
93.06
90 . 79
94 . 87
94 . 87
95 . 58
95.27
96 . 63
96.63
96 . 15 ,
42.9
41.4
3 9 .5
39.4
39 . 4
3 9 .5
3 9 .6
38 .8
40.2
40 . 2
40 .5
40 .2
40 .6
40 .6
40 . 4 !
$ 2.
22
2.2 8
2.33
2 . 33
2 . 35
2 . 36
2 . 35
2.34
2 . 36
2 . 36
2 . 36
2 . 37
2.3 8
2 .3 8
2 .3 8
$ 2.1 4
2.2 4
2 . 28
2 . 29
2.3 0
2.31
2.3 4
2 .3 2
2.3 4
2 .3 5
2 37
2 .3 8
2 . 39
2.3 9
2 . 39
41 .3
40 .6
3 9 .7
3 9 .6
3 9 .0
3 9 .5
3 9 .7
3 9 .7
40 .0
40.4
40 4
40 .9
40 .9
40 .3
4 0 .4
$ 2.2 0
2.31
2.3 7
2 . 37
2 . 36
2 .3 8
2.3 9
2 .4 0
2 . 40
2 . 42
2.41
2 . 47
2 . 47
2 . 45
2 . 45
Electrical equipment
for vehicles
$ 84 .
85 .
85 .
86 .
84 .
84 .
89 .
89 .
42
85
50
18
52
67
31
17
88 . 62
94 . 19
76 . 81
99.12
102.72
100.38
100 . 80
40 .2
3 9 .2
38 .0
37 .8
37.4
37.3
39 .0
3 8 .6
38.7
40 .6
34 .6
41 .3
42 .8
42 . 0
42 .0
$ 2.
10
2 .1 9
2 . 25
2.2 8
2 . 26
2 .2 7
2 .2 9
2.31
2 . 29
2.3 2
2 . 22
2.40
2 . 4C
2 .3 9
2 .4 0
Miscellaneous
electrical
products J
T eleph one, telegraph,
a n d related e q u ip
m en t
$
42 .2
41 .5
3 9 .8
40 .0
40.1
40 .2
40 .4
40.1
4 0 .4
4 0 .7
39 .4
4 0 .8
41 .3
41 .6
41 .6
M o to rs,
generators,
a n d m otor-genera
tor sets
1.96 $ 90 . 86
2 .0 3
93 . 79
2.0 8
94.09
2 .1 0
93 . 85
92.04
2.11
2 .1 3
94.01
2 .1 5
94.88
2 .1 6
95.28
2.11
96.00
2.1 5
97 . 77
2.15
97 . 36
2 . 17 101.02
2.17 101.02
98.74
2.1 4
2.1 3
98.98
Insulated wire and
cable
$ 2.0 2
M a ch in e sh ops {job
a n d rep a ir)
$ 2 .1 5
$ 2.05
46
84.80
82.60
82.35
82.60
84.20
85.63
85 . 41
86 . 29
86 . 11
88 . 40
89.06
90.72
91.35
93.56
R a d io tubes
.T illy
41 .4
3 9 .8
3 8 .5
38 . 5
3 8 .2
38.1
3 8 .8
3 7 .7
38 .2
3 9 .7
37 .5
42 .2
41.4
41 .2
41 .0
$ 84 .
A p rtl
Average.........
Average.........
February____
March_____
April________
M ay. ______
June________
89.15
87 . 78
88.17
87 . 48
87.63
89 . 24
86 . 33
88.24
92.90
86 , 63
104 . 66
102.26
100 . 53
100.45
E lectrica l in d ica tin g ,
m ea su rin g , a n d re
cording in s tr u m e n ts
M ay________
June________
July________
August______
September___
October.. _ ..
November___
December___
1959: January.
February____
1956 :
1957 :
1958 :
$ 89.01
C arbon a n d graphite
p ro d u c ts (electrical)
Electrical
appliances
1956 :
1957 :
1958 :
B a ll a n d roller
bearings
$
78.34
81 . 61
81.95
82 . 76
83.18
82 . 56
83 . 2f
84.19
83.18
85.89
84.86
89 . 86
94 . 57
89.82
86.65
40.8
40.4
39 . 4
3 9 .6
39 .8
39 . 5
40 . C
3 9 .9
39 .8
40 .9
40 .8
41 .6
42 .6
4 1 .2
4 0 .3
$
Total: Electrical
machinery
$ 80 .
78
83.01
83.07
83.67
83 . 46
83.67
85.14
84 . 50
84.96
87.26
85 . 79
88.91
89 . 32
88.88
88.44
40 .8
40.1
39 .0
39.1
3 9 .0
39 .1
3 9 .6
39 .3
39 .7
40 .4
39 .9
40 .6
40.6
4 0 .4
40 .2
$
1.98
2 .0 7
2.1 3
2.14
2.1 4
2 .1 4
2.1 5
2 .1 5
2 .1 4
2 .1 6
2.1 5
2.1 9
2 .2 0
2 .2 0
2 .2 0
Electrical generating, transmission,
distribution, and
industrial appara
tus *
$ 87.15
88.70
87.64
88 . 65
87.58
88 . 43
89.27
89.04
89.33
90.63
90.80
92 . 52
93 . 61
92.06
92 . 52
41 .5
40 .5
3 9 .3
39 .4
39.1
3 9 .3
3 9 .5
39 .4
3 9 .7
40.1
4 0 .0
40 .4
40.7
40 .2
4 0 .4
$ 2 .1 0
2 .1 9
2 .2 3
2 . 25
2 .2 4
2 .2 5
2 .2 6
2 .2 6
2 . 25
2 .2 6
2 . 27
2 . 29
2.3 0
2 .2 9
2 .2 9
P o w er a n d d istrib u
tio n tra n sfo rm ers
S w itch g ea r,
sw itc h
board, a n d in d u s
tria l controls
$ 92 .
$ 2.2 0
$ 90.30
2 . 30
2.3 2
2 .3 3
2.3 3
2.33
2 .3 3
2.31
2 .3 2
2 .3 5
2.3 5
2 . 36
2 . 36
2.3 6
2 .3 6
93.11
91 .9 4
92 . 50
91.41
91.41
92.73
9 2 .27
9 2 .10
9 3 .20
94.40
95.11
96.22
94.87
96.39
84
93 . 38
91.87
92 . 97
92.50
92.73
92.50
91.94
91.64
94.71
93 . 53
93.93
94.16
94.40
92.98
42.2
4 0 .6
3 9 .6
3 9 .9
39 . 7
3 9 .8
39 .7
3 9 .8
39 .5
40 .3
39 .8
3 9 .8
39 .9
4 0 .0
3 9 .4
76.62
77.60
77.59
78.39
77.79
78 . 74
79 . 34
80.16
81.35
85.01
87.74
87.95
86 . 48
87.53
40 .8
3 9 .7
3 8 .8
3 8 .6
3 9 .0
3 8 .7
38 .6
38 .7
39.1
39.3
40.1
41 .0
41.1
4 0 .6
40 .9
$
1.84
1.93
2 .0 0
2 . 01
2.01
2.0 1
2 . 04
2 .0 5
2.0 5
2 . 07
2.1 2
2.1 4
2.1 4
2.1 3
2.1 4
Storage batteries
1.92 $ 87.12
2.0 2
90 . 09
87 . 4S
2.0 8
2.01
89 . 86
2.01
89.32
2.0 9
90.09
2 . 08
92 . 4C
2 . 11
92 . 17
2.0 9
9 3 .26
2.1 0
97.76
94.99
2.0 8
2.1 6 104. 98
2 . 22 118 . 7 Í
2 .1 8 105.35
2.1 5
97.12 ,
40 .9
40.4
3 8 .2
38.9
3 8 .5
39 .0
40 . C
3 9 .9
40.2
4 1 .6
41.3
4 3 .2
46.4
4 3 .0
40 . 3 ,
$ 2 .1 5 $
2 .2 6
2.31
2.3 3
2 .3 2
2 .3 2
2 . 33
2 .3 3
2.3 2
2 .3 3
2 .3 6
2 . 36
2 . 37
2 . 36
2 .3 8
Commun lcatlon
equipm ent1
Electric lamps
$ 75.07
42 .0
41 .2
3 9 .8
3 9 .7
3 9 .4
39 .4
3 9 .8
3 9 .6
3 9 .7
40 .0
40 .0
40 .3
40 .6
40 .2
40 .5
$ 2.1 3
2.2 3
2 . 29
2.31
2.3 2
2.31
2.31
2.31
2 . 32
2.3 5
2 . 3C
2 . 42
2.5 6
2 . 45
2.4 1
$ 75.95
78.41
79.95
80.16
80.94
80.96
82 . 39
80 . 75
82 . 59
84 . 24
83 . 41
84.23
84.59
85.41
84 . 56
40 .4
3 9 .8
3 9 .0
39.1
39.1
39 .3
3 9 .8
3 9 .2
3 9 .9
40 .5
40.1
40 .3
3 9 .9
40.1
39 .7
$
1.88
1.97
2 .0 5
2 . 05
2 . 07
2 .0 6
2 .0 7
2 .0 6
2.0 7
2.0 8
2 . 08
2.0 9
2.1 2
2 .1 3
2 .1 3
P r im a r y batteries
(d ry a n d w e t)
$ 64 .
48
68.00
69.83
69 . 48
70.05
70.67
70.98
73 . 16
70 . 22
72 . 22
73.10
74 . 57
73.26
7 3 .98
73 . 31
39 .8
40 .0
3 9 .9
39 . 7
39 . i
39.7
40.1
40 .2
39 .9
4 0 .8
41.2
41 .2
40.7
41.1
40.5
$
1.6 2
1.70
1. 75
1.75
1. 76
1.78
1. 77
1.82
1.76
1. 77
1.77
1.81
1.8 0
1.8 0
1. 8 1 ,
W ir in g devices
a n d s u p p lie s
$
76.11
76.82
76.03
77.80
77.41
78.00
78.17
78.36
79.18
79 . 59
81.99
80.99
82.42
82.00
82.82
40 .7
3 9 .6
38.4
3 8 .9
3 8 .9
3 9 .0
3 8 .7
38 . 6
39 .2
3 9 .4
3 9 .8
39 .7
40 .4
4 0 .0
4 0 .4
$
1.87
1.94
1.98
2 .0 0
1. 99
2 .0 0
2.0 2
2 .0 3
2.0 2
2 . 02
2.0 6
2.0 4
2 . 04
2 .0 5
2 . 05
E lectrica l w eld in g
a p p a r a tu s
101 . 68
96 . 28
88.01
86 . 48
87 . 55
88.39
89.47
88 . 62
90 . 63
92.11
90 . 29
88 . 08
90.91
94.30
98.66
44 .4
41 .5
38.1
3 7 .6
3 7 .9
38.1
38.4
3 8 .2
40.1
40 .4
39 .6
3 8 .8
39 .7
40 .3
4 0 .6
$ 2 .2 9
2.3 2
2.31
2 .3 0
2.31
2 .3 2
2 .3 3
2 .3 2
2.2 6
2 .2 8
2 . 28
2 . 27
2.2 9
2 .3 4
2 .4 3
R a d io s , p h o n o g ra p h s,
television sets, and
e q u ip m e n t
$ 72 .
75 .
98
83
78.98
79.39
79 . 78
79.98
81.60
80.39
81.40
83 . 64
82.01
83.03
83.39
85.05
83.37
40.1
39 .7
39.1
39.3
39 .3
39 .4
40.0
3 9 .6
40.1
40 .8
40 .2
40 .5
3 9 .9
40 .5
39 .7
$
1.82
1.91
2.0 2
2.0 2
2.0 3
2 .0 3
2.0 4
2 . 03
2 .0 3
2 . 05
2.0 4
2.0 5
2 .0 9
2 .1 0
2 .1 0
X - r a y a n d n onradio
electronic tubes
$ 87 .
89 .
53
47
90 . 57
91 60
91 . 66
92 . 40
93 . 32
94 . 47
93.26
94 . 47
93.93
95 . 51
96.63
95.27
95.34
4 0 .9
40 .3
3 9 .9
4 0 .0
40.2
40 .0
40.4
40.2
40.2
4 0 .2
3 9 .3
4 0 .3
4 0 .6
4 0 .2
4 0 .4
$ 2.1 4
2.2 2
2.2 7
2.2 9
2 .2 8
2 . 31
2.31
2 .3 5
2 .3 2
2 . 35
2 . 39
2 . 37
2 . 38
2 .3 7
2 .3 6
612
T able C -l.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
brly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Year and month
Durable goods—Continued
Transportation equipment
1956: Average-------1957: Average_____
1958: February........
M arch.............
April----------M ay________
June________
J u ly ............ —
A ugust_____
September___
October_____
November___
December___
1959: January_____
February........
Total: Transporta
tion equipment
Motor vehicles and
equipm ent*
Motor vehicles, bodies,
parts, and accessories
$94.48
97.36
94. 96
97.32
97.07
98.85
99. 50
100. 19
102.00
100. 98
102.00
106. 78
110.92
106.63
105.59
$94.71
98.40
92.50
95. 75
96.00
97.64
98.14
97.39
99.82
98.43
100.04
110. 70
117.82
109.06
107.20
$95.91
99.85
93.37
97.28
97.54
98.94
99.20
98.82
101.66
99. 58
101. 91
113.03
120.81
110.97
109.48
40.9
40.4
38.6
39.4
39.3
39.7
39.8
39.6
40.0
39.6
40.0
40.6
41.7
40.7
40.3
$2.31
2.41
2.46
2.47
2. 47
2.49
2.50
2.53
2.55
2. 55
2. 55
2. 63
2.66
2.62
2.62
A ir c r a f t
1956: Average_____
1957: Average_____
1958: February____
M arch______
April_______
M ay________
June________
July.................
August______
September___
October_____
November___
December___
1959: January....... -.
February........
$94.89
95.65
97.53
98.42
97.69
101.09
102.06
102. 91
104. 34
103. 57
104.49
103. 97
104.12
104.90
105.04
41.8
40.7
40.3
40.5
40.2
40.6
40.5
40.2
40.6
40.3
40.5
40.3
40.2
40.5
40.4
40.3
40.0
37.3
38.3
38.4
38.9
39.1
38.8
39.3
38.6
39.7
41.0
43.0
41.0
40.3
$2.35
2. 46
2. 48
2.50
2. 50
2. 51
2.51
2.51
2.54
2. 55
2. 52
2.70
2. 74
2.66
2.66
A ir c ra ft engines
a n d p a r ts
$2.27
2.35
2.42
2.43
2.43
2. 49
2.52
2. 56
2. 57
2.57
2.58
2. 58
2. 59
2. 59
2.60
$96.90
98.23
99.75
100.90
100.40
100. 55
103.38
103. 79
102.47
105. 83
100.35
106.04
106.86
107.53
107.68
42.5
41.1
39.9
40.2
40.0
39.9
40.7
40.7
40.5
41.5
39.2
41.1
41.1
41.2
41.1
40.3
40.1
37.2
38.3
38.4
38.8
38.9
38.6
39.1
38.3
39.5
41.1
43.3
41.1
40.4
$2.38 $81.61
2.49 84.56
2. 51 85.02
2. 54 86.11
2. 54 85.02
2. 55 86.94
2.55 87.20
2.56 87.60
2.60 89. 20
2.60 88.03
2. 58 84.92
2.75 92. 46
2.79 93.73
2.70 92.00
2. 71 92.86
A ir c r a f t p r o p e lle rs
a n d p a r ts
$2.28 $96.93
2.39 97.76
2.50 98.36
2. 51 94. 71
2. 51 95.99
2.52 94. 71
2.54 95.11
2. 55 93. 77
2.53 92. 83
2. 55 96.46
2.56 95.68
2. 58 98. 57
2. 60 99.87
2.61 100.12
2.62 99.80
42.7
41.6
41.5
40.3
40.5
40.3
40.3
39.9
39.5
40.7
40.2
40.9
41.1
41.2
40.9
Truck and bus
bodies
$2.27
2.35
2.37
2.35
2.37
2.35
2.36
2.35
2.35
2. 37
2.38
2.41
2.43
2.43
2.44
40.4
39.7
39.0
39.5
39.0
39.7
40.0
40.0
40.0
39.3
38.6
40.2
40. 4
40.0
40.2
$2.02 $82. 59
2.13 81.35
2.18 77. 54
2.18 80.60
2.18 79.80
2.19 83.79
2.18 87.13
2.19 85. 47
2.23 85.28
2.24 87. 57
2.20 88.83
2.30 84.65
2.32 86. 92
2. 30 86.07
2.31 81.45
Other a irc ra ft p a r ts
a n d e q u ip m e n t
$98.01
99.78
99.63
100.53
100.28
100.28
102.59
103.16
105. 84
105. 75
107.10
104. 83
108. 54
105. 75
105. 50
42.8
42.1
41.0
41.2
41.1
41.1
41.2
41.1
42.0
41.8
42.0
41.6
42.9
41.8
41.7
Trailers (truck and
automobile)
$2.29
2.37
2.43
2.44
2. 44
2. 44
2.49
2. 51
2.52
2. 53
2. 55
2. 52
2. 53
2.53
2.53
39.9
39.3
37.1
38.2
38.0
39.9
41.1
40.7
41.0
41.7
41.9
40. 5
41.0
40.6
38.6
$2.07
2.07
2.09
2.11
2.10
2.10
2.12
2.10
2.08
2.10
2.12
2.09
2.12
2.12
2.11
Ship and boat build
ing and repairing*
$89.33
94.88
91.85
96. 78
95.80
97. 51
96.78
99.65
100.98
100. 35
102.68
99. 72
101. 53
102.44
100.23
39.7
39.7
37.8
39.5
39.1
39.8
39.5
39.7
39.6
39.2
39.8
38.8
39.2
39.4
38.7
$2.25
2.39
2.43
2. 45
2.45
2.45
2.45
2. 51
2. 55
2.56
2. 58
2. 57
2. 59
2.60
2.59
Transportation equipment—Continued
B o a tb u ild in g a n d
r e p a irin g
1956: Average.......... $73. 57
1957: Average_____ 77.78
1958: February____ 74.50
March______
79.39
April_______
78.20
M ay________ 80.56
June________ 78.98
July................ 76. 43
August______ 77. 79
September___ 79. 60
October_____
79.20
November___ 78.80
December....... 78.41
1959: January_____ 78.60
February____ 77.42
40.2
40.3
38.4
40.3
39.9
41.1
40.5
38.6
38.7
39.8
39.6
39.6
39.6
39.9
39.7
$1.83
1.93
1.94
1.97
1.96
1.96
1.95
1.98
2.01
2.00
2.00
1.99
1.98
1.97
1.95
Laboratory, scien
tific, and engineering
instruments
1956: Average_____
1957: Average...........
1958: February........
M arch______
April_______
M ay________
June________
July— ...........
August...........
September___
October_____
November___
December.......
1959: January_____
February____
$94.95
97.17
96.56
99.05
102.18
100.35
103.48
101.40
104. 70
107.74
105. 73
108.00
109.13
109.04
109.04
42.2
41.0
39.9
40.1
41.2
40.3
40.9
40.4
40.9
41.6
41.3
41.7
42.3
42.1
42.1
$94. 56
100.80
100.10
102.96
100.81
99.64
98.21
98.05
97. 94
97. 99
96. 75
104.18
106. 74
103.09
104. 76
39.9
40.0
38.5
39.0
37.9
37.6
37.2
37.0
37.1
36.7
35.7
38.3
39.1
37.9
38.8
$2.37
2.52
2.60
2.64
2.66
2.65
2.64
2. 65
2. 64
2. 67
2. 71
2. 72
2.73
2.72
2.70
Mechanical measur
ing and controlling
instruments
$2.25 $83.64
2.37 86.27
2.42 84.50
2. 47 84.89
2.48 84. 46
2.49 84.80
2.53 86.51
2. 51 86.24
2. 56 86.90
2.59 88.18
2.56 87. 96
2. 59 89. 87
2. 58 91.80
2. 59 91.58
2. 59 90.05
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Railroad equipm ent*
41.0
40.5
39.3
39.3
39.1
38.9
39.5
39.2
39.6
39.9
39.8
40.3
40.8
40.7
40.2
L o co m o tives a n d
p a r ts
$99. 41
102. 41
98.81
102.96
102.44
101. 53
104.41
107.07
102. 97
104. 28
102. 27
107. 05
108. 53
108.41
110.03
42.3
40.8
38.3
39.6
39.4
38.9
39.7
40.1
39.3
39.5
37.6
39.5
39.9
40.3
40.6
$2.35
2. 51
2.58
2.60
2.60
2. 61
2.63
2.67
2. 62
2.64
2. 72
2. 71
2.72
2.69
2. 71
Optical instruments
and lenses
$2.04 $83.03
2.13 85.22
2.15 82.82
2.16 84.32
2.16 85. 36
2.18 84.02
2.19 85.85
2.20 91.43
2.20 91.24
2. 21 93. 50
2.21 93.95
2.23 94. 82
2.25 92.64
2.25 88.70
2.24 89.76
40.5
40.2
38.7
39.4
39.7
38.9
39.2
41.0
41.1
42.5
42.9
43.1
42.3
40.5
40.8
$2.05
2.12
2.14
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.19
2.23
2.22
2.20
2.19 i
2.20
2.19
2.19
2.20
38.9
39.6
38.6
38.8
37.3
37.1
35.9
35.6
36.0
35.2
35.1
37.6
38.7
36.8
37.9
40.4
40.2
39.3
39.2
39.4
39.3
40.4
40.0
40.3
40.7
40.6
40.4
40.7
40.6
40.5
Other transportation
equipment
$2.37 $77. 59
2.52 79.59
2.61 82.56
2.66 82.58
2.68 82.56
2.67 81.48
2.64 82.39
2.64 78.83
2.65 83. 35
2.69 85.03
2.71 85.24
2.73 79.38
2.73 85.32
2. 73 87.23
2.69 88.75
Surgical, medical,
and dental Instru
ments
$71. 51
74.37
74.28
74.87
75.25
75. 46
78.78
78.00
79.39
80. 99
81.20
80.80
81.81
81.61
81.41
$95.99
96.76
98. 58
99. 06
98.33
100. 44
102.16
102. 62
104.04
104. 04
104.09
104.19
105. 52
105. 52
105.67
42.1
41.0
40.4
40.6
40.3
40.5
40.7
40.4
40.8
40.8
40.5
40.7
40.9
40.9
40.8
$2.28
2.36
2. 44
2.44
2.44
2. 48
2.51
2. 54
2. 55
2. 55
2.57
2.56
2.58
2.58
2.59
S h ip b u ild in g an d
re p a irin g
$92.27
97.81
94. 75
99.43
98.67
100.19
99.43
102. 68
104.01
102. 83
106.13
102.94
105. 45
106.11
104. 34
39.6
39.6
37.6
39.3
39.0
39.6
39.3
39.8
39.7
39.1
39.9
38.7
39.2
39.3
38.5
$2.33
2.47
2. 52
2.53
2.53
2. 53
2.53
2.58
2.62
2.63
2.66
2. 66
2.69
2.70
2. 71
Instruments and
related products
R a ilro a d a n d street
cars
$92.19
99.79
100. 75
103.21
99.96
99.06
94.78
93.98
95. 40
94.69
95.12
102.65
105. 65
100.46
101.95
Aircraft and parts*
40.2
39.4
39.5
39.7
39.5
38.8
39.8
37.9
39.5
40.3
40.4
37.8
39.5
40.2
40.9
$1.93 $82.01
2.02 85.03
2.09 84.50
2.08 85.50
2.09 85.72
2.10 85.46
2.07 87.16
2.08 87.34
2.11 87. 96
2. 11 89. 47
2.11 89. 28
2.10 90. 76
2.16 91.62
2.17 91.17
2.17 91.13
Ophthalmic goods1
$1. 77 $64. 64
1.85 67.26
1.89 69. 91
1.91 70. 10
1.91 69. 55
1.92 70.47
1.95 70.86
1.95 70.68
1.97 69. 55
1.99 73.30
2.00 73. 84
2.00 74.80
2.01 74.24
2.01 74. 82;
2.01 75.01'
40.4
39.8
38.2
38.1
37.8
38.3
38.3
38.0
37.8
39.2
39.7
40.0
39.7
39.8
39.9
Total: Instruments
and related products
$1.60
1.69
1.83
1.84
1.84
1.84
1.85
1. 86
1.84
1.87
1.86
1.87
1.87
1.88
1.88
40.8
40.3
39.3
39.4
39.5
39.2
39.8
39.7
39.8
40.3
40.4
40.7
40.9
40.7
40.5
$2.01
2. 11
2.15
2.17
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.21
2.23
2. 24
2.24
2.25
Photographic ap
paratus
$91. 46
94.60
96.00
96.40
96.40
96.40
97.36
98.17
97. 20
97. 44
98. 58
99.80
100.37
100.37
102.62
41.2
40.6
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.4
40. 4
40.0
40. 1
40.4
40.9
40.8
40.8
40.4
$2. 22
2.33
2. 40
2.41
2. 41
2 41
2. 41
2. 43
2.43
2. 43
2. 44
2. 44
2.46
2.46
2.54
C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able C -l.
613
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly,
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Year and month
Durable goods—Continued
Instruments and
related products—
Continued
Watches and clocks
Miscellaneous manufacturing Industries
Total: Miscellaneous
manufacturing
industries
Jewelry, silverware,
and plated w are2
Jewelry and
findings
Silverware and
plated ware
Musical instruments
and parts
1956: Average........... $70. 77 39.1 $1.81 $70. 53 40.3 $1.75 $73.81
41.7 $1.77 $69.06
41.6 $1.66 $83.38
41.9 $1.99 $80. 54 41.3 $1.95
39.0
1.85 72.22
1957: Average_____ 72.15
1.81 74.07
39.9
40.7
1.82 70.07
40.5
1.73 84.05
41.2
2.04 83.03
40.5
2. 05
1958: February........ 72.00
38.5
1.87 71.76
39.0
1.84 73.05
1.84 70. 40 40.0
39.7
1.76 79. 76 39.1
2. 04 79. 95 39.0
2. 05
M a r c h ..___
72.76
1.88 72.13
38.7
1.84 72.86
39.2
39.6
1.84 69.70
39.6
1.76 81.18
39.6
2.05 82.40
40.0
2.06
April_______
73.32
39.0
1.88 72.15
39.0
1.85 73.28
1.86 70.13
39.4
39.4
1.78 81.35
39.3
2.07 80. 32
38.8
2.07
M a y ..______ 71.63
38.1
1.88 71.94
39.1
1.84 74.26 39.5
1.88 70. 71 39.5
39.4
1.79 81.95
2.08 79.87
38.4
2.08
June................ 71.82
38.2
1.88 73.08
39.5
1. 85 74. 74 40.4
1.85 72.22
40.8
1. 77 81.16
39.4
2.06 80. 47
38.5
2.09
July................. 74. 47 39.4
1. 89 72.13
1.84 72.83
39.2
39.8
1.83 70.00
40.0
1.75 80. 57 39.3
2.05 81.48
38.8
2.10
73.52
1.89 72. 68
August....... .
38.9
1.84 74. 34 40.4
39.5
1.84 71.28
40.5
1.76 83.79
39.9
2.10 85. 65
40.4
2.12
September___ 75.24
39.6
1.90 74.19
40.1
1.85 76.67
41.0
1.87 72.04
40.7
1.77 88. 82
41.7
2.13 87. 33
41.0
2.13
October_____
40.2
76.38
1.90 74. 56 40.3
1.85 80.33
1.89 76.08
42.5
42.5
1.79 91.81
42.7
2.15 88. 81
41.5
2.14
November___ 75.81
39.9
40.4
1.90 75.14
1. 86 82.70
43.3
1.91 78.01
43.1
1.81 95.27
43.7
2.18 88. 58 41. 2 2.15
December___ 75.83
39.7
1. 91 75. 95
40.4
1.88 81.98
1.92 78.51
42.7
42.9
1.83 90.52
42.1
2.15 92.88
42.8
2.17
1959: January_____ 76.61
39.9
1.92 75.79
1.89 76.89
40.1
40.9
1.88 73.39
41.0
1.79 85.86
40.5
2.12 88.15
41.0
2.15
39.8
February____ 75.62
40.2
1.90 75.98
1.89 77.30
40.9
1.89 73.62
40.9
1.80 86.90
40.8
2.13 87.94
40.9
2.15
Toys and sporting
Games, toys, dolls,
Sporting and athletic Pens, pencils, other
Costume Jewelry,
Fabricated plastics
goods 2 *
and children’s vehicles
goods 2
office supplies
buttons, notions
products
1956: Average____ $62.56
39.1 $1.60 $61. 85
1957: Average.......... 65. 69 39.1
1.68 63.80
1.75 65. 02
1958: February........ 66.68
38.1
M a r c h . . .___ 67.34
1.74 65.84
38.7
April_______
66. 09 38.2
1.73 64.05
M ay________ 66.13
38.9
1.70 64. 74
June................ 66.86
39.1
1. 71 64.74
J u ly ............... 66.35
38.8
1. 71 64.24
38.9
August............ 66.52
1.71 63.86
September___ 67. 37 39.4
1. 71 64. 68
October........... 68.40
40.0
1.71 66. 97
39.4
1.73 66.30
November___ 68.16
December___ 67.55
38.6
1.75 64.01
1959: January_____ 69.56
39.3
1.77 66.52
February........ 68.11
38.7
1.76 64.98
Durable goods—
Continued
38.9
38.9
37.8
38.5
37.9
39.0
39.0
38.7
38.7
39.2
40.1
39. 7
38.1
38.9
38.0
$1.59 $63.83
1.64 69. 70
1.72 69.30
1.71 70.20
1.69 69.48
1.66 69. 45
1.66 70. 95
1. 66 71.55
1.65 72. 68
1.65 73.60
1.67 71. 86
1. 67 71.39
1.68 72.31
1.71 73.05
1.71 72.83
39.4
39.6
38.5
39.0
38.6
38.8
39.2
39.1
39.5
40.0
39.7
38.8
39.3
39.7
39.8
$1.62 $66.58
1.76 67.30
1.80 66.25
1.80 68.85
1.80 69.03
1.79 69. 65
1.81 68.73
1.83 64.39
1.84 66.42
1.84 67. 43
1.81 67.15
1. 84 68.28
1.84 69.20
1.84 68.68
1.83 68. 85
44.0
42.7
41.2
40.9
41.0
41.5
42.5
42.3
41.5
41.6
40.6
40.4
40.7
41.2
41.3
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
39.2
39.2
38.5
38.4
38.3
38.4
38.9
38.3
38.7
39.4
39.2
39.3
39.4
38.8
39.5
$1.59 $75.35
1.66 78.31
1.64 75.65
1.65 75.84
1.69 76.04
1.68 76.81
1.68 79.37
1.69 78.98
1.68 79.77
1.68 82. 74
1.69 81.76
1. 73 81.54
1.66 82.76
1.69 83.20
1.70 83.16
41.4
41.0
39.4
39.5
39.4
39.8
40.7
40.5
40.7
42.0
41.5
41.6
41.8
41.6
42.0
$1.82
1.91
1.92
1.92
1.93
1.93
1.95
1.95
1.96
1. 97
1.97
1. 96
1.98
2.00
1.98
Food and kindred products
Total: Food and
kindred products
Meat products2
40.2 $1.85 $75.03
1956: Average_____ $74.37
41.0 $1.83 $84.03
41.6 $2.02
1.88 78.17
39.7
1957: Average_____ 74.64
40.5
1.93 87.08
2.15
40.5
1.94 79.80
1958: February........ 75.85
39.7
2.01 86.30
39.1
38.7
2.23
M arch______
1.93 79.60
75. 85 39.3
39.6
2.01 86. 75 38.9
2.23
1.92 79.80
April_______
39.1
75.07
39.7
2.01 87.25
2.22
39.3
1.93 80.80
39.0
40.2
M ay................ 75.27
2.01 88.36
2.22
39.8
1.93 81.81
39.3
40.7
June________ 75.85
2.01 90.54
2.23
40.6
1.93 81.99
41.2
July............... . 75. 46 39.1
1.99 91.58
2.25
40.7
41.4
1.93 81. 56
39.1
1. 97 89.87
August______ 75.46
2.23
40.3
September___ 76. 24 39.5
1.93 82.78
41.6
1.99 93. 94 41.2
2.28
1.92 81.80
76.22
2. 00 93.25
October_____
39.7
40.9
2.28
40.9
1. 92 83.64
2.04 97.44
November___ 76. 42 39.8
41.0
2. 32
42.0
39.9
41.0
December___ 77.41
1.94 84.46
2.06 95.63
41.4
2.31
1959: January_____ 78.80
40.0
1.97 84.65
40.5
2.09 95.65
40.7
2.35
39.8
1.96 83.39
39.9
2.09 91.96
February........ 78.01
2.34
39.3
Condensed and
Canning and
Ice cream and ices
evaporated milk
preserving2
1956: Average____
$76.12
1957: Average_____ 79.00
1958: February____ 79.52
M a rch ........... 80.16
April_____ .. 80.77
M ay________ 81.76
June________ 84.58
J u ly ................ 85.02
August............ 83.00
September___ 84. 45
O ctober......... 81.61
November___ 82.01
December....... 82.62
1959: January_____ 84.05
February____ 84. 67
$1.62 $62.33
1.67 65.07
1.69 63.14
1.73 63.36
1.73 64. 73
1. 75 64. 51
1.74 65.35
1.69 64. 73
1.69 65. 02
1.69 66.19
1.70 66.25
1. 72 67. 99
1.73 65.40
1.73 65.57
1.73 67.15
Nondurable goods
Miscellaneous manu
facturing industries—
Continued
Other manufacturing
industries
41.1
40.3
39.2
39.8
39.9
39.8
39.5
38.1
39.3
39.9
39.5
39.7
40.0
39.7
39.8
$1.73 $77.65
1.85 81.90
1.93 83.60
1.96 83.00
1.97 84.62
1.97 84.84
1.99 86.48
2.01 89.86
2.00 89.03
2.03 89. 89
2.01 87. 99
2. 03 87.97
2.03 88.40
2.04 88.17
2.05 88.18
42.2
42.0
41.8
41.5
42.1
42.0
42.6
43.2
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.3
41.5
41.2
41.4
$1.84 $62.02
1.95 63. 57
2.00 63.41
2.00 62.87
2.01 64.70
2.02 65.62
2.03 63.58
2.08 64.31
2.09 69.47
2.12 71.06
2.10 66. 73
2.13 62.16
2.13 64.98
2.14 66. 85
2.13 66. 68
39.5
39.0
37.3
37.2
37.4
38.6
38.3
40.7
42.1
42.3
40.2
37.9
38.0
38.2
38.1
Meatpacking, whole
sale
$92.00
96.41
95. 83
96.80
95.83
97. 93
100.45
101. 68
100. 28
106. 08
105.32
111. 11
107.94
108. 62
104.09
Seafood,
$1.57 $50.66
1.63 51.88
1.70 50.45
1.69 52.87
1.73 56.92
1.70 55.94
1.66 51.10
1.58 58. 27
1. 65 59. 47
1.68 55.17
1. 66 58.33
1.64 53. 21
1.71 60.48
1.75 61.80
1.75 59.28
Sausages and casings
Dairy products 2
41.5 $2.05 $74.65
42.2 $2.18 $85.08
42.9 $1.74
2.34 88.51
41.2
40.6
2.18 77.83
42.3
1.84
39.6
2. 42 90.12
39.7
2.27 79.42
41.8
1.90
2.42 89.72
40.0
41.3
39.7
2.26 78.47
1.90
2.42 90.12
39.6
39.7
2.27 80.06
41.7
1.92
40.9
40.3
2.43 93.25
2.28 80.64
1.92
42.0
41.3
2.45 94. 58
41.0
2.29 83.03
1.94
42.8
42.2
2. 48 97.06
41.0
2.30 84.71
43.0
1.97
41.4
40.6
2.47 94. 81
2.29 83. 73
42.5
1.97
2. 55 95.88
41.6
2. 35 84.18
40.8
42.3
1.99
2. 55 94.64
41.3
2. 36 82. 76 41.8
40.1
1.98
41.4
42.9
2.59 97.70
2. 36 82.59
41.5
1.99
42.0
2.57 98.18
41.6
2.36 83.40
2.00
41.7
42.1
2.58 96.70
40.8
2.37 84.44
2.02
41.8
40.2
2.57 95.27
2.37 83.43
41.3
40.5
2.02
canned and Canned fruits, vege Grain-mill products2
cured
tables, and soups
30.7
30.7
28.5
29.7
31.8
30.4
29.2
35.1
33.6
29.5
31.7
29.4
32.0
32.7
30.4
$1.65 $66.14
1.69 66.83
1.77 66. 33
1.78 64.70
1. 79 69.12
1.84 69.34
1. 75 66.22
1. 66 67.20
1.77 72. 67
1.87 75. 82
1.84 69.64
1. 81 64. 06
1.89 67.08
1.89 69.27
1.95 69. 45
41.6
40.5
37.9
37.4
38.4
39.4
38.5
42.8
43.0
44.6
41.7
39.3
39.0
38.7
38.8
$1. 59 $80.97
1.65 85.50
1.75 88.54
1.73 87.70
1.80 87.49
1.76 86.88
1. 72 89.73
1.57 90.98
1.69 90.37
1. 70 92. 53
1.67 91.94
1.63 91.57
1.72 92.63
1.79 92.84
1.79 89.88
43.3
43.4
43.4
43.2
43.1
42.8
44.2
44.6
44.3
44.7
44.2
43.4
43.9
44.0
42.8
$1.87
1.97
2.04
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.04
2. 04
2.07
2.08
2.11
2.11
2.11
2.10
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
614
T able C -l.
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Year and month
Avg
Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Nondurable goods—Continued
Food and kindred products—Continued
F lour a n d other grain m ill p rodu ct»
1956: Average....... — $84. 73
1957- Average........... 88. 88
1958: February------ 90. 00
March______
90.64
April— ......... - 89. 38
M ay................ 88. 56
June................ 92.98
July------------- 94.26
August--------- 93.87
September___ 98.93
October_____ 97. 61
November___ 97. 43
December___ 97. 63
1959: January-------- 96.32
February........ 91.80
43.9
44.0
43.9
44.0
43.6
43.2
44.7
45.1
44.7
45.8
45.4
44.9
45.2
44.8
43.3
$1.93 $76.65
2.0? 80. 59
2.05 82. 32
2. 06 82. 27
2.05 84.29
2.05 81. 46
2.08 83.40
2.09 86. 56
2.10 83. 51
2.16 84. 52
2.15 84.36
2.17 85. 61
2.16 86. 39
2.15 86.72
2.12 84.20
C an e-su gar refin in g
t956: Average..........
19^7: Average..........
1958: February........
M arch.... ........
April________
M ay................
June......... ......
July------------August--------September___
October_____
November___
December___
1959: January____
February____
$87 36
92. 60
89.60
90.97
97. 76
91. 54
97.90
104. 31
104. 48
105. 56
101.1.5
102.00
102. 72
99.66
95.60
42.0
41.9
40.0
39.9
41.6
39.8
42.2
44.2
43.9
43.8
42.5
42.5
42.8
41.7
40.0
P r e p a r e d feed s
43.8
43.8
43.1
43.3
43.9
43.1
44.6
45.8
44.9
45.2
44.4
43.9
44.3
44.7
43.4
$1. 75 $73.08
1 84 75. 76
1.91 77.42
1.90 77. 21
1.92 77.61
1.89 78.99
1.87 79.98
1.89 80.78
1.86 79.79
1.87 79.80
1.90 80.00
1. 95 79. 80
1.95 81. 20
1.94 80.19
1.94 81.40
40.6
40.3
39.7
39.8
39.8
40.3
40.6
40.8
40.3
40.1
40.2
39.9
40.2
39.7
40.1
43.1 $1.80 $62. 00
43. 1 1.87 64.48
41.2
2. 06 64.68
38.3
2.19 64.68
37.4
2.13 65.02
40.2
2.01 65.18
41.2
2. 06 66. 86
2.06 65. 79
40.0
2.09 68. 45
39.1
2.07 69. 55
39.7
1. 79 66.80
46.1
1.89 66. 30
49.8
1.87 67.43
48.5
43.4
1.97 67.89
41.7 2.09 67.25
40.0
39.8
39.2
39.2
38.7
38.8
39.8
38.7
40.5
41.4
40.0
39.7
39.9
39.7
39.1
B re a d a n d other
bakery p ro d u c ts
$1.80 $74. 89
1. 88 77. 76
1. 95 78. 80
1. 94 78.60
1. 95 79.00
1.96 81.00
1.97 81.81
1.98 82. 42
1.98 81.61
1.99 82.01
1.99 82.22
2.00 82. 01
2.02 82. 82
2.02 82.19
2.03 83.42
Confectionery and
related products 1
B eet su g a r
$2.08 $77. 58
2.21 80.60
2.24 84. 87
2. 28 83. 88
2. 35 79.66
2.30 80.80
2.32 84. 87
2.36 82. 40
2. 38 81.72
2.41 82.18
2. 38 82. 52
2. 40 94.12
2.40 90.70
2.39 85.50
2.39 87.15
Bakery products 1
40.7 $1.84 $65.84
40. 5 1.92 68.51
39.8
1.98 71. 71
39.9
1. 97 71.31
39.9
1. 98 71.89
40.5
2.00 72. 25
40.7
2. 01 73.16
2.02 73.89
40.8
40.4
2.02 72. 83
40.4
2.03 72. 52
40.5
2.03 71.97
40.2
2. 04 72.17
40.4
2. 05 74. 07
39.9
2.06 73.32
40.3
2.07 73.70
39.8
39 6
39.2
39.0
38.5
38.5
39.6
38.2
40.2
41.2
39.8
39.4
39.8
39.5
38.8
$1. 50 $85. 63
1.57 88. 98
1.60 88. 14
1.60 88. 82
1.63 88. 43
1.63 92. 69
1.63 95. 35
1.65 96. 00
1.65 94.07
1.64 93. 03
1.62 92.40
1. 62 92. 97
1.64 94. 71
1.66 92.10
1.67 92.27
40.2
39.9
39.0
39.3
39.3
40.3
41.1
41.2
40.9
40.1
40.0
39.9
40.3
39.7
39.6
1956: Average_____
1957: Average_____
1958: February-----March______
April_______
M ay________
June................
July..... ..........August--------September___
October_____
November___
December.......
1959: January_____
February____
$103. 34
107. 44
106. 70
107.92
107. 75
114.62
118.08
117. 62
113.83
113. 08
109. 62
112. 22
113. 94
110.87
110.40
39.9
39.5
38.8
39.1
38.9
40.5
41.0
40.7
39.8
39.4
38.6
39.1
39.7
38.9
38.6
D istille d , rectified, a n d
blen ded liqu ors
$2. 59 $81.90
2. 72 84. 42
2. 75 84. 22
2. 76 83. 78
2.77 82. 43
2.83 84.90
2.88 84. 36
2. 89 88.03
2.86 88. 53
2.87 87.40
2.84 94. 37
2. 87 92. 97
2. 87 91.96
2.85 90.01
2.86 92.36
Miscellaneous food
products 1
39.0 $2.10 $72. 92
38. 2 2. 21 76.86
37.6
2. 24 79.90
37.4
2. 24 79. 54
36.8
2.24 78. 36
2.24 79. 32
37.9
2.22 79.32
38.0
2.24 80.12
39.3
39.0
2.27 81.16
38.0
2. 30 82.78
40. 5 2. 33 82.19
2.33 84. 42
39.9
2. 34 83.40
39.3
38.3
2.35 82.60
39.3
2.35 83.63
41.4
41.2
41.5
40.1
41.3
40.9
42.3
41.7
40.6
41.8
42.8
44.4
43.9
42.1
42.2
M a n u fa c tu r e d ice
$2.09 $69. 55
2. 21 73. 43
2.27 73. 95
2. 26 75. 86
2.30 75.07
2.31 74.90
2.31 74.09
2.28 76. 56
2. 32 77. 74
2. 37 76. 78
2.41 74.29
2. 44 76.29
2. 38 74. 73
2.40 75.60
2.42 76.04
Tobacco manufactures—Continued
Cigarettes
1956; Average_____ $70. 88
1957: Average_____ 73.60
1958: February........ 70. 49
M arch.........
70.31
April............... 77. 55
M ay......... ...... 77. 97
June________ 80.64
July..... ........... 79. 87
August............ 79. 87
September___ 75.98
October_____
76. 57
November___ 80.73
December. . . . 85.17
1959: January... .. 79.95
February____ 77. 21
40.5
40.0
38.1
37.8
40.6
40.4
42.0
41.6
41.6
40.2
40.3
41.4
42.8
41.0
39.8
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Cigars
$1. 75 $47. 63
1.84 49.63
1. 85 49. 71
1.86 49.14
1.91 48.06
1.93 50.73
1.92 51.51
1.92 51.92
1.92 52. 88
1.89 54. 77
1.90 54. 49
1.95 55.30
1.99 53.34
1.95 51.80
1.94 51.80
37.5
37.6
37.1
36.4
35.6
37.3
37.6
37.9
38.6
39.4
39.2
39.5
38.1
37.0
37.0
Tobacco and snuff
$1. 27 $57.13
1. 32 60. 75
1. 34 61.62
1. 35 61.12
1.35 60. 92
1.36 62. 87
1.37 63.13
1.37 63.00
1.37 64. 73
1.39 61.92
1.39 62. 66
1.40 63.75
1.40 66. 35
1.40 65.32
1.40 65.19
$1. 86
1.95
2.05
2.09
2.16
2.12
2.16
2.18
2.21
2.21
1.96
1.84
1.83
2.11
2.16
41.2 $1. 57
41.4
1.63
40.1
1.63
40.8
1.63
41 1 1.64
41.6
1.65
43.1
1.65
43.1
1.67
43.7
1.66
42.3
1.64
41.2
1.64
41.1
1. 65
41.8
1.67
1.64
41.8
41.3
1.65
Tobacco manufactures
C o rn s ir u p , su g a r,
oil, a n d starch
41.2 $1.77 $86. 53
41. 1 1. 87 91.05
41.4
1. 93 94. 21
41.0
1.94 90. 63
40.6
1.93 94.99
41.1
1.93 94. 48
41.1
1.93 97. 71
41.3
1.94 95.08
41.2
1.97 94.19
41.6
1.99 99.07
41.3
1.99 103.15
42.0
2. 01 108. 34
41.7
2.00 104. 48
41.3
2.00 101.04
41.4
2.02 102.12
43.0
43.3
41.5
40.5
40.9
39.9
41.7
42.5
42.1
41.9
44.4
51.0
50.1
42.6
40.6
B o ttle d so ft d rin k s
$2.13 $64. 68
2. 23 67. 48
2.26 65. 36
2.26 66. 50
2. 25 67. 40
2.30 68.64
2.32 71.12
2. 33 71.98
2. 30 72. 54
2.32 69. 37
2. 31 67. 57
2.33 67.82
2. 35 69. 81
2.32 68. 55
2.33 68.15
Food and kindred products—Continued
M a lt liq u o rs
Sugar J
39.9 $1.65 $79.98
39.6
1. 73 84.44
39.4
1.82 85. 08
39.4
1.81 84. 65
39. 5 1.82 88. 34
1.82 84. 59
39.7
40.2
1.82 90.07
40.6
1.82 92. 65
39.8
1.83 93.04
39.2
1. 85 92. 60
38.9
1.85 87.02
38.8
1.86 93.84
39.4
1.88 91.68
39.0
1.88 89.89
39.2
1.88 87. 70
Beverages »
C on fectionery
$1. 55 $59. 70
1.62 62.17
1.65 62. 72
1.65 62. 40
1.68 62.76
1.68 62.76
1.68 64. 55
1. 70 63.03
1.69 66. 33
1. 68 67. 57
1.67 64. 48
1.67 63.83
1.69 65. 27
1.71 65. 57
1.72 64.80
B is c u its , crackers,
a n d p re tze ls
44.3
44.5
43. 5
43.6
43.9
43.8
44.1
45.3
45.2
44.9
43.7
44.1
43.7
43.7
43.7
Total: Tobacco
manufactures
$1. 57 $56.02
1.65 58.67
1.70 59.12
1.74 58. 99
1.71 62.70
1.71 64.24
1.68 66.30
1.69 65. 74
1.72 62.96
1. 71 60.15
1.70 60.19
1. 73 62. 72
1.71 66.17
1.73 63.63
1.74 63.36
38.9
38.6
37.9
37.1
38.0
38.7
39.7
39.6
39.6
40.1
39.6
39.2
40.1
38.8
38.4
$1. 44
1. 52
1. 56
1.59
1.65
1.66
1.67
1.66
1.59
1.50
1.52
1.60
1.65
1.64
1.65
Textile-mill products
Tobacco stemming
and redrying
37.1 $1.54 $47. 04
37. 5 1. 62 18.13
36.9
1. 67 52. 27
36.6
1. 67 51. 99
36.7
1.66 54. 83
37.2
1.69 56. 78
37.8
1.67 57. 98
37.5
1.68 57. 45
38.3
1.69 49.28
1.66 48.62
37.3
37.3
1.68 47.36
37.5
1.70 44.14
38.8
1.71 52. 77
38.2
1.71 50.14
1.72 50. 90
37.9
39.2
38.2
39.3
37.4
36.8
37.6
38.4
38.3
38.2
41.2
39.8
35.6
38.8
37.7
37. 7
Total: Textile-mill
products
$1.20 $57. 42
1.26 58. 35
1.33 56. 70
1.39 56. 40
1. 49 54. 90
1. 51 55.95
1.51 57.98
1.50 57.90
1.29 59.19
1.18 59.95
1.19 60.95
1.24 61.26
1.36 61.10
1.33 60.89
1.35 01.66
39.6
38.9
37.8
37.6
36 6
37.3
38.4
38.6
39.2
39.7
40.1
40.3
40.2
39.8
40.3
Scouring and comb
ing plants
$1.45 $66.08
1.50 64. 32
1.50 63.60
1. 50 61. 39
1.50 62 64
1.50 63.20
1.51 67.68
1.50 68.10
1.51 67.42
1.51 65.99
1.52 64.88
1.52 65. 45
1.52 66.62
1.53 70. 52
1.53 68. 30
41.3 $1.60
40. 2 1. 60
40.0
1.59
39.1
1.57
39.9
1.57
40.0
1. 58
42.3
1.60
1.61
42.3
1.59
42.4
41.5
1.59
40.3
1.61
40.4
1.62
41. 9 1.59
1.64
43.0
41.9
1.63
C —EARNINGS AND HOURS
T a ble C -l.
615
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry *•—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Year and month
Nondurable goods—Continued
Textile-mill products—Continued
Yarn and thread
mills 1
1966: Average_____ $52.39
1967: Average_____ 62. 72
1958: February........ 50.09
M arch_____
49.62
A pril... __
48. 51
M ay...... .......... 49.21
June......... ...... 51.66
July------------- 61.94
August______ 53. 76
September___ 54. 46
O ctober......... 55.13
November___ 56.12
December___
56.26
1959: January_____ 55.70
February____ 56.26
39.1
38.2
36.3
35.7
34.9
35.4
36.9
37.1
38.4
38.9
39.1
39.8
39.9
39.5
39.9
Yarn mills
$1.34 $52.53
1.38 53.10
1.38 49.82
1.39 49.35
1.39 47.96
1.39 48. 93
1.40 51.38
1. 40 51. 66
1.40 54.00
1. 40 54. 71
1.41 54.85
1.41 56. 37
1.41 56. 37
1.41 55.55
1.41 56.80
Cotton, silk, synthetic
fiber--Continued
39.2
38.2
36.1
35.5
34.5
35.2
36.7
36.9
38.3
38.8
38.9
39.7
39.7
39.4
40.0
Broad-woven fabric
m ills1
Thread mills
$1.34 $52.79
1.39 55.13
1.38 53. 30
1.39 52. 45
1.39 53. 72
1. 39 49.21
1. 40 51.26
1.40 50. 69
1.41 52. 97
1.41 54. 24
1.41 54. 72
1.42 56.16
1.42 57. 86
1.41 57. 71
1.42 56.99
Woolen and worsted
39.1
39.1
37.8
37.2
38.1
34.9
36.1
35.7
37.3
38.2
38.0
39.0
39.9
39.8
39.3
$1.35 $56.28
1.41 56. 70
1.41 55. 10
1.41 54.81
1.41 52. 85
1. 41 53. 86
1.42 55.68
1.42 56. 41
1.42 57.38
1.42 57.96
1.44 58.98
1.44 59. 42
1.45 59.54
1.45 59.09
1.45 60.38
Narrow fabrics and
40.2
39.1
38.0
37.8
36.7
37.4
38.4
38.9
39.3
39.7
40.4
40.7
40.5
40.2
40.8
$1.40 $54. 66
1. 45 55. 63
1.45 54.20
1.45 53. 25
1.44 51.18
1.44 52. 40
1.45 54.20
1.45 54. 53
1.46 55. 77
1.46 56. 74
1.46 57.89
1.46 59. 02
1.47 58. 58
1.47 57.60
1.48 58.73
40.0
38.9
37.8
37.5
36.1
36.8
37.8
38.3
39.0
39.4
40.3
40.8
40.4
40.0
40.5
South
38.2
36.6
38.2
38.8
36.9
37.0
36.1
35.9
37.5
37.8
39.0
39.8
39.5
37.8
38.4
41.6
40.8
39.4
39.9
39.4
40.6
41.8
41.8
41.5
41.6
41.7
41.0
41.0
41.6
42.7
$1.57 $58. 51
1.60 60.80
1.59 58.22
1.59 58. 37
1.59 57. 68
1.60 58.91
1.61 60. 76
1.61 60. 45
1.60 60. 45
1.60 61.69
1.60 61.31
1.60 62. 49
1.60 63.34
1.61 63.27
1.61 64.21
41.2
40.6
40.3
39.7
39.1
39.9
41.8
40 0
40.6
40.8
41.7
41.6
41.8
41.2
41.9
See footnotes at end of table.
50232 4 — 59 -
9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
39.8
40.0
38.3
38.4
38.2
38.5
39.2
39.0
39.0
39.8
39.3
39.8
40.6
40.3
40.9
$1.47 $53. 68
1.52 54.09
1.62 52. 85
1.52 53.14
1.51 51.74
1.53 53. 29
1.55 54. 75
1. 55 54. 67
1. 55 56.12
1.55 67.18
1.56 57. 48
1. 57 58. 16
1.56 56. 74
1.57 55.94
1.57 56.68
37.8
37.3
36.2
36.4
35.2
36. 5
37.5
37. 7
38.7
38.9
39.1
39.3
38.6
37.8
38.3
39.5
38. 5
38.2
37.4
37. 4
37.8
38.2
39.0
38.8
39.4
39.7
39.9
40.5
40.2
40.4
$1.48
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.51
1. 53
1.53
1.52
1.53
1. 54
1.54
1.55
1. 55
1.54
1.55
$1. 42 $58. 98
1.45 57.51
1.46 57.68
1.46 58. 60
1.47 55.94
1.46 57.07
1.46 55.94
1.45 55. 27
1.45 57. 38
1.47 58. 45
1.47 59. 98
1. 48 60.74
1.47 60.44
1.48 57.68
1.48 58.45
38.3
37.1
37.7
38.3
36.8
37.3
36.8
36.6
38.0
38.2
39.2
39.7
39.5
37.7
38.2
North
$1.54 $58.82
1.55 59. 68
1.53 56.06
1.63 55.72
1.52 55.48
1. 53 59.28
1. 52 59. 29
1. 51 58.83
1.51 60. 37
1.53 61.39
1.53 62. 88
1.53 62.17
1.53 61.46
1.53 57.97
1.53 58.28
38.7
38.5
36.4
36.9
36.5
38.0
38.5
38.2
39.2
39.1
39.8
39.6
39.4
37.4
37.6
$1.52
1.55
1. 54
1.51
1.52
1.56
1. 54
1. 54
1.54
1. 57
1.58
1. 57
1.56
1.55
1.55
38.0
37.0
35.9
36.2
34.3
35.5
36.8
37. 4
38.8
39.8
39.7
39.8
39.0
39.1
38.7
$1.31
1.37
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.38
1.37
1.39
1.41
1.41
1. 41
1.40
1.43
1.41
Seamless hosiery
United States
$1.55 $46. 21
1.55 48. 55
1.53 47.46
1.53 47.54
1.52 45.02
1.51 46.98
1 51 48.60
1.50 50.63
1.49 50. 65
1.51 51. 30
1. 51 52. 47
1.51 53. 79
1.51 51.89
1.52 51.71
1.52 52.44
Dyeing and finishing
textiles *
1956: Average_____ $65.92
1957: Average_____ 66.99
1958: February.......
66.50
March...........
65.11
April______
64.12
M ay________ 65. 04
June........... .
69.39
July------------- 65.60
August______ 66. 58
September___ 67. 32
October_____
69. 64
November___ 69. 06
December___
69. 39
1959: January____
67.98
February____ 69.97
North
$1.37 $58. 46
1.43 58.52
1.43 58.06
1.42 56. 85
1.41 56. 47
1. 42 57. 83
1.43 58. 45
1. 42 59. 28
1.43 59. 36
1. 44 69. 68
1.44 61.14
1.45 61. 85
1.45 62.78
1.44 61.91
1.45 62.62
United States
$1.35 $65.31
1.41 65.28
1.41 62.65
1.41 63.44
1.40 62. 65
1.40 64. 96
1.41 67.30
1.41 67.30
1.42 66. 40
1.42 66. 56
1.43 66. 72
1.43 65.60
1.43 65.60
1.43 66.98
1.44 68.75
Full-fashioned
hosiery— Continued
1956: Average____ $59.21
1957: Average____
56.73
1958: February___
58.45
M arch...........
59. 36
April........ .
56.09
M ay...... .........
55.87
June................ 54. 51
July................. 53. 85
August--------- 55.88
September___ 57.08
October........... 58. 89
November___ 60.10
December___
59.65
1959: January_____ 57. 46
February........ 58.37
39.9
38.9
37.9
37.5
36.3
36.9
37.9
38.4
39.0
39.4
40.2
40.7
40.4
40.0
40.5
Full-fashioned hosiery
Knitting mills 1
South
1956: Average_____ $54.00
1957: Average_____ 54. 85
1958: February____ 53. 30
M arch______
52.88
April............... 50.54
M ay________ 51.52
June................ 53.30
July................. 54.00
August--------- 55. 38
September___ 55.95
October........... 57.63
November___ 58. 34
December___
57. 77
1959: January_____ 57.20
February------ 58.32
Cotton, silk, synthetic fiber
United States
36.1 $1.28 $49.40
36.5
1.33 51.14
34.9
1.36 52.69
34.7
1.37 50.82
33. 1 1.36 51.52
34.8
1.35 50. 87
36.0
1.35 51.29
37.5
1.35 52.22
1.34 52.68
37.8
38.0
1.35 55.13
38.3
1.37 54. 88
38. 7 1.39 54. 53
37.6
1.38 53.44
37.2
1.39 52.34
38.0
1.38 51.71
Dyeing and finishing
textiles (except wool)
$1.60 $65.51
1.65 66.58
1.65 66.42
1.64 65.04
1.64 63.90
1.63 65.04
1. 66 68. 81
1.64 64. 87
1.64 66. 34
1. 65 67.08
1.67 69.39
1.66 69. 55
1.66 69.39
1.65 68.15
1.67 69.97
North
41.2
40.6
40.5
39.9
39.2
39.9
41.7
39.8
40.7
40.9
41.8
41.9
41.8
41.3
41.9
38.0
37.6
37.3
36.3
36.8
36.6
36.9
37.3
37.9
39.1
39.2
38.4
37.9
36.6
37.2
$1.30 $45. 82
1.36 48.28
1.41 46. 71
1.40 46. 92
1.40 44.34
1. 39 46.23
1.39 48.11
1. 40 50. 25
1.39 50. 27
1. 41 50. 65
1. 40 51.95
1.42 53. 41
1.41 51.89
1.43 51.47
1.39 52.58
Carpets, rugs, other
floor coverings 1
$1.59 $74.16
1.64 74.70
1.64 75.14
1.63 75.74
1.63 73. 70
1.63 73.88
1.65 75.24
1..63 77. 52
1.63 77.90
1.64 80. 41
1.66 81. 51
1.66 81.37
1.66 81.79
1.65 82.41
1.67 82.99
41.2
40.6
40.4
40.5
39.2
39.3
39.6
40.8
41.0
42.1
42.9
42.6
42.6
42.7
43.0
Knit outerwear
South
35.8
36.3
34.6
34.5
32.6
34.5
35.9
37.5
37.8
37.8
38.2
38. 7
37.6
37.3
38.1
$1.28 $56.15
1.33 57.30
1.35 54. 26
1.36 55.18
1.36 54. 93
1. 34 57.38
1.34 59.13
1.34 58.22
1.33 60.13
1.34 59. 67
1.36 59. 91
1.38 60.06
1.38 57. 99
1.38 57.13
1.38 57.75
Wool carpets, rugs,
and carpet yarn
$1.80 $73.26
1.84 72.25
1.86 72.86
1.87 71.39
1.88 68.63
1.88 69.16
1.90 69.18
1.90 69. 55
1.90 72.86
1.91 77. 79
1. 90 78.12
1.91 78. 54
1.92 78. 91
1.93 80.89
1.93 82.08
40.7
39.7
39.6
38.8
37.5
38.0
37.6
37.8
39.6
41.6
42.0
42.0
42.2
42.8
43.2
38.2
37.7
35.7
36.3
35.9
37.5
38.9
38.3
39.3
39.0
38.9
39.0
37.9
37.1
37.5
$1.47 $49.78
1.52 50. 69
1.52 49.54
1.52 49.96
1.53 47.33
1.53 48.99
1.52 50. 78
1.52 51.24
1.53 53.93
1.53 56.12
1.54 55. 98
1.54 56.12
1.53 54.60
1.54 55.91
1.54 54. 57
Hats (except cloth
and millinery)
$1.80 $57.38
1.82 59.04
1.84 59.29
1.84 57.35
1.83 54. 42
1.82 57.19
1. 84 60. 42
1. 84 60. 39
1.84 59.67
1.87 58.98
1. 86 55. 28
1. 87 59.16
1.87 61.88
1.89 63.75
1.90 64.09
35.2
36.0
36.6
35.4
33.8
35.3
36.4
36.6
35.1
34.9
33.3
34.8
36.4
37.5
37.7
Miscellaneous textile
goods »
$1.63 $66. 83
1.64 69.03
1.62 66. 78
1.62 66.78
1.61 65.53
1.62 66. 43
1.66 69. 65
1.65 68. 60
1.70 68.95
1.69 72.92
1.66 71.28
1.70 71.56
1.70 73.03
1.70 71.20
1.70 72.50
40.5
39.9
38.6
38.6
38.1
38.4
39.8
39.2
39.4
41.2
40.5
40.2
40.8
40.0
40.5
$1.65
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.72
1. 73
1.75
1. 75
1.75
1.77
1.76
1.78
1.79
1.78
1.79
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
616
T able C -l.
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry
Avg. Avg.
wkly, wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings hours
ings
l —
Con.
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Nondurable goods—Continued
Year and month
Textile-mill products—Continued
F elt goods (except
w oven f e lts a n d hats)
1956: Average.......... $71. 86
1957: Average_____ 73. 28
1958: February____ 70.68
M arch______ 72. 58
April............... 69. 92
M ay________ 73. 15
June________ 75. 27
Ju ly ................ 75. 66
August______ 77.01
September___ 78. 53
October_____ 77. 39
November___ 79.95
December___
79. 54
1959: January____
75.64
February------ 76.63
40.6
39.4
37 2
38.2
36.8
37.9
38.6
39.2
39.9
40.9
40.1
41.0
41.0
39.6
39.5
P a d d in g s a n d u p h o l
stery fillin g
Lace goods
$1. 77 $66.43
1.86 67. 32
1.90 64. 38
1.90 65. 30
1.90 65. 87
1.93 64. 05
1.95 68.71
1.93 65. 69
1.93 61.59
1.92 70. 43
1.93 66. 55
1.95 65.88
1.94 65.14
1.91 66.04
1.94 66. 79
38.4
37.4
37.0
37.1
36.8
36.6
38.6
36.7
34.6
38.7
37.6
36.2
36.8
37.1
36.7
$1. 73 $68. 74
1. 80 71.46
1. 74 66. 73
1. 76 67. 46
1. 79 66. 70
1.75 68. 56
1. 78 72. 22
1. 79 71.34
1.78 72. 45
1.82 76. 68
1. 77 75. 72
1.82 76.08
1.77 77. 70
1.78 73.85
1.82 74. 30
40.2
40.6
37.7
37.9
37.9
38.3
39.9
39.2
40.7
42.6
42.3
41.8
42.0
40.8
40.6
P ro cessed w a ste and
recovered fibers
$1.71 $54.10
1.76 57.40
1. 77 57. 17
1. 78 58. 00
1. 76 57. 74
1. 79 57.86
1.81 58. 87
1.82 57.23
1.78 57.82
1.80 62.13
1.79 62 82
1.82 61.95
1.85 62. 82
1.81 62. 87
1.83 64. 74
41.3
41.0
39.7
40.0
40.1
39.9
40.6
39.2
39.6
41.7
41.6
41.3
41.6
40.3
41.5
A r tific ia l leath er, oil
cloth, a n d other coated
fa b rics
$1.31 $87. 40
1.40 92. 66
1.44 87. 97
1.45 86. 71
1.44 83. 74
1.45 86. 27
1.45 92.23
1. 46 91. 58
1.46 91.58
1.49 98. 57
1.51 92.01
1.50 94. 55
1. 51 98 06
1.56 93.02
1.56 98.11
Cordage a n d tw in e
43.7 $2.00 $57.28
43.5
2.13 58. 44
41.3
2.13 58.98
40.9
2.12 58. 37
2.12 57.53
39.5
2.13 57. 99
40.5
42.5
2.17 59. 67
42.4
2. 16 60. 04
42.4
2.16 61.05
44.4
2. 22 62. 06
42.4
2.17 60.83
42.4
2.23 60. 21
43. 2 2. 27 62.00
2.22 61.23
41.9
2.24 62.24
43.8
39.5
38.7
38.3
37.9
37.6
37.9
39.0
39.5
39.9
40.3
39.5
39.1
40.0
39.5
39.9
$1.45
1.51
1. 54
1. 54
1.53
1. 53
1.53
1. 52
1.53
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.55
1.55
1.56
Apparel and other finished textile products
Total: Apparel and
other finished textile
products
1956: Average.......... $52. 64
1957: Average......... 53. 64
1958: February____ 52.65
March______
61.70
A pril___ ____ 51.75
M ay________ 52. 20
June________ 52. 50
J u ly ................ 53. 40
August______ 55. 33
September___ 55.23
October_____ 55.08
November___ 54. 42
December___
54. 87
1959: January_____ 55.08
February------ 56.15
36.3 $1.45 $63.12
36.0
1. 49 63.01
35.1
1.50 68. 61
34. 7
1.49 58. 43
1. 50 56. 14
34.5
1.50 60. 19
34.8
35.0
1.50 61. 59
35. 6
1. 50 60. 55
36.4
1.52 62. 30
1. 53 63. 01
36.1
36 0
1.53 61. 41
35.8
1. 52 61.60
1.52 62. 65
36.1
1.53 63.36
36.0
36.7
1.53 63.70
Women’s outerwear *
1956: Average_____ $57. 02
1957: Average_____ 58. 10
1958: February___
57. 95
March______
54. 78
A p ril.______ 57. 45
M ay________ 57. 45
June...... .........
55. 44
July................. 58. 13
August ____
60.90
September___ 57.96
October........... 58. 30
November___ 57. 29
December....... 58. 65
1959: January_____ 59.86
February____ 61.59
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36. 7
35.9
38.8
38.4
33. 7
28.8
32.8
34. 5
36. 5
36.4
36. 3
32.7
35.5
36.2
36.7
36.5
36.4
35.4
35.3
34.5
34.7
35.2
36.2
37.2
37.5
36.9
36.6
36.8
36.5
37.1
36.1
36.0
34.6
36.1
36.0
35.5
35.1
34.9
36.1
35.4
35.5
36.2
36.7
34.6
35.6
Children’s
outerwear
$1.69 $48. 44
1.73 50. 55
1.90 49. 68
1.82 49. 10
1. 81 48.06
1.72 48. 87
1. 78 50. 65
1.82 51. 57
1.88 50. 74
1.91 50. 54
1.88 51 71
1.74 50. 05
1. 77 49. 27
1.81 51.38
1.85 52. 78
S h irts, collars, a n d
nightw ear
$1.24 $45. 88
1.27 46. 46
1.27 45. 44
1.28 45. 44
1.28 44. 54
1.28 44. 42
1.27 44. 07
1.28 46.21
1.28 47.49
1.29 48.89
1.29 48. 50
1.29 48. 89
1. 29 47. 71
1.29 46.44
1.28 46.85
H ouseh old a p p a r e l
35.2 $1. 58 $44. 76
1.61 46. 44
34.8
34.4
1. 61 44. 98
30. 5
1.62 47.29
1. 74 47. 52
35.2
34 3
1. 74 47. 22
32.1
1.67 46. 33
1. 64 45. 72
33.4
34.2
1.71 47.29
32.1
1. 72 47. 08
1.72 47. 57
32.5
32.4
1. 71 48. 51
33.4
1.71 48.08
33.8
1.71 46. 36
34.5
1.72 48.06
Millinery
36.1 $1.43 $62. 02
1. 47 62.11
35.8
1. 48 73.72
34.9
35.2
1. 48 69. 89
34. 7 1.49 61.00
35. 1 1.50 49, 54
35. 1 1. 51 58. 71
34.3
1.49 62. 79
1. 51 68. 62
35. 0
36. 1 1.50 69. 52
36.3
1. 51 68 24
36.5
1.50 56. 90
36.5
1.50 62. 84
1.51 65. 52
35.3
35.8
1.51 67.90
Men’s and boys’ fur
nishings and work
clothing 1
36.7 $1.72 $45.26
35.6
1.77 46.23
33.3
1. 76 44. 96
1.76 45. 18
33.2
1.76 44. 16
31.9
34.2
1. 76 44. 42
34.6
1.78 44.70
34.8
1. 74 46. 34
35.2
1.77 47.62
35.6
1. 77 48. 38
34. 5
1. 78 47. 60
1.77 47. 21
34.8
35.8
1.75 47.47
1.76 47.09
36.0
36.4
1.75 47.49
W o m e n 's dresses
35.2 $1.62 $55. 62
35.0
1.66 56.03
34. 7 1.67 55.38
33.0
1. 66 49.41
34. 4 1. 67 61.25
34. 4 1.67 59. 68
33.4
1.66 53. 61
34.6
1.68 54. 78
35.2
1.73 58. 48
33.5
1. 73 55. 21
33. 7 1. 73 55. 90
33. 5 1.71 55. 40
34.5
1.70 57.11
1.72 57.80
34.8
1.73 59.34
35.6
C orsets a n d allied
g a rm en ts
1956: Average_____ $51. 62
1957: Average_____ 52.63
1958: February........ 51.65
March______
52. 10
A pril.............. 51.70
M ay________ 52. 65
June________ 53.00
July------------- 51. 11
A u g u st_____ 52. 85
September___ 54. 15
54. 81
October_____
November___ 54. 75
54. 75
December___
1959: January____
53.30
February____ 54.06
M en’s and boys’
suits and coats
36.7 $1.25 $46. 49
36.3
1.28 47.06
35. 5 1.28 47.68
35.5
1.28 47. 78
1. 28 46. 73
34.8
34. 7 1. 28 45.11
1. 27 45.63
34.7
1.28 46. 57
36.1
37.1
1.28 47. 95
37.9
1.29 47.16
1. 29 46. 41
37.6
1.29 45. 28
37.9
36.7
1.30 47. 45
1.29 47. 55
36.0
36.6
1.28 50.17
W o m e n ’s su its, coats.
a n d sk irts
$1.24 $68.14
1.29 68. 54
1.30 69.63
1.31 65.16
1.32 57. 32
1.33 60. 99
1.32 64. 62
1.31 72.16
1.31 75. 24
1.33 70. 64
1.34 71.11
1.34 66. 71
1.31 70.18
1.34 72.66
1.35 73.84
33.9
33.6
33.8
32.1
29. 7
32.1
32.8
35.2
36.0
33.8
33.7
32.7
34.4
35.1
35.5
37.1
35.9
35.0
35.0
33.9
34.8
35.6
36.1
36.5
37.2
37.4
37.3
37.6
37.4
37.3
36.9
36.2
36.4
36.2
35.4
34.7
35.1
36.1
36.6
36.0
35.7
35.1
36.5
36.3
38.3
37.6
37.8
36.2
36.9
36.1
37.3
37.2
37.1
38.3
38.4
38.1
38. 1
37.8
37.6
38.3
36.3 $1.11
36.3
1.17
36.6
1.16
37.1
1.18
35.8
1.18
34. 7
1.17
36.0
1.16
34.1
1.17
1.16
38.4
38.5
1.17
36.6
1.17
36.4
1.18
36.6
1.18
1.19
37.6
37.6
1.18
U n d erw ea r a n d nightw ear, except corsets
$1.31 $45. 38
1.34 47. 47
1. 35 46.80
1.36 47. 29
1.36 45.63
1.37 45. 33
1.36 46.05
1.35 46. 70
1.35 48. 38
1.36 49. 65
1.38 51. 21
1.39 51.57
1.37 48.44
1.38 48.28
1.38 49.74
Other fabricated
textile products 1
$1. 34 $53. 39
1.39 56.70
1.40 54.66
1. 40 55. 35
1.41 54.15
1.41 56.32
1.41 56. 92
1. 42 56. 39
1.39 57. 45
1.42 59. 14
1. 43 57. 91
1.42 59. 06
1.42 58. 59
1.41 59.03
1.41 58.98
W o rk shirts
$1.26 $40. 29
1.30 42. 47
1.31 42.46
1.32 43.78
1.32 42. 24
1.30 40. 60
1.30 41.76
1.29 39.90
1.31 44. 54
1.31 45. 05
1.30 42. 82
1.29 42. 95
1.30 43.19
1.31 44. 74
1.31 44.37
Women’s and children’s undergarments1
$2.01 $47. 55 ' 36.3
36.5
2. 04 48.91
2.06 48. 20 35.7
2. 03 48.69
35.8
35.0
1.93 47.60
1.90 47. 68 34.8
35.5
1.97 48. 28
35.6
2.05 48.06
2. 09 49. 68 36.8
37.4
2.09 50.86
2.11 52. 30 37.9
2.04 52. 40 37.7
36.6
2.04 50.14
2.07 49.68
36.0
36.9
2.08 50.92
Miscellaneous
apparel and
accessories
36.7 $1.32 $49. 71
36.9
1.37 49. 90
36.0
1. 38 49. 00
1.36 49.00
36.1
1. 35 47. 80
35.6
1.35 49. 07
36.2
1.38 50.20
36.7
37. 1 1.39 51. 26
1.39 50. 74
36.5
1.40 52. 82
36.1
37. 2 1.39 53 48
1.36 52. 97
36.8
35.7
1. 38 53. 39
36.7
1.40 52.73
37.7
1.40 52. 59
S ep a ra te tro u sers
36.3
36.8
36.0
36.1
35.1
34.6
35.7
36.2
37.5
37.9
38.5
38.2
36.7
36.3
37.4
$1.25
1.29
1.30
1. 31
1.30
1.31
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.31
1.33
1.35
1.32
1.33
1.33
C u rta in s, d ra p eries,
and other housefu rn ish in g s
$1.42 $46.98
1.50 49. 37
1. 51 48.28
1.50 49. 71
1.50 48.33
1.51 49.41
1.53 50. 05
1.52 49.28
1.50 51 46
1.54 51.71
1.52 52.36
1. 55 52. 61
1. 55 51.95
1.57 49.50
1.54 52.20
36.7 $1.28
37.4
1.32
1.33
36.3
37.1
1.34
1.35
35.8
36.6
1.35
1.36
36.8
38.5
1.35
38.4
1.34
38.3
1.35
38.5
1.36
38.4
1. 37
38. 2 1.36
36.4
1.36
38.1
1.37
0.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T a ble C -l.
617
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg.
brly.
earn
ings
Avg.
wkly.
earn
ings
Avg.
wkly.
hours
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg.
brly.
earn
ings
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Avg.
wkly.
earn
ings
Avg.
wkly.
hours
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Avg.
wkly.
earn
ings
Avg.
wkly.
hours
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Year and month
Nondurable goods—Continued
Apparel and other finished textile products—
Continued
Textile bags
1966: Average.......... $57. 28
1957: Average_____ 59. 4C
1968: February........ 59. 44
M arch............. 59. 7
April............... 58. 75
M a y .............. 59.06
June________ 59.14
July................. 60.68
August______ 61.38
September___ 63. 55
October_____
60.98
November___ 60.83
December....... 61.07
1959: January___ _ 62.16
February____ 58.67
39.5
39.6
38.6
38.8
37.fi
38.6
38.4
39. 4
39.6
41.0
39.6
39.5
39.4
40.1
38.6
Canvas produds
$1. 46 $55. 66
1.50 67.33
1. 54 58. 80
1. 54 59. 25
1. 55 60. 16
1.53 63. 80
1.54 63. 09
1. 54 62. 40
1. 55 59.15
1.55 63. 11
1. 54 60. 05
1.54 60.20
1.55 60.90
1.55 60.34
1.52 60.44
Paper and allied products
Total: Paper and
allied products
39.2 $1.42 $83.03
39. C 1. 47 86.29
39.2
1.50 85. 49
1.50 86.11
39.5
40.
1.50 85. 69
41.7
1.53 86.10
1. 55 88.20
40.7
41.6
1.50 88.83
39.7
1.49 90.53
40.2
1. 57 91. 38
1.49 91.38
40.3
40.4
1.49 90. 95
40.6
1.50 91.16
39.7
1.52 91.58
39.5
1.53 92.23
42.8
42.3
41.1
41.4
41.0
41.0
41.8
41.9
42.5
42.
42.7
42.5
42.4
42.4
42.5
$1.94 $91. 05
2.04 94. 18
2 08 93. 26
2.08 93. 48
2. 09 93.04
2. 10 93 24
2.11 95. 87
2.12 96. 73
2.13 98. 31
2. 14 99. 20
2.14 98. 75
2.14 98. 72
2.15 99. 39
2.16 99.62
2.17 99.84
Paper and allied products—Continued
Fiber cans, tubes, and
drums
1956: Average.......... $79. 56
1957: Average_____ 83.01
1958: February........ 81.27
87. 95
March______
April_______
82.60
M ay________ 84.63
June________ 84. 89
July................. 88.29
August______ 89. 60
September___ 89. 98
October_____
92. 51
November___ 97.16
December....... 88.62
1959: January_____ 87. 81
February____ 92.66
Other paper and
allied products
40.8 $1. 95 $72. 92
40. 1 2. 07 76.07
38.7
2.10 76. 97
41.1
2.14 77. 36
2.14 76. 99
38.6
2. 17 76.61
39.0
39.3
2.16 77. 97
2. 18 78. 55
40.5
41.1
2.18 79. 95
40.9
2. 20 80. 75
2. 24 80. 95
41.3
2. 27 80. 75
42.8
40.1
2. 21 81.16
39.2
2. 24 81.77
41.0
2.26 82. 59
41.2
40.9
40.3
40.5
40. 1
39.9
40.4
40. 7
41.0
41.2
41.3
41.2
41.2
41.3
41.5
$1. 77
1.86
1.91
1.91
1. 92
1.92
1.93
1.93
1.95
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.97
1.98
1.99
Pulp, paper, and
paperboard mills
44.2
43.4
42.2
42.3
42.
42.0
42.8
42.8
43.5
43. 7
43.
43.3
43.4
43.5
43.6
Paperboard con
tainers and boxes *
$2.06 $76.13
2.17 79.90
2.21 78.41
2.21 79. 79
2.21 78.80
2. 22 80. 40
2. 24 83.02
2. 26 83.02
2. 26 85.68
2. 27 86.09
2. 27 86. 50
2.28 86.09
2. 29 85.07
2.29 85.08
2.29 85.28
41.6
41.4
39.8
40.3
39.6
40.2
41.
41 1
42.0
42.
42.4
42.2
41.7
41.1
41.2
$1.83 $75.89
1.93 79. 27
1.97 77.81
1. 98 78. 79
1.99 78. 21
2.00 79. 79
2.02 82.60
2. 02 82. 40
2.04 85. 04
2. 04 85.65
2.04 85. 85
2.04 84. 62
2. 04 84.64
2.07 84.87
2.07 84. 46
1956: Average_____ $93.03
1967: Average.......... 95. 76
1958: February........ 95. 40
M arch______
96.68
94.92
A pril...........
M ay________ 94.82
June________ 96.22
July------------- 97.11
August--------- 97. 75
September___ 100.19
October_____
99.04
November___ 98.39
December___ 100.19
1959: January_____ 99.94
February........ 99.82
1956: Average_____
1957: Average..........
1958: February____
March______
April_______
M ay________
June________
July................
August______
September___
October_____
November___
December___
1959: Ja n u ary .........
February........
40.1
39.9
39.1
39.3
38.9
38.7
38.8
39.0
39.1
39.6
39.3
39.2
39.6
39.5
39.3
$2. 32
2.40
2. 44
2. 46
2. 44
2. 45
2.48
2. 49
2. 50
2. 53
2. 52
2.51
2. 53
2.53
2.54
Lithographing
$94. 40
96. 53
96.25
98. 42
97. 52
97. 54
98.81
100. 23
100. 61
101.39
100. 10
100.61
101.26
101. 53
103. 75
40.0
39.4
38. 5
38.9
38. 7
38.4
38.9
39.0
39.3
39.3
39.1
39.3
39.4
38.9
39.3
$93. 90
96. 25
96.14
97. 02
96.14
97. 01
97.38
97.38
98. 54
99. 56
99. 68
99. 30
101.76
99.94
100. 70
38.8
38.5
37.7
37.9
37. 7
37.6
37.6
37. 6
37.9
38.0
37.9
37.9
38.4
38.0
38.0
$2. 42
2.50
2. 55
2. 56
2. 55
2.58
2. 59
2. 59
2. 60
2. 62
2.63
2. 62
2. 65
2.63
2.65
Alkalies and chlorine
$95. 35
100. 04
102. 66
102. 82
102. 56
103. 38
104.96
104.60
105.41
107. 42
105.97
107. 01
109.25
108.09
108.36
$93. 43
97.68
99.38
99. 38
101. 18
99. 70
101. 66
103. 53
102.17
105. 01
105. 30
106. 08
106. 97
105.67
108.21
41.1
41.0
40.9
40.8
40.7
40.7
41.0
40.7
40.7
41.0
40.6
41.0
41.7
41.1
41.2
Bee footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$2.32
2. 44
2. 51
2.52
2. 52
2. 54
2. 56
2. 57
2.59
2. 62
2. 61
2.61
2.62
2.63
2.63
40.8
40.7
40.4
40.4
40.8
40.2
40.5
40.6
39.6
40.7
40.5
40.8
41.3
40.8
41.3
Greeting cards
$2. 36 $61. 44
2. 45 64 18
2.50 68. 71
2.53 70.38
2.52 69.09
2. 54 68. 53
2. 54 66. 39
2. 57 63. 58
2. 56 64.09
2. 58 66. 09
2. 56 65. 77
2.56 68.60
2. 57 68. 68
2.61 71.55
2.64 71.55
Industrial inorganic
chemicals a
$2.29
2.40
2. 46
2. 46
2. 48
2.48
2. 51
2. 55
2.58
2.58
2.60
2.60
2. 59
2.59
2.62
41.7
41.
39.9
40.2
39.7
40 3
41.3
41.2
42.1
42.
42.5
42.1
41.9
41.4
41.2
$1.82
1.91
1.95
1.96
1.97
1.98
2.00
2.00
2. 02
2. 02
2.02
2.01
2. 02
2.05
2.05
Printing, publishing, and allied industries
Total: Printing, pub
lishing, and allied
Industries
Periodicals
Newspapers
$99. 64
102.03
101. 44
101.09
102. 37
103. 72
103. 72
102. 55
103.14
104. 49
105. 19
105. 44
109. 56
103.95
104.25
36.1
36.8
35.1
35. 1
35.3
35. 4
35.4
35.0
35.2
35.3
35.3
35.5
36.4
35.0
35.1
$2.76
2. 85
2. 89
2.88
2.90
2.93
2. 93
2. 93
2. 93
2.96
2. 98
2. 97
3. 01
2.97
2.97
$96.16
101.05
99. 71
102. 31
99. 07
98.81
100. 23
103. 62
108. 68
107. 86
105. 73
102. 70
104.15
104.15
106.00
Books
39.9 $2.41
40. 1 2. 52
39. 1 2. 55
39.5
2. 59
2. 56
38.7
2. 58
38.3
39.0
2.57
39. 4 2. 63
40.4
2.69
2.71
39.8
2. 67
39.6
38.9
2. 64
2. 65
39.3
39.3
2.65
2.67
39.7
Industrial organic
chemicals J
$92. 89
96.93
97. 44
97. 84
98.00
98.98
100.12
100.69
100.85
102. 25
101.91
103.07
103. 57
103. 73
103.32
Bookbinding and
related Industries
38.4 $1.60 $72.10
1.68 73 71
38.2
1. 78 72. 95
38.6
39. 1 1.80 73. 15
1. 79 72. 95
38.6
38. 5 1. 78 73. 53
1.72 74. 07
38.6
37.4
1. 70 72. 91
37.7
1.70 76. 43
38.2
1. 73 75. 42
1.74 76. 40
37.8
1. 75 77. 93
39.2
1.77 78. 95
38.8
1.83 79.13
39.1
39.1
1.83 78.52
39.4
39.0
37.8
37.9
37.8
37.9
37.6
37.2
38.6
37.9
38.2
38.2
38.7
38.6
38.3
42.0
41.8
40.9
41.0
40.6
41.2
41.1
40.6
41.3
41.8
41.6
42.4
42.0
42.0
42.3
40.5
39.6
38.9
39.0
39.0
38.9
38.8
38.9
39.4
39.7
39.2
38.6
39.1
39.5
39.2
$2.07
2.13
2. 16
2.16
2.18
2.20
2.21
2. 19
2. 24
2.23
2. 23
2.24
2.24
2.25
2.25
Miscellaneous pub Total: Chemicals and
lishing and print
allied products
ing services
$1.83 $109. 09
1.89 110. 78
1. 93 109. 73
1.93 110. 21
1.93 107. 73
1.94 110. 96
1. 97 111.22
1.96 111.30
1.98 112. 86
1.99 110. 70
2.00 112. 42
2. 04 113. 78
2. 04 113.62
2.05 113.45
2.05 115.12
Plastics, except syn
thetic rubber
41.1 $2. 26 $93.66
40.9
2. 37 99.90
2. 43 99. 80
40.1
2. 44 100. 45
40.1
40.0
2. 45 99. 47
40. 4 2. 45 102. 18
40.7
2. 46 102. 75
40.6
2.48 102. 31
40.5
2.49 104. 08
40.9
2.50 105. 75
2. 51 105. 66
40.6
2.52 107. 70
40.9
41.1
2.52 106. 68
2. 53 107.10
41.0
2.52 107.44
41.0
$83. 84
84. 35
84.02
84.24
85.02
85. 58
85. 75
85. 19
88.26
88. 53
87.42
86. 46
87. 58
88.88
88.20
Chemicals and allied
products
Printing, publishing, and allied Industries—Continued
Commercial printing
Paperboard boxes
39.1
38.6
38.1
38.4
37.8
38.0
37.7
37.6
38.0
37. 4
37.6
37.8
38.0
38.2
38.5
$2.79
2. 87
2.88
2. 87
2. 85
2. 92
2. 95
2.96
2.97
2. 96
2. 99
3.01
2.99
2.97
2.99
Synthetic rubber
$2.22 $104. 67
2.39 107.98
2. 44 109.21
2. 44 110. 03
2.45 108.14
2. 48 110. 03
2. 50 112. 61
2. 52 111.52
2.52 112. 75
2. 53 113. 98
2.54 114. 67
2.54 117. 88
2. 54 120. 56
2. 55 121.26
2. 54 118. 53
41.7
40.9
40.6
40.6
40.2
40.6
41.1
40.7
41.0
41.0
41.1
41.8
42.3
42.4
41.3
$87.14
91 46
92. 57
92. 39
92. 39
93. 43
94. 94
95.06
95. 24
95. 94
95.94
96. 82
97. 70
97.00
97.17
41.3
41.2
40.6
40.7
40.7
40.8
41.1
40.8
40.7
41.0
41.0
41.2
41.4
41.1
41.0
$2.11
2. 22
2 28
2. 27
2. 27
2. 29
2.31
2.33
2.34
2. 34
2. 34
2.35
2. 36
2.36
2.37
Synthetic fibers
$2. 61 $78. 00
2.64 82.21
2.69 81.33
2. 71 82. 74
2. 69 82. 71
2.71 83. 79
2. 74 85. 44
2. 74 86. 07
2. 75 87.08
2.78 86.46
2. 79 84. 96
2. 82 85.60
2.85 86.43
2.86 84.99
2.87 85.84
40.0
40.3
39.1
39.4
39.2
39.9
40.3
40.6
40.5
40.4
39.7
40.0
40.2
39.9
40.3
$1.95
2.04
2.08
2.10
2.11
2.10
2.12
2. 12
2.15
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.15
2.13
2.13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
618
T able C -l.
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings hours
ings hours ings
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Con.
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Year and month
Nondurable goods—Continued
Chemicals and allied products—Continued
Soap, cleaning and
Drugs and medicines polishing
préparât ions2
E xplosives
1956: Average-------- $87.29
1Q57* Average____
93. 30
i958: February____ 92. 97
92.20
M arch ____
91.49
April_______
92. 75
May ______ _
95. 65
J u n e _____ _
J u l y . .............. 95. 36
August______ 98.16
September___ 99.29
October_____ 99.53
November___ 99.46
D ecem ber___ 98.40
1959: January_____ 97. 53
February------ 98.25
40.6 $2.15
41. 1 2. 27
2. 33
39.9
2.34
39.4
39.1
2. 34
2.36
39.3
40.7
2. 35
39.9
2. 39
2. 40
40.9
41.2
2. 41
2.41
41.3
41. 1 2.42
41.0
2.40
40.3
2. 42
40.6
2.42
Gum and wood
chemicals
1956: Average-------- $75.33
1957: Average_____ 78. 20
1958: February.......- 78. 50
77. 83
M arch______
81.83
April_______
80. 03
M a y .______
June
____
79. 93
81.45
J u l y _______
August______ 80. 26
September----- 80. 64
79.90
October. .. .
November___ 80. 77
December___ 81.71
1959: January_____ 81. 54
February........ 80.16
42.8
42.5
41.1
41.4
42.4
41.9
41.2
42.2
41.8
42.0
41.4
41.0
41.9
41.6
40.9
$78.55
82. 82
86.11
85.90
85.68
84. 85
86.11
86. 71
85.41
85.63
86.24
87.29
88.54
88. 54
87.85
40.7
40.8
41.2
41.1
40.8
40.6
41.2
40.9
40.1
40.2
40.3
40.6
40.8
40.8
40.3
$1.93
2. 03
2.09
2.09
2.10
2. 09
2.09
2.12
2.13
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.17
2.17
2.18
42.3
42.6
41.1
43.2
43.5
44.3
41.2
40.8
41.2
42.2
42.5
42.3
41.8
43.3
43.0
$1.60 $74.58
1.69 78.67
1.73 80.15
1.68 81.10
1.69 81.78
1. 77 81.08
1. 76 84.29
1.80 84.24
1.77 83.18
1.79 81.91
1.77 83. 44
1. 78 83.08
1.81 82.70
1.77 83.28
1.76 82.89
E sse n tia l oils, perfu m es, C o m p ressed a n d liguefied gases
cosm etics
39.0 $1.70 $90.09
38.9
1.77 95.91
39.1
1.84 97.82
39.0
1.83 96.15
39.2
1.85 98. 23
39. 1 1.86 98. 71
39.0
1.85 100. 74
38.4
1.85 98. 57
38. 4
1.87 101. 09
39.1
1.87 100. 60
39.9
1.88 100. 86
39.7
1.88 103.91
39.5
1.90 102. 51
37.9
1.89 104. 08
1.90 104.25
37.1
42.1
41.7
41.1
40.4
41.1
41.3
41.8
40.9
41.6
41.4
41.0
41.9
41.5
41.8
41.7
$2.20
2. 34
2. 43
2. 43
2.44
2. 44
2.45
2.45
2. 48
2. 50
2.48
2.49
2.51
2. 50
2.53
45.2
44.7
43.8
43.6
43.5
42.9
43.9
43.2
43.1
43.8
46.1
45.9
44.7
44.3
43.4
$98.16
104. 65
104.54
107.98
107.45
108. 12
109.06
109 47
113.21
114.90
111.10
110.70
115. 45
110. 30
113.85
$1.65 $67.95
1.76 71.52
1.83 73. 48
1.86 74. 63
1.88 77. 44
1.89 77. 22
1.92 80.29
1.95 80. 28
1.93 78. 57
1.87 75. 52
1. 81 79.51
1.81 77.08
1.85 76.84
1.88 77. 68
1.91 77.18
Total Products of
petroleum and coal
$2.14 $104.39
2. 30 108. 39
2. 38 108.53
2. 38 109.07
2. 39 110.97
2. 39 110. 16
2.41 111.93
2. 41 113.16
2. 43 110. 29
2. 43 112. 33
2. 46 110. 15
2. 48 112. 46
2. 47 111.35
2. 49 113. 70
2.50] 114.45
$100.95
106.52
93.02
98.05
95.67
99. 48
103.63
106. 59
113. 96
113. 40
O c to b e r . ----- 113.24
November___ 115. 75
December....... 121. 40
1959 January
117. 55
F e b r u a r y ........... 119.68
1956: Average-------1957: Average_____
1958: February-----March___...
A p ril___
M a y .______
Ju n e .. _____
Ju ly ________
A ugust...
September___
39.9 $2. 53 $71.89
40.5
2.6i 73.47
35. 1 2. 65 74.68
37. C 2. 65 76. 61
36.1
2. 65 75.46
37. 4 2. 66 75. 85
2. 72 77.20
38.1
38.9
2. 74 75.25
2. 80 77.18
40.7
40.5
2.80 76. 62
40. S 2. 81 77.01
40.9
2.8î 77. 22
42.3
2. 87 78.01
41. 1 2. 86 78.20
41.7
2. 87 80.78
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Rubber footwear
39.5
39.5
39.1
39. Í
39.2
39.3
40.0
39.4
40.2
39.7
39.9
39.6
39.8
39. Í
40.8
$86.11
89.38
88. 98
89.60
89.65
91. 58
95. 57
95.91
94. 58
94.76
94. 02
95.76
97.11
95. 47
95. 24
41.6 $2.07
41.0
2.18
39.9
2.23
2. 24
40.0
40.2
2.23
40. 7 2. 25
42.1
2.27
41.7
2.30
41.3
2.29
41.2
2. 30
40.7
2.31
41.1
2.33
41.5
2. 34
2.34
40.8
2. 34
40.7
A n im a l oils a n d fa ts
Vegetable oils
45.0 $1.51 $85.35
1.60 88. 75
44.7
44.0
1.67 91.12
43.9
1.70 90.29
44.0
1.76 88.17
42.9
1.80 86. 43
43.4
1.85 89.24
42.7
1.88 88. 27
1.84 88. 71
42.7
43. 4 1.74 90. 82
47.9
1.66 89. 87
1.64 93.93
47.0
45.2
1.70 91.98
44.9
1.73 92.02
44.1
1.75 91.57
45.4
44.6
43.6
43.2
42.8
43.0
44.4
43.7
43.7
44.3
43.0
44.1
43.8
43.2
42.2
$84.04
87.33
86. 76
87.60
87. 42
89. 76
93. 91
93 63
91.88
92. 29
91 58
92. 43
94.62
92.80
92.80
41.4 $2.03
41.0
2.13
39.8
2.18
40.0
2.19
40.1
2.18
40.8
2.20
42.3
2.22
41.8
2.24
41.2
2. 23
41.2
2.24
40 7 2.25
40.9
2.26
41.5
2.28
40.7
2.28
40.7
2.28
Miscellaneous chemi
cals 3
$1.88 $80. 38
1.99 84.03
2.09 86. 22
2. 09 86.18
2.06 86. 22
2.01 86. 40
2.01 87. 45
2.02 85. 54
2. 03 86. 98
2.05 86. 98
2. 09 87.64
2.13 89.10
2.10 89.06
2.13 88. 62
2.17 88.58
40.8
40.4
40.1
39.9
40.1
40.0
40.3
39.6
39.9
39.9
40.2
40.5
40.3
40.1
39.9
$1.97
2.08
2.15
2.16
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.16
2.18
2.18
2.18
2.20
2.21
2.21
2.22
Rubber products
41.1 $2.54 $108.39
40.9
2.65 112.88
39.9
2. 72 113.24
2. 72 114.09
40.1
2. 74 115.59
40.5
40.5
2. 72 113.65
2. 73 115. 75
41.0
2. 76 117. 26
41.0
40.4
2.73 113. 08
40. 7 2.76 116. 00
40.2
2. 74 113. 48
40.6
2. 77 116. 28
40.2
2. 77 114.86
40.9
2. 78 117. 55
2. 84 118.96
40.3
4a 9
40.9
40.3
40.6
40.7
40.3
40.9
41.0
40.1
40.7
40.1
40.8
40.3
41.1
40.6
$2.65
2.76
2.81
2.81
2.84
2. 82
2.83
2. 86
2. 82
2. 85
2. 83
2.85
2.85
2.86
2.93
$91.32
96.0 0
92.02
91.25
94. 96
98. 23
98.71
99 46
100. 85
101. 02
98. 98
99.60
99. 60
101.71
99.04
41.7 $2.19 $87.23
41.2
2. 33 91.53
38.5
2.39 85.04
2. 37 87. 02
38.5
39.9
3. 38 85.88
41.1
2. 39 87. 86
41.3
2.39 91.10
41. 1 2. 42 91 89
41.5
2. 43 96. 80
40.9
2. 47 97.51
40 4 2. 45 97.27
40.0
2. 49 98. 09
40.0
2. 49 102. 66
40.2
2. 53 100.28
39.3
2.52 101. 75
40.2
40.5
37.3
38.0
37.5
38.2
39.1
39.1
40.5
40.8
40.7
40.7
41.9
41.1
41.7
$2.17
2.26
2.28
2.29
2.29
2.30
2.33
2.35
2. 39
2. 39
2.39
2.41
2. 45
2. 44
2.44
Leather and leather products
Leather and Leather: tanned, cur
Other rubber products Total:
ried, and finished
leather products
$1.82 $78.96
1. 86 82. 62
1.91 80. 32
1.92 79.87
1.92 79. 87
1.93 80.29
1.93 83. 77
1.91 82. 92
1.92 86. 24
1.93 89. 21
1. 9c 88. 78
1.95 88. 54
1. 96 92. 6C
1.96 91.27
1.98 91.96
P a in ts , varnishes, lac
quers, a n d en a m els
other petroleum Total: Rubber prodPetroleum refining Coke,
and coal products
ucts
Rubber products—Continued
Tires and inner tubes
40.9 $2.40
41.2
2.54
39.6
2. 64
40.9
2.64
2.64
40.7
2. 65
40.8
41.0
2.66
41.0
2. 67
42.4
2.67
42.4
2. 71
41.3
2.69
41.0
2.70
42.6
2. 71
2. 71
40.7
41.4
2. 75
Products of petroleum and coal
Chemicals and allied products—Continued
1956: Average-------- $66. 30
1QS7* Average_____ 68. 85
1958- February____
71.94
March _____
71.37
72.52
April----------72.
73
M ay-------....
June________ 72. 15
J u l y . . ______ 71.04
A u g u st_____ 71.81
September___ 73.12
75.01
October------November___ 74. 64
75.05
December___
1959: January-------- 71.63
February........ 70. 49
41.2
41.1
39.7
40.7
40.3
40.7
40.9
40.9
42.0
42.0
41.2
41.0
42.1
40.6
41.3
Vegetable and animal
oils and fats 3
Fertilizers
$1.76 $67.68
1.84 71.83
1.91 71.10
1.88 72.58
1.93 73. 52
1.91 78. 41
1.94 72. 51
1.93 73.44
1.92 72. 92
1.92 75. 54
1.93 75. 23
1.97 75.29
1.95 75.66
1.96 76. 64
1.96 75.68
$90. 64
96.17
96. 47
98.90
98.33
99. 31
100.21
100. 21
104.16
105.00
102.18
102.09
105.67
101. 50
104. 49
Paints, pigments, and
fillers 3
S o a p a n d glycerin
40.7 $1.94 $56.02
40.7
2.05 57.6C
38.8
2.07 57.41
2.05 56. 83
38.4
38.4
2.08 53.54
38.6
2.08 55. 42
39.7
2.11 57.46
39.3
2.11 57. 97
2.14 58.19
40.3
41. Í
2.16 57. 99
41. 1 2.16 58. 46
40.8
2.17 59. 63
41.9
2.21 61.22
41. £
2. 21 62. 56
2.20 62.24
41.8
37.6 $1.49
37.4
1.54
36.8
1.56
36.2
1.57
34. 1 1.57
1. 57
35.3
36.6
1. 57
37.4
1.55
37.3
1.56
36. 7 1. 58
37.0
1.58
37.5
1.59
38.5
1.59
39. 1 1. 6C
38.9
1.60
$74. 24
76. 64
77.02
75. 65
74. 65
75. 82
78.98
76.40
78.19
79. 79
79. 58
81.19
83. 03
81.3t
80.78
Industrial leather
belting and packing
39.7 $1.87 $73.71
39.2
1.95 77. 27
38.9
1.98 71.25
38.4
1. 97 72.58
37.7
1.98 69. It
38. 1 1.99 70. 87
39. 1 2.02 73. 73
38.2
2.00 74.31
38.9
2. 01 76. 82
39.5
2. 02 78. 21
39.2
2. 03 80. 54
2. 01 80.16
39.8
40.5
2. 05 79. 65
39.7
2. 05 78. 61
2.04 76. 76
39.6
40.5 $1.82
41.1
1.88
37.7
1.89
38.4
1.89
37. C 1.87
37. 3 1. 90
38.2
1.93
38 5 1.93
39.6
1. 94
39.5
1.98
41. c
1.95
40. t
1.96
41.7
1.91
41.2
1.91
40.4
1.90
619
C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able C -l.
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg. Avg.
wkly. wkly.
earn hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. Avg.
earn earn wkly.
ings
ings hours
Year and month
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly.
earn earn wkly.
ings hours
ings
Avg. Avg. Avg.
hrly. wkly. wkly.
earn earn hours
ings
ings
Avg.
hrly.
earn
ings
Manufacturing—Continued
Transportation and
public utilities
Nondurable goods—Continued
Transportation
Leather and leather products—Continued
1956: Average..........
1957: Average...........
1958: February____
M arch______
April...............
M ay_______
June...... ..........
July----------August..September___
October__
November___
December.......
1959: January_____
February____
Boot and shoe cut
Handbags and small Gloves and miscellaFootwear (except
Luggage
neous leather goods
stock and findings
rubber)
leather goods
37.5 $1.36 $48. 47 37.0 $1.31
$53.63
37.5 $1.43 $53. 57 37.2 $1.44 $62.88
39.3 $1.60 $51. 00
1.37
55. 42 37. 7 1.47 55. 13 37.0
1.63 53. 68 37.8
1. 42 49. 59 36.2
1. 49 62. 43 38 3
36.4
1.69 55.83
38.5
1.45 50. 46 36.3
1.39
55.65
37.1
1.50 54. 96
1.51 59. 32 35.1
1.45 50.40
36.0
1.40
53. 70 35.8
1. 50 53. 96 35. 5 1.52 60. 29 36.1
1. 67 56. 12 38.7
1.45 50. 34 35.7
1.41
1.52 49. 68 32.9
1.68 52. 49
36.2
52. 90 34.8
1.51 62. 33 37.1
1. 40
54. 96 36. 4 1. 51 51. 94 34.4
1.66 52.13
36. 2 1. 44 49. 98 35.7
1.51 63. 25 38.1
1.39
1.66 53.36
36.8
1.45 50.04
36.0
57.15
38.1
1.50 54.36
1.51 63. 91 38.5
36.0
1. 44 50. 26 35.9
1.40
1.69 53. 42 37.1
56. 85 37.9
1.50 55. 80 37.2
39.1
1.50 66.08
1.44 50. 40 36.0
1.40
55.35
36.9
1.66 55. 30 38.4
1.50 55. 57 36.8
1.51 66. 07 39.8
35.7
1.39
54.45
1.
50
54.
93
54.96
37.9
1.45
49.
62
36.3
35.9
1.53 66. 57 40.1
1. 66
1.39
1.50 55.08
55.05
39.4
1.65 58. 58 40.4
1.45 50. 87 36.6
36.7
30.0
1.53 65. 01
1.46
51.01
36.7
1.39
57. 22 37.4
1.53 56. 21
36.5
1.54 66.19
39.4
1.68 59. 42 40.7
1.41
1.44 51.71
37.2
59.04
39.1
1.51 58. 67 38.1
1.54 66.08
1.69 56.30
39.1
39.1
1.41
1.44 51.89
1. 52 60. 76 39.2
38.9
36.8
58.98
38.8
1. 55 63. 58 37. 4
1.70 56.02
40.4
1.46 51.10
36.5
1.40
1. 51 60. 53 38.8
1.70 58.98
58.29
38.6
1.56 63. 75 37.5
Transportation and public utilities—Continued
Transportation—Con.
1956: Average_____
1957: Average_____
1958: February........
M arch______
April..... ..........
M ay................
June________
July________
A u g u s t...__
September___
October. ___
November___
December___
lOSOrjanuary... . . .
February____
$88. 40
94. 24
101.26
96. 24
98. 95
100. 12
101.19
103. 28
100. 94
103.39
103. 52
104.19
107. 35
105.66
41.7
41.7
41.5
40.1
41.4
41.2
41.3
42.5
41.2
42.2
42.6
40.7
42.6
41.6
$2.12
2. 26
2.44
2. 40
2. 39
2. 43
2.45
2. 43
2. 45
2. 45
2. 43
2. 56
2.52
2.54
Other public utilities
Communication
Total: Gas and elec
Local railways and
Switchboard operat
Line construction
Telegraph 8
Telephone
tric utilities
ing employees8
employees 7
buslines
41.2 $2.22
42.0 $1.97 $91.46
37.7 $1.61 $101. 36 43.5 $2.33 $82. 74
$84. 48 43.1 $1.96 $73. 47 39.5 $1.86 $60.70
40.9
2.33
1.69
87.
36
41.8
2.09
95.30
102.
48
42.7
2.
40
2.05 76.05
1.95 62.70
37.1
88. 56 43.2
39.0
2. 41
41.0
2. 47 86.10
41.0
2.10 98.81
36.3
1. 74 101. 76 41.2
88.83
42.5
2.09 76. 78 38.2
2.01 63.16
40.4
2.
42
41.2
1.74
86.
52
2.10
97.
77
42.6
35.2
102.18
41.2
2.
48
2. 02 61.25
89.03
2.09 76. 36 37.8
2.44
41.4
1.74 101. 84
2.49 87. 35
2.11 99. 55 40.8
40.9
42.7
2.11 76. 53 37.7
2.03 61.42
35.3
90.10
2.
43
40.5
2. 50 89.04
42.0
2.12 98. 42
2.10 77. 11 37.8
2. 04 63.01
35.6
1. 77 101. 75
40.7
90. 30 43.0
40.7
2.46
1.75 104. (X) 41.3
2.54 91.34
41.9
2.18 100.12
2.05 63.35
36.2
2.12 78.31
38.2
43.0
91.16
2.46
2. 56 91.76
40.7
41.9
2.19 100.12
2.06 63.88
36.5
1. 75 107. 01
41.8
42.9
2.13 79. 31
38.5
91 38
40.9
2. 47
1.76 106.91
2.57 91.78
42.1
38.6
41.6
2.18 101.02
2.12 79.90
2.07 64. 77 36.8
90. 95 42.9
2.49
2. 58 93. 63
2.24 101. 84 40.9
41.9
41.8
37.4
1. 77 108.10
42.4
2.14 81.12
39.0
2.08 66.20
90.74
40.9
2.51
2. 58 93.41
41.7
2.24 102. 66
1.79 107.84
41.8
39.0
2.09 67 30 37.6
2.13 81. 51
90. 53 42.5
2. 52
92.
51
41.1
2.59
41.3
2.24 103. 57
1.77 109. 30 42.2
2. 09 69. 38 39.2
42.6
2.14 82.97
39.7
91.16
2.52
2.60 93.18
41.6
2.24 103. 57 41.1
42.9
2.16 81.06
38.6
2.10 64. 79 36.4
1.78 109. 72 42.2
92.66
2.52
41.0
2.60 93.98
41.4
2.27 103.32
38.3
35.9
1. 78 107. 38 41.3
42. 6 2.17 80.81
2.11 63.90
92. 44
2. 53
2.62 93.98
41.4
2. 27 103. 48 40.9
37.4
2.17 82. 47 38.9
2.12 67.69
1.81 109. 52 41.8
92.23
42.5
Wholesale and retail trade
Transportation and public utilities —Continued
Retail trade
Other public utilities—Continued
Electric light and
power utilities
1956: Average
1957: Average......... .
1958: February____
M a rc h ...........
April..... .........
M ay________
June________
July______ ..
August.. . ..
September___
October____
November___
December___
1959:'"January_____
February____
Class I railroads 4
$93. 38
97.06
99.14
99. 80
100. 45
99.72
101.68
101.68
102. 59
102. 66
103. 22
103. 73
103. 89
103. 63
104. 04
41.5
41.3
40.8
40.9
41.0
40.7
41.0
41.0
41.2
40.9
40.8
41.0
40.9
40.8
40.8
$2.25 $86. 30
2. 35 90.13
2. 43 96. 05
2. 44 93.15
2. 45 92.46
2. 45 92.23
2.48 93.67
2. 48 93. 90
2. 49 94.60
2. 51 96.12
2. 53 97.41
2.53 98.71
2. 54 98.06
2.54 98. 06
2.55 97. 51
ana generai manorder houses
1956: Average.......... $48. 77
1957: Average........... 50. 26
1958: F e b r u a r y
50. 52
M arch..'____
51.10
April_______
51. 50
M ay________ 52.15
June________ 53.61
53.91
Ju ly ________
August
__
53.25
September___ 52. 65
October_____ 52. 50
November___ 51.41
55.13
December___
1959: January_____ 54.01
February____ 52.70
35.6
34.9
34.6
35.0
34.8
35.0
35.5
35.7
35.5
35.1
35.0
34.5
37.5
35.3
34.9
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Electric light and
gas utilities combined
Gas utilities
40.9 $2.11 $93.11
2.22 97.10
40.6
41.4
2. 32 100. 86
40.5
2.30 98.85
2.30 103. 48
40.2
40. 1 2 30 102. 97
2. 33 103. 63
40.2
2. 33 103. 38
40.3
40.6
2. 33 103.94
2. 35 105.93
40.9
2. 37 106. 49
41.1
2.39 107.01
41.3
41.2
2.38 108. 47
2.38 107. 83
41.2
2. 39 107. 83
40.8
b ooa ana iiauor
stores
$1.37 $63. 38
1.44 65. 50
1.46 65.87
1.46 65.87
1.48 66.23
1.49 66. 42
1.51 68.08
1.51 69. 56
1.50 69. 38
1.50 68.44
1.50 68. 42
1.49 68. 97
1.47 68.24
1.53 68.43
1.51 68.97
37.5
36.8
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.9
36.6
37.4
37.3
36.6
36.2
36.3
36.3
36.4
36.3
41.2
40.8
41.0
39.7
40.9
40.7
40.8
40.7
40.6
40.9
40.8
41.0
41.4
41.0
41.0
$2.26 $81.20
2.38 84.42
2. 46 85. 57
2. 49 85. 79
2. 53 85.14
2. 53 86 40
2.54 87. 42
2. 54 88.26
2.56 87.64
2. 59 88. 66
2.61 87. 85
2. 61 88. 22
2. 62 88. 48
2. 63 88.44
2.63 88. 44
Automotive ana accessories dealers
$1.69 $81 28
1.78 83.22
1.84 80. 54
1.84 81.28
1.85 81.72
1.85 83.66
1.86 84. 10
1.86 84. 53
1.86 84. 73
1.87 83. 47
1.89 83.22
1.90 83.90
1.88 85. 36
1.88 87.07
1.90 85. 80
43.7
43.8
43.3
43.7
43.7
43.8
43.8
43.8
43.9
43.7
43.8
43.7
44.0
44.2
44.0
Wholesale trade
40.4
40.2
39.8
39.9
39.6
40.0
40.1
40.3
40.2
40.3
40.3
40.1
40.4
40.2
40.2
$2.01
2.10
2. 15
2.15
2.15
2. 16
2.18
2. 19
2.18
2.20
2. 18
2.20
2.19
2.20
2. 20
Apparei ana accèssories stores
$1.86 $47. 54
1.90 49.13
1.86 50.26
1.86 49.19
1.87 50.08
1.91 50. 72
1.92 51.01
1.93 51.25
1.93 50.69
1.91 50.86
1.90 50.91
1.92 50. 76
1.94 52.98
1.97 52.40
1.95 52.20
34.7
34.6
34.9
34.4
34.3
34.5
34.7
35.1
35.2
34.6
34.4
34.3
35.8
34.7
34.8
$1.37
1.42
1.44
1.43
1.46
1. 47
1.47
1. 46
1.44
1.47
1.48
1.48
1. 48
1. 51
1.50
Retail trade (except General merchandise
eating and drinking
stores
places)
$60.60
38.6 $1.57 $43. 40 35.0 $1.24
1.64 44. 85 34.5
1.30
62.48
38.1
1.34
34.1
1.68 45.69
37.8
63.50
1.33
1.67 45. 75 34.4
63.13
37.8
34.2
1.34
1.68 45.83
37.8
63.50
1. 35
1.69 46. 31 34.3
63. 88 37.8
34.8
1.37
38.2
64.94
1.70 47.68
35.2
1.37
1. 71 48.22
66.18
38.7
35.2
1.35
1.71 47.52
38.7
66.18
1.36
38.0
64.98
1. 71 46. 92 34.5
1.36
34.3
1.71 46. 65
64. 81
37.9
1.35
34.0
64. 47 37.7
1.71 45.90
1. 33
1.68 48. 68 36.6
64. 68 38.5
1.39
1.74 48.23
34.7
66. 29 38.1
34.4
1.37
1. 74 47.13
66.12
38.0
Other retail trade
Furniture and appli- Lumber and hardware supply stores
ance stores
$69. 30 42.0 $1.65 $72. 68 42.5 $1. 71
42.2
1.77
1.70 74.69
71.23
41.9
1.79
40.8
1.67 73.03
69.47
41.6
41.3
1.80
1.66 74.34
68.89
41.5
1.65 75. 30 41 6 1.81
68. 97 41.8
42.3
1.84
1.69 77.83
70. 98 42.0
1.82
42.5
41.9
1. 72 77.35
72.07
1.83
42.6
72. 41 42. 1 1.72 77.96
1.84
1.76 78. 94 42.9
73. 57 41.8
1.85
42.8
1. 75 79.18
72.98
41.7
42.6
1.86
1.77 79.24
73.81
41.7
1.85
42.0
1.78 77.70
74.05
41.6
41.8
1.83
1.81 76.49
42.2
76.38
1.85
1.79 76. 78 41.5
73. 75 41.2
1.85
1.76 76. 59 41.4
72.69
41.3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
620
T a ble C -l.
Hours and gross earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers, by industry 1—Con.
Avg.
wkly.
earnings
Avg.
wkly.
earnings
Avg.
wkly.
earnings
Avg.
wkly.
earnings
Avg.
wkly.
hours
Avg.
hrly.
earnings
Finance, insurance, and
real estate 9
Year and month
Banks
and
trust
com
panies
$61. 97
64.21
65.60
65. 53
65. 60
65. 72
65. 56
65. 93
65. 80
65. 98
66. 24
66. 54
66. 48
66. 71
66. 96
1956: Average____
1957: Average____
1958: February___
March______
April..............
M ay_______
June...............
J u ly ,..............
A u g u s t.____
September__
October____
November—.
December___
1959: January.........
February___
Avg.
wkly.
hours
Avg.
hrly.
earnings
Avg.
wkly.
earnings
Avg.
wkly.
hours
Avg.
hrly.
earnings
Personal services
Security
dealers
and ex
changes
Insur
ance
carriers
Hotels, year-round 19
Laundries
$77. 49
80. 73
82. 68
82.60
82. 38
82. 59
82. 86
83. 00
83. 49
83. 19
82.97
83.45
84. 36
84. 59
84.28
$97. 56
98. 77
97. 77
95. 65
98.64
103 60
105. 42
106. 21
107. 55
108. 04
115. 41
121.46
123. 49
122. 71
122.85
Avg.
wkly.
earnings
Service and miscellaneous
$42.13
43. 52
44. 58
44. 29
44. 29
44.80
45.31
45.60
44.91
45.09
45. 65
45. 49
46. 40
45. 66
46.17
$1.03
1.08
1.12
1.11
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.12
1.13
1.13
1. 14
1.16
1.15
1.16
40.9
40.3
39.8
39.9
39.9
40.0
40. 1
40.0
40. 1
39.9
40.4
39.9
40.0
39.7
39.8
$42. 32
43. 27
43. 23
43.68
44. 30
44. 75
45. 37
45.26
44.80
44. 80
44. 92
44. 23
44. 69
45.20
44. 85
40.3
39.7
38.6
39.0
39.2
39.6
39.8
39.7
39.3
39.3
39.4
38.8
39.2
39.3
39.0
Cleaning and dyeing plants
$1.05
1.09
1.12
1.12
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1. 14
1. 14
1.15
1.15
$49. 77
50. 57
47. 09
49. 53
50. 70
52. 40
53. 47
51.07
49. 48
51.34
52. 80
51.86
51.32
51.98
50. 63
39.5
38.9
36.5
38.1
38.7
39. 7
39.9
38.4
37.2
38.6
39.4
38.7
38.3
38.5
37.5
Motion
picture
produc
tion and
distri
bution
$91.66
99. 48
98. 79
97. 84
95. 43
96.26
96. 55
97.10
97. 67
100. 62
102. 32
101. 44
104. 29
101.29
101. 40
$1.26
1.30
1.29
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.34
1.33
1.33
1.33
1. 34
1.34
1.34
1.35
1.35
8 Data relate to employees in such occupations in the telephone Industry
as switchboard operators, service assistants, operating-room instructors, and
pay-station attendants. In 1957, such employees made up 39 percent of
the total number of nonsupervisory employees in establishments reporting
hours and earnings data.
1 Data relate to employees in such occupations in the telephone Industry
as central office craftsmen; installation and exchange repair craftsmen; line,
cable, and conduit craftsmen; and laborers. In 1957, such employees made
up 29 percent of the total number of nonsupervisory employees in establish
ments reporting hours and earnings data.
8 Data relate to domestic nonsupervisory employees except messengers.
1 Average weekly hours and average hourly earnings data are not available.
10 Money payments only; additional value of board, room, uniforms, and
tips not included.
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August
1958 and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table A-2.
In addition, hours and earnings data for anthracite mining have been
revised from January 1953 and are not comparable with those published in
issues prior to August 1958.
For mining, manufacturing, laundries, and cleaning and dyeing plants
data, refer to production and related workers: for contract construction, to
construction workers; and for the remaining industries, unless otherwise
noted, to nonsupervisory workers and working supervisors.
Data for the latest month are preliminary.
J Italicized titles which follow are components of this industry.
2 Averages shown for 1956 are not strictly comparable with those for later
years.
* Data beginning with January 1958 are not strictly comparable with those
shown for earlier years.
• Figures for Class I railroads (excluding switching and terminal com
panies) are based upon monthly data summarized in the M-300 report by
the Interstate Commerce Commission and relate to all employees who
received pay during the month, except executives, officials, and staff assist
ants (ICO Group I).
T able C-2.
Avg.
wkly.
earnings
N o te : For a description of these series, see Techniques of Preparing
Major BLS Statistical Series, BLS Bull. 1168 (1954).
S o urce : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for all
series except that for Class I railroads (see footnote 5).
Average weekly earnings, gross and net spendable, of production workers in manufacturing
industries, in current and 1947-49 dollars 1
1959
Item
Annual
average
1958
Feb.2
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
Feb.
Gross average weekly earnings:
Current dollars__________
1947-49 dollars___________
$88. 00
71.14
$87. 38
70.58
$88.04
71.17
$86.58
69. 88
$85.17
68.85
$85.39
69.03
$84.35
68.19
$83. 50
67.39
$83.10
67.18
$82.04
66.38
$80. 81
65. 43
$81. 45
66.06
Net spendable average weekly
earnings:
Worker with no dependents:
Current dollars_________
1947-49 dollars _____ -,
Worker with 3 dependents:
Current dollars_________
1947-49 dollars__________
71. 69
57. 95
71. 20
57. 51
72.10
58.29
70. 93
57. 25
69. 80
56. 43
69. 97
56. 56
69.14
55.89
68. 46
55. 25
68.14
55.08
67. 29
54.44
66.30
53. 68
66. 81
54.18
66.17
54.02
67. 57
56. 21
65.86
56.68
79.19
64.02
78.70
63.57
79. 60
64. 35
78.41
63. 28
77.25
62. 45
77. 43
62. 59
76. 58
61.91
75. 88
61. 25
75. 55
61.08
74.68
60.42
73.67
59. 65
74.20
60.18
73. 54
60.03
74. 97
62. 37
73.22
63.01
1957
1956
Manufacturing
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August
1958, see footnote 1, table A-2.
Net spendable average weekly earnings are obtained by deducting from
gross average weekly earnings, Federal social security and income taxes for
which the worker is liable. The amount of tax liability depends, of course,
on the number of dependents supported by the worker as well as on the level
of his gross income. Net spendable earnings have been computed for 2 types
of income-receivers: (1) a worker with no dependents; (2) a worker with 3
dependents. The primary value of the spendable series is that of measuring
relative changes in disposable earnings for 2 types of income receivers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$80. 64 $82.39
65. 83 68. 54
$79. 99
68.84
The computations of net spendable earnings for both the worker with no
dependents and the worker with 3 dependents are based upon the gross aver
age weekly earnings for all production workers in manufacturing without
direct regard to marital status, family composition, or other sources of
Income.
Gross and net spendable average weekly earnings expressed in 1947-49
dollars indicate changes in the level of average weekly earnings after adjust
ment for changes in purchasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Con
sumer Price Index.
* Preliminary.
S o urce : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
621
0.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able C-3.
Indexes of aggregate weekly man-hours in industrial and construction activities 1
[1947-49=100]
1959
1958
Annual
average
Industry
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
96.9
94.4
65.6
65.8
103.6
91.7
98. 1 96.7
104.4 102.3
327.9 325.2
94.8
96.7
67. 7 69.8
99.7 105.7
95.9
97.3
101.4 102.3
327.4 330.1
98.5
68.4
123.8
96.9
101.2
317.6
97.8
68.0
135.3
94.5
96.0
297.0
99.6
97.3
67.4
68.3
136. 1 137.9
96. 5 93.5
94.0
98.6
305.0 293.5
93.8
66.1
132.1
90.2
92.0
295.1
93.9
68.7
128.1
90.6
93.7
300.9
90.9
65.1
122.7
88.1
91.3
297.9
89.0
64.5
109.1
87.8
91.6
303.9
89.9
67.0
98.9
90.2
94.4
298.2
105.6
81.4
127.3
104.1
112.9
339.4
109.9
83.8
135.0
108.1
117.3
378.8
73.4
106.2
100.5
101.7
70.4
105.5
94.7
97.6
70.9
104.2
93.6
93.9
74.5
105.3
96.4
92.4
76.3
105. 3
98.6
90.0
80.0
106.4
97.9
86.2
79.8
105.1
101.9
86.3
77.4
100.7
99.3
81.9
73.6
91.9
95.6
80.6
76.7
92.1
94.9
81.1
70.3
88.7
91.0
77.1
66.2
89.0
88.9
77.2
65.6
92.7
89.2
81.0
76.6
103. 9
104. 5
105.4
88.1
107.7
109.6
110.6
107.1
97.9
124.7
121.2
110.4
105.0
95.8
124.8
121.2
110.4
105.5
92.9
124.6
123.6
109.7
107.9
91.1
124.9
125. 7
110.3
107.2
87.9
124.7
121.5
109.6
102.5
85.6
116.1
99.1
107.9
107.0
86.9
120.0
108.7
106.5
101.3
83.2
113.6
103.2
102.0
97.3
84.3
109. 0
105 0
100.2
98.3
86.7
110.6
107.7
101.9
94.6
87.5
109.1
107.1
101.3
94.8
89.9
110.9
108.3
104.0
98.0
92.9
114.3
113. 5
105.4
115.9
134.0
139.6
117.5
116.6
116.5
138.5
138.5
121.1
95.7
90.6
76.2
66.7
73.6
93.7
90.1
75.5
73.0
72.9
91.0
89.4
76.9
76.0
71.7
94.4
91.2
82.2
82.7
73.0
99.3
91.7
86.2
82.7
73.7
100.9
92.6
91.4
92. 1
72.9
98.9
94.0
98. 1
95.8
71.8
93.6
92.8
97.0
84.1
70.6
88.0
88.0
89.2
68.3
67.5
90.9
87.0
84.7
69.1
68.0
88.3
84.3
78.7
67.1
65.3
88.6
83.3
75.4
66.1
64.5
90.1
85.2
74.7
68.4
66.8
101.2
93.7
86.4
80.8
74.7
105.9
97.0
90.6
86.4
80.6
104.8
110.1
105.1
109.7
100.8
109.5
101.3
110.3
100.3
111.4
100.7
112.0
101.2
112.2
101.1
110.3
94.1
105.6
92.4
106.4
91.3
104.0
90.5
104.5
94.0
105.8
102.0
113.9
104.1
116.4
111.4
102.6
109.3
101.1
109.0
100.3
83.7
102.8
94.9
H i.5
100.7
82.4
104.3
93.3
109.7
100.3
83.9
100.0
89.5
110.2
100.3
81.6
99.4
85.9
110.0
99.2
85.0
96.2
86.8
108.5
97.2
84.3
92.1
106.6
95.7
85.5
86.1
87.2
107.6
97.2
85.8
86.3
84.8
107.3
98 6
84.5
82.7
78.3
108.4
100.0
84.1
83.0
75.3
109.5
100.0
83.2
87.8
85.3
112.4
106.2
91. 1
104.8
90.8
108.3
93.8
106.7
93.9
M ar.2 Feb.2 Jan.
Total________________________ _______
Mining __........................... ............................
Contract construction..................................
M anufacturing___ _______________ ____
Durable goods............................................
Ordnance and accessories___________
Lumber and wood products (except
furniture).........................................
Furniture and fixtures.... .......................
Stone, clay, and glass products..............
Primary metal industries................... .
Fabricated metal products (except
ordnance, machinery, and transportation equipment).......................
Machinery (except electrical)________
Electrical machinery_______________
Transportation equipment-...................
Instruments and related products____
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries_________________ _____ _
Nondurable goods___________________
Food and kindred products_________
Tobacco manufactures______________
Textile-mill products___ ___________
Apparel and other finished textile
products_________ ____________
Paper and allied products___________
Printing, publishing and allied industries....................................................
Chemicals and allied products...............
Products of petroleum and coal.........
Rubber products___ _______________
Leather and leather products________
8 3 .6
105.2
93.7
80.6
104.0
95.5
1 For comparability of data with those published In Issues prior to August
1958, see footnote 1, table A-2.
For mining and manufacturing data, refer to production and related
workers; for contract construction, to construction workers.
T able C-4.
88 .8
111.0
112.7
2 Preliminary.
S ource: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls in industrial and construction activities 1
[1947-49=100]
1959
1958
Annual
average
Activity
Mar.2 Feb.2
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
1957
1956
M ining________________________________
106.1
108.0
109.4
106.8
105.0
105. 5
103.6
101.8
106.2
99.0
98.2
103.6
124.3
121.6
Contract construction___________________
159.9
174.7
184.4
212.2
231.4
232.9
232.8
223.1
213.3
205.1
183.2
166.3
207.1
207.7
160.6
158.2
160.4
158.4
152.5
155.7
150.0
144.8
144.9
140.9
139.6
143.6
162.7
161.4
Manufacturing_________________________
1 See footnote 1, table 0-3.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
163.6
2 Preliminary.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
622
T able C-5.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
Average hourly earnings, gross and excluding overtime, of production workers in manu
facturing, by major industry group 1
Ex
Ex
Ex
Ex
Ex
Ex
Ex
Gross cluding Gross cluding Gross cluding Gross cluding Gross cluding Gross cluding Gross cluding Gross
over
over
over
over
over
over
over
time 8
time 8
time 8
time 8
time 8
time 8
time 8
Year and month
Ex
cluding
over
time 8
Durable goods
Total: Manu
facturing
1956: Average------1957: Average.........
1958: February----March______
April_______
M ay...............
June________
July................
August...........
September__
October..........
November__
December___
1959: January____
February8-----
$1.98
2.07
2. 10
2. 11
2.11
2.12
2.12
2 13
2.13
2.14
2.14
2.17
2.19
2.19
2.20
$1.91
2.01
2.06
2.07
2.07
2. 07
2.07
2.08
2. 07
2.08
2.08
2. 11
2.12
2.13
2.14
Total: Durable
goods
$2.10
2.20
2. 24
2. 25
2.25
2. 26
2.27
2.28
2. 29
2. 30
2. 29
2. 34
2. 36
2. 35
2.36
$2.03
2.14
2. 20
2.21
2.21
2.21
2.22
2.23
2. 23
2. 24
2. 23
2. 26
2.28
2.29
2.30
Ordnance and
accessories
$2.19
2.34
2. 44
2.45
2. 46
2. 46
2. 48
2. 48
2.48
2. 50
2.50
2.51
2. 54
2.53
2.53
$2.12
2.28
2. 38
2.39
2. 40
2.41
2. 43
2. 42
2. 42
2. 43
2.44
2. 44
2.48
2. 47
2. 47
Lumber and
wood products
(except furni
ture)
$1.76
1.81
1.82
1.82
1.84
1.88
1.88
1.89
1.91
1.94
1.95
1.93
1.92
1.89
1.88
$1.69
1.75
1.77
1.77
1.79
1.82
1.81
1.83
1.83
1.86
1.87
1.85
1.86
1.83
1.81
Furniture and
fixtures
$1.69
1.75
1.77
1.77
1.77
1. 77
1. 78
1. 77
1.78
1.80
1.79
1.79
1.80
1.80
1.79
$1.64
1.70
1.73
1.74
1.74
1.74
1. 74
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.74
1.74
Stone, clay, and Primary metal
glass products
industries
$1.96
2. 05
2.10
2.09
2.09
2.09
2.10
2.11
2.13
2.16
2.11
2.14
2.16
2.16
2.17
$1.88
1.98
2.04
2.03
2.03
2. 02
2.03
2.04
2. 05
2.07
2.03
2. 06
2.08
2.09
2.10
Durable goods—Continued
Machinery
(except electrical)
1956: Average____
1957: Average.........
1958: February___
M arch______
April..............
M a y .. ____
June________
J u ly ..............
August...........
September—
October_____
November__
December___
1959: January_____
February8___
$2.21
2.30
2. 35
2.36
2.36
2.37
2.38
2. 38
2.38
2.39
2. 39
2. 43
2.44
2. 44
2. 46
$2.12
2.23
2.30
2.31
2.32
2. 33
2.33
2. 33
2. 33
2.34
2. 34
2.36
2.37
2. 38
2. 39
Electrical
machinery
$1.98
2.07
2.13
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.15
2.15
2.14
2.16
2. 15
2.19
2.20
2. 20
2. 20
$1.92
2.02
2. 11
2.11
2.11
2. 12
2.12
2.12
2.10
2.10
2. 10
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.15
Transportation
equipment
$2.31
2.41
2. 46
2.47
2. 47
2. 49
2. 50
2. 53
2. 55
2. 55
2.55
2.63
2.66
2.62
2.62
$2.23
2. 35
2. 42
2. 43
2. 44
2. 45
2. 46
2. 48
2. 48
2. 49
2. 48
2.53
2. 54
2. 55
2. 56
$2.29
2. 44
2.52
2. 54
2. 54
2. 55
2. 57
2.64
2.65
2.67
2.68
2. 69
2.68
2. 70
2.72
$2.07
2.18
2. 22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2. 27
2. 28
2. 29
2.29
2.28
2. 32
2.33
2. 32
2.33
$2.00
2.11
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.21
2.22
2.22
2 22
2.21
2.24
2.26
2. 26
2.27
Nondurable goods
Instruments
and related
products
$2.01
2.11
2.15
2.17
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2. 22
2.21
2.23
2.24
2. 24
2.25
$2 36
2.50
2. 56
2. 57
2. 58
2. 58
2. 61
2.68
2. 70
2.73
2.74
2.75
2. 75
2. 77
2. 79
Fabricated
metal products
$1.96
2.06
2. 12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.17
2.17
2.17
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
Miscellaneous
manufacturing
industries
$1.75
1.81
1.84
1.84
1.85
1. 84
1.85
1.84
1.84
1.85
1.85
1.86
1.88
1.89
1.89
$1.69
1.76
1.80
1.80
1. 81
1.81
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.79
1. 79
1.81
1.82
1.84
1.83
Total: Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products
$1.80
1.88
1.92
1.93
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.93
1.95
1.95
1.96
1.97
1.98
1.98
$1.83
1.93
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
1.99
1.97
1.99
2.00
2.04
2. 06
2. 09
2. 09
$1.75
1.83
1.87
1.88
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.88
1.89
1.89
1.90
1.91
1.92
1.92
$1.76
1.86
1.94
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.94
1.92
1.89
1.91
1.93
1. 96
1.98
2.02
2.02
Tobacco manufactures
$1.44
1.62
1.56
1.59
1.65
1.66
1.67
1.66
1.59
1.50
1.52
1.60
1.65
1.64
1.65
$1.42
1.50
1. 55
1.58
1.62
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.55
1.48
1.50
1. 58
1.62
1.62
1.63
Nondurable goods—Continued
Textile-mill
products
1956: Average____
1957: Average____
1958: February___
M arch______
April..............
M ay...............
June_______
Ju ly________
August_____
September—
October_____
November__
December___
1959: January_____
February8___
$1. 45
1. 50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1. 51
1.50
1.51
1.51
1. 52
1. 52
1.52
1.53
1.53
$1.40
1.46
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.47
1. 47
1.46
1. 47
1. 47
1.47
1.47
1.48
1.48
Apparel and
Paper and
Printing, pub- Chemicals and
other finished allied products lishing, and al- allied products
textile products
lied industries *
$1.45
1.49
1.50
1.49
1.50
1.50
1. 50
1.50
1.52
1. 53
1.53
1. 52
1.52
1.53
1.53
$1.43
1.47
1.48
1. 47
1.48
1. 48
1.48
1. 48
1.49
1.50
1.50
1.49
1.49
1. 51
1. 50
$1.94
2.04
2. 08
2.08
2.09
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
$1.84
1.94
1.99
2.00
2 01
2.01
2. 02
2 03
2. 03
2.03
2. 03
2. 04
2. 05
2. 06
2.06
$2.42
2. 50
2 55
2. 56
2. 55
2. 58
2 59
2 59
2. 60
2.62
2 63
2.62
2.65
2. 63
2. 65
1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August
1958, see footnote 1, table A-2.
8 Derived by assuming that the overtime hours shown in table C-6 are paid
for at the rate of time and one-half.
* Preliminary.
*Average hourly earnings, excluding overtime, are not available separately
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
$2 11
2 22
2 28
2 27
2 27
2 29
2 31
2 33
2. 34
2. 34
2 34
2. 35
2.36
2 36
2. 37
$2 05
2 16
2 23
2 22
2 22
2 24
2 26
2 28
2 28
2.28
2 27
2.29
2. 30
2 30
2.31
Products of
petroleum and
coal
$2 54
2 65
2 72
2 72
2 74
2 72
2 73
2 70
2 73
2. 76
2 74
2. 77
2. 77
2 78
2. 84
$2 47
2 .59
2 68
2 68
2 6Q
2 67
2 68
2 70
2 67
2. 70
2 69
2.72
2.72
2 73
2. 79
Rubber products
Leather and
leather products
$2 17
2 9.6
2 28
2 29
2 29
2 30
2 33
2 35
2 39
2.39
2 39
2.41
2.45
2 44
2.44
$1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$2 09
2 18
2 24
2 95
2 95
2 25
? 26
2 28
9 30
2 31
2 31
2. 33
2.34
2 35
2. 33
49
54
56
57
57
57
57
55
1 56
L 58
1 58
1.59
1.59
1 60
1.60
$1 47
1 52
1 54
1 55
1 56
1 55
1 55
1 53
1 54
l! 56
1 55
l! 56
1.56
1 .56
L 57
for the printing, publishing, and allied industries group, as graduated over
time rates are found to an extent likely to make average overtime pay signif
icantly above time and one-half. Inclusion of data for the industry in the
nondurable-goods total has little effect.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
623
C.—EARNINGS AND HOURS
T able C-6.
Gross average weekly hours and average overtime hours of production workers in manu
facturing, by major industry group 1
Qross
Over
time 3
Qross
Over
time 3
Qross
Over
time 1
Qross
Over
time 1
Qross
Over
time 3
Qross
Over
time 3
Qross
Over
time 3
Gross
Over
time
Durable goods
Year and month
1956: Average........1957: Average........1958: February___
March______
April_______
M ay_______
June....... .......
July................
August_____
September__
October_____
November__
December___
1959: January____
February 3__
Total manufacturing
40.4
39.8
38.4
38.6
38.3
38. 7
39.2
39.2
39.6
39.9
39.8
39 9
40.2
39.9
40.0
2.8
2.4
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.4
Total: Durable
goods
41.1
40.3
38.6
39,0
38.8
39. 1
39.6
39.4
39.8
40.2
40. 1
40.3
40.8
40.4
40.3
3.0
2.4
1. 5
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.3
Ordnance and
accessories
41.8
40.8
40.6
40.7
40.7
40.6
40.7
40 7
40.6
41.2
41.2
41.1
41.9
41.5
41.0
2.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.9
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.9
Lumber and
wood products
(except fumiture)
40.3
39.8
38.7
38.9
38.8
39.6
40.5
39.3
40. 7
41.3
41. 1
40.2
40.3
39.6
39.5
3.3
2.8
2.2
2.4
2.2
2 6
2.9
2.7
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.0
Furniture and
fixtures
40.8
40.0
38.4
38.6
38.0
37.8
38.8
38.9
40.5
41.0
41.0
40.8
41.2
40.3
40.4
2.8
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.9
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.7
3.1
2.6
2.5
Stone, clay, and Primary metal
glass products
industries
41.1
40.5
38.6
39.1
39.0
39.7
40.3
40.0
40.8
41. 1
41.0
40.9
40.4
40.2
40.5
3.6
3.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.9
1956: Average____
1957: Average____
1958: February___
March............
April_______
M ay...............
June_______
July................
August_____
September__
October_____
November__
December___
1959: January____
February 3__
Electrical
machinery
42.2
41.0
39.2
39.5
39.3
39.4
39.6
39.4
39.4
40.0
39.5
39.9
40.6
40.7
40.8
40.8
40. 1
39.0
39.1
39.0
39.1
39.6
39.3
39.7
40.4
39.9
40.6
40.6
40.4
40.2
3.7
2.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.6
1.9
1.0
1.0
.9
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.6
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.0
Transportation
equipment
40.9
40.4
38.6
39.4
39.3
39.7
39.8
39.6
40.0
39.6
40.0
40.6
41.7
40.7
40.3
2.9
2.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.4
1. 5
1.5
2.1
2.0
2.5
3.3
3.8
2.2
2.1
Instruments
and related
products
40.8
40.3
39.3
39.4
39.6
39.2
39.8
39.7
39.8
40.3
40.4
40.7
40.9
40.7
40.5
2.8
2.0
1.0
.9
1.0
.9
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.3
41.2
40.8
38.9
39.2
38.9
39.4
40.0
40.0
40.4
41.0
40.8
40.8
41.2
40.5
40.4
3.0
2.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.2
2.2
Nondurable goods
Durable goods—Continued
Machinery
(except electrical)
40.9
39.5
36.8
37.1
36.9
37.3
38.3
38.4
38.5
39.1
38.9
39.3
39.8
40.0
40.4
Fabricated
metal products
2.3
2.0
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.9
Miscellaneous
manufacturing
Industries
40.3
39.9
39.0
39.2
39.0
39.1
39.5
39.2
39.5
40.1
40.3
40.4
40.4
40.1
40.2
2.6
2.3
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.7
2.1
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.3
Total: Nondurable goods
39.5
39.1
38.1
38.1
37.7
38.1
38.7
39.0
39.4
39.5
39.4
39.4
39.6
39.3
39.4
2.5
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.4
Food and kindred products
41.0
40.5
39.7
39.6
39.7
40.2
40.7
41.2
41.4
41.6
40.9
41.0
41.0
40.5
39.9
3.3
3.1
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.8
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.2
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
Tobacco manufactures
38.9
38.6
37.9
37.1
38.0
38.7
39.7
39.6
39.6
40.1
39.6
39.2
40.1
38.8
38.4
1.11
1.2
.7
.8
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.9
.9
.7
Nondurable goods—Continued
Textile-mill
products
1956: Average____
1957: Average____
1958: February___
March______
April_______
M a y .. .........
June_______
July................
August_____
September__
October.........
November__
December___
1959: Januarv. ___
February 3__
39.6
38.9
37.8
37.6
36.6
37 3
38.4
38.6
39.2
39.7
40.1
40.3
40.2
39.8
40.3
2.6
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.9
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.6
2.9
Printing, pubApparel and
other finished Paper and allied lishing, and allied industries
products
textile products
36.3
36.0
35.1
34.7
34.5
34.8
35.0
35.6
36.4
36.1
36.0
35.8
36.1
36.0
36.7
1.2
1.1
.9
.9
.8
.8
.8
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.4
42.8
42.3
41.1
41.4
41.0
41.0
41.8
41.9
42.5
42.7
42.7
42. 5
42.4
42.4
42.5
4.6
4.3
3.5
3.5
3.2
3.4
3.8
3.9
4.4
4. 5
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.4
38.8
38.5
37.7
37.9
37.7
37.6
37.6
37.6
37.9
38.0
37.9
37.9
38.4
38.0
38.0
1 For comparability of data with those published In issues prior to August
1958, see footnote 1, table A-2.
3 Covers premium overtime hours of production and related workers during
the pay period ending nearest the 15th of the month. Overtime hours are
those for which premiums were paid because the hours were in excess of the
number of horns of either the straight-time workday or workweek. Weekend
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3.2
3.0
2.3
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.9
2.4
2.3
Chemicals and
allied products
41.3
41.2
40.6
40.7
40.7
40.8
41.1
40.8
40.7
41.0
41.0
41.2
41.4
41. 1
41.0
2.3
2.2
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.2
Products of
petroleum and
coal
41.1
40.9
39.9
40.1
40.5
40.5
41.0
41.0
40.4
40.7
40.2
40.6
40.2
40.9
40.3
2.0
1.9
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.2
Rubber products
40.2
40.5
37.3
38.0
37.5
38.2
39.1
39.1
40.5
40.8
40.7
40.7
41.9
41.1
41.7
2.8
2.8
1.3
1.3
1.2
1. 5
2.4
2.2
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
3.8
3.2
3.8
Leather and
leather products
37.6
37.4
36.8
36.2
34.1
35.3
36.6
37.4
37.3
36.7
37.0
37.5
38.5
39.1
38.9
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.0
.6
.8
.9
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.6
2.0
1.8
and holiday hours are included only if premium wage rates were paid. Hours
for which only shift differential, hazard, Incentive, or other similar types of
premiums were paid are excluded. These data are not available prior to 1956.
1 Preliminary.
8 otjkce : U.8. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
624
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
T able D-7.
Indexes of wholesale prices, by major groups 1
96.4
1947:Average.
1948:Average. 104.4
99.2
1949: Average.
1950: Average' 103.1
1951 ¡Average. 114.8
1952:Average. 111.6
1953¡Average. 110.1
1954¡Average. 110.3
1955:Average 110.7
1956:Average 114.3
1957'Average 117.6
1958:Average- 2 119.2
100.0
98.2
95.3
107.3 106.1
103.4
92.8
95.7
101.3
97.5
99.8
105.0
113.4 111.4
115.9
107. 0 108.8
113.2
97.0 104.6
114.0
95.6 105.3
114.5
89 6 101.7
117.0
88.4 101.7
122.2
125 6
90 9 105 6
2 94.9 2110.9 2 126.0
101.0
90.9
100.1
101.4
99.0
93.7
98.6
91.3
92.5
95.6
93.9
97.2
102.1
104.4
107.1
103.8
102.1
107.2
102.9
103.9
100.9
101.4
101.7
100.5
101.9
95.5
96.9
94.8
98.9
99.2
98.5
104.8
106.6
103.1
104.4
102.3
103.0
99.2
104.6
96.3
120. 5 113.9
100.9
110.3
108.6
105.3
106.9
103.5
120.3
110.6
106.7
110.0
148.0
123.9
119.6
122.8
119.0
114.1
113.6
109.4
97.2
106.6
99.8
104.5
134.0
120.3
116.5
123.0
121.5
112.0
113.6
111.8
97 3
98.5
109.6
125.0
105.7
120.2
116.1
126.9
114.2
123.0
118.2
115.7
94.2
108.1
95.2
107.0
126.9
118.0
116.3
128.0
124.6
115.4
120.9
120.6
95.3
93.8
107. 9
106.6
143.8
123.6
119.3
136.6
128.4
115.9
124.2
121.6
111.2
99.3
95.3
107.2
145.8
125.4
127.2
148.4
137.8
119.1
129.6
122.3
95. 4
117. 2
99 4
109. 5
145. 2
119 0
129 6
151.2
146 1 122.2
134 6
126 1
2 93.5 2 100. 6 2 112.7 2 110.4 2 145.0 2 117.7 2 131.0 2150.4 2149. 8 2 123.2 2 136.0 2128.2
M iscellaneous
products
Tobacco manu
factures
and
bottled bever
ages
Nonmetallic mine r a ls —s t r u c
tural
F u r n itu r e and
o th e r h o u s e
hold durables
Machinery and
motive products
Metals and metal
products
Pulp, paper, and
allied products
L u mb e r and
wood products
Rubber and rub
ber products
Chemicals and
allied products
Fuel, power, and
lighting mate
rials
H id e s , s k in s ,
le a th e r , an d
leather products
Textile products
and apparel
All commodities
other than farm
and foods
Processed foods
Farm products
Year and
month
All commodities
[1947-49=100]
100.8
103.1
96.1
96.6
104.9
108.3
97.8
102.5
92.0
91.0
89. 6
2 94.2
1955:
January__
February..
M arch___
A pril.. _
M ay_____
June_____
July_____
August___
September.
October__
November.
December.
110.1
110.4
110.0
110.5
109. 9
110.3
110.5
110.9
111.7
111.6
111. 2
111.3
92.5
93.1
92.1
94.2
91.2
91.8
89. 5
88.1
89.3
86. 8
84.1
82.9
103.8
103.2
101.6
102.5
102.1
103.9
103. 1
101.9
101.5
100.2
98.8
98.2
115.2
115.7
115.6
115.7
115.5
115.6
116.5
117.5
118.5
119.0
119.4
119.8
95.2
95.2
95.3
95.0
95.0
95.2
95.3
95.3
95.4
95.4
95.6
95.6
91.9
92.3
92. 2
93.2
92.9
92.9
93.7
93.8
94.0
95.3
96.4
96.7
108.5
108.7
108.5
107.4
107.0
106.8
106.4
107.2
108.0
108.0
108.6
109.3
107.1
107.1
106.8
107.1
106.8
106.8
106.0
105.9
106.0
106.5
106.6
106.6
136.8
140.6
138.0
138.3
138.0
140.3
143.4
148.7
151.7
147.8
150.6
151.0
120.3
121.2
121.4
122. 4
123.5
123.7
124.1
125.1
125. 7
125.4
125. 0
125.1
116.3
116.6
116.8
117.4
117.7
118.3
119.0
119.7
120.5
122.8
123. 2
123.6
130.1
131.5
131.9
132.9
132.5
132.6
136.7
139.5
141.9
142.4
142.9
143.9
125.8
126.1
126.1
126.3
126.7
127.1
127.5
128.5
130.0
131.4
132.5
133.0
115.5
115.4
115.1
115.1
115.1
115.2
115.5
116.0
116.4
116.9
117.2
117.3
122.0
121.8
121. 9
122.3
123.2
123.7
125.3
126.1
126.4
126.8
125. 2
125.4
121.4
121.6
121.6
121.6
121.6
121.6
121.6
121. 7
121. 7
121. 7
121.7
121.7
97.0
97.1
95. 6
94. 0
91.3
89.1
90. 8
89.8
90.3
91. 5
88.0
88.8
1956:
January__
February..
March___
April____
M ay_____
June_____
July_____
August___
September.
October__
November.
December.
111.9
112.4
112.8
113.6
114.4
114. 2
114.0
114.7
115.5
115.6
115.9
116.3
84.1
86.0
86.6
88.0
90.9
91. 2
90 0
89.1
90.1
88.4
87.9
88.9
98.3
99.0
99.2
100. 4
102.4
102.3
102.2
102.6
104.0
103.6
103.6
103.1
120.4
120.6
121.0
121.6
121.7
121.5
121.4
122.5
123.1
123.6
124.2
124.7
95.7
96.0
95.9
95.1
94.9
94.9
94.9
94.8
94.8
95.3
95.4
95.6
96.7
97.1
97.7
100.6
100.0
100.2
100.1
100.0
100.2
99.7
99.8
99.2
111.0
111.2
110.9
110.6
110.8
110.5
110.7
110.9
111. 1
111.7
111.2
114.0
106.3
106.4
106.5
106.9
106.9
107.1
107.3
107.3
107.1
107. 7
108.2
108.3
148.4
147.1
146.2
145.0
143.5
142.8
143.3
146.9
145.7
145.8
146.9
147.9
126.3
126.7
128 0
128.5
128.0
127.3
126. 6
125. 2
123.6
122.0
121.5
121.0
124.8
125.4
126.8
127.4
127.3
127.4
127. 7
127.9
127.9
128. 1
127.8
128.0
145.1
145.1
146.5
147.7
146.8
145.8
144.9
150. 2
151.9
152.2
152.1
152.3
133.3
133.9
134. 7
135.7
136. 5
136.8
136.9
137.7
139.7
141. 1
143.4
143.6
118.0
118.2
118.1
118.0
118.0
118.1
118.3
119.1
119.7
121.0
121.1
121.2
127.0
127.1
127.9
128.6
128.6
128.9
130.6
130.8
131.1
131.5
131.2
131.3
121.7
121.7
121.7
121.7
121.6
121.6
121.7
122.5
122.8
123. 1
123.5
123.6
89.6
88.7
88.2
92.1
96.1
92.9
91.3
91.1
89.9
89.2
91. 2
91.7
1957:
January__
February..
March___
April____
M ay_____
June........
Ju ly .........
August___
September.
O ctober...
November.
December.
116.9
117.0
116.9
117.2
117.1
117.4
118.2
118.4
118.0
117.8
118. 1
118.5
89.3
88.8
88.8
90.6
89.5
90.9
92.8
93.0
91.0
91.5
91.9
92.6
104.3
103.9
103.7
104.3
104.9
106.1
107.2
106. 8
106.5
105.5
106.5
107.4
125.2
125. 5
125.4
125.4
125.2
125.2
125.7
126.0
126.0
125.8
125.9
126.1
95.8
95.7
95.4
95.3
95.4
95.5
95.4
95.4
95.4
95.1
95.0
94.9
98.4
98.0
98.4
98.6
98.9
99.8
100.6
100.3
100.0
100.1
116.3
119.6
119.2
119.5
118.5
117.2
116.4
116.3
116.1
115.8
115.7
116.2
108.7
108.8
108.8
109.1
109. 1
109.3
109.5
109.8
110.2
110.4
110.3
110.6
145.0
143.9
144.3
144.5
144. 7
145.1
144.9
146.9
146. 5
146.2
144.7
145.7
121.3
120.7
120.1
120.2
119.7
119.7
119.3
118. 6
117.8
117.3
116.9
116.3
128.6
128.5
128.7
128.6
128.9
128.9
129.5
129.9
130.1
130.9
130.9
131.0
152.2
151.4
151.0
150.1
150.0
150.6
152.4
153.2
152.2
150.8
150.4
150.5
143.9
144.5
144.8
145.0
145.1
145.2
145.8
146.2
146.9
147.7
149.2
149.4
121.9
121.9
121.9
121.5
121.6
121.7
122.2
122.4
122.3
122.6
122.7
123.5
132.0
132.7
133.2
134.6
135.0
135. 1
135.2
135.3
135. 2
135.3
135.4
135.7
124.0
124.1
124. 1
124.5
124.5
124.7
127.7
127.7
127.7
127.7
127.8
128.0
93.2
92.4
92.0
91.4
89.4
87.3
88.8
90.1
89.4
87.7
86.8
87.2
1958:
January__
February..
March.......
April____
M’ay_____
June_____
July-------August ...
September
October__
November..
December.
118.9
119.0
119 7
1)9.3
119.5
119. 2
119.2
119. 1
119. 1
119.0
119.2
119.2
93.7
96.1
100.5
97.7
98.5
95.6
95.0
93.2
93. 1
92. 3
92.1
90.6
109.5
109.9
110.7
111. 5
112.9
113.5
112.7
111.3
111. 1
110.0
109.5
108.8
126.1
125.7
125.7
125.5
125.3
125.3
125.6
126.1
126.2
126.4
126. 8
127.2
94.6
94.1
94.0
93.7
93.5
93.3
93.3
93.3
93.3
93.2
93.1
93.3
99.5
99.6
99. 5
99.7
99.9
100.3
100. 3
100.5
100.2
101.4
102.3
103.6
116.1
113.6
112.4
110.8
110.6
110.7
110.3
110.7
111.9
113.7
114.1
113.0
112.6
112.9
110.8
110.7
110.4
110.0
109.9
110.2
110.2
110.0
145.1
144.6
144.6
144.5
143.8
144.2
144. 7
144. 4
145. 2
146. 1
146.6
146.3
116.3
115.8
115.5
115. 7
115.9
116.4
116.8
118.6
120.4
120.8
120.0
119.8
130.8
130.8
130.5
130. 5
130.5
130.5
131.0
131.0
131.7
131.9
131.9
131.3
150.0
150.1
149.8
148.6
148.6
148.8
148.8
150. 8
151.3
152.2
153.0
153.0
149.4
149.3
149.2
149.4
149.4
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.4
149.9
151.2
151.5
123.8
123.6
123.6
123.4
123.2
123.0
123. 2
123.0
123.0
123.0
122.7
122.8
136.4
136.5
135.3
135.4
135.4
135.2
135.3
135.2
136.7
136.7
136.7
136.9
128.1
128.1
128.0
128.0
128.0
128.0
128.0
128.0
128.0
128.8
128.7
128.6
88.3
89.3
94.3
97.8
96. 2
93.7
97.2
95. 6
92.5
91.2
93.2
100.9
1959:
Ja n u ary ...
February..
March 2__
119.5
119.5
119.6
91.5
91.1
90.9
108.7
127.5
107.6 2 127.8
107.2
128.1
93.3
93.7
93.8
104.1
105. 4
108.5
113. 9
114.8
115.0
110.2
109.9
109.8
146.0
120.5
146.1 s 122.5
146.7
124.1
131.5
131.7
132.0
152.9
153.4
153.7
151.8
123.3
152.0 2 123.3
152.1
123.4
137.2
137.5
137.7
128.6
128.9
132.1
100.8
98.5
97.0
100. 0
99.5
111.0 111.0
1 As of January 1958, new weight factors reflecting 1954 values were introduced into the Index. Technical details furnished upon request to the
1 Preliminary.
* Revised.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
N o t e : For a description of t h i s series, see Techniques of Preparing Major
BLS Statistical Series, BLS Bull. 1168 ( 1954) .
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
D.—CONSUMER AND WHOLESALE PRICES
T able D-8.
625
Indexes of wholesale prices, by group and subgroup of commodities 1
[1947-49=100, unless otherwise specified]
1959
Annual
average
1958
Commodity group
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
19582
1957
119.0
119.1
119. 1
119.2
119.2
119.5
119.3
119.7
119.2
117.6
92.3
101.5
76.8
88.4
100. 7
96.2
91. 1
73.3
138.8
93.1
97.9
76. 1
91.5
93.2
97.2
77.3
94.0
95.0
106.3
79.8
96.7
95.6
98.5
97.7
129.2
85.7
94.5
101.4
91.7
77.1
79.9
142.3
100.5
142.5
82.2
95.8
101.7
95.7
93.6
79.4
143.4
94.9
79.5
92.9
101.5
94.6
81.7
76.9
140.4
90.9
103.6
84.1
80.2
104.0
96.0
77.2
82.0
144.6
108.2
115.5
168.4
72.7
63 9
70.9
85.2
96.9
111.5
118.4
108.5
111.4
107.6
114.3
168.4
72.3
64.1
70.9
85.1
97.1
110. 7
117.8
105.9
113 4
106.8
113. 1
168. 4
73. 7
63 6
70.9
85.8
96.4
110.9
117.9
106.7
112.7
109.7
115.6
165.7
72.0
60.1
67.9
82.8
96.6
105.6
116.9
91.9
111.7
103.9
113.4
183.1
75.6
65.7
70.1
86.1
95.5
125.7
126.0
123 0
123.0
Mar.2 Feb.
Jan.
Dec.
All commodities.
119.6
119.5
119.5
119.2
Farm products.................... ..........................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables___
Grains..........................................................
Livestock and live poultry____________
Plant and animal fibers__________ ____
Fluid milk...................................................
90.9
93.6
77.7
91. 1
99.5
93.7
70.5
78.4
133.8
91.1
105.9
77.0
88.4
99. 1
95.5
69.3
78.0
134.8
91. 5
102. 5
76.1
90.3
99.4
95. 7
72.5
76.4
134.5
90.6
99.2
76.1
87.6
99.6
96.2
77.7
75.0
136.4
100.6
107.2
119.0
99.6
113.0
107.6
117.7
100.9
113.0
110.6
115.3
154.0
57.9
53.9
59.8
76.8
96.2
108.8
117.4
101.4
113.5
113.0
117.0
157.9
60.7
54.1
63.8
76.8
96.8
109. 5
118.0
102. 5
113.4
112.9
116.3
161.2
68.2
57. 5
63.8
79.4
97.4
110. 0
111. 1
108.7
117.5
103.3
113.0
All commodities other than farm and foods. 128. 1 3127.8
All commodities except farm products____ 124.4 124.2
127.5
127.2
126.8
126.4
126.2
124.2
124.0
123.7
123.5
123. 5
Textile products and apparel-----------------Cotton products____ ________________
Wool products______________________
Manmade fiber textile products-----------Silk products_______________________
Apparel____________________________
Other textile products________________
93.7
93.8
89.6
90.2
97.6 3 97.7
79.8
80.0
109.3
112.1
99.3
99.3
78.0
76.1
93.3
88.7
97.4
79.3
104. 7
99.3
76.7
93.3
88.6
97.5
79.4
105.1
99.3
75.9
93.1
88.0
97.9
79.3
106.0
99.2
76.6
93.2
93.3
87. 8 87.9
99.6
98.4
79.7
79.7
107. 1 115.8
99. 3 99.3
75.3
76.3
Hides, skins, leather, and leather products.
Hides and skins_____________________
L eather..----------------------- ---------------Footwear__________________________
Other leather products_______________
108.5
87.7
103.6
123.6
103.7
105.4
73.0
101.0
123.3
3101.0
104.1
68.7
99.3
123.2
99.2
103.6
66.6
99.2
123.1
98.2
102.3
65.1
94.7
122.9
97.4
101.4
62.0
92.8
Fuel, power, and lighting materials.
Coal________________________
Coke_______________________
Gas fuels 4___________________
Electric power 4______________
Petroleum and products_______
115.0 114.8
124. 6 126.2
170.4 170.4
113.1 3112.0
100.9 100.8
119.9 119.5
113.9
125.3
163.1
112. 7
100.7
118.2
112.9
123.7
161.9
107.8
100.7
117.2
112.6
Chemicals and allied products______
Industrial chemicals..........................
Prepared paint_________________
Paint materials________ _________
Drugs and pharmaceuticals_______
Fats and oils, Inedible----------------Mixed fertilizer_________________
Fertilizer materials____ __________
Other chemicals and allied products.
109.8 109.9 110.2
123.6 123.7 124.0
128.4 128.4 128.2
101.3 101.4 102.5
92.8 393.0
93.0
58.9
60.3
59.9
110.0 3109. 8 3110. 2
107.5 107.5 107.6
106.1 106.5 106.7
110.0
Rubber and rubber products.
Crude rubber___________
Tires and tubes_________
Other rubber products___
146.7
142.4
151.9
143.6
146.1
139.4
151.9
143.6
146.0
138.9
151.9
143.4
Lumber and wood products.
Lumber............. ................
Millwork______________
Plywood______________
124.1 2122. 5
125.4 2123.1
130.2 130.2
103.9 3103. 6
120.5
130.2
99.7
Pulp, paper, and allied products...............
Woodpulp_________________________
Wastepaper________________________
Paper___ _________________________
Paperboard___________ ______ ______
Converted paper and paperboard prod
ucts______ _________ _____________
Building paper and board----------- ------ -
132.0
131.7
131.5
121.2
121.2
Hay, hayseeds, and oil seeds.
Other farm products______
Processed foods.................................... ..........
Cereal and bakery products................. . . .
Meats, poultry, and fish______________
Dairy products and ice cream-------------Canned and frozen fruits and vegetables..
Sugar and confectionery______________
Packaged beverage materials--------------Animal fats and oils...................................
Crude vegetable oils_________________
Refined vegetable oils________________
Vegetable oil end products____________
Other processed foods-------- ----------------
112.9
148.0
57.0
53.7
59.3
74.4
95.7
113.8
149.7
57.1
53.6
59.3
75.0
97.2
110.8
Nov.
92.1
98.1
75.3
90. 1
96.6
86.5
74.0
137.7
101. 1
95.8
98.6
72. 2
137.3
101.8
93.5
81. 5
75.9
139.5
111. 1 111.3
117.8 116.9
107. 1 108.2
113.7 112.2
112.1 111.4 111.8
116.7 116. 5 116.0
161. 2 161. 2 161.2
80.4
74.7
75.4
56.6
56. 1 55.3
64.5
67.5
63.4
81 6
80. 4 81.3
96.7
96.5
97.0
101.8
92.0
76.1
76.2
139.9
112.7
117. 5
102.0
81.3
98.8
101.9
90.2
74.9
79.3
141.4
122.0
84.2
99.8
101.6
90. 5
75.7
79.7
142.0
112.9
117.9
111.4
111. 3
116.4
165.2
74.1
57.0
67.5
82.6
97.1
113.5
118. 5
114. 1
110.9
110.3
116.4
168.4
73.4
58.8
70.0
83.2
96.9
126. 1
125.6
125.3
123.4
123.3
123.1
123.1
93.3
87.7
100.4
80.0
116.3
99.3
75.9
93 3
87.4
100.5
80.1
116.2
99.3
74.8
93.3
87.6
101. 3
80.4
109.9
99.1
73.6
93.5
88.3
100 5
80.3
116. 1
99.1
75.4
100.5
60.4
91. 5
100.3
58.1
91.5
100.3
57.0
91.8
121.8
121 8
121.8
97.1
97.3
97.3
114.1 113.7
122. 7 121 9
161.9 161. 9
104. 1 102.0
111.9
110.7
120.3
161.9
97.4
110.3
119. 7
161.9
98 3
116.9
113.0
123.8
161.9
106.3
100.9
117.5
110 2
110.2
128. 2
103.3
94.4
62. 5
104.4
106.4
108.0
107.0
123.8
161.9
106.0
100.8
118.2
103.5
113.5
122.8
97.2
100.2
59.0
91.3
121.9
96.7
100.8
119.7
96.8
100. 8
119.2
112.1
121. 1
161.9
97.9
100.1
112.8
110.6
93.7
88. 5
94.0
89.0
101.6
102.8
112.0
125.6
122.1
93. 5
88.4
100.8
95.4
90.7
109.5
82.0
80. 5
116.5
99.2
75.4
81.0
116.1
99.3
73.8
99.9
65.4
91.1
99.7
53.3
91.1
100.6
121.8
121.7
99.5
51.2
91.0
121 9
97.5
111.0
112.4
126.2
161.9
117.2
124.4
161.7
100.0
100.1
117.0
112.7
122.9
161.9
101.7
100.4
117.7
110.4
123.5
128.3
103.6
94.0
62.6
110.7
108.0
106.8
109.5
123.5
126.3
100.5
93.3
61.4
145.2
141.3
150.9
140.9
97.6
119.8
161.9
98.1
101.1
100.1
100.0
117.1
115.3
114.7
115.8
110.4
123 1
128.2
103.4
94. 4
62.5
110.7
123.5
128.2
103. 4
94.5
61.9
110.8
111. 0
111. 1
111.2
111.2
110.3
107.4
110.3
107.2
110.7
124.3 123.7
128. 4 128.4
104.0 104.4
94. 1 94.0
64.2
62.2
111.4 111 3
110.3 110.3
107.2 106.8
80.2
113.5
99.3
75.2
57.5
92.3
122.1
97.5
*
122.1
99.6
76.4
99.4
55.2
90.2
121. 1
98.0
127.0
123.6
128.2
93.2
61.5
109.4
105.3
106.2
123.6
128 2
l n2. 7
93.2
64.7
109.8
105. 2
106.6
93.9
62.6
109. 5
106.3
106.6
109.9
122.7
128. 2
102.9
94.4
61.7
109.7
104.3
106.8
146.3
137.8
152.8
143.5
146.6
142.6
152.8
142.3
146.1
140. 1
152.8
142.4
145.2
135. 7
152.8
141.8
144.4
134.3
152.8
140.9
144.7
133.0
152. 1
142.7
144.2
129.4
152.1
143.0
143.8
127.7
152.1
143.0
144.5
131.2
152.1
143.0
144.6
131.3
152. 1
143.3
145.0
134.0
152.4
142.7
119.8
120.0
120.2
130. 5
100.1
120.8
120.4
130.5
99.1
116.4 115.9
116.8 116.7
127. 1 127.1
92.2
94.9
115.7
115. 9
127.6
94.4
115.5
115.9
127.6
92.9
117.7 119.0
118.0 119.7
128.2 128.3
97. 1 96.4
130.5
130.5
130.5
131.0
121.2
101.0
131.3
121.2
121.2
121.2
121.2
142.1
136.2
95.8
142.1
136.2
75.3
143.0
136.2
88.3
142.3
136.2
129.6
118.8
77.2
141.9
136.3
127.6
144.2
127.7
143.9
153. 7 153.4
171.9 172.5
136.3 2134.1
156.3 156.3
173.0 172.9
129.2 126.0
Heating equipment........................................ 121.9 122.0
Fabricated structural metal products___ 133.0 134.0
Fabricated nonstructural metal products. 145.9 145.8
See footnotes at end of table.
152.9
172.0
133.2
156.3
172.8
124.9
Metals and metal products_____________
Iron and steel_______________________
Nonferrous metals___________________
Metal containers____________________
Hard ware__________________________
Plumbing equipment________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
115. 7
142. 1
136.2
127.6
144.2
107.1
142.1
136.2
121.0
121.8
134.0
145.3
123. 7
128.2
102.8
120.1
102.8
110.0
122.8
110.8
120.8
121. 0
130.5
102.7
127.6
118.6
119.0
126.8
102.0
100.2
116.8
116.7
127.3
98.3
131.9
131.9
131.7
121.2
121.2
121. 2
131.0
131.0
130. 5
121.2
121.2
121.2
123.9
128.4
103 9
94.3
61.5
121.2
110.0
106.8
105.7
111.3
142.1
136.2
111.3
142.0
136.2
106. 4
141.8
136.5
87.0
141.8
136.0
86. 1
141.8
136.0
71.8
141.8
136.0
71.8
141.8
136.0
75.3
142.9
136.1
127.8
143.7
127.9
143.4
127.9
143.4
127.9
143.4
127.8
143.4
127.9
143.4
127.9
144.1
128.0
144.1
127.2
144.1
127.2
142.5
127.6
143.2
126.1
141.5
153.0
171.7
133.2
159. 8
172.6
124.8
121.8
133.9
145.0
153.0
172.0
133. 7
156. 5
172.5
124.6
121.4
133.8
145.0
152.2
171.4
130.8
156.5
172.0
124.6
121.4
133.6
145.7
151.3
171.8
127.3
156. 1
172.0
123.7
121.5
133.1
145.4
150.8
171.3
126. 1
155. 7
172.0
119 9
148.8
167.0
124.9
155.7
171.7
119.9
148.8
166.7
124.8
155. 7
171.7
148.6
166.2
123.9
155.7
170.7
122.8
122.8
120.8
148.6
166.4
124.1
155.7
169.0
123.6
149.8
167.3
127.0
155. 7
168.9
124.8
120.7
134.5
146.7
150.4
168.8
127.7
155.7
170.8
123.7
151.2
166.2
137.4
151.2
164.9
130.2
121.2
133.3
145.4
121.2
133.1
145.0
121.0
133.7
145.0
134.1
145.9
120.8
134.1
145.9
121.2
133.9
145.7
122.1
133.8
144.8
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
626
T a ble
D-8.
Indexes of wholesale prices, by group and subgroup of commodities1—Continued
[1947-49=100, unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1958
1959
Commodity group
Machinery and motive products.................
Agricultural machinery and equipm ent..
Construction machinery and equipment.
Metalworking machinery and equipmentGeneral purpose machinery and equip
m ent_____________________ ______
Miscellaneous machinery_____________
Electrical machinery and equipment___
Motor vehicles.___ _________________
M ar.2 Feb
Jan,
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
19582
1967
152.1 152.0
143.3 143.0
171.6 3171. 4
172.0 171.0
151.8
142.9
170.9
170.8
151.5
142.7
170.3
170.6
151.2
141.5
168.0
170.2
149.9
139.2
166.8
170.0
149.4
138.9
166.0
169.3
149.5
137.7
165.6
169.3
149.5
138. 4
165.6
169.7
149.5
138.3
165.5
169.4
149.4
138.4
165.5
169.6
149.4
138.5
165.4
170.7
149.2
138.3
165.4
170.7
149.8
139.0
166.3
170.1
146.1
133.6
160.0
167.0
163.8 163.9
149.3 149.0
152.6 3152. 5
143.2 3143. 2
163.0
148.6
152.6
143.1
162.3
148.4
152.4
143.1
161.6
147.9
152.4
142.8
160.2
147.6
152.7
139.7
159. 3
147.4
152.7
139.0
158.8
147.6
152.8
139.0
159. 7
147.5
152.6
139.0
160.0
147.7
152.6
139.0
159.6
147.6
152.3
139.0
159. 4
149.0
151.8
139.0
159.2
148.9
151.3
139.1
160.0
148.1
152.2
139.7
157.6
145.2
149.0
135.4
123.2
123.0
154.6
128.2
104.7
122.2
122.5
150.4
133.4
105.5
Furniture and other household durables__
Household furniture______ ___________
Commercial furniture________________
Floor covering____ _________________
Household appliances.............. ..................
Television, radio receivers, and phono
graphs.......................................................
Other household durable goods.................
123.4
124.1
155.0
127. 2
104.8
3123. 3 123.3 122.8 122.7 123.0 123.0 123.0 123.2 123.0 123.2 123.4 123. 5
3124.1 124.1 123.9 123.7 123.0 122.8 122.6 122.6 122.5 122.8 122.8 122 8
155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155.0 155. 0 155. 0 155.0 154.2 154.2 154.2 154.2
3126. 3 3126.1 3126.1 3126.1 3126.1 3126. 2 3126. 7 3126. 7 3127. 9 3128. 5 3128.5 3129. 4
3104.8 105.0 103.8 103.8 104.2 104.0 104.7 104.8 104.9 104.9 105.3 105.3
93.2
156.0
93.2
156.0
93.2
155.5
92.5
155.5
92.7
155.0
94.9
155.0
94.9
154.9
94.9
154.7
95.0
155.1
93.7
155.2
94.3
155.1
94.7
155.1
94.7
155.0
94.4
155.1
94.4
148.3
Nonmetalllc minerals—structural________
Flat glass____________________ ____
Concrete ingredients____ ____________
Concrete products___________________
Structural clay products______________
Gypsum products____ _______________
Prepared nsphalt roofing______________
Other nonmetalllc minerals___________
137.7 137. 5
135. 2 135. 2
140.2 140.2
129.1 3129.0
159.9 159.6
133.1 133.1
119.8 119.8
132.7 131.7
137.2
135.2
140.2
128.6
159.3
133.1
118.5
131.4
136.9
135. 2
139.2
128. 4
158.8
133.1
118.5
131.4
136.7
135.0
139.1
128.1
158.4
133 1
118.5
131.2
136.7
135.0
139.1
128.1
158.2
133.1
118.5
131.2
136.7
135.0
139.1
127. 9
158.2
133.1
118.5
131.2
135.2
135.3
139.1
128.1
155.6
133.1
103.3
131.2
135.3
135.7
139.0
128.4
155.6
133.1
103.3
131.2
135.2
135.7
138.9
128.3
155.6
133.1
103.3
131.2
135.4
135.7
139.0
128.2
155.6
133.1
106.1
131.2
135. 4
135.7
138.9
127.9
155. 5
133.1
107.2
131.2
135.3
135. 7
138.7
127.9
155. 5
133.1
107.2
131.1
136.0
135.4
139.0
128.1
156.5
132.1
112.8
131.2
134.6
135. 7
136.0
126.4
154.0
127.1
122.3
128.0
Tobacco manufactures and bottled bev
erages............................................ ...........
Cigarettes.....................................................
C ig a rs........................................................
Other tobacco manufactures.....................
Alcoholic beverages__________________
Nonalcoholic beverages_______________
132.1
134.8
106.6
150. 9
121.7
171.1
128.9
134.8
106.6
148.3
121.7
148.9
128.6
134.8
106.6
139.7
121.7
148.9
128.6
134.8
106.6
139.7
121.7
148.9
128.7
134.8
106.6
139.7
121.7
149.3
128.8
134.8
106.6
139.7
121.7
149.3
128.0
134.8
106.6
139.7
120. 1
149.3
128.0
134.8
106.6
139.7
120.1
149.3
128.0
134.8
106.6
139.7
120.1
149.3
128.0
134.8
106.6
139.7
120.1
149.3
128.0
134.8
106.6
139.7
120.1
149.3
128.0
134.8
106.6
139.7
120.1
149.3
128.0
134.8
106.6
139.7
120.1
149.3
128.2
134,8
106.6
140.5
120.5
149.3
126.1
129.4
105.0
136.0
119.5
149.2
Miscellaneous products____________ ____ 97.0
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, and
ammunition________________ ______ 117.1
Manufactured animal feeds___________
79.6
Notions and accessories_______________ 97. 5
Jewelry, watches, and photographic
equipment_____ _________ _________ 108.2
Other 'miscellaneous products_________ 132.6
98.5
100.8
100.9
93.2
91.2
92.5
95.6
97.2
93.7
96.2
97.8
94.3
94.2
89.6
117.9
82.2
97.5
117.8
86.2
97.5
118.6
86.4
97.5
118.6
72.6
97.5
118.6
69.0
97.5
118.6
71.4
97.5
119.3
76.8
97.5
119.1
79.7
97.5
119.1
73.3
97.5
119.1
78.0
97.5
119.1
80.9
97.5
119.1
74.6
97.5
119.0
74.4
97.5
117.7
67.3
97.3
108.1
132.4
108.1
132.6
107.9
132.4
107.9
132.2
107.8
132. 2
107.7
132.4
107.7
132.4
107.8
132.3
107.8
132.6
107.3
132.4
107.3
132.4
107.4
131.9
107.6
132.2
107.5
128.4
1 See Note and footnote 1, table D-7.
J Preliminary.
*Revispd
‘ January 1958 “ 100.
T a ble
D-9.
‘Not available.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Indexes of wholesale prices for special commodity groupings 1
[1947-49=100]
1959
Annual
average
1958
Commodity group
M ar.2 Feb.
All foods......................................................................... .........
All fish.....................................................................................
Special metals and metal products.___ _____________
Metalworking machinery___________________________
Machinery and equipment____ _____________________
Agricultural machinery (Including tractors)......................
Total tractors___ _______________________ _________
Steel-mill products___ _________ ____ _________ ____ _
Construction materials ___________________________
Soaps____ _______________________________________
Synthetic detergents................................................... .........
Refined petroleum products.____ _________________ _
East Coast petroleum__________________ ________
Mid-continent petroleum_________ _______________
Gulf Coast petroleum________________ ________ _
Pacific Coast petroleum_________________________
Pulp, paper and products, excl. bldg, paper......... ...............
Bituminous coal, domestic sizes........................ ...................
Lumber and wood products, excl. millwork____________
1 See Note and footnote 1, table D-7.
2 Preliminary.
• Revised.
* This Index was formerly Building materials.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
104.1
128. 2
150.9
180.0
157. 1
144.8
153.3
188. 2
133.8
108.6
101.3
118.1
111.3
122.6
121.3
108.1
131. 6
125.3
123.6
105.4
133.7
150.7
178.7
156.9
144.5
153.1
188.4
3133. 3
109.2
101.3
117.6
111.3
120.1
121.3
112. 4
131. 3
128.9
3121.7
Jan.
Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. 19582 1957
106.3
135.4
150. 4
178.6
156.6
144.4
152.7
188.4
132.4
110. 5
101.3
115.8
110.0
117.7
120.3
109.4
131.2
128.9
119.2
106.3
134.8
150.4
178.2
156.3
143.9
152.5
188.3
132.0
108.6
101.3
114.3
109.3
116.6
117.6
107.5
130.0
126.3
118.3
107.4
128.3
150.4
177.8
155.9
142.5
150.1
188.3
132. 0
108.5
101.3
113.9
108.0
116.1
116.6
110.6
131.6
126.1
118.6
S ource:
108.3
129.6
148.8
177.4
155.4
139.9
148.2
187.6
132.1
108.5
101.3
114.6
108.0
118. 1
116.3
110.6
131.6
125.6
119.6
109.3
130.1
147.9
178.0
155.1
139.5
147.0
188.1
132.0
109.8
101.3
117.2
109.2
117.5
120.6
121.3
131.4
124.2
119.6
108. 5
129.9
147.5
178.1
155.0
138.4
146. 1
187.8
130.6
107.7
101.3
116.6
108.4
116.4
120.6
121.3
130.7
123.0
117.6
110.2
131.2
146.2
178.0
155.2
138. 9
147.0
183.0
129.6
107.7
101.3
114.1
107.7
112.0
119.7
118.3
130.6
120.8
115.4
110.6
131.5
146.3
178.0
155.2
138.7
146.8
183.0
129.5
107.7
101.3
111.9
108.6
112.0
114.3
112.2
130.1
118.8
114.9
111.7
128.6
146.1
178.0
155.0
138.7
146.8
183.1
129.2
109.0
101.0
111. 1
108.6
108 7
114.3
116.4
130.2
117.2
114.3
111.2
122.9
146.1
178.0
155.0
138.8
147.0
183. 1
129.0
109.0
101.0
112. 5
111.0
110.8
114.3
117.7
130.2
117.4
114.0
112.4
124.8
146.9
178.0
154.8
138.7
147.3
183.1
129.4
107.1
101.0
113.9
112.3
110.7
117.2
120.4
130.2
125.5
113.7
109.5
128. 5
147. 6
178.0
155.2
139.6
147.8
185.1
130.5
108.1
101.2
114.8
110.2
114.5
117.7
117.3
130.7
123.0
116.2
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
104.0
119.4
146.9
176.1
151.9
133.7
141.3
178.9
130.6
104.5
99.0
125.8
122.0
124.3
128.8
132.3
129.3
121.5
117.7
627
D.—CONSUMER AND WHOLESALE PRICES
T able D-10.
Indexes of wholesale prices, by stage of processing 1
[1947-49=100]
Annual
average
1958
1959
Commodity group
Dec. Nov. Oct.
M ar.2 Feb. Jan.
Sept. Aug. July
June May Apr. Mar. 19582 1957
119.6 119.5 119.5 119.2 119.2 119.0 119.1 119.1 119.2 119.2 119 5
98.9 98.0 98.1 97.0 98.4 98.0 98.4 99. 1 100.0 100.7 101.7
Crude materials for further processing................................
90.7 92.1 94.3 95.7 97.7
Crude foodstuffs and feedstufls....... - ........... —............. 89.9 89.0 89. 7 88.4 89.9 89.3 109.6
109.3 107.7 107.0 106.0
112.7 111.3 110.5 110.1 111.2 111.1
Crude nonfood materials except fuel--------------------Crude nonfood materials, except fuel, for manu
105.2 104.1
factoring-............................................ -................ 111.4 109.8 109.0 108.6 109.8 109.7 108.1 107.8 106.0
Crude nonfood materials, except fuel, for con
139.1 139. 1 139.1 139.0 138.9 139.0
struction------------------------------------------------- 140. 2 140.2 140.2 139.2 139.1
125.4 126.4 126.1 123.5 123.0 123.1 121.8 120.6 118.8 118.2 117.9
Crude fuel............................................................... .......
124.9 125.9 125.7 123. 1 122.6 122.7 121. 4 120.3 118.5 117.9 117. 6
126.3 127.2 126.7 124.1 123.6 123.7 122.3 121.1 119.2 118.5 118.3
All commodities-----------------------------------------------------
119.3 119. 7 119.2 117.6
100.3 101.5 99.4 97.2
95.4 96. 7 92.8 87.7
106.3 107. 1 108.4 ( 112. 5
104.4 105 3 106.8 111.5
138.9
117.9
117. 7
118.3
139.0
121.2
120. 9
121.8
138 7
123.4
123 0
124. 1
136.0
119.7
119. 4
120.1
126.3 126.3 125. 7 125.4 125.4 125.3 125.0 124.7 124.9 125.1 125.0 125.3 125.1
1 127.2 126.9
127.7 127.8 127.8 127.6 127.3 127.2 126.7 126.9 126.8 126.9 127
99.2 100.4 101.2 101.4 101.5 101.8 102.6 103.4 103.5 103.2 102.4 102.2 99.9
Intermediate materials, supplies, and components........... 126.7 126.5
Intermediate materials and components for manu
facturing.. .......................... —-— -------- --------------- 128.2 3128.0
97.7 98.5
Intermediate materials for nondurable manu
facturing..................................................
— 105.2 104.8
Intermediate materials for durable manufacturing 157.6 157.1
Components for manufacturing.............. —............ 151.1 3151.0
Materials and components for construction................ 135.7 3135.3
Processed fuels and lubricants....................... - .............. 107.4 106.8
Processed fuels and lubricants for manufacturing.. 106.6 106.2
Processed fuels and lubricants for nonmanufactur
ing Industry.......................
- 108.7 108.0
Containers, nonreturnable---------------------------------- 137.8 138.0
Supplies....................- ----------- ------ ---------------------- 117.2 117.6
Supplies for manufacturing....................................- 141.6 3141.3
Supplies for nonmanufacturing industry............... 105.6 106.2
78.7 80.9
Manufactured animal feeds---------------------Other supplies..............................- .................. . 121.3 121.1
Finished goods (goods to users, including raw foods and
fuels)................................—...... .....................................— 120.5 120.7
112.6 112.9
Consumer finished goods----------------------------------105.5 106.8
Consumer foods----------------------------------------89.2 3 94.0
Consumer crude foods---------------------------109. 0 109.3
Consumer processed foods----------------------113. 7 113.1
Consumer other nondurable goods----------------126.4 3126.4
Consumer durab’e goods-----------------------------152.7 152.4
Producer finished goods ---------------------------------157.
6 157.2
Producer goods for manufacturing industries---Producer goods for nonmanufacturing Industries. . 148.5 148.4
104.5
156.6
150.8
134.5
105.9
105.3
104.5
156.6
150.7
134.2
105.6
105.0
104.3
156.6
150.7
134.1
105.4
104.8
104.2
150.2
150.2
134.2
105.6
104.9
104.1
155.4
. 149. 8
133.7
107. 7
106.6
104.2
155.0
149.5
132.7
107.6
106.5
104.3
152.9
149.5
132.1
106.0
105.1
104.5
152.9
149.4
132. 1
105.0
104.5
104.6
152.9
149.0
132.0
104.6
104.2
105.0
152.9
148.5
131.8
105.4
105.0
105.2
153. 6
148.8
131.9
106.1
105.7
104.7
154.3
149. 5
132.9
106. 5
105.8
105. 7
153. 2
148. 3
132.9
113.0
111. 2
106.9
137.8
118. 7
140.6
107.9
85.2
121.1
106.6
138. 7
118.6
140. 5
107.9
85. 6
120.9
106.5
138.0
114.9
140.3
103.0
72.4
120.9
106.9
137.9
113.5
140.5
101.0
66.9
121.0
109.6
137.7
113.7
139.3
101.8
69.5
120.7
109.5
137.7
114.8
138.2
103. 5
74. C
120.9
107.6
137.5
116.1
139.1
105. C
77.7
121.0
106.0
137. 4
114.6
139.4
102.9
71.7
121.2
105. 4
137.5
116.3
139.6
105. 1
76.9
121.6
106.2
137.1
117.3
140 6
106. 1
79.8
121.6
107.0
137 0
115. 6
140.4
103. 7
73.4
121. 5
107.7
137.4
115.1
139.9
103.4
73.0
121.2
116.0
134 3
112. 5
137.6
101.1
67. 6
120. 7
120.8
113. 1
107.8
95. 1
110.5
112. 7
126.4
152. 2
157.1
148.2
120.5
112.8
107.6
95. 5
110.2
112. 2
126.1
152.0
156. 7
148.0
120.6
113.0
108.5
97.8
110.9
112.0
126.0
151.6
156.3
147.5
120.6
113.3
109.6
100.6
111. 5
112.2
125.0
150.3
155.0
146.3
120.9
113.7
110. É
100.6
113.0
112.2
124.6
150.1
154.8
146.1
120.6
113. £
110. C
94.1
113. £
112. (
124.7
150. (
154. 6
146.2
120.8
113.7
111.5
95.7
114.8
111.4
124.7
150. (
154.6
146.0
120.7
113.6
111.6
93.2
115.5
111.0
124.7
150. 0
154.7
146.0
121.0
113.9
112.5
102.4
114.7
1109
124.7
150.0
154.7
146.0
120.9
113.7
111.9
105.9
113.3
111 1
124.8
150. 1
154.7
146.3
121.4
114 4
113 1
117.3
112. 4
111.5
124.9
150.0
154. 5
146.3
120.8
113. 5
110. 5
101.0
112.6
111. 7
125.0
150.3
155.0
146.4
118.1
I l t. 1
104.5
95.0
106. 4
112.4
123. 3
146. 7
151. 2
142.9
rso T n : f o r a u e s c n p u u u ui m ra c
t See footnote 1, table D-7.
* Preliminary.
1 Revised.
kuco
,
—
------
Indexes of Wholesale Prices, Monthly Labor Review, December 1955 (p.
1448).
flnrrp/yir* TT s n e m rtm m t of Lahor. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
T able D -ll.
Indexes of wholesale prices, by durability of product
[1947-49=100]
Annual
average
1958
1959
Commodity group
M ar.1 Feb.
All commodities---------------------------------Total durable goods-----------------------Total nondurable goods-------------------Total manufactures--------------------------Durable manufactures--------------------Nondurable manufactures ...................
Total raw or slightly processed goods----Durable raw or slightly processed goods
Nondurable raw or slightly processed
goods___________________________
1Preliminary.
* Revised.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
119.6 119.5
145.4 145.1
105.5 105.5
125.4 2125.3
146.4 2146.2
108.8 108.7
100.1 100.2
116.2 115.5
99.2
99.3
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
Sept.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
19581
1957
119.5
144.7
105.7
125.2
145.8
108.9
100.3
113.4
119.2
144. 5
105.4
125.1
145.6
108.8
99.5
111.7
119.2
144.4
105.5
124.8
145.4
108.4
100.6
114.4
119.0
143.7
105.6
124.5
144.7
108.5
100.8
113.7
119.1
143.2
106.1
124.6
144.3
109.1
101.0
111.5
119.1
142.8
106.2
124.6
143.9
109.4
100.6
111.7
119.2
142.1
106.8
124.6
143.3
109.8
101.3
106.8
119.2
142.1
106.8
124.5
143.3
109.7
101.4
106.1
119.5
141.9
107.3
124.5
143.2
109.7
103.1
102.9
119.3
141.9
107.1
124.5
143.3
109.6
102.6
103.1
119.7
142.2
107.5
124.3
143.4
109.2
104.9
105.9
119.2
142.8
106.4
124. 5
144.0
109.2
101.6
108.3
117.6
141.4
104.7
123.2
142.0
108.4
98.9
122.3
99.6
98.8
99.8
100.0
100.4
100.0
101.0
101.2
103.2
102.6
104.8
101.2
97.7
N ote: For a description of these series and data beginning with 1947, see
Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, 1957, BLS Bull. 1235 (1958).
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
628
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
E.—Work Stoppages
T a ble
E -l.
Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1
Number of stoppages
Workers Involved in stoppages
Man-days Idle during month
or year
Month and year
Beginning In
month or year
1935-39 (average)
1947-49 (average)
1945
........
1946
........
1947
____
1948
........
1949
........
1950..
. .................. ....................
1951......................
1952..
. ......
1953..
........
1954
........
1955
.................... .................... ....................
1956
........
1957
........
1958: March 1____
April 2_____
May *_____
June 2_____
July »_____
A ugust!__ .
September s_
October 2......
November 2..
December 2. .
1959: January 2__
February 2.
March 2___
2, 862
3. 573
4, 750
4,985
3, 693
3,419
3, 606
4, 843
4,737
5,117
5,091
3, 468
4, 320
3, 825
3,673
200
275
350
350
350
300
400
300
200
150
225
200
250
1 The data Include all known work stoppages Involving six or more workers
and lasting a full day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and
man-days idle cover ail workers made idle for as long as one shift in establish
ments directly Involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or
secondary effects on other establishments or industries whose employees sire
made idle as a result of material or service shortages.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In effect dur
ing month
Beginning in
month or year
In effect dur
ing month
1,130, 000
2,380, 000
3, 470, 000
4, 600, 000
2,170, 000
1, 960, 000
3,030, 000
2, 410, 000
16,900,000
39, 700, 000
38,000, 000
116,000. 000
34, 600, 000
34,100, 000
50, 500, 000
38, 800, 000
22, 900, 000
59, 100. 000
28,300, 000
22, 600. 000
28,200, 000
33, 100, 000
16, 500,000
2 , 220 , 000
3, 540, 000
2, 400, 000
1, 530, 000
2, 650, 000
1,900, 000
1,390,000
300
375
475
500
525
475
575
525
400
300
165, 000
200.000
150, 000
160, 000
160, 000
140. 000
400. 000
450, 000
225,000
60, 000
250, 000
240.000
250.000
500, 000
525, 000
300, 000
180.000
325
300
350
75.000
75, 000
90.000
150.000
140.000
150.000
110, 000
Number
160, 000
200 , 000
1,200. 000
1, 250, 000
2 , 000 , 000
1, 650, 000
1, 700,000
2,000, 000
Percent of esti
mated working time
0.27
.46
.47
1.43
.41
.37
.59
.44
.23
.57
.26
.21
.26
.29
.14
.13
.13
.21
.18
.18
.22
2, 500, 000
5, 250, 000
2, 500, 000
.28
.53
.30
2, 000,000
.23
1, 000,000
.11
2, 000,000
1, 500, 000
.21
.18
* Preliminary.
in u t b .
r u r a u e s c n p u o n oi uns series, see recnmques oi .preparing Major
BL8 Statistical Series, BL8 Bull. 1168 (1954).
S o u r c e : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
629
F.—BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
T able F-2.
Contract awards: Public construction, by ownership and type of construction 1
Value (in millions of dollars)
Ownership and type of construction
Feb.
Total public construction.......................
Federally owned 2__________________
Residential buildings .....................
Nonresidential buildings------------Educational.................. .............
Hospital and Institutional........
Administrative and service----Other nonresidential buildings.
Airfield buildings................
Troop housing__________
Warehouses_____________
All other_______________
Airfields 3...................... ....................
Conservation and development---Highways_____________________
Electric'power....... ............. ............
All other federally owned________
State and locally o w n ed ____________
Residential buildings___________
Nonresidential buildings________
Educational______________ _
Hospital and institutional.......
Administrative and service----Other nonresidential buildings.
Highways_____________________
Sewer and water systems.................
Sewer_____________________
W ater_____________________
Public service enterprises-----------Electric power______________
Other_____________________
Conservation and development---All other State and locally ow ned...
1958
1959
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
812.6
718.4
847.3
986.8
111.1
.7
37.1
2.9
3.0
4.1
27.1
12.6
1.2
.7
12.6
17.5
46.4
.5
1.7
7.2
607.3
16.0
208.6
149.1
29.7
10.3
19.5
249.3
106.4
52.5
53.9
14.3
7.4 !
6.9
6.0
6.7
136.4
3.2
73.4
1.3
12.6
10.3
49.2
22.4
5.2
1.4
20.2
23.7
19.2
3.2
4.2
9.5
710.9
34.7
226.1
144.1
15.1
18.7
48.2
320.5
94. <
51.4
43.0
15.3
9.5
5.8
8.0
11.9
238.3 111.9
2.2
7.8
87.7
39.3
8.2
3.2
3.4
22.4
15.9
10.8
41.2
21.9
5.9
11.0
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.8
27.7
13.1
28.1
14.7
51.5
17.0
2.0
2.0
31.0
26.9
4.2
35.8
748.5 700.7
20.1
26.9
271.9 246.0
178.2 162.0
20.2
14.4
45.2
40.8
28.3
28.8
343.6 336.3
82.1
67.0
56.2
51.8
25.9
15.2
13.6
10.9
8.8
6. 1
4.8
4.8
10.9
5.8
6.3
7.8
Oct.
Aug.
July
June
May
Apr.
Mar.
954.4 1,177. 7 1.277.6 1, 252.1 1, 812. 8 1,608. 0 1,165. 5 941.5
121.0
22.7
41.5
.8
.8
10.4
29.5
1.5
4.3
.1
23.6
11.4
29.4
9.9
1.0
5.1
833.4
31.7
286.7
196.6
17.3
28.1
44.7
387. 5
74.9
50.5
24.4
21.8
6. C
15.8
12.5
18.3
i Includes major force account projects started (construction done directly
by a government agency using a separate work force to perform nonmainte
nance construction on the agency’s own property).
s Includes construction contracts awarded under Lease-Purchase pro
grams which terminated with P.L. 85-844, approved August 28, 1958.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Sept.
223.6 166.8 695. 2 474.2
222.7
52.4
42.4 101.3
86.4
115.1
54.6
44.8 239.8 184.9
28.3
2.2
5.0
1.8
.6
13.8
.4
1.2
11.2
27.0
.1
14.0
29. 1
6.9
1.2
37.8
28.6 177.0 123.8
50.0
20.7
9.0
.4
11.9
37.7
63.6
22.5
5.7
3.9
36.2
1.8
9.2
1.8
1.6
10.2
.9
54.4
14.1
30.6
67.0
17.6
53.2 150.3 120.3
21.4
2.7
23.2
23.3
6.1 133. 1 73.9
25.4
3.4
9.3
11.8
8.0
13.1
1.9
6.3
13.9
18.2
3.9
4.7
31.4
17.8
55.9
955.0 1,054. 0 1,085.3 1,117.6 1,133. 8
70.3
31.9
35.8
67.6
64.8
325.9 327.0 335.6 355.9
271.0
227.1 225.1 212 3 229.2
197.3
36.4
31.4
36.7
19.6
55.8
53.4
35.8
34.8
40.6
25.7
36.9
28.4
32.6
29. 4 26.9
519. C 625. 6 461.0 418.8
420.2
91.0 116.1 104.7 129.2
76.6
77.3
74. 5 73.1
66.9
49.3
56. 1
24. 1 38.8
30.2
27.3
55.4 114.0 137.4
89.4
53.9
84.2 107.3
69.4
21.2
18.9
36.5
30.1
29.8
20.0
32.7
6.4
9.0
17. 1
12.2
12.0
15.8
16.2
20.3
17.6
21.0
273.9
29.2
122.8
6.3
12.9
24. 7
78.9
38. 1
8.0
3. 5
29 3
29 7
68. 5
9.9
3.4
10. 4
891.6
47.2
326.5
208.8
32.5
40. 5
44. 7
365.5
95.9
66.0
29.9
24.5
12.1
12.4
15.7
16.3
Feb.
1958
1957
Total
Total
822.6 13, 508.1 11,473.8
189.7 121.9 2,959. 4 2, 317.3
406.2
592.0
52.0
33.0
776. 5
22. 2 987.7
79.0
3.2
48. 4
51. 7
5. 8
78. 9
95.2
.3
14. 7
183.9
148. 3
6. 4
16.2
500. 9
12. 3 656. 9
42.3
98. 9
1.9
196.7
13.9
89.3
60 9
.5
4.0
35. 0
36. 5
4. 4
1.0
334.4
306 1
8.9
20.0
182.2
475.6
17.5
18.0
475. 2
563. 8
28.5
12.7
91. 5
5. 4
95. 5
3.6
140.3
137.8
16.6
4.0
156. 8
8.1
195. 6
11.0
751.8 700.7 10,548. 7 9,156. 5
479. 7
326. 7
30.9
30.7
311.0 279.2 3, 576. 2 3, 409.4
213.2 188.3 2,407. 6 2, 450. 5
17.9
334. 5
287.1
37.3
315. 4
48. 4 455. 6
31.6
356. 4
28. 9 24. 6 378. 5
291.4 213 2 4,489. 3 3, 825.1
80.4
66 9 1,050.0 1, 034. 2
619. 4
48.9
37 9 708.2
414.8
19 0 341.8
31.5
364. 2
24.4 108.2
669.5
450.0
200.1
6.1 102.9
164.1
219.5
18.3
6.3
112.7
123.3
3.4
7.6
84. 2
5.0
160.7
10.3
3 Beginning with January 1958, includes missile launching facilities which
were previously included under All other federally owned.
S o urce : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S.
Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration.
630
T able
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, MAY 1959
F-6.
Number of new permanent nonfarm dwelling units started, by ownership and location,
and construction cost 1
Number of new dwelling units started
Period
Total
Privately Publicly
owned
owned
1,396, 000
1,091,300
l, 127,000
1, 103, 800
1. 220,400
1,328,900
1.118, 100
1,041.900
1,209, 400
1,352, 200
1,020,100
1,068, 500
1.068, 300
1,201,700
1,309.500
1,093,900
992, 800
1,141, 500
1954: First quarter...... .............. .
236, 800
Second quarter_____ ____ _ 332, 700
Third quarter____________
346,000
Fourth quarter_____ _____ 304, 900
1955: First q u arter........................ 291,300
Second quarter....................
404,100
Third quarter___ ________ 362, 300
Fourth quarter___________
271, 200
252, 100
1956: First quarter___________ _
January_______________
75, 100
78, 400
February...____________
March_________________
98,600
Second quarter___________
332, 500
A pril.................................... 111,400
M ay________ __________ 113, 700
June....................... ............. 107, 400
Third quarter____________
298, 900
July— ............... ...............
101,100
August______ __________ 103,900
September___ ____ _____
93, 900
Fourth quarter___________ 234,600
October_______________
93, 600
November_____________
77, 400
December______ _____ _
63,600
1957: First quarter_____________
217,000
January__________ _____
64,200
February______________
65,800
M arch_________________
87,000
Second quarter___________
296,600
April_________ _________
93. 700
M ay..................................... 103,000
June............ .........................
99,900
Third quarter...... .............. .
289, 700
J u ly ................... .................
97,800
August.............................
100, 000
September...........................
91,900
Fourth quarter......................
238, 600
October...............................
97, 000
November...........................
78, 200
December______ _______
63,400
1958: First quarter_____________ 215, 400
January_______________
67, 900
February______________
66. 100
M arch__________ ___
81,400
Second quarter_____ _____ 3 320, 600
April_______ . . . . . .
99,100
M ay____ _____________
108,500
June_____________ _____ 3 113,000
Third quarter. _ ________
357, 800
J u ly .................................... 112,800
Aueust ............................... 124,000
S e p te m b e r _____________
121, 000
Fourth quarter 3_________
315, 600
October................................
115,000
November_____________
109, 400
D e c e m b e r 3__ ________
91, 200
1959: F i r s t q u a r t e r 4____ ______ 295,000
86, 000
January 4______________
February 4________ ____
89,000
March 4________________ 120, 000
232, 200
326. 500
339, 300
303, 700
288, 000
397,000
357, 800
266, 700
244, 600
73, 700
77, 000
93, 900
325,300
109, 900
110,800
104,600
292,900
99, 000
103,200
90, 700
231,100
91,200
77,000
62, 900
202, 600
60,100
63, 100
79, 300
282, 800
91.400
96,900
94,500
280, 900
93,900
96,800
90,200
226,600
88, 400
75, 700
62, 600
201,200
62, 900
61,000
77, 300
296,800
94,200
101,300
101, 300
334,100
108,600
114, 600
110, 900
309, 400
112,900
107,000
89, 500
288, 200
83. 300
87,900
117,000
1950......................................................
1951......................................................
7952.....................................................
1953.....................................................
1 954...................................................
1955......................................................
1956......................................................
1957 ....................................................
1958 3___ ____ _________________
Metro Nonmetro North North
politan
politan
east Central South
places
places
43, 800 1,021,600
71, 200
776,800
58, 500
794, 900
35, 500
803, 500
896, 900
18, 700
19, 400
975, 800
24, 200
779,800
49,100
699, 700
67,900
827, 000
4,600
6,200
6,700
1,200
3,300
7,100
4,500
4,500
7, 500
1,400
1,400
4,700
7,200
1,500
2. 900
2,800
6,000
2,100
700
3,200
3, 500
2, 400
400
700
14, 500
4,100
2, 700
7, 700
13, 800
2,300
6,100
6, 400
8,800
3,900
3,200
1,700
12,000
8,600
2,500
900
14,200
5,000
5, 100
4,100
3 23,800
4, 900
7,200
3 11, 700
23, 700
4, 200
9, 400
10,100
6,200
2,100
2,400
1,700
6, 800
2,700
1,100
3,000
174, 300
244,000
252, 800
225, 800
221, 800
294, 800
263,400
195, 800
183,800
54, 300
57,600
71, 900
228,300
76, 200
77,600
74, 500
202, 900
69, 700
70, 900
62,300
164, 800
64,900
54, 800
45, 100
149,100
44, 000
46, 600
58, 500
200,300
63, 500
68,200
68, 600
192, 600
63,400
67, 700
61,500
157, 700
61, 800
52, 500
43. 400
143, 700
44, 500
44, 400
54, 800
218,100
67, 400
73, 900
76, 800
248,400
80,600
82, 800
85, 000
216, 800
79,100
73,900
63, 800
203, 600
60, 800
61, 500
81, 300
1 Excludes temporary units, conversions, dormitory accommodations,
trailers, and military barracks; includes prefabricated housing if permanent.
These estimates are based on (1) monthly building permit reports adjusted
for lapsed permits and for lag between permit issuance and the start of con
struction, (2) continuous field surveys in nonpermit-issuing places, and (3)
reports of public construction contract awards.
Private construction costs are based on permit valuation adjusted for
understatement of costs shown on permit applications. Public construction
costs are based on contract values or estimated construction costs for Indi
vidual projects.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Estimated construction cost >
(in thousands)
Location
374,000
314, 500
332, 100
300, 300
323, 500
353, 100
338, 300
342, 200
382, 400
West
Total
Privately
owned
$11, 788, 595 $11,418,371
(2)
9, 800, 892
9,186,123
(2)
10, 208,983
9, 706, 276
(2)
10, 488,003 10, 181,185
(2)
291, 800 12, 478, 237 12, 309,200
310, 800 14. 544,647 14, 345, 829
252,000 13,077,027 12, 814, 776
241, 700 12, 693, 995 12,126, 800
295, 600 14,499,360 13, 678,459
0
0
0
0
243, 100
273, 100
228. 800
195, 500
210, 900
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
325, 800
356, 000
303. 100
258, 400
289, 600
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
359, 700
389, 000
334, 200
346,300
413, 300
62,500 47, 400
88, 700 67,300
93, 200 72, 500
79, 100 55, 900
69, 500 53,100
109,300 89, 100
98.900 75, 400
75, 400 55, 500
68, 300 45, 700
20, 800 12, 400
20, 800 14, 400
26, 700 18, 900
104, 200 72, 300
35, 200 23, 400
36,100 24, 700
32, 900 24, 200
96,000 61, 800
31,400 21,800
33,000 20,800
31, 600 19, 200
69, 800 49,000
28, 700 20,100
22, 600 16, 500
18,500 12, 400
67, 900 33,800
20, 200
9, 300
19,200
9. 700
28,500 14,800
96, 300 60, 700
30, 200 19,900
34, 800 20,900
31,300 19, 900
97,100 57,900
34, 400 19,200
32, 300 21, 800
30,400 16,900
80,900 43,100
35,200 19, 500
25,700 13,800
9.800
20,000
71, 700 3 27,300
23, 400 3 8, 000
21, 700
7,000
26, 600 12, 300
3 102, 500 63, 800
31, 700 18, 900
34, 600 23, 400
3 36,200 21, 500
109, 400 65, 800
32,200 19, 600
41, 200 22, 200
36, 000 24, 000
98, 800 54, 000
35, 900 19, 900
35,500 20,800
27,400 13, 300
91, 400
0
25, 200
(2)
27, 500
(2)
38, 700
(2)
52,700
98, 400
97, 800
76, 900
63. 400
116,600
108,000
68, 000
58, 200
15, 700
16, 400
26,100
98, 100
33,600
33, 300
31, 200
87, 200
29, 900
29, 200
28,100
59, 600
26,200
19, 200
14, 200
46,800
10, 700
14,000
22,100
77,200
23, 700
25, 700
27,800
79,300
27,000
27,300
25,000
55,100
24, 200
17, 400
13, 500
3 40,300
3 11,100
11,200
18,000
79,400
25, 700
27,000
26,700
91, 600
28,600
30, 700
32, 300
78, 300
31, 800
28, 900
17, 600
0
(2)
(2)
(2)
77,600 59,100
90, 900 76,100
99,900 75,800
91, 300 80,800
95,900 78,900
109, 700 88,700
99,400 79, 500
84,000 63, 700
83, 200 65,000
27, 200 19,800
26, 800 20,800
29, 200 24, 400
93, 200 68,900
31,100 23, 300
32, 800 22, 900
29, 300 22, 700
86, 500 63, 400
27,700 21, 700
30, 700 23, 200
28,100 18, 500
71,300 54, 700
27,500 19, 800
22, 700 19,000
21,100 15,900
80,000 56, 400
26,000 18.200
24, 600 17, 500
29, 400 20,700
92, 800 65,900
28,100 22,000
33.700 22,700
31,000 21,200
91, 200 61,300
31, 500 20,100
31,000 19. 900
28, 700 21,300
82,300 58,100
30,100 23,200
28,200 18, 800
24.000 16,100
88,100 59, 700
28,700 20,100
28, 700 19, 200
30, 700 20, 400
103,300 3 74,100
33,000 21, 500
32. 600 25,500
37, 700 3 27,100
117, 900 82, 500
36,200 28, 400
42, 400 28, 700
39,300 25,400
104, 000 79,300
36,300 27, 000
34,600 25,100
33,100 27, 200
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
0
2,240, 448
2,199, 446
3, 454. 571
3. 398, 898
3, 590, 366
3, 528, 471
3,192, 852
3, 182,385
3,076,198
3, 043, 959
4, 416, 285
4, 349,159
4,025, 441
3, 981, 182
3,026, 723
2,971, 529
2,846,008
2, 761, 446
814, 448
800. 665
887,138
871. 700
1,144,422
1, 089,081
3, 923, 607
3. 844,192
1, 309,175
1, 293, 488
1,346, 587
1, 312, 890
1, 267, 845
1,237, 814
3, 532,193
3, 471, 787
1, 201.139
1,179, 266
1, 227, 269
1, 222, 281
1,103, 785
1,070, 240
2, 775, 219
2, 737, 351
1,103,963
1,078,142
930, 642
925, 991
740,614
733, 218
2,609,458
2,432, 406
752, 234
704,917
784,019
751,813
1,073, 205
975,676
3, 645, 531
3, 479, 262
1,152,166
1,123, 385
1,264,385
1,191,789
1, 228,980
1,164,088
3, 535, 278
3, 443,443
1,198,141
1.154, 771
1, 207, 763
1,176, 600
1,129,374
1,112,072
2, 903, 728
2, 771,689
1,195,309
1, 098, 140
946, 481
921, 444
761,938
752, 105
3 2, 545, 836 3 2,381,075
3 792, 338
3 73L 414
781,091
718, 862
3 972, 407
924, 799
3 3,887, 966
3,606,142
3 1,192,669
1,136; 659
1, 323, 709
1,237, 717
3 1, 371, 588
1.231, 766
3 4,298,122
3, 998; 531
1, 362,890
1,311,702
1,466,281
1. 346, 297
3 1, 468, 951
1, 340, 532
3, 767,436
3, 692', 711
1, 405,196
1,378; 326
1,298, 532
1,269,279
1, 063, 708
1,045,106
3, 505, 085
3, 428, 785
1, 007, 875
978; 775
1,058, 810
1,046,010
1,438, 400
1,404, 000
Publicly
owned
$370, 224
614, 769
502; 707
306, 818
169; 037
198, 818
262, 251
567; 195
820; 901
41,002
55, 673
61, 895
10,467
32, 239
67; 126
44, 259
55,194
84, 562
13, 783
15, 438
55,341
79, 415
15,687
33,697
30,031
60, 406
21,873
4, 988
33, 545
37,868
25,821
4, 651
7,396
177,052
47; 317
32, 206
97, 529
166, 269
28; 781
72, 596
64, 892
91, 835
43,370
31,163
17 302
132 039
97,169
25,037
9 833
3164 761
54, 924
62, 229
3 47 608
3 281 824
3 56, 010
85 992
3 139 822
3 299, 591
51,188
119,984
3 128 419
74 725
26, 870
29,253
18 602
76, 300
29,100
12 800
34, 400
3 Not available.
3 Revised.
4 Preliminary.
N ote: For a description of these series, see Techniques of Preparing
Major BLS Statistical Series, BLS Bull. 1168 (1954).
Source; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PR IN TI NG O F F I C E : 1 9 5 9
New Publications Available
For Sale
Order sale publications from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Office, Washington 25, D.C. Send check or money order, payable to the Superintendent
of Documents. Currency sent at sender’s risk. Copies may also be purchased from any
of the Bureau’s regional offices. (See inside front cover for the addresses of these offices.)
BLS Bull. 1224-20: Wages and Related Benefits, 19 Labor Markets, 1957-58.
93 pp. 50 cents.
BLS Bull. 1240-6: Occupational Wage Survey, Boston, Mass., October 1958.
27 pp. 25 cents.
BLS Bull. 1240-8: Occupational Wage Survey, Philadelphia, Pa., November
1958. 25 pp. 30 cents.
For Lim ited Free Distribution
Single copies of the reports listed below are furnished without cost as long as supplies
permit. Write to Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington 25,
D.C., or to any of the Bureau’s regional offices. (See inside front cover for the addresses
of these offices.)
BLS Report No. 141: Wage Structure—Auto Dealer Repair Shops, Summer
1958. 32 pp.
BLS Report No. 144: Factory Workers’ Earnings, May 1958; initial report.
22 pp.
Foreign Labor Information: Labor in Turkey.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
37 pp.
U nited States
G overnment P rinting Office
DIVISION
or
PU BLIC DOCUM ENTS
W a sh in g t o n
25, D.C.
OFFICIAL B U S IN E S S
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P E N A L T Y F O R P R I V A T E U S E T O A V O ID
PAYMENT OF P O STAGE, * 3 0 0
IG PO )
@FedFRASER