Full text of Monthly Labor Review : November 1972, Volume 95, Number 11

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

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

/I\l/'

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
November 1972
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics

In this issue:
New directions
in grievance handling
and arbitration

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
James D. Hodgson, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner
Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is for sale by
the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
and by the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402
Subscription price per year —
$9 domestic: $11.25 foreign.
Single copy 75 cents.
Correspondence regarding subscriptions
should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents.
Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D. C. 20212
Phone: (202) 961-2327.
Use of funds for printing this publication
approved by the Director of the Bureau
of the Budget (October 31, 1967)

Region I — Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II — New York: Herbert Bienstock
1515 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 971-5405
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Frederick W. Mueller
406 Penn Square Building, 1317 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Phone: (215) 597-7796
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: Brunswick A. Bagdon
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: (404) 526-5416
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: William E. Rice
8th Floor, 300 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, III. 60606
Phone: (312) 353-1880
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Jack Strickland
1100 Commerce Street, Room 6B7,
Dallas, Texas 75202
Phone: (214) 749-3516
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

November cover:
“ An Archer Drawing his Bow,”
a late 14th century drawing
attributed to the Master of the Parement de Narbonne,
from the collection of Christ Church, Oxford,
exhibited at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.


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

Regions VII and V III — Kansas City: E lliott A. Browar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556-3178
IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Editor-in-Chief, Herbert C. Morton
Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern

New directions in grievance handling and arbitration

W. J. Usery, Jr.

3

Some attempts to reduce arbitration costs and delays
Experimental training programs in the public sector
may ease shortage of acceptable neutrals and reduce delays

Ben Fischer

7

Arbitration: the steel industry experiment
New regional procedure in the steel industry has
sped up awards and cut costs in ‘routine’ cases

S. Kagel, J. Kagel

11

Using two new arbitration techniques
Mediation-arbitration can promote settlement of contract disputes;
factfinding can speed handling of grievances

James F. Power

15

Improving arbitration: Roles of parties and agencies
The FMCS and other agencies can suggest improvements in arbitration,
but labor and management have prime responsibility for making changes

W. J. Kilberg, T. Angelo, L. Lorber

23

Grievance and arbitration patterns in the Federal service
Labor and management are working out a grievance system
within the confines of Civil Service law and regulations

Other articles

P. A. Armknecht, J. F. Early

31

Quits in manufacturing: a study of their causes
The rate of voluntary separations is a good economic indicator;
reasons for quitting are changeable and derive from workers’
attitudes toward the economy

William V. Deutermann

38

Educational attainment of workers, March 1972
Special Labor Force Report shows that the proportion of workers
with 12 years of school continues to increase

R. R. Nelson, J. L. Doster

43

City employee representation and bargaining policies

Donald L. Breneman

51

American Federation of Government Employees 23d convention

Carl A. Batlin

53

United Steelworkers of America convention

Howard Carpenter

55

France curbs its temporary work agencies


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

Departments

2
51
55
59
64

66
71
85
86

Labor month in review
Union conventions
Foreign labor briefs
Significant decisions in labor cases
Major agreements expi ring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews and notes
Current labor statistics
New benchmarks introduced
NOVEMBER 1972

VOLUME 95,

NUMBER 11

Focus on grievances. In August 1971, a machine op­
erator filed a grievance protesting his discharge for
parking his car in a restricted area. This would seem
to be a fairly common routine complaint. Yet it
took 8 months before an arbitration award was
handed down in April 1972.
This 8-month countdown illustrates what many
commentators find wrong with grievance arbitration
today. Representatives of workers and management,
arbitrators, labor relations specialists, and govern­
ment officials all have called attention to such delays
and the costs that go with them. The consensus of
their investigations is that the problems of .grievance
arbitration are essentially procedural, that grievance
arbitration is still the useful system that in the past
made a massive contribution to industrial peace.
Five articles in this issue of the Monthly Labor
Review go beyond diagnosis to report on some possi­
ble remedies. Assistant Secretary of Labor W. J.
Usery reports on programs intended to reduce delays
and costs by developing a larger number of accepta­
ble arbitrators. James F. Power of the Federal Medi­
ation and Conciliation Service points out that labor
and management tend to use only a minority of the
qualified arbitrators available. For example, in fiscal
year 1972, the most experienced one-third of the
over 1,100 arbitrators on the FMCS roster were
preferred overwhelmingly by the parties to handle
most of the cases.
Accelerated arbitration. Another means to improve
grievance handling has been undertaken in the steel
industry. Ben Fischer, director of the Steelworkers’
Contract Administration Department, discusses a
2-year experiment in which “routine” cases are han­
dled in a special arbitration procedure which re­
quires hearings within 10 days and an award within
2


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

2 days of the hearing. Complex grievances still go to
regular arbitration, and there are safeguards to pre­
vent potentially complex cases from winding up in
the simplified procedure.
Factfinding. “Too often facts essential to settle a
grievance are not obtained until there is an arbitration
hearing.” West coast attorneys Sam and John Kagel
note in their article that . . union and employer too
often assume a litigious stance, with each adopting
the view, ‘my man, right or wrong.’ The results are
deadlocked grievances. . .
To avoid this, the Kagels suggest use of fact­
finding before a case goes to arbitration. This tech­
nique makes the parties sift through to what hap­
pened, stipulating where they agree and disagree.
Thus grievances become “mutual problems” and the
parties deal with events rather than emotions or face­
saving. This tends to shorten the time needed to
consider a complaint and to eliminate marginal ones.
Federal workers. The situation of Federal (and other
government) workers differs from that of workers in
the private sector because grievance procedures for
public employees are bound by civil service laws
and regulations. However, Executive orders have
carved out an area for bargaining between Federal
agencies and worker representatives. William Kilberg,
an associate solicitor of the U.S. Department of
Labor, and attorneys Thomas Angelo and Lawrence
Lorber report on nascent grievance procedures in
the Federal service as expressed in labor-manage­
ment contracts.
A recurring point in the articles is that labor and
management created and control grievance arbitra­
tion. Consequently, they must spearhead reform. Q

Experimental training programs
in the public sector
may ease shortage
of acceptable neutrals
w.

J. USERY JR.

Labor and management have accepted the griev­
ance procedure, culminating in final and binding ar­
bitration as preferable to the strike or lockout for
resolving disputes arising out of the interpretation of
labor contracts. Currently, almost 95 percent of all
collective bargaining contracts provide for a griev­
ance procedure with binding arbitration as the final
step. Few other procedures are so widely accepted in
the labor management field. Because private arbitra­
tion of labor-management disputes has been an effec­
tive substitute for strikes and lockouts, it is in the
public interest to encourage its growth and health.
Yet grievance handling and arbitration have devel­
oped problems, particularly at the plant level. In­
creasingly, employees appear to prefer direct action
to the methodical and prolonged deliberations of the
grievance-arbitration procedure. Approximately a
third of U.S. strikes occur while a collective agree­
ment is in force.1 While no one at present can sort
out the causes of these strikes, most experts agree
that many of them occur because the grievance pro­
cedure involves extensive delays, red tape, complica­
tions, and rising costs.
The parties most concerned with the outcome of a
grievance-arbitration proceeding—the worker, the
shop steward, and the foreman— are often the partic­
ipants left most in the dark once the grievance passes
the initial stage of negotiation. Even union and man­
agement officials in many cases sit passively while
attorneys iron out intricate legal questions which
often appear far removed from the issues in dispute.
In many cases, the time taken to resolve a grievance
is such that workers are dissatisfied, confused, and
frustrated even when they win the grievance. The
upshot of these growing problems is that a number
of public and private organizations have initiated
programs to improve grievance-arbitration.
W. J. Usery, Jr., is Assistant Secretary of Labor for LaborManagement Relations, U.S. Department of Labor.


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

Some attempts
to reduce
arbitration costs
and delays
This article reports on some initiatives undertaken
by the U.S. Department of Labor to contribute to
these efforts. The Department’s activities are focused
presently on the development of additional arbitra­
tors with the intent of reducing the delays and costs
which plague arbitration. As background to these
initiatives, it is useful to outline further some of the
current drawbacks to grievance-arbitration that have
evoked public and private efforts at improvement.
How much and how long?

The arbitration process in far too many cases has
become too legalistic, costly, and lengthy. Expenses
associated with most arbitration hearings today in­
clude: the arbitrator’s daily fee, which normally var­
ies between $150 and $225; the arbitrator’s travel
time and study time, normally paid at the daily rate;
the fees for the parties’ attorneys, which usually ex­
ceed the arbitrator’s fee; wage payments to plant
personnel who take part in the proceedings; rental of
a hearing room; payment to the American Arbitra­
tion Association for furnishing the parties a panel of
arbitrators, if the association is used; and steno­
graphic transcription costs, if a record of the hearing
is desired. For a 1-day hearing, total costs could run
as high as $1,000 for each of the parties.
Complete data are not available on the time it
takes to process a grievance from first-level negotia­
tions until an arbitration award is issued. However,
an examination of over 700 arbitration cases from
the records of the Federal Mediation and Concilia­
tion Service during July 1970 to June 1971 indicates
that cases averaged 251 days from the time the ini­
tial grievance was filed until an arbitration award
was rendered. The data further broke down into an
average of 83 days (almost 3 months) from the time
a grievance was filed until a request for an arbitra­
tion panel was received by the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service, and an average of 168 days
3

4

between the request and the arbitrator’s award.
One reason for the long time between request for
an arbitration panel and receipt of an arbitration
award is the pressing need for additional competent
arbitrators acceptable to labor and management. The
ranks of active arbitrators are dwindling because of
retirements and deaths and are not being refilled by
younger, acceptable arbitrators. For example, in
1952, the average age of members of the National
Academy of Arbitrators was 50; in 1969, it was 57.
Compounding the shortage problem is the increas­
ing demand for arbitrators. In the fiscal year ending
in June 1962, the Federal Mediation and Concilia­
tion Service received approximately 3,100 requests
for arbitration panels; in the year ending in June
1971, the number rose to over 12,000. The demand
for arbitrators appears on the increase not only in
the private sector but also in newly emerging collec­
tive bargaining in the public sector. Since strikes by
public employees are generally prohibited, arbitra­
tion of interest disputes is more widely used in the
public sector, and there are forecasts that the arbitra­
tion of negotiation impasses in the public sector will
continue to increase, primarily at the State and local
level.
Thus, the shortage of arbitrators and the deficien­
cies extant in the arbitration process threaten not
only the peaceful resolution of grievances, but also
the acceptance of voluntary arbitration of impasses
in contract negotiations. It seems imperative that the
arbitration process must be improved as an effective
means of reducing industrial conflict and of avoiding
costly strikes.
To improve the arbitration process as an effective
and acceptable means of reducing industrial conflict,
a two-pronged effort is needed: (1) Creation of sim­
plified, swift, and less expensive arbitration proce­
dures; and (2) training an adequate number of com­
petent and acceptable arbitrators to meet growing
demand.
The American Arbitration Association, the Fed­
eral Mediation and Conciliation Service, labor and
management in the steel industry, and others con­
cerned with this problem are experimenting with new
arbitration procedures and taking steps to increase
the supply of new arbitrators.
The American Arbitration Association in New
York has recently developed an expeditious and less
costly arbitration procedure. In it, parties do not
select their own arbitrators, the latter being chosen
by the association from a panel of qualified arbitra­

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

tors. Hearings are scheduled within a week or two,
and an award is handed down shortly thereafter.
Fridays are set aside for such hearings. The parties
must be ready when called, written briefs and steno­
graphic records are not permitted, and the arbitrators
are not required to write opinions accompanying
their awards. (Elsewhere in this issue of the Review,
the steel industry and Federal Mediation and Concil­
iation Service initiatives are discussed.)
Most of today’s active arbitrators obtained their
initial training, experience, and developed acceptabil­
ity in labor-management circles while working for
the National War Labor Board or the Wage Stabili­
zation Board. Most attempts to develop young arbi­
trators have failed because of a lack of trainers and
training facilities, a dearth of financial support for
training, and the inability of such programs to de­
velop acceptability of newly trained arbitrators. This
is a crucial failing, since acceptability is really the
name of the game in any program which attempts to
develop more arbitrators.2
Public impasses and neutrals

Rapidly growing public sector employee-manage­
ment relations provide an opportunity for further
experimentation with improving arbitration and fact­
finding. These experiments may develop new forms
of dispute settlement for the unique problems of the
public sector as well as provide solutions for prob­
lems that have arisen in the private sector.
The number of public employees more than dou­
bled during the 1948-72 period, increasing from 5.9
million to 12.8 million. Four-fifths of this growth
represented an increase in the number of State and
local government workers.3 Starting with Wisconsin
enactments in 1959 and President Kennedy’s Execu­
tive Order 10988 in the early 1960’s for Federal
employees, a number of executive and legislative pol­
icies affecting public employee labor-management re­
lations were enacted. By the end of 1970, 40 States
had legislation authorizing some form of formal em­
ployee relations covering some types of employees.
Eight States had no legislation and two States pro­
hibited such activities.
There are a number of reasons why labor relations
in the public sector provides a unique opportunity
for experimentation in the use of third-party neutrals
for the resolution of disputes. First, since public sec­
tor labor relations are relatively new, and the use of
neutrals also new, experiments can be undertaken

5

REDUCING ARBITRATION COSTS AND DELAYS

unencumbered by historical labor-management diffi­
culties and a tradition which inhibits innovation.
Second, many of the new State laws provide for
arbitration and factfinding, either by requiring them
in impasses or by encouraging the use of arbitration
to resolve grievances. Therefore, although the parties
may not have fully accepted the idea of arbitration
and factfinding, strong legislative encouragement
and, in some instances, requirements for the use of
arbitration and factfinding have resulted in and will
continue to increase the demand for more neutrals to
resolve disputes.
Third, the number of persons acting in a neutral
capacity in public sector labor relations is relatively
limited. Because of heavy workloads in private sector
disputes, many experienced neutrals are not available
for additional work assignments in the public sector.
It is therefore necessary to look to other sources for
persons to satisfy the considerable need for public
sector neutrals.
Within recent months, the Department of Labor
has undertaken a number of projects intended to
utilize the unique opportunity provided by the public
sector to implement and experiment with new forms
of dispute resolution. Each of these projects pos­
sesses obvious implications for application in the pri­
vate sector as well as in the emerging public sector.
Two of the major efforts of the Department are
training projects at the University of California at
Los Angeles and at Berkeley. Funded by the LaborManagement Services Administration, each of these
projects will provide a minimum of 15 candidates
with additional training and experience as third-party
neutrals in the public sector. Counterpart or ap­
prenticeship training for the candidates will be sup­
plemented by classroom training, particularly in
areas where the individual’s background is deficient.
The cooperation of arbitration and factfinding re­
ferral agencies has been assured to secure as much
immediate experience and exposure as possible for
the individuals once they have completed their train­
ing. The acceptability of the trainees by the parties
will be enhanced by a tripartite advisory group, the
prestige of the experienced arbitrator directing each
project, and the willingness of other experienced
arbitrators to assist with the apprenticeship training.
Although both projects have minority trainees, the
Berkeley project will place special emphasis on train­
ing such candidates. An attempt will be made to help
these individuals get initial experience in community
type disputes rather than in labor relations disputes.

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

The career ladder for a successful arbitrator or me­
diator is uncertain so this project will attempt to
influence career patterns by having minority group
neutrals acquire experience in community disputes
where it is anticipated that they can more easily
acquire acceptability. After gaining acceptability and
experience as a neutral, they should then be able to
move into public sector disputes, some of which have
racial overtones, and eventually, move into all types
of disputes.
The Berkeley project also provides compensation
for the neutrals during their training to supplement
lost earnings from their regular employment. This
arrangement was made because it is believed that the
normal source of neutrals has been persons who
could support themselves by their regular employ­
ment while gaining experience in dispute resolution.
Indeed, this practice has been one of the factors
which has made it difficult for persons from minority
groups to find it financially feasible to break into the
dispute resolution profession.
Thus far, the Department of Labor is very encour­
aged by the response to this recently initiated pro­
gram. The hope is that it will provide new directions
and insights into the development of public sector
neutrals.
Other projects

Another Department of Labor project to develop
neutrals is underway in New England. That region
has more public sector labor relations statutes than
any other part of the country. Consequently, a large
number of collective bargaining relationships have
already been established. Most of the New England
statutes provide for some type of impasse resolution
and for the resolution of grievances by arbitration.
The State impasse agencies depend primarily upon
ad hoc neutrals to perform as mediators, arbitrators,
and factfinders. Many ad hoc neutrals on impasse
agencies’ rosters are relatively inexperienced in pub­
lic sector disputes. Therefore, the Labor Department
has undertaken, through a contract with the National
Center for Dispute Settlement, a series of confer­
ences intended to expose these relatively inexperi­
enced neutrals to conflict resolution in the public
sector.
The conferences are being conducted in coopera­
tion with the appropriate State impasse agency to
assist their permanent and ad hoc staff in better
understanding their respective responsibilities under

6

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

the State statute. These conferences are expected also
to demonstrate the type of comprehensive training
needed to enable public sector neutrals to carry out
their responsibilities and to bring to the fore individ­
uals who will be best suited to the training.
In the near future, most demands for public sector
neutrals will continue to be filled by persons with
experience gained primarily in the private sector. In
this regard, the Department is attempting to develop
an arbitration manual which will help arbitrators
perform effectively in public sector disputes. The
manual is intended to be used for reference and
informal training of individual arbitrators as well as
in formal training programs. It will discuss the fac­
tors which are unique to public sector arbitration and
factfinding as well as to contrast them with the wellknown procedures used in the private sector. It will
also deal with the various State laws which affect the
arbitration process in the public sector.
A large number of States have provided, by legis­
lation, for arbitration of police and fire impasses.4
Considerable experience has already been acquired
in these types of disputes. As a consequence, the
Department has provided financial support for a
study of experience under the police and firefighter
arbitration statutes in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
This study will attempt to determine the impact of
this type of dispute resolution and contrast the expe­
rience under these two State statutes.
Another project which the Department is viewing
with a great deal of interest is being funded under

the Intergovernmental Personnel Act in cooperation
with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and ad­
ministered by the American Arbitration Association.
It is a program of expedited arbitration for municipal
government and public employee organizations in
Massachusetts. This experimental 6-month program
will handle grievances in quick fashion, assuring the
parties of a decision by an arbitrator within 3 weeks
after a request for arbitration and no more than 7
days after the case has been heard. A reduced ad­
ministrative fee will be charged by the project ad­
ministrator and the fee of the arbitrator and other
administrative costs will be borne by the program.
This project, which will emphasize both speedy arbi­
tration and shorter written awards, is aimed at two of
arbitration’s most serious problems—delay and ex­
pense.

approaches to resolving grievance issues be­
fore they reach the arbitration stage should also be
fostered in the public sector. As in the case of arbi­
tration, the public sector is still uninhibited by tradi­
tion which provides an excellent opportunity for ex­
perimentation and innovation in this area. Moreover,
greater effort is needed to reduce the time and cost
associated with current arbitration practices. Full co­
operation of the parties and the arbitrator are cru­
cial. Many cases could be handled without injustice
by shortening hearings and reducing or eliminating
briefs and lengthy opinions.
□

N ew

-FOOTNOTES1 The Labor-Management Services Administration of the
U.S. Department of Labor is currently funding a study by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics which, it is hoped, will supply
further insights into the causes of such work stoppages.
2 For example, in 1970, of the 1,475 arbitrators listed on
the American Arbitration Association’s national panel, 458
or only 30 percent, were responsible for all of the awards.
3 Associated with this phenomenal growth in public em­
ployment, the American Federation o f State, County and
Municipal Employees increased its membership by 112 per­
cent during the 1960’s (210,000 to 444,500) and during the
same period the American Federation of Teachers increased


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

its membership by 365 percent (56,200 to 205,200). Other
public employee organizations also experienced large in­
creases in membership. One response to the increase in the
number of public employees and in the number organized
has been the establishment of a framework in many areas
for public employee-management relations.
4
These States and cities have passed legislation which
requires the arbitration of certain types of police and fire­
fighter disputes: Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Pennsyl­
vania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin;
and Denver, Colo., Eugene, Ore., and New York City, N.Y.
Georgia and Oklahoma provide for arbitration of these
disputes at the option of the parties.

New arbitration procedure
in the steel industry
has sped up awards
and cut costs
in ‘routine’ cases
BEN FISCHER

I f the prevailing pattern of private labor-man­
agement relationships is to be successful and remain
private, a more effective system of private grievance
handling and arbitration is essential. Alternatives to
this are not feasible, or desirable. For example, gov­
ernment-established labor courts for resolution of
grievances would be more frustrating and inefficient
than the present private nongovernmental machinery.
Moreover, use of courts is more likely to result in
complete governmental regulation and domination of
collective bargaining. Another major alternative— the
wide use of strikes and lockouts instead of grievance
arbitration— would involve prohibitively high direct
costs in lost wages and production. In fact, such
economic strife might well result in a backlash lead­
ing to imposition of some form of compulsory, gov­
ernment-controlled arbitration.
Thus it is imperative that labor and management
face up to the deep-rooted worker dissatisfactions
currently casting long shadows over many existing
grievance and arbitration systems. The main actors
in these systems— unions and management— should
take steps to assure efficient and satisfactory han­
dling of employee complaints. The American griev­
ance-arbitration procedure is an inseparable part of
the uniquely American system of private collective
bargaining. It has served well but it has developed
some illness and needs surgery.1
It is difficult to generalize concerning the steps in
a normal grievance procedure prior to arbitration.
Bargaining institutions and traditions differ so widely
that only in-depth study of each situation could iden­
tify the weaknesses and point the way to needed
changes. However, in the final step of grievance han­
dling—the resort to arbitration— we do find some
general traits. While these traits may not be univerBen Fischer is director of the Contract Administration De­
partment, United Steelworkers of America.

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

Arbitration:
the steel
industry
experiment
sal, certain of them are sufficiently common to war­
rant generalized comment.
Where the problems are

Most grievance arbitration has acquired character­
istics which contradict the objectives and needs of
the parties and thereby threaten its future:
Arbitration takes too long. A worker may under­
stand delay in handling complex problems or even
disputes having broad ramifications. But there is no
way to explain away months and even years to re­
solve a complaint about a day’s suspension, a repri­
mand on his record, a missed turn at overtime,or
failure to award a grievant a promotion during an
incumbent’s absence. Delays have developed because
the arbitrator, company representatives, and union
representatives are usually busy people with great
pressures on their time. Delays are also caused by
requirements for pre- or post-hearing briefs and by
the use of transcripts. These delays tend to aggravate
each other. The further you get from the event caus­
ing the grievance, the more difficult it becomes to
reconstruct the story. And the busier everyone con­
cerned is, the more difficult it becomes for the arbi­
trator to get the facts and subsequently to review and
reconstruct the hearing and record. The entire proc­
ess becomes more prolonged.
Furthermore, the parties are often more elaborate
in their presentation of evidence and argument than
necessary, which in turn requires the arbitrator to
spend more time reviewing the case. Such super­
fluous elaboration only increases the delay.
Arbitration is too expensive. It is costly for many
reasons. Complex procedures and long delays result
in extravagant amounts of time devoted to cases by
the arbitrator who must be paid for this time. This is
7

8
an additional expense to the parties, who must pay
not only the arbitrator but also their own partici­
pants. Unnecessary use of transcripts raises costs,
directly in terms of the record itself (a very substan­
tial item), and indirectly by increasing the time the
arbitrator spends on the case. It is not uncommon
for a dispute over a day’s suspension or a claim of
denied overtime to cost the parties thousands of dol­
lars, including several hundreds for the arbitrator’s
fee. It is also not uncommon, even in routine cases,
to bring an arbitrator half way across the country,
thus adding travel time and expenses to already sub­
stantial fees.
The arbitration process is often frustrating and alien
to the complaining worker and the supervisors im­
mediately involved. Hearings tend to be unnecessarily
technical and remote from the problem at hand. Pro­
cedures tend to be too rigid and do not promote a
wholesome atmosphere between workers and super­
visors. To top this off, the arbitrator’s decision ar­
rives, all too often written for posterity or in terms
comfortable to lawyers and technicians but far re­
moved from the needs of the clients. Many arbitra­
tion cases involve questions of fact arising in reason­
ably sharpened disputes over contract language or
plant practice. The parties need a direct reply to the
question with an explanation understandable to
workers and supervisors. Unions and management
have the responsibility of seeing that simple, direct
answers are obtained from the arbitrator. Obviously,
there are complex matters that go to arbitration and
these are necessarily treated by all parties in a man­
ner consistent with their importance as precedents in
contract interpretation. The difficulty of fully explor­
ing many facets and difficult background questions in
these complex cases is fully realized. These cases
neither lend themselves to simplistic treatment nor
are they a major cause for trouble and disenchant­
ment. But these cases are the exceptions and should
not determine procedures and practices for handling
most other cases.
These are but a few of the kinds of problems
faced by the basic steel industry2 and the United
Steelworkers of America when they decided late in
1970 that they had best take a long look at their
grievance and arbitration problems. Both groups had
already received many expressions of dissatisfaction
from the people in the plants and had an opportunity
to study an impressive speech by Ralph Seward, one
of the nation’s most prestigious arbitrators. In an

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

address to the Annual Meeting of the National Acad­
emy of Arbitrators in Montreal on April 8, 1970,
Mr. Seward challenged the labor-management com­
munity to look at what has happened to private arbi­
tration. Among other things, he questioned the use of
a single procedure for all disputes, big and little,
whether requiring sophisticated contract interpreta­
tion or merely finding facts, precedent-making or
precedent-following.3
Since Mr. Seward had spent more than 25 years in
the steel industry as the arbitrator for several major
companies (including U.S. Steel and the Bethlehem
Steel Corporation), the parties evinced considerable
interest in his remarks, coming as they did when
there were backlogs of unsettled grievances, many
percolating complaints, and widespread frustration.
Preceding the 1971 steel contract negotiations, a
joint task force of the industry and the union spent
several months conducting a comprehensive study of
grievance and arbitration statistics, experience, and
attitudes of local representatives of both sides, in­
cluding higher echelon personnel and the arbitrators
of the major basic steel companies.4
New arbitration procedure

As a result of these studies and of lengthy discus­
sions, a report containing joint recommendations was
issued. This report resulted in most 1971 companyby-company negotiations making important changes
in the grievance procedure. It also resulted in inclu­
sion as an appendix to the August 1, 1971, steel
industry settlement, of a 2-year experimental expe­
dited arbitration procedure to be implemented on a
regional intercompany basis.
To staff the arbitration panels which would oper­
ate in each regi6n under the expedited procedures, a
task force composed of representatives of the compa­
nies and the international union recruited the panel
members by obtaining nominees in each area from
deans of area law schools and from other knowledge­
able sources. This task force chose all panel mem­
bers in each locality and conducted orientation ses­
sions with each panel. Most, but not all, panel mem­
bers are relatively young lawyers in local practice or
on local university faculties who satisfied the task
force that they had adequate interest in arbitration
and an understanding of the parties’ needs. The par­
ties completed the job of setting up the panels in
each major steel area— 12 in all. The panels involve
some 200 mostly inexperienced arbitrators, including

9

ARBITRATION: THE STEEL INDUSTRY

a significant number of blacks and women.5
The new procedure provides that after failing to
settle a grievance, the local union and local manage­
ment may refer an appropriate grievance to the expe­
dited system. However, union district staff repre­
sentatives or corporate headquarters representatives
may veto the local decision to refer a case to the ex­
pedited procedure, thereby requiring handling through
the grievance procedure and regular arbitration.6
Each arbitration panel has an administrative
officer 7 who receives the referral and calls on panel
members in alphabetical rotation. The date and place
of the hearing are set by the local parties and the
next arbitrator on the panel available for that date is
assigned. The hearing date must be within 10 days of
the appeal and the decision must be made within 48
hours of the hearing. A fee is paid only for the
hearing day. Neither party can pick or choose arbi­
trators from the panel. Decisions are final and bind­
ing but do not become precedents and cannot be
cited in any other proceeding.
The expedited arbitration agreement provides that
the arbitrator must conduct a fair and informal hear­
ing, is not bound by rules of evidence, and is charged
with assuring that all necessary facts and considera­
tions are brought to his attention by the parties.
There are no briefs or transcripts— only grievance
minutes are submitted in writing. In almost all in­
stances, cases are presented by local plant and union
personnel, not by the usual “pros” (lawyers and
labor relations specialists) who handle regular ar­
bitration. For steel, this is a unique departure.8
The regular arbitration system in each company
remains intact but hopefully will be relieved of sim­
pler, more routine matters and thereby can better
deal with the substantial number of complex and
precedent-making cases that continue to arise. Each
major company has permanent arbitration arrange­
ments for this purpose. Several of these permanent
setups include long-standing, costly apprentice ar­
rangements— a means of training new arbitrators—
which have done much in the last 10 or 12 years to
develop persons who today rank among the top
younger arbitrators in the country.9
The need for many more qualified arbitrators is
such that arbitration apprenticeships cannot begin to
fill the need. The expedited procedure in steel will
increase the flow of new blood into the field because
of the instant exposure the new steel procedure per­
mits. It is a kind of “throw him in the pool” method
of teaching swimming, except that the parallel is

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

inexact in that each panel member comes to arbitra­
tion with significant credentials based on back­
ground, general competence, and interest.
Experience thus far

After only a few months of operation—seven of
the panels were set up after June 1, 1972— the par­
ties are beginning to use the expedited procedure.
About 100 cases have been heard and decided. More
than one case can be heard a day. The arbitrator’s
fee is usually $25 to $75 a case, for each party. Fees
and other costs to the parties are significantly lower
than for the usual arbitration.
The parties seem reasonably pleased with the
overall operation and results of the program. An­
other 4 to 6 months will be needed before a signifi­
cant evaluation will be possible. Those observing the
initial efforts, however, are quite satisfied that it is
providing what the-parties sought— prompt hearings
and decisions, low-cost arbitration, and meaningful
local participation and responsibility. The parties
asked for prompt, concise, and clear-cut written
awards which they definitely are receiving. The par­
ties asked for fair hearings and seem to be getting
them. They asked for lower costs and this too is
being achieved.
This experiment poses some interesting questions
for the rest of the labor-management community,
especially that portion of it which depends on arbi­
tration for final resolution of grievances. In fact, the
basic steel expedited arbitration procedure raises
challenging questions within the Steelworkers union
because the majority of its members do not work in
the basic steel companies covered by the new proce­
dure. Steelworkers in smaller steel companies, fabri­
cators, aluminum workers, nonferrous workers,
chemical workers, can manufacturers, and many tens
of thousands of others know about the basic steel
procedure. These Steelworkers want and need a
more efficient arbitration system just as the basic
steel membership does.
Extensive discussions of what to do about arbitra­
tion have been taking place for a long time in labor
circles, in management, in arbitration groups, and in
the Government. While every idea and suggestion is
helpful, it is labor and management that must pro­
vide the ultimate answers and leadership, money,
and full participation in these institutions.
Admittedly, the highly developed steel industry ar­
bitration systems, particularly the permanent arbitra-

10

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

tion systems, are the exception rather than the rule.
In the more typical arbitration situation, solutions
are more difficult; however, whatever solutions
evolve, two prerequisities must be kept in mind: ( 1)
New people must be recruited as arbitrators in large
numbers and with emphasis on talent. There is no
place for mediocrity. Arbitration is a field requiring
skill and dedication. (2) The parties must be pre­
pared to use the new recruits. This will be possible
only if a new bold program is given high priority and
if new recruits are supervised or somehow advised by
widely accepted, prestigious arbitrators. Significant
sums of money will have to be made available by
labor and management to provide efficient, adminis­
tration for any new program. Widely accepted arbi­
trators are needed to supervise new recruits if local
companies and unions are expected to submit cases
to such experimental procedures.
These two prerequisites call for top-level decisions
and subsidy by labor and management. In no other
way can local acceptance be assured or adequate
funds be made available. This kind of top-level sup­
port has not been readily forthcoming. In a field as
complex and varied as arbitration, it is easy to over­

look the critical nature of the situation even though
the shortcomings of arbitration significantly affects
the outlook and morale of workers as well as internal
union stability.
With the variety of problems companies and
unions face daily, it is understandable that action to
alleviate pressures that have created the arbitration
crisis may be postponed. But reflection should reveal
that a worker, unable to get prompt settlement of his
complaint, is going to believe that fairness is not for
him. He will resent it and he will lose faith in the
grievance arbitration procedure. Such disappoint­
ments circulating among fellow employees can and
do result ultimately in widespread and deep-rooted
distrust, a sure forerunner of trouble and chaos.
Labor and management must not assume that so­
lutions to the shortcomings of arbitration will be
provided by arbitrators, government, or academic ex­
perts. The parties create arbitration and together dic­
tate the terms, the rules, the personnel, and even the
expectations. It is time that those in charge take
charge and make the institution of arbitration re­
sponsive to their needs and their desires. No one else
will or can do it for them.
□

-F O O T N O T E S -

1 The United Steelworkers o f America, for instance, use
arbitration quite extensively and successfully. For example,
the 1970 edition of the S t e e lw o r k e r s H a n d b o o k o n A r b i t r a ­
tio n D e c is io n s , prepared by Pike & Fischer, Inc., contains a
digest of literally thousands of USWA arbitration awards.

Inland Steel.
3 These 12 panels serve the cities and surrounding areas
of Buffalo, N.Y.; Chicago, 111.; Cleveland, Ohio; Philadel­
phia, Pa.; Pittsburg, Pa.; Birmingham, Ala.; Seattle, Wash.;
San Francisco. Calif.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Detroit, Mich.;
Duluth, Minn.; and Salt Lake City, Utah.

2 The Basic Steel Industry Coordinating Committee is
composed of United States Steel Corp., Bethlehem Steel
Corp., Republic Steel Corp., Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.,
National Steel Corp., Inland Steel Co., Youngstown Sheet &
Tube Co., Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., Armco Steel
Corp., Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.

6 Not only is arbitration expedited but the often time-con­
suming final step o f the grievance procedure between the
district staff representative of union and the corporate head­
quarters is circumvented by use of the expedited arbitration
procedure.

3 “Grievance Arbitration— The Old Frontier,” by Ralph
T. Seward, A r b itr a tio n a n d th e E x p a n d in g R o l e o f N e u tr a ls ,
Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting, National Academy
of Arbitrators (Bureau of National Affairs, 1970), pp.
153-164.

7 For the Philadelphia, Pa., Cleveland, Ohio, and
Chicago, 111., panels which cover these heavily concentrated
steel centers, the regional American Arbitration Association
office is the designated administrative officer. Other panels
are administered by the parties’ own personnel.

4 The joint task force on grievance and arbitration for
steel consisted of: Union representatives: Ben Fischer,
Director, Contract Administration Department, USWA, CoChairman; Dee W. Gilliam, Assistant Director, Contract
Administration Department; Sam Camens, Representative,
Contract Administration Department; Robert C. Roddy,
Representative, Contract Administration Department; Bruce
Thrasher, International Representative, USWA. Company
representatives: C.T. Spivey, Vice President, Labor Rela­
tions, U.S. Steel Corp.; Co-Chairman; G.A. Moore, Jr.,
Manager, Labor Relations, Bethlehem Steel Corp.; W.C.
Stoner, Director, Labor Relations, Republic Steel Corp.; J.E.
Allison, Director, Personnel Relations, Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corp.; W. A. Dillon, Director, Industrial Relations,

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

8 Union representation during regular arbitration usually
involves a District Staff Representative or occasionally an
attorney. The Company Representative most often is an
attorney or a central headquarters Industrial Relations Rep­
resentative. Some major companies are always represented
by an attorney in regular arbitration.
9 The arbitration systems of U.S. Steel Corp., Bethlehem
Steel Corp., and Republic Steel Corp. have trained many
arbitrators through these apprenticeship programs. The pro­
grams have been directed by Sylvester Garrett, Chairman of
the Board of Arbitration, U.S. Steel; Ralph T. Seward,
Chairman of the Office of the Umpire, Bethlehem Steel
Corp., and Bert Luskin, Umpire, Republic Steel Corp.

Using
two new
arbitration
techniques

Mediation-arbitration
can promote settlement
of contract disputes;
factfinding can speed
handling of grievances
SAM KAGEL AND JOHN KAGEL

T h e p u s h to f in d some alternative to strikes, par­
ticularly in major labor-management disputes, still
continues. Even so staunch a defender of the right to
strike as AFL-CIO President George Meany said in
a press interview: “Strikes are expensive. We’d like
to see some mechanism that would eliminate strikes
because we find that strikes are becoming more and
more expensive not only to industry, but to those we
represent.”1
What must be and has been sought is an incentive
to encourage the parties to negotiate their own settle­
ment in tough situations but with voluntarily agreedto provisions for terminal settlement if they cannot
reach agreement. The use of orthodox mediation is
not always successful in such an effort.
Another difficulty for which labor and manage­
ment seek solutions exists in the handling of griev­
ance procedures, the most important failure of which
is the slowness with which grievances are resolved.
What is occurring is an increased awareness among
labor and management of the corrosive effect of pro­
tracted consideration of the individual employee’s
problem. It is not so much a question of whether or
not the grievance has merit, but whether the unions
are learning that employees with unresolved griev­
ances are dissatisfied members and whether manage­
ment is becoming aware that such dissatisfaction rep­
resents a hidden payroll cost in terms of not achiev­
ing full productivity from that employee.
There are two evolving techniques in collective
bargaining that have gained increasing acceptance as
possible remedies for stalemated negotiations and
protracted grievance procedures. These are media­
tion-arbitration, or “med-arb,” as a method for set­
tling the substantive terms of a collective bargaining
agreement, and a contract provision for a factfinding

Sam Kagel and John Kagel are arbitrators and partners in
the San Francisco law firm of Kagel and Kagel.

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

step early in the grievance procedure designed to
make that procedure more effective.
Mediation-arbitration

The primary objective of labor and management
in collective bargaining is to arrive at a substantive
agreement on wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment. To attain this objective, labor and man­
agement have developed and used a number of tech­
niques which taken together add up to the collective
bargaining process. Our purpose is briefly to note all
of these techniques, paying particular attention to a
new one w'hich we have called mediation-arbitration.
The most frequently used technique is that of ne­
gotiation—direct discussions between the parties
without outsiders participating—the use of advocacy
and persuasion by each of the parties seeking to
convince the other party as to the correctness and
fairness of its position.
The mediation technique marks the entrance into
negotiations of an outsider who seeks to aid the
parties in reaching an agreement. The mediator has
no authority to make decisions on disputed matters
and thus cannot impose an agreement on the parties.
He can only seek to guide the parties into an area
where it may seem likely that the parties can then
reach an agreement. But, he has no “muscle” by way
of any grant of authority to make a final and binding
decision.
In arbitration, on the other hand, a third party
also enters the collective bargaining process. But, the
arbitrator’s position is significantly different from
that of the mediator as he can impose a final and
binding decision on the issues in dispute which is
enforceable at law. His authority is a grant from the
parties who agree in advance to accept his decision
as final and binding. This technique has been seldom
used, but its use is increasing, in arriving at the
substantive terms of the agreement.
11

12

Finally, there is the use of direct economic power
— the strike and lockout. Contrary to statements that
are often made, collective bargaining does not end
when a strike or lockout begins. The purpose of
either of these techniques is to bring about an agree­
ment by using direct economic power to force the
other party to accept certain terms of settlement.
Thus, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and the
use of direct economic power are the orthodox, ac­
cepted techniques which are used to achieve the
objective of collective bargaining, namely, the settle­
ment of the terms of the collective bargaining agree­
ment. They are used individually or in combination,
and one party’s success, or lack of it, is determined
by how well these techniques are used in the particu­
lar setting then existing, such as economic condi­
tions, relative economic strength of the parties, the
interest of government or the public, and so forth.
Over the years there has been a persistent clamor
for compulsory arbitration in major labor disputes as
an alternative to strikes or lockouts. This would have
to be accomplished by legislation. Most of organized
labor and a substantial portion of management in the
private sector is not willing to accept compulsory
arbitration. Public employers, particularly, have
voiced objection to compulsory arbitration in the
public sector.
A combination of mediation and arbitration, plac­
ing primary emphasis on negotiations, may be the
type of approach to avoid the externally imposed
settlement (compulsory arbitration) and heavy eco­
nomic losses and disruption (strikes and lockouts in
major industries). It must be agreed to voluntarily
by the parties. Recourse to med-arb requires giving
up the right to strike or to lockout.
In this process the mediator-arbiter has a dual
role. When acting as a mediator he has in reserve the
authority of an arbitrator. This gives the med-arbiter
“muscle” which is not available to him if he acts
solely as a mediator. It places the med-arbiter in a
position where he does far more than transmit mes­
sages between labor and management. He, in effect,
becomes a party to the negotiations in the sense that,
while negotiating, each of the contending parties
must necessarily seek to convince him that their posi­
tion is reasonable and acceptable. In so doing, the
parties no longer maintain the arm’s length attitude
normally assumed in orthodox mediation nor the
semilegal stance assumed in an arbitration.
As one participant in a med-arb said, the process
keeps both parties “honest.” That is, each must

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

really seek a reasonable solution of the issues on the
table. Each must disclose all of its respective posi­
tions and its reasoning and “evidence” to support
them. Each party must face up to the merits of a
particular issue under discussion because if either or
both do not, the med-arbiter will make the decision.
The incentive is for both parties to settle through
negotiations rather than have the med-arbiter make
the decision. The presence of the med-arbiter pro­
vides this incentive.
In short, the posture of the parties in the med-arb
process changes from that normally assumed in ei­
ther orthodox mediation or arbitration. The process
encourages direct negotiation between the parties
with supervision by the med-arbiter who, if he per­
forms his job properly, will seek to emphasize the
need for the parties to arrive at their own agreement.
But he has available, if necessary, the authority to
make a final decision on any points remaining in
dispute.
Med-arb experiences

Will parties accept med-arb knowing that, in effect,
they are agreeing to the possibility that a third party
— the med-arbiter— may decide key issues in dis­
pute? Our experience has included the use of medarb in situations prior to strikes and in cases after
strikes have occurred. Here are some instances:
In 1970, the agreements of the California Nurses’
Association expired with three groups of hospitals.
Four thousand nurses and 33 hospitals were involved
in this case. The parties agreed to med-arb giving up
the right to strike or lockout. Of 89 issues to be
settled, 88 were agreed to through negotiations in the
presence of the med-arbiter, and the latter had to
decide only one issue, a procedural one, in his capac­
ity as arbitrator.
When the 1971-72 Pacific Coast longshore strike
ended, 13 issues were left over for med-arb. In two
all-day sessions all 13 were settled by negotiations.
The issues were important and complicated. There is
no doubt that the presence of the med-arbiter was an
incentive to the parties to assume reasonable posi­
tions and settle the issues directly.
In a med-arb case involving some 40 disputed
issues between the restaurants and bartenders in
Oakland, Calif., all issues were settled in 1 long day’s
session without the need of an arbitrator’s decision.
And after a wildcat strike at a major San Francisco
public hospital, over 80 unresolved issues were

13

NEW ARBITRATION TECHNIQUES

worked out through med-arb.
The med-arb technique was used in a case involv­
ing a major commercial printing company and the
Pressman’s Union. This resulted in 8 out of 9 issues
being settled directly between the parties. Some of
these issues involved difficult problems of manning
on presses.
Recently a 6-month strike occurred in the San
Francisco Bay Area soft drink industry involving six
Teamster local unions. When the strikers returned to
work, the parties agreed to med-arb. Some 17 com­
mon issues were culled out of the over 140 proposals
made by the parties. Fifteen of those were settled
through med-arb. They included provisions dealing
with grievance procedures, sick leave, health and
welfare trust, vacations, holidays, mergers, and so
on. Many local issues were then considered and only
nine remain for decision by arbitration.
The important fact in med-arb is that it is volun­
tarily accepted, even though in this two-level
technique the parties agree to be bound by the
med-arbiter’s decision if a direct settlement is not
made. This technique avoids legislative compulsion,
generally abhorred by labor-management negotiators.
The parties are not fooled by the fact that they know
that the med-arbiter has the authority to make the
decision if the parties fail to work out their own
arrangement. It is precisely that knowledge, however,
that is the incentive for the parties to reach their own
agreement. It is that knowledge which is the incen­
tive to reasonableness.
Public sector solution?

In the public sector med-arb would appear partic­
ularly appropriate. If strikes are to be outlawed, an
alternative method of settling labor-management dis­
putes must be provided. Med-arb would be a more
viable technique than that of formal compulsory ar­
bitration. The tradition of strikes in the public sector
is not as entrenched as it is in the private sector.
If an acceptable alternative to strikes in the public
sector is offered, it is likely to gain approval.
It is not suggested that med-arb is the complete
answer to those who insist that there be an absolute
end to all strikes or lockouts. Such a condition will
probably never be achieved regardless of what legis­
lation might be passed for that purpose. Workers
cannot be forced to work, and employers cannot be
forced to offer employment. Techniques palatable to

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

both parties which encourage direct negotiations with
some form of terminal settlement must be developed.
Med-arb is one such technique.
The factfinding step

Too often facts essential to settle a grievance are
not obtained until there is an arbitration hearing.
Meanwhile, in the steps preceding the arbitration, the
union and employer too often assume a litigious
stance, with each adopting the view, “my man, right
or wrong.” The result are deadlocked grievances
which should have been settled or withdrawn.
The factfinding step is designed to repair some of
these defects. This step in the grievance procedure
must be tailored to the requirements of the parties.
If the employee fails to settle the grievance di­
rectly with his supervisor and then files a written
grievance, this act triggers the factfinding step. The
following outlines the factfinding process as con­
tained in an agreement made in the San Francisco
Bay Area soft drink industry between the employers
and six locals of the Teamster Union:
The factfinders shall be organized and function as
follow s:

(a) One factfinder shall be designated by the em ­
ployer and one factfinder shall be designated by the
union.
(b ) T he object o f the factfinders is to thoroughly
investigate the grievance so that their report could be
the basic source of stipulated facts concerning the
grievance. Thus the factfinders shall mutually inter­
view witnesses, including the grievant and the em ­
ployer representative involved in the grievance, collect
relevant written records, and carry out such other
investigation as may be required by the specific
grievance.
In the event an em ployee is appointed by the
union as a factfinder, the em ployee shall perform his
factfinding function w ith a m inim um interruption o f
work. E xcept in discharge and suspension cases, the
factfinding shall be perform ed on non-working time
unless it is im practicable to do so.
(c ) The factfinders shall put in writing all the facts
upon w hich they agree and these will be considered
stipulations. If the factfinders cannot agree on certain
facts, each factfinder’s view o f such disputed facts
sháll also be placed in the written report.
(d ) U pon the conclusion o f the factfinders’ in­
vestigation and written stipulations they shall there­
after within 1 w orking day seek to settle the grievance
and shall have the authority to do so.
(e ) If the factfinders are unable to settle the
grievance, they shall give to the manager o f the plant
and a designated person in the union a copy o f their
written report. T he manager (or his representative)

14
and the union representative shall then within 2
working days thereafter m eet for the purpose o f seek­
ing to resolve the grievance.

If the manager and the union representative fail to
settle the grievance, the parties will then refer the
grievance to the next steps provided in the collective
bargaining agreement, including arbitration.
One value in the factfinding step is that it collects
immediately the relevant facts. When the parties then
seek to negotiate a settlement of the grievance, they
address themselves to the stipulated facts, not to
what “my man” said or did not say. The posture of
the negotiators changes from that of advocates to
that of jurors.
Of equal importance, a stipulation of the facts
lessens the political aspects of the grievance by pro­
viding both union and management officials objective
reasons for advising their respective constituents to
either drop or settle disputes by pinpointing the oper­
ative facts involved.
Factfinding as a technique for resolving labormanagement grievances grew out of a backlog of
over 1,000 pending grievances involving Aerojet
General Corp., a major aerospace company, and its
employees. The application of joint factfinding to
these grievances sharply reduced the number eventu­
ally submitted to arbitration.
The factfinding procedure has been adopted by the
Space Division of the North American Rockwell Co.
and the United Automobile Workers. Its use has
reduced drastically the time within which grievances
are settled. As a result of its use, only one grievance
went to arbitration in 1971. By contrast, previously
many cases went to arbitration and most of them
were over 2 years old by the time they reached
arbitration. Other industries that have adopted the
procedure include companies in the pulp and paper


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

industry and various public agencies. So far, its
adoption has led to an improvement in employee
attitudes and grievance processing.
An additional improvement has resulted from rela­
beling a grievance, at least at the first step, a “mutual
problem.” It does not become a “grievance” until the
union wishes to pursue the matter beyond factfind­
ing. The net effect of this simple transformation has
been to lessen tensions in the employee-supervisor
one-on-one informal first step, and to make labor
and management view employee complaints as a mu­
tual problem to be resolved.
Attitudes play a significant role in the early resolu­
tion of grievances. Because of the change in name, a
grievance does not automatically raise a red flag,
causing instant argument regardless of its merits.
While this is especially true in public employment
where supervisory decisions are just beginning to be
questioned, it is of equal effect in the private sector
and undoubtedly has contributed to North American
Rockwell Company’s and the United Automobile
Workers’ success with the new procedures.
The time, expense, and emotions involved in the
grievance procedure or their absence is within the
control of the parties. Blaming arbitrators for these
problems is misplaced criticism. With a proper ap­
preciation of the role of the grievance procedure, the
effect of unresolved grievances on individual employ­
ees, and with a cessation of the practice of copying
grievance procedures rather than drafting them to
suit local conditions, the adoption of the techniques
outlined can meaningfully reduce the parties’ own
problems in this area of collective bargaining.
□
--------FOOTNOTE -------1 AFL-CIO press release.

The FMCS and other agencies
can suggest improvements
in arbitration but labor and
management have prime
responsibility for making changes
JAMES F. POWER

increasing delays, and spreading work­
er dissatisfaction have generated considerable criti­
cism of labor arbitration in the United States. Until
recently, arbitration made its contribution to the
American system of industrial relations inconspicu­
ously, although its growth since World War II has
been phenomenal.1 (See table 1.) The process was
not really taken for granted but was considered es­
sentially so simple and responsive to the parties’
requirements that people were slow to heed the signs
of growing difficulties.
Today some claim that arbitration cannot meet the
growing demands upon it. Critics suggest labor
courts, strikes, and other alternatives as means of
regaining advantages associated with arbitration in
earlier years. When critics speak of rising costs, de­
lays, and lack of arbitrators, they reflect proper con­
cern about these problems but sometimes suggest
solutions that have few of arbitration’s advantages
and possess their own undesirable characteristics.
Nonetheless, these critics have drawn attention to
the problems of arbitration at a time when remedies
are possible. Disillusionment with the process has not
become so widespread that attempted solutions would
be futile.
R ising

costs,

Improving
arbitration:
roles of parties
and agencies
which provide arbitration services may suggest cer­
tain innovations, but without the cumulative coopera­
tion of the parties, those remedial efforts will be
thwarted. One commentator has reflected that the
current situation has been created by the parties be­
cause they want it that way.
Consequently, if reform is really desired, the par­
ties must be willing to break with some traditional
practices and undertake new approaches. This may
not be as perilous as might first appear. Many re­
forms now being suggested tend to preserve the es­
sentially advantageous aspects of labor arbitration
while dealing with troublesome peripheral practices.
While the parties have prime responsibility for re­
form of the arbitration process, the agencies which
provide arbitration services and the arbitrators them­
selves have a part to play. The appointing agencies
such as FMCS and AAA are in good positions to see
overall trends in the field and, through their adminis­
trative processes, to make available new services and
suggest new approaches strategically designed to
meet the needs of the process. Because no individual
or organization has the authority to apply reform
procedures, a price willingly paid to keep the process
in the hands of those who use it, the appointing
agencies can play a role in suggesting remedies and
developing alternative procedures.

What the parties can do

While it may appear a paradox, the problems of
contemporary labor arbitration cannot be solved by
anyone but labor and management. While the parties
deal with individual cases, and thereby do not have
any effective control over the entire process at any
point, lasting remedies require the concurrence and
active participation of the parties. Various agencies

James F. Power is Special Assistant for Arbitration Serv­
ices, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service.

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

Problems of the process

In 1971, a former General Counsel of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service outlined some
arbitral problems of cost, delay, and lack of sufficient
acceptable arbitrators.2 These are the results of mul­
tiple causes and do not lend themselves to simple
solutions. Though serious, they are not problems that
go to the heart of arbitration itself. Answers to such
questions as “Who is to arbitrate?,” “How much will
it cost?,” and “How long will it take?” will not un­
duly affect the process or the confidence of the par15

16

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Table 1.

Changes in the arbitration activity of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, fiscal years 1 9 6 0 -7 2

Activity

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

Request for panels or direct
appointments____ _______

2,835

3,174

3,548

4,279

4,791

Panels submitted_____
Appointments__________
Awards____________
_

2,993
2,039
1,320

3,347
2,231
1,553

3,808
2,555
1,733

4,497
2,757
1,618

5,172
3,182
1,952

ties in it. Rather, solutions will unfetter the process
and restore its capacity to do the job it was designed
for.
Supply of arbitrators

Despite occasional claims that there is a shortage
of arbitrators, there are over 1,100 qualified arbitra­
tors presently on the roster of the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service. Many of these arbitrators
have also been named to the panel of the American
Arbitration Association and are listed with other ap­
pointing agencies. Moreover, there are several
hundred arbitrators who are not listed with one or
the other of these agencies but are assigned cases by
the parties directly or through the permanent umpireship systems. The arbitrators on the FMCS roster
are located all over the country but are more heavily
concentrated in the traditional industrial areas. (See

Table 2.

1966

1967

5,048

5,654

6,955

5,453
3,333
1,887

6,255
3,430
2,441

7,623
3,953
1,967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

7,809

8,479

10,055

12,327

13,005

8,630
4,175
2,309

9,679
4,493
2,640

11,124
5,318
2,849

13,235
5,759
2,840

13,842
6,263
3,438

table 2.) Increasing numbers of requests for arbitra­
tors from areas of the country experiencing new in­
dustrial growth or the development of union repre­
sentation have to be met by the nomination of arbi­
trators who reside some distance away because of a
lack of local arbitrators.
The FMCS receives inquiries about new appoint­
ments to its roster of arbitrators at the rate of ap­
proximately 25 a month. During fiscal year 1972,
134 new arbitrators were appointed to the roster
while 45 were advised after full evaluation that they
lacked adequate qualifications or acceptability, or
both. These determinations are based on an evalua­
tion of an applicant’s credentials and field checks of
his acceptability to the labor-management commu­
nity in a given area. The remainder of the inquiries
received in 1971 was made up of applications still
being evaluated or those that had been withdrawn.
In general, the FMCS has never considered its

Geographical distribution of arbitrators on the Fe deral Mediation and Conciliation Service Roster, 1972

FMCS region

Number
of arbi­
trators

FMCS region

Number
of arbi­
trators

Region 1
New York N.Y_____
Hempstead, N.Y____
Albany, N.Y____
Syracuse, N . Y ______
Buffalo, N.Y...
Newark, N.Y....... ..

67
7
7
23
13
19

Boston, Mass...........
Worcester, Mass_____
Hartford, Conn____
Providence, R.l______
Concord, N.H_______
Portland, Maine______

29
3
10
1
1
3

Region 2
Philadelphia, Pa_______
Pittsburgh, Pa_________
Erie, Pa___ . . .
Parkersburg, W. Va__
Harrisburg, Pa_____

36
38
2
6
7

Allentown, Pa_______
Trenton, N.J________
Baltimore, M d_______
Washington, D.C_____
Richmond, Va________

4
4
9
49
5

Region 3
Atlanta, Ga....................
Birmingham, Ala...... ......
Mobile, Ala... ..........
New Orleans, La.............
Memphis, Tenn..... .........
Nashville, Tenn...............

26
17
1
13
5
4

Chattanooga, Tenn........
Knoxville, Tenn________
Charlotte, N.C_________
Jacksonville, Fla..... .....
Tampa, Fla.............
Miami, Fla.................

1
10
14
6
8
18

Region 4
Cleveland, Ohio...........
Akron, Ohio...................
Toledo, Ohio............
Columbus, Ohio...... ........
Dayton, Ohio____________
Cincinnati, Ohio....... ......

41
8
6
20
2
14

Louisville, Ky..............
Detroit, Mich..... ........
Saginaw, Mich.............
Grand Rapids, Mich.......
Kalamazoo, Mich..........

15
33
1
6
1


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

FMCS region

Region 5
Chicago, III......
Peoria, III______
Rockford, III____
South Bend, Ind.
Indianapolis, Ind

Number
of arbi­
trators

FMCS region

Number
of arbi­
trators

54
6
1
3
14

Evansville, Ind___
Milwaukee, Wis...
Green Bay, Wis___
Minneapolis, Minn.

Region 6
St. Louis, Mo_____
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa..
Omaha, Neb__.....
Kansas City, Mo....
Wichita, Kansas___

40
5
5
7
11
3

Oklahoma City, Okla.
Springfield, Mo.......
Little Rock, Ark____
Dallas, Texas........
Houston, Texas_____

19
19

Region 7
San Francisco, Galif.
Los Angeles, Calif...
San Diego, Calif.....
Fresno, Calif.........
Seattle, Wash_____
Portland, Ore______
Spokane, Wash____

55
68
3
2
18
11
3

Great Falls, Mont...
Salt Lake City, Utah
Denver, Colo.........
Phoenix, Ariz_____
Albuquerque, N.M..
Honolulu, Hawaii...

4
4
16
6
2
4

1
31

2
22

18
3

11

17

IMPROVING ARBITRATION

roster to be a means of entry into the field of arbitra­
tion. It merely requires the successful applicant to
have the level of professional experience and the
reputation in a local labor relations community which
presages his acceptance by the parties as a neutral.
In spite of the specific exclusions of those who are
currently full-time advocates or Federal employees,
the ranks of the FMCS roster seem quite full.
To obtain a better picture of the arbitrators ap­
pointed thus far from among the 1971 applicants, an
analysis of their backgrounds was made. By age, 28
percent were between 30 and 40, 28 percent between
40 and 50, 23 percent between 50 and 60 and the
remainder were over 60. By profession, the success­
ful applicants categorized themselves as consultants
(14.9 percent), full-time arbitrators (23.8 percent),
professors (23.8 percent) and attorneys (37.5 per­
cent). By education, 23 percent had master’s degrees
and over 10 percent had doctorates. These figures do
not include professional degrees. Over 85 percent
reported extensive experience in industrial relations
while almost 27 percent reported public sector
experience.
In addition to these qualifications, the successful
applicant proved to be known to the parties and was
recommended by them to the mediators conducting
the field checks. The latter were conducted in the
industrial relations community and were not limited
to the references provided by the applicant.
The successful applicants all met established quali­
fications but the parties, once faced with the need to
choose an arbitrator from an FMCS panel, tend to
choose the more experienced arbitrator. While it is
difficult to determine the criteria for selection of arbi­
trators in general, the parties appear reluctant to use
newer arbitrators even though their availability as­
sures prompt disposition of cases and in spite of the
fact that their per diem fees are lower in most
cases.4
In spite of the fact that FMCS has been making
special efforts to assist newer arbitrators, the over­
whelming majority of arbitrators selected from the
almost 14,000 panels supplied last year were among
the more experienced one-third.
Current biographies. To stimulate the use of newer
arbitrators, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service had one feature of the new ARBIT computer
system (described in the box on the next page) de­
signed to automatically provide labor and manage­
ment with up-to-date biographical information on ar­

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

bitrators on the FMCS roster. Because the arbitration
awards supplied by the arbitrators will be fed
into the computer, they will immediately be reflected
in the experience shown for the arbitrators. Further,
special efforts are being made to insure that newer
arbitrators do not “slip through the cracks” and be­
come lost in an administrative shuffle. The compu­
terized ARBIT system has an “active memory”
which treats each arbitrator in its files equitably.
Panels selected by FMCS personnel usually include
some of the newly appointed arbitrators. In the nor­
mal course of events, newer arbitrators may be cho­
sen by parties who decide to use them after seeing
their names repeatedly or who seek an arbitrator to
hear a case expeditiously or less expensively.
In terms of numbers, if not geographical distribu­
tion, there are qualified arbitrators available to the
parties. While many of those more recently ap­
pointed to the FMCS roster may lack the necessary
level of familiarity at the moment, it is possible for
the parties to help them gain that illusive quality by
choosing them for use in selected cases.
Training programs

Over the years, various schemes for the develop­
ment of arbitration talent have been proposed or
tried. Thomas J. McDermott, Chairman of the Com­
mittee for the Development of New Arbitrators of
the National Academy of Arbitrators reported to the
Academy’s Board of Governors in March 1970, on
the several programs he had studied and noted that
most of the efforts had neither succeeded nor failed.
One commentator suggested that the principal fruit
of the experiments was not so much the generation
of new acceptable arbitrators but rather an increased
awareness among the parties of the problem and
their consequent openness to the entry of new people
into the field.
Academy officials reviewed several suggested
training programs, among them a program of fellow­
ships in conjunction with law schools and graduate
schools of industrial relations, a program for assist­
ants to practicing arbitrators, and an intern program
associated with an arbitrator-in-residence. All pro­
grams (and variations on them) had some advan­
tages and disadvantages. A recurring major problem
was the relative youth and inexperience of the likely
candidates for such programs which made it difficult
subsequently for them to gain acceptability. Other
disadvantages included the general reluctance of the

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

18

parties toward use of apprentices or interns by prac­
ticing arbitrators.
A cooperative experiment. Of the several programs
which have been conducted under various auspices
around the country, the current training program in
western New York has been described as “By far the
most important and most detailed program for devel-

oping new arbitrators. . . .” 5 While the program is
being conducted by its sponsors as an experimental
effort to test several approaches and techniques to
develop arbitrators, its most important feature is the
degree of local labor and management cooperation.
The program resulted from the convergence of
interests of several groups. The need for new arbitra­
tors in the western New York area generated discus-

THE ARBIT SYSTEM
The reorganization of FMCS arbitration services dur­
ing the last year was initially motivated by the increasing
volume of requests and the difficulties attendant upon
that growth. However, there were other, equally impor­
tant, goals:
To improve arbitration selection and administrative
procedures to expedite responses to requests from the
parties.
To establish improved monitoring of arbitration
activities conducted under FMCS regulations.
To create a flexible system which will absorb antici­
pated increases in arbitration requests, while maintain­
ing the new time standards. Increases are anticipated
from growth of activity in both private and public
sectors of industrial relations.
To distribute cases equitably among available arbi­
trators.
To develop the capability of responding to requests
specifying more refined arbitrator experience criteria.
To identify national arbitration requirements for
the development of new arbitrator resources.
To determine substantive trends in ad hoc arbitra­
tion through research for policy and program purposes.
To attain these goals, a complete reorganization of
FMCS Arbitration Services was necessary. The develop­
ment program included the creation of a computerized
data-processing system, the revision of administrative and
monitoring procedures, and an expansion of the scope of
attention given arbitration matters by this agency.
Fundamental to the revision of FMCS Arbitration
Services was the creation of a computerized arbitration
information system called ARBIT. The name was formed
from the first letters of the larger descriptive title, the
FMCS Arbitration Information Tracking System.
ARBIT, a time-shared on-line system, is capable of
maintaining and producing data necessary for rapid and
accurate arbitrator panel selection, with a virtually un­
limited capacity of record storage and an ability to select
arbitrator information from those records almost instan­
taneously.
Upon receipt of a request for a panel of arbitrators


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

from parties about to enter arbitration, FMCS requests
the ARBIT system to supply the names of all the arbi­
trators on the roster who practice in or near the place
where the arbitration is to be held, and who meet other
specific criteria set by the parties.
Once the panel is selected, the records maintained by
the computer will be automatically posted and letters
will be produced by high speed printers, notifying the
parties of the nominees. The ARBIT system will main­
tain current information on the status of cases by arbi­
trator’s personal file, by company file, and by union file.
Subsequent activity in the case will be monitored, posted,
and followed up as it progresses through to the appoint­
ment of an arbitrator, the hearing of the case, and the
filing of an award to close the case. By the use of auto­
matic time thresholds established for each case, the
ARBIT System will monitor the progress of each case
and notify the General Counsel where delays at any
stage seem imminent.
A special feature incorporated into the system is the
automatic production of current biographical sketches
which accompany panels sent to the parties. Such current
information is important to those selecting arbitrators
and the arbitrators themselves since they will insure more
accurate evaluation and selection on the one hand and
improved presentation of arbitrator skills and experience
on the other. This feature is especially important to new
arbitrators seeking increased acceptability since their bio­
graphical sketch will immediately reflect each increment
of experience they gain in completing cases for which
they are selected.
In addition to improving the quality and efficiency of
FMCS arbitration services, it is expected that the ARBIT
system will insure a more equitable distribution of cases
among available arbitrators. Through the automatic dis­
play of current case nominations, appointments, and
awards with each arbitrator’s name, the operator will be
able to choose arbitrators who are available for prompt
hearings, avoiding the continued heavy use of arbitrators
already burdened with case back-logs. Similarly, informa­
tion on arbitrators who are currently unavailable, special
requirements of parties, and other notes will be displayed
in the system.

IMPROVING ARBITRATION

sion of a possible training program among local
labor and management practitioners. This view was
expressed at the local Industrial Relations Research
Association for Western New York. The Federal Me­
diation and Conciliation Service and the American
Arbitration Association were seeking a site for an
experimental effort to test out a contemplated contin­
uous effort in arbitrator development. The National
Academy of Arbitrators lent its professional assist­
ance but hewed to its policy of not recommending
arbitrators. Accordingly, the Academy’s involvement
in the program was stipulated not to constitute en­
dorsement or recommendation of any of the trainees.
The final co-sponsoring institution involved in the
western New York program was Cornell University,
which would provide the academic portion of the
training.
The proposed program was presented to a special
labor-management committee formed by the IRRA
for Western New York. In addition to developing a
plan for a joint academic and counterpart experience
program, it was suggested that the joint labor-man­
agement committee undertake screening and select­
ing candidates to insure their acceptability upon
completion of the program. The committee, com­
posed of 20 practitioners from both labor and man­
agement and 7 attorneys, not only accepted the task
of recruiting and screening, but established the cri­
teria for selection. These criteria differed in some
aspects from those of the participating agencies.6
The 20 arbitrator-designates chosen by the com­
mittee reflected some of the current thinking on de­
sirable characteristics but all were marked by high
qualifications. Fourteen of the group had no previous
experience as neutrals but nine were already listed
as arbitrators with the appointing agencies. Six were
attorneys, nine were on university faculties of law,
business administration, economics, and industrial
relations. The group included two blacks and one
woman. In terms of age, 12 are under 35, two are
between 35 and 40, and the rest were between 40
and 50.
In addition to a series of 9 day-long academic
sessions conducted on a one-a-month basis during
the year, except for the summer months, the arbitra­
tor-designates have been accompanying practicing
arbitrators on cases in the area. Once the NAA had
enlisted the cooperation of its members active in the
western New York area, the local offices of the
FMCS (Buffalo) and the AAA (Syracuse) assigned
arbitrator-designates to accompany the appointed ar­

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

19

bitrator to the hearing after securing the permission
of the parties. The designate has the responsibility of
preparing an award which was submitted for evalua­
tion by the experienced arbitrator after he had sub­
mitted his official award.
The program designers established a minimum of
six such awards as a requirement of the program
with special emphasis on assigning arbitrator-desig­
nates to a variety of cases and a variety of arbitra­
tors. This procedure not only allows the designate to
gain experience in hearing different types of issues,
but he also has the opportunity of seeing different
arbitrators with varying styles of approaches. A sub­
sidiary purpose of the on-the-job program was expo­
sure of the arbitrator-designates to the parties in a
given region to enhance their acceptability.
The key concepts in the western New York exper­
iment are (1) the active, total involvement of repre­
sentatives of labor and management responsible for
arbitration activity, especially in the selection of the
candidates, (2) the establishment of the need for
arbitrators in a given region, (3) the identification of
candidates who have extensive experience and are
known in the field of labor relations, (4) inclusion of
an academic program which stresses both precedural
and substantive aspects of arbitration, (5) prepara­
tion of awards by the program participants with sea­
soned arbitrators’ evaluations of their analysis, logic,
and ability to communicate.
An essential feature of the training program is the
considerable control by the local industrial relations
community, even to the point of establishing their
own selection criteria. The appointing agencies par­
ticipating in the program reserved the right of ap­
pointment to national panels, pending a review of
each graduate of the program. Automatic appoint­
ments were not contemplated. However, the likeli­
hood is strong that graduates will be accepted on
national panels.
Comparable programs which might be conducted
elsewhere should have similar labor-management
sponsorship of the industrial relations community. A
variation on this same principle is evident in those
industries which are currently attempting to train
arbitrators to be used in the industry. The use of a
labor-management committee such as that developed
in western New York would provide the smaller in­
dustries and unions a similar means of developing an
acceptable cadre of arbitrators for regional use.
The role of the IRRA for Western New York in
this program cannot be overstressed. The local chap-

20
ter was the locus for the formation and maintenance
of the Labor-Management Arbitrator Development
Committee. In that sense, the commitment of this
committee, representing the major users of arbitra­
tion in the area, is ascribable to the IRRA Chapter
as well as to the Committee itself.
In summary, the problem of the supply of arbitra­
tors is really a problem of a supply of arbitrators
acceptable to the parties. The solution to the prob­
lem lies partially in the willingness of the parties to
utilize newer arbitrators currently on the rosters of
the appointing agencies. In those areas where there is
a clear lack of sufficient arbitrators, the key is in the
hand of the parties who, if they recognize the need,
can establish a training program.
Problems of cost and delay

Critics of contemporary labor arbitration fre­
quently charge that arbitration has become too
lengthy and that costs are becoming prohibitive. An
examination of information on the average number
of days required to complete arbitration cases (be­
tween 1968-72) shows that while the total time be­
tween the request for a panel from FMCS and the
submission of an award dropped slightly between
1971 and 1972 (from 168.2 days to 166.4 days),
the total time from the filing of a grievance to the
submission of the award dropped from 251.5 days to
241.5 days. Even though this decline is significant,
some maintain that even this improvement is not
good enough for a process designed to be expedi­
tious. Table 3 shows that the amounts of time con­
sumed by the parties prior to requesting panels,
choosing panels, setting hearing dates, and the period
between hearing and award, are substantial. In each
of these areas the parties can shrink the time by
expediting a grievance, by meeting quickly to select
an arbitrator, and by refraining from submitting ex­
tensive post-hearing briefs which frequently cause the
delays in submission of the award. Moreover, the
delay in setting hearing dates might be avoided alto­
gether in certain cases by choosing newer arbitrators
who may not have the caseload of the preferred
experienced arbitrators.
This should not be taken to pin the responsibility
for delays on the parties alone. It is a fact of in­
dustrial relations the parties may be using the arbi­
tration procedure as a way of permitting negotiations
between the parties to continue. The difference be­
tween the number of panels requested and total

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972
Table 3. Changes in average costs and average time
charged in arbitration cases, 1 9 6 8 -7 2
Fiscal year
Cost items and
time charged
1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

Total charges (dollars)..
Rate per day (dollars)___
Fee charged (dollars).
Expenses charged (dollars)___

513.12
141.45
441.87
71.25

511.06
145.09
435.03
76.03

539.88
156.83
457.97
81.91

566.59
163.88
480.88
85.71

590.12
172.53
510.52
79.60

Total time charged
(days)_______
Hearing time charged (days)...
Travel time charged (days)___
Study time charged (days)___

3.07
1.00
.32
1.75

3.03
.95
.38
1.70

2.93
.92
.35
1.66

2.96
.92
.38
1.65

2.96
.91
.36
1.69

600

643

722

719

850

Number of cases sampled

arbitration awards rendered demonstrates that the
parties frequently settled the dispute by negotiation.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service cer­
tainly does not wish to influence the parties to com­
plete arbitration cases when in time they would settle
the dispute through negotiation.
In addition, in some cases the parties may be
protracting the proceedings to provide time for a
given grievance situation to mature. Then the matter
may eventually go to arbitration, it may go to
negotiation, or the case may even be closed without
further action. When the parties wish to move a case
quickly to arbitration, they can accomplish a great
deal by speeding the matter through their own proc­
esses and then requesting the appointing agencies to
handle their cases on an accelerated basis. The de­
lays in arbitrators submitting awards are caused in a
significant portion of cases by representatives of the
parties requesting delays to submit post-hearing
briefs. Then the arbitrator requires more time to
study the case and to prepare his award. Many arbi­
trators feel that not only is there often no need for
post-hearing briefs because of the nature of the case,
but that prehearing statements would be more useful.
They also would be instrumental in minimizing the
time required for the hearing and preparation of the
award.
Role of AR B IT. The Federal Mediation and Con­
ciliation Service planned its new ARBIT system
(computerized Arbitration Information Tracking
system) to reduce the time required to fill requests
for panels and to track cases through to completion.
In addition to other functions, the system is monitor­
ing each of the more than 13,000 cases handled this
year, and after certain programmed time limits are
reached, the ARBIT system will automatically notify

21

IMPROVING ARBITRATION

the parties and FMCS officials that the time allowed
for individual steps in the normal processing of a
given case have elapsed. Thus, reminders will go to
the parties when they have not notified FMCS of
their choice of an arbitrator from a panel submitted
at their request, and to the arbitrators when awards
are not filed timely. While the system pemits exten­
sions, its faculty of continuous reminding will assist
the parties and arbitrator in moving a case along.
Recurring bottlenecks can be identified for possible
remedial assistance.
Since the FMCS does not have enforcement au­
thority in any area of industrial relations, it can only
assist the parties by monitoring the arbitration sys­
tem. The parties, on the other side, can accomplish
much more by expediting their own cases, even in­
cluding fundamental simplification of the arbitration
process.
Costs. Table 4 bears on the recurring questions
about the mounting costs of arbitration. Based on a
sample of 850 cases conducted under the auspices of
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, it
was found that the average fees and expenses
charged by arbitrators increased from $566.55 in
fiscal year 1971 to $590.12 in fiscal 1972. While
arbitrators’ charges in individual cases may have ex­
ceeded the average amount, the overall trend to sig­
nificantly increasing costs has to be attributed to
factors other than arbitrators’ charges. If the parties
selected arbitrators in their own area and utilized
simplified procedures in less complicated cases which
would require fewer peripheral services (such as
Table 4. Average number of days required to complete
arbitration cases, 1 9 6 8 -7 2
Fiscal year
Events in the span
1968

Time between filing of griev­
ance and request for panel,.
Time between request
and sending of list_______
Time between date list is
sent and appointment-------Time between appointment
and hearing______________
Time between hearing and
award___________________

77.9

1969

1970

1971

1972

77.6

81.3

83.3

75.1
15.1

8.1

9.2

7.8

11.1

40.7

39.9

44.3

46.0

43.8
61.1

61.2

63.7

63.1

63.4

47.4

50.3

49.0

47.7

46.4

Total time between
request for panel
and arbitration award.
Total time between
filing of grievance
and arbitration award.

157.5

163.1

164.2

168.2

166.4

235.4

240.7

245.6

251.5

241.5

Number of cases sampled-----

600

643

722

719

850


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

Table 5. Frequency of occurrence of issues in cases in
which arbitrators selected from FMCS panels made
awards, fiscal year 1972

Issue1

General issues:
New or reopened contract terms
___ _ _________
Contract interpretation or application
_ _ __ _____ Specific issues:
Discharge and disciplinary actions
_____________
Incentive rates or standards
________________
Job evaluation
___ _ __ _ _ _ -- - Seniority2
_____ ___ _________
—
Overtime3
_______ -- - ------- - - - Union officers superseniority end union business _
___ _ _
Strike or lockout issues
- _ __ ________ _____
Vactions and vacation pay
__ ________________
Holidays and holiday pay
______________________
Scheduling of work
_ ___ - — - -Reporting ca11■in and cal 1■back pay
_ ______________
____
____________
Health and welfare
Pensions
_______ ___ - -- -_______________ — Other fringe benefits
Scope of agreement4
__
__Working conditions including safety
______________
Arbitrability of grievance5
_____ _____ —
-Miseel13 neons
---- ------------- --------- -

Frequency
of
occurrence

29
2,586
1,226
77
387
646
363
21
18
132
101
182
77
51
21
92
211
48
261
237

1 Compilations based on the number of arbitration awards for which data were
available; that is, 3,414 of the 3,432 awards. Some awards involved more than one issue.
* Includes promotion and upgrading (137), layoff, bumping, recall (327), transfer
(96), and other matters (86).
3 Includes pay (172), distribution of overtime (172), and compulsory overtime (19).
4 Includes subcontracting (92), jurisdictional disputes (17), foreman, supervision,
and so on (61), mergers, consolidations, accretion, other plants (11).
3 Includes procedural (141), substantive (68), procedural/substantive (32), and
other issues (20).

transcripts and briefs), some factors contributing to
mounting costs would be eliminated. To illustrate the
point, transcripts were taken in 186 of the 850 cases
sampled. That same sample showed that briefs were
filed in 553 instances, thus creating additional costs
and contributing an average of over 26 days to the
total time required for submission of an award.
T he Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and
other appointing agencies can suggest the use of ex­
pedited procedures or indicate that the inclusion of
various services may tend to drive total arbitration
costs upward. However, it is ultimately the parties
who must trim some of their current practices if they
are to reduce costs and time delays. Because the
parties have ultimate control over arbitration, they
are constantly redesigning procedural as well as sub­
stantive aspects of the process. That redesigning can
tend toward simplification or increasing complica­
tion.
Aside from labor’s and management’s powers and
responsibilities, there are several strong influences
behind the current trends. The cases are becoming
increasingly complicated and important in terms of
issues. There is a natural reluctance to submit impor-

22

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

tant cases of consequence to simplified procedures or
newer arbitrators for fear that inadequate handling
of the case might prejudice the outcome. There is
also a natural reluctance to abandon familiar proc­
esses for fear of repercussions even in cases which
might have been lost regardless of process. However,
the plurality of cases are discharge and disciplinary
actions, as table 5 shows. While there may be diffi­
cult and complicated cases among them, generally
these cases frequently lend themselves to innovative
procedures.
The FMCS has undertaken a revision of its arbi­
tration services and incorporated the use of a compu-

terized system. As a result, services to the parties will
be improved. Certainly, the practical expansion of
alternative choices among arbitrators and the effect
of assistance to the parties through continuous moni­
toring, should be steps in the right direction. Beyond
that, however, it is up to the parties to re-examine
their purposes in arbitration and then change means
to accomplish those ends more expeditiously. As in
any democratic process, arbitration will accomplish
the purpose which those who use it want. Hopefully,
the users will opt for an effective process which will
serve collective bargaining in the future as well as it
has in the past.
rn

-F O O T N O T E S -

1 Arbitration’s growth is indicated by more than 95 per­
cent of major labor contracts now providing for arbitration.
Moreover, the two principal agencies supplying arbitration
services at the national level— the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service and the American Arbitration Associa­
tion— expect their combined requests for arbitration panels
to exceed 20,000 this year.

5 Statement by Dr. Thomas J. McDermott, National
Academy of Arbitrators.

6 Summarized, the selection criteria were as follows: (1)
Age: Younger individuals should be encouraged but older
ones with potential acceptability can be selected. (2) At least
5 years experience in labor relations with labor, manage­
ment or both. Appropriate fields for the experience include
2 William J. Kilberg, “FMCS and arbitration: problems
government service, college teaching, research in labor rela­
and prospects,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1971, pp.
tions, education degrees in industrial relations, law, person­
40-45.
nel, management, industrial engineering, and so on; actual
degree unnecessary where there is appropriate and extensive
1 The regulations of the Federal Mediation and Concilia­
experience in labor relations work, for example, 10 years as
tion Service are specific on the matter of requirements for
a union representative. (3) Occupation: Candidates should
qualification for listing on the agency’s roster of arbitrators.
normally be engaged in labor relations work, attorneys with
For a full statement, see section 1402.2 of the FMCS
interest and experience in labor relations, or educators with
regulations, “Arbitration Policies, Functions and Proce­
appropriate qualification in the field. (4) Geographical area:
dures.”
western New York particularly Rochester, Jamestown, Buf­
4
Twenty percent of the new appointees specify per diem falo, Syracuse, Ithaca, and Niagara Falls area. (5) N o
fees of less than $150, 46 percent set their rates at $150 a
racial, creed, color, national origin, age, or sex discrimina­
day, and most of the rest specified fees over $150 and up to
tion to be practiced. (6) Committee could accept highly
$200 a day.
qualified who did not meet each criterion.


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

Labor and management
are working out
a grievance system
within the confines of
Civil Service law and regulations
WILLIAM J. KILBERG, THOMAS ANGELO,
AND LAWRENCE LORBER

of grievance arbitration in the private
sector has been traced to the need to maintain labor
peace during World War II.1 The National War
Labor Board and the Wage Stabilization structure
used during the Korean War produced a cadre of
labor arbitrators sophisticated in dispute resolution
procedures. Private dispute settlement has therefore
evolved into a mature set of mechanisms by which
the parties to an agreement are provided an expedi­
tious, equitable and relatively inexpensive avenue of
settlement although there are current complaints
about rising costs and delays.
Unionization and collective bargaining in public
employment are relatively recent phenomena, un­
tested by the turmoil of wartime concerns. Thus
when compared with the current state of the art in
the private sector, public sector procedures may
seem insufficient. It must be remembered, however,
that these agreements were developed in an atmos­
phere significantly different from that in the private
sector. Moreover, unlike the National Labor Rela­
tions Act, the Executive orders have provided re­
strictive guidance as to what may and may not be
included within a negotiated grievance procedure.
In addition, the availability of alternate statutory
procedures for dispute resolution provided by Civil
Service regulation has lessened both the need for and
the impact of negotiated grievance mechanisms. It is
only in the past year since the most recent Executive
order has been issued that arbitration in the Federal
sector has had an opportunity to come into its own.
The authors have reviewed approximately 50
agreements entered into since the issuance of the
latest Executive order in an effort to discern present
T he grow th

William J. Kilberg is Associate Solicitor for Labor Relations
and Civil Rights, U. S. Department of Labor. Thomas
Angelo and Lawrence Lorber are attorneys in the Division of
Labor Relations and Civil Rights, U. S. Department of
Labor.

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

Grievance and
arbitration
patterns in the
Federal service
and evolving patterns of grievance arbitration in the
Federal sector.
Executive orders permit bargaining

In January 1962, the first of three Executive or­
ders pertaining to labor-management relations in the
Federal sector was signed by President Kennedy.
Embodying the recommendations of the President’s
Task Force on Employee-Management Relations in
the Federal Sector, Executive Order 10988 contained
provisions in regard to grievance and arbitration
procedures.2
Section 8 of that order permitted negotiation of
grievance procedures if they conformed to Civil
Service standards and did not “diminish or impair”
any rights the employee already had. Arbitration
provisions could also be negotiated so long as the
arbitration award was only “advisory” rather than
binding, dealt only with the interpretation or applica­
tion of agreements or agency policy, and the em­
ployee or employees concerned approved of its use.
Thus, the Federal employee was presented with a
bifurcated system for resolving his grievance, either
through the applicable agency procedure or through
the grievance procedure negotiated by his union.
Furthermore, because the arbitral decision was advi­
sory only, it left the ultimate resolution of the griev­
ance in the hands of the appropriate agency head,
essentially the situation predating the Executive
order. After 5 years of operation under Executive
Order 10988, only 19 percent of Federal employees
were covered by any type of negotiated grievance
procedure, and both management and labor found
the dual systems for grievance resolution confusing.
As one consequence of this, in 1967 a second
Task Force on Labor Relations in the Federal sector
began analyzing the system. Its report, issued in
1969, commented that “so long as negotiated griev23

24
ance procedures provided employees all rights pre­
scribed by Civil Service Commission standards, they
might properly be adopted by the agency and labor
organization as the exclusive procedure available to
employees,” The report went on to state that “arbitra­
tion of grievances has worked well and has benefited
both employees and agencies. . .
They felt that
arbitrators’ decisions “should be accepted by the
parties” and should be set aside only on “grounds
similar to those applied by the courts in private sec­
tor labor-management relations. . . .”
In October 1969, President Nixon issued Execu­
tive Order 11491 which codified these recommenda­
tions in its sections 13 and 14. While permitting the
negotiated procedure to be the “exclusive procedure
available to employees in the unit when the agree­
ment so provides,” the new order barred extension of
arbitration to “changes or proposed changes in
agreements or agency policy.”3
In contrast to Executive Order 10988 which al­
lowed both negotiated and agency-imposed grievance
procedures to exist side-by-side, Executive Order
11491 permitted the negotiated grievance procedure
to be the exclusive method for resolving disputes
during the life of the contract. It was soon discov­
ered, however, that the conflict between employee
rights established by law or regulation and rights
created by the collective agreement was not resolved
by allowing the negotiated grievance procedure to be
the sole route open to employees.
In August 1971, the President issued Executive
Order 11616, which amended Executive Order
11491 substantively in the areas of grievance and
arbitration procedures. The new order provides that
negotiated grievance procedures and arbitration can
deal only with the interpretation or application of a
negotiated agreement, and cannot deal with matters
outside the agreement, including those for which
statutory appeals procedures exist. These changes are
codified as section 13 of the amended order, and are
applicable to all agreements established, extended, or
renewed beginning November 24, 1971.4

Defining grievances

Under Executive Order 11616, an agreement
must contain a grievance procedure (this differs
from Executive Orders 10988 and 11491), al­
though no similar requirement is placed on arbi­
tration provisions. The order limits coverage of

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

negotiated grievance procedures to grievances which
involve the interpretation or application of provisions
in the agreement. Other types of grievances must be
resolved through agency systems developed under
Civil Service Commission regulations or other availa­
ble agency procedures. Moreover, negotiated griev­
ance procedures are not permitted to cover matters
already dealt with by statutory appeals procedures.
This prevents duplication or overlap in avenues of
redress which could occur, for example, if a matter
subject to a statutory appeals procedure also touches
on provisions of the agreement.
Because the order makes specific reference to the
right of “any employee or group of employees [to]
present. . . grievances to the agency and have them
adjusted,” so long as the union (the exclusive repre­
sentative) has the “opportunity to be present at the
adjustment,” a number of agreements reflect this in­
junction. Thus, in the agreement negotiated between
the Germantown District of the Social Security Ad­
ministration and Local 2327, American Federation
of Government Employees, is the following:
A grievance is an em ployee’s or group o f em ­
p loyees’, expressed (oral or w ritten) feeling o f dis­
satisfaction with M anagem ent’s interpretation or
application o f this agreement. It is initiated by the
em p lo y ee(s) him self (th em selv es), not by the union.

This clause clearly precludes the union from bringing
the grievance in its own name, thus channeling the
grievance procedure into resolving disputes between
individual employees and management.5
In the multiunit agreement negotiated by the Na­
tional Weather Service and the National Association
of Government Employees (NAGE), grievance is
defined in the following manner:
A grievance, for purposes o f this agreement, is any
cause for dissatisfaction over the interpretation or
application of this agreement, if the matter grows out
o f em ploym ent in the A gency and the rem edy sought
is within the authority o f the Director o f the A gency
or other official to w hom such authority has been
delegated.

This clause contains the basic definition of a griev­
ance without stating whether the grievance may be
brought solely by the affected employee or employ­
ees. It also adds the important qualification that the
remedy sought must be within the power of the
agency head to grant.
However, in the agreement between Local 2486,
American Federation of Government Employees,

25

ARBITRATION IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE

and the Baltimore District of the Food and Drug
Administration, power to initiate grievances was ex­
panded to include the union:
T he negotiated grievance procedure contained
herein is applicable only to members o f the unit and
shall apply only to the consideration o f grievances
over the interpretation or application o f this General
A greem ent. This procedure will be the only pro­
cedure for the consideration o f such grievances.
G rievances under this procedure m ay be submitted
by an em ployee, a group o f em ployees, or by the
U nion.

This alternate definition of a grievance by allowing
the union to be the instigating party gives it an added
incentive to monitor the application of the agreement
and permits the collective bargaining grievance pro­
cedure to be used to clarify contract disputes without
recourse to any particular aggrieved employee. This
provision therefore allows the dispute settlement pro­
cedure of the grievance mechanism to be applied in a
preventive manner and opens the door to the possi­
ble use of arbitration for declaratory judgments.
An interesting variation on both these approaches
can be found in the agreement between the U.S.
Department of Labor and the National Council of
Field Labor Lodges, American Federation of Gov­
ernment Employees:
. . . G rievances initiated by individual em ployees
or groups o f em ployees in their ow n behalf, person­
ally or through the union, are denom inated as “Type
A .” D isputes initiated by the U nion or affiliated lodges
are denom inated “Type B .” Matters brought by the
U nion under this definition are not grievances within
the m eaning o f the Civil Service C om m ission stand­
ards, and such standards do not apply to type B
disputes.
A T ype A grievance is a statement o f dissatisfac­
tion and request for adjustment o f a managem ent
decision or som e aspect o f em ploym ent status or
working conditions w hich is beyond the control o f
the aggrieved em ployee but within the control of the
Departm ent. This may include disputes over interpre­
tation or application o f this agreement or any law,
rule, or regulation governing personnel practices or
working conditions.6
A Type B grievance is a dispute initiated by the
U nion or an affiliated lodge concerning interpretation
or application o f this agreement. This procedure shall
not be used in the adjustment o f individual cases;
how ever, arbitration decisions w hich are accepted by
the Secretary shall be applied to appropriate indi­
vidual cases.

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

Several of the agreements studied contain provi­
sions allowing the public employer to file a griev­
ance. In such instances, the grievance procedure
often commences in one of the last steps of the
process. An example of this can be found in the
agreement negotiated between the Commissary Store
at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, and Local 767,
American Federation of Government Employees:
Grievances initiated by the U nion or the Em ployer
will be submitted to the Officer-in-Charge or the
President o f the U nion as appropriate. Grievances
must concern interpretation or application o f the
specific provisions o f this agreement.

Issues outside the grievance procedure

Executive Order 11616 clearly excludes from cov­
erage in the negotiated grievance procedure matters
which are subject to statutory appeals procedures.
The phrase “statutory appeals procedures” is con­
strued broadly to include appeals procedures estab­
lished by Executive order or regulations of appropri­
ate authorities outside the agency which implement
responsibilities assigned by statute. “Statutory” is
thus defined as relating to or conforming to statute as
well as created, defined or required by statute. The
negotiated grievance procedure, for example, may
not include grievances based upon disciplinary ac­
tions because appeals from “adverse actions” are
subject to Civil Service Commission regulations.
Thus discharge, suspension for more than 30 days,
furlough without pay, or reduction in rank or pay
cannot be taken through a grievance procedure nego­
tiated by labor and management.7 If, on the other
hand, an employee wishes to grieve over the interpre­
tation or application of the agreement, he must use
the negotiated procedure, the exclusive method avail­
able for this purpose under the Order.
Time limits. While much has been written recently
about the length of time it takes to process griev­
ances in the private sector from initiation to binding
arbitration, comparable studies of the length of time
it takes to process grievances in the public sector are
not available. Generally, however, civil service laws
and regulations set firm limits on the time available
for completing each step of the process. However,
recognizing the realities of grievance processing,
most regulations provide for some waiving of the
rigid limits in particular circumstances or by mutual
agreement of the parties. It is reasonable to assume

26
that some difficult grievances may spill out of this
loophole and consume considerably more time than
that alloted for their completion.
This suggests that two particularly crucial areas in
any grievance procedure are the time limits set for
filing a grievance and those set on completing each
step in the procedure.
Generally, in the contracts studied two ap­
proaches were taken on the question of how much
time an aggrieved employee has to file his grievance.
The strict-time-limit approach provides that the em­
ployee must take action within a fixed period after
the date the act complained of occurred. An example
of this type of clause can be found in the agreement
between the Chicago District of the Food and Drug
Administration and FDA Lodge 112, AFGE:
Any employee or group of employees having a griev­
ance coming within the purview of this article should
take it up first with his immediate supervisor within
15 calendar days after the occurrence of the act on
which the grievance is based.
The other approach generally followed is to pro­
vide that the grievance must be filed within a set time
after the grievance is discovered. This approach indi­
cates awareness of the possibility that an employee
or a union might not have immediate knowledge of a
grievable act. An example of this approach can be
found in the agreement negotiated between the Naval
Amphibious Base and the Tidewater Virginia Fed­
eral Employees Metal Trades Council. The clause
provides:
It is agreed than an employee and the Council must
file their grievance within 15 calendar days. The time
is computed from the date of the occurrence of the
incident which gives rise to the grievance or the
date the employee becomes aware of the decision
about which he is aggrieved.
A common variation on the latter approach is to
provide for an extension on the original time limita­
tion but to provide a final limitation after which the
grievance cannot be brought. A representative exam­
ple of this type of clause can be found in the agree­
ment negotiated between the Washington Area Metal
Trades Council and the Naval Research Laboratory:
An alleged grievance, to be acceptable, shall be taken
up by the employee or employees and the appropriate
supervisor of employees involved within 15 days of
the incident leading to the alleged grievance unless it
is clearly evident that the employee had no oppor­
tunity to become informed of the action leading to
the alleged grievance. In no event will an alleged

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

grievance be accepted more than 3 months after
the action or event leading to the alleged grievance.
Other contracts provide a specified initial time period
but allow extensions upon showing of good cause or
after mutual agreement between the parties.
The other area in which time limits may become
an issue is when penalties are provided in the con­
tract for failure by either party to follow the time
limit set on each step in the grievance procedure.
The penalty clause uses generally standard language
and the only problems in this area occur when the
contract fails to provide a procedure to follow when
time limits are not met. In those instances, the limits
are basically advisory and without force. The ab­
sence of such clauses can result in procedural griev­
ances independent of the substantive matters which
initiated the grievance. A standard example of the
time limit clause including penalties can be found in
the agreement negotiated between the Fleet Home
Town News Center and Local 3229, American Fed­
eration of Government Employees, which provides
an employee or union can move on to the next step
in the grievance procedure if the employer fails to
meet the time limits for any particular step. If the
grievant or the union fail to meet time limits, the
grievance is considered withdrawn and terminated.
Steps in the process

Under Executive Order 11616, an agreement be­
tween an agency and a labor organization must pro­
vide a procedure for the consideration of grievances
over the interpretation or application of the agree­
ment. The form which this procedure is to take is not
specified by the Order, nor is there any requirement
that it culminate in any form of arbitration. How­
ever, a survey of contracts negotiated since the latest
Executive order demonstrates that the most common
procedure negotiated by the parties involves either a
three- or four-step grievance procedure, with some
form of third party determination at the end.
The first step. As a prerequisite to every formal
grievance procedure, the employee bringing a griev­
ance must exhaust his informal appeal rights. This
usually consists of a discussion of the problem with
his immediate supervisor. It may be an oral presenta­
tion, and the union representative need not be ap­
prised of the situation.

ARBITRATION IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE

In almost every contract, the immediate supervisor
must make an oral decision within a set time limit. If
the decision is unsatisfactory to the employee, or the
supervisor fails to render a decision, the employee
may then proceed to the next step.
A number of contracts take into account certain
practicalities peculiar to their unit. For example, pro­
vision is sometimes made for the first-level supervisor
to make an investigation within the scope of his
authority before rendering his decision. (See, for ex­
ample, the contract between the Coast Guard Air­
craft Supply Center and Coast Guard Air Base, Eliz­
abeth City, N.C., and Local 2203, International As­
sociation of Machinists.)
Other contracts, while not requiring a supervisory
investigation, do require that the first step of the
grievance procedure be at a supervisory level at
which a decision can be rendered. As a result, when
the employee’s grievance involves a question which
can only be dealt with by a second-echelon supervi­
sor, the contract requires that he be so notified and
the grievance be referred at the appropriate step of
the grievance procedure to the official having such
authority. (See, for example, the contract between
the American Federation of Government Employees
and the Portsmouth, Va. Naval Shipyard.) A further
refinement is found in those contracts which provide
that if the employee feels that he cannot discuss his
grievance with his immediate supervisor, he may go
directly to the next level of supervision. (See, for
example, the contract between the United States In­
formation Agency and Local 1812, American Feder­
ation of Government Employees.)
The employee must utilize the informal procedures
in the first step. If he fails to do so, it could result in
dismissal of his grievance at a later stage, which
could have the effect of precluding him from re-instituting his claim due to the time limits in the contract.
By the same token, supervisory personnel at the first
level must be aware of their responsibilities in pro­
viding the employee an opportunity to resolve the
grievance at the first level. Failure to do so, particu­
larly where some form of investigation is required,
could prove to be a prejudicial error at some latter
stage of the grievance.
The second step. While some contracts provide that
a grievance may be submitted in writing in the first
step, the overwhelming number of contracts exam­
ined in this study indicate that the formal grievance
procedure is initiated in step two by the submission,

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

27

in writing, of the grievance to the appropriate man­
agement official.
A most important consideration at this and suc­
ceeding grievance steps is the time requirements pro­
vided by contract. Equally as important is the re­
quirement at this step that the written grievance con­
form to the requirements enumerated in the contract.
While the agreements surveyed vary as to whether
the name of the step one supervisor or the contract
provision allegedly violated, and other such matters,
should be included, those contracts requiring a writ­
ten grievance be submitted provide that the following
must be set out: (1) the basis of the grievance; (2)
the facts out of which the grievance arose; and (3)
corrective action requested. The person to whom the
grievance should be sent is determined largely by
contract, depending on the nature of the unit and the
levels of supervisory contact. In one instance, provi­
sion is made for a “grievance control officer” whose
duty it is to relay the written grievance to the appro­
priate management official. (See the contract be­
tween the U.S. Department of Labor and Labor
Local 12, American Federation of Government Em­
ployees.)
Regardless of whether the employee has requested
union representation, at this and at all succeeding
grievance steps, the Executive order affords a union
(if the exclusive representative) the right to attend
all formal meetings between management and the
aggrieved employee. It should be noted that some
contracts have provided that an employee seeking to
utilize this and subsequent grievance steps may do so
only with the consent of the union. This language
may well be in violation of the Executive order and
deprives the employee of rights provided under it.
By requiring that a negotiated procedure be the
only method available for the resolution of contract
disputes, the Executive order requires an employee
to rely on contractual methods of relief. Those con­
tracts which prevent an employee from pursuing the
contractual avenue of grievance resolution unless his
union consents may perhaps extend too far beyond
the language of the order.
In this step the appropriate management official
is generally required to perform some factfinding or
review based on the written allegation before him.
The procedure requires generally that his analysis
and decision be in writing, with a contractual time
limit placed on his activities. The nature of the re­
view required at this level varies. Some contracts
provide only that the official “attempt to settle” the

28
grievance (for example, the contract between the
Germantown District Social Security Administration
and Local 2327, American Federation of Govern­
ment Employees), while others require an actual
factfinding investigation (for example, the contract
between Williams Air Force Base and Local 1776,
AFGE). Regardless of the specific contract provi­
sion, the supervisor must be careful to perform re­
quired functions under the contract. Even more than
under the informal phase, a prejudicial error here
will be strong grounds for reversal at a later date.
The third step. If the grievance is not resolved in a
satisfactory manner during the second step, this al­
lows invocation of the third and often final step of
the grievance procedure. Depending upon the size of
the unit and the structure of supervisory authority
within the agency, this may be the last opportunity
for settlement before arbitration. However, in those
agencies having more than one tier of higher man­
agement authority, the formal grievance procedure
may require a fourth step of managerial review, in
which case the same considerations that prevail in
the third step apply.
Most contracts require that the agency official
meet with the aggrieved employee in an effort to
resolve the grievance. The employee and his repre­
sentative (if he has one) are given an opportunity to
present their case orally and informally under most
contracts. In any event, after a review of the griev­
ance and pertinent evidence, a written decision is
required within a period of time determined by the
contract. Depending on the number of steps included
in the procedure, the union or agency may request
arbitration if it is provided for under the agreement.
Unfair labor practices

One of the significant changes implemented by
Executive Order 11616 was in the area of alleged
unfair labor practices.8 Prior to the adoption of the
amending order, unfair labor practices were dealt
with in a variety of ways depending upon which
party was charged. Agency procedures and proce­
dures under Executive Order 11491 were both uti­
lized. This dual process prevented a uniform body of
law respecting unfair labor practices from being de­
veloped. The amendments proposed by the Federal
Labor Relations Council and adopted in the Execu­
tive order provide for alternate means of solving
questions of unfair labor practice. The aggrieved

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

party now has the option of bringing an unfair labor
practice charge to the Assistant Secretary of Labor
or of dealing with the question under the negotiated
grievance procedure. He may not, however, utilize
both procedures with regard to the same allegation
of unfair labor practices. If the contract course is
followed, any decision issued would not have value
as a precedent for other unfair labor practices
charges. This follows the Council’s recommendation
that “all Unfair Labor Practice complaints be proc­
essed and decided only under the procedures pro­
vided by the Assistant Secretary and the Council.”
Executive Order 11616 contains clauses dealing with
Unfair Labor Practice charges which reflect the view
expressed by the Council and designate the Assistant
Secretary as the only recipient of unfair labor prac­
tice charges. This Assistant Secretary’s expanded role
is also reflected in his authority to determine ques­
tions of grievability and arbitrability.
Access to records

A question sometimes arises regarding the right of
employees or their representatives to have access to
agency records in order to facilitate the processing of
grievances. Access to agency records, for example,
can be crucial in determining the exact date of the
grievable action. This is important when there is a
strict time limit in effect for instituting grievances.
The obvious problem here is potential conflict with
the Freedom of Information Act and Civil Service
Commission regulations.9
Most contracts are silent on the question of rec­
ords access. Those that do contain clauses pertaining
to the release of information provide for the release
of all pertinent information subject to any statutory
or regulatory prohibition. (See the agreement be­
tween Hill Air Force Base and Local 1592, Ameri­
can Federation of Government Employees.)
Identical grievances

Finally, many of the contracts examined attempt
to deal with the problem created by the submission
of several identical grievances. Joint submission of
identical grievances assures greater precedential con­
sistency, binding all affected employees in the same
manner. Two approaches appear to have been fol­
lowed in those contracts which deal with the problem
of identical grievances. One is to utilize the class-ac­
tion approach, with one employee representing the

ARBITRATION IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE

class and the decision binding on all members of the
class. (See the agreement between Naval Support
Activity, Mare Island and the International Associa­
tion of Fire Fighters, Local F-48.) The other method
is a joinder provision, joining all the grievances into
one action. (See the agreement between the Naval
Amphibious School, Norfolk and Local 1625, Amer­
ican Federation of Government Employees.)
Arbitration under the orders

While grievance machinery has been refined by
each succeeding Executive order, a similar impact
has not occurred with regard to grievance arbitration.
Under Executive Order 10988, the only type of
grievance arbitration which could be utilized was ad­
visory. In the two Executive orders issued since that
order, the only refinements made have been in allow­
ing the parties the option of final or binding arbitra­
tion where arbitration is provided for and to allow
appeal from binding arbitration to the Federal Labor
Relations Council.
Binding or advisory arbitration. In those contracts
which provide for advisory arbitration, the agency
head reviews the arbitrator’s decision and issues a
final ruling. There is no appeal to the Federal Labor
Relations Council. Where the parties have agreed to
binding arbitration, the simplest and most concise
method of providing for arbitration under the con­
tract has been to include the following:
1. That the scope of the arbitrator’s authority is
limited (that is, he may not add to, delete, or modify
the terms of the contract);
2. that the decision of the arbitrator shall be bind­
ing on the parties; and
3. that any exception to the arbitrator’s decision
may be filed with the Federal Labor Relations Coun­
cil by any party under terms of Executive Order
11491 (as amended), and any regulations issued by
the Council. (See 5 Code of Federal Regulations,
part 2410.)
Whenever the parties attempt to go beyond these
provisions, a danger exists that additional language
may result in ambiguity and confusion. As an exam­
ple of this, the following taken from the agreement
between Defense Depot Tracy and Local 2029,
American Federation of Government Employees,
should be examined.
Both parties w ill review the arbitrator’s award and

each will inform the other within 5 working days

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

29
o f their decision to accept or take exception to the
award. If both parties accept the arbitrator’s recom ­
m endation it will becom e the final decision in the
matter. If either or both o f the parties object to the
award they have 10 days to notify the other party,
the D irector [D efense Supply A gency], and the N a ­
tional President o f A F G E o f the full nature o f their
objections to the decision. If the matter cannot be re­
solved within a reasonable period of time, either party
may appeal to the Federal Labor Relations Council in
accordance with its rules. The C ouncil, after a review
o f the records, briefs and other inform ation w ill then
issue a final decision.

It is not clear whether the parties agreement calls for
binding or advisory arbitration. That either party can
resort to the Federal Labor Relations Council would
normally indicate binding arbitration was envisioned.
However, an arbitrator’s decision can hardly be con­
sidered binding where the parties have modification
rights subsequent to the decision being rendered.
Picking an arbitrator. The mechanics of picking an
arbitrator are generally set down in the negotiated
agreement. Generally, as in the private sector, when
arbitration is requested in a timely manner under the
contract, a request is forwarded to the Federal Me­
diation and Conciliation Service for a list of five
arbitrators. Some contracts provide that the parties
shall attempt to pick an arbitrator prior to the re­
quest to the FMCS. (See the agreement between the
Naval Air Station at Norfolk and the International
Association of Machinists, Local 39.) This process
might enable the parties to choose an impartial arbi­
trator who is familiar with the contract and working
conditions at the facility. One contract expressly
states that the parties should attempt to acquire an
arbitrator within the Federal Government Service.
(See the agreement between the Public Health Serv­
ice Hospital and the National Maritime Union— Gov­
ernment Employees Division.)
After the list of five arbitrators is received from
the FMCS, the parties attempt to choose an arbitra­
tor from the list. If agreement is not reached, the
general approach is for the parties to strike one
name in turn. The last person on the list is desig­
nated the arbitrator. This process is modified in sev­
eral contracts. After the decision is made to go to
arbitration, a list of five arbitrators is requested from
the FMCS. The parties then meet to attempt to pick
an arbitrator. If agreement is not reached, a second
list is requested. The strike-off method is then used
to select an arbitrator. (See the agreement between
Federal Aviation Administration, Eastern Regional

30

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Headquarters and Local R2-72, National Associa­
tion of Government Employees.)
Another clause appearing in several contracts pro­
vides that in the event of the refusal of either party
to participate in the selection of an arbitrator, the
FMCS would be empowered to make a direct desig­
nation of an arbitrator (agreement between Presidio
Commissary and AFGE Local 1457). This provision
serves to prevent a possible charge of an unfair labor
practice for failure to participate in a negotiated
grievance step by recognizing the right of either party
not to participate at this step.
The problem of the phraseology of the questions

put before the arbitrator is dealt with in several con­
tracts by allowing the arbitrator to phrase the ques­
tion himself based on suggested language provided
by the parties and examination of the entire contract
file.
B ased upon the study of these contracts, we con­
clude that grievance arbitration procedures in the
Federal sector have made many advances since their
inception. The refinements in Federal labor relations
made by Executive Order 11616 strongly indicate
that Federal labor-management relations should con­
tinue to evolve into a fair and effective means of
dispute resolution.
rn

-F O O T N O T E S -

1 A discussion of this (including a review of develop­
ments since 1940) in the automobile and steel industries can
be found in Merton C. Bernstein, P r iv a te D is p u te S e ttle m e n t
(New York, The Free Press, 1968), p. 285.
2 See sections 8(a) and (b) of Executive Order 10988.
3 See section 13 (grievance procedures) and section 14
(arbitration of grievances) of Executive Order 11491.
4 G r ie v a n c e a n d a r b itr a tio n p r o c e d u r e s . An agreement
with a labor organization which is the exclusive representa­
tive of employees in an appropriate unit may provide proce­
dures, applicable only to employees in the unit, for the
consideration of employee grievance and of disputes over
the interpretation and application o f agreements. The proce­
dure for consideration of employee grievances shall meet the
requirements for negotiated grievance procedures established
by the Civil Service Commission. A negotiated employee
grievance which conforms to this section, to applicable laws,
and to regulations of the Civil Service Commission and the
agency is the exclusive procedure available to employees in
the unit when the agreement so provides.
(a) An agreement between an agency and a labor
organization shall provide a procedure, applicable only to
the unit, for the consideration of grievances over the inter­
pretation or application of the agreement. A negotiated
grievance procedure may not cover any other matters, in­
cluding matters for which statutory appeals procedures exist,
and shall be the exclusive procedure available to the parties
and the employees in the unit for resolving such grievances.
However, any employee or group of employees in the unit
may present such grievances to the agency and have them
adjusted, without the intervention of the exclusive represent­
ative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the
terms of the agreement and the exclusive representative has
been given opportunity to be present at the adjustment.
(b) A negotiated procedure may provide for the arbi­
tration of grievances over the interpretation or application
of the agreement, but not over any other matters. Arbitra­


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

tion may be invoked only by the agency or the exclusive
representative. Either party may file exceptions to an arbi­
trator’s award with the Council, under regulations pre­
scribed by the Council.
5 Merton C. Bernstein ( P r iv a te D is p u te S e t t l e m e n t ) cites
a U.S. Department o f Labor (Bureau o f Labor Statistics)
study of 1,717 private sector collective bargaining agree­
ments, which found that in approximately 47 percent of
them grievance definitions covered any dispute or com­
plaints; in 53 percent only disputes arising under or related
to the specific provisions of the agreement.
6 The scope of the grievance process, although broadly
stated, may not be interpreted to be broader than those
matters raised specifically in the agreement itself.
7 Examples of matters which are outside the grievance
procedure are reemployment priority rights ( F e d e r a l P e r s o n ­
n e l M a n u a l, Chapter 330; 5 United States Code 3502);
reductions in force (FPM chap. 351, 5 USC 3502); reem­
ployment or reinstatement rights (FPM chap. 352, 5 USC
2193(d), 2 3 8 5 (b )); military restoration (FPM chap. 353, 5
USC 3551); performance ratings (FPM chap. 430, 5 USC
4305); position classification (FPM chap. 511, 5 USC
5112(b); level of .competence (pay) (FPM chap. 531, 5
USC 5304, 5338); salary retention (FPM chap. 531, 5 USC
5338); job-grading (FPM chap. 532, 5 USC 5338); discrim­
ination (FPM chap. 713, Executive Order 11478 (as
amended)); national security (FPM chap. 732, 5 USC
7312, Executive Order 10430); political activity (FPM
chap. 733, 5 USC 1504, 5, 6, 8); fitness-for-duty examina­
tions (FPM chap, 831, 5 USC 8337); health benefits (FPM
chap. 890, 5 USC 8912); injury compensation (FPM chap.
890, 5 USC 8121, et seq.).

8 Section 19, Executive Order 11491, as amended.
9 See F e d e r a l P e r s o n n e l M a n u a l S -294-3, 294-4; FPM
Supplement 950-1, Part 294, III-32.01.

The rate of voluntary separations
is a good economic indicator;
the reasons for quitting are
changeable and derive from workers'
attitudes toward the economy
PAUL A. ARMKNECHT AND
JOHN F. EARLY

is the sine qua non for the efficient
allocation of labor factors in the production process.
The only reliable labor mobility data available on a
continuing and current basis are those reported by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its monthly series
on labor turnover in manufacturing, particularly the
rate of voluntary separations. This article undertakes
to lay a foundation for the use of the series in cur­
rent economic analysis and to discover the reasons
for variation in the quit rate over time and among
industries.
L abor

m o b il it y

The quit rate as a cyclical indicator

In the post-World War II era, the quit rate in
manufacturing has been a smooth, well-behaved se­
ries that has rather consistently led the business cycle
at its peak and coincided with it at the trough. (See
chart 1.) A test of its adequacy as an economic
indicator by means of the methods adopted by Geof­
frey H. Moore and Julius Shiskin1 placed it on a
par with the most commonly accepted indicators. Of a
possible summary score of 100, the quit rate scored
71, compared with 69 and 65, respectively, for the
layoffs and total accession rates. Tables 1 and 2
show the smoothness and small revisions in the quit
rate which are two of the important factors contrib­
uting to its quality as an indicator. These desirable
traits may arise, in part, from the fact that while the
BLS labor turnover survey is based on a sample of
approximately 38,000 establishments, the true size of
the sample underlying the quit rate estimate is the
10.4 million workers employed in these establishPaul A. Armknecht and John F. Early are economists in the
Division of Industry Employment Statistics, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. An earlier version of this article was pre­
sented at the meeting of the American Statistical Association
in Montreal, Canada, on August 16, 1972. A more detailed
study will appear in a forthcoming BLS staff paper.

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

Quits
in manufacturing:
a study of
their causes
ments, since quit decisions are made by individual
workers.
Since the beginning of the series, the quit rate has
exhibited a median lead of 15 months at the business
cycle peak and a median lead of 1 month at the
trough. This long lead and the desirable statistical
properties of the series make it a good forecaster of
possible downturns in the economy.
Time series regression

The highly cyclical nature of the quit rate has
already been noted, but the literature on the subject
has developed a controversy over the question of
whether the rate also has a trend.2 It has been
argued (1) that there is no trend in the rate, (2)
that there is a decline in the rate because of non­
transferability of pensions and other fringe benefits
—the so-called industrial feudalism hypothesis, and
(3) that there has been a decline in the quit rate
because of endemic factors, such as the aging of the
work force. Our study supports the view that there
has been no trend.
To determine whether there has been any measur­
able trend in the quit rate in the past two decades, a
number of time-series regression models were tested,
using both quarterly and annual data. Only the final
equations for the quarterly model will be presented
and discussed here. A more detailed description of
other hypotheses tested and of statistical difficulties
that had to be overcome will be found in a forthcom­
ing BLS staff paper. The following is the two-stage
least-squares estimate of the model which explains
the data best over time. All insignificant terms, in­
cluding the constant, have been removed.
(1)

qt = .238 A(ht) -j- .405 D(ht) -j- .310 html
(.074)
(.064)
(.043)
D 2

c

—

7 6 3

Durbin-Watson — 2.18
31

32

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Chart 1.

Manufacturing quit rate, seasonally adjusted, 1 9 47 -71

Rate
6.0

NOTE: Peaks (P) and troughs (T) refer to business cycle turning points determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The standard errors are contained in parentheses,
and the following definitions apply:
qt

= the change in the quit rate in quarter t.

A (ht) = the positive change in the new hire rate
in quarter t, zero if the change was
negative.
D(ht) = the negative change in the new hire
rate in quarter t, zero if the change was
positive.
ht_, = the change in new hires in the quarter
previous to t.
The new hire rate explains the quit rate so well
probably because it is a measure of the jobs available
and of job security, and it seems quite likely that the
more jobs there are and the more secure a worker
feels the more inclined he will be to seek a better
paying job. As already indicated, the constant term
in this equation was not significant, which means that
there was no constant change in the quit rate for the
past two decades—that is, there was no trend. Our
model differs from the models used by those who
have found negative trends in the quit rate in at least
two important ways. First, our model was statisti­

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

cally much more rigorous than that employed by
some who used a rather impressionistic mode of
analysis. Second, the new hire rate seems to be a
more appropriate measure of the cyclical swings in
job availability and security than were the variables
used by Pencavel to remove cyclical effects. The ab­
sence of a trend in the quit rate does not mean that
there have been no long term shifts in the patterns of
mobility. We will, in fact, show later that there have
been some rather dramatic shifts. But the absence of
a trend does suggest that, on the average, the manu­
facturing worker is no more or less mobile in seeking
new employment than he was in the years immedi­
ately following World War II.
It will be noted that for the current quarter the
effects of the new hire rate have been divided into
two parts— the increases, or “absorption,” and the
decreases, or “disabsorption.”3 There appears to be
a distinct asymmetry of behavior here. A decline in
hiring during the current quarter will depress the
propensity to quit by 70 percent more than a similar
expansion in hiring would have increased it. In short,
the manufacturing worker is very cautious and can
have his confidence shaken much more readily than
restored. Such behavior helps explain the difference

QUITS IN MANUFACTURING

33

in the leading behavior of the quit rate at business
cycle peaks and troughs.
One other hypothesis that we wanted to test was
whether there was an additional, forward-looking attitudinal factor in the determination of the quit rate.
It was our hypothesis that the workers’ decisions to
quit were based not only on recent hiring practices,
but also on their views of the future, which might
depart from past experience. We further hypothe­
sized that this future expectation about the condition
of the labor market would also be closely tied with
the workers’ consumption plans. As a result we ex­
pected two things: that the quit rate and the savings
rate should be positively correlated; and that, even
after the removal of current and past hiring effects,
there should remain an unexplained portion of varia­
tion in the quit rate that would correlate positively
with the growth of aggregate economic activity in the
following quarter.
Our first test found a significant positive correla­
tion between the savings ratio and the quit rate. The
second resulted in the following equation, where
G (Y t+1) is the rate of growth of the real Gross
National Product in the next quarter:
(2)

qt = .160 A(ht) + .424 D(ht) + .292 ht_,
(.077)
(.062)
(.042)
+
R 2 =
C

.7 8 1

.0 1 9 G (Y t+1)
(.007)

D u r b in -W a ts o n

= 2 .1 1

Equation 2 preserves the essential characteristics of
equation 1. The G (Yt+1) term has a significant posi­
tive coefficient, indicating the presence of a forwardlooking attitude on the part of workers in their quit
decisions. The only difference between equations 1
and 2 is the spread between the absorption and
Table 1.

Labor turnover economic indicators, 195S-71
Measure

Quits

Layoffs

Acces­
sions

New
hires

Average percent change:
Original series___________________
Seasonal factors.._ . ___________
Seasonally adjusted series_________
Irregulars____________ _________
Trehd-cycle_........... ........... .....

18.61
18.02
3.87
3.41
1.86

15.20
12.87
8.09
6.94
2.62

16.59
16.61
4.18
3.72
1.16

19.23
19.24
4.27
3.48
2.14

Irregular/trend-cycle ratio_____________

1.83

2.65

3.21

1.63

Number of months of cyclical dominance
(MOD)___________________________

2

3

4

2

NOTEr.These statistics for the layoff and accession rates differ slightly from those
published by the Bureau of the Census in Business Conditions Digest since seasonal
adjustment methods used by the bureaus differ.


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

Table 2.

Labor turnover rate revisions, 1 9 66 -69
Change

Average monthly change______
Average monthly revision........
Percent revision to change_____

Total
New hires
accessions

0.8
.1
11.9

0.7
.1
9.0

Quits

0.5
(')
9.0

Layoffs

0.3
.1
27.2

1 Less than .05.

disabsorption coefficients for new hires. This increase
further emphasizes the cautious nature of the Ameri­
can manufacturing worker. When future expectations
are indirectly entered into the equation, it becomes
even more difficult to restore lost confidence unless
expectations for future growth reinforce current
improvements.
Cross-section regression

As noted above, changes in the quit rate over time
seem to be largely caused by changes in economic
factors as well as expectations about future changes.
But there still remain questions about the causes of
the variations in quit rate behavior among industries.
One should certainly expect low-paying indus­
tries to experience higher quit rates since their em­
ployees are most likely to find higher paying jobs and
have less to lose by quitting. Industries that are hir­
ing large numbers of new employees may experience
higher quit rates since workers will be less concerned
about job security. Highly seasonal industries may
offer lower job security, attract the casual worker,
and, as a result, show a higher proportion of quits.
In addition to the characteristics of the industry,
characteristics of the workers may also contribute to
quit behavior. Women, for instance, may either ex­
hibit a casual attachment to the labor force and thus
have low opportunity costs associated with high quit
propensities, or they may believe that they will face
discrimination in hiring and thus be reluctant to quit.
Production workers, who are generally affected more
than other workers by seasonal and cyclical changes
in the economy, may exhibit greater propensities to
quit since the nature of their work is marked by such
problems as work hazards, lack of opportunity for
promotion, poor supervision, and low wages, all of
which weigh more heavily in their evaluation of their
jobs. On the other hand, it may be true that the
lower education of the production worker may
impede his mobility by reducing his knowledge of the
market.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

34

Procedure. To test these hypotheses we ran ordinary
least-squares regressions for each year from 1959
through 1971, using annual averages for the 94 in­
dustry groups in manufacturing for which the Bureau
of Labor Statistics publishes labor turnover data.
The model we used regressed the quit rate for each
industry ( Q ) on the average hourly earnings of
production workers (E ), the ratio of production
workers to all employees (P ), the amplitude of
the seasonal factors for employment (S ),4 the net
new hire rate— calculated as the difference between
the quit and new hire rates— (H n), and the ratio of
women to all employees (W ) for that industry.
An equation was estimated for each year, using
index forms of the data with the manufacturing aver­
age for that year as the base to remove secular trends
from some of the data. The final regression coeffi­
cients were transformed to beta coefficients. This
transformation was made for the purpose of allowing
for differences in variation among the variables. (See
table 3.) Those coefficients which are not signifi­
cantly different from zero are in parentheses. With
these transformations of the data it was possible to
establish the importance and direction of each varia­
ble in determining the interindustry variation in quit
behavior. It is interesting to note that for 1960 the
results we obtained were very similar to those ob­
tained by Pencavel using a somewhat different
model.5
Findings. The results substantiate our qualitative as­
sessments of the relationship between quits and the
explanatory causes, even down to the indeterminacy
of the role of women and production workers in
overall quit behavior. By far the most important

Table 3. Beta coefficients for variables in cross sectional
analysis, 19 59 -71
Year
1959_________________
1960_________________
1961_________________
1962_________________
1963_________________
1964_________________
1965_________________
1966_________________
1967_________________
1968_________________
1969_________________
1970_________________
1971_________________

E

P

-0.579
- .559
- 452
- .602
- .695
- .788
- .856
- .874
- .844
- .911
- .943
- .914
- .904

(0.048)
(.030)
(.026)
(- .011)
(- .016)
(- .005)
(.100)
.209
.192
.180
.149
.164
.164

S
0.143
(.026)
(.040)
(.000)
(.054)
(.041)
(.074)
.116
(.046)
.127
.121
(.165)
(.110)

Hn
0.371
.394
.422
.408
.364
.386
.301
.298
.300
.184
.253
.224
(.126)

W
(0.114)
.249
.272
.172
(.056)
(- .075)
- .219
- .287
- .197
- .234
- .229
- .188
- .289

NOTE: The variables in this table are: E=average hourly earnings of production
workers; P = ratio of production workers to all employees; S = seasonal amplitude;
H = net new hire rate; W=ratio of women to all employees.
Numbers in parentheses indicate insignificant coefficients.


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

factor determining interindustry variations in volun­
tary separations is the relative level of earnings. Next
in order of importance are relative net hires, followed
closely by the relative proportion of female employ­
ment. Finally, in the latter years of the decade, the
relative proportion of production workers proved
to be significant, while variations in seasonality were
of minimal significance in all but a few key years.
Earnings versus security

Pecuniary motivations cause relatively high lev­
els of voluntary separations in low paying industries.
Skill requirements in such jobs are generally low.
Such positions are readily available to new or inex­
perienced workers, only to be vacated as soon as the
workers develop some skill and become aware of
other job opportunities. In high paying industries,
voluntary turnover is lower because of the low proba­
bility of obtaining a better paying job.
The earnings variable may also reflect other re­
lated market phenomena. For example, industries
with relatively low wage levels may be highly com­
petitive, labor-intensive industries where cost con­
scious entrepreneurs have minimal regard for human
capital. In such situations poor working conditions
reflected in the low levels of earnings may also ex­
plain quit behavior. On the other hand, industries
with higher wage levels may be highly unionized, in
which case unionization may be a contributor to the
higher earnings level as well as better working condi­
tions. In addition, the greater importance of human
capital in these latter industries may give manage­
ment a stake in reducing turnover.
Earnings differentials may reflect, in part, skill and
age differentials among industries. However, when
variables for occupational and age differences among
industries were introduced by Pencavel, the results
were highly insignificant. Such industry occupational
and age composition items are only available from
the decennial census and could, of course, have
changed substantially during the 1960’s.
An examination of the coefficients for earnings in
table 3 reveals that this pecuniary factor has become
an increasingly important one in determining interin­
dustry variations in quits. With the exception of peri­
ods of economic recession in the manufacturing sec­
tor (1960-61, 1967, and 1970-71), there has been
a steady progression in the importance of this varia­
ble over the decade of the 1960’s. The slight decline
in relative importance for this factor in times of

35

QUITS IN MANUFACTURING

business cycle downswings reflects the shift in impor­
tance from wage betterment to job security motiva­
tions.
The job security factor itself tends to show a grad­
ual decline over the decade as net new hires become
a less important variable, although this trend is also
interrupted during periods of cyclical downturns. The
shifts in degree of importance between the pecuniary
and job security factors over the years tested, point
out the counterbalancing relationship of these two
factors in workers’ motivations to leave their jobs
voluntarily.
In analyzing these two trends, one must remember
that the years studied are the only postwar period
characterized by prolonged economic growth. There­
fore, the increasing importance of pecuniary factors
and the decreasing importance of job security may
have been influenced to a degree by this extended
period of growth. To some extent, the expansion of
industrial centers from urban to suburban areas re­
sulting in extended labor market areas has probably
increased the worker’s knowledge of opportunities
within the market. Increasing educational attainment
and mass communication also may have increased
the information reaching the worker. Such informa­
tion makes the jobholder’s behavior more consistent
with the neoclassical concept of “economic man”
trying to increase his earnings and consumption
power under the constraint of his pains for laboring.
Women workers

In the manufacturing sector women tend to have
higher quit rates than men, partially owing to the
fact that industries with a high proportion of women
employees are also among the lower paying ones.
Hence, part of the reason for differences in quit
propensities between the sexes is the concentration of
women in lower paying jobs. Our model, however,
takes account of earnings differentials, so that it can
measure more accurately the true effect of women’s
employment as a factor in determining variations in
quits among industries. Considering the beta coeffi­
cients shown in table 3, one can see that the role
women play in determining quit propensities under­
went a drastic reversal during the last decade. From
1960 to 1962 the proportion of women employed in
an industry was a significant factor directly affecting
the frequency of quits. As the relative proportion of
women increased so did the quit rate. In the next 2
years their effect was not significant, but the direc­

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

tion of the relationship changed. In 1965, the pro­
portion of female workers again became a significant
factor, but the relationship with quits was inverse. As
the relative proportion of women workers among
industries increased, the quit rate decreased.
There were several important undercurrents in the
labor market during the last half of the 1960’s which
could account for this reversal. The manufacturing
labor market became very tight. This in part was due
to the Vietnam war buildup, which increased the
demand for war related goods, generated more in­
come which increased demand for consumer goods,
and produced a manpower shortage arising from the
increased manpower needs in the military services.
As a result, there was a large influx of women into
the labor force. In addition, demographic factors
may have had their effect as there was evidence of a
slight “marriage squeeze” in 1963 and a more drastic
one beginning in 1966.6 This would also account for
the rapid increase in labor force participation among
women as well as declines in labor force withdrawal
for reasons related to marriage.
Social, cultural, and technological changes are also
quite relevant to this shift in quit behavior among
women. Such factors as the social approval and safer
methods of contraception, increasing educational at­
tainment, antidiscriminatory legislation, introduction
of labor saving equipment for household and office
use, and many others have led to the acceptance of
the modem woman as a productive worker and eco­
nomic competitor.
Despite the decline in the attitude that a “woman’s
place is in the home,” sex discrimination in hiring still
may serve as a deterrent to voluntary job mobility
for women. Since social and technological changes
have lessened the necessity for the casual attachment
of women in the labor force, the previously men­
tioned discrimination factor would seem to be a
more plausible explanation of the women’s influence
on voluntary separations in recent years.
Production workers and seasonality

The relative concentration of production workers
does not emerge as a significant factor until 1966. It
was in this period that demographic factors became
important in labor supply. Many young workers born
during the postwar period entered the labor market.
With a tight market and low skill requirements,
members of this group were available for many semi­
skilled production line positions which may not have

36

been entirely to their liking. The sudden change in
age composition and labor supply may account for
part of this shift. Still another factor, somewhat re­
lated, is that in the tight market job information was
diffused more widely to a workforce of increasing
education and sophistication. This situation resulted
in better knowledge of alternative opportunities and
made it possible for the worker to behave more like
the classical economic man. Combined with disillu­
sionment of the young, job satisfaction among pro­
duction employees may also have declined. As the
labor market slackened in 1969 and 1970 the pro­
duction worker effect became less important, as is
borne out by the coefficients in table 3. Even in a
very slack labor market the greater propensity of the
production workers to quit remained, indicating the
presence of a shift in the basic pattern of manufactur­
ing quit behavior.
Finally, we come to the question of seasonality.
As our beta coefficients indicate, it is the least impor­
tant of our variables and proves to be significant only
in the years when the manufacturing business cycle is
at a peak (1959, 1966, 1969). This fact suggests
that seasonality becomes an important factor only
when jobs and alternative opportunities are plentiful.
The combined effects of these trends and shifts in
the individual variables are manifested in differences
among the various equations. We tested all pairs of
regression equations based on Chow’s test for differ­
ences between pairs of equations.7 We noted that
there are no significant differences among equations
which are separated by 1 or 2 years. There are no
significant differences in the quit experience among
the 15 pairs of equations preceding 1965, and there
are only two significant differences among the pairs
which lie entirely in the latter half of the period. Of
the remaining 36 pairs of equations that span both
subperiods, however, there are only three which do
not exhibit a significant difference in quit experience,
and these are separated in time by 1 or 2 years. We
can safely conclude, therefore, that the changes in
the effects of the individual variables resulted in a
sudden, dramatic shift in the overall basis for the
interindustry quit rate variation in the middle of the
last decade.
Summary and conclusions

We have viewed voluntary separations in Ameri­
can manufacturing industries from three different
perspectives: the properties of the average quit rate

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

for all manufacturing which make it a good economic
indicator, the variations in the quit rate through time
and the sources of these variations, and the differ­
ences in quit rates among industries and the changing
bases for these differences. Through these analyses
we have obtained several results which should be
helpful in the examination of the quit rate itself, the
functioning of the labor market, and the economic
situation as a whole.
• The total manufacturing quit rate is a statisti­
cally reliable and well behaved series. Preliminary
estimates are revised only rarely and only in the most
unusual cases does this revision exceed 0.1 of a per­
centage point. The seasonally adjusted series is quite
smooth and serves as a reasonably reliable economic
indicator.
• Workers are very conscious of job security and
can have their confidence easily shaken, while resto­
ration of that confidence is quite difficult. As a result,
the changes in the quit rate may precede aggregate
economic activity by as much as five quarters during
periods of prosperity, but remain quite close to
movements in the total economy during periods of
slowed economic activity. Worker assessment of job
security seems to be built largely on the behavior of
the labor market during the past two quarters or so,
with extra weight being given to recent adverse de­
velopments. The variations in hiring among indus­
tries explains some of the variation in quits, although
this effect has been declining in recent years, with the
exception of recession years. This result suggests that
a worker draws his clues to the labor market situa­
tion not only from the closest period in time but also
from the situation that exists in the plant and indus­
try in which he is employed. The decline in the
importance of job security in the interindustry varia­
tions suggests that, with time, the worker’s horizons
are broadening and he keys his behavior to wider
economic occurrences, although there is some rever­
sion to the most immediate clues during times of
uncertainty and insecurity.
• The quit rate may be the best summary measure
of manufacturing workers’ attitudes, which in turn
make an important contribution to aggregate demand
and the course of the total economy. It is possible
that the observed correlation of quits and future ag­
gregate economic activity arises from the fact that an
uncertain worker is a cautious consumer. Such a
dynamic of aggregate demand suggests that the pub­
lic policy of creating jobs in time of slack economic
activity will do more than just increase aggregate

37

QUITS IN MANUFACTURING

demand through the usual accelerator-multiplier
principles: it will also serve to restore the confi­
dence of the worker as consumer and thereby in­
crease aggregate demand in a shorter period of time.
• Through time, the average worker has based his
decision to quit on different factors, and the impor­
tance he has attributed to each of them has been
changing. But he seems to have retained essentially
the same risk-taking posture which is modified only

by changes in the availability of jobs. The absence of
a secular decline in the quit rate, the increasing im­
portance of earnings levels in quit decisions, and the
sudden emergence of the production worker’s greater
propensity to quit, all suggest that there are no struc­
tural shifts taking place in the economy which would
impede the mobility of labor. The data on women,
however, suggest that there still remain some struc­
tural deficiencies in the labor supply process. □

1 Geoffrey H. Moore and Julius Shiskin, I n d ic a to r s o f
(New York, Colum­
bia University Press, 1967).

5 In the Pencavel model (equation IA) the beta coeffi­
cient for the earnings variable was —0.428, for the female
ratio 0.227, and for the hiring variable (accessions lagged)
0.321. The R ‘ value for this equation is 0.778. His equa­
tion also contained a significant unionization variable and an
insignificant one for earnings variability. (See Pencavel, op.
cit., p. 21.)

B u s in e s s E x p a n s io n s a n d C o n tr a c tio n s

2 For example: Ewan Clague, “Long-Term Trends in Quit
Rates,” E m p l o y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , December 1956, pp.
iii-ix; Arthur Ross, “D o We Have a New Industrial Feudal­
ism?,” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R e v i e w , December 1958,
pp. 903-920; John E. Parker and John F. Burton, Jr.,
“Voluntary Labor Mobility in the U. S. Manufacturing
Sector,” P r o c e e d in g s o f th e T w e n tie th A n n u a l W in te r M e e t ­
in g o f th e I n d u s tr ia l R e s e a r c h A s s o c ia tio n , pp. 61-70; John
H. Pencavel, A n A n a l y s i s o f th e Q u it R a t e in A m e r ic a n
M a n u f a c tu r in g I n d u s tr y (Princeton, Industrial Relations
Section, Princeton University, 1970).
3 This type of formulation has been suggested, in a some­
what different context, by Lester C. Thurow, “The Changing
Nature of Unemployment,” R e v i e w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta ­
tis tic s , May 1965, pp. 137-149.
4 A detailed discussion of this method is presented in T h e
which is available upon re­
quest at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

B L S S e a s o n a l F a c to r M e t h o d ,

6 The marriage squeeze occurs when there is an abund­
ance of women of marriageable age over men of marriagea­
ble age. See C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n R e p o r ts , Series P -25, No.
388, U.S. Bureau of the Census, for a more detailed explana­
tion.
7 G. C. Chow, “Tests for Equality Between Sets of Coef­
ficients in Two Linear Regressions,” E c o n o m e tr ic a , July
1960, pp. 591-605. The test outlined by Chow uses the
F-ratio. The numerator is the difference between the sum of
squared residuals from the regression of the pooled data less
the sum of the squared residuals for the individual
regressions. The denominator is the latter sum. Both numer­
ator and denominator are adjusted for degrees of freedom.

A note on communications

The Monthly Labor Review welcomes commu­
nications that supplement, challenge, or expand
on research published in its pages. To be con­
sidered for publication, communications should
be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone.


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

Communications should be addressed to the
Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C. 20212.

Educational
attainment
of workers,
March 1972
S in c e the end of World War II, the American
worker who has had at least 4 years of high school
has become the rule rather than the exception, and
his numbers are steadily growing. According to the
most recent survey on educational attainment taken
by the Bureau of the Census in March 1972,1 the
proportion of 18- to 64-year-old workers who have
completed at least 4 years of high school has more
than doubled in the last 30 years—from 32 to 69
percent. Included in this group are workers with
college degrees who represented less than 6 percent
of the 18- to 64-year-old labor force in April 1940
and about 14 percent in March 1972. (See table 1.)
In 1972, for the first time, educational attainment
data are available for workers 16 years old and over,
instead of those 18 and over described in previous
reports.2 As shown in table 2, the inclusion of 16and 17-year-olds had little effect on the educational
distribution of the labor force, with the exception of
those workers with 1 to 3 years of high school. In
the civilian labor force, for example, the proportion
with 1 to 3 years of high school is 19.2 percent for
those 16 and over and 16.6 percent among those 18
years old and over. This effect stems, of course, from
the fact that about 82 percent of the 3 million 16and 17-year-old workers are still in high school,3
whereas most persons 18 years old and over have
had more than 3 years of high school.
The traditional American belief that education is
essential to achievement of upward social mobility
and the rising expectations of employers faced with
an increasingly better educated work force are pow­
erful forces that have influenced both jobseekers and
workers to stay in school. As more young people
delay entering the labor force until after high school
graduation, employers have come to view the high

William V. Deutermann is an economist in the Division of
Labor Force Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
38


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

Special Labor Force Report shows
that the proportion of workers
with 12 years of school
continues to increase
WILLIAM V. DEUTERMANN

school diploma as a requirement for many occupa­
tions where an elementary school certificate was con­
sidered adequate 30 years ago. The general upgrad­
ing in workers’ education over the past decade has
increased the level of education within every major
occupational group while the occupational distribu­
tion of workers has been largely unaffected.4
Education and employment

Men. Among working men 18 years old and over,
the proportion of high school graduates reached 65.9
percent in 1972, including almost 30 percent who
had at least 1 year of college. In the past decade, this
proportion has risen by 15.1 percentage points for

Table 1. Educational attainment of the civilian labor
force 18 to 64 years old, by age and sex, selected years,
1 9 4 0 -7 2
Percent completing
4 years of high
school or more

Percent completing
4 years of college
or more

Age group and date
Both
sexes

Men

Women

Both
sexes

Men

Women

18 to 64 years:
April 1940___ . . . .
October 1952_______
March 1962________
March 1972________

32.0
44.5
54.9
69.2

27.8
41.2
51.9
67.0

44.0
51.4
60.6
72.7

5.7
8.1
11.1
14.1

5.4
8.3
11.9
15.6

6.5
7.7
9.7
11.8

18 to 34 years:
April 1940_________
October 1952_______
March 1962________
March 1972_______

40.5
55.8
66.1
79.1

35.5
51.5
63.0
76.8

51.3
63.8
72.0
82.5

5.4
8.1
11.7
15.0

5.2
8.7
12.8
15.7

5.9
7.1
9.5
14.0

35 to 44 years:
April 1940_______
October 1952_____
March 1962...
March 1972________

27.3
46.0
57.4
68.0

24.6
44.4
55.4
67.0

36.3
49.4
61.4
69.7

6.7
8.8
12.7
16.0

6.4
9.0
14.4
19.2

7.9
8.4
9.5
10.5

45 to 64 years:
April 1940_________
October 1952........... .
March 1962________
March 1972________

21.6
30.5
42.6
58.1

19.5
28.2
39.1
55.4

30.8
36.0
49.2
62.3

5.5
7.5
9.6
12.0

5.1
7.3
9.3
13.4

7.2
8.0
10.0
9.8

39

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Table 2. Comparison of educational attainment of the labor force of persons 16 years old and over and those
18 years old and over, March 1972
[Percent distribution]
Civilian noninstitutional
population

Civilian labor force

Unemployed

Employed

Not in labor force

Educational attainment
16 years
and over

18 years
and over

16 years
and over

18 years
and over

16 years
and over

18 years
and over

16 years
and over

18 years
and over

16 years
and over

18 years
and over

142,572
100.0

134,583
100.0

85,410
100.0

82,459
100.0

80,195
100.0

77,859
100.0

5,215
100.0

4,600
100.0

57,162
100.0

52,124
100.0

3.7
6.8
10.1

3.9
7.1
10.3

2.0
5.1
7.8

2.1
5.2
7.9

2.1
5.0
7.7

2.1
5.1
7.8

2.0
5.8
8.8

2.3
6.3
8.8

6.3
9.5
13.6

6.8
10.2
14.2

21.3
35.0

17.3
37.0

19.2
38.7

16.6
40.0

18.4
39.0

16.2
40.1

31.7
35.2

24.4
39.7

24.6
29.4

18.5
32.1

12.5
6.6
3.9

13.2
7.0
4.1

13.6
8.2
5.4

14.0
8.5
5.6

13.7
8.4
5.7

14.1
8.7
5.8

10.9
4.1
1.4

12.3
4.7
1.6

10.8
4.2
1.6

11.8
4.6
1.8

TOTAL
In thousands........... ........ ........ .
Percent___ _____ __________
ELEMENTARY
Less than 5 years____________
5 to 7 years........... .......... ..........
8 years________ ______ _____
HIGH SCHOOL
1 to 3 years.................................
4 years.................... .................
COLLEGE
1 to 3 years.................................
4 years____________________
5 years or more..........................

high school graduates, including a 7.7-percentage
point rise for those with some college. However, the
median educational attainment of men was 12.4
years in 1972, only a slight gain over 1962 when
men had a median of 12.0 years of school. The
relative stability of the median educational attain­
ment reflects the tendency toward a concentration of
men about the high school graduation level, which in
turn tends to make the median a particularly insensi­
tive measure of change. In contrast, the decade 1952
to 1962 saw the median educational attainment of
working men increase from 10.4 to 12.0 years, as the
proportion of high school graduates rose from 39.9
to 50.8 percent.
The tendency toward a median of slightly over 12
years of school was already apparent for some age
groups in the late 1940’s and has continued since.
Thus, while the median education of working men in
1952 was only 10.4 years, that of 25- to 34-year-old
working men was 12.1 years and had risen only .6
year by 1972. The proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds
with 4 years of high school or more had risen from
53.9 to 77.8 percent over the same period.
Working women. The median educational attainment
of both men and women in the civilian labor force
16 years old and over was 12.4 years in 1972. The
proportion of women with high school educations or

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

better, however, was 69.2 percent compared with
63.8 percent of the men. Although a greater propor­
tion of the men had graduated from college, 15 per­
cent compared with 11.4 percent of the women, the
difference was not enough to raise the median edu­
cation of men above that of women.
For both men and women, the labor force partici­
pation rate is affected by the level of schooling
Table 3. Labor force participation rates of men and
women 18 years old and over, by age and educational
attainment, March 1972

Sex and age

Less than
4 years of
high school

4 years of
high school

1 to 3
years of
college

4 or more
years of
college

75.7
73.7
93.2
90.3
75.4
21.4

83.3
97.7
97.5
95.5
86.4
29.6

64.9
94.1
97.3
96.0
88.3
35.2

81.4
95.5
99.0
97.2
89.3
37.7

38.5
39.7
48.3
47.0
36.3
7.7

60.0
47.3
54.3
58.0
47.8
11.5

54.7
49.9
52.6
59.0
47.6
11.8

80.5
61.5
61.1
69.4
60.9
19.4

MEN
18-24_________________
25-34_________________
35-44_________________
45-54_________________
55-64_________________
65 and over____________
WOMEN
18-24_________________
25-34_________________
35-44________ _____
45-54.. _______________
55-64_________________
65 and over____________

NOTE: The labor force participation rate is the percent of the civilian noninstitutional population in the labor force.

40

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Table 4. Labor force participation rates of married
women (husband present) by age, presence of children,
and educational attainment, March 1968 and 1972

Total
Age of wife and
presence of children

8 years of
school

4 years of
high school

4 years of
college
or more

1972

1968

1972

1968

1972

1968

1972

1968

Total, 18-44 years. 45.4

40.7

38.2

38.9

45.9

40.9

57.2

49.0

With no children under
6 yeais____________
18 to 24__________
25 to 34....................
35 to 44__________

58.8
71.3
60.4
54.1

54.1
65.2
55.9
50.6

45.6
(*)
39.9
47.7

49.6
(>)
46.2
51.0

59.7
73.1
60.2
55.0

55.2
68.5
55.5
51.3

75.9
86.2
82.9
63.3

63.6
83.0
72.2
52.4

With children under
6 years__________
18 to 24__________
25 to 34_________
35 to 44....................

30.2
31.8
29.8
28.8

27.7
29.4
27.4
26.6

27.4
25.8
31.7
22.1

27.0
29.6
25.8
26.1

30.7
33.9
29.0
30.0

27.0
30.4
26.0
25.1

34.0
39.8
33.3
34.2

32.8
«
30.0
35.1

1 Percent not shown when base is less than 75,000.
NOTE: The labor force participation rate is the percent of the civilian noninstitutional population in the labor force.

achieved— those with higher educational attainment
being more likely to work. The effect of education is
more pronounced among women, however. (See
table 3.) In the youngest group shown, women with
Table 5.

4 or more years of college were twice as likely to be
in the labor force as women with less than 4 years of
high school.
Other factors affecting the labor force rates of
women are marriage and children. As table 4 shows,
the participation rates of women with children under
6 years old are significantly lower than are those of
married women 18 to 44 years old without young
children. However, for all married women, including
mothers of young children, labor force participation
rates are much higher for those with more years of
schooling. Moreover, the changes in these rates since
1968 show the effect of both education and child­
bearing on married women’s labor force participation
through time. While the rates for women with only an
elementary school education have remained the same
for mothers of young children and declined for those
with no children under 6, those of more educated
women have increased markedly, particularly among
college educated wives with no young children.
Negro workers. Negro and other minority workers 5
achieved a median of 12.0 years of education in

Educational attainment of workers age 18 and over, by race, selected years, 1952—72
Both sexes

Women

Men

Years of school completed and date
Total

White

Negro
and other

Total

White

Negro
and other

Total

White

Negro
and other

Percent of civilian labor force completing specified years of school
Elementary--8 years or less:
October 1952_________________________
March 1957_______ ___________ _____ _
March 1962_________________________
March 1967__________________ ______
March 1972 1___________________ ____

37.9
33.4
27.0
21.0
14.9

34.9
30.5
24.7
19.1
13.7

66.5
57.6
45.2
35.9
24.7

41.2
36.3
29.6
23.3
17.0

38.7
33.7
27.2
21.4
15.7

69.5
61.5
50.5
40.3
28.7

31.0
27.1
21.8
16.8
11.6

26.5
23.6
19.5
14.9
10.4

62.3
51.4
37.6
30.0
19.6

High school--4 years or more:
October 1952___________________ ____ _
March 1957______ ____ _____________
March 1962_________________________
March 1967_________________________
March 1972 1____________ ______ _____

43.3
47.3
53.8
60.4
65.9

46.1
50.1
56.6
62.8
67.9

17.4
22.7
31.5
40.5
49.7

39.9
44.1
50.8
57.9
63.8

42.1
46.7
53.5
60.3
65.8

15.1
19.3
27.3
36.4
45.7

50.6
54.0
59.4
64.7
69.2

55.1
57.8
62.7
67.5
71.3

20.4
28.0
37.6
45.9
54.8

College—4 years or more:
October 1952_________________________
March 1957_________________________
March 1962_________________________
March 1967____________________ ____
March 1972 1

8.0
9.1
11.0
12.0
13.6

8.6
9.8
11.8
12.8
14.3

2.6
3.5
4.8
5.8
8.0

8.1
9.6
11.7
13.2
15.0

8.6
10.3
12.6
14.1
15.8

1.9
2.6
3.6
5.3
7.9

7.7
8.3
9.5
9.9
11.4

8.3
8.8
10.0
10.4
11.8

3.6
4.7
6.7
6.4
8.0

12.0
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4

12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5

8.1
8.9
10.5
11.5
12.1

Median years of school completed

October
March
March
March
March

1952_____________ ___________
1957
_ .
...... .......... ........
1962 . . .
_________
1967 .
_____________
1972 1________________________

1 Data are for 16-year-olds and over—see table 2.


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

10.9
11.6
12.1
12.3
12.4

11.4
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.5

7.6
8.4
9.6
10.8
12.0

10.4
11.1
12.0
12.2
12.4

10.8
11.5
12.1
12.3
12.4

7.2
8.0
9.0
10.2
11.5

41

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Chart 1. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and
years of school completed, March 1972

tary school education or less is 49.0 years, compared
with 36.5 years for the entire Negro labor force
covering all levels of education.
The difference in median age of Negro and white
workers at various educational levels was reported as
follows:
N egro

Total ...................................
Elementary:
8 years or less . . .
High School:
1to 3 y e a r s..........
4 y e a r s ..................
College: 1 to 3y e a r s ..................
4 yearsor m o r e .............

W h ite

a n d o th e r

38.5
50.8
36.6
37.0
32.6
37.6

36.5
49.0
35.0
31.3
29.4
35.5

On average, Negro workers were younger than
whites at every educational level, particularly Ne­
groes with 4 years of high school who were over 5
years younger than their white counterparts. The dif­
ference in median age between Negro and white
workers among the several educational levels reflects
the recent upsurge in educational attainment among
Negroes.
Education and unemployment

1972. The proportion with 4 years of high school or
more reached 49.7 percent, including 8.0 percent
who had completed 4 years or more of college. (See
table 5.) Although these levels are still below the
comparable statistics for whites, they reflect a very
substantial long term improvement in Negro educa­
tional attainment, which has been augmented by in­
creased educational opportunities in recent years.
The median of 12 years is only .5 year below that of
whites, compared with a difference of almost 4 years
in 1952 when the median for Negro workers was 7.6
years.
In general, Negro men have less education than
Negro women. Among the men, 45.7 percent of the
labor force have at least a high school diploma, com­
pared with 54.8 percent of the women. Although the
difference has remained constant over the past 8
years, it may decrease, as it has for white workers, as
older, less educated workers leave the labor force.
The median age of Negro workers with an elemen­

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

In March 1972, the average unemployed worker
16 years old and over had 12 years of school, almost
a half year less than the median for the civilian labor
force as a whole. In general, unemployment rates
were higher for the less educated, the young, blacks,
and women. Negroes, who made up about 11 per­
cent of the population and of the labor force, consti­
tuted 18.6 percent of the unemployed, with young,
less educated Negroes particularly hard hit. Chart 1
shows that, among 16- to 24-year-olds with a high
school education or less, Negro workers had twice
the unemployment rates of whites. In the central
working ages, 25 to 54, the differences were not so
pronounced, but at every educational level, women,
particularly black women, fared worse than men.
The rising proportion of persons with 12 years of
school or more has necessarily raised the educational
attainment of the unemployed as well as of the em­
ployed. Nevertheless, the remaining gap between the
median education levels of employed and unem­
ployed workers demonstrates the continuing labor
market advantages of workers of both sexes with 12
years of school or more:
E m p lo y e d

Both sexes ............................
M a le .......................................
Female ...................................

12.4
12.4
12.4

U n e m p lo y e d

12.0
11.9
12.1

42

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

T h e g e n e r a l u p g r a d in g in workers’ education over
the past decade has not been confined to occupations
which require considerable formal training or educa­
tion. In every major occupation group there has been
a gain in educational attainment. These trends sug­
gest a growing need for institutions offering special­
ized training and education beyond the high school
level.6 The community colleges represent a resource
for providing specialized training at usually lower
costs than the more traditional 4-year colleges or
universities, and may be expected to give rise to
further increases in the proportions of more educated
young entrants to the labor force.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1
This report is the 10th in a series on this subject. The
most recent was published in the M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w ,
November 1971, pp. 30-35, and reprinted as Special Labor
Force Report 140. Data on the educational attainment of the
population are published by the Bureau of the Census in
“Current Population Reports,” Series P-20. Data relate to
the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and


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

over (unless otherwise specified) in the week ending Mar.
18, 1972.
2 In the past, 16- and 17-year-olds were not included in
the survey due to the fact that the usual age of completion
of public schooling is 18 years. The inclusion of 16- and
17-year-olds, however, will facilitate comparisons with other
labor force data. In this report, data for those workers 16
years old and over will be used except when time series are
discussed, as comparability with past surveys requires the
use of data for those 18 years old and over.
3 See Carl Rosenfeld and Kathryn Gover, “Employment
of school age youth, October 1971,” Special Labor Force
Report 147, tables A and B.
4 See William V. Deutermann, “Educational attainment of
workers, March 1971,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , November
1971, pp. 30-35.
5 Data for all persons other than white are used in the
report to represent data for Negroes, since the latter consti­
tute about 92 percent of all persons other than white in the
United States.
6 For a discussion of the role of community colleges and
junior colleges, see Frank Newman et al„ R e p o r t o n H ig h e r
E d u c a tio n (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office.
1971), pp. 57-61.

Grumbling about statistics

To grumble is one of the inalienable rights of a free people;
and the American people have exercised their right to the full.
To grumble over government statistics has been a favorite occu­
pation since the First Census, and indulged in by all classes of
people.
— J u l iu s P a r m a l e e ,
‘The Statistical Work of the Federal Government— II,”
Y a le R e v i e w , February 1911, p. 384.

Small cities as well as large
now deal with unions
or associations;
contracts often feature
some form of union security
RICHARD R. NELSON AND JAMES L. DOSTER

employees is no
longer confined solely to major American cities. In
fact, it encompasses a majority of the 2,064 munici­
palities studied, even towns of lO^OO.1 In total, more
than three-fifths of the cities surveyed reported unions
and associations within their jurisdictions. (See table
1.) These occurred in direct relation to city size. That
is, all cities of 1 million or more reported em­
ployee organizations, more than 90 percent of cities
having populations of one-quarter to 1 million, and
over 80 percent of cities of 50,000 to one-quarter
million. There was a significant drop in coverage
among smaller cities but more than 50 percent noted
the presence of organizations.
The growth of employee representation was
helped in recent years by the passage of two kinds of
enabling legislation. The first permitted cities to rec­
ognize unions and associations. The second permit­
ted cities to engage in “meet and confer” and, in
many cases, collective bargaining activities. Such le­
galization allowed organizations to become viable,
rather than paper, units.
In the past, efforts to organize were directed to­
ward large cities because of the concentration of
workers. In recent years, the focus of organizing
drives has shifted toward smaller towns. Aware of
successes by unions and associations in large cities,
employee associations in smaller towns have pressed
for collective bargaining, in addition to their normal
fraternal, social, and legislative activities, and have
often been successful.
Most cities reporting unions and associations were
in the East North Central and Middle Atlantic
regions.2 In both regions, the proportion of cities
reporting unions and associations exceeded the na­
tional average. This was not unexpected, because
R e p r e s e n t a t io n o f m u n ic ip a l

Richard R. Nelson and James L. Doster are labor econo­
mists in the Division of Industrial Relations, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.

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

City employee
representation
and bargaining
policies
these States have strong traditions of unionism in the
private sector. However, the highest proportions of
cities reporting employee organizations were in New
England and the Pacific States, where unions are also
common in private industry. California also has a
long history of dealing with public employee associa­
tions, many of which have now converted to collec­
tive bargaining representation.
Representation heaviest in big cities

In terms of the number of city employees repre­
sented by unions and associations, large municipali­
ties and the Middle Atlantic States dominate (table
1). For example, the 6 cities of 1 million or more
account for almost half the employees represented
(47.2 percent); and the 28 cities with populations of
500,000 or over are responsible for almost twothirds of the total (64.1 percent). New York City
alone reported almost 300,000 employees, or onethird of all such employees.
If New York City were excluded, the remaining
top 5 cities would account for only 20 percent of
organized employees, cities of 500,000 or more for
45.8 percent, and the Middle Atlantic region for only
16 percent. The largest number of represented em­
ployees would then be in cities of 500,000 to
999,999 and. in the East North Central and Pacific
States. Moreover, the proportion of employees repre­
sented in all cities would drop from 63.2 percent to
53.7 percent. Similarly, the proportion of employees
in cities of 1 million or more and in the Middle
Atlantic States would fall. New York City exerted an
especially strong upward pressure on these rates be­
cause it reported almost total organization (96.7 per­
cent).
City collective bargaining relationships are charac­
terized by a multiplicity of employee organizations.
Of the 1,302 cities studied, only one-quarter dealt
with only one union or association, and about the
43

44

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

same proportion dealt with 2 unions or 2 associa­
tions, or one of each. The proportion of represented
employees involved in these relatively unfragmented
relationships was small (2 percent in one organiza­
tion and 5 percent in two). About half the cities
(49.9 percent) were involved in more complex rela­
tionships.
The relatively unfragmented bargaining relation­
ships were concentrated largely in cities of 25,000 or
less, and usually involved a citywide organization or
an organization for the protective services, typically
the firefighters, and another for remaining city em­
ployees. The simplicity of the relationship was possi­
ble because of the small number of employees. On
the average, for example, each city with one organi­
zation reported 53 represented employees, and each
city with two organizations, 133 employees.
On the other hand, the large number of employees
in major cities seems to result in a more fragmented
bargaining relationship, because what may be of
great importance to employees in one city depart­
ment may not be equally significant to employees in
another. In addition, unions compete as they strive
to organize the large pools of workers. Cities report­
ing five organizations averaged 1,707 represented
employees, and cities with six or more organizations

Table 1.

(excluding New York City) reported an average of
9,869.
City management is most likely to deal with both
unions and associations, rather than exclusively with
one or the other (table 2).
For the study as a whole, unions had the edge
over associations in representation (60.0 percent of
all employees represented). Again, the data were
affected by New York City totals. More than
207.000 New York employees were represented by
AFL-CIO affiliates and the Teamsters (Ind.) and
just under 90,000 by associations. If New York City
were excluded, the ratio of AFL-CIO to association
representation would drop from 60 percent-40 per­
cent to 55 percent-45 percent.
The American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (A FL-CIO ) and the Interna­
tional Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO) rep­
resented the largest number of workers. The former
accounted for 30 percent of the represented employ­
ees and the latter 12 percent. The State, County and
Municipal Employees were mostly in cities of
500.000 or more, while the firefighters were more
evenly dispersed. The difference in these two distri­
butions results from the greater employment levels of
larger cities in non-protective services among which

Employee representation in municipalities, by size and region, 1 9 7 0 -7 1 1
Cities reporting unions and/or associations

City size and region

Cities

Employment

Employment
Cities

Total......... .

2,064

Cities reporting no unions and/or
associations

Employ-

Percent
Repre­
sented

Percent

Unrepre­
sented

Percent

1,393,241

1,302

63.1

880,579

63.2

351,719

25.2

462,185
232,531
102,849
154,164
143,510
144,797
153,205

6
22
25
82
212
361
594

100.0
95.6
96.1
85.4
86.9
72.5
50.7

415,635
148,752
57,258
75,065
79,839
65,649
38,381

89.9
64.0
55.7
48.7
55.6
45.3
25.1

46,550
78,779
41,591
52,786
48,513
45,051
38,449

10.1
33.9
40.4
34.2
33.8
31.1
25.1

107,791
448,740
216,985
67,179
183,012
50,781
105,127
39,153
174,473

182
266
314
106
69
37
63
51
214

90.5
68.4
72.7
59.6
30.9
38.1
31.7
59.3
82.6

69,457
390,369
143,258
24,736
62,604
15,111
29,512
15,502
130,030

64.4
87.0
66.0
36.8
34.2
29.7
28.1
39.6
74.5

35,024
46,102
56,520
28,644
57,750
22,276
46,705
18,764
39,934

32.5
10.3
26.0
42.6
31.6
43.7
44.4
49.2
22.9

Cities

Percent

762

36.9

160,943

1
1

4.3
3.8
14.6
13.1
27.5
49.3

5.000
4.000
26,313
15,158
34,097
76,375

9.5
31.6
27.3
40.4
69.1
61.9
68.3
40.7
17.4

3,310
12,269
17,207
13,799
62,658
13,394
28,910
4,887
4,509

Percent

11.6

CITY SIZE

1

,000,000 and over..
6
500.000999,999_____
23
250.000499,999...
26
100.000-249,999....
96
50.000- 99,999.....
244
25.00049,999........ ................
498
10.000- 24,999........
1,171

14
32
137
577

2.1
3.9
17.1

10.6
23.5
49.9

REGION
New England.........
Middle Atlantic..... .
East North Central...
West North Central..
South Atlantic.......
East South Central..
West South Central..
Mountain............ .
Pacific............... .

201
389
432
178
223
97
199
86
259

1Data In all tables are estimates, accounting for nonrespondents.

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

19
123
118
72

154
60
136
35
45

3.1
2.7
7.9
20.5
34.2
26.4
27.5
12.5

2.6

45

CITY EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION
Table 2.

Employee representation in municipalities, by types of organization, 19 7 0 -7 1
City size
Cities with
organizations
1,000,000 and over 500,000-999,999

250,000-499,999

100,000-249,999

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

Em­
Cities ployees
repre­
sented

50,000-99,999

25,000-49,999

10,000-24,999

Organizations present
Cities

Total........... .....

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

Cities

Cities

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

Cities

Em­
ployees Cities
repre­
sented

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

25

57,258

82

75,065

212

79,839

361

65,649

594

38,381

35,153

2,050

3

3,013

12

6,910

34

8,562

75

6,142

187

8,476

179
98
35

9,201
17,120
8,832

1

2,050

1
2

413
2,600

7
4
1

2,053
2,810
2,047

14
12
8

1,538
3,452
3,572

41
30
4

1,941
3,529
672

116
49
22

3,256
2,679
2,541

281

36,600

6

5,076

39

11,628

75

10,448

161

9,448

1
1
4

458
605
4,013

10
6
23

1,098
1,209
9,321

40
15
20

3,462
1,842
5,144

104
26
31

3,385
1,827
4,236

Associations only_______

880,579

3 associations or more...

155
48
78

8,403
5,483
22,714

Unions and associations...

709

808,826

1 union, 1 association. _.

173
243
90
56
44
29
28
26

19,957
99,550
23,129
34,470
37,259
64,284
16,107
29,606

unions, 1 association..
unions, 2 associations.
associations, 1 union..
associations, 2 unions
unions, 3 associations
or more__________

Cities

148,752

1 union..................
2 unions_____________
3 unions or more

3
3
3
3
3

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

1

312

2 unions, 1 association__
2associations, 1 union..
2 unions, 2 associations.

Cities

22

1,302

Unions only.... .......... .

1association.
2associations_________

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

20

484,464

6

415,635

6

415,635

21

146,702

22

54,245

64

63,079

139

59,649

211

49,059

246

20,457

1

27,313

1
3

2,800
7,903

2

1
5
1

1,039
6,961
1,283

1
5

7,097
3,775
31,988

5
6

12,363
18,353

2

8,203

23
42
15
Ì9
16
8
4
8

4,180
16,620
5,882
8,125
8,965
5,257
1,756
5,474

43
78
36
19
11
3
10
10

4,144
16,274
9,764
5,385
3,564
648
3,668
5,212

4,977
9,008
3,495
784
411
313
1,469

5,719

2,817
15,471
2,705
13,079
8,181
7,725
2,788
4,998

97
95
34
6
2
2
10

2

8
19
4
10
9
5
3
4

7

87,420

2

6,043

2

5,315

4

3,390

1

400

75,065

212

79,839

361

65,649

594

38,381

1

4

6,426

381,896

880,579

6

415,635

22

148,752

25

57,258

82

971

480,472.

6

229,405

22

94,048

25

27,882

75

41,998

173

41,657

271

28,024

399

17,458

3
7
21

8,314
1,566
22,267

4
6
23

1,101
175
12,275

10

6

23
16
157

2,887
667
17,091

4
25
216

262
1,543
12,283

13
27
268

349
781
5,766

Total______________

>1,302

AFL-CIO_____ _________
Selected major unions:
Service Employees___
Electrical Workers___
Fire Fighters________
State, County, Municipal Employees_____
Transport Workers

57
93
757

23,524
10,600
109,203

4

5

8,582
4,659
23,203

67

2,029
1,209
16,318

489
6

269,891
34,546

6
1

153,589
30 293

18
1

47,180
4,086

19

11,555

39
1

19,057
71

99
3

19,122
96

126

11,482

182

7,906

Independent unions______

183

48,117

3

28,859

9

3,057

7

4,474

19

3,668

19

3,086

50

2,755

76

2,218

Selected major unions:
Teamsters__________

164

44,413

3

28,859

9

3,057

6

2,723

19

3,668

17

1,886

45

2,399

65

1,821

AFL-CIO and Independent

1

57

1

57

Associations___________ :

990

351,933

6

157,371

21

51,647

22

24,902

70

29,399

178

35,039

286

34,870

407

18,705

415
486
148

49,850
90,831
11,387

1
4
1

7,663
37,895
1,792

12
10

12,645
16,415

11
13
1

5,011
7,248
440

36
31
8

8,088
6,832
1,710

68
96
31

6,563
8,861
2,874

107
151
48

6,039
8,709
3,039

180
181
59

3,841
4,871
1,532

9

28,657

2

28,289

1

74

6

294

200

388

158,291
32,294

4

76,620

14

20,480

9
1

12,192
375

31
9

10,804
4,317

89
48

16,515
10,596

121
71

14,475
11,464

120
71

7,205
5,542

188

125,997

4

76,620

14

20,480

8

11,817

22

6,487

41

5,919

50

3,011

49

1,663

Selected major associations:
Fraternal Order of
Police____________
Other police association
Fire associations... .
Combination police
and fire associations
Other city employee
associations:....... .
Local, citywide
Local, specific
employee groups
1

2

Cities data in vertical columns are nonadditive.

the State, County and Municipal Employees has its
major jurisdiction.
Associations were clustered mainly in police pro­
tective services. However, they were clearly frag­
mented, in that various police associations out­

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

stripped the national Fraternal Order of Police in
employee representation, 90,831 to 49,850. Citywide
associations were located to a great extent in smaller
cities and specific employee groups in larger munici­
palities.

46

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Three-fifths report agreements

Three-fifths of the cities with unions and associa­
tions reported collective bargaining agreements in ef­
fect at the time the questionnaire was prepared
(table 3), It should be noted, however, that collective
bargaining activity is more widespread than the num­
ber of agreements indicates. In part, this results from
the absence of specific legislation authorizing written
agreements with public employee unions. So many
cities bargain with employee organizations but pro­
mulgate the results in personnel regulations or execu­
tive orders without any reference to the participation
of employee organizations.
All six cities with populations of 1 million or more
reported that some employees were represented by
unions and associations. Yet, in only three (New
York, Detroit, and Philadelphia) were agreements in
effect. Of the remainder, Houston is in a State that
has no law permitting collective bargaining for public
employees, although there is a “meet and confer”
statute. Los Angeles operates under a “meet and
confer” statute, namely, the Myers-Milias-Brown Act
of 1968 as amended.3 The sixth city, Chicago, pays
prevailing area wage rates but has no statuatory au­
thority to bargain.
The proportion of cities reporting agreements gen­
erally was higher for the smaller municipalities than
for the larger. However, these data must be read
cautiously. In larger population size groups, there are
Table 3.

Collective bargaining agreements, 1 9 70 -71

cities
in study

Cities
with
organi­
zations

Cities
with
agree­
ments

Number
of agree­
ments

2,064

1,302

790

2,518

3.2

6
23
26
96
244
498
1,171

6
22
25
82
212
361
594

3
14
12
45
138
220
358

300
111
66
187
449
619
786

100.0
7.9
5.5
4.2
3.3
2.8
2.2

201
389
432
178
223
97
199
86
259

182
266
314
106
69
37
63
51
214

170
194
218
54
17
10
16
23
88

560
717
679
115
61
31
35
38
282

3.3
3.7
3.1
2.1
3.6
3.1
2.2
1.7
3.2

All
City size and region

Total__________

Average
number
of agree­
ments
per c ity 1

CITY SIZE
1,000,000 and over_____
500,000-999,999_____
250,000-499,999_____
100,000-249,999___
50,000-99,999___
25,000-49,999___
10,000-24,999_________
REGION
New England..
Middle Atlantic..........
East North Central_____
West North Central_____
South Atlantic.
East South Central_____
West South Central____
Mountain_____________
Pacific__________

1 Per city reporting agreements.


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

fewer cities, and therefore a larger impact on per­
centages occurs when a city reports the presence or
absence of agreements. Regional data, in which
larger cities are more widely dispersed, avoid these
broad swings. Regional data also tend to reflect with
some degree of accuracy known attitudes and legisla­
tive situations which affect city collective bargaining.
For example, the proportion of cities with agree­
ments is highest in New England, Middle Atlantic,
and East North Central States, and lowest in the
South Atlantic, East South Central, and West South
Central States. This conforms to other findings about
those States where unions and collective bargaining
have been accepted or resisted in private and public
sectors.
The most complicated bargaining situations ex­
isted in Detroit, which listed 60 agreements, and
New York City, where the Office of Collective Bar­
gaining reported 237 agreements. In contrast, Phila­
delphia reported only three agreements— one each
with the State, County and Muncipal Employees,
Fire Fighters, and Fraternal Order of Police.
Agreements per city averaged 3.2. Excluding the
largest cities just referred to, the average ranged
from 2.2 to 7.9 agreements. Averages, of course,
conceal the wide variations which may exist within
groups. For example, Milwaukee, in the size group
averaging 7.9 agreements, reported 18 contracts, in­
cluding three with the Electrical Workers (IBEW );
two each with the State, County and Municipal Em­
ployees, Operating Engineers, and Fire Fighters; and
single agreements with the Plumbers; Firemen and
Oilers; Professional Policemen’s Protective Associa­
tion; Laborers; and Teamsters. Additional agreements
were in effect with the Technicians, Engineers and
Architects of Milwaukee; the Staff Nurses’ Council;
the Association of Scientific Personnel; and the As­
sociation of Physicians and Dentists. On a regional
basis, the range for the average number of agree­
ments per city narrowed substantially, with most re­
gions clustering around the 3.2 average for all cities,
in effect confirming that the key variable is city size,
rather than region.
Two employee organizations—the State, County
and Municipal Employees (600) and the Fire Fight­
ers (441)— accounted for over two-fifths of the esti­
mated 2,518 collective bargaining agreements. The
only other organizations with more than 100 agree­
ments were the Fraternal Order of Police (192) and
the Teamsters (184). Together, the four organiza­
tions represented over half of all agreements. The

47

CITY EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION

remaining agreements were widely dispersed among
a variety of unions and associations.
Prevalence of union security

Three forms of union security—the union shop,
maintenance of membership, and agency shop— ap­
peared in municipal labor agreements. Under the
union shop, all employees who are not already mem­
bers of the employee organization at the time the
agreement is signed, must join the union or associa­
tion within a given time period, usually 30, 45, or 60
days. For study purposes, the definition of union
shop includes the modified union shop, whereby
present employees are not obligated to join, but all
new hires must. Maintenance of membership proce­
dures obligate city employees who already are mem­
bers to continue their membership, usually for the
duration of the contract, but nonmembers do not
have to join. Under the agency shop, nonmembers of
the employee organization are required to tender
amounts of money, usually the equivalent of dues,
but they do not have to join. Consequently, they are
not subject to the restraints and discipline that mem­
bers undergo and are less likely to respond to ap­
peals from the employee organization for unified ac­
tion against management.
Table 4.

In total, 333 cities told the Bureau they had nego­
tiated 942 agreements with union security provisions
with some of the employee organizations with which
they deal (see table 4). These municipalities repre­
sented over two-fifths of all cities that reported
agreements in effect; again, cities below 50,000 in­
habitants contained the bulk of the contracts with
union security provisions, 624, or 66.2 percent; and
the proportion of agreements in smaller cities that
had union security provisions exceeded the average
for all agreements.
Outside of the New England, Middle Atlantic and
East North Central States, contracts with union secu­
rity provisions were uncommon. In these three re­
gions, 772 agreements with provisions were listed, or
82.0 percent of all reported union security arrange­
ments. The number of union security provisions in
the Middle Atlantic States was relatively high (153),
but low as a proportion of all contracts in the region
(21.3 percent), largely because New York City was
reported to have no union security clauses in its
agreements. If New York City were excluded, the
ratio of contracts in the Middle Atlantic region hav­
ing union security would rise to 32.1 percent, still
below the average for all agreements. Among other
regions, there was only a minor concentration in the
Pacific States, with 73 agreements.

Union security provisions in municipal agreements, by size and region, 1970—71
Cities with union security provisions
Cities with organizations
Agency sh 3P

Maintenance of membership

Union shop

Total
City size and region

Total..............

Cities

Agree­
ments

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

880,579

333

942

300
111
66
187
449
619
786

415,635
148 75?
57!258
75,065
79,839
65,649
38,381

2
5
3
17
43
98
165

560
717
679
115
61
31
35
38
282

69,457
390,369
143,258
24,736
62,604
15,111
29,512
15,502
130,030

79
77
114
10
8
4
11
7
23

Cities

Agree­
ments

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

1,302

2,518

6
22
25
82
212
361
594

182
266
314
106
69
37
63
51
214

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

Cities

Agree­
ments

Em­
ployees
repre­
sented

Cities

Agree­
ments

53,199

141

360

40,036

69

224

47,705

3

27,313

1
7
23
45
72

9
24
60
110
152

850
8,475
5,770
6,865
3,926

1
3
1
5
19
33
79

17
24
10
11
39
78
181

2,425
15,533
1,106
3,639
6,040
4,956
6,337

1
2
2
7
28
19

41
26
4
19
31
71
32

13,995
15,525
2,500
6,006
3,494
5,226
959

45
34
38
4
4
4
2
6
12

132
64
90
4
12
12
3
12
29

10,366
30,150
6,434
88
1,454
910
493
664
2,640

32
33
45
6
4

78
71
119
18
8

6,283
10,282
14,161
298
982

10
10
45

46
18
154

15,456
2,675
28,152

8
4
9

20
5
41

1,042
101
6,887

Cities

Agree­
ments

140,940

149

358

61
50
23
54
130
259
365

43,733
31,058
4,456
18,120
15,304
17,047
11,222

1

256
153
363
22
20
13
25
17
73

32,105
43,107
48,747
386
2,436
1,510
1,885
765
9,999

CITY SIZE
1,000,000 and over__
250 000-499 999
100 000-249 999
50 000-99 999
25 000-49 999
10,000—24^999________

10

REGION
Middle Atlantic
East North Central___
West North CentraL. _
South Atlantic
East South Central___
West South Central___
Pacific......... ........... .

NOTE: Nonadditive. Some cities had agreements with and without union security provisions.


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

1
1
2

....... .
1
2
3

600
350
...........
472

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

48
Employees coming under union security provisions
constituted a small proportion of all represented em­
ployees. Even if New York City’s employees were
removed from the study, there would not be a sub­
stantial rise in the percentage of employees covered:
N ot
C o vered by

covered
b y u n io n

A ll

b y u n io n

r e p r e s e n te d

se c u r ity

se c u r ity

e m p lo y e e s

p r o v is io n s

p r o v is io n s

Nationwide:
Number . . . .
Percent .........

880,579
100.0

140,940
16.0

739,639
84.0

Excluding
New York City:
Number . . . .
Percent .........

583,616
100.0

140,940
24.1

442,676
75.9

Over half the represented employees were concen­
trated in seven cities having 500,000 inhabitants or
more: Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, Se­
attle, Buffalo, and Indianapolis. Philadelphia, De­
troit, and Boston had the bulk of the employees.
Most of the remainder were evenly distributed
among cities having less than 250,000 inhabitants.
Type of union security

Over two-fifths of the cities having union security
arrangements had the union shop. The same propor­
tion held for maintenance of membership, but only
one-fifth of the cities had an agency shop.
The bulk of the cities reporting the union shop
had populations below 100,000. Such cities ac­
counted for all but 36 of the provisions. Major clus­
ters of cities reporting the union shop appeared in
the Middle Atlantic, East North Central, and most
important, the New England States (table 4).
Together, they represented more than three-quarters
(78.5 percent) of the cities reporting such provi­
sions. Over half the New England cities with union
security arrangements had the union shop.
Cities reporting maintenance of membership pro­
visions also tended to cluster in cities under 100,000
inhabitants and in the three northern, industrialized
regions, as did cities reporting agency shops.
More employees were covered by agency shop
provisions than by maintenance of membership, and
the total covered by agency shop clauses was not far
behind the number covered by the union shop. More
than half the employees covered by the union shop
(51.3 percent) were in cities of 1 million or more.
The three northern regions accounted for the bulk of

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

the employees covered by union shop agreements,
primarily because of Philadelphia, with over 27,000
employees.
Maintenance of membership contracts covered a
strong concentration of employees in cities of
500,000 to 999,999, largely because of Cleveland,
Buffalo, and Seattle.
Three-fifths (61.9 percent) of the employees cov­
ered by agency shop agreements were in the largest
cities, particularly Detroit, Boston, and Indianapolis.
In terms of union coverage, the State, County and
Municipal Employees negotiated more maintenance
of membership provisions (183) than union shop or
agency shop clauses (99 and 77, respectively). How­
ever, State, County and Municipal Employees union
shop provisions covered the most employees
(28,744), followed by agency shop arrangements
(21,002), with maintenance of membership trailing
(14,772). The Fire Fighters negotiated about the
same number of maintenance of membership and
union shop provisions (79 and 72) with little differ­
ence in worker coverage (6,755 and 7,263). Fewer
agency shop clauses were negotiated by the Fire
Fighters (39), but employee coverage differed little
from the others (5,918). Other organizations which
had negotiated union shop provisions were the Fra­
ternal Order of Police and the Teamsters (Ind.),
each with 29.
Checkoff provisions

A checkoff system whereby the employer deducts
union dues and, in many cases, other financial obli­
gations to the union, may be granted unilaterally by
a city in the absence of a collective bargaining agree­
ment. Such a procedure can represent a substantial
savings to employee organizations which otherwise
would have to assign personnel to collection activi­
ties.
Of the 1,302 cities reporting employee organiza­
tions, 902 or 69.3 percent responded that one or
more unions or associations had obtained checkoff
rights (see table 5). Just over three-quarters of the
represented employees in the study (75.4 percent)
remitted dues to their organizations through a deduc­
tion from weekly, biweekly, or monthly pay.
Checkoff occurs once the employee has authorized
the city to make the deduction from his salary and to
turn it over to his union or association. Such authori­
zations may be valid unless specifically revoked or
may provide an escape period, annually or at the
termination of the collective bargaining agreement.

CITY EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION
Table 5.

49

Checkoff procedures in municipalities, 1 9 70 -71
Procedure

Cities

Employees

Cities reporting employee organizations__________________

1,302

880,579

902
882
140
128

663,937
414,210
240,481
239,646
835
9,246
216,642

Cities reporting employees on checkoff and type of deduction .
Single rate___ _
Variable rate_____________________________________
Rate range (minimum-maximum).................. .
Percentage rate_______________________________
Reference to checkoff; type of rate not available_______
No reference to checkoff___________________ __________

12
6

400

the cities having employee organizations but no
union security arrangements nevertheless had dues
checkoff:
C itie s w ith
im p a sse
p r o v is io n s

Union shop ............................ , .
Maintenance of membership ., .
Agency shop ..........................
No union secu rity................. .

C itie s w ith
c h e c k o ff
p r o v is io n s

132
129
69
597

149
141
69
969

NOTE: Nonadditive. Cities may have more than one variety of checkoff with differ­
ent employee organizations.

Negotiation impasse procedures

In most cases, there is a uniform deduction made
for all employees. This was the case in 882 cities of
the 902 with checkoff, and applied to 62.4 percent of
the employees on checkoff.
The remainder were on variable rates, preponder­
antly situations providing a range of rates. Such
ranges resulted from dues structures which were
based upon the income of members. Dues checkoffs
based upon a percentage of earnings similarly took
into account level of individual earnings.4
Virtually all cities which reported negotiated union
security arrangements also responded that they pro­
vided dues checkoff. Surprisingly, over three-fifths of

Only two States, Pennsylvania and Hawaii, specifi­
cally provide a limited right to strike in the public
service. To achieve peaceful settlements, a number of
States authorize the use of several impasse proce­
dures, either alone or in combination. In many in­
stances, these extend to local government levels, al­
though there are counties and municipalities which
have adopted their own resolutions and ordinances
for expediting negotiations.
Half the cities reporting employee organizations
said they used one or more contract impasse proce­
dures (table 6). More significantly, over four-fifths
(83 percent) of the cities with agreements had im­
passe procedures. The bulk of these cities followed

Table 6.

Negotiation impasse procedures in municipalities by size and region, 1 9 7 0 -7 1

City size and
region

Cities

Im­
Employees passe
repre­
pro­
sented
ce­
dures

Factfinding

Cities
Total_______

1,302

880,579

6

361
594

415,635
148,752
57,258
75,065
79,839
65,649
38,381

182
266
314
106
69
37
63
51
214

69,457
390,369
143,258
24,736
62 604
15,111
29,512
15'502
130’030

Advisory
arbitration

Mediation

Employees Cities

Binding
arbitration

Referral adminis­
tration or legis­
lative authority

Other 1

Employees Cities Employees Cities Employees Cities Employees Cities Employees

656

317

483,309

341

500,491

3

3

5
7

333,644
591264
17'360
23,167
20,035
19,063
10,776

3

10

333,644
69,937
18 !447
27,838
21,272
18,643
10,710

197

76,798

1

17,136
25'296
L 000
9,521
9,954
7,851
6,040

29

1 2 ,8 6 6

2

7

6,150
1,058
1,692
3,481
485

4
4

2,350
466

1

3,787

20

6,263

312

99,404

1

10,177
29,098
1,900
13,645
19,472
18,226

12

6 ,8 8 6

21

9,616

2

4,590
1,557
1,584
1,363
522

CITY SIZE
1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 and over..
500,000-999,999.
250,000-499,999____
100,000-249,999____
50,000-99,999____
25,000-49,999____
10,000-2,4999____

22

25
82
212

11

39
108
193
292

51
97
132

151
173
160
48

74
94
81
26

12
5

6

22

7

7
27
50
107
140

2
2
12

38
53
89

6
1

16
55
94
139

3
5

3
6
6

4

REGION
New England.........
Middle Atlantic____
East North Central.._
West North Central.

Pacific........... .....

8

17
82

2
3
6

25

33,735
351,130
50,652
3,610
31 589
292
718
934
10,649

54
101

90
27
3
2
5
4
55

31,052
350,428
59,944
4,295
30 421
29?
490
734
22,835

1 Includes 8 cities covering 6,170 employees which referred to some form of action by
State Board, regulation, or law; 4 cities covering 536 employees had no specified pro­
cedures; 2 cities covering 1,529 employees referred to any method mutually agreed
upon; 3 cities covering 600 employees referred to limited right to strike (Pa.); and 4
cities covering 781 employees referred to miscellaneous procedures such as unfair


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

46
43
39
28
8
5
2
6
20

1 2 ,0 0 2

24,043
5,805
2,652
27 389
610
650
369
3,278

108
89
86
10
3
2
1
7
6

32,046
29,144
19,099
851
10 978
292
380
534
6,080

2

1,580
4,115
293
1,794

6

1,834

6
6
1

labor practices charge leading to restraining order (failure to use impasse procedure),
or local grievance procedure.
NOTE: Nonadditive. Agreements may contain more than one type of impasse pro­
cedure and different organizations within a city may have different impasse procedures.

50

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

patterns found in the survey of union security provi­
sions in that they were small, having populations
under 100,000, and were largely in the northern,
industrialized regions of the New England, Middle
Atlantic, and East North Central States. There was a
smaller cluster in the Pacific Region.
As we know, factfinding involves an individual or
group of individuals in the investigation, assembling,
and reporting of facts in a labor dispute, sometimes
with the authority to make recommendations for set­
tlement. Mediation involves the attempt by a third
party to help in negotiations or in the settlement of a
dispute through advice or persuasion, short of dic­
tating terms. Arbitration involves the submission of
disputes for settlement by an impartial third party.
The settlement can be advisory or it can be binding.
Of the three procedures, mediation and factfinding
were somewhat more frequently available than arbi­
tration and covered more employees. To a large de­
gree, the prevalence of these two procedures could

be attributed to New York City, where more than
200,000 employees were covered. Even excluding
New York City, factfinding and mediation would
have larger coverage than arbitration and would have
the largest concentration of employees in cities of 1
million or more and in the Middle Atlantic States.
In addition to mediation and factfinding, New
York City, through its Office of Collective Bargain­
ing, provides for a tripartite board to hold hearings,
mediate, and secure arbitration, if necessary.
Just under two-fifths of the cities reported binding
arbitration procedures; in about one-quarter, advi­
sory arbitration could be used. Both binding and
advisory arbitration covered substantial clusters of
employees in cities of 500,000 or more and in cities
in New England and the Middle Atlantic. While
binding arbitration also covered a noticeable cluster
in the East North Central States, the largest under
advisory arbitration was in eight cities in the South
Atlantic States.
□

-F O O T N O T E S -

1 This article is part of the Bureau’s series of studies of
public sector labor-management relations. It deals specifi­
cally with the extent of organization, the number of negoti­
ated agreements, union security and dues checkoff practices,
and negotiation impasse procedures in municipalities. Data
were obtained by means of a questionnaire mailed in late
1970 and early 1971 to municipal officials in all cities
having a population of 10,000 or more according to the
1970 census. Excluded from the scope of this study were
independent or special districts, such as transit authorities,
separate boards of education, and bridge, port, or tunnel
authorities. The results are limited, therefore, to situations in
1970-71 where the city was the direct employer. Question­
naires were mailed to 2,064 cities, and responses were re­
turned by 1,320 or 64.0 percent. All cities but one having
populations of 250,000 or more replied. Smaller cities an­
swered at significantly lower rates, especially those having
populations between 10,000 and 24,999, which represented
over half the cities surveyed. The Bureau developed esti­
mates for the full universe of 2,064 cities. Within each
State, cities which returned questionnaires were matched to
nonresponding cities with as close a population size as
possible. The responding cities were then weighted to
account for their nonresponding counterparts. To some de­
gree, this weighting process may overstate the degree of
organization since it is likely that responding cities as a
group were somewhat more organized than nonresponding
cities. However, followup correspondence with a 5-percent
sample (41) of nonresponding cities, chosen on a regional


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

and city-size basis, indicated that such bias would be slight.
2 The E a s t N o r th C e n tr a l region consists of Ohio, Indi­
ana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the M i d d l e A tla n tic ;
New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Other regions:
N e w E n g la n d — Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa­
chusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut; W e s t N o r th C e n tr a l —
Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas; S o u th A t la n tic — Delaware, Maryland,
District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Caro­
lina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida; E a s t S o u th C e n tr a l —
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi; W e s t S o u th C e n ­
tr a l — Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas; M o u n ta in —
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,
Arizona, Utah, Nevada; and P a c ific — Washington, Oregon,
California, Alaska and Hawaii.
3 California also passed the Winton Act of 1965 which
provides “meet and confer” privileges for public school
employees; however, the California Superior Court ruled in
1971 that the Act does not authorize schools to negotiate
legally enforceable contracts.
4 Taking into account the various methods of checkoff
and the money rates of checkoff reported to the Bureau, it
is estimated that roughly $3 to $3 Vi million are collected
monthly by city management and transferred to employee
organizations. This figure must be used with caution. At
best, it is a very rough estimate, computed from single rates,
averages, and midpoints of rate ranges and weighted by the
number of employees for whom dues were checked off.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES 23D CONVENTION
DONALD L. BRENEMAN

1,244 d e l e g a t e s to the 23d biennial conven­
tion of the American Federation of Government Em­
ployees (AFL-CIO) achieved a measure of unity on
several significant policy matters, but were deeply
divided over other key issues. The meeting was
held in Hollywood, Fla., August 21-25, 1972. Dif­
ferences were greatest, first, over the eligibility of one
national vice president to hold membership and high
office in the union, and second, over a proposed
increase in per capita taxes. Present officers were
reelected, and the convention agreed on a legislative
program directed towards the passage of a proposed
labor-management relations bill and hammered out a
policy for mergers with other unions.
T he

Election of officers

On the second day of the convention, in a session
lasting far into the early hours of the morning, the
delegates overwhelmingly reelected John F. Griner to
his sixth term as president over his principal oppo­
nent, National Vice President Joseph D. Gleason of
the 2d District, 161,639 to 53,136. Mr. Gleason, in
his campaign for the presidency, had condemned
AFGE leadership for its “power-broker” politics and
stressed the theme that “the AFGE must be given
back to its owners, the dues-paying members.” Trail­
ing Mr. Gleason in the presidency race was Allen H.
Kaplan of the 7th District, with 10,464 votes. Mr.
Kaplan’s platform, like Gleason’s, stressed greater
regional autonomy including the establishment of re­
gional organizing staffs.
By wide margins, Clyde M. Webber was reelected
to a fourth term as Executive Vice-President and

Donald L. Breneman is a labor economist in the Division
of Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

Douglas H. Kershaw to a second term as SecretaryTreasurer.
Following his unsuccessful bid for the presidency,
Mr. Gleason’s eligibility for AFGE membership and
high office were questioned. Delegates charged Mr.
Gleason with violation of Article VII, Section 1, and
Article XII, Section 2(c) of the AFGE constitution,
which, respectively, require that all officers be mem­
bers of the union for a minimum of 3 years and list
actions detrimental to the best interests of the union
which are subject to discipline. Of all the issues the
delegates confronted, none generated more heat than
this particular one. If eligible, Mr. Gleason might
have an increased chance of winning the presidency
in 1974 when President Griner is expected to retire.
Mr. Gleason’s eligibility had been reviewed by
earlier national conventions. In 1968, he was not
seated by the convention because he had not worked
for the Government. He later won a court case which
found him in compliance with the union require­
ments. The issue was again considered in 1970, but
many delegates felt it had not been permanently re­
solved then.
After extensive debate, the delegates voted to refer
all charges against Mr. Gleason to a factfinding com­
mittee v/hich would report to the convention. The
delegates approved by voice vote the committee’s
minority report, which rejected the charges against
Mr. Gleason as unsubstantiated.
In other issues relating to elections, a proposal to
establish a secret ballot for all future elections was
approved, and a proposal to replace the 2-year term
with a 4-year term was rejected. Most delegates felt
that requiring a delegate’s signature on ballots was
an invasion of privacy. The majority of delegates
also felt the 2-year term provided a better “check
and balance” on elected officers and made them
more accountable to the membership.
Per capita tax

To meet the increased demand for services by the
membership and to offset rising operating costs, the
51

52
Executive Council’s Finance Committee recom­
mended that the delegates approve a two-step revi­
sion of the per capita tax structure. The proposal as
amended by the Constitution Committee provided
for a 50-cent increase in the monthly per capita levy
effective April 1, 1973, and for automatic per capita
tax increases based on percentage pay gains made by
Federal employees during a calendar year, beginning
in April 1974.
Opposition to any form of a per capita tax in­
crease was strong throughout almost all of the
union’s 15 districts. Delegates objecting to the in­
crease argued that the costs incurred by the national
office were too high relative to the services provided
and that the per capita tax should be as consistent as
possible with the earnings of the large number of
members in the lower paying jobs.
After extensive debate and consideration of sev­
eral similar substitute proposals, the delegates voted
647-367 against the per capita tax proposal. A mo­
tion was offered that no further discussion be made
on the per capita tax until the 1974 convention.
President Griner ruled this motion out of order. He
stated that the matter was subject to reconsideration
but not at that particular session, and adjourned the
meeting, even though a division of the house had
been called for. Many delegates, shocked at Griner’s
exercise of authority, formed caucuses to consider
strategy for the following day.
The next day, after spokesmen from all levels of
the union’s structure pleaded for unity, the per capita
tax again came up for consideration. After hearing
several motions, the delegates voted 634-350 to
defer any further consideration of the per capita tax
increase to 1974. Rather than accepting a per capita
tax increase, delegates decided to cut operating ex­
penses by changing the union’s official publication,
the Government Standard, from a bimonthly to a
monthly publication and to defer until 1974 all reso­
lutions which would require an expenditure of funds.
Among the many resolutions whose consideration
was thus, in effect, postponed was one which had
been supported by many women delegates, which
called for the establishment of a women’s depart­
ment within the union to seek equal employment and
training opportunities.
Proposed legislation

The delegates and administration unanimously
supported a resolution giving top priority in next

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

year’s legislative program to a labor-management re­
lations bill for Federal employees which the AFLCIO will sponsor.
The proposed law would broaden the scope of
collective bargaining, permit more widespread use of
neutral parties in dispute settlements, and grant the
union a voice in the interpretation of the law. The
bill reflects widespread dissatisfaction over the scope
of collective bargaining and the fear that the execu­
tive order establishing the right to organize and bar­
gain collectively (Executive Order 11491) could
possibly be revoked at any time.
Discussing the proposed law, delegates strongly
advocated that the legislation also include a precise
definition of a supervisor, a matter they found am­
biguous now. Some delegates wanted a union secu­
rity provision in which all employees within a bar­
gaining unit would pay dues, whether or not a union
member, but they left to the discretion of President
Griner legislative provision for some form of union
security.
At least four senators and representatives appear­
ing before the convention supported greater em­
ployee participation in determining policies which af­
fect them and backed effective representation of
Government workers through employee organiza­
tions.
A resolution calling for a broad Federal labormanagement relations law, which included the right
to strike, was quickly defeated. After the vote, Presi­
dent Griner commented on the use of the strike by
Federal employees, arguing that right now few mem­
bers would support work stoppages and that, even if
strikes were permitted, the union had no emergency
strike fund to support such stoppages.
Merger policy

As have other major unions, including the Ameri­
can Postal Workers Union and the National Associa­
tion of Letter Carriers, the AFGE joined the merger
movement.1 The delegates overwhelmingly accepted
the concept of a single union of Federal employees.
They unanimously voted to seek merger with all
unions representing Federal employees in order to
obtain the most favorable legislation possible for
Federal employees.
However, the delegates were strongly opposed to
any merger with unions organizing outside the Fed­
eral service. They felt such a merger would require
the union to disperse its energies, detracting the or-

53

UNION CONVENTIONS

OF AMERICA CONVENTION

mously. However, there was also a vocal bloc of
dissent, centering on other issues and coming from
three organizations: RAFT (Rank and File Team),
whose roots extend back to the Dues Protest move­
ment of the early 1960’s; the Ad Hoc Committee, a
black caucus concerned for the past few years with
achieving better black representation on the Interna­
tional Executive Board and among paid staff; and
the Coalition of Concerned Steelworkers, which
seeks to unite all union dissent under one political
umbrella. All three organizations made their pres­
ence felt at the convention during floor debates and
pledged to challenge Mr. Abel’s leadership of the
union in February.

CARL A. BATLIN

Endorsement of a presidential candidate

ganization from its main goal, the representation of
Federal employees.
□
--------FOOTNOTE -------1 Both the Postal Workers and the Letter Carriers were
studying merger with the Communications Workers of
America (A FL-CIO ) to form eventually one union for the
communications industry.

UNITED STEELWORKERS

E ndorsement of a national presidential candidate,

the question of productivity, and the problem of
membership participation were among the major is­
sues at the 16th biennial convention of the United
Steelworkers of America. Almost 4,000 delegates
met in Las Vegas, Nev., September 18-22 to con­
sider nearly 2,500 policy resolutions and 500 consti­
tutional changes. Elections for international officers,
to be held in February 1973, became the backdrop
against which the issues were debated.
The state of the union

President I. W. Abel attempted to set the tone of
the convention by emphasizing the Steelworkers’
progress since their 1970 convention: “I can report
to you that our union is today stronger than it has
ever been in its entire history.” Specifically, he
pointed to the large gains made in 1971 contracts in
the areas of wages and fringe benefits, in spite of
difficult economic conditions. Moreover, he claimed,
because of recent mergers with the United Stone and
Allied Products Workers and District 50, Allied and
Technical Workers, the USWA is now the second
largest union in the world, with 1.5 million members.
President Abel then turned to problems which
face the union. His pledge to lobby for legislation
dealing with pension reform, better safety and health
protection, and workmen’s compensation improve­
ments was received with enthusiasm, and resolutions
later proposed in these areas were approved unani-

Carl A. Batlin is an economist in the Division of Industrial
Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

Conflict emerged early in the convention over a
policy resolution urging the adoption of the
AFL-CIO recommendation, announced by President
George Meany shortly after the Democratic conven­
tion, calling for non-endorsement of either major
candidate in the November presidential election. In
support of the resolution, President Abel remarked,
“We concluded that neither party is offering us the
kind of candidate that has earned or would warrant
our endorsement and support.”
Stressing the election of pro-labor congressmen,
President Abel finally carried the debate, as the
non-endorsement resolution was adopted by a close
voice vote. There were indications, however, that not
all of the union’s locals would maintain neutrality in
the November election.
Productivity-related issues

Another area of contention centered on the pro­
ductivity clause negotiated into the basic steel con­
tracts in 1971 as one means of stemming the threat
to job security posed by foreign imports. The clause
called for the establishment of a productivity council
within each plant to implement methods of improv­
ing output per man-hour. A proposed resolution al­
leged that management violated the contract and
pledged union resistance to such actions through the
grievance procedure.
Delegates representing the Coalition of Concerned
Steelworkers called for removal of the clause, main­
taining that it “served to undermine the apparent
gains of the bargaining team.” They submitted an
additional resolution demanding the right of locals to
strike if management violates the provision. Presi-

54

dent Abel took a strong stand against both propos­
als, denying that contract gains had been impeded.
He maintained further that the removal of the no­
strike clause from local contracts was inadvisable,
and called for an end to strikes as “a must” toward
building a healthy industry and preserving job secu­
rity. Both challenges to the productivity resolution
were defeated in voice votes.
Membership participation

A more general issue—that of membership partic­
ipation in the union— emerged through the debates
around specific, policy-oriented resolutions. Dele­
gates from dissident organizations introduced consti­
tutional changes to reduce what they termed “power
differentials” between locals and the International
and between the rank and file and the International
officers and staff. Some delegates alleged that the
defeat of these measures resulted from the Executive
Board’s manipulation of convention proceedings
through its control of the Resolutions, Constitution,
and Appeals Committees, and through its appoint­
ment of staff representatives to vote by proxy for
those locals which could not afford to send delegates.
A resolution pledging patient but persistent efforts
in the area of civil rights was adopted after attack by
the Ad Hoc Committee. Members of the black cau­
cus criticized the Executive Board for the “unsatis­
factory” number of appointments of black staff mem­
bers, and argued that many minority group steel­
workers were still confined to less skilled, more dan­
gerous jobs in the mills. The Ad Hoc Committee


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

pledged continued efforts to put pressure on the Ex­
ecutive Board to seek improvements in this area.
Other issues

Throughout the convention, the problem of for­
eign imports as a cause of layoffs was stressed. Dele­
gates voted overwhelming support for the BurkeHartke bill to establish steel quotas and condemned
the activities of multinational corporations.
In a unanimously adopted resolution, the conven­
tion commended the newly introduced and experi­
mental expedited arbitration procedure— which is ex­
pected to cut costs and time spent in grievance and
arbitration— and urged the expansion of this or simi­
lar procedures to steel and nonsteel locals.1 The
convention also recommended a multiunion program
to resolve problems in arbitration procedures.
In other resolutions, delegates pledged to strive for
a shorter workweek, but not at the expense of the
8-hour workday; recognized the problems of solid
waste pollution, but opposed legislation which would
deal with the issue in a way that threatened job
security in the container industry; and unanimously
condemned the practice of contracting out, which,
they claimed, results in lost jobs and jurisdictional
disputes with other unions.
□
--------FOOTNOTE -------1
For a discussion of the grievance arbitration problem,
see Ben Fischer, “Arbitration: the steel industry experi­
ment,” pp. 7-10, this issue.

Foreign
Labor
Briefs

FRANCE CURBS ITS
TEMPORARY WORK AGENCIES
HOWARD S. CARPENTER

much controversy, France’s Assemblee Na­
tio n al enacted legislation regulating temporary work
agencies. Much of the controversy revolved around
the definition of temporary help agencies. Are they
placement agencies? are they the modern equivalent
of the ancient “padrone” system? are they employ­
ers? The new law defines them as employers, but a
very special kind requiring special regulation.
The statute, la nouvelle loi sur le travail temporaire, regulates some 930 agencies that provide
short-term jobs in France for 250,000 workers, 45
percent of whom are women. This constitutes about
1 percent of the French labor force, and since these
agencies are expected to place 5 percent of the labor
force by the end of the decade, they would be among
the largest employers in France. Under the new law,
which went into effect January 6, 1972, temporary
work agencies must be registered with the Govern­
ment and are subject to all laws and controls appli­
cable to other business enterprises, especially tax
laws. They may not engage in any activity other than
supplying employers with temporary workers, that is,
they must cease acting as employment agencies in
competition with the French national employment
service. Every work contract signed with a private
agency must be reported to the local public employ­
ment service office. If not, the agency can be fined or
be ordered to close for periods ranging from 2 to 10
years.
Employers may use the services of temporary job
agencies to fill vacancies pending recruitment of per­
manent employees; fill vacancies due to temporary
A fter

Howard S. Carpenter is an International Relations Officer
with the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Depart­
ment of Labor.

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

absences for vacations, sickness and maternity leave,
or military leave; or meet limited extra manpower
requirements resulting from temporary peak activity
or the launching of new programs. Employers cannot
use temporary employment agencies during strikes.
One of the most important provisions is that tempo­
rary employees are entitled to the same trade union
representation rights as permanent employees. In the
past, many private agencies required applicants to
sign “yellow-dog” contracts stating that they would
not participate in plant grievance committees and
other trade union activities. Temporary workers may
now participate in union elections if they have
worked 12 months or even run for union office after
18 months.
In addition to the wage stipulated in the agree­
ment with the agency, a temporary worker (unless
he quits before his contract ends) must be paid an
extra sum at the end of the interim job to compen­
sate for the “uncertainty of employment.” The sever­
ance bonus will be related to the salary paid and the
length of temporary service, and must not go below a
minimum set through labor-management collective
bargaining between the Temporary Work Employers
Association and the national union covering the in­
dustry involved. The agencies are required to pay old
age, unemployment insurance, and other social taxes;
in case of failure to pay properly, the employer util­
izing the services becomes liable. The Continuous
Vocation Training Law (somewhat similar to the
U.S. Manpower Development and Training Act) is
being amended to permit an extension of its coverage
to employees of temporary job agencies. The conditions-of-employment requirements of the Govern­
ment, as well as those laid down in contracts be­
tween employers and trade unions, will now apply to
temporary workers, including workmen s compensa­
tion for injury or occupational disease.
Interest in regulating temporary help agencies was
spurred by concern over the contracting of foreign
workers, mainly from northern Africa and the Ibe­
rian peninsula, who were willing to work for low
55

56

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

wages. Many workers coming into France without
being part of official Government labor importation
took jobs as domestics or laborers at substandard
wages; many could find jobs only through the tempo­
rary help agencies. The new legislation stipulates that
agencies may not contract with foreigners already in
France but without official authorization to work,
nor are they permitted to recruit outside the country.
Contributions must be made to any social security
system existing in the employee’s home country.1 □
--------FOOTNOTE -------1 In 1971, the 22 member countries of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development had examined
France on its manpower and social policies and noted the
foreign worker problem, with its close connection to tempo­
rary help agencies. President Pompidou’s administration led
the fight to get the bill passed.

CHILDREN’S ALLOWANCES
IN FIVE COUNTRIES

Children’s allowances— primarily cash benefits
to families with children— are found in about half
the countries of the world according to a recent
study by the Social Security Administration.1 Unlike
the old-age, invalidity, and survivor insurance pro­
grams, children’s allowances programs generally lack
any mechanism for regular adjustment of benefits to
cost-of-living or wage increases. Concern with the
need to update allowance rates more frequently
seems to be growing in some countries, perhaps be­
cause of renewed interest in the problems of poverty.
The study summarized below discusses children’s
allowances program in five countries— Canada,
France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and West
Germany.

Canada. In Canada, a family allowance law became
effective July 1, 1945. The original broad objective
of the Canadian program was to help correct the
imbalance between family income and family need.
The Canadian National Labor Board viewed the pro­
gram as an alternative to raising the general level of
wages. It was hoped the program would channel
significant amounts into the spending stream by in­
creasing the purchasing power of the needy. It
would, in addition, tend to stabilize purchasing power
since
payments would be continuous and nonseason­

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

al. And children’s allowances paid during periods of
unemployment and illness would help to ensure a
steady income for social insurance and assistance
recipients with large families. Finally, the allowances
would aid employment by contributing to a higher
level of aggregate demand.
A per capita rate of payment, graduated by age
group, has existed in Canada since children’s allow­
ances began. No adjustment has been made in the
rates since 1957, when they ranged from Can$6
for each child under age 10 to Can$10 for those
age 16-17 who are in school or are invalids.
Children’s allowances programs in Canada are
universal and financed through the national budget.
France. Conditions arising from World War I had a
strong effect on children’s allowances in France. Be­
cause inflation and labor shortages exerted pressure
for ever-higher wages, more and more employers
turned to children’s allowances— a fringe benefit for
workers with families— as an alternative to more
expensive wage increases for all.
Although children’s allowances were included in
a comprehensive social security plan in 1946, efforts
of the French Government to influence the birth rate
through children’s allowances have continued. Ac­
cording to the Minister of Social Affairs, for ex­
ample, the express aim of the 1969 increases in
children’s allowances was to halt the declining birth
rate.
The French children’s allowances program— con­
siderably more complex than that of most countries
—has three main components: basic children’s al­
lowances, single-wage allowances (salaire unique
for wage or salary earners), and mother-at-home al­
lowances {mère au foyer for the self-employed). All
three types of benefits are fixed for five cost-of-living
zones in France.2
Under the basic program, benefits start with the
second child at the rate of 22 percent of the hourly
minimum wage of manual workers in the metals in­
dustry. The rate is 37 percent for the third and
fourth children and drops to 33 percent for the fifth
and subsequent children.
In 1961, France discontinued granting young
childless couples an allowance under the single
salary program. Instead, the allowance to children
under age 2 was raised to 50 percent of the base
wage (97.25 francs or $37.26) under both the single­
wage and mother-at-home program. For children 2
years of age or older, the rates as a percent of the
base wage are:

57

FOREIGN LABOR BRIEFS

S in g le -w a g e

M o th e r -a t-h o m e

p ro g ra m

p ro g ra m

1 ................................................................
2 ............................
3 ............................

20
40
50

—

10
20

Under the mother-at-home program, an increase of
10 percentage points is allowed for each addi­
tional child until the total limit of 50 percent of the
base wage is reached.
In France, programs covering the employed and
the self-employed are separate. Benefits for wage
earners derive from employer contributions exclu­
sively. Such benefits accounted for 13.5 percent of
payroll expenditures in 1968. Contributions by the
self-employed (approximately 4 percent of income,
according to an occupational scale) are applied only
toward the benefits to which this group is entitled.
France has, in addition, separate cocupational pro­
grams that cover the agricultural sector, public utili­
ties, and civil servants. State and public authorities
bear the cost of family benefits for their employees.
The agricultural sector, usually associated with low
incomes and large families, historically has been una­
ble to provide sufficient funds to support its family
allowances program and has relied on subsidies by
the National Government.
Sweden. A change in emphasis—humanitarian and
social rights considerations over demographic con­
siderations—produced after the war an allowances
program that looked primarily to the welfare of
families. There was thus a national acknowledge­
ment that the economic burden of raising children
belonged to some extent to society in general, not
wholly to the individual household. No basic change
has been made in the program since its introduction.
The benefit rates have been adjusted upward, how­
ever, and are now at a considerably higher level in
terms of purchasing power than they were when the
program began.
The universality of coverage, together with the
view that the burden of raising a family should be
shared, led to allowances beginning with the first
child. In 1948, the annual allowance was 260 kroner
($53.40) per child. This amount was raised to 550
kronor ($112.98) in 1952 and to 700 kronor
($143.81) in mid-1964. The rate later reached a
level of 900 kronor ($186.93) and went to 1,200
kronor ($246.51) as of January 1, 1971.
United Kingdom. During the late 1930’s and early
war years, demographic considerations in the United

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

Kingdom, as in Sweden, were noticeably pushed aside
in favor of a greater concern for the welfare of
children and their families. Children’s allowances,
preferably financed through general revenues, were
regarded as a necessary part of a comprehensive
social security system and the program was intended
to contribute to the needs of families with children,
not to provide full maintenance for each child.
The Family Allowances Act, adopted in June
1945, began in 1946 with benefits for the second
and succeeding children, all at the same rate. For
almost 25 years the only structural change increased
the rate for the third and subsequent children as
shown in the following tabulation (in shillings per
week):
1945
1952
1956
1967
1969

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

2 d c h ild

3 d c h ild

5
8
8
15
18

5
8
10
17
20

Children’s allowances programs in the United
Kingdom are universal and are financed through the
national budget. In the United Kingdom alone
among the five countries studied, children’s allow­
ances are treated as taxable income. A part of the
allowance is thereby recovered through the tax sys­
tem.
West Germany. Assistance based on family burden
began in Germany at the end of World War I. The
tendency at first was to regard children’s allowances
as an alternative to higher wages, and were looked
upon as earnings supplements.
In the program that emerged in West Germany
after World War II, coverage started with the third
child. In 1961, coverage was extended to the second
child in families with yearly incomes below 7,200
Deutsche marks ($2,208.58). Monthly rates had
been DM25 ($7.67) for the second child (when
eligible) and DM40 ($12.27) for the third and sub­
sequent children. The income limit for the two-child
family was raised in 1964 to DM7,800 ($2,392.64),
and an increasing benefit rate was made applicable
for the third, fourth, and fifth and each subsequent
child—DM50 ($15.34), DM60 ($18.41), and
DM70 ($21.49) monthly. The rate for the second
child remained unchanged. In 1965, families with
three or more children became eligible for the lower
rate, second-child allowance, regardless of the
amount of the family’s income.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

58

The program as introduced in 1954 called for
depositing the contributions from employers and the
self-employed in funds established within each occu­
pational group. Ten years later the Federal Govern­
ment took over the burden of financing the entire
program. West Germany was the only country to
make a transition from financing by employers to
general revenue financing in an already existing
program.

national product; and discusses changes in children’s
allowances rates and the consumer price index.
Effective January 1, 1972, Japan also set up a
system of children’s allowances based on population
and welfare considerations. For a report on chil­
dren’s allowances in Japan, see Elizabeth Kreitler
Kirkpatrick, “Children’s Allowances in Japan,” So­
cial Security Bulletin, June 1972, pages 39 and 43.
----------F O O T N O T E S ----------

of children’s allowances
programs varies with a nation’s social policy. The
five countries selected for analysis illustrate these
variances. The report on the study also makes com­
parisons of children’s allowances as a percent of
average monthly earnings by size of family; shows
expenditures for children’s allowances as a percent
of total social security expenditures and of gross
T he

benefit structure

NOTE: All exchange rates used in this article are based
on the rates in effect Dec. 31, 1971.
1 Leif Haanes-Olsen, “Children’s Allowances: Their Size
and Structure in Five Countries,” S o c ia l S e c u r ity B u lle tin ,
May 1972, pp. 17-28.
2 The base wage for basic allowances in Paris (the
highest cost-of-living area) is 377 francs ($72.22) a month,
that for the single-wage or mother-at-home allowances,
194.50 francs ($37.26).

Health as a determinant of labor market experience

The process of aging 3 years produces some
changes in the personal characteristics of middleaged men that are likely to have effects upon vari­
ous aspects of their labor market experience. By
all odds the most important of these is health. . . .
Deterioration of health was more common than
improvement in each of the three 5-year age cate­
gories, but the disparity was by far the greatest
among the oldest group of men—those who in
1966 had been between 54 and 59 years of
age----There are fascinating interactions among age,
health condition, and color. For one thing, it is
clear that both the cross-sectional and longitudinal
relationships between age and labor force par­
ticipation are to a substantial degree reflections of
the greater incidence of health problems among
older men in the sample. .. .
It is also true that the black-white difference
in labor force participation both cross-sectionally


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

and longitudinally is primarily a reflection of the
differential impact of health problems on black
and white men. In the cross-section, the higher
labor force participation rate that prevails on the
average for white men does not exist when the
comparison is confined to men in each color cate­
gory who enjoyed continuously good health be­
tween 1966 and 1969. Indeed, the 1969 labor
force participation rate of such blacks exceeds
that of their white counterparts. Longitudinally,
while the decline in labor force participation is
greater on average for black than for white men,
the situation is reversed when only the healthy
whites and blacks are considered.
— H erbert S. Parnes, G ilbert N estel,
Paul A ndrisani,
T h e P r e - R e tir e m e n t Y e a r s : A L o n g itu d in a l S tu d y o f th e

(Columbus, Ohio State
University, Center for Human Resource Research, 1972).
L a b o r M a r k e t E x p e r ie n c e o f M e n

Significant
Decisions
in
Labor Cases

Hatch Act definition unconstitutional

public servants’ freedom to participate
in political processes of the Nation, a postal union
took the Hatch Act to court. It did not challenge the
act’s ban on public employees’ “active part in politi­
cal management or in political campaigns”; it only
complained that the statute does not state precisely
its prohibitions and, in this respect, potentially vio­
lates employee rights under the First Amendment to
the Constitution.
Two members of a three-judge panel1 of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia agreed
with the union’s position and held that the law’s
definition of prohibited activities and conduct is un­
constitutional. (National Association of Letter Car­
riers v. U.S. Civil Service Commission.2)
The definition was provided by a 1940 amend­
ment, section 15, which applied to both Federal and
State employees. Now codified in identical language
as part of 5 U.S.C. section 7 324(a)(2) (applying to
Federal employees) and as 5 U.S.C. section
1501(5) (applying to State employees),3 it reads:
I n quest of

. . . the phrase ‘an active part in political manage­
ment or in political campaigns’ [prohibited by the
statute] means those acts of political management or
political campaigning which were prohibited on the
part of employees in the competitive [government]
service before July 19, 1940 [the date of amend­
ments], by determinations of the Civil Service Com­
mission under rules prescribed by the President.

The alleged defect of the provision is that it fails
to specify the nature of the prohibited conduct and,
instead, incorporates in the act by reference the Civil
Service Commission’s rulings in disciplinary actions
against violators of its no-politics rules prior to the
1940 amendments. Judge Gesell, who wrote the ma­
jority’s opinion, said;

“Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” is written by Eugene
Skotzko, Office of Publications, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

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

The definition is ambiguous and unsatisfactory. It
incorporates by reference over 3,000 rulings made
by the Commission between 1886 and 1940 . . . .
which were not before the Congress when the act
was passed. . . . [T]hey have a sweep and indefinite­
ness that no one could even attempt in these days to
defend if analized against the strictures of the First
Amendment. . . .4

Not only is section 7324(a)(2) vague of mean­
ing, it clashes with another provision of the act (5
U.S.C. 7324(b)), which says, “An employee . . .
retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express
his opinion on political subjects and candidates.”
Judge Gesell wondered how this provision and the
incorporation of the Commission’s rules as parts of
the act are supposed to operate together. To him,
section 7324(b) appeared to be qualifying the defi­
nition and indicating that the pre-1940 rulings of the
Commission “were subject to being cut back,” rather
than expanded, in future interpretations of the law,
so as to be more consistent with the First Amend­
ment right of free expression. “The difficulty, how­
ever, is,” said the judge, “that no constitutionally
acceptable mechanism was provided for accomplish­
ing this result. Grave ambiguities remain. . . . Prohi­
bitions are worded in generalities that lack precision.
There is no standard. No one can read the act and
ascertain what it prohibits. Neither the Commission
nor any other agency was given any rulemaking
power. Indeed even those most intimately concerned
with its enforcement are in doubt and have sought
legislative clarification.”
Though thwarted by the lack of authority to make
rules, the Commission, Judge Gesell noted, did its
best to administer the ambiguous law so as to “ac­
commodate rigidly incorporated prior rulings to the
rapidly evoking court interpretations of the First
Amendment.” Permitting the expression of political
opinion without “the intent to influence others” mod­
ulated the rigidity of prior rulings, but a Federal
employee still is “at hazard if he ventures to speak
on a political matter since he will not know when his
59

60
words or acts relating to political subjects will of­
fend”; he is still “in doubt as to what he can do or
say politically.” And the judge went on:
Ours is not a form of government that will prosper
if citizens, particularly Federal Government servants,
must live by the mottoes ‘better be safe than sorry’
and ‘don’t stick your neck out.’ Government employ­
ment should, of course, carry some well-defined
limitations upon participation in partisan political
matters, but Congress may not by reason of this
desirable objective neutralize such a large segment
of the populace from expressing any opinion on any
‘political’ issue with the intent of somewhat influenc­
ing someone else. In the end everything may appear
political, all speech may intend to influence, and
conformity is imposed in the fashion of more regi­
mented, less democratic governments.
This is a classic case of a statute which in its appli­
cation has a ‘chilling effect’ [in the sense that its
overbreadth and vagueness inhibit a person in the
exercise of constitutional rights] unacceptable under
the First Amendment. To chill is to dispirit, and the
First Amendment will not flourish but can be grad­
ually suffocated in such an atmosphere.5
To the Commission’s argument that the Supreme
Court approved of the Hatch Act in its 1947 deci­
sion in United Public Workers v. Mitchell,6 Judge
Gesell replied that that decision “explicitly left open
the question of constitutionality of the incorpora­
tion-by-reference section of the act.” Viewed in the
light of subsequent decisions7 which developed the
“ ‘least restrictive alternative test’ for governmental
incursions into the area of free speech,” and consid­
ering changes in the “size and complexity of public
service,” the Mitchell decision must be considered
“outmoded by passage of time.”
In Judge Gesell’s opinion, “If Congress undertakes
to circumscribe speech, it cannot pass an act which,
like this one, talks in riddles, prohibiting in one
breath what it may be argued to have allowed in
another, leaving the citizen unguided but at hazard
for his job. . . . If there are impermissible areas of
activity, the overriding governmental interest must be
marked with utmost clarity by the Congress in a
form that is obvious to the sophisticated and unso­
phisticated alike.”
Section 732 4 (a)(2 ) of the Hatch Act was de­
clared “unconstitutional in that its provisions are im­
permissibly vague and overbroad when measured
against the requirements of the First Amendment to
the Constitution. The injunction against enforcement
is granted . . . pending determination by the Su­
preme Court. . . .”

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

In a lengthy, elaborate dissent, Circuit Judge
MacKinnon argued that it was beyond the power of
this court to consider a challenge to constitutional
validity of a statute already upheld by the Supreme
Court in Mitchell and Oklahoma. He did not find the
challenged provisions of the act vague and over­
broad, and concluded, “I see no necessity in this
stage of our national existence to set aside a statute
that is as soundly based in our governmental frame­
work as is the Hatch Act. And I am unable to find
any authority for this court to overrule, in effect, a
decision of the Supreme Court to accomplish that
result.”
More on safety disputes

Last month’s issue of the Review reported a deci­
sion (Gateway Coal Co.8) of the Federal court of
appeals in Philadelphia (Third Circuit) that employ­
ees who believe their employment conditions to be
hazardous may justifiably refuse to work until the
conditions are improved, and need not submit their
dispute to arbitration even if their collective bargain­
ing agreement so requires. The employees in ques­
tion were coal miners. The ruling had the ring of an
unqualified pronouncement, despite the extenuating
circumstance that the collective agreement involved
—the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of
1968— had only a broad arbitration clause that did
not specifically require submission of safety disputes
to an umpire for decision. “Men are not wont to
submit matters of life or death to arbitration, and no
enlightened society encourages, much less requires,
them to do so,” was the position of the court.
Three days after the Gateway decision, the appel­
late court in St. Louis (Eighth Circuit), in a similar
situation involving coal miners, issued a ruling that
seemed to dilute the Philadelphia court’s clearcut
theory regarding safety disputes. It held that, indeed,
the employees had the right to refuse doing danger­
ous work, but qualified its position by requiring that
the dispute be submitted to arbitration in accordance
with a specific provision of the union contract.
( The Hanna Mining Co. v. United Steelworkers.9)
Present in each situation was a correctible danger
that was in excess of the normal hazards of coal
mining: in Gateway the employees refused to work
under supervisors who had failed to report a highly
dangerous condition in the mine; in Hanna the work­
ers refused to change grates on a conveyor belt “on
the fly.” And both situations involved a work stop-

61

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES

page that caused the employer to sue for a court
injunction. On appeal, injunction was denied in the
first instance, but granted in the second. Why?
The court in the present case saw a distinction
between the contractual provisions of the two situa­
tions. In Gateway, where the employees were held
free to reject arbitration concerning safety, the con­
tractual arbitration clause was broad, stating only
that “should any local trouble of any kind arise at
the mine,” an attempt to resolve it would follow a
certain procedure including, as a last resort, a bind­
ing decision of an impartial umpire. In Hanna the
provisions were explicit:
. . . If an employee shall believe that there exists
an unsafe condition, changed from the normal haz­
ards inherent in the operation, so that the employee
is in danger of injury, he shall notify his foreman of
such danger and of the facts relating thereto. There­
after, unless there shall be a dispute as to the existence
of such unsafe condition, he shall have the right,
subject to reasonable steps for protecting other em­
ployees and the equipment from injury, to be relieved
from duty on the job in respect of which he has
complained and to return to such job when such
unsafe condition shall be remedied. The management
may in its discretion assign such employee to other
available work at the mine. . . . [If a joint unionmanagement investigation produces no agreement on
the validity of the employee’s allegation of danger],
the employee shall have the right to present a griev­
ance in writing to the management’s representative
. . . and thereafter to be relieved from duty on the
job as stated above. Such grievance shall be presented
without delay directly to an impartial umpire . . ., who
shall determine whether such employee was justified
in leaving the job because of the existence of such
an unsafe condition.

The court in St. Louis gave this agreement a strict
interpretation.
It should be noted that in Gateway the court con­
ceivably could have considered the safety dispute as
being within the meaning of a “trouble of any kind.”
But it did not do so. Instead, it took the position that
employees cannot be compelled to entrust their
safety to an arbitrator’s judgment regardless of what
their agreement says: “The arbitrator is not staking
his life on his impartial decision. It should not be the
policy of the law to force the employees to stake
theirs on his judgment.” In Hanna, the Eight Circuit
did not subscribe to this philosophy; it only saw to it
that the contract terms were fulfilled.
Obviously, the basic difference between the two
cases was, to a degree, one of contractual provisions,
but primarily it was a distinction in judicial thinking

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

between the two courts.
The appellate court in St. Louis also saw a techni­
cal distinction between the two suits. Section 502 of
the Labor Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
section 143) provides that “. . . quitting of labor
. . . in good faith because of abnormally dangerous
conditions for work at the place of employment
[shall not] be deemed a strike. . . .” In Gateway,
the defendant union did not seek protection of this
provision; the court itself invoked this section in sup­
port of its reasoning that the National Bitumonous
Coal Wage Agreement of 1968 should not be con­
strued as requiring arbitration of safety disputes. In
Hanna, the union did claim protection under section
502, but the court of appeals disposed of the argu­
ment by saying, “The trial court did not make a
finding that employees walked off the job in the good
faith belief that the conditions for work were abnor­
mally dangerous, and such a finding is necessary to
bring that section into play.” And it added, “Fur­
thermore, the trial court did not base its decision on
this statute [section 502].”
The court ordered, among other things, reinstate­
ment of all Hanna employees suspended or otherwise
penalized in connection with the dispute, resumption
of work on the part of the employees, and submis­
sion of the controversy to arbitration.
NLRB and arbitration awards

Recently the National Labor Relations Board
adopted a policy of not accepting appeals from arbi­
trators’ awards in disputes involving unfair labor
practices. By a vote of 3 to 2, which reflected a
fundamental and persistent disagreement among its
members over the issue of deference to arbitration
agreements in unfair-practice cases, the Board re­
fused to play the role of a tribunal for the enforce­
ment of such awards. (Malrite of Wisconsin.10)
The split within the Board has existed since the
majority ruled over a year ago in Collyer Insulated
Wire11 that disputes of this kind “can better be
resolved by arbitrators with special skill and experi­
ence ... . than by the application by this Board of a
particular provision of our statute. . . .” The “par­
ticular provision” is section 10(a) of the LMRA,
which reads in part, “This Board is empowered . . .
to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair
labor practice . . . affecting commerce. This power
shall not be affected by any other means of adjust­
ment or prevention that has been or may be estab-

62

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

lished by agreement, law, or otherwise. . .
Mem­
bers Fanning and Jenkins protested the ruling vehe­
mently, saying the Board was abdicating its powers
under the act, a step that was bound to deprive
employees of statutory protection and of access to
the Board by interposing private tribunals between
them and the law. (The dissenting members’ state­
ments were extensively cited in the Monthly Labor
Review, November 1971, pp. 64-66.) They adhered
to this position in all subsequent cases involving the
issue, including this one.)
Involved in the present case were a radio station’s
agreements with individual employees, reached with­
out the knowledge of the union, on the use of engineers-announcers— so-called “combo” operators—
for daytime broadcasting. The existing labor contract
allowed the use of one “combo,” for nighttime work
only. These individual agreements amounted to a
refusal to bargain on the part of the employer, an
unfair labor practice under section 8 (a )(5 ) of the
LMRA. The parties agreed to bring the dispute be­
fore an arbitration panel for a binding decision, as
provided by a contractual arbitration clause. The
panel decided that the employer had violated the
contract, but the employer refused to honor the deci­
sion and continued to use “combos” as before. The
union then complained to the Board.
The trial examiner found that the arbitration had
been carried out in full compliance with the stand­
ards established by the Board in 1955 in Spielberg
Manufacturing Co.,12 which must be met before the
Board gives “full weight” to an arbitral award. The
Board had said there, that to be acceptable, the arbi­
tration must be “fair and regular, all parties [must
have] agreed to be bound, and [the award must not
be] clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of
the act.”13 Here these conditions were satisfied, but
the trial examiner thought that the case should come
before the Board nevertheless because the employer
had refused to accept the award.
The Board’s majority overruled the examiner:
In its form ulation o f the S p i e l b e r g standards the
Board did not contem plate its assumption o f the

functions o f a tribunal for the determ ination o f arbi­
tration appeals and the enforcem ent o f arbitration
awards. If the Board’s deference to arbitration is to
be m eaningful it must encom pass the entire arbitra­
tion process, including the enforcem ent o f arbitral
awards. It appears that the desirable objective o f
encouraging the voluntary settlem ent o f labor disputes
through the arbitration process w ill best be served
by requiring that parties to a dispute, after electing
to resort to arbitration, proceed to the usual con­
clusion o f that process— judicial enforcem ent— rather
than permitting them to invoke the intervention of
the Board.

In pursuing their basic arguments against the Col­
ly er doctrine, the two dissenters made these points:
•

“. . . In view o f the failure o f the arbitration panel
to award damages, a remedy at law is not available
to the union except in terms o f an unfair labor prac­
tice”— that is, through N L R B proceedings. (T o this
the majority replied, as cited above, that remedial
im plem entation o f an arbitral award can best be
achieved through a court order.)

• “Nothing in Spielberg suggests that the Board con­
templated leaving the parties where it found them if,
on the basis of the arbitrators’ findings of fact, it was
clear that an unfair labor practice had been commit­
ted.”
• “This case, presumably, . . . is illustrative of the
basic flaw in [the Collyer doctrine]. The majority
appears to be willing to assume that there is little, if
any, difference in the enforcement of a contract and
the prevention of unfair labor practices involving
contract interpretation. The forum for one is the
court, with or without arbitration. The forum for the
other is the Board exclusively, enforcing its orders
through the courts. . . . Before the Board, the ques­
tion of damages is considered in the context of em­
ployee rights and the responsibilities imposed on
unions and employers under this statute. . . .”
The dissenters concluded, “We dissented in Col­
lyer and subsequent cases and we dissent here be­
cause we believe that doctrine is unwise, mischie­
vous, and destructive of important employee rights.”

□

-F O O T N O T E S -

1 Including Circuit Judge MacKinnon, who dissented, and
District Judges Gesell and Parker.
2 D .C .-D .C ., civ. act. No. 577-71, July 31, 1972.
3 The Hatch Act was signed into law August 2, 1939 (ch.
410, 53 Stat. 1147-1149). The original section 15, which

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

applied to Federal employees and those State employees
within the coverage of the act, was added by the amend­
ments of July 19, 1940 (ch. 640, 54 Stat. 767-772). As now
codified, it appears as 5 U.S.C. section 1501(5), applicable
to covered State employees, and as part of 5 U.S.C. section

63

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES

7 3 2 4 (a )(2 ), applying to Federal employees.
The text of the original section 15 is a notable syntactic
rarity: “The provisions of this act which prohibit persons to
whom such provisions apply from taking any active part in
political management and in political campaigns shall be
deemed to prohibit the same activities on the part of such
persons as the United States Civil Service Commission has
heretofore determined are at the time this section takes
effect prohibited on the part of employees in the classified
civil service of the United States by the provisions of the
civil-service rules prohibiting such employees from taking
any active part in political management or in political cam­
paigns.” (N o punctuation except the period.)
4
In showing how the pre-1940 rulings of the Civil Serv­
ice Commission (the “prior rulings”) failed to measure up
to the First Amendment standards, the judge cited some
examples: “A disciplinary action was taken against Federal
employees in situations where the employee engaged to
some extent in the following: made a wager on an election;
offensively discussed a ‘political question’; disparaged the
President; denounced a political party while in a jovial
mood due to alcohol; publicly engaged in a political discus­
sion; wrote a political letter; publicly expressed a political
opinion; published a political article; wore a political button
while on duty; stated unsubstantiated facts about ancestry of
a candidate; made offensive political remarks; failed to dis­

courage a spouse’s political activity; stated disapproval of
treatment of veterans while acting as a Legion officer in a
closed Legion meeting; was partisan in political views; al­
lowed one’s name to be associated with an objectionable
political affair; authorized an anonymous political communi­
cation.”
5 The court’s reference: “For a more lengthy discussion
of the doctrine of overbreadth, vagueness, and chilling
effect, see H o b b s v. T h o m p s o n , 448 F.2d 456, 459-460 (5th
Cir. 1971), and cases cited therein.”
6 330 U.S. 75 (1947); see also O k la h o m a v. U .S . C iv il
S e r v ic e C o m m is s io n . 330 U.S. 127 (1947).
7 The court’s reference: appellate decision in H o b b s v.
T h o m p s o n , supra; and the district court decision in M a n c u s o
v. T a ft, 341 F. Supp. (D.C.-R.I., 574, 1972).
8 C.A. 3, Nos. 71-1641, 71-1642, and 71-1786, July 18,
1972; see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October 1972, pp. 66-67.
9 C.A. 8, No. 72-1428, July 21, 1972.
10 M a lr ite o f W is c o n s in , I n c . and W is c o n s in B r o a d c a s t
E n g in e e r s , L o c a l 7 1 5 o f B r o th e r h o o d o f E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s ,

198 NLRB No. 3, July 18, 1972.
11 192 NLRB No. 150; see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v i e w , N o­
vember 1971, pp. 64-66.
12 112 NLRB 1080 (1965).
13 Ibid., at p. 1082.

Manpower policies in the 1970’s

If we accept the notion that manpower pro­
grams should be primarily a vehicle for education
. . . then I would agree . . . that questions facing
manpower policy are going to be problems of the
workplace, questions of upgrading and training,
and so on. I think manpower programs have begun
to deal with these questions and the real issue is
going to be the reorganization of work. If man­
power policy is primarily a matter of education,
as a sociologist I must raise the classic kind of
question that we ask: “If, in a period of high
unemployment, one man can improve his op­
portunities for employment, can all men do that?”


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

The obvious answer is No. If they try to do that,
then the value of the education is mitigated. There­
fore, I think the question should be what kind
of employment policies we should have in the
1970’s so that manpower policies can be effec­
tively used to increase the kinds of opportunities
available to working people. The answer, I sup­
pose obviously, is full employment.
— R onald

D.

C o r w in ,

in Dialogue on “U.S. Employment Policy From the
1960’s to the 70’s,” N e w G e n e r a tio n , Spring 1972.

Major
Agreements
Expiring
Next Month

This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in Decem­
ber is based on contracts on file in the Bureau’s Office of Wages
and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering
1,000 workers or more in all industries.

Employer and location

Industry

Union 1

Number
of
workers

American Cyanamid Co. (Bound Brook, N.J.)___
Atlantic Richfield Co.:
Arco Pipe Line Co. (Interstate)___________
California Statewide Agreement (California),

Chemicals.

Chemical Workers.

1,600

Petroleum.
___ do___

Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers..
___ do.......... .........................

3.700
1,600

Braniff Airways, Inc., Clerical (Interstate) 2 .................... .......................

Air transportation.

Teamsters (Ind.).

5.100

Campbell Soup Co., Central Division (Chicago, III.)..................................

Food products.....
Real estate........

Retail, Wholesale, and Department
Store Union.
Service Employees...................

1,600

Cemetery Workers' Agreement (New York) 3 ____________________

Martinsville Nylon Employees'
Council Corp. (Ind.).
Air Line Pilots..................

3.000

E.l. DuPont De Nemours and Co., Textile Fibers Department (Martinsville, Va.)_

Chemicals_______

Eastern Airlines, Inc., Pilots (Interstate) 2______ _____ __________ __________

Air transportation.

Green Shoe Manufacturing Co. (Boston, Mass.)______ _____
Gulf Oil Corp., Gulf Oil Co.— U.S. Division (Port Arthur, Tex.).
Gwaltney, Inc. (Smithfield, Va.)...................................

Leather...... .
Petroleum___
Food products.

Kosher Meat Markets Agreement (New York)3.

.do.

Boot and Shoe Workers.......... .....
Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers..
Employees Beneficial Association
No. 2 (Ind.).

1.700

3.700

1.000
2,550

1.100

Meat Cutters.

1,300

Manufacturers’ Industrial Relations Association (Interstate).
Mobil Oil Corp., Refinery (Beaumont, Tex.)______________
Montgomery Mills, Inc. (Montgomery, Pa.)_____ _________

Fabricated metal products.
Petroleum...................
Textiles_______________

Molders............... ...... .........
Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers..
Textile Workers Union.____ ______

4.000
1,450
1.150

National Transient Members Agreement (Interstate) 3 ........... ...... .............. .
New York Shipping Association, Inc., Port Watchmen Agreement (New York, N.Y.)..
Northern States Power Co., 4 Divisions (Minneapolis, Minn.)............................
Northwest Airlines, Inc., Clerical (Interstate) 2 _____________________ ___________

Construction..........
Water transportation.
Utilities...... .........
Air transportation...

Boilermakers_________ ____
Port Watchmen’s Union (Ind.).
Electrical Workers (IBEW)___
Railway Clerks........... ......

5.000

Pennsylvania Heavy and Highway Contractors Bargaining Association (Pennsylvania)..

Construction.

Steelworkers (District 50, Allied and
Technical Workers).

2,000

Seeburg Corp. (Chicago, III.)___
Shell Oil Co.:
California Refineries (California)_____
Wood River Refinery (Wood River, III.).

Machinery.

Teamsters (Ind.).

1.150

Petroleum.
___ do___

1,350

1,200
1.000
2,000

Southern California Edison Co. (Los Angeles, Calif.)......... ....... ..... ................
Southern Illinois Contractors Association, Heavy Building, Private, and Highway.
Construction (Illinois).
Standard Oil Co. of California, Western Operations, Inc. (Richmond, Calif.)...... .
Stewart-Warner Corp. (Chicago, III.)....................... .................................

Utilities____
Construction.

Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers..
Electrical Workers (IBEW); Asbestos
Workers; Painters; Sheet Metal
Workers; Carpenters; Laborers;
and Teamsters (Ind.).
Electrical Workers (IBEW)_________
Operating Engineers_________ ____

Petroleum........ .
Electrical products.

Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers.
Electrical Workers (IBEW)________

2,600

Tanners Association of Fultori County, Inc. (Gloversville and Johnstown, N.Y.).
Texaco, Inc., Port Arthur Terminal (Port Arthur, Tex.)............................

Leather...
Petroleum.

Clothing Workers__________ ____
Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers.

3,750

Warner & Swasey Co. (Cleveland and Solon, Ohio)_____________ __________
West Virginia Contractors Bargaining Association, Inc. (West Virginia)________

Machinery...
Construction.

1,250
2,000

Weyenberg Shoe Manufacturing Co. (Beaver Dam, Portage, and Waterloo, Wis.).

Leather_________

Machinists___________ _________ _
Steelworkers (District 50, Allied and
Technical Workers).
Boot and Shoe Workers___________

Zenith Radio Corp. of Missouri (Springfield, Mo.)................................... .

Electrical products.

Electrical Workers (IBEW).

2,350

See footnotes on the next page.

64

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

1,100

6,100
1,850

1,000
1,000

1,200

Major agreements expiring next month—Continued

Company and location

Madison Board of Education; teachers (Wisconsin)___________ _____ ____________
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority; maintenance employees (Massachusetts).
Massachusetts Department of Mental Health; registered nurses (Massachusetts)------Massachusetts Division of Employment Security; Administrative Office Unit (Mass­
achusetts).
Monroe County Employees (New York)............... .......... .............. ....... ......

Government activity

Education.....................
Public transportation_____
Health; medical..............
Employment; compensation.
Multidepartment.............

Employee organization1

Madison Teachers, Inc. (NEA) (Ind.)__
Amalgamated Transit Union_________
Nurses Association (Ind.)...... .........
State, County and Municipal Em­
ployees.
Civil Service Employees Association,
Inc. (Ind.).

Number
of
workers
1,800
4.300
1,600

1,100
3.300

Nassau County Civil Service Employees (New York)

Civil Service Employees Association,
Inc. (Ind.).

13,000

Onondage County Civil Service Employees (New York)

Civil Service Employees Association,
Inc. (Ind.).

2,800

Toledo Police Command Officers
Association (Ind.); Patrolmen's
Benevolent Association (Ind.); and
Fraternal Order of Police (Ind.).

3,700

Law enforcement.

Toledo Police Division (Ohio)

1
2

Affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
Information is from newspaper.

3

Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).

Indexes to the Monthly Labor Review

Each year the December issue of the Monthly Labor Review con­
tains an index, by subject, of articles published in the Review in the
current year. Also included are listings of statistical tables and of books
reviewed, by author of book. In recent years, the index has also included
an alphabetical list of authors.
At intervals, these yearend indexes have been combined and pub­
lished as BLS Bulletins:
Bulletin 695, Subject Index to the Monthly Labor Review, Volumes 1 to 11,
July 1915 to December 1920
Bulletin 696, Subject Index to the Monthly Labor Review, Volumes 12 to 51,
January 1921 to December 1940
Bulletin 1080, Subject Index of Volumes 52-71, Monthly Labor Review,
January 1941 to December 1950
Bulletin 1335, Index of Volumes 72-83, Monthly Labor Review, January
1951 to December 1960

Work is now in progress on the next bulletin in the series, to cover
volumes 84 to 93, January 1961 to December 1970.


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

65

Developments
in
Industrial
Relations

AFL-CIO reaffirms election stand

At its 2-day summer session held in Chicago, the
AFL-CIO Executive Council declared the Federa­
tion’s top priority to be the election of a new Con­
gress dedicated to “progress for America.” In the
August meeting, the Council reaffirmed its July 19
decision that the AFL-CIO will refrain from endors­
ing either major candidate for President of the Un­
ited States and will concentrate on electing pro-labor
congressional candidates. Federation President
George Meany said the endorsement issue was
brought before the council because “five state federa­
tions of labor asked us to reconsider—five out of 50
and 10 local central bodies out of about 750.”
The council also called for the passage of the
Burke-Hartke bill as a necessity to “stop special tax
advantages and import privileges of American com­
panies operating in Mexico, Haiti, and other areas”
and asserted that the 1-year record of the Nixon
Administration’s new economic policy had borne out
AFL-CIO predictions that “it was inequitable and
unfair.”
On September 19, Mr. Meany suspended the
Charter of the Colorado Labor Council and sus­
pended from office President Herrick S. Roth and
Secretary-Treasurer A. Toffoli and members of the
executive board. He named Daniel J. Healy, the
AFL-CIO’s director for Illinois and Iowa, as trustee
of the council’s affairs during the suspension. The
action followed the state body’s endorsement of Sen­
ator George McGovern for the presidency on August
3, in the face of the AFL-CIO Executive Council’s
original decision not to endorse a presidential candi­
date. Mr. Meany had ordered the endorsement re­
scinded, but the Colorado Council balked by a vote
of 27 to 1.
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by Leon
Bornstein and other members of the staff of the Division
of Trends in Employee Compensation, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and is largely based on information from sec­
ondary sources.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
66
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Although the Executive Council’s ruling permitted
unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO to endorse can­
didates, the three-man hearing board that investi­
gated the Colorado action backed Mr. Meany’s as­
sertion that “this freedom did not extend to
AFL-CIO state or local central bodies, which, as
subordinate bodies of the AFL-CIO, were required
to conform their policies on national affairs to those
of the AFL-CIO .”
On September 21 Mr. Roth announced that he
and the other members of the Colorado Labor Coun­
cil would not obey Mr. Meany’s order. He also asked
the U.S. District Court in Denver to restrain Mr.
Meany.
In early October, Judge Fred M. Winner issued a
preliminary injunction barring the AFL-CIO’s ac­
tions against the Colorado body. The AFL-CIO an­
nounced it would appeal the ruling.
U.S. sues over pay increase

In a suit filed in Federal District Court in Louis­
ville, the Government charged that Brown & Wil­
liamson Tobacco Co. and Local 320 of the Firemen
and Oilers put into effect without Pay Board ap­
proval a 22-percent pay increase negotiated in No­
vember 1971. The Justice Department asked the
Court to order the company to cease paying the
increase. The Department also sought repayment of
the excess wages paid (above the Pay Board’s 5.5percent standard) and $2,500 civil penalties against
both parties.
A company spokesman said the contract affected
only 35 of the firm’s 9,000 employees. Because of a
strike by the Machinists, “we couldn’t negotiate a
contract with the Oilers,” he said, so that “through
no fault of the company or union members the con­
tract wasn’t ratified until November 19, 1971,”
shortly after Phase 2 began. The spokesman said the
Oilers should not be penalized and “should have the
same benefits as the other 9,000 employees.” The
previous agreement expired September 30, 1971.
The Board slashed deferred increases negotiated

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

67

by five printing trade unions representing 1,800
workers at The Washington Post and The Washing­
ton Star and Daily News. Reportedly, the increases
were pared to 8 to 9 percent, from 9.5 to 12.5
percent. In addition, a 13.1-percent deferred increase
for 1,000 Newspaper Guild members at the Post was
reduced to 8.5 percent. A Board spokesman said
employees would not be required to refund any
money, even though they had been receiving the full
increases for 4 months.
Approved by the Pay Board, however, was a 5percent deferred increase due October 1 for some
135,000 railroaders. The increase was the second
5-percent deferred boost this year (the first was
effective in April) under the agreement negotiated in
1971 between the United Transportation Union and
the Nation’s railroads (Monthly Labor Review,
October 1971, p. 75). The October increase was
approved after the Pay Board found that cost-saving
work rules changes provided for by the settlement
were being implemented.

vealed that in 14 of the 31 industries compensation
rose at a rate above the 4.8-percent average and the
5.5-percent Phase 2 standard. The motor vehicle in­
dustry set the pace with pay increases of 21 percent,
followed by air transportation with 16.6 percent. Ex­
ecutive compensation declined in four industries, led
by a 13-percent decrease in nonferrous metals.
The annual surveys also cover bonuses and stock
options of the four highest paid officials in each of
the companies studied. In 1971, 23 of the 27 indus­
tries reporting average executive pay boosts posted
profit gains, the largest, 97.3 percent, in the auto
industry.
George H. Foote, a partner in McKinsey & Co.,
attributed over half of 1971’s pay increases “to the
sharp rise in profits and growth in company size.”
He added that “the wage freeze and Phase 2 controls
undoubtedly played a role in keeping the overall
increase in executive compensation below the wage
increase guideline, particularly by limiting the size of
bonus fund payouts for some companies.”

U.S. pay raise deferred

Shirt workers settle

On the grounds that the Economic Stabilization
Act amendments of 1971 supersede the Federal Pay
Comparability Act of 1970, President Nixon post­
poned from October 1 to January 1 a scheduled raise
for 3.6 million Federal employees. The President
noted that Federal employees had received on Janu­
ary 1, 1972, the 5.5-percent-a-year maximum al­
lowed under current economic controls. He said he
would “recommend that the increases necessary to
achieve comparability be paid effective January 1,
1973,” the earliest the employees would be eligible
under the Economic Stabilization Act.
The 1970 comparability law was designed to pro­
vide semiautomatic pay increases for military and
white-collar Federal employees to keep their salaries
“comparable” with private industry. Under its provi­
sions, Federal pay rises to private industry levels
every October 1, unless the President notifies the
Congress otherwise by September 1 and submits an
alternative plan, which can be rejected by either
House of Congress.

On September 19, the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers and major shirt manufacturers in various


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

January . . . . . ..
February . . . . . .
March ......... . . .
April ........... . . .
May ............. . . .
June ............. . . .
July ............. . ..
August ......... . . .
September .. . . .
October . . .. . . .
November .. . . .
December . . . . . .

1969

1970

1971

1972

110.0
110.8
111.4
112.0
r112.6
113.3
113.9
114.4
115.1
r115.9
rl 16.7
117.0

117.4
118.0
p118.9
119.3
rl 19.9
120.6
121.4
r122.4
■T23.1
r123.5
r124.2
r124.9

126.0
126.7
r127.1
128.1
r128.9
r129.4
r130.1
r130.8
131.4
r131.8
r131.8
rl 33.6

r134.6
rl 34.8
135.5
r136.7
'136.7
r137.1
137.8
p138.3

r =: Revised to 1971 benchmarks.
p = Preliminary.

0.

Pay increases for high-level executives in 31 major
industries averaged 4.8 percent in 1971, compared
with 0.6 percent in 1970. The results, compiled by
McKinsey & Co., a management consulting firm, re­

The Hourly Earnings Index rose 0.5 in September to
138.8 The Index measures earnings of production or
nonsupervisory workers in the private nonfarm econ­
omy. It is adjusted to exclude (1) the effects of inter­
industry employment shifts, (2) overtime premium pay
in manufacturing, and (3) seasonal variations. Data for
periods prior to September 1972 are also shown in the
following tabulation (1967 = 100).

OO
OO

Executives’ pay up in 1971

Hourly Earnings Index

—
—
—

68
States agreed to a 3-year contract for 20,000 work­
ers. A union spokesman said the contract, subject to
ratification and Pay Board approval, was expected to
set a pattern for 100,000 other workers the union
represents in the cotton garment industry.
Wages were increased by 15 cents effective Sep­
tember 4, 1972, 12.5 cents in September 1973 and
April 1974, and 10 cents in January 1975. The
employer payment to the welfare fund was increased
to 9 percent (of gross wages), from 7.5 percent, to
finance extension of hospital coverage to 120 days,
from 60, and an increase in miscellaneous hospital
expenses to $1,000, from $500. The basic pension
was increased to $85 a month, from $75, for past
and future retirees with 20 years of service, and two
supplements to the basic benefit were established—
$1.50 a month for each year of service in excess of
20 (to a maximum 40) and $7.50 a month for each
$1,000 of average annual pre-retirement earnings in
excess of $5,000. An eighth paid holiday becomes
effective in 1973. The union said a dispute over
imports of knitted shirts was resolved by requiring
producers to place work with union contractors if
possible.
Machinists, airline settle

A breakthrough in negotiations between the Ma­
chinists and nine airlines occurred in mid-September
when a settlement was reached with one of the car­
riers, United Air Lines. The new contract, which is
subject to termination on August 31, 1973, was re­
troactive to the January 1 termination date of the
prior agreement.
Effective January 1, 1972, the 9,500 line mechan­
ics and related employees received a wage increase
of 40 cents an hour, which reportedly amounted to
6.6 percent for the entire group and 6.9 percent for
the mechanics alone. On January 1, 1973, the group
will receive an increase of about 6.4 percent. The
5,200 ramp servicemen and stores workers received
an initial increase of 31 cents an hour (about 6.5
percent) and will get 6.1 percent in January 1973.
The 1,900 employees in other classifications received
5.5-percent increases on the same dates.
The pension plan was altered to provide for bene­
fit levels based on length of service, rather than earn­
ings. A company official said the change would more
than double the benefit for employees who retire in
the future, compared with those who retired just
before the settlement.

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Another pension improvement provides that em­
ployees retiring at age 55 or later whose age and
years of service total 85 will receive a supplemental
benefit until age 65, when they will receive a normal
pension.
The company official said the settlement increased
compensation costs by 5.5 percent on an annual
basis, within the Pay Board guideline. Negotiations
between the Machinists and the other eight carriers
were continuing.
Gold miners accept 4-year offer

On August 28, 1,500 striking members of Local
7044 of the Steelworkers ratified a 4-year agreement
with Homestake Mining Co. of Lead, S.D. The pre­
vious 3-year agreement, scheduled to expire in No­
vember, had come up for renegotiation because the
cost-of-living maximum had been reached. The
nearly 6-week strike ended with a compromise on
the escalator clause. Previously, each 50-cent rise in
the price of gold between $36 and $49 an ounce
triggered a 3-cent rise in hourly wages. Under the
new agreement, the escalator clause was substantially
revised. The 48-hour workweek was reduced to 40
hours every other week with weekly pay unchanged.
If the price of gold reaches $80 an ounce (it was
$67 at settlement) and remains there for 60 days,
the workweek will be reduced to 40 hours each
week. If the price rises to $85 an ounce, there will be
an increase in pension benefits. The agreement also
provided for 5-percent wage increases at the begin­
ning of each contract year, starting in August 1973.
Philadelphia teachers strike

A strike by 13,000 Philadelphia schoolteachers
highlighted scattered walkouts delaying the fall term.
The Philadelphia School Board, reportedly $52 mil­
lion in debt, was seeking a 40-minute increase in the
school day and elimination of 485 teaching positions.
The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers was asking
for a 34-percent salary boost, while the Board was
offering 5 percent.
On September 19, the Washington Teachers
Union struck District of Columbia schools in a dis­
pute over pay and school conditions. The union,
representing about half of the District’s 7,000 teach­
ers, was asking for a 17-percent pay rise, matching
the boost granted the city’s policemen and firemen in
late August.

DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

On September 7, a few days before the start of the
fall term, the New York City Board of Education
reached agreement on a 3-year contract with the
United Federation of Teachers (U FT), averting a
threatened strike by 70,000 public schoolteachers.
The contract was described by Board of Education
President Joseph Monserrat as “well within” the Pay
Board’s 5.5-percent guideline. Starting salaries were
raised over 3 years to $9,700 annually, from $9,400,
while maximums went from $13,950 to $16,650.
The maximum additional payment for teachers com­
pleting extra credits was increased from $3,000 to
$3,700 a year. Thus, in the third year, a teacher
could earn a high of $20,350 a year. The Board also
agreed to hire 1,200 security personnel to patrol
junior and senior high schools. The contract also
raised stipends for teachers taking sabbatical leaves
from 60 to 70 percent of their salary.
AT&T anti-bias accord

The General Services Administration announced
an antidiscrimination agreement with the American
Telephone & Telegraph Co., the Nation’s largest pri­
vate employer, with 800,000 employees. AT&T
agreed to employ more blacks, other minority mem­
bers, and women and provide more opportunities for
promotion, all over the next 15 months. Robert D.
Lilley, president of AT&T, said Bell System compa­
nies expected to move 50,000 women and 6,600
minority-group men into higher paying jobs. The
Bell System also agreed to place 6,600 women in
jobs traditionally held by men, such as installers and
line workers, and 4,000 men in traditional female
jobs, such as telephone operators and clerks.
The National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People and the National Organization of
Women both protested that the hiring pledges were
uniform nationally, so that Bell companies that were
allegedly most discriminatory would be permitted to
catch up at the same rate as the others. They said the
agreement failed to comply with the 1964 Civil
Rights Act requirement that back pay be awarded
for past discrimination. They also attacked continua­
tion of personnel testing practices “that have an un­
fair impact on minorities.”
The settlement was not related, in a legal sense, to
the discrimination charge the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission filed with the Federal
Communications Commission when AT&T asked for
a rate increase (Monthly Labor Review, February

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

69

1972, pp„ 77-78). Opportunity Commission Chair­
man William Brown said his agency would continue
to press the charge.
After the settlement, the Department of Labor’s
Office of Federal Contract Compliance, in letters to
both AT&T and the General Services Administration,
announced that it was “assuming jurisdiction” over
all matters relating to AT&T’s employment policies
as a Government contractor. Mr. Lilley issued a
statement expressing confidence that the agreement
“is a huge step toward true equal opportunity” and
“will stand up under the most searching inquiry.”

Hodgson cites minority-hiring record

Secretary of Labor James D. Hodgson said the
Department of Labor has made “significant improve­
ment” in its minority-hiring and advancement pro­
grams, and “leads, not lags behind” other Federal
agencies. He said that during “a period of very lim­
ited overall growth in personnel,” the ratio of minor­
ity employees in the Department grew from 29.7
percent to 31.7 percent in the year ending May 31,
1972. The Secretary’s statement was issued after a
published report said a 1971 Department of Labor
study had criticized the Department’s minority em­
ployment record.
Philadelphia Plan backed

Secretary Hodgson and other administration
officials denied that a decision had been made to
drop the Philadelphia Plan. The denials were
prompted by minority-group reactions to President
Nixon’s order that all Cabinet officers and agency
heads review their employment policies to ensure
that no quota systems are in effect. In his order
banning quotas in the Federal service, the President
reiterated his commitment to increased minority em­
ployment opportunities. However, he added that the
“criterion for selection I have employed and will
continue to employ will be based on merit.” In a
Labor Day speech, he said, “Quotas are intended to
be a shortcut to equal opportunity but in reality they
are a dangerous detour away from the traditional
value of measuring a person on the basis of ability.”
The Philadelphia Plan was put into operation in
1969 (Monthly Labor Review, September 1969,
pp. 60-61) and has led to the adoption of similar
plans in 55 other cities. From its inception, unions

70
have attacked the plan, asserting it set “quotas” of
minority employees for Federal construction proj­
ects. Comptroller General Elmer D. Staats agreed
with the unions’ position, holding that the plan did
set job quotas, illegal under the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Subsequently, the Administration revised the
plan to emphasize “goals” and Attorney General
John Mitchell upheld this version. Later, a contrac­
tors’ suit against the plan was dismissed in a Federal
court and the decision was upheld by the Supreme
Court. (See Monthly Labor Review, June 1972, p.
61, for an account of the Philadelphia Plan’s prog­
ress in meeting its 1971 goals.)
Machinists approve dues increase

Delegates to the Machinists convention in Los An­
geles approved a dues increase after President Floyd
E. Smith reported the union had spent $5 million
more than it took in since the 1968 convention. He
described the last 4 years as a period during which
“we have been caught in the tide of political reaction
and economic recession.” Mr. Smith said member­
ship had dropped to 750,000 (from about 900,000),
primarily because of cutbacks in defense and aero­
space jobs.
The 1,800 delegates adopted a new minimum dues
structure based on 2 hours’ pay, or $6.50 a month,
whichever is greater. (The dues will be based on the
average hourly pay of an entire local, rather than
individual members.) Also approved was a $1.10-amonth increase in the local per capita payment to the
international, bringing the payment to $4.50 by
1976. The convention endorsed Senator George
McGovern for President and pledged an “all-out
fight” for abolition of wage and price controls.
Rubber workers assail imports

Layoffs and the resulting loss of operating income
were also the chief topic at the 28th convention of
the Rubber Workers, held in Bal Harbour, Fla. Pres­
ident Peter Bommarito blamed the union’s problems


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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

on 3 Vi years of “Nixonomics” and increasing im­
ports. According to Mr. Bommarito, the “Big Five”
American rubber companies have over 200 foreign
subsidiaries that export to the United States, causing
plant phaseouts that have cost 32,474 Rubber Work­
ers’ jobs in the past 10 years. To counter the union’s
financial problems, the delegates approved a formula
providing for 2-cent automatic annual increases in
monthly dues for each 1-cent-an-hour general wage
increase won by any local during the previous 12
months, with the first adjustment in November 1973.
The money will be split between the international
and the local. Current dues were increased by $1 a
month.
Mr. Bommarito also announced the union would
concentrate on a single company within the Big Five
in 1973 negotiations. He called current bargaining
practices outmoded “as a result of the alliance estab­
lished by the Big Five billion-dollar rubber
corporations.”
Griner wins reelection

More than 1,500 delegates to the Government
Workers’ (AFGE) 23d biennial convention in Hol­
lywood, Fla., elected John F. Griner to his sixth
2-year term as president. Also reelected were Execu­
tive Vice President Clyde M. Weber and SecretaryTreasurer Douglas H. Kershaw. The convention re­
jected the officers’ recommendation for a 50-cent
increase in monthly dues.
It also decentralized the union’s organizing struc­
ture by dissolving the 18-member national organizing
department and allocating the funds to district offices
for organizing purposes. In another change, sched­
uled for the 1974 convention, the delegates instituted
secret (in place of signed) ballots for election of
union officers. In other actions, the convention pro­
tested President Nixon’s decision to delay for 3
months a pay raise for Federal classified employees
(see above) and called for revisions in the Hatch
Act to permit Federal workers to participate in parti­
san politics. (See pp. 51-53 for a full account of the
convention. )
□

Book
Reviews
and
Notes

A congeries of gloom and doom

The Limits to Growth— A Report for the Club of
Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Man­
kind. By Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L.
Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W.
Behrens III. New York, Universe Books, 1972.
205 pp. $2.75.
Are

Our Descendants Doomed? Technological
Change and Population Growth. Edited by Har­
rison Brown and Edward Hutchings, Jr. New
York, The Viking Press, 1972. 377 pp. $12.50.

Can V/e Survive Our Future? A Symposium. Ed­
ited and introduced by G. R. Urban in collabo­
ration with Michael Glenny. New York, St.
Martin’s Press, 1971. 400 pp. $10.

!i
Il

S

ij

fl

Il $

7-./J

r.

!]

some particular growth path which best describes the
trend in each one separately. Then, by means of
multivariate analysis, you devise a system of equa­
tions which reflects the mutual interactions which
have been observed among these variables. Finally,
this system is programmed into a computer so that
you can generate a variety of extrapolations which
reflect, by means of feedback loops, the effects of
these observed interactions at different points in the
future. The basic model utilized in this exercise was
initially developed by Professor Jay W. Forrester of
M.I.T., and is described in some detail in his recent
book, World Dynamics (Cambridge, Mass., WrightAlien Press, Inc., 1971).
From the graphic printouts of these computer sim­
ulations, the elemental facts of life (and death)

Books reviewed in this issue

The Crowding Syndrome— Learning to Live with
Too Much and Too Many. By Caroline Bird.
New York, David McKay Co., Inc., 1972. 337
pp. $7.95.
The Limits to Growth has already prompted con­
siderable discussion and controversy. Literate lay
people have been conditioned, by now, to regard the
printouts of our growing armamentarium of comput­
ers with something akin to idol worship. It is there­
fore particularly shocking for such an impressionable
audience to be offered a printout which informs us,
with all the trappings of scientific analysis, that we
are on our merry way to hell in a technologically
sophisticated hand-basket.
The basic elements in this tragedy-in-process can
be readily summarized. You begin by selecting five
major variables: world population, world production
of industrial goods, world food production, the world
supply of natural resources, and the worldwide pro­
duction of pollution byproducts. You then examine
the mass of data relating to the growth trends of
these five variables over the past 70 years, selecting

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

Donella H. Meadows and others, T h e L im i t s to
G r o w th — A R e p o r t f o r th e C lu b o f R o m e ’s P r o je c t

Harrison Brown
and Edward Hutchings, Jr., editors, A r e O u r D e ­
o n th e P r e d ic a m e n t o f M a n k in d ;
s c e n d a n ts

D oom ed?

T e c h n o lo g ic a l

C hange

and

G. R. Urban, editor, C a n W e
S u r v iv e O u r F u tu r e ? A S y m p o s iu m ; and Caroline
Bird, T h e C r o w d in g S y n d r o m e — L e a r n in g to L iv e
w ith T o o M u c h a n d T o o M a n y . Reviewed by Denis
F. Johnston.
Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse, T h e H u ­
m a n M e a n in g o f S o c ia l C h a n g e . Reviewed by Alex­
ander M. Mood.
Archie Green, O n ly a M in e r . Reviewed by Joe Glazer.
Bill Peterson, C o a l to w n R e v is ite d : A n A p p a la c h ia n
N o t e b o o k . Reviewed by David B. Brooks.
Bertell Oilman, A lie n a tio n : M a r x ’s C o n c e p t o f M a n
in C a p ita lis t S o c ie ty . Reviewed by Walter A.
Weisskopf.
Lester G. Telser, C o m p e titio n , C o llu s io n , a n d G a m e
T h e o r y . Reviewed by Lee E. Preston.
Margaret Peil, T h e G h a n a ia n F a c to r y W o r k e r : I n d u s ­
tr ia l M a n in A f r ic a . Reviewed by David R. Kamerschen.
P o p u la tio n G r o w th ;

71

72
emerge with dramatic inexorability: continued popu­
lation growth and its attendant material production
must eventually lead to the exhaustion of our natural
resources, or of our food supplies, or to an over­
whelming burden of pollution. As most students of
population realize, Malthus is bound to be right in
the long run. The only question is how long is the
run? If the results of this study are reasonably sound,
we must conclude that the run is almost over, unless
we manage to drastically modify the growth paths of
these key variables within the next 50 years. The
only lasting alternative to disaster is the development
of what the authors aptly term an “equilibrium” so­
ciety— a rationally directed, worldwide social system
designed to achieve and preserve an ecological bal­
ance between people and resources.
Despite its modest size, this book contains a
wealth of illustrative material, and the style of its
discussion is laudably nontechnical. Nevertheless, the
book is just as disturbing for what it fails to say as
for its basic message. In examining efforts of this
kind, it is helpful to bear in mind two caveats: first,
as every computer programmer knows, what you get
out is no better than what you put in. Second, as
every demographer knows, any extrapolation, at no
matter how modest a rate of change, is bound to
produce an absurd quantity at some point in the
future. With respect to the inputs, neither this book
nor Forrester’s World Dynamics provides satis­
factory information. The reader cannot find any criti­
cal discussion of the data incorporated in the model
or of the process whereby the basic growth paths
were determined. Nor can he evaluate the critical
assumptions underlying the assumed operation of the
feedback systems in the model. Nor is he informed
as to the sensitivity of the several equations in the
system to specified changes in the key parameters.
As to the outputs, one is reminded of Robert Nisbet’s caustic observation that trend extrapolations
cannot reliably inform us as to likely changes in
phenomena which are affected by geniuses, maniacs,
prophets, or random events— to which he adds the
historian’s comment that phenomena which are free
of such “disturbances” don’t really matter much any­
way.
But no study which attempts to grapple with such
a vast and complex issue as global survival should be
dismissed because of its limitations. Its authors are
aware of the difficulties surrounding their ambitious
undertaking, and they stress the preliminary nature
of their findings. They offer these results in the hope

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

that their efforts will spur additional concern and
further research on these awesome problems. Their
basic message is that we inhabitants of spaceship
earth must alter our ways if we are to avert disaster.
Should the reader ask the obvious next question,
“How?” this book can offer no guidance, save for
one or two moralistic aphorisms.
Are Our Descendants Doomed? is a startling title
for a compendium of informative and scholarly pa­
pers by a dozen experts whose areas of expertise
range from economics to chemistry, but whose com­
mon concern is the growth and distribution of world
population viewed in a broadly ecological perspec­
tive. All but one of the papers is followed by a brief
discussion by another acknowledged authority.
The initial contributions (by Kingsley Davis and
Roger Revelle) provide an overview of the dynamics
and consequences of the world’s current population
growth. These papers are followed by an excellent
summary of the problem of unemployment and un­
deremployment in the less developed countries, by
Bruce Johnston, and a discussion of population in
relation to GNP and the environment, by Alan
Sweezy. The remaining contributions provide highly
informative summaries of the impact of family plan­
ning programs in India and Japan, the prospects for
new forms of contraception, and the role of United
Nations agencies in dealing with world population
problems. The last two papers provide perceptive
treatments of the crucial role of traditional or peas­
ant belief systems in relation to the adoption of fam­
ily planning in Latin America (Norman Miller) and
the Moslem world (Laila Shukry El-Hamamsy).
In his concluding remarks, Harrison Brown can­
not refrain from indulging in the scary extrapolations
which characterize The Limits to Growth. He points
out that if current growth rates in population and
GNP were to continue unchanged, the poorer coun­
tries would achieve the per capita wealth which the
richer countries now enjoy in 130 years. But under
the same assumption, the richer countries would then
have a per capita GNP 370 times larger than that of
the poorer ones, and the population of the poorer
countries would number 130 billion. Brown’s mes­
sage is the same as that contained in The Limits to
Growth: the question posed by the book’s title must
be answered in the affirmative unless we change our
ways.
A closer reading of the individual contributions
offers some glimmer of hope, however. Bernard Berelson offers some evidence that the current efforts

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

toward the introduction of family planning, despite
their uneven quality and incomplete coverage, are
beginning to show statistically measurable results in
the less developed countries. But if the picture drawn
by these experts is not hopeless, it is undeniably
sobering; the common thread in most of these essays
is that the time for remedial action is very short
indeed.
The symposium entitled Can We Survive Our Fu­
ture? places the general issues of population growth,
technological development, pollution control, and in­
dividual freedom in the broadest possible historical
and philosophical perspectives. Instead of presenting
the usual compendium of formal papers, the editors
of this symposium offer a series of informal discus­
sions, in loosely structured question-answer form, or­
ganized in three parts. Part 1, The Impact of Science
on the Moral Options of Man, includes discussions
with such distinguished thinkers as Arnold Toynbee,
Werner Heisenberg, Jacques Ellul, and Erich
Jantsch. Part 2, entitled Growth, Controls, and Re­
sponsibility, includes discussions with Edward Shils,
Dennis Gabor, and Herman Kahn, among others.
Part 3, entitled Choosing the Future, includes discus­
sions which are designed to indicate the wide variety
of approaches toward coping with the future, ranging
from the utopian activism of student rebels to the
policy-oriented projections of national governments.
The result is rich fare indeed, but given the wideranging subject matter of the discussions and the
broad intellectual vision of the discussants, the jello
tends to get mixed in the stew. Urban’s introduction
neatly describes the dilemmas posed by the issues of
social control versus personal freedom, and the
growing gap in levels of living versus international
stability. The former dilemma arises from a recogni­
tion that the growing size and complexity of human
organizations may soon pass a critical threshold be­
yond which existing control mechanisms will cease to
function. At that point, we face the alternatives of
descent toward chaos or the adoption of far more
repressive and autocratic control mechanisms. The
latter dilemma is no less depressing: if the richer
nations continue to widen the already enormous gap
between their own levels of living and those of the
poorer countries, we can expect to encounter pro­
gressively severe social and political instabilities and
breakdowns and the attendant threats to world
peace. Alternatively, the richer nations face the pros­
pect of diverting a much larger share of their own
productive skills and energies toward meeting the

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

73

almost limitless needs of the poorer countries— a
course of action which is hardly appealing to the
short-run interests of the richer nations.
If Urban’s introduction is plainly pessimistic, the
discussions that follow offer little basis for a happier
outlook. Toynbee, for example, is optimistic that the
threat of nuclear destruction has been reduced, but
he is less optimistic in regard to our ability to cope
with the exponential growth of pollution which paral­
lels that of population and production. He is even
less sanguine concerning our ability to escape the
restraints of unprecedented forms and degrees of so­
cial control which must be resorted to if we delay
our response to the problems of unbalanced growth
until they reach crisis proportions.
Other discussants, notably Philip Rieff, Edward
Shils, and Théo LeFèvre, argue persuasively that the
problems associated with unbalanced exponential
growth are not amenable to purely technological so­
lutions. Technology, they argue, is a necessary but
insufficient means toward the needed solutions; it can
only operate beneficently if it is directed toward ap­
propriate goals. These goals can only be determined
in the light of moral prescriptions, and the programs
for their attainment can only be developed through
political means.
The remarks of these thinkers are more impressive
by virtue of their realistic grasp of historical realities.
If they reject the radical utopianism of the technolo­
gist or systems analyst, they are equally dubious of
the nostrums of the “new left” and the advocates of
a “counterculture.” They fully recognize that the
care and feeding of the four billion inhabitants of
this earth, and the preservation of their environment,
offer challenges which can only be met by the contin­
ued development of technology. Their major concern
is that such technology should not be permitted to be
self-directing— as Ozbekhan has argued with respect
to technological potentialities, “can” does not imply
“ought.”
The final section of this fascinating book provides
perceptive interpretations of the student protest
movements in France and Germany, examined as
serious, if confused, manifestations of a search for
new solutions to the problems to which students ev­
erywhere are particularly sensitized. These discus­
sions are followed by informative discussions of the
trend toward technological convergence between the
developed capitalist and communist nations. Readers
who are unfamiliar with Galbraith’s thinking on this
topic will profit from this exchange of views, and

74
those who agree with his thesis that technological
convergence implies some measure of social and po­
litical convergence will find reason to wonder if such
an outcome is either likely or desirable.
I think the outstanding contribution in this final
section is that of Bernard Cazes, which provides a
sensitive discussion of the methods of future-oriented
research, and a realistic assessment of the role played
by such research in the formulation of public poli­
cies. But the contributions of the editors are also
outstanding; the many nuggets of understanding
drawn from their fellow discussants are attributable,
in large part, to the stimulating questions they have
formulated.
For the reader who is repelled by the highly ab­
stract intellectualizing of recognized social thinkers,
but who nevertheless wishes to improve his grasp of
the underlying causes of our malaise, Caroline Bird’s
The Crowding Syndrome is just the ticket. She has
done a remarkable job of translating her extensive
scholarly research findings into a highly personalized
and readable style of presentation.
The focus of this book is the problem of coping
—how does one manage to live in the blooming
confusion of affluent America without losing one’s
sanity or identity or sense of worth? Senator Muskie’s brief foreword captures the book’s essential
theme when he stresses the author’s solid under­
standing of the flexibility of our modern social insti­
tutions and the inventiveness and adaptability of our
human resources. Bird’s central argument, expressed
with a fine blend of wit and wisdom, is an elabora­
tion of Franklin Roosevelt’s famous pronouncement:
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Perhaps
the most valuable insight to be gained from this book
is the understanding that evidence of strain and
breakdown is also evidence of change and recon­
struction; if many inherently worthy pursuits are
laden with unintended and harmful side-effects, it is
also true that many inherently wasteful and destruc­
tive actions are associated with beneficial side-effects.
Not all readers will be persuaded by Bird’s mes­
sage of hope. It may be true that a problem per­
ceived is a problem on the way to being solved, but
too many problems, interacting in too many count­
er-intuitive ways, tend to confound our perceptions,
so that we fall victim to despair or indifference or
escapism. The burden of problems described by
these four books taken together is far weightier than
the tentative solutions which are suggested. As Toyn­

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

bee might say, the challenge is there— what about
the response?
— D e n is

F.

Jo h n s t o n

Senior Demographic Statistician
Office of Manpower Structure and Trends
Bureau of Labor Statistics

A new growth industry

The Human Meaning of Social Change. Edited by
Angus Campbell and Philip E. Converse. New
York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1972. 547 pp.
$15.
“The volume was commissioned by the Russell
Sage Foundation as a companion piece to Indicators
of Social Change (W. E. Moore and E. B. Sheldon,
editors, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1968)
which . . . was concerned with various kinds of hard
data, typically sociostructural; this book is devoted
chiefly to softer data of a more social-psychological
sort: the attitudes, expectations, aspirations, and val­
ues of the American population.” It comprehensively
points out important aspects of society which pres­
ently have no measures; it also prescribes what must
be done to make present crude and ambiguous meas­
ures of other aspects more meaningful. In describing
its contents I use quotation marks because I have
either copied sentences verbatim from the editors’
overview or trivially paraphrased them.
“The chapter on people’s use of time, by John P.
Robinson, is concerned not only with the ways in
which people use their 24 hours each day but with
the meaning these activities have for them— their
motive-serving, their replaceability, their satisfac­
tion-giving. The 1966 national study of time use
(Converse and Robinson) described in this chapter
will serve as a substantial baseline for subsequent
measurement.
“Peter H. Rossi discusses the difficult concept of
community. Rejecting more global definitions of the
term, he chooses to speak of the residential locality,
with its solidarity (the identification of the residents
with the locality), its integration (the extent to which
the residents are linked by ties of exchange), and its
political autonomy (its ability to make collective de­
cisions which are binding on the residents).
“Marvin B. Sussman describes the functions of the
family and the kinship network, especially in their

75

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

linkage with the bureaucratic systems with which the
family members must deal. He proposes research on
the effect on the family of the developing value of
‘personal happiness,’ on the changing roles of hus­
bands and wives with the increasing employment of
women, and on the experimental family forms which
have sprung up as part of the ‘counterculture.’
“Robert L. Kahn considers the meaning of work,
the area of life which has perhaps been subjected to
more empirical study than any other, and discusses
the inadequacies of this extensive body of research.
He proposes the development of indicators of the
personal strains and rewards of the work life and
suggests that the evaluation of work may be shifting
from an almost exclusive interest in the contribution
of work to economic production to a growing con­
cern with its psychological consequences for the
worker.
“Rolf Meyershohn finds that the bulk of the avail­
able research on leisure is limited to counts of the
activities which fill the individual’s free time. He
proposes a redirection of emphasis toward a concern
with the experienced quality of leisure rather than
with its content and duration.
“George Katona discusses the human factor in eco­
nomic affairs. The great increase since the Second
World War in the proportion of the population with
‘discretionary income’ has led to rising aspirations
and changing patterns of behavior. Consumers, who
were taken for granted by an earlier school of eco­
nomics, now contribute an important influence on
the course of the nation’s economy.
“Philip Converse considers the severe problems of
interpretation that voting statistics pose. He then
summarizes some of the insights provided by survey
research evidence concerning a few of the most im­
posing recent changes in the nature of the electorate,
including the political mobilization of the black pop­
ulation, the erosion of the Solid South, the educa­
tional upgrading of the electorate, and the increase in
political alienation of the late 1960’s.
“Herbert H. Hyman deals with the complexities of
change in the social and psychological characteristics
of American Negroes and outlines the kinds of di­
mensions on which measurement should be periodi­
cally taken. These include aspiration levels, sense of
deprivation, feelings of hate and distrust, specific
grievances and dissatisfactions, expectations and
preferences regarding integration and separatism. He
urges the special study of ‘influentials’ as well as of

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

the general public and the comparative analysis of
age cohorts as an indicator of change.
“Albert J. Reiss, Jr. reviews the extensive litera­
ture describing the institutions of public order, the
services they perform, the behavior of public officials
performing the service, and the responses of those
who are served. He would concentrate immediate
research effort into continuing assessment of victimi­
zation by crime, the quality of discretionary author­
ity and service for citizens, and the accountability of
public servants.
“Melvin Seeman discusses the critical problem of
alienation. He stresses the necessity of specific defini­
tion of the distinguishable components of alienation,
develops the construction of the concept which has
grown out of his own research, indicates the kinds of
improvement in measuring techniques and study de­
sign that are needed, and suggests a program of
research on the patterns and the consequences of
alienation.”
These are expert and insightful analyses. They
contain some nice illustrations of how misleading
simple statistics can be; for example, Converse rea­
sons convincingly that much of the recorded abrupt
decline of participation of qualified voters in national
elections at the turn of the century was not decline of
voter interest but decline of election fraud.
The book as a whole leads me to believe that the
social indicators project may turn out to be the
growth industry of the century. Society and its insti­
tutions are so complex that a given indicator inevita­
bly raises more questions than it answers and hence
generates a requirement for more indicators. The
divorce rate went up this year. Is that good or bad?
Well, you must look deeper: at the husbands and
wives and children separately, at the older and
younger children, at the boys and girls, at the chil­
dren that went to the mother and those that went to
the father, at the quality of family life before the
divorce, at the basic causes of the divorce, at the
characteristics and attitudes of the principals, at
those who remarried, at the outcomes of the remar­
riages, at the children of those who remarried, and so
on, and so on.

— A

lexander

M. M

ood

Director,
Public Policy Research Organization
University of California, Irvine

76

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Homage to ‘the movers and shakers’

Only a Miner. By Archie Green. Urbana, University
of Illinois Press, 1972. 520 pp., bibliography.
$12.50.
Before you start reading this beautiful book about
recorded coal mining songs, flip through it and savor
the nuggets of coal mining history and folklore scat­
tered generously throughout:
• A photo of a young Gene Autry and the story
of his recording of a union ballad, T h e D e a t h o f
M o t h e r J o n e s , in 1931. Yes, this is the same Autry
who later became the millionaire, singing cowboy, and
movie idol.
• A reprint of an ILGWU ad with the redoubtable
Mother Jones herself marching in a workers’ parade,
with one of her famous sayings printed alongside: “I
reside wherever there is a good fight against wrong.”
• The story of S i x t e e n T o n s , a coal mining song
about a company store and how it became one of
the greatest hits ever recorded. We also learn for the
first time the meaning behind the phrase S i x t e e n
T o n s : In the 1920’s, young men in Kentucky, on their
beginning day in the mines, had to dig 16 tons (even
though the normal average was 8 or 10 tons) to show
that they were real men.
• A reference to an anti-miners’ union song, a rare
item indeed in the history of mining folklore:
I d le m e n a n d a r o v in g b a n d
S t r i k e t h e t o o l s f r o m a m i n e r ’s h a n d .

And the artwork! Professor Green has selected
with tender loving care, and with an eye for dramatic
impact, more than 100 photographs and artifacts
from a thousand or more items that he reviewed—
pictures of a company store, a company town,
breaker boys at work (can they be more than 10
years old?), the oldtime miner with his pick and
shovel, the modern “miner”— a mechanical monster
10 stories high, the first UMWA executive board
(five fine mustaches, one magnificent beard, and one
cleanshaven face), a mine disaster, a mine rescue,
folklorist George Korson recording songs and dances
in the heart of a coal mine.
And wonder of wonders, the photos are not stuck
together in a clump in the middle of the book, they
are carefully placed throughout the book exactly
where they are supposed to be. When Green refers to
a chain gang song on page 201, behold we have a
fine photo of a Georgia chain gang on the opposite
page 200. And when he is talking about the Carter
Family’s recording of Coal Miner’s Blues on page
388, we find on page 389 a replica of a 1929 Carter
Family handbill which states: “The program is mor­

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

ally good, Admission 150 and 250.”
Archie Green has become the nation’s leading
labor folklorist, with a unique background of 20
years as a rank-and-file carpenter and 12 years as an
academic practitioner. He is surely the only Ph.D. in
the country with 32 consecutive years as a dues-paying member of a building trades union! He is now a
folklore consultant to the Smithsonian Institution. In
this book, Green draws on ballad scholarship, labor
history, and popular culture studies to explore 10
important coal mining songs which have had a fasci­
nating recording history between the 1920’s and
1970. As Green points out: “There are few prece­
dents in the United States for academic book-length
investigations based exclusively on sound recordings
. . . because sound technology was perfected well
after folklore became an established discipline in Eu­
rope, the notion that a recording might be a useful
tool was slow in reaching folklorists.” Green reminds
traditional folklorists that the phonograph record
which preserves ballads and other topical songs can
perform the same function as the old broadside:
“Printed broadsides normally carried words only.
When notes were present they had meaning to music
readers alone. A disc was a broadside in which one
heard rather than saw text and tune . . . recordings
fused sounds and ideas in a manner beyond the lim­
its of print.” In fact, a song heard on a disc “imparts
a sense of emotional immediacy and tension beyond
the feeling evoked in letters. Sound recordings pre­
serve the subtle inflection, unique accent, pulsating
rhythm, or irregular tempo of a singer which is in­
herent in live performance but which is extremely
difficult to convey in textual and musical transcrip­
tion.”
In Only a Miner, Green has not only broken fresh
ground in folklore studies by investigating sound re­
cordings, but his subject matter— industrial song—
has not been a favorite of traditional folklorists who
oriented themselves to country life. Notes Green:
“Their [traditional folklorists] work consisted
mainly in rescuing rural lore from the destructive
onslaught of the industrial revolution or in catalogu­
ing it in order to distinguish (good, old) material to
be retained from that to be laid aside. The reasons
for the choice are complex and may perhaps be
found in an ideology of primitivist romanticism, an
inability to cope with grime or noise, or just a warm
feeling for peasants and mountaineers, linked with a
concomitant distrust of their factory progeny.”
But Green reminds us that the labor movement’s

77

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

attitude toward its own folklore is not much better
than that of traditional folklorists who are strong on
songs about millers and milkmaids but uncomforta­
ble with songs about truckdrivers or autoworkers.
For example, says Green, the fact that Mother Jones,
the greatest woman folk hero the labor movement
has produced, lies in an obscure resting place says
something about the labor movement’s attitude to­
wards its folklore and traditions.
Except for John L. Lewis, who subsidized folklor­
ist George Korson to search out coal mining songs,
stories, legends, and life-style (resulting in two inval­
uable books), the labor movement has ignored
much of its own heritage and traditions. (The UAW
should be favorably mentioned here. It is giving
strong support to the Wayne State University Labor
Archives.) At his own expense, Archie Green
tracked down David McCarn in Gastonia, N.C., to
get the story of his classic composition, Cotton Mill
Colic:
I ’m g o i n g t o s t a r v e
E v e r y b o d y w ill
C au se yo u

c a n ’t m a k e a l i v i n g

In a c o tto n m ill.

In the same way he found and recorded a 70-yearold ex-weaver, Dorsey Dixon, in North Carolina.
Dixon had written a number of fine textile songs
including Babies in the Mill, one of the few industrial
songs about child labor. Dixon died several years
after the interview. This marvelous song would have
been lost forever, if Green had not searched out
Dixon and recorded him.
Is it possible in these days to get a major union—
textile, clothing, steel, building trades—spending the
amount of money it would cost to run one big ban­
quet— to put talent like Archie Green to work dig­
ging up the old songs and stories of the union and
the industry, preserving them for generations to
come, on record and in print? One hopes so, but
sometimes one loses heart as the years go by and
oldtimers who are the only repository of historic
songs, stories and traditions, pass away, one by one,
unrecorded and unnoticed.
I still feel a pain in my heart when I think of that
day a dozen years ago when Archie Green had fi­
nally saved up enough bus fare to go from his home
in San Francisco to Tacoma, Wash, (he was working
as a carpenter at the time) to interview Ralph Chap­
lin, the man who had written Solidarity Forever. The
interview never took place because Chaplin died in
his seventies just before Green got to him. And

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

Chaplin took with him to the grave those intimate
details about America’s most important labor song
that only he could have known and that a folklorist
like Green could have preserved for all of us.
Only a Miner is the first of a new series on
“Music in American Lives” published by the Uni­
versity of Illinois Press. It is a major book that be­
longs in every labor library. It also belongs in the
library of every labor history buff.
— J o e G la z e r
Labor and Minorities Advisor
U.S. Information Agency

Another time around

Coaltown Revisited: An Appalachian Notebook.
By Bill Peterson. Chicago, Henry Regnery Co.,
1972. 230 pp. $6.95.
This book is just what it claims to be, the note­
book of a journalist who—for a time— “came to
believe in (the) promises” that the Great Society
made to Appalachia. The reporter, Bill Peterson,
works for the Louisville Courier-Journal, one of the
few dailies in the country to take Appalachia seri­
ously. The paper deserves credit for having given
him the time to travel, and Peterson for having done
more listening than talking during his travels (per­
haps one third of the book consists of brief mono­
logues by Appalachians).
Coaltown Revisited begins by looking at the coal
industry and the United Mine Workers of America
and goes on to cover the welfare system, discrimina­
tion in the schools, “poverty warriors,” strip mining,
political power, and “the rich hillbillies.” The period
covered is that of the third rediscovery of Appala­
chia. The first occurred when Yankee schoolmarms
and industrialists moved in as Reconstruction in the
South came to an end, and the second when union
organizers and reformers moved in during the De­
pression. Sensibly, the book focuses not on the
strange collection of counties in 13 states that forms
political Appalachia (as defined by Congress), but
on the more logical grouping in the coalfields of
eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, southern West Vir­
ginia, and southwestern Virginia.
Because the book is well organized and easy to
read, the story of exploitation that it chronicles will
perhaps reach a new audience. If so, Peterson’s ef­
forts will have been worthwhile. If not, it might as
well have been left unwritten. There is nothing new

78

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

in the book; even the interviews repeat stories, and
sometimes the same voices, that we have heard be­
fore. Other surveys of Appalachian problems present
the record more eloquently or more completely.
Other studies of specific aspects are more incisive.
The well-known survey by Harry Caudill is still
among the best on the nature and sources of Appa­
lachian problems: Night Comes to the Cumberlands (Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1962). In quite
a different style, see also Appalachia’s People, Prob­
lems, Alternatives: An Introductory Social Science
Reader, complied by PARC, Peoples Appalachian
Research Collective (Morgantown, West Va., 1971),
486 pp., photocopied. A useful anthology has been
edited by David S. Walls and John B. Stephenson,
Appalachia in the Sixties: Decade of Reawakening
(Lexington, University of Kentucky Press, 1972).
On the coal industry, see Brit Hume, Death and the
Mines (New York, Grossman Publishers, 1971). On
the problems of living in a mountain community,
see John Fetterman, Stinking Creek (New York,
E. P. Dutton, 1967).
Indeed, the notes of other journalists have focused
more sharply on the same issues (and added a wel­
come touch of anger). Notable is The Mountain
Eagle, published weekly in Whitesburg, Ky., by Tom
Gish and a small army of supporters; as the mast­
head states, “It Screams.” Moreover, Peterson specif­
ically refrains from offering solutions or making
many explicit evaluations, which is unfortunate, even
in a notebook. Have the sums poured into new high­
ways and vocational schools made no difference? Is
there so little to say about the Appalachian Regional
Commission, the most important local component of
the Great Society?
Despite Peterson’s reticence, readers will find it
difficult to avoid two impressions. First, he does not
appear to believe that the latest rediscovery of Appa­
lachia is likely to have any greater impact on the
region’s basic problems than have the two previous
rediscoveries. Second, despite the almost colonial­
like power exercised by sources ranging from distant
coal firms to local school superintendents, he finds a
strength and a resilience in the Appalachian people
that offers grounds for hope. With these two implicit
conclusions, Peterson places himself in the majority
among both the radicals and the reformers.
— D av id B . B rooks
Chief, Division of Mineral Economics Research
Mineral Resources Branch
Canada Department of Energy, Mines and Resources

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

Struggle toward clarity

Alienation: Marx’s Concept of Man in Capitalist
Society. By Bertell Oilman. London, Cambridge
University Press, 1971. 325 pp. $10.50.
This is an explanation of Marx’s theory of knowl­
edge and of his ideas about human nature and alien­
ation. Much in the manner of early Biblical and
Talmudic scholars, Oilman wants to elucidate the
obscure terminology of Marx. However, his style is
as involuted as that of the subject of his study. Oil­
man starts with the assumption that if “Marx means
what he seems to . . . Marx is not only guilty of
ridiculous exaggeration but of gross ignorance of his­
tory and the simplest facts of economic life. Further­
more, he frequently wrote sentences which are utter
nonsense. . . .” This in itself may be partly a misun­
derstanding of the dialectical style of Marx. Also,
these earlier writings were not clear presentations of
a finished system of thought, but reflect a struggle to
gain clarity about the dialectic process itself and
about his own ideas.
Oilman sees in relationism the only way to make
sense out of Marx’s concepts. Things, persons, insti­
tutions such as capital, labor, commodities, are not
separate, discrete, individual entities but exist only in
terms of relations to other things, persons, institu­
tions. They are part of a totality in which the parts
and the whole are identical. “The truth is the whole.
Things are identical with the whole they express.”
From the ontological and sociohistorical point of
view, Oilman’s concept of internal relations as the
key to unlocking Marx’s true meaning makes sense.
That is, Marx believes the individual and the whole
are not distinct, discrete entities. Further, in Marx’s
thought, every event in history is related to every
other, and all factors are mutually interdependent.
History is a dynamic process, not a series of static
equilibria. (Oilman thus questions the popular inter­
pretation of dialectical materialism in which eco­
nomic conditions determine noneconomic ones.)
However, Oilman’s stress on the logical aspects of
relationism—in which relations exist between distinct
objects and persons—leads him astray.
In Part III, Oilman collects and paraphrases all
Marx’s statements about alienation. What strikes the
reader is how applicable his ideas are today. The
lack of community and cooperation between man
stressed by Marx is widely deplored today, and the
communes of the counterculture try to remedy the
situation on a small scale. What is more, according

79

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

to Marx the capitalist also leads an alienated life;
thus he foresaw the idea, widely held today, that
everybody, including those in power, are enslaved by
the “system.”
However, Oilman’s presentation of these ideas in
Marxian terminology also brings home the fact that
his terminology is hardly useful today. Marx defines
alienation as the state of affairs that contrasts dia­
metrically with communism, and communism as a
society without alienation. This is circular reasoning.
The author presents with great thoroughness Marx’s
ideas about communism. The rereading of these for­
mulations shows clearly that to Marx communism is
an ideal, a normative concept, a desideratum, a
“should be.” It is defined negatively by the absence
of capitalist alienation, of everything that Marx— and
many others— consider as “bad” in capitalism. How­
ever, Oilman denies that Marx had an ethical theory.
He arrives at this conclusion by the tortuous argu­
ment that Marx never suspends his commitments and
that an ethical system requires such a suspension
before the “facts have been gathered and their rela­
tion to the standard of judgment clarified.” I think
that this is sophistry used to protect the “scientific”
character of Marxism. Marx’s idea of communism is
a powerful vision of paradise on earth, a vision
which has changed the world. The power of this
vision can only be reduced by the attempts to demote
it to the level of a “science.” Only those who mythol­
ogize science will find this necessary.
Oilman does not deal with the many doubts of
contemporary students of Marx about whether and
how his communist vision might be realized. The
proletariat and the class struggle is not likely to bring
about communism in the Marxian sense: Class strug­
gle has become complex and fragmentized; the poor
and exploited have become a minority; and reform
and rebellion have become the province of various
“elites” rather than of the downtrodden majority of
workers.
Because Oilman does not want to see Marx’s pure
communism as an ideal, he regards the question of
its realization as one of sufficient causal links be­
tween economic conditions and social action. But he
admits irrationality creates a time lag between condi­
tions and action.
Blaming the “character structure” of workers for
the failure of Marxian ideas to materialize, Oilman
neglects many authorities on the role of character
structure in history, such as Freud, Kardiner, and
Reisman, and ignores much of Fromm’s more rele­

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

vant work. All these authorities give primacy to un­
conscious aspects of the psyche in determining
human action and reaction. Oilman recognizes the
importance of this element he calls “irrational.”
However, unconscious irrationality nullifies much of
Marx’s nineteenth century interpretation of action as
conscious, deliberate, rational behavior. Professor
Oilman’s book thus does not distinguish clearly
enough among the obsolete and the still valid ideas
of Marx and contributes little to its modernization.
Fromm and a long line of recent socialist human­
ist writers have modified the Marxian system. Oil­
man takes one isolated concept of character structure
from them, but ignores the humanist existential psy­
chological revision of Marxism in recent times. How­
ever, his work is invaluable as a source of study of
Marx’s ideas about alienation and human nature. It
will greatly facilitate the understanding of the texts of
Marx in the United States.
— W alter

A.

W e iss k o p f

Professor of Economics
Roosevelt University

Style and substance

Competition, Collusion, and Game Theory. By Les­
ter G. Telser. Chicago, Aldine Atherton, Inc.,
1972. 370 pp.
This impressive treatise contains at least three dis­
tinct elements: an extensive new development of
game theory; a collection of sophisticated and in­
sightful comments on the nature of markets and of
market equilibrium; and two substantial pieces of
empirical work dealing with the measurement and
interpretation of market performance characteristics.
The three elements are apparently closely connected
in the mind of the author, and the first two are
interwoven in chapters I-V I of the text; however, it
remains true that each can be extracted by the inter­
ested reader without paying too much attention to
the others. Indeed, the empirical chapters stand quite
apart from the theoretical analysis, and are in no
sense that I can determine tests or illustrations of the
theory presented.
The game theory analysis, which comprises the
bulk of the book, deals with the concept of the core
of the game, or market. We imagine a given popula­
tion of traders with given utility functions and re-

80
source endowments. They may trade or not, and may
form various coalitions in order to improve their
individual trading positions. A solution of the game
takes the form of a vector of market allocations and
utility imputations (the gains from trade). Any such
solution is in the core of the game if it cannot be
prevented by counteroffers from any of the market
participants. Competitive supply-demand intersection
is shown to be one type of core solution, but other
types— related to other conditions of competitive
structure— are also possible. Hence, to paraphrase
Telser, a systematic study of the allocations and im­
putations arising from various market coalitions—
and the necessary counterconditions strong enough
to prevent them—becomes a theory of competition.
The development of this approach makes very tough
going indeed, but the exposition is brilliantly clear
and the author takes great pains to link his contribu­
tions to the familiar Marshallian concepts. Even
without following the argument in every detail, the
reader can extract nuggets of analysis and gain some
insight into the larger conception involved.
The second aspect of the book— an exposition of
some fundamental theoretical characteristics of mar­
kets, illustrated by historical reference and convinc­
ing examples—is, paradoxically, both its most acces­
sible (in terms of readability and general interest)
and least accessible (in terms of location) feature.
Here the author emphasizes the disjoint or stepwise
character of actual supply and demand offers, and
the effect of various types of market coalitions on the
supply and demand characteristics themselves. (The
airplane example on pp. 48-57 is particularly useful
in this connection.) Although these literary sections
are extremely useful in keeping the reader oriented
to the thread of the formal analysis and its substan­
tive implications, they could be extracted and woven
almost verbatim into a valuable theoretical essay ac­
cessible to a wider audience. I would urge this proj­
ect upon the author, and at the same time urge the
symbols-dazed reader to skip on to the next page of
literary text (instead of closing the book in de­
spair! ).
As in the earlier treatise of Shubik (Strategy
and Market Structure, 1959), Telser’s final chapters
of empirical work are self-contained, and make only
indirect reference to the preceding theoretical analy­
sis. They are, however, no less interesting for this
reason. Chapter VII is based almost entirely on Tel­
ser’s 1962 article, “The Demand of Branded Goods

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

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

as Estimated from the Consumer Panel Data.” Chap­
ter VIII is a new piece of econometric work that
attempts to explain the returns to gross book value
of assets in Census manufacturing industries on the
basis of industry characteristics such as concentra­
tion, average firm size, number of firms, and so on.
The major innovation in this analysis is the inclusion
of “specific human capital” as a critical variable. The
resultant findings “are consistent with the view that
companies in the more concentrated industries invest
more heavily in their employees and that the workers
increase their own specific human capital investment
in step with the company’s investment. Hence total
specific human capital per worker rises with the con­
centration ratio” (p. 347). In spite of the inclusion
of this variable, and in spite of the usual problems of
specification and coverage encountered in such stud­
ies, the author concludes that “the belief that compe­
tition and concentration vary inversely is consistent
with the evidence” (p. 356).
Three brief comments in conclusion: First, it ap­
pears that after a quarter-century of development at
the hands of brilliant analysts, game theory has yet
to offer its first empirically useful concept to eco­
nomic analysis; Telser’s contribution is substantial,
but the gap is still wide. Second, even at the purely
theoretical level, Telser’s frame of analysis is entirely
static, while students of market phenomena are in­
creasingly impressed with the importance of time-re­
lated processes. The point here is not that every
theoretical model needs to be “dynamized” with sub­
scripts, but rather that processes of market commu­
nication and adaptation appear to exert a powerful
influence on the solutions obtained from “given” re­
source endowments and utilities. It may be that Tel­
ser’s greater generalization of the static analysis will
facilitate the subsequent inclusion of dynamic proc­
ess variables, but I detect no signs of this develop­
ment in the present work. Finally, it remains to be
said that this book is a major contribution by a
major scholar and teacher of economic theory and
econometrics. Serious professionals can learn much
from the style of the presentation, as well as from the
substance.

— L ee

E.

P r e st o n

Melvin H. Baker Professor of American Enterprise
State University of New York at Buffalo

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

Social aspects of industrialization

The Ghanaian Factory Worker: Industrial Man in
Africa. By Margaret Peil. London, Cambridge
University Press, 1972. 254 pp., bibliography.
$18.50.
Professor Peil’s germinal study of the social as­
pects of industrialization in a developing country in
tropical Africa represents the matured views of a
scholar who has spent 5 years teaching at the Uni­
versity of Ghana. This volume is the latest in the
respected African Studies Series, embracing books on
economic, historical, and social aspects of Africa,
diretced by the African Studies Centre at Cambridge.
This particular volume surveys the industrialization
process in Ghana and its effects through such other
factors as migration. While the book will appeal to a
fairly broad audience (the technical argot is at a
minimum), it can most profitably be perused by a
specialist.
Margaret Peil is a sociologist at the Centre for
West African Studies at the University of Birming­
ham (on page 19, she indicates that most of the
earlier studies of African factory workers had been
conducted by “economists rather than sociologists” ).
Being an economist with an interest in developing
countries in general, but not Africa in particular, it is
beyond my ken to opine how this book will be re­
ceived by sociologists. But regardless of one’s major
field of interest, this much is clear: Margaret Peil
“knows her forks.” She has her facts clearly in mind,
her prose is crisp, her topic is of considerable social
relevance, and her manuscript is remarkably clear of
typographical blemishes. In short, the book was wor­
thy of publication and compares quite favorably with
similar studies in the area of which I am familiar.
Thus, having made it quite clear that I regard the
book as a positive contribution to a burgeoning vol­
ume of literature examining the “industrial man,”
“bright lights,” “reference group,” and so on theses of
sociologists, let me indicate briefly where I feel the
book is deficient. A major disappointment about the
book was that it was about 99.44 percent descriptive,
reaching few conclusions, and employing almost
none of the analytical tools of modern sociology. To
be sure, in her fine chapter 8, “Ghanaian Factory
Workers and Modernity,” she breaks out of her
rather limited role of cicerone to reach some conclu­
sions. But this is rare. Chapters 1, “Introduction” ; 2,
“The Factories”; 3, “Occupations” ; 4, “Job Satisfac­

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

81
tion”; 5, “Migration”; 6, “Urban Living” ; and 7,
“Family Ties” are devoted almost exclusively to enu­
merating statistics of various sorts. It is a tribute to
her machete-like prose that she is able to hold a
reader’s attention as well as she does through this
long march through Ghana’s numerical jungle. While
the data are imperfect in Ghana as in most develop­
ing countries, I personally would not regard this as
an insuperable difficulty for the pioneering type of
study which the author attempted in this volume.
There is one bothersome peccadillo in the Peil
study which is worth a brief mention, as it has be­
come so common in recent years in a number of the
social sciences. In chapter 2, she has a section, pp.
23-31, entitled “Methodology” which is clearly a
misuse of that word, for what is actually meant is
“method” or “technique.” Methodology is a branch
of philosophy or logic and is not the same thing as
“method.” As Fritz Machlup so aptly pointed out in
his remarks in the May 1962 issue of the American
Economic Review, p. 204, “. . . The same method
may be justified on very different methodological
grounds and . . . from the same methodological po­
sition one may defend very different methods of re­
search.”
To an economist, Peil’s chapter 5 on “Migration”
is singularly disappointing. For one thing she fails to
even mention the seminal contributions of E. J. Berg,
“The Economics of the Migrant Labor System,” H.
Kruper, editor, Urbanization and Migration in West
Africa (Berkeley, University of California Press,
1965); R. E. Beals, M. B. Levy, and L. N. Moses,
“Rationality and Migration in Ghana,” Review of
Economics and Statistics, November 1967; R. E.
Beals and C. F. Menezes, “Seasonal Migration and
the Agricultural Economy of Ghana: An Interre­
gional Miodel,” in A. P. Carter and A. Brody, edi­
tors, Applications of Input-Output Analysis (Amsterdam-London, North-Holland Publishing Com­
pany, 1969); and J. R. Harris and M. P. Todaro,
“Migration, Unemployment and Development: A
Two-Sector Analysis,” American Economic Review,
March 1970, to name but four of the better, more
recent efforts. While she does conclude (p. 149):
“While economic factors are of primary importance
in the decision to migrate and in the choice of desti­
nation, personal and social factors are also influen­
tial,” there is no systematic analysis of migration.
And I would submit that this is a fairly serious
omission. For example, Beals and Menezes state (p.

82

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

168) and then carefully document that:
In Ghana, as elsewhere in West Africa, the principal
form of labor mobility is temporary migration. The
central thesis of this study is that temporary migra­
tion improves the allocation of resources and has
contributed significantly to growth of output in
Ghana. In particular, because of regional variations
in production, temporary migration is more efficient
than permanent migration.

In light of all the concerns about the viscosities
and institutional impediments in the operations of
labor markets in developing countries, the Beals-Menezes thesis should be taken into account in any
comprehensive analysis of Ghana migration flows.
In peroration, although I have never met a pay­
roll, harvested a millet-guineacorn crop, or talked to
a “marginal man,” I find the Peil volume of value
within the rather modest domain within which she
was concerned. Her careful reformulation of the “in­
dustrial man” hypothesis (pp. 236-237) is in itself
an important contribution. My major regret about
this nonmathematical, 254-paged volume is its
breathtaking U.S. price of $18.50. If there are any
cost-of-production value theorists still skulking
around after the “Marginalist Revolution,” the pric­
ing of this book will surely drive them completely
underground.
— D a v id

R.

K amerschen

Professor of Economics
University of Missouri

Other publications
Economic growth and development
Armstrong, Regina Belz; edited by Boris Pushkarev, The
Office Industry: Patterns of Growth and Location.
Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1972, 179 pp. (A report
of the Regional Plan Association, New York.) $15.

Kelley, Allen C., Jeffery C. Williamson, Russell J. Cheetham, “Biased Technological Progress and Labor Force
Growth in a Dualistic Economy,” Quarterly Journal of
Economics, August 1972, pp. 426-447.
Knight, J. B., “Rural-Urban Income Comparisons and Mi­
gration in Ghana,” Bulletin of the Oxford University
Institute of Economics and Statistics, May 1972, pp.
199-228.
Levin, Melvin R., Community and Regional Planning: Is­
sues in Public Policy. New York, Praeger Publishers,
1972, 343 pp. $15.

Economic statistics
Rivlin, Alice M., New Approaches to Public Decision-Mak­
ing. (Prepared for the Economic Council of Canada.)
Ottawa, Information Canada, 1972, 37 pp. (Special
Study No. 18.) $1.25, paper.
Surrey, M. J. C., “The Seasonal Adjustment of Unemploy­
ment Statistics— A N ote,” Bulletin of the Oxford Uni­
versity Institute of Economics and Statistics, May 1972,
pp. 241-247.

Education
Brown, Byron W., “Achievement, Costs, and the Demand
for Public Education,” Western Economic Journal, June
1972, pp. 198-219.
Cohen, Wilbur J. and others, “Financing America’s Schools
Tomorrow,” Current History, August 1972, pp. 49-90.
(Last of a 3-part symposium on financing American
education.)
James, Charity, Young Lives at Stake: The Education of
Adolescents. New York, Agathon Press, Inc., 1972, 258
pp. $6.95, Schocken Books, Inc., New York.
Sowell, Thomas, Black Education: Myths and Tragedies.
New York, David McKay Co., Inc., 1972. 338 pp.
$6.95.

Industrial health and safety

Delassus, Jean-Francois, The Japanese: A Critical Evalua­
tion of the Character and Culture of a People. New
York, Hart Publishing Co., 1972, 300 pp. $7.95.

Dawson, Donald, and others, Over the Road to Preventable
Disease: A Three-Year Study on the Adverse Environ­
mental Conditions Facing the Professional Truck
Driver. Pontiac, Mich., Frank E. Fitzsimmons Experi­
mental Surgery Complex. 1972.

Frank, Charles R., Jr., and others, Assisting Developing
Countries: Problems of Debts, Burden-Sharing, Jobs,
and Trade. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1972, 482
pp. (Overseas Development Council Studies— 1.) $15.

Northcott, John A., “Environment at the Workplace,” ILO
Panorama, 1972/1, pp. 13-17.

Heilbroner, Robert L., “The Future of Capitalism,” World,
September 12, 1972, pp. 27-30.

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

Sohn, David, “Drug Screening— A Fact of Life for the
1970,” Industrial Medicine and Surgery, June 1972,
pp. 18-21.

83

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

Industrial relations
Bartosic, Florian and Ian D. Lanoff, “Escalating the Strug­
gle Against Taft-Hartley Contemnors,” U n iv e r s ity o f
C h ic a g o L a w R e v i e w , Winter 1972, pp. 255-294.
Burch, Charles B., “Employer Recognition of Unions on the
Basis of Authorization Cards: The ‘independent knowl­
edge’ standards,” U n iv e r s ity o f C h ic a g o L a w R e v ie w ,
Winter 1972, pp. 314-330.

Schnapper, M. B., A m e r ic a n L a b o r : A P ic to r ia l S o c ia l H is ­
t o r y . Washington, Public Affairs Press, 1972, 575 pp.
$15.
Thomis, Malcolm I., T h e L u d d ite s : M a c h in e - B r e a k in g in
R e g e n c y E n g la n d . New York, Schocken Books, 1972,
196 pp. $2.75, paper.

Labor force

Don Mills, Ontario, Canada, Ontario Federa­
tion of Labor, 1972, 135 pp. $2.50.

Altman, Stuart H., P r e s e n t a n d F u tu r e S u p p ly o f R e g is te r e d
N u r s e s . Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Edu­
cation, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National
Institutes of Health, 1971, 158 pp. (DHEW Publication
(N IH ) 72 -1 3 4 ). $1, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.

Rosica, Gabriel A., “Organized Professionals: A Manage­
ment Dilemma?,” B u s in e s s H o r iz o n s , June 1972, pp.
59-65.

Allan, Kathryn H. and Mildred E. Cinsky, “General Char­
acteristics of the Disabled Population,” S o c ia l S e c u r ity
B u lle tin , August 1972, pp. 24-37.

Industry and government organization

Burrage, Michael, “The group ties of occupations in Britain
and the United States,” A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c ie n c e Q u a r ­
te r ly , June 1972, pp. 240-253.

Eleen, John W. and Ashley G. Bernardine, S h u td o w n : T h e
I m p a c t o f P la n t S h u td o w n , E x te n s iv e E m p l o y m e n t T e r ­
m in a tio n s a n d L a y o f f s o n th e W o r k e r s a n d th e C o m ­
m u n ity .

Bellas, Carl J., I n d u s tr ia l D e m o c r a c y

and

th e

W orker-

O n w e d F ir m : A S tu d y o f T w e n ty - o n e P ly w o o d C o m p a ­
n ie s in th e P a c ific N o r th w e s t .

New York, Praeger Pub­

lishers, 1972, 117 pp. $11.

Ehrenberg, Ronald G., T h e D e m a n d f o r S ta te a n d L o c a l
G o v e r n m e n t E m p lo y e e s : A n E c o n o m ic A n a ly s is . Lex­
ington, Mass., D. C. Heath and Co., 1972, 145 pp. $15.

Feld, Werner J., N o n g o v e r n m e n ta l F o r c e s a n d W o r ld P o li­
tic s: A S tu d y o f B u s in e s s , L a b o r , a n d P o litic a l G r o u p s .

New York, Praeger Publishers, 1972, 284 pp. $16.50.
Georgopoulos, Basil S., editor, O r g a n iz a tio n R e s e a r c h o n
H e a lth I n s titu tio n s . Ann Arbor, University of Michi­
gan, Institute for Social Research, 1972, 418 pp. $12.
Heilbroner, Robert L. and others, In th e N a m e o f P r o f it
Garden City. N.Y., Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1972, 273
pp. $6.95.
Reagan, Michael D., and others, “Regulatory Administra­
tion: Are We Getting Anywhere? A Symposium,”
P u b lic A d m in is tr a tio n R e v ie w , July-August 1972, pp.
283-310. Includes Roger C. Cramton, “Regulatory
Structure and Regulatory Performance: A Critique of
the Ash Council Report”; John E. Moore, “Recycling
the Regulatory Agencies”; and Theodore W. Lowi,
“Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.”

Engineering Manpower Commission, “The Demand for En­
gineers,” E n g in e e r in g M a n p o w e r B u lle tin , Engineers
Joint Council, 345 East 47th Street, New York 10017,
August 1972, pp. 1-6.
Levitin, Teresa, Robert P. Quinn, Graham L. Staines, S e x
D is c r im in a tio n A g a in s t th e A m e r ic a n W o r k in g W o m a n .

Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research, Survey Research Center, 1972, 28 pp. Re­
print from A m e r ic a n B e h a v io r a l S c ie n tis t, NovemberDecember 1971, pp. 237-254.
Oberheu, Howard, “AFDC Mothers: Employed and Not
Employed,” W e lfa r e in R e v ie w , May-June 1972, pp.
58-61.
Parnes, Herbert S., Gilbert Nestel, Paul Andrisani, T h e
P r e - R e tir e m e n t

Y ears:

A

L o n g itu d in a l

S tu d y

of

th e

Columbus,
Ohio State University, Center for Human Resource
Research, 1972, 154 pp.
L a b o r M a r k e t E x p e r ie n c e o f M e n , V o l. 3 .

Labor and economic history and thought
Burrage, Michael, “Democracy and the Mystery of the
Crafts: Observations on Work Relationships in Amer­
ica and Britain,” D a e d u lu s , Fall 1972, pp. 141-162.

Rieger, John H., “Geographic Mobility and the Occupa­
tional Attainment of Rural Youth: A Longitudinal
Evaluation,” R u r a l S o c io lo g y , June 1972, pp. 189-207.

Burtt, Everett J., Jr., S o c ia l P e r s p e c tiv e s in th e H is to r y o f
E c o n o m ic T h e o r y . New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1972,
297 pp. $4.50, paper.

Labor organizations
Bouvard, Marguerite, L a b o r M o v e m e n t s in th e C o m m o n

Rubner, Alex, T h r e e S a c r e d C o w s o f E c o n o m ic s . London,
MacGibbon and Kee Ltd., 1970, 273 pp. $8.50, Barnes
& Noble, New York.

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

M a r k e t C o u n tr ie s : T h e G r o w th o f a E u r o p e a n P r e s s u r e
G rou p.

$17.50.

New York, Praeger Publishers, 1972, 272 pp.

84
Burpo, John H., The Police Labor Movement: Problems
and Perspectives. Springfield, 111., Charles C. Thomas,
Publisher, 1971, 203 pp. $10.25.
Eaton, Ken, “Financial aspects of international unions,”
Labor Gazette, Canadian Department of Labor, August
1972, pp. 413-423.
Finn, Ed, “Ten labor myths: What realities are hidden by
our ignorance?”, Labor Gazette, Canada Department of
Labor, July 1972, pp. 328-338.
Kruchko, John G., The Birth of a Union Local: The His­
tory of UAW Local 674, Norwood, Ohio, 1933-1940.
Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University, New York State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1972, 74 pp.
$1.75.

Management and organization theory
Avins, Alfred, Penalties fo r Misconduct on the Job. Dobbs
Ferry, N.Y., Oceana Publications, Inc., 1972, 124 pp.
(Legal Almanac Series, No. 69.) $3.25.
Byham, William C. and Stephen Temlock, “Operational
Validity—A New Concept in Personnel Testing,” Per­
sonnel Journal, September 1972, pp. 639-647, 654.
Greiner, Larry E., “Red Flags in Organizational Develop­
ment: Six Trends Obstructing Change,” Business H o ri­
zons, June 1972, pp. 17-24.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Prices and living conditions
Dale, Edwin L., Jr., “As Phase III approaches: The virtuous
circle or . . . the vicious circle?,” New York Times
Magazine, August 27, 1972, pp. 12-28.
Mandell, Lewis. Credit Card Use in the United States. Ann
Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Re­
search, 1972, 112 pp. $4, paper.
Maynes, E. Scott, “The Power of Consumers: A Challenge
for Marketers and Economists,” Business Horizons,
June 1972, pp. 77-86.
Murray, Janet, “Homeownership and Financial Assets:
Findings from the 1968 Survey of the Aged,” Social
Security Bulletin, August 1972, pp. 3-23.
Samuelson, Paul A., “The Consumer Does Benefit From
Feasible Price Stability,” Quarterly Journal of Econom­
ics, August 1972, pp. 476-493.
Vipond, Joan and J. B. Walker, “The Determinants of
Housing Expenditure and Owner-Occupation,” Bulletin
of the Oxford University Institute of Economics and
Statistics, May 1972, pp. 169-187.

Productivity and technological change

Janes, Harold D., “Issues in Job Evaluation: The Union
View,” Personnel Journal, September 1972, pp.
675-679.

Kamien, Morton I. and Nancy L. Schwartz, “Some Eco­
nomic Consequences of Anticipating Technical Ad­
vance,” Western Economic Journal, June 1972, pp.
123-138.

Koontz, Harold and Robert W. Bradspies, “Managing
Through Feedforward Control: A Future-Directed
View,” Business Horizons, June 1972, pp. 25-36.

Ritz, Philip M., “Railroads in the Year 2000,” Projection
Highlights, National Planning Association, August
1972, pp. 1-4.

Richards, Steven A. and Cabot L. Jaffee, “Blacks Supervis­
ing Whites: A Study of Interracial Difficulties in Work­
ing Together in a Simulated Organization,” Journal of
Applied Psychology, June 1972, pp. 234-240.

Roman, Zoltán, editor, Progress and Planning in Industry:
Proceedings of the International Conference on In­
dustrial Economics, Budapest, A p ril 14-17, 1970. Buda­
pest, Akademiai Kiado, 1972, 417 pp. $16.90.

Ritzer, George, Man and His Work: Conflict and Change.
New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Educational Divi­
sion, Meredith Corp., 1972, 413 pp. $12.95.
Sadacca, Robert, The Validity and Discriminatory Impact of
the Federal Service Entrance Examination. Washington,
The Urban Institute, 1971, 28 pp. $1.50.
Sheppard, Harold L. and Neal Q. Herrick, Where Have A ll
the Robots Gone? Worker Dissatisfaction in the '70’s.
New York, The Free Press, 1972, 222 pp. $7.95.
Steiner, Ivan D., Group Process and Productivity. New
York, Academic Press, 1972, 204 pp. $11.

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

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Indexes of Output Per
Man-Hour, Selected Industries, 1972 Edition. Washing­
ton, 1972, 158 pp. (Bulletin 1758.) $1.50, Superintendnent of Documents, Washington 20402.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Measuring and Enhancing
Productivity in the Federal Sector. Washington, Joint
Economic Committee, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 1972, 139
pp. (Report of a Joint Project Conducted by Civil
Service Commission, General Accounting Office, Office
of Management and Budget, and 17 Participating Agen­
cies.) 60 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washing­
ton 20402.

Current
Labor
Statistics

Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series.......................................................................

87

Employment and unemployment—household data
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Employment status of noninstitutional population, 19 47 -71 ..........................................................................
Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averag es.................................
Full-time and part-time status of civilian labor force, seasonally a d ju s te d .....................................................
Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally a d ju s te d .........................................................
Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally a d ju s te d .....................................................
Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally a d ju s te d ...............................................................................
Unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................ .............................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ..................................................................................................

87

88
88
89
89
90
90
91
91

Unemployment insurance
10.

Unemployment insurance and employment service operations ........................................................................

92

Nonagricuitural employment—payroll data
11.
12.
13.
14.

Employment
Employment
Employment
Employment

by
by
by
by

industry, 1 9 47 -71 ............................................................................................................................
S t a t e ......................................................................................................................................................
industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ...................................................................
industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally a d ju s te d ..........................

93
93
94
95

Labor turnover and job vacancies
15.
16.
17.

Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1962 to date
...........................................................................................
Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group ............................................................................
Job vacancies in m an u factu rin g ................................................................................................................................

96
97
97

Hours and earnings—private nonagricuitural payrolls
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1 9 47 -71 .............................................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally a d ju s te d ..........................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ...........................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group .......................................................
Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1967 d o lla rs ......................................................................................

98
99

100
101
102
103

Prices
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 19 49 -71 ...............................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, U.S. average, general summary and selected ite m s ..................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected a r e a s .......................................................................................................................
Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of commodities ...................................................................
Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity g ro up ing s...................................................................................
Wholesale Price Index, by durability of p ro d u c t......................................................................................................
Wholesale Price Index, by stage of p rocessing....................................................................................................
Industry-sector price indexes for output of selected in d u stries...................................................................

104
104

110

111
113
113
114
115

Labor-management disputes
32.

Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes ............................................................................

117

Productivity
33.

Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor c o s ts ................................................


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

118

85

NEW BENCHMARKS INTRODUCED

In the following section, the payroll employment
estimates have been adjusted to reflect comprehen­
sive employment counts as of March 1971. These
adjustments affect all published categories, except
Federal Government, appearing in tables 11 and 13
back to March 1970. Data on hours, earnings, job
vacancies, and labor turnover (tables 15-19 and
21-23), which are weighted by employment, may
also have been revised as a result of the changes in
employment levels.
The benchmark review is an integral part of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ establishment survey pro­
gram. It serves as a quality control check by provid­
ing an independent measure of employment levels for
March of each year. New benchmarks are deter­
mined at the most detailed industrial classification
for which estimates are made. If the benchmark dif­
fers from the estimate, the monthly series are ad­
justed back to the preceding benchmark. The new
benchmark for each industry is then carried forward
progressively to the current month by use of sample
trends. The estimates adjusted to new levels are then
aggregated through successively inclusive series to
total nonagricultural employment.
The primary sources of benchmark information
are employment data, by industry, compiled quarterly
by State agencies from reports of establishments cov­
ered under State unemployment insurance laws.
These tabulations cover three-fourths of the total
nonagricultural employment in the United States.
Benchmark data for the residual are obtained from
the records of the Social Security Administration, the
Interstate Commerce Commission, and a number of
other agencies in private industry or government.
Differences between the benchmarks and estimates
result not only from sampling and response errors,
but also from changes in industrial classifications of
individual establishments which are not reflected in
the estimates levels until the data are adjusted to new
benchmarks. At the more detailed industry levels,
particularly within manufacturing, changes in classi­
fication are the major cause of benchmark adjust­
ments.
86


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

The March 1971 total nonagricultural benchmark
count of 69.7 million workers was 116,000 below
the sample-based estimates, a difference of only 0.2
percent. Except for contract construction, relative
adjustments for major divisions were less than 1 per­
cent.
Of the 21 major groups in manufacturing, 20 were
revised by less than 2 percent. Revisions were some­
what larger for the basic component industries, but
two-thirds of these differed by less than 3 percent
and only about one-tenth differed by 5 percent or
more.
Benchmarks are not available for hours, earnings,
job vacancies, and labor turnover. The levels are
derived from the BLS reporting sample exclusively
and are not subject to revisions at the primary esti­
mating cell levels. Series for more inclusive categor­
ies, however, require weighting based on the employ­
ment levels of component estimating cells. Since the
benchmark adjustment does affect the employment
levels of component estimating cells, a re weighting is
performed to assure that the broader industry aver­
ages are correct. Generally speaking the reweighting
process changes average weekly hours, average
hourly earnings, job vacancies, and labor turnover
rates for broader groupings by no more than onetenth of an hour, 1 cent, or one-tenth of 1 percent­
age point, respectively.
In accordance with regular practice, the seasonal
adjustment factors for all industry-based series have
been revised concurrently with the introduction of
new benchmarks. The revisions incorporate data
through June 1972 and affect the series for a period
back to 5 years. Revised seasonally adjusted series
are shown in tables 14, 16, 17, and 20. A detailed
discussion of the benchmark adjustment, including a
table of the revised seasonal adjustment factors, ap­
pears in the October 1972 issue of Employment and
Earnings.
— G e r a l d St o r c h

Division of Industry Employment Statistics

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

87

HOUSEHOLD DATA

Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Decem ber

N ovem ber
T itle

Productivity, wages,
and prices .............
Wholesale Price Index.
Employment situation .
Consumer Price Index.
Real e a rn in g s .............
Work stoppages.........

1.

R e le a s e d ate

P e rio d
co v e re d

November 2
November 2
November 3
November 21
November 21
November 29

3d quarter
October
October
October
October
October

M L R ta b le
num ber

R e le a s e d ate

P e rio d
c o v e re d

December 7
December 8
December 22
December 22

November
November
November
November

33
27-31
1-14
25-26
18-23
32

Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 19 4 7 -7 1

[In thousands]
Civilian labor force

Total labor force

Year

Total non­
institutional
population

Percent of
population

Total
Total

Not in
labor force

Unemployed

Employed
Number

Agriculture

Nonagricultural
industries

Number

Percent of
labor
force

1947_______ __________________
1948_________________________
1949_________________________
1950_________________________

103,418
104,527
105,611
106,645

60,941
62,080
62,903
63,858

58.9
59.4
59.6
59.9

59,350
60,621
61,286
62,208

57,039
58,344
57,649
58,920

7,891
7,629
7,656
7,160

49,148
50,713
49,990
51,760

2,311
2,276
3,637
3,288

3.9
3.8
5.9
5.3

42,477
42,447
42,708
42,787

1951...................... ............
1952_________________________
1953_________________________
1954_________________________
1955_________________________

107,721
108,823
110,601
111,671
112,732

65,117
65,730
66,560
66,993
68,072

60.4
60.4
60.2
60.0
60.4

62,017
62,138
63,015
63,643
65,023

59,962
60,254
61,181
60,110
62,171

6,726
6,501
6,261
6,206
6,449

53,239
53,753
54,922
53,903
55,724

2,055
1,883
1,834
3,532
2,852

3.3
3.0
2.9
5.5
4.4

42,604
43,093
44,041
44,678
44,660

1956____ ______ ____ _______ _
1957____________________ ____
1958____ _____________________
1959_________________________
1960_________________________

113,811
115,065
116,363
117,881
119,759

69,4*9
69,729
70,275
70,921
72,142

61.0
60.6
60.4
60.2
60.2

66,552
66,929
67,639
68,369
69,628

63,802
64,071
63,036
64,630
65,778

6,283
5,947
5,586
5,565
5,458

57,517
58,123
57,450
59,065
60,318

2,750
2,859
4,602
3,740
3,852

6.8

4.1
4.3

5.5
5.5

44,402
45,336
46,088
46,960
47,617

1961...................... .............
1962______________________ _
1963_________________________
1964_________________________
1965_________________________

121,343
122,981
125,154
127,224
129,236

73,031
73,424
74,571
75,830
77,178

60.2
59.7
59.6
59.6
59.7

70,459
70,614
71,833
73,091
74,455

65,746
66,702
67,762
69,305
71,088

5,200
4,944
4,687
4,523
4,361

60,546
61,759
63,076
64,782
66,726

4,714
3,911
4,070
3,786
3,366

6.7
5.5
5.7
5.2
4.5

48,312
49,539
50,583
51,394
52,058

1966_________________________
1967_____ _______ ____________
1968_________________________
1969_________________________
1970_________________________

131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841
140,182

78,893
80,793
82,272
84,239
85,903

60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
61.3

75,770
77,347
78,737
80,733
82,715

72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
78,627

3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
3,462

68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
75,165

2,875
2,975
2,817
2,831
4,088

3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9

52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,280

1971________________________

142,596

86,929

61.0

84,113

79,120

3,387

75,732

4,993

5.9

55,666


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

88
2.

HOUSEHOLD DATA

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages

[N um bers in thousands]
Annual average

1972

1971

1970

1969

Characteristic
1971

3d

4th

1st

2d

3d

4th

1st

2d

3d

4th

1st

2d

Civilian labor force_______
73,518
Men, 20 years and over__ 42,464
Women, 20 years and over. 24,616
Both sexes, 16-19 years... 6,440

74,790
43,088
25,030
6,672

72,019
41,863
23,970
6,186

72,417
41,936
24,121
6,360

73,174
42,267
24,450
6,457

73,324
42,473
24,459
6,392

73,604
42,514
24,687
6,403

74,210
42,712
24,916
6,582

74,317
42,709
24,930
6,678

74,422
43,050
24,777
6,595

74,843
43,250
24,980
6,613

75,673
43,362
25,434
6,877

76,417
43,618
25,584
7,215

76,768
43,891
25,697
7,180

77,190
44,121
26,042
7,026

Employed.__ _______ . . . _ 70,182
Men, 20 years and over... 41,093
Women, 20 years and over. 23,521
Both sexes, 16-19 years...
5,569

70,716
41,347
23,707
5,662

69,667
41,023
23,144
5,500

70,052
41,078
23,289
5,685

70,389
41,180
23,524
5,685

70,134
41,158
23,425
5,551

70,070
41,013
23,536
5,521

70,220
41,035
23,622
5,563

70,237
40,983
23,617
5,637

70,328
41,268
23,458
5,602

70,762
41,484
23,662
5,616

71,572
41,665
24,081
5,826

72,402
41,959
24,370
6,073

72,733
42,183
24,371
6,179

73,305
42,568
24,712
6,026

1970

3d

WHITE

Unemployed___ __________
Men, 20 years and over__
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

3,337
1,371
1,095
871

4,074
1,741
1,324

2,352
840
826

2,365
858
832
675

2,785
1,087
926
772

3,190
1,315
1,034
841

3,534
1,501
1,151
882

3,990
1,677
1,294
1,019

4,080
1,726
1,313
1,041

4,094
1,782
1,319
993

4,081
1,766
1,318
997

4,101
1,697
1,353
1,051

4,014
1,659
1,214
1,141

4,035
1,708
1,326

3,884
1,554
1,330

Unemployment rate. _____
Men, 20 years and over...
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

4.5
3.2
4.4
13.5

5.4
4.0
5.3
15.1

3.3

2.0
11.1

3.3

3.4

2.0
10.6

3.8

3.4

2.6
3.8
12.0

4.4
3.1
4.2
13.2

4.8
3.5
4.7
13.8

5.4
3.9
5.2
15.5

5.5
4.0
5.3
15.6

5.5
4.1
5.3
15.1

5.5
4.1
5.3
15.1

5.4
3.9
5.3
15.3

5.3
3.8
4.7
15.8

5.3
3.9
5.2
13.9

5.0
3.5
5.1
14.2

Civilian labor force________
Men, 20 years and over...
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

9,197
4,461
4,726
808

9,322
4,773
3,769
781

8,978
4,583
3,597
798

9,073
4,631
3,620
822

9,188
4,697
3,656
835

9,225
4,703
3,695
827

9,208
4,765
3,656
787

9,188
4,755
3,649
784

9,270
4,748
3,741
781

9,272
4,752
3,748
772

9,388
4,792
3,797
799

9,372
4,805
3,791
776

9,506
4,767
3,897
842

9,577
4,842
3,878
857

9,591
4,879
3,848
864

Employed________________
Men, 20 years and over...
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

8,445
4,461
3,412
573

8,403
4,428
3,442
533

8,395
4,409
3,375
611

8,510
4,454
3,428
628

8,552
4,490
3,439
623

8,466
4,436
3,434
596

8,429
4,478
3,399
552

8,342
4,437
3,375
530

8,386
4,426
3,428
532

8,351
4,424
3,405
522

8,442
4,431
3,461
550

8,427
4,427
3,473
527

8,503
4,435
3,545
523

8,631
4,500
3,546
585

8,637
4,533
3,508
596

Unemployed______________
Men, 20 years and over...
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

752
265
252
235

919
345
326
248

222

583
174

563
177
192
194

636
207
217

759
267
261
231

779
287
257
235

846
318
274
254

884
322
313
249

921
328
343
250

946
361
336
249

945
378
318
249

1,003
332
352
319

946
342
332
272

954
346
340
268

Unemployment r a t e . . . ____
Men, 20 years and over...
Women, 20 years and over.
Both sexes, 16-19 years...

8.2

9.9
7.2
8.7
31.7

8.5

9.2
6.7
7.5
32.4

9.5

9.9
6.9
9.2
32.4

10.1
7.5
8.8

10.1

10.6

9.9
7.1

9.9
7.1

31.7

31.0

1,010

686

1,001

1,001

NEGRO AND OTHER

5.9
5.3
29.1

187

6.5
3.8

6.2

23.4

6.2

3.8
5.3
23.6

212
6.9
4.4
5.9
25.4

8.2

5.7
7.1
27.9

1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through
December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the

3.

6.0

7.0
29.9

6.8

8.4
31.9

31.2

7.9
8.4
32.1

historical seasonaily adjusted series, see the
Employment and Earnings.

7.0
9.0
37.9

February

8.6

1972

8.8

Issue of

Full-time and part-time status 1 of the civilian labor force, seasonally adjusted 2

[Num bers in thousands]

1 Persons on part-time schedules for economic reasons are Included In
the full-time employed category; unemployed persons are allocated by
whether seeking full-time or part-time work.
2 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through De­
cember 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the
historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Em­
ployment and Earnings.


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

3 Figures for periods prior to January 1972 in the tables are not strictly
comparable with current data because of the introduction of 1970 Census
data into the estimation procedures. For example, the civilian labor force
and employment totals for January 1972 were raised by more than 300,000 in
the census adjustment. An explanation of the changes and an indication of
the differences appears in “ Revisions in the Current Population Survey” in
the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
4,

89

HOUSEHOLD DATA

Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1

[In thousands]
Annual average

1971

Employment status
1970

1972

1971

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

85,903

86,929

87,240

87,467

Civilian labor force_______
82,715
Employed____ ____ _
78,627
Agriculture_____ __ 3,462
Nonagriculture_____ 75,165
Unemployed______ _ ___ 4,088

84,113
79,120
3,387
75,732
4,993

84,491
79,451
3,363
76,088
5,040

84,750
79,832
3,416
76,416
4,918

Dec.

Jan.2

Feb.

87,812

87,883

88,301

88,075

88,817

85,116
80,020
3,419
76,601
5,096

85,225
80,098
3,400
76,698
5,127

85,707
80,636
3,393
77,243
5,071

85,535
80,623
3,357
77,266
4,912

86,313
81,241
3,482
77,759
5,072

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

88,747

88,905

86,284
81,205
3,324
77,781
5,079

86,486
81,394
3,353
78,041
5,092

July

Aug.

88.788

88,855

89,256

89,454

86,395
81,667
3,337
78,330
4,728

86,467
81,682
3,445
78,237
4,785

86,860
81,973
3,625
78,348
4; 887

87,049
82,222
3,575
78,647
4; 827

Sept.

TOTAL
Total labor force_________

MEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER
Total labor fo rc e _________

49,948

50,308

50,492

50,530

50,527

50,463

50,498

50,373

50,714

50,711

50,760

50,904

50,979

50,978

51,115

Civilian labor force___ ____
Employed______ .
Agriculture. _ _____
Nonagriculture. . ..
Unemployed__________

47,189
45,553
2,527
43,026
1,636

47,861
45,775
2,446
43,329
2,086

48,113
45,969
2,435
43,534
2,144

48,179
46,124
2,494
43,630
2,055

48,200
46,066
2,503
43,563
2,134

48,169
46,080
2,439
43,641
2,089

48,259
46,247
2,442
43,805
2,012

48,181
46,255
2,394
43,861
1,926

48,582
46,569
2,400
44,169
2,013

48,614
46,541
2,370
44,171
2,073

48,700
46,628
2,404
44,224
2,072

48,882
46,919
2,437
44,482
1,963

48,961
47,032
2,474
44,558
1,929

48,954
47,063
2,550
44,513
i; 891

49,083
47,204
2,629
44’ 575
1,879

Civilian labor force___ . . .
28,279
Employed.. ___
26,932
Agriculture_______ _
549
Nonagriculture--- . . 26,384
Unemployed__________
1,347

28,799
27,149
03/
26,612
1,650

28,960
27,319
548
26,771
1,641

29,082
27,471
530
26,941
1,611

29,254
27,571
528
27,043
1,683

29,284
27,592
547
27,045
1,692

29,424
27,794
564
27,230
1,630

29,358
27,878
575
27,303
1,480

29,574
27,972
620
27,352
1,602

29,508
27,913
563
27,350
1,595

29,625
27,883
551
27,332
1,742

29,657
28,029
496
27,533
1,628

29,789
28,078
556
27,522
1,711

29,990
28,334
604
27,730
1,656

29,915
28'296
561
27,735
1,619

7,453
6,195
404
5,791
1,257

7,418
6,163
380
5,783
1,255

7,489
6,237
392
5,845
1,252

7,662
6,383
388
5,995
1,279

7,772
6,426
414
6,012
1,346

8,024
6,595
387
6,208
1,429

7,996
6,490
388
6,102
1,506

8,157
6,700
462
6,238
1,457

8,162
6,751
391
6,360
1,411

8,161
6,883
398
6,485
1,278

7,856
6,719
404
6,315
1,137

7,717
6,572
415
6,157
1,145

7,916
6'576
'471
6,105
L304

8,051
6j 722
385
6,337
L329

WOMEN, 20 YEARS
AND OVER

BOTH SEXES, 16-19 YEARS
Civilian labor force________
Employed_____ ______
Agriculture_______
Nonagriculture. . . . .
Unemployed _______

7,246
6,141
386
5,755
1,105

,.! ,7 ^ Se
^ave ^een ac*ius*e(^10 reflect seasonal experience through December
1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings.

5.

2 See footnote 3, table 3, regarding the introduction of 1970 census population controls.

Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages

[Num bers in thousands]

Characteristic

Annual average
1970

EMPLOYMENT
White-collar workers
Professional and technical.
Managers and administrators, except farm__
Sales workers_____ .
Clerical workers . . .
Blue-collar workers
Craftsmen and kindred
workers___. . .
Operatives___ . ____
Nonfarm laborers
Service workers
Farm workers.
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
White-collar workers
Professional and technical.
Managers and administrators, except farm .
Sales w o rk e rs...______
Clerical w o rk e rs.._____
Blue-collar workers...
Craftsmen and kindred
______
workers___
Operatives___________
Nonfarm laborers_______
Service workers__________
Farm workers....... .......... .......

1971

1969
3d

1970
4th

1st

2d

1971
3d

4th

1st

2d

1972
3d

4th

1st

2d

3d

78,627

79,120

78,126

78,577

78,875

78,610

78,531

78,550

78,546

78,723

79,221

79,984

80,833

81,422

81,959

37,997
11,140

38,252
11,070

36,961
10,742

37,445
10,918

37,940
11,055

38,004
11,139

37,970
11,226

38,074
11,143

37,938
10,872

38,004
11,081

38,456
11,139

38,612
11,192

38,710
11,232

38,788
11,387

39,342
11,618

8,289
4,854
13,714
27,791

8,765
5,066
13,440
27,184
10,178
12,983
4,022
10,676

7,983
4,714
13,522
28,428

8,122
4,777
13,628
28,332

8,220
4,787
13,878
28,203

8,295
4,813
13,757
27,768

8,259
4,877
13,608
27,653

8,381
4,934
13,616
27,566

8,646
5,074
13,346
27,071

8,642
5,018
13,263
27,051

8,799
5,037
13,481
27,090

8,612
5,133
13,675
27,524

7,988
5 ^300
14,190
28,295

7 8fifi
5Ì 360
14,181
28,595

5,369
14,308
28,538

3,008
5.9
3.5
2.9

10,200
14,570
3,658
9,509
3,229
3.6
2.2
1.4

10,235
14,369
3,728
9,594
3,121
3.6
2.1
1.5

10,235
14,196
3,772
9,610
3,141
4.2
2.4
1.8

10,135
13,957
3,676
9,620
3,206
4.8
2 7
1.9

10,124
13,793
3,736
9,814
3,108
5.2
2 9
2.0

10,149
13,696
3,721
9,804
3,033
5.8
3 4
2.4

10,106
12,912
4,053
10,627
2,988
6.0
3 fi
3.2

10,119
12,958
3,974
10,607
3,033
6.0

10,111
12,946
4,033
10,715
2,992
6.0

10,373
13;116
4,035
10,751
3,023
5.9

10,910
13,346
4,039
10,852
3,030
5.8

m 888
13,‘ 557
4,205
11,078
2,928
5.7

13,505
4,280
11,003
3,116
5.6

2.9

2.9

3.0

2.7

1.3
3.9
4.0
6.2

1.6
4.3
4.8
7.4

.9
3.0
3.2
3.9

1.0
2.8
3.1
4.3

1.1
3.3
3.4
5.0

1.3
3.9
3.9
6.0

1.4
3.9
4.1
6.8

16
4.6
4.8
7.5

1 6
4.2
4.9
7.5

1 fi

1 fi

4.5
4.8
7.4

4.4
4.9
7.5

3.9
4.8
7.4

4.2
4.8
7.0

4.1
4.0

3.8
7.1
9.5
5.3
2.6

4.7
8.3
10.8
6.3
2.6

2.1
4.4
7.0
4.5
2.1

2.3
4.9
7.1
4.0
1.9

2.7
5.8
7.9
4.7
2.1

3.9
6.6
9.2
5.0
2.6

4.5
7.5
10.3
5.5
2.9

4.6
8 6
10.8
6.0
3.0

4.7
8 5

4.3
8 5

5.3
8 ?

4.7

4.2

4.5

4.3

10.3
6.5
2.7

11.4
6.4
2.8

11.7
6.2
2.4

10.4
6.0
2.6

9.9
6.7
2.6

10,158
13,909
3,724
9,712
3,126
4.9
2.8
2.0

1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through
December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the
historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of
Employment and Earnings.


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

10.6
6.1

2. 8

10. 9
6.3
2.1

vi . O

2.2

2.3
1

6.6

n

4.6
4.7
6.3

NOTE: Comparisons with data prior to 1971 are affected by the reclassifi­
cation of census occupations, introduced in January 1971. For an explanation
of the changes, see “Revisions in Occupational Classifications for 1971” in
the February 1971 issue of Employment and Earnings.

90
6.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

HOUSEHOLD DATA

Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1

INum bers in thousands]
1972

1971
Reason for unemployment
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

2,369
583
1,536
603

2,206
541
1,486
663

2,360
629
1,493
651

2,365

2,077
603
1,503
713

2,118
674
1,542
737

2,040
611
1,557
917

2,199
649
1,460
802

2,2 1 0

624
1,238
621

2,093
616
1,455
564

2,224
644
1,427
640

2,121

1,432
736

2,169
564
1,652
742

100.0

1 00.0

100.0

1 00.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

10 0 .0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1 00.0

100.0

46.5
11.5
30.2

45.1

46.0
12.3
29.1
12.7

45.5

42.3

12.8

11 .0

27.5
14.2

32.2
14.5

42.4
12.3
30.7
14.6

41.8
13.3
30.4
14.5

39.8
11.9
30.4
17.9

43.0
12.7
28.6
15.7

47.1
13.3
26.4
13.2

44.3
13.0
30.8
11.9

45.3
13.0
28.8
12.9

43.7
13.1
29.9
13.4

2 .8
.8

2.5
.7
1.9
.9

2.4
.7

2.5

2.4
.7

2.5

2.6

1.7
.9

.7
1.4
.7

2.4
.7
1.7
.7

2 .6

1 .8
1.1

2.4
.7
1.7
.7

June

July

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Lost last job
..........
.................. - Left last job
____ ______
_______
Reentered labor force _____
_________ _______ ____ - ______
Never worked before

666

635
1,452
649

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed
_____
_ _ _ _____
Lost last job_______ _ _____ _____ ______
Left last job
____________________
Reentered labor force____ _ ____________
__________
Never worked before

11.8

1 1.0

30.4
13.5

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Lost last job
___________________
Left last job
_ ___________ _ _____
Reentered labor force____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Never worked before _______
- _______ --

2 .8

.7
1 .8

.7

2 .6
.6
1 .8
.8

2 .8

.7

1.7
.9

1 .8
.8

1 .8
.8

.8
1 .8

.9

.8

.7
1.6

.7

NOTE: For additional detail or for data unadjusted for seasonal factors (formerly
carried in this space), see Employment and Earnings.

7.

Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1
1972

1971

Annual average
Age and sex
1970
stal, 16 years and over____
16 to 19 years________ _
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years.......
20 to 24 years__________
25 years and over...... .
25 to 54 years______
55 years and over___

1971

4.9
15.3
17.1
13.8

5.9
16.9
18.7
15.5

8 .2

10 .0

3.3
3.4

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Apr.

May
5.9
15.7
16.6
15.8

5.5
14.5
16.5
12.9

5.5
14.8
16.5
13.5

5.6
16.9
20.5
14.0

5.5
16.5
19.9
14.1

9.9
3.7
3.9
3.3

1 0.0

3.8
3.8
3.6

9.9
3.9
4.0
3.6

8.7
3.9
4.0
3.6

9.8
3.7
3.8
3.4

9.0
3.6
3.7
3.7

9.1
3.5
3.7
3.1

5.3
16.7
19.3
14.8

5.3
16.6
18.0
16.2

4.8
13.8
15.4
12.4

4.7
13.6
14.6

4.9
16.5

4.9
15.9

2 0.0

2 0.8

17.6

5.3
17.8
21.4
15.1

1 2.8

13.2

12.3

10.7
3.3
3.2
3.5

9.4
3.4
3.4
3.5

8.3
3.3
3.3
3.5

9.6
3.0
3.0
3.1

8.4
3.1
3.0
3.4

3.0
3.0
3.3

6.5
15.4
18.1
13.5

6.9
16.4
18.9
14.4

17.5
21.3
14.9

6.7
17.3
18.6
16.3

9.2
4.8
5.1
3.8

10.1

9.5
4.6
4.8
4.3

9.6
4.5
4.9
2.9

17.3
18.8
16.3

5.9
17.8
19.1
16.8

5.7
18.8

9.6
4.0
4.3
3.2

9.2
4.0
4.3
3.0

10.4
4.0
4.2
3.4

10.1

10.1

8 .8

4.1
4.3
3.4

3.7
3.9
3.1

3.6
3.7
3.1

2 2 .0

16.7

2.8

ale, 16 years and over____
16 to 19 years..............
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years.......

4.4
15.0
16.9
13.4

5.3
16.6
18.6
15.0

5.4
16.3
18.6
14.6

5.3
16.5
20.3
13.7

5.4
16.2
18.1
14.7

5.4
17.3
19.0
16.0

5.3
17.3
18.7
16.1

20 to 24 years__________
25 years and over___ ...
25 to 54 years______
55 years and over___

8.4

10.2

3.5
3.7
3.0

9.7
3.5
3.7
2.9

10.7
3.5
3.7
3.2

10.5
3.5
3.6
3.

10.4
3.2
3.3
3.0

9.2
3.2
3.2
3.2

10.4
3.2
3.1
3.4

5.3
19.6
2 1.8

2.9

10.3
3.5
3.5
3.4

emale, 16 years and over...
16 to 19 years__________
16 and 17 years_____
18 and 19 years_____

5.9
15.6
17.4
14.4

6.9
17.2
18.7
16.2

6.9
17.6
18.0
17.3

6.7
17.0
19.2
15.6

6.9
17.3
18.7
16.2

7.0
17.3
18.5
16.7

6.9
18.4
19.6
17.7

6.4
17.9
22.3
15.6

6 .8

6.8

6 .8

17.9
19.8
16.8

18.0
19.0
16.4

14.6
14.8
15.3

20 to 24 years__________
25 years and over______
25 to 54 years______
55 years and over___

7.9
4.1
4.5

9.6
4.9
5.3
3.4

8.9
4.9
5.3
3.4

8 .6

1 0.0

4.8
5.2
3.7

9.6
5.0
5.4
3.9

9.6
4.6
4.9
3.3

8.4
4.3
4.7
2.9

9.2
4.7
5.1
3.1

9.0
4.6
4.9
3.6

1 0.6

4.9
5.3
3.0

2 .8

1
These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December
1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally


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

Sept.

5.9
17.3
19.1
1.5

6 .0

16.7
18.3
15.4

4.0
4.2
3.4

2 .8
2 .6

Aug.

5.9
17.9
20.7
15.8

5.8
16.7
19.9
14.5

6.0

16.9
18.4
15.8

6 .0

Mar.

4.8
5.0
3.8

4.8
5.1
4.0

6 .8

adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings.

8 .6

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
8.

HOUSEHOLD DATA

91

Unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted 1
Annual
average

1971

1972

Selected categories

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

1970

1971

Sept.

4.9
3.5
4.8
15.3

5.9
4.4
5.7
16.9

4.5

Jan.

Feb.

4.3
5.8
17.3

5.9
4.2
5.5
17.8

5.7
4.0
5.0
18.8

5.3

Oct.

Nov.

5.8
4.3
5.5
16.7

6 .0

6 .0

4.5
5.7
16.9

4.4
5.8
16.7

6 .0

Dec.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

5.9
4.1
5.4
17.9

5.9
4.3
5.4
17.3

5.9
4.3
5.9
15.7

5.5
4.0
5.5
14.5

5.5
3.9
5.7
14.8

5.6
3.9
5.5
16.9

5.5
3.8
5.4
16.5

5.1
10.5

5.3
10.5

5.4
9.6

5.3
10.7

5.0
9.4

5.0
9.9

5.1
9.7

5.0
10.2

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.7

2 .6

2.8

7.3
10.7
5.0

7.7
12.5
4.4

6.6
9.0
5.1

6.5

6.1
7.8
3.8

White...........................................
Negro and other...............................

8 .2

5.4
9.9

5.4
10.4

5.3
10.4

5.6
9.4

5.4
10.4

10.6

3.3

3.2

3.0

2 .8

2 .8

8 .6

8 .6

8.1

12.3
5.6

12.7
5.4

10.3
6.4

7.2
9.9
5.3

Married men...................................

2 .6

3.2

3.3

3.0

Vietnam Era veterans,2 men:
20 to 29 years............................
20 to 24 years.......................
25 to 29 years.......................

6.9
9.3
4.3

8 .8
12.2

9.8
12.3
7.6

8 .0

8.5

8.4

9.7
6.5

1 2.0

12.6

5.7

5.6

5.1

8.5
12.3
5.6

7.4
9.7
5.4

NonveWans, men:
20 to 29 years............................
20 to 24 years..................... .
25 to 29 years..................... .

6 .0
8 .0

7.3
9.5
4.7

4.4

7.3
9.3
4.9

8.1

3.8

10.3
5.5

7.7
9.6
5.2

7.5
9.8
4.5

7.0
9.0
4.4

Full-time workers.............................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over 3 .......... State insured4 .................................
Labor force time lost 3 ........................

3.6
5.4

5.5
1.4
4.4
6.4

5.6
1.5
4.3
6.3

5.4
1.5
4.4
6.5

5.7
1.5
4.1
6.4

5.7
1.5
4.1
6.4

5.4
1.4
3.4
6.4

5.3
1.5
3.5

3.5
2.9
4.3
4.8

3.4
4.1
4.8

3.4
2.4
3.9
4.7

3.4
2.5
3.9
4.6

3.6
2.5
4.0
4.9

7.5
4.6

7.5
4.8

4.5
.8

6.7
8 .6

6.1

Aug.

Sept.

7.5

7.6

10.1

1 0 .0

8 .6

6 .2
8.1

4.6

7.1
9.1
4.5

8 .0

4.1

4.6

3.7

3.8

5.4
1.4
3.5
6.3

5.4
1.3
3.6
6.3

5.6
1.4
3.7
6.3

5.0
1.3
3.6
5.5

5.1
1.3
3.8

5.1
1.4
3.4

6 .0

6 .2

3.5
2.3
4.1
4.9

3.4
2.1
3.7
4.9

3.6

3.1
1.7
4.0
4.8

2 .2

2 .2

4.5
5.3

4.3
4.6

4.8
4.9

3.3
2.0
4.7
4.7

6.9
4.0
7.7
11.7

.8
4.4
7.4
10.7

4.7
7.1
10.9

9.5

6.4
4.3
7.1
9.3

6.5
4.4
6.7
10.9

6.1
4.2
6 4
9.6

6.6

6.3

6 .1

5.7

6 .6

6.3

7.3

5.8
10.9
5.7
5.7
5.6

5.8

6.3
5.7

5.5
9.5
5.6
5.7
5.5

5 6
9 ?
5 1
4 3
5.5

3.5
6.3
5.0

3.1
6.5
4.2

3.6
6.5
4.6

2.9

2.9

2.5

2 .8

3.0

3.2

6 .0

8 .8

7.5

6.0

6.5

8.9

6.5

5.0
1.3
3.4
5.9

OCCUPATION
White-collar workers.................... .
Professional and managerial___
Sales workers........ ..........
Clerical workers................ .

1.7
3.9
4.0

Blue-collar workers....... ............ .
Craftsmen and kindred workers.
Operatives.........................
Nonfarm laborers.............. .

3.8
7.1
9.5

7.4
4.7
8.3

7.7
5.3
8.3

7.1
4.7
7.8

1 0.8

1 1.2

1 0.6

8 .2
11 .8

Service workers........................... .

5.3

6.3

6.5

6 .0

6 .6

2 .8

6 .2

2 .2

3.6

3.3

2 .6

2 .2

4.4
4.7

4.0
4.7

8 .2

7.1
4.3
7.9

11.9

7.0
4.4
7.5

11.6

1 1.8

6.4

6.1

5.9

5.9
10.3

6

2 .0

3.4

6.4
4.5

6.8

6 .8

3.5

INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary
workers1 ..... ............................... ....
Construction_______________________ ...
Manufacturing......................... ........
Durable goods.......................... .
Nondurable goods.................. ......

5.2
9.7
5.6
5.7
5.4

Transportation and public utilities..........
Wholesale and retail trade...................
Finance and service industries.... ..........

6 .2

6 .2

10.4

5.9

6 .2

6.3

9.7

6.1

1 0.2
6 .2
6 .4

11.2

6 .6

7.0
6.5

9.7
6.9
7.0
6 .8

5.8

6.7
6.3

9.8
6.4
6.7

3.2
5.3
4.2

3.8
6.4
5.1

3.6
6.3
5.1

4.3

4.4

6.1

6 .6

4.9

Government wage and salary workers.... .......

2 .2

2.9

3.0

Agricultural wage and salary workers............

7.5

7.9

8.5

6 .8

1 0.6

5.8
5.8
5.9

12.5

6.1

6.0

5.1

4.1
6.5
4.9

4.1
6.3
5.3

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.0

2 .8

2.8

7.0

9.6

7.5

8 .6

8.3

6.0

1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December
1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings.
2 Vietnam Era veterans are those who served after August 4,1964; they are all classi­
fied as war veterans. Over 80 percent of Vietnam Era veterans of all ages are 20 to
29 years old. Not included in these figures are post-Korean peacetime veterans in
ages 20 to 29.
3 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force.

9.

5.9

6 .0

9.8
6 .2

6.9
6.7
7.1

6 .0
6.1
6 .0

3.9
6 .2

4.9

6.3
6.1

4.0
6.7
5.3

3.7
6 .2

5.1

J

6 .0

11.6

5 4
5.0
6 .0

3.8
6 .6

4.7

3.7
6 7
4.7

Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered
employment.
3 Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons
(that is, those persons who worked less than 35 hours during the survey week because
of slack work, job changing during the week, material shortages, inability to find
full-time work, and so on) as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours
6 Includes mining, not shown separately.

Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted i

[N um bers in thousands]

Period

Less than 5 weeks _
5 to 14 weeks _
15 weeks and over
15 to 26 weeks______
27 weeks and over........
15 weeks and over as a percent of civilian labor force.
Average (mean duration, in
weeks)______

Annual average

1971

1972

1970

1971

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Fob.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

2,137
1,289
662
427
235

2,234
1,578
1,181
665
517

2,317
1,567
1,250
683
567

2,140
1,529
1,253
628
625

2,290
1,650
1,311
741
570

2,410
1,509
1,273
724
549

2,358
1,502
1,198
636
562

2,142
1,454
1,294
634
660

2,311
1,412
1,224
591
633

2,169
1,521
1,137
482
6 òò

2,223
1,514
1,180
587
593

2,175
1.437
1,148
594
554

2,149
1,478
1,155
658
497

2,254
1,505
1,188
644
544

1 5

1 5

1.4

1.3

1.4

1.3

1.3

11.4

1 1.8

12.5

12.4

12.4

12.5

13.5

11.8

.8

1 4

8 .8

11.4

1 5
1 2.0

12.5


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
3 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December
For a discussion
of St.
seasonal
adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally
Federal1971.
Reserve
Bank of
Louis

1.4
12.1

adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings.

Sept.
2,369
1,385
1,137
587
550
1.3
12.2

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

92

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

10.

Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1

[All Item s except average benefits am ounts are in thousands]
1972

1971
Item

Employment service:2
New applications for work.
Nonfarm placements.........
State unemployment insurance program:
Initial claim s34-------- -------------------------Insured unemployment5 (average weekly
volume)6............................... - ..............
Rate of insured unemployment7...................
Weeks of unemployment compensated-------Average weekly benefit amount for total un­
employment...................... ....... ......... .
Total benefits paid.....................................

779
366

767
353

663
288

763
317

679
266

1,277

1,043

1,048

1,336

1,623

Unemployment compensation for Federal
civilian employees:910
Initial claim s3...... ................ .......... - ........
Insured unemployment5 (average weekly
volume)........................... .......................
Weeks of unemployment compensated.
Total benefits paid........................—
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications11---------------- --------------Insured unemployment (average weekly
volume)____________ ____ _______
Number of payments12............... .........
Average amount of benefit payment13.. .
Total benefits paid14............................


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

1,095

947

1,912
3.6

1,739
3.3

1,716
3.2

1,879
3.5

2,221
4.2

2,524
4.8

2,492
4.7

2,279
4.3

2,005
3.8

6,503

5,923

5,561

6,177

7,546

8,972

8,871

9,372

7,320

July

June

1,095

1,378

1,740
3.3

rl ,636
3.1

1,823
3.4

6,927

5,903

5,778

991

54

48

43

51

59

68

57

54

48

47

43

40

120

106

97

105

118

133

140

136

127

119

110

107

1,565
2.9

95

.

27

12

12

13

14

13

16

12

11

11

12

17

35

33

35

35

35

37

36

34

30

28

r 29

38

157
$9,261

148
$9,026

135
$8,224

144
$8,960

156
$9,811

147
$8,755

146
$9,008

157
$9,911

121
$7,674

122
$7,460

116
$7,129

121
$7,304

98

100

48

19

32
105
$83.28
$8,698

33
163
$69.35
$11,134

2,349

2,174

39

7

8

4

4

4

2

11

27

10

48
33
27
857
106
124
$61.95 $100.32 $101.32
$8,891
$7,616 $9,930

36
87
$97.79
$8,007

27
63
$99.11
$6,212

26
64
$98.7C
$5,983

23
48
$88.74
$4,113

15
40
$91.27
$3,462

14
33
$94.84
$2,839

18
35
$88.76
$2,907

17
43
$96.95
$3,744

2,311

3,097

3,123

2,923

2,431

2,103

1,952

r 2,088

1,763

2,129

Includes data for Puerto Rico.
Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands.
Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of
unemployment. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
4 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands.
5 Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment.
* Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program
for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers.
7 The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of the average
covered employment in a 1 2 -month period.
8 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
• Includes the Virgin Islands.
10 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.
11 An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first
1

1,241

May

437
525
493
508
623
550
530
498
409
426
478
525
$31,552 r$29,650 $25,012 $26,089 $29,180 $29,998 $33,580 $38,349 $31,668 $32,579 r$30,932 $27,500

Weeks of unemployment compensated.
Total benefits paid............................

2
3

1,643

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

$56.08 $56.25 $53.46 $53.96 $54.58 $55.35 $56.71 $56.63 $56.90 $56.32 r $55.23 $55.75
$433,636 $400,329 $367,169 $406,905 $489,566 $550,902 $589,509 $628,936 $472,916 $429,206 $382,064 $364,275

Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen :6 8
Initial claims3 6--------- -------------------------Insured unemployment6 (average weekly
volume).................................................

All programs:15
Insured unemployment6.

Nov.

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

2,666

period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequen
periods in the same year.
12 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods.
13 The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for
recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments.
14 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments.
15 Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State,
Ex-servicemen, and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act
Includes claims filed under Extended Duration (ED) provisions of regular State laws.
NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Financial and Management Information
Systems for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by
the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board.
r = revised.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
11.

PAYROLL DATA

93

Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947-71 1

[In thousands]

Year

TOTAL

Mining

Trans­
Contract Manufac­ portation
construc­
turing
and
tion
public
utilities

Wholesale and retail trade
Total

Wholesale
trade

Retail
trade

Finance,
insur­
ance,
and real
estate

Services

5,050
5,206
5,264
5,382

Government
Total

Federal

State
and local

5,474
5,650
5,856
6,026

1,892
1 1863
1’908
li 928

3,582
3j 787
3 ’948
4; 098

2,302
2,420
2’305
2,188
2,187

4,087
4,188
4,340
4i 563
4i 727

1947______________
1948______________
1949____ _ . ____
1950___ ________

43,881
44,891
43,778
45,222

955
994
930
901

1,982
2,169
2,165
2,333

15,545
15,582
14,441
15,241

4,166
4,189
4,001
4,034

8,955
9,272
9,264
9,386

2,361
2,489
2,487
2,518

6,868

1,754
1,829
1,857
1,919

1951______________
1952______________
1953______________
1954___________ ..
1955______________

47,849
48,825
50,232
49,022
50,675

929
898
791
792

2,603
2,634
2,623
2,612
2,802

16,393
16,632
17,549
16,314
16,882

4,226
4,248
4,290
4,084
4,141

9,742
10,004
10,247
10,235
10,535

2,606
2,687
2,727
2,739
2,796

7,136
7,317
7,520
7,496
7,740

1,991
2,069
2,146
2,234
2,335

5,576
5,730
5,867
6,274

6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914

1956______________
1957_______ ___
1958 .. .. ____ _
1959 2 _____________
1960______________

52,408
52,894
51,363
53,313
54,234

822
828
751
732
712

2,999
2,923
2,778
2,960
2,885

17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796

4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004

10,858
10,750
11,127
11,391

2,884
2,893
2,848
2,946
3,004

7,974
7,992
7,902
8,182
8,388

2,429
2,477
2,519
2,594
2,669

6,536
6,749
6,806
7,130
7,423

7,277
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353

2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270

5,069
Si 399
5,648
5,850
6i083

1961______________
1962_____________
1963______________
1964____________
1965______________

54,042
55,596
56,702
58,331
60,815

672
650
635
634
632

2,816
2,902
2,963
3,050
3,186

16,326
16,853
16,995
17,274
18,062

3,903
3,906
3,903
3,951
4,036

11,337
11,566
11,778
12,160
12,716

2,993
3,056
3,104
3,189
3,312

8,344
8,511
8,675
8,971
9,404

2,731
2,800
2,877
2,957
3,023

7,664
8,028
8,325
8,709
9,087

8,594
8,890
9,225
9,596
10,074

2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378

6,315
6,550

1966______________
1967___ __________
1968______________
1969______________
1970______________

63,955
65,857
67,915
70,284
70,593

627
613
606
619
623

3,275
3,208
3,285
3,435
3,381

19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,349

4,151
4,261
4,310
4,429
4,493

13,245
13,606
14,084
14,639
14,914

3,437
3,525
3,611
3,733
3,812

9,808
10,081
10,473
10,906

9,551
10,099
10,623
11,229
11,612

10,792
11,398
11,845

11,102

3,100
3,225
3,382
3,564
3,688

12,535

2,564
2,719
2j 737
2; 758
2,705

8,227
8,679
9,' 109
9,444
9,830

1971..........

70,645

602

3,411

18,529

4,442

15,142

3,809

11,333

3,796

11,869

12,856

2,664

10,191

866

10,886

1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment and
Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin- 1312—9). These series are based
upon establishment reports which cover all full-time and part-time employees in
nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or received pay for any part
of, the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons

12.

6,595
6,783
6,778

6,002

12,202

6 ,8 6 8

7j 248
7; 696

who worked in more than one establishment during the reporting period are
counted more than once. Proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family
workers, and domestic servants are excluded.
2
Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an
increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench­
mark month.

Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State

[In thousands]
Aug. 1971
Alabama........... .
Alaska__________
Arizona...............
Arkansas..............
California......... .

1 ,0 2 1 . 2

104.1
571.2
549.7
6,959.0

July 1972

Aug. 1972 p

1,034.0
112.7
621.6
570.9
7,116.2

1,038.0
108.4
624.3
571.5
7,174.3
813.9
1,170.2

State

Aug. 1971

July 1972

Montana____________________________
Nebraska___ .. .. .
_____ ___
Nevada_____________________________
New Hampshire.____________ __________
New Jersey. . . . . . ................

209.3
486.7
215.0
270.7
2,612.6

222.0

277.8
2,640.5

215.3
503.0
222.5
283.4
2,648.9

690.5
2,246.8

New Mexico
........
New York________ _ _____ ________ ..
North Carolina______
_ _______ . ...
North Dakota._____________________ ...
Ohio____ ___________

302.5
7,005.9
1,784.2
166.9
3,809.3

323.8
6,935.9
1,839.3
171.5
3,862.2

324.5
6,970.4
1,847.3
170.1
3,872.6

214.3
503.5

Aug. 1972 p

Colorado...............
Connecticut...........
Delaware...............
District of Columbia
Florida..................

696.3
2,150.1

810.5
1,173.6
218.4
693.7
2,246.9

Georgia.................
Hawaii.................
Idaho....................
Illinois........... .......
Indiana................. .

1,576.3
309.3
219.5
4,316.8
1,821.9

1,604.9
315.3
230.6
4,316.2
1,880.6

1,612.0
313.0
232.5
4,331.6
1,884.3

Oklahoma.........................................
Oregon.........
Pennsylvania_________ . . . _____ ___
Rhode Island...
.
. _
South Carolina_______ ___________ ____ _

782.8
748.0
4,285.3
343.4
864.1

807.8
776.8
4,313.1
340.2
908.4

809.5
787.6
4,326.6
344.5
903.9

Iowa......................
Kansas...................
Kentucky...............
Louisiana...............
Maine....................

880.4
667.7
929.7
1,051.9
339.2

904.6
685.8
954.3
1,078.9
340.5

910.9
685.3
955.4
1,077.8
345.5

South Dakota..... . ..
Tennessee..........
Texas............ . . .
Utah.........
Vermont..............

181.9
1,361.9
3,671.5
371.2
153.8

181.9
1,413.2
3,783.3
387.4
155.3

182.1
1,417.6
3,786.3

Maryland................
Massachusetts........
Michigan................
Minnesota..............
Mississippi.............
Missouri.................

1,311.7
2,248.1
2,919.5
1,319.7
594.9
1,620.1

1,359.4
2,256.9
2,907.8
1,305.9
610.4
1,615.7

1,358.1
2,263.2
2,975.1
1,337.4
611.5
1,628.4

Virginia______________
Washington___
West Virginia............
Wisconsin_____ _
Wyoming............

1,508.2
1,055.5
534.2
1,546.8
118.2

1,552.5
1,081.9
533.6
1,571.3
123.9

1,556.5
1,093.4
524.7
1,578.0
124.7

777.7
1,158.4
211.0

220.6

NOTE: Current State employment data by major industry division are published in
Employment and Earnings, table B-7. For historical data in available industry detail,
see the annual compendium, Employment and Earnings, States and Areas, 1939-70
(BLS Bulletin 1370-8).


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

.......

157.0

SOURCE: State agencies in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. More detailed industry data are available from the State agencies.
For addresses see inside back cover of Employment and Earnings,
p =preliminary.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

94

PAYROLL DATA

13.

Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1

[In thousands]
1972

1971

Annual
average
Industry division and group
1970
TOTAL................................................................
M IN IN G ..........................................................
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION.........................

1971

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

70,593 70,645 71,162 71,378 71,643 72,039 70,642 70,775 71,393 71,979 72,612 73,463
623
3,381

602
3,411

625
3,663

522

520
3,684

3,624

July

Aug.p

Sept.p

72,469 72,983 73,592

607

603

598

601

600

605

614

614

617

613

3,388

3,174

3,096

3,210

3,374

3,528

3,717

3,740

3,831

3,772

MANUFACTURING...........................................
Production workers2............................

19,349 18,529 18,757 18,635 18,620 18,520 18,365 18,457 18,573 18,639 18,751 19,070 18,703 19,161 19,295
14,020 13,434 13,686 13,569 13,558 13,467 13,325 13,413 13,521 13,578 13,676 13,960 13,590 14,039 14,177

Durable goods................................... ........
Production workers2.............................

11,195 10,565 10,629 10,586 10,595 10,558 10,505 10,570 10,651 10,717 10,797 10,953 10,713 10,945 1L083
8,042 7,598 7,679 7,642 7,653 7,622 7,573 7,638 7,713 7,774 7,846 7,985 7,739 7,972 8,111
189.7 191.5 194.3
629.3 635.5 625.1
485.1 499.2 498.3
672.9 679.8 677.2
1,232.3 1,242.6 1,258.0

187.2 186.2 184.3 183.0 181.9 181.6 182.7 184.3 188.1
241.9 192.1 189.1
Ordnance and accessories....................
572.7 580.8 602.9 603.4 599.7 593.2 585.6 588.1 592.8 596.9 605.2 630.0
Lumber and wood products..................
459.8 458.5 467.8 472.0 475.6 477.6 477.2 478.9 480.4 481.5 482.5 491.4
Furniture and fixtures...........................
640.2 633.7 650.0 643.3 642.0 632.6 625.3 626.7 636.0 646.7 658.4 675.4
Stone, clay, and glass products............
1,246.2
Primary metal industries...................... 1,315.6 1,227.4 1,179.6 1,168.7 1,168.7 1,172.0 1,183.9 1,190.1 1,217.0 1,226.0 1,235.0
1,382.8
1,360.3
1,350.0
1,343.3
Fabricated metal products................ . 1,380.4 1,328.2 1,348.9 1,344.3 1,345.7 1,338.2 1,328.0 1,333.3
Machinery, except electrical................. 1,982.1 1,805.3 1,803.3 1,789.3 1,794.9 1,803.5 1,799.3 1,825.7 1,828.0 1,835.3 1,849.3 1,871.2
1,917.0 1,768.5 1,783.1 1,780.5 1,787.6 1,785.7 1,774.5 1,782.2 1,787.4 1,792.6 1,803.3 1,830.2
Electrical equipment.........................
Transportation equipment__________ 1,799.1 1,723.9 1,737.9 1,726.9 1,728.0 1,721.7 1,709.1 1,715.5 1,729.9 1,743.1 1,750.2 1,750.6
460.4 437.0 439.6 441.1 441.8 440.1 440.0 441.6 443.0 445.8 449.9 457.9
Instruments and related products........

1,354.7
1,855.3
1,813.0
1,610.5
455.9

Miscellaneous manufacturing................
Nondurable goods......................................
Production workers2.............................

425.7
8,154
5,978

409.6
7,964
5,836

426.9
8,128
6,007

428.8
8,049
5,927

425.0

409.4

8,025
5,905

7,962
5,845

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE...............
Wholesale trade..........................................
Retail trade..................................................
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE

4,493

4,442

4,469

4,415

4,407

4,432

406.4

411.9

416.1

418.1

428.9

414.2

437.4

442.9

7,860
5,752

7,887
5,775

7,922
5,808

7,922
5,804

7,954
5,830

8,117
5,975

7,990
5,851

8,216
6,067

8,212
6,066

4,393

4,367

4,442

4,445

4,481

4,549

1,794.0 1,871.2 1,865.8
78.4
67.0
78.9
975.6 997.5 995.8
1,263.5 1,341.0 1,345.2
699.0 706.3 705.6
1,074.1 1,076.6 1,078.0
1,003.9 1,007.9 1,006.0
193.8 193.7 191.1
620.3 632.3 642.4
298.6 311.0 303.6
4,531

4,536

4,539

14,914 15,142 15,213 15,300 15,509 16,061 15,237 15,120 15,248 15,436 15,570 15,749 15,653 15,676 15,755
3,812 3,809 3,832 3,849 3,857 3,867 3,822 3,817 3,844 3,851 3,875 3,946 3,956 3,973 3,970
1 1 , 1 0 2 11,333 11,381 11,451 11,652 12,194 11,415 11,303 11,404 11,585 11,695 11,803 11,697 11,703 11,785
3,688

3,796

3,825

3,823

3,832

SERVICES........ .........................- ...................... 11,612 11,869 11,930 11,963 11,973
793.1 833.3 779.8 755.9
Hotels and other lodging places____ ____ _
935.1 922.3 928.9 935.3
J O J •U
Personal services____________________
3,256.8 3,298.0 3.312.4 3.324.0
Medical and other health services.......... .
Educational services..............................— 1,125.2 1,138.4 1,090.3 1.189.5 1.209.0

3,836

1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment
and Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9).
2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers
(including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assemblying,

3,828

3,839

3,862

3,880

3,909

3,966

3,990

3,995

3,955

11,970 11,864 11,967 12,066 12,218 12,338 12,487 12,489 12,486 12,450
766.1 769.7 780.6 793.1 808.8 834.7 899.6 971.3 982.8
924.4 911.2 908.7 910 5 914.9 919.6 925.8 911.9 905.3
3,331.1 3,344.9 3,363.9 3,380.7 3,393.9 3,416.1 3,453.1 3,466.7 3,472.2
1,199.5 1,173.1 1,209.7 1,224.0 1,217.7 1,208.9 1,112.4 1,007.4 994.8

GOVERNMENT................................................. . 12,535 12,856 12,680 13,038 13,156 13,225
2,659 2,655 2 ,6 8 '
Federal.................... .................. ................ 2,705 2,664 2 , 6 6 6
State and local............................................ . 9,830 10,191 10,014 10,379 10,501 10,541


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

1,393.1
1,871.7
1,869.2
1,789.3
464.0

399.3

Food and kindred products................... 1,782.8 1,758.3 1,887.0 1,809.6 1,776.7 1,738.7 1,691.5 1,672.2 1,679.4 1,675.6 1,689.6 1,767.1
66.8
66.5
67.9
69.3
76.2
70.7
72.6
79.8
83.8
88.5
82.9
76.3
Tobacco manufactures..........................
975.9 957.0 959.4 960.9 969.0 971.S 967.8 971.9 980.4 980.9 984.8 1 ,0 0 1 . 6
Textile mill products.................. ........
1,332.4
1,345.1
1,336.8
1,343.0
1,308.4
1,336.8
1,327.3
Apparel and other textile products....... 1,364.6 1,335.7 1,345.6 1,350.6 1,352.0
705.5 683.6 692.7 687.8 689.6 689.9 680.2 680.1 683.0 687.1 691.9 706.3
Paper and allied products................. .
1,079.7
Printing and publishing........ ............ . 1 , 1 0 1 . 6 1,071.2 1,064.8 1,070.7 1,071.3 1,074.6 1,068.6 1,070.8 1,074.7 1,075.1 1,074.8 1,009.4
Chemicals and allied products............. 1,049.0 1,008.2 1,003.0 999.2 997.8 995.1 989.8 990.8 994.7 9S6.5 998.5
183.9
187.7 187.5 188.6 190.2 193.7
190.8 190.6 192.7 191.3 189.8 189.3
Petroleum and coal products.......... .
580.1 580.9 594.7 536.4 536.0 536.5 536.4 602.1 607.i 611.6 617.9 632.3
Rubber and plastics products, n e c .....
320.4 302.4 300.0 298.6 302.9 302.3 300.4 303.6 302.5 302.0 307.1 314.7
Leather and leather products...............
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES......................................................

1,375.6
1,858.7
1,838.4
1,725.2
460.6

13,178 13,331 13,391 13,387 13,430 13,311 12,749 12,681 13,193
2,652 2,656 2,656 2,664 2,662 2,659 2,645 2,644 2,639
10,524 10,675 10,735 10,723 10,768 10,652 10,104 10,037 10,554

inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance,
repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production
for plant’s own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely
associated with the above production operations.
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table B-2.
p=preliminary.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
14.

PAYROLL DATA

95

Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1

[In thousands]
1971

1972

Industry division and group
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.p

70,843

70,861

71,103

71,291

71,552

71,744

72,011

72,246

72,592

72,699

72,661

72,980

618

521

524

611

615

613

614

605

604

600

599

603

606

3,436

3,475

3,518

3,468

3,523

3,494

3,512

3,493

3,535

3,550

3,489

3,537

3,538

18,517
13,454

18,495
13,426

18,534
13,468

18,519
13,453

18,551
13,492

18,612
13,544

18,685
,13,616

18,790
13,711

18,892
13,798

18,931
13,846

18,861
13,785

18,932
13,849

19,019
13,913

10,552
7,606

10,547
7,600

10,560
7,616

10,552
7,608

10,575
7,637

10,621
7,680

10,673
7,729

10,755
7,805

10,837
7,876

10,857
7,899

10,843
7,889

10,899
7,946

10,969

Ordnance and accessories_____________
Lumber and wood products____________
Furniture and fixtures________________
Stone, clay, and glass products_________
Primary metal industries____ _________

188
592
465
637
1,192

187
596
467
637
1,191

185
601
470
639
1,187

183
601
474
638
1,184

183
604
477
645
1,192

182
604
481
646
1,190

182
606
483
650
1,209

185
610
486
651
1,215

186
610
488
660
1,228

188
611
490
662
1,222

190
613
494
660
1,214

191
616
496
663
1,235

193
613
495
664
1,271

Fabricated metal products_____________
Machinery, except electrical___________
Electrical equipment. __ __________ .
Transportation equipment_____________
Instruments and related products______

1,338
1,805
1,765
1,720
439

1,334
1,804
1,773
1,708
441

1,334
1,808
1,773
1,713
441

1,329
1,809
1,779
1,705
438

1,335
1,803
1,778
1,699
442

1,341
1,815
1,786
1,712
443

1,347
1,814
1,795
1,720
444

1,360
1,824
1,805
1,747
447

1,370
1,848
1,818
1,754
452

1,373
1,858
1,830
1,740
457

1,370
1,855
1,826
1,743
456

1,376
1,870
1,835
1,733
458

1,382
1,874
1,851
1,737
463

TOTAL________________ ____ ___________
MINING____________________________

.

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION_____________
MANUFACTURING_____________ ____ ______
Production workers2. _____ ___________
Durable goods_________ _____________
Production workers2 ________________

Miscellaneous manufacturing_________

Sept.p
73,221

8,002

411

409

409

412

417

421

423

425

423

426

422

426

426

Nondurable goods.. ________ . . . . .
Production workers2 _________________

7,965
5,848

7,948
5,826

7,974
5,852

7,967
5,845

7,976
5,855

7,991
5,864

8,012

5,887

8,035
5,906

8,055
5,922

8,074
5,947

8,018
5,896

8,033
5,903

8,050
5,911

Food and kindred products____________
Tobacco manufactures________________
Textile mill products_________________
Apparel and other textile products______
Paper and allied products_____________

1,762
75
957
1,332
690

1,7371
73
960
1,336
689

1,756,
74
965
1,341

1,755
72
969
1,331
686

1,751
73
976
1,336
685

1,759
76
981
1,334
687

1,756
77
984
1,344
691

1,755
76
988
1,334
700

1,771
75
991
1,329
699

1,757
75
986
1,311
698

1,739
71
993
1,330
699

1,742

686

1,758
73
973
1,328
684

Printing and publishing______________
Chemicals and allied products .
Petroleum and coal products___________
Rubber and plastics products, nec______
Leather and leather products_______ .

1,067

1,069

1,067
1 ,0 0 1

1,074
997
191
609
304

1,076
996
191
615
305

1,002

1,0 01

190
593
301

1,072
997
193
605
303

1,079

1,002

1,072
998
189
600
301

1,080

1,002

1,068
999
192
594
301

1,076
995
188
627
305

1,078
998
189
630
306

1,080
1,005
189
636
304

190
589
301

190
592
300

190
621
309

190
630
309

66

993
1,332
703

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES.

4,420

4,406

4,403

4,432

4,455

4,438

4,487

4,481

4,490

4,491

4,473

4,487

4,490

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE_________
Wholesale trade________
Retail trade. ________________ . . .

15,232
3,817
11,415

15,250
3,822
11,428

15,299
3,830
11,469

15,333
3,840
11,493

15,379
3,849
11,530

15,456
3,863
11,593

15,508
3,883
11,625

15,561
3,894
11,667

15,632
3,914
11,718

15,682
3,926
11,756

15,692
3,913
11,779

15,743
3,934
11,809

15,774
3,954
11,820

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE..

3,821

3,835

3,847

3,855

3,867

3,874

3,885

3,892

3,913

3,931

3,927

3,936

3,951

SERVICES______________
Hotels and other lodging places___________
Personal services_______ .
Medical and other health services_________
Educational services_________

11,918
811
926
3,301
1,147

11,951
806
925
3,312
1,147

11,997
808
930
3,324
1,148

12,042
819
922
3,345
1,146

12,069
828
920
3,355
1,145

12,112

831
921
3,371
1,150

12,139
834
917
3,384
1,156

12,206
829
917
3,404
1,161

12,252
837
914
3,430
1,159

12,290
858
911
3,429
1 161

12,341
843
907
3,436
i; 1RS

12,424
860
<iin
3,458
165

12,438

GOVERNMENT_____________
Federal.
.
... .
State and local. . _______

12,881
2,663
10,218

12,928
2,662
10,266

12,981

13,031

13,093
2,673
10,420

13,145
2,669
10,476

13,181
2,667
10,514

13,218
2,664
10,554

13,274
2,665
10,609

13,224
2,646
10,578

13,279
2,621
10,658

13,318
2,618
10,700

13,405
2,636
10,769

2,666

2,666

10,315

10,365

1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment
and Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9)
2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers
(including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling,
inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance,


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

1

repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production
for plant's own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely
associated with the above production operations.
NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through
June 1972 For additional detail, see October 1972 issue of Employment and Earn­
ings.
p=preliminary.

96

LABOR TURNOVER

15.

Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1962 to date 1

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

[Per 100 employees]
Year

Annual
average

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

2.4
2.5

Total accessions
1962______________
1963______________
1964______________
1965______________

4.1
3.9
4.0
4.3

4.1
3.6
3.6
3.8

3.6
3.3
3.4
3.5

3.8
3.5
3.7
4.0

4.0
3.9
3.8
3.8

4.3
3.9
3.9
4.1

5.0
4.8
5.1
5.6

4.6
4.3
4.4
4.5

5.1
4.8
5.1
5.4

4.9
4.8
4.8
5.5

3.9
3.9
4.0
4.5

3.0
2.9
3.2
3.9

1966______________
1967______________
1968______________
1969______________
1 9 7 0 -......... ........

5.0
4.4
4.6
4.7
4.0

4.6
4.3
4.2
4.6
4.0

4.2
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.6

4.9
3.9
4.0
4.4
3.7

4.6
3.9
4.3
4.5
3.7

5.1
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.2

6.7
5.9
5.9

6.4
5.5
5.8
5.6
5.1

6.1

5.4

5.1
4.7
5.0
5.1
4.4

5.3
5.7
5.9
4.7

5.1
4.7
5.1
4.9
3.8

3.9
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.0

3.1
2.9
2.4

1971______________

3.9

3.5
4.1

3.1
3.7

3.5
4.0

r3.6
4.0

*4.0
4 .8

4.9
5.2

4.0
4.6

5.3

4.8

*3.9

3.3

2.5

2.5

1.4

1Q 7?

6 .6

p5

2 .6

3.1
2.9
2 .8

.9

New hires
2.5
2.4

2.2

2 .2
2 .0
2 .2
2 .8

2.4
2.3
2.4

2.5
2.5
3.0

3.5
3.3
3.6
4.3

2.9
2.7
2.9
3.2

3.2
3.2
3.4
3.9

3.1
3.2
3.5
4.0

2 .6
2 .8

1 .8
1 .8
2 .2

3.5

2.9

5.6
4.6
4.7
5.4
3.9

3.9
3.3
3.7
3.9
3.0

4.8
4.0
4.3
4.3
3.5

4.7
4.1
4.6
4.8
3.4

4 2
3.7
4.0
4.0
2.7

3.1

3.5
4.1

2.7
*3.4

3.4

CO

1962______________
1963______________
1964______________
1965______________

2 .8

2 .0

3.1

2.4

2.4

1966______________
1967______________
1968______________
1969______________
1970______________

3.8
3.3
3.5
3.7

3.2
3.0
3.0
3.3
2.9

3.1
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.5

3.7

3.6

2 .8

2.8

2.9
3.4

3.2
3.5

4.1
3.3
3.6
3.8

2 .6

2 .6

2 .8

1971______________

2.5

2 .0
r2 . 6

1.9
2.4

2 .2

2.3
r2.9

2 .6

2 .8

197?

2.7

2.6

3.6

p

1 .2
1.6
2 .2

2 .8

2.1
2 .0
2 .2
2 .1

1.9

1.4

2 .2

1 .6

2 .8

2.9

*3-

2 .6

2.1
1.8
2 .0

1.9

2.7

5.1
4.8
4.3
5.1

5.0
4.9
5.1
5.6

4.4
4.1
4.2
4.5

4.0
3.9
3.6
3.9

3.8
3.7
3.7
4.1

5.8
5.3

6 .6
6 .2

6 .0
6 .2

6.3

4.3
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.3

4.2
3.9
3.8
4.2
4.1

4 .5

Total separations
1962______________
1963______________
1964______________
1965______________

4.1
3.9
3.9
4.1

3.9
4.0
4.0
3.7

3.4
3.2
3.3
3.1

3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4

3.6
3.6
3.5
3.7

3.8
3.6
3.6
3.6

3.8
3.4
3.5
3.6

4.1
4.4
4.3

1966______________
1967______________
1968______________
1969______________
1970______________

4.6
4.6
4.6
4.9
4.8

4.0
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.8

3.6
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.3

4.1
4.6
4.1
4.4
4.4

4.3
4.3
4.1
4.5
4.8

4.3
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.6

4.4
4.3
4.1
4.6
4.4

5.3
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.3

1971________ ____ -

4.2

4.2
4.0

3.5
3.5

3.7
3.8

r3.9
3 7

3.7
*3.9

3.8
4.2

4.8
*4 8

1Q 77

4 .4

p

5.6

6 .6
6 .0

4.8
4.7
5.0
5.4
5.3

5.5

5.3

4.3

3.7

3.8

2.1
2.1
2.1
2 .6

2.4
2.4
2.7
3.5

1.5
1.5
1.7

1.1
1 .1
1.2

0 .8
.8
1 .0

4.5
4.0
4.2
4.4
3.3

2 .8

5 .5

Quits

1.5

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7

1.5
1.4
1.5
1.7

1.5
1.4
1.4
1.7

2.3

2.5

2.5

1.9
1.9

2.1
2.1

2.3

2.1

2.4

2.4
2.7

2 .1

1.9

2 .0

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

2.5
2.3
2.3

1.5
1.7

1.3

1.5
1.9

1.6
2 .0

1962______________
1963______ _______
1964____ _________
1965.......... .........

1.4
1.4
1.5
1.9

1.1
1.1
1 .2

1 .1
1.0
1.1

1.4

1.3

1966______________
1967______________
1968______________
1969______________
1970______________

2 .6

1.9

1.8

2.3
2.5
2.7

2.1
2 .0

2 .1

1971______________

1 .8

197?

1 .6

1 .2
1.2
1 .2

2 .2

2.1

1.7
2

2

1.4
1.4
1.5
1 .8

2 .6
2.1

2 .1

3.6
3.2
3.8
4.0
3.0

1.8
2 .2

1 .8
2 .2

P3.6

2.5
2.1

2.4
2.7

2 .2

1.7

1.4

2 .8

2.1

1.7
1.5

2.5

1.9

2 .8

3.0

2.1
2.1

2.1

1.4

1 .6
1.6
1 .2

2.9

1.9

1.5

1 .2

2.5
2.3

Layoffs
1962____ _________
1963______________
1964______________
1965______ _______

2 .0
1 .8

1966______________
1967______________
1968______________
1969
1970______ _______

1 .2
1 .2
1.2
1 .8

1.2

1.7

1971______________

1 .6

1.9
1 4

1.7
1.4
1.4

2.1
2 .2
2 .0
1 .6

1.3
1.5
1.5

1.7

1 .6

1.6
1 .6
1 .2

1.7

1 .6
1.6

1.6
1.2

1.4
1.3

1 .0

1 .0

1 .0

.9

1.3

1.5

1.3

1 .2
1 .0

1.0

1.1
1 .0

1.5

1.1
1.0
1.6

.9
1.7

.9
1.5

.9
.9
1.5

1.4

1.4

1.4

1 1

1 .1

1 .0

1.2
8

1 .2
1 .1

1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment and
Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9).


Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufactur­
ing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1 .6

1.6

1.5
1.4

1.4
1.3

1.1

1.1
1 .0
1 .1

2 .2
2 .0
2.1
1 .8

2 .2

1.9

2.2

2.3

1.9
1.4

1 .8

1.9

2.1

1.5
1.3

1 .8

2 .0

1.9

1.1
1 .2

1 .6

2.1

1.4

1.7
1.5

i. i
1.3

1.3
1.3

1.9

1.8
1.6

1.1

1 .0
1 .2
1.1
1.1

1.3

1.3

1.7
1 .6
1.4
1 .8

2.3

1.7

1.7

2 .2

2.1

2 .2

2.1

1 .8

1.5

1.5

1.5

1 .8

*1.7

P.9

1.3

1.2

1.2

shown by the Bureau’s employment series because (1) the labor turnover series n e ¡sures changes during the calendar month, while the employment series measures
changes from midmonth to midmonth, and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel
changes caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence of such
stoppages.
p=preliminary.
r= revised.

LABOR TURNOVER

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
16.

97

Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group 1

[Per 100 employees]
Separation rates

Accession rates

Layoffs

Quits

Total

New hires

Total

Major industry group
Aug.
1971

July
1972

Aug.
1972 p

Aug.
1971

July
1972

Aug.
1972 p

Aug.
1971

July
1972

Aug.
1972 p

Aug.
1971

July
1972

Aug.
1972 p

Aug.
1971

July
1972

Aug.
1972 p

N UFACTURING _______________________
Seasonally adjusted 2______________

5.3
4.2

4.6
4.3

5.9
4.7

3.4
2.7

3.4
3.2

4.5
3.5

5.5
4.4

4.8
4.4

5.5
4.4

2.8

3.6
2.4

1.8

1.7

1.9

1.2

0.9
1.0

Durable goods_______________________

4.8

4.1

5.3

2.9

3.9

5.4

4.6

4.9

.8

2.8

6.5
7.5
4.7
3.8

2.6
5.5
6.6

2.2
1.1
.8
1.2
1.2

1.9

2 9
5.9
6.7
4.4
2.7

2.2
1.2

3.1

21

2.8
1.2

2.2
2.2
1.8

6.3

.6
.8

.9

.6
.8
.6

4 6
2.9
3.3
4 6
3.0

1.4

.8

4.1

2.4
2.3

2.6

1.2
.8
.8

Instruments and related products......

5 0
2.9
3.9
7.2
3.1

.3

Miscellaneous manufacturing________

6.6

7.2

8.3

5.4

1.1

Nondurable goods____________________

5.9

5.3

6.7

4.2

Food and kindred products. ________
Tobacco manufactures______________
Textile mill products_______________
Apparel and other textile products----Paper and allied products___________

9.4
19.1

8.1

10.4

6.9
12.5
4.9
4.5

Printing and publishing_____________
Chemicals and allied products_______
Petroleum and coal products________
Rubber and plastics products, nec_. ..
Leather and leather products......... .

2.5
1.5
1.7
3.8
4.2

Lumber and wood products_________
Furniture and fixtures______________
Stone, clay, and glass products.........
Primary metal industries___________
Machinery, except electrical_________

6.9
9.1
5.3
3.7
3.7

10.8

7.4
3.3

3.3

3.4

3.5
2.4
1.9
6.9
7.9

2.0
1.9
5.4
5.8

2.1
1.6
5.0
7.9

5.5
6.4
3.6
1.4

6.0
3.6
1.6

3.5

7.9
5.6
6.7
3.2

6.1

1.9
5.2

7.7
8.5
3.6

1.6
2.2

2.6

4.4
2.5

3.9
2.9

7.5
8.9
5.7
3.5

4.9
4.7
3.0

.9
3.8
4.1

2.2

5.8
6.5
3.9

2.0

.7
1.3

3.4
2.3
2.3

2.9

2.4

3.5

5.1
3.3
3.4
7.2
3.2

3.6

2.5

.6

7.0
.5

5.1

6.8

6.0

2.6
6.6

1.6
2.6
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.8

7.1

3.6

2.9

4.6

1.3

2.7

3.9

5.2

5.7

5.0

6.3

3.4

2.7

4.4

1.4

1.6

1.0

5.8
3.4
4.5
4.5

8.2
8.1

7.8
10.5
6.7
6.3
4.0

6.0

8.3
7.4

4.5
4.2
4.7
4.0
2.4

3.1
1.3
4.1
3.7

5.6
3.9
6.3
5.3
3.0

2.5
5.2
.7
1.3
.7

2.3
.9
.8
3.1
.7

1.9
2.4
.4

2.7

2.9
1.9
1.5
5.2
5.6

2.7

.9
.7
.5
1.4
2.5

.7

.7
.5
.3
.5

6.4
5.8
3.0

2.6
1.6

1.4
4.0
5.3

1

4.1

2.8

3.9

3.2
9.5

2.9
5.9
7.8
3.0

3.9
2.9
3.0
5.6

8.0

7.6
4.4

3.1

2.2

1.9
4.8

8.0

8.6

4.0
3.1
2.9

6.0
8.6

2.3
1.5
1.7
3.1
4.3

1.0

2.0
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.4

1.6
1.8

.9
.7
2.7
4.3

1.2

2.2

.7
4.5

1.8
1.6

4.2
5.8

.5

1.1
.5

.6

.6
1.0
3.1

1.6

changes from midmonth to midmonth, and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel
changes caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence of such
stoppages.
These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through June
1972. For additional detail, see October 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings.

The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data, will be published in Employment
and Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9).
Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufactur­
ing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes
shown by the Bureau's employment series because (1) the labor turnover series meas­
ures changes during the calendar month, while the employment series measures

17.

6.7
7.2
5.1
9.0

6.4

8.0

1.9

2

NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table D-2.
p=preliminary.

Job vacancies in manufacturing 1
1972

1971

Annual
average
Industry
1970
Jnh vacancies in manufacturing (number in thousands)______ _
Seasonally adjusted 2
_ __ _____ ___

132

1971

88

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

106

98

86

90
r92

79
r92

78
r93

90
'98

97
106

'110
'111

124
117

127
118

0.6

0.5
.5

0.5
.5

0.4
.5

0.4
.5

0.5
.5

0.5

.6

0.6
.6

0.7

0.7

.4
.5

.5
.5

.5

.5

,i
.4
.5
.3

.2
.5
.6

r86

July

Aug.p

'124
'127

134
130

159
130

0.6

0.7
.7

0.8

.6

.7
r .7

May Junep

JOB VACANCY RATES 2
Manufacturing
Seasonally adjusted 2

___ _________ -- _______
..........

0.7

0.5

.5

... ._ .. --------------____ ______ - --

.6

.4

.6

.5

.5

.7

.4
.5

.4
.5

Selected durable goods industries:
Primary metal industries
__
_
_____________
Machinery, except electrical
. __________ ___________
Electrical equipment and supplies
__
_
Transportation equipment
__________________________
Instruments and related products................................

.5
.7
.7
.5

.2

.2
.4
.6
.6
.8

.2

.2
.4
.6

r,2

.8 1.0
1.2 1.4

.9
'1.3
.3
.4

Durable goods industries. .
Nondurable goods industries.

Selected nondurable goods industries:
Textile mill products
______ _ ___________
Apparel and other textile products______________________
Printing and publishing
.. . ___________________
Chemicals and allied products.............. .............. ......

1

1.0
.9
1.4

.6

.7

.4
.5
.4
.7

.4
.4

.6

.4
.4

Data have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of
employment) and are not comparable with those published in issues prior to November
1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment and Earnings, United
States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9).
These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through June
1972. For additiinal detail, see October 1972 issue of Employment and Earnings.

2


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

.6
5
.5
.5

.8

r ,5
.7

.9

1.2
.4
.4

3

.4
.5
.4

.6
.8

1.0

.3
.3

.6

.4
.7

.8 .8
1.1 1.2
.3
.3

.3
.4

.6
.6

.6
.6

.7

.6

.6

.7

.7

r.7

.2

.2
.6

.3
.7

.3
.7

.3
.7

.5
.7
.5
.7

.9
'1.3
.3
.4

.7
.5
.9

1.1
1.4
.4
.5

.3

.8
.6

.8
.6

'1.0

1.2 1.2 1.1

r 1.2
1.5
.4
.5

.8 .8
.7
.6
1.1 1.1
1.3
.4

.6

1.4
.4
.5

'1.4

1.4
r.3
.5

1.3

.7

.8

.9
.5

.8
1.0
.7
1.7
1.5

1.6
.4
.5

Computed by dividing the total number of job vacancies by the sum of employ­
ment plus the total number of job vacancies and multiplying the quotient of 100.
NOTE: For additional detail on this series, see Employment and Earnings, tables
E—1, E—2, E-3, and E-4.
p=preliminary.
r= revised.

98

HOURS AND EARNINGS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

18. Gross average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls,
by industry division, 1947-71

Year

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Total private

Average
weekly
hours
Mining

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Contract construction

1947________________________
1948__________ _____________
1949________________________
1950________________________

$45.58
49.00
50.24
53.13

40.3
40.0
39.4
39.8

$1.131
1.225
1.275
1.335

$59.94
65.56
62.33
67.16

40.8
39.4
36.3
37.9

1951________________________
1952________________________
1953_______ ____ ____________
1954________________________
1955________________________

57.86
60.65
63.76
64.52
67.72

39.9
39.9
39.6
39.1
39.6

1.45
1.52
1.61
1.65
1.71

74.11
77.59
83.03
82.60
89.54

38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7

1956________________________
1957________________________
1958________________________
1959 ________________ ____ __
1960________________________

70.74
73.33
75.08
78.78
80.67

39.3
38.8
38.5
39.0
38.6

1.80
1.89
1.95

2.09

95.06
98.65
96.08
103.68
105.44

1961________________________
1962...______ _______________
1963________________________
1964________________________
1965________________________

82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.06

38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8

2.28
2.36
2.45

1966________________________
1967________________________
1968_______________ ________
1969________________________
1970________________________

98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.46

38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1

1971________________________

126.91

37.0

2

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Manufacturing

$1.469
1.664
1.717
1.772

$58.87
65.27
67.56
69.68

38.2
38.1
37.7
37.4

$1.541
1.713
1.792
1.863

$49.17
53.12
53.88
58.32

40.4
40.0
39.1
40.5

$1.217
1.328
1.378
1.440

1.93

2.20

76.96
82.86
86.41
88.91
90.90

38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1

2.02

2.14
2.14

2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45

63.34
67.16
70.47
70.49
75.70

40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7

1,56
1.65
1.74
1.78

40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4

2.33
2.46
2.47
2.56
2.61

96.38
100.27
103.78
108.41
113.04

37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7

2.57
2.71
2.82
2.93
3.08

78.78
81.59
82.71
88.26
89.72

40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7

1.95
2.05

2.11

106.92
110.43
114.40
117.74
123,52

40.5
40.9
41.6
41.9
42.3

2.64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92

118.08
122.47
127.19
132.06
138.38

36.9
37.0
37.3
37.2
37.4

3.20
3.31
3.41
3.55
3.70

92.34
96.56
99.63
102.97
107.53

39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2

2.32
2.39
2.46
2.53
2.61

2.85
3.04
3.22

130.24
135.89
142.71
155.23
164.40

42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7

3.05
3.19
3.35
3.61
3.85

146.26
154.95
164.93
181.54
195.98

37.6
37.7
37.4
37.9
37.4

3.89
4.11
4.41
4.79
5.24

112.34
114.90
122.51
129.51
133.73

41.3
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8

2.72
2.83
3.01
3.19
3.36

3.43

171.74

42.3

4.06

212.24

37.3

5.69

142.04

39.9

3.56

2.02
2.14

2.22

2.56

2.68

Transportation and public
utilities

2.01

Wholesale and retail trade

Finance, insurance, and
real estate

1.86

2.19
2.26

Services

1947_____ ____ ____ _________
1948_______________ ________
1949__________________ ....
1950________________________

$38.07
40.80
42.93
44.55

40.5
40.4
40.5
40.5

$0 940
'1.010
060
100

$43
45
47
50

21
48
63
52

37
37
37
37

9
9
8
7

1951________________________
1952________________________
1953________________________
1954________________________
1955__________________ _____

47.79
49.20
51.35
53,33
55.16

40.5
40 0
39.5
39 5
39.4

1.18
1 23
1.30
1 35
1.40

54
57
59
62
63

67
08
57
04
92

37
37
37
37
37

7
8
7
6
6

1
1
1
1
1

45
51
58
65
70

1956________________________
1957________________________
1958__________________
..
1959 2___ ______ _____________
1960________________________

57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41

1 47
1.54

66.01

39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6

1 60
1 66
1 71

65
67
70
72
75

68
53
12
74
14

36
36
37
37
37

9
7
1
3
2

1
1
1
1

78
84
89
95
02

1961............................ .
1962________________________
1963________________________
1964____________ ____ ______
1965________________________

$118.37
125.14

41.1
41.3

$2.88
3.03

67.41
69.91
72.01
74.28
76.53

38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7

1.76
1 83
1 89
1.96
2.03

77 12
80 94
84 38
85.79
88.91

36 9
37 3
37 5
37.3
37.2

2 09
2 17
2 25
2.30
2,39

$69.84
73.60

36.0
35.9

$1.94
2.05

1966________________________
1967_______________________
1968________________________
1969________________________
1970________________________

128.13
131.22
138.85
148.15
155.93

41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5

3.11
3.24
3.42
3.64
3.85

79.02
81.76
86.40
91.14
95.66

37.1
36.5
36.0
35.6
35.3

2.13
2.24
2.40
2.56
2.71

92.13
95.46
101.75
108.70
113.34

37.3
37.0
37 0
37.1
36.8

2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.08

77.04
80.38
84.32
90.57
96.66

35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34.4

2.17
2.29
2.43
2.61
2.81

1971________________________

168.84

40.2

4.20

100.74

35.1

2.87

121.36

37.0

3.28

102.94

34.2

3.01

1

The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparablfe back data will be published in Employment
and Earnings, United States 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9).
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction
workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and


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

1
1

$1 140
200
260
1 340

1
1

2

public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and
services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment
on private nonagricultural payrolls.
Da}a include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959.
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-l.

2

HOURS AND EARNINGS

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

99

19. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1972

1971

Annual
average
Industry division and group
1970

1971

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.p

Sept.p
37.4

TOTAL P R IV AT E________________________

37.1

37.0

37.0

37.0

37.0

37.3

36.7

36.8

36.9

37.0

36.9

37.4

37.6

37.6

M IN IN G ________ ________________________

42.7

42.3

42.1

42.8

42.3

42.7

42.4

41.9

42.2

42.4

42.3

43.0

42.4

42.7

43.4

CONTRACT CO NSTRUCTIO N___ _________

37.4

37.3

36.9

38.2

37.9

36.4

35.8

36.0

36.8

36.6

36.8

37.6

37.9

38.2

38.3

M A N U FA C T U R IN G _______________________
Overtime hours____________________

39.8
3.0

39.9
2.9

39.8
3.1

40.0
3.1

40.2
3.1

40.7
3.2

39.8

2.8

40.1
3.0

40.3
3.1

40.5
3.3

40.5
3.3

40.9
3.5

40.4
3.3

40.6
3.5

40.9
3.8

Durable goods_____________________ _
Overtime hours...... ..... ......... ......

40.3
3.0

40.4

2.8

40.0
3.0

40.5
3.0

40.7
3.0

41.4
3.2

40.3

2.8

40.7
3.0

41.0
3.2

41.2
3.4

41.2
3.4

41.6
3.6

40.9
3.4

41.1
3.6

41.5
4.0

Ordnance and accessories------ --------Lumber and wood products______ ...
Furniture and fixtures______________
Stone, clay, and glass products______
Primary metal industries___________

40.5
39.7
39.2
41.2
40.5

41.7
40.3
39.8
41.6
40.4

41.9
40.5
40.0
41.9
39.5

41.7
41.0
40.4
42.2
39.7

42.0
40.6
40.4
41.9
39.9

42.4
40.8
40.9
41.6
41.0

41.7
40.0
39.7
40.9
40.6

42.2
40.3
39.8
41.2
41.0

42.2
40.8
40.1
41.8
41.3

42.1
41.1
40.1
41.9
41.6

42.0
41.3
40.2
42.0
4l.b

42.2
41.8
41.0
42.4
41.8

41.8
41.0
40.0
42.1
41.4

42.7
41.4
41.0
42.2
41.6

42.4
41.2
41.1
42.1
41.8

Fabricated metal products___________
Machinery, except electrical_________
Electrical equipment____ __________
Transportation equipment__________
Instruments and related products____

40.7
41.1
39.8
40.3
40.1

40.4
40.6
39.9
40.7
39.8

40.0
40.6
39.9
39.1
40.0

40.4
40.8
40.1
40.9
40.1

40.6
41.1
40.4
41.1
40.5

41.3
41.9
40.8
42.5
40.8

40.2
41.0
39.9
40.5
40.1

40.5
41.4
40.1
41.1
40.3

40.7
41.7
40.2
41.6
40.3

41.0
41.8
40.4
41.9
40.5

41.2
41.8
40.3
42.0
40.5

41.6
42.2,
40.7
42.1
40.7

41.0
41.6
39.9
41.2
40.1

41.4
41.9
40.4
40.4
40.4

41.5
42.5
40.8
41.7
40.8

Miscellaneous manufacturing .......... .

38.7

38.9

39.0

39.4

39.5

39.5

38.7

39.2

39.3

39.5

39.3

39.6

38.8

39.6

39.6

39.4
3.2

39.6
3.1

39.8
3.1

39.1
2.9

39.2
3.0

39.4
3.1

39.5
3.2

39.5
3.1

39.9
3.4

39.7
3.3

40.0
3.4

40.0
3.6

Nondurable goods---------------- -----------Overtime hours___________________

39.1
3.0

39.3
3.0

39.5
3.4

Food and kindred products__________
Tobacco manufactures______________
Textile mill products. _____ _ ____
Apparel and other textile products____
Paper and allied products___________

40.5
37.8
39.9
35.3
41.9

40.3
37.0
40.6
35.6
42.1

40.8
37.9
40.6
35.6
42.2

40.1
36.1
41.0
35.9
42.3

40.1
35.6
41.4
36.4
42.4

40.6
36.1
41.5
35.9
42.8

39.7
34.1
40.8
35.4
41.9

39.5
33.1
41.0
36.0
42.2

40.0
33.3
41.3
36.0
42.4

40.0
33.1
41.3
36.0
42.6

40.2
33.5
41.1
35.6
42.4

40.6
34.8
41.7
36.0
43.0

40.8
34.1
40.9
36.0
42.8

40.9
35.8
41.4
36.4
43.1

40.9
35.5
44.4
36.0
43.3

Printing and publishing________ ...
Chemicals and allied products_______
Petroleum and coal products________
Rubber and plastics products, nec. ..
Leather and leather products............

37.7'
41.6
42.7
40.3
37.2

37.5
41.6
42.4
40.3
37.7

37.7
42.1
42.9
40.4
36.9

37.5
41.5
42.6
40.6
37.7

37.6
41.6
42.1
40.7
38.4

38.0
41.9
42.3
41.2
38.8

37.0
41.6
41.7
40.6
38.2

37.2
41.6
41.5
40.7
38.5

37.6
41.8
41.6
40.7
37.9

37.8
41.9
42.5
41.0
38.0

37.6
41.6
42.3
41.0
38.7

37.9
42.0
42.4
41.4
39.2

38.0
41.6
42.3
40.7
38.9

38.2
41.4
42.1
41.4
38.8

38.5
41.9
42.7
41.5
38.1

40.5

40.2

40.8

40.4

40.6

40.6

39.8

40.2

40.2

39.9

40.3

40.8

40.7

40.7

40.6

35.5

36.0

36.0

35.1
39.8
33.6

TRAN SPORTATIO N AND PU BLIC
U T ILIT IES____ ________________________
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL T R A D E________

35.3

35.1

35.2

35.0

34.9

35.5

34.7

34.6

34.8

34.8

34.8

Wholesale trade___
_ ....... ...... ...
Retail trade____________________ _____

40.0
33.8

39.8
33.7

39.7
33.7

39.8
33.5

39.8
33.4

40.2
34.1

39.6
33.2

39.7
33.0

39.8
33.2

39.7
33.3

39.8
33.3

40.0
34.1

40.1
34.7

39.9
34.8

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE.

36.8

37.0

36.9

37.1

37.0

37.0

37.3

37.1

37.1

37.3

37.0

37.2

37.4

37.2

37.0

SER VIC ES_______________________________

34.4

34.2

34.1

34.1

34.0

34.2

33.9

34.0

34.0

34.0

33.8

34.2

34.8

34.5

34.3

1

The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment
and Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9).
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction
workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and


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

public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real es­
tate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of
the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls.
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
p= preliminary.

100

HOURS AND EARNINGS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

20.
Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by indus­
try division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
1971

1972

Industry division and group
Sept.
TOTAL PRIVATE________________

.

MINING___ ___________

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.p

Sept.p

36.9

37.0

37.1

37.1

37.0

37.2

37.1

37.3

37.0

37.1

37.2

37.1

37.3

42.1

42.5

42.3

42.4

42.7

42.5

42.8

42.4

42.3

42.6

42.1

42.5

43.4

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION

35.8

37.6

39.0

36.8

37.1

37.3

37.2

36.7

36.7

36.9

37.0

37.1

37.1

MANUFACTURING.........
Overtime hours___________________

39.6

2.8

39.9
3.0

40.1
3.0

40.2
3.1

40.1
2.9

40.4
3.2

40.4
3.3

40.8
3.5

40.5
3.4

40.7
3.4

40.6
3.4

40.6
3.4

40.7
3.5

Durable goods_____________ .
Overtime hours___________________

39.7

40.4

2.8

40.6
2.9

40.9
3.0

40.6
2.9

41.1
3.2

41.0
3.3

41.4
3.7

41.1
3.5

41.3
3.4

41.2
3.5

41.3
3.6

41.2
3.7

Ordnance and accessories........
Lumber and wood products______
Furniture and fixtures______
Stone, clay, and glass products____
Primary metal industries______________

41.8
40.3
39.5
41.4
39.5

41.7
40.7
39.8
41.9
40.3

41.9
40.7
40.0
41.8
40.4

41.9
40.7
40.0
41.6
40.9

41.7
40.9
40.3
41.9
40.6

42.2
40.8
40.6
42.0
41.0

42.0
40.9
40.4
42.0
41.1

42.2
41.1
40.7
42.0
41.4

42.0
41.0
40.5
41.8
41.3

42.0
41.2
40.8
42.0
41.4

42.4
41.1
40.4
41.9
41.4

42.8
41.2
40.5
41.7
41.6

42.3
41.0
40.6
41.6
41.8

Fabricated metal products__
Machinery, except electrical______ .
Electrical equipment____ __
Transportation equipment.
Instruments and related products.........

39.6
40.6
39.7
38.6
39.8

40.2
40.8
39.9
40.4
40.0

40.5
41.1
40.1
40.7
40.1

40.9
41.2
40.2
41.5
40.4

40.6
41.0
40.0
40.9
40.3

41.0
41.4
40.6
41.7
40.6

40.9
41.4
40.2
41.7
40.3

41.4
41.9
40.8
43.0
40.7

41.1
41.8
40.4
41.9
40.6

41.2
42.1
40.5
41.6
40.6

41.3
42.0
40.3
41.3
40.4

41.3
42.4
40.4
41.2
40.6

41.0
42.5
40.6
41.2
40.6

Miscellaneous manufacturing.

2.8

39.0

39.1

39.1

39.2

39.1

39.4

39.2

39.6

39.4

39.5

39.3

39.5

39.6

39.2
3.1

39.3
3.0

39.5
3.0

39.5
3.0

39.4
3.1

39.6
3.2

39.6
3.3

39.8
3.5

39.6
3.2

39.7
3.3

39.6
3.3

39.8
3.2

39.7
3.2

Food and kindred products...... ...... ..
Tobacco manufactures______ .
Textile mill products_______ _ ______
Apparel and other textile products..... .
Paper and allied products_____________

40.0
36.5
40.5
35.7
41.9

40.1
35.1
40.8
35.9
42.1

40.0
35.6
41.1
36.2
42.3

40.3
35.5
41.0
35.9
42.4

40.0
34.6
41.2
35.9
42.2

40.1
34.1
41.2
36.2
42.6

40.6
34.5
41.4
35.8
42.7

40.7
34.1
41.7
36.2
42.9

40.4
33.7
41.2
35.6
42.5

40.5
34.2
41.3
35.9
43.0

40.4
34.3
41.2
36'. 0
42.8

40.3
35.4
41.3
36.1
42.9

40.1
34.2
41 3
36.1
43.0

Printing and publishing_______________
Chemicals and allied pToducts .
Petroleum and coal products_____ _____
Rubber and plastics products, nec_____
Leather and leather products_______ .

37.4
42.0
42.4
40.0
37.5

37.5
41.5
42.3
40.4
37.9

37.6
41.5
42.0
40.6
38.2

37.5
41.7
42.6
40.8
38.0

37.4
41.7
42.4
40.8
38.1

37.6
41.8
42.2
41.0
38.5

37.6
41.8
42.2
41.0
38.2

38.0
41.7
42.4
41.3
39.1

37.7
41.6
42.0
41.0
38.6

37.9
42.0
42.2
41.3
38.6

37.8
41.8
41.6
40.9
38.4

38.0
41.6
41.9
41.4
38.9

38 ?
41.8
42.2
41.1
38.7

Nondurable g o o d s ...________
Overtime hours_________ _

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES..

40.5

40.2

40.4

40.5

40.2

40.3

40.4

40.4

40.6

40.6

40.3

40.6

40.4

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE_________

35.1

35.2

35.2

35.3

35.1

35.1

35.2

35.2

35.1

35.3

35.1

35.1

35.0

39.7
33.6

39.8
33.7

39.9
33.7

39.8
33.9

39.8
33.7

39.9
33.6

39.9
33.6

39.9
33.7

40.0
33.7

39.9
33.8

39.8
33.7

39.7
33.7

39.8
33.5

Wholesale trade... __________________
Retail trade__________________________
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE...

37.0

37.1

37.0

37.0

37.3

37.1

37.1

37.3

37.1

37.2

37.3

37.1

37.1

SERVICES____________

34.2

34.2

34.1

34.2

34.1

34.2

34.1

34.1

34.0

34.1

34.3

34.0

34.4

1

The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment
and Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9)
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction
workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and
public utilities; wholesale and .retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and


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

services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment
on private nonagricultural payrolls.
NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through
June 1972. For additional details see October 1972 issue of Employment and Earn­
ings.
p=preliminary.

HO URS

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

AND

E A R N IN G S

101

21. Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory w orkers1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1972

1971

Annual
average
Industry division and group
1970

1971

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.p

Sept.p

TOTAL PRIVATE_______________________

$3.22

$3.43

$3.50

$3.50

$3.49

$3.52

$3.55

$3.56

$3.58

$3.61

$3.62

$3.63

$3.64

$3.65

$3.71

MINING_______________________________

3.85

4.06

4.16

3.92

3.93

4.28

4.34

4.33

4.32

4.36

4.33

4.34

4.35

4.37

4.44

CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION____________

5.24

5.69

5.83

5.87

5.87

5.90

5.96

5.95

5.94

5.96

6.01

5.94

5.96

6.02

6.14

MANUFACTURING_____________________

3.36

3.56

3.60

3.59

3.59

3.69

3.70

3.72

3.74

3.76

3.78

3.79

3.78

3.80

3.85

Durable goods_________________

3.55

3.79

3.82

3.82

3.82

3.92

3.94

3.96

3.98

4.01

4.02

4.03

4.01

4.04

4.10

Ordnance and accessories___________
Lumber and wood products_______ _
Furniture and fixtures___
_ ______
Stone, clay, and glass products .
Primary metal industries,
. .

3.61
2.96
2.77
3.40
3.93

3.84
3.15
2.90
3.66
4.23

3.89
3.22
2.95
3.75
4.34

3.90
3.22
2.93
3.73
4.34

3.87
3.21
2.93
3.72
4.36

3.98
3.19
2.98
3.74
4.49

3.98
3.21
2.98
3.76
4.53

4.03
3.21
2.99
3.78
4.54

4.01
3.23
3.02
3.82
4.56

4.06
3.26
3.03
3.85
4.60

4.07
3.29
3.03
3.87
4.61

4.09
3.33
3.05
3.91
4.62

4.10
3.34
3.04
3.93
4.64

4.11
3.34
3.07
3.96
4.69

4.15
3.36
3.12
3.99
4.74

Fabricated metal products, _ _ , , ,
Machinery, except electrical_________
Electrical equipment______________ _
Transportation equipment. . _____
Instruments and related products......

3.53
3.77
3.28
4.05
3.35

3.74
3.99
3.48
4.41
3.52

3.77
4.04
3.51
4.39
3.56

3.76
4.04
3.50
4.41
3.54

3.77
4.04
3.50
4.41
3.55

3.86
4.15
3.58
4.59
3.61

3.88
4.16
3.59
4.57
3.66

3.89
4.18
3.60
4.62
3.68

3.92
4.20
3.62
4.64
3.69

3.94
4.22
3.62
4.69
3.70

3.95
4.24
3.64
4.71
3.71

3.98
4.26
3.65
4.69
3.71

3.97
4.24
3.66
4.63
3.70

4.00
4.26
3.68
4.69
3.72

4.05
4.34
3.72
4.77
3.74

Miscellaneous manufacturing________

2.83

2.97

2.98

2.97

2.98

3.06

3.08

3.07

3.07

3.09

3.10

3.10

3.09

3.09

3.12

Nondurable goods__ _____ ________

3.08

3.26

3.31

3.29

3.29

3.37

3.39

3.40

3.41

3.43

3.44

3.45

3.48

3.47

3.51

Food and kindred products__________
Tobacco manufactures_____ _ _ _ _
Textile mill products_______ ., .
Apparel and other textile products___
Paper and allied products_____ _____

3.16
2.91
2.45
2.39
3.44

3.38
3.15
2.57
2.49
3.67

3.38
3.01
2.58
2.52
3.76

3.38
3.00
2.59
2.51
3.73

3.41
3.07
2.59
2.51
3.73

3.52
3.29
2.62
2.54
3.80

3.53
3.32
2.69
2.55
3.81

3.54
3.38
2.71
2.57
3.83

3.56
3.40
2.71
2.57
3.84

3.59
3.46
2.71
2.58
3.86

3.61
3.49
2.71
2.57
3.87

3.59
3.53
2.72
2.59
3.92

3.59
3.57
2.71
2.58
3.97

3.56
3.36
2.73
2.62
3.98

3.59
3.33
2.75
2.64
3.99

Printing and publishing_____ _______
Chemicals and allied products_______
Petroleum and coal products
Rubber and plastics products, nec___ .
Leather and leather products...... .....

3.92
3.69
4.28
3.20
2.49

4.20
3.94
4.57
3.40
2.60

4.29
4.03
4.66
3.46
2.62

4.27
4.00
4.65
3.45
2.63

4.28
4.00
4.64
3.44
2.62

4.36
4.06
4.64
3.51
2.65

4.36
4.10
4.83
3.52

4.36
4.12
4.87
3.52
2.70

4.40
4.11
4.88
3.52
2.70

4.44
4.12
4.93
3.55
2.70

4.47
4.16
4.95
3.55
2.71

4.47
4.20
4.94
3.56
2.70

4.47
4.23
4.97
3.61
2.70

4.49
4.22
4.95
3.63
2.71

4.57
4.26
5.02
3.65
2.72

,,

2.68

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES___________________________

3.85

4.20

4.33

4.31

4.32

4.40

4.45

4.47

4.50

4.55

4.57

4.58

4.66

4.68

4.71

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE_______

2.71

2.87

2.90

2.90

2.91

2.91

2.97

2.98

2.98

3.00

2.99

3.00

3.01

3.00

3.04

Wholesale trade_______________________
Retail trade________
_ ... ________

3.44
2.44

3.67
2.57

3.72
2.60

3.72
2.60

3.74
2.60

3.78
2.61

2.66 2.66

3.82

3.82

3.83
2.67

2.68

3.86

3.84
2.69

3.85
2.69

3.87
2.70

3.86
2.69

3.90
2.72

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE.

3.08

3.28

3.30

3.31

3.30

3.34

3.40

3.40

3.40

3.45

3.43

3.43

3.45

3.44

3.45

SERVICES_____________________________

2.81

3.01

3.06

3.06

3.06

3.09

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.16

3.15

3.14

3.14

3.15

3.20

1

The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment
and Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9)
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction
workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and


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

public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and
services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment
on private nonagricultural payrolls.
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
p=preliminary.

102

HOURS AND EARNINGS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

22. Gross average weekly earnings of production or non supervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by
industry division and major manufacturing group
1971

Annual average

1972

Industry division and group
1970

1971

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.p

TOTAL PR IV A T E__________ $119.46 $126.91 $129.50 $129.50 $129.13 $131.30 $130.29 $131.01 $132.10 $133.57 $133.58 $135.76 $136.86 $137.24

Sept.p
$138.75

M IN IN G ______ ____________

164.40

171.74

175.14

167.78

166.24

182.76

184.02

181.43

182.30

184.86

183.16

186.62

184.44

186.60

192.70

CONTRACT CONSTRUCT IO N ___________________

195.98

212.24

215.13

224.23

222.47

214.76

213.37

214.20

218.59

218.14

221.17

223.34

225.88

229.96

235.16

M A N U FA C T U R IN G ________

133.73

142.04

143.28

143.60

144.32

150.18

147.26

149.17

150.72

152.28

153.09

155.01

152.71

154.28

157.47

Durable goods_________

143.07

153.12

152.80

154.71

155.47

162.29

158.78

161.17

163.18

165.21

165.62

167.65

164.01

166.04

170.15

Ordnance and accessories.
Lumber and wood
products_____________
Furniture and fixtures____
Stone, clay, and glass
products____ ________

146.21

160.13

162.99

162.63

162.54

168.75

165.97

170.07

169.22

170.93

170.94

172.60

171.38

175.50

175.96

117.51
108.58

126.95
115.42

130.41
118.00

132.02
118.37

130.33
118.37

130.15

128.40
118.31

129.36
119.00

131.78

133.99
121.50

135.88
121.81

139.19
125.05

136.94
121.60

138.28
125.87

138.43
128.23

121.88

121.10

140.08

152.26

157.13

157.41

155.87

155.58

153.78

155.74

159.68

161.32

162.54

165.78

165.45

167.11

167.98

Primary metal industries.. 159.17
Fabricated metal products. 143.67

170.89
151.10

171.43
150.80

172.30
151.90

173.96
153.06

184.09
159.42

183.92
155.98

186.14
157.55

188.33
159.54

191.36
161.54

191.32
162.74

193.12
165.57

192.10
162.77

195.10
165.66

198.13
168.08

Machinery, except
electrical____ ____ ___
Electrical equipment.. ..

161.99
138.85

164.02
140.05

164.83
140.35

166.04
141.40

173.89
146.06

170.56
143.24

173.05
144.36

175.14
145.52

176.40
146.25

177.23
146.69

179.77
148.56

176.38
146.03

178.49
148.67

184.45
151.78

163.22

179.49

171.65

180.37

181.25

195.08

185.09

189.88

193.02

196.51

197.82

197.45

190.76

189.48

198.91

134.34

140.10

142.40

141.95

143.78

147.29

146.77

148.30

148.71

149.85

150.26

151.00

148.37

150.29

152.59

Miscellaneous manufacturing_______________

109.52

115.53

116.22

117.02

117.71

120.87

119.20

120.34

120.65

122.06

121.83

122.76

119.89

122.36

123.55

Nondurable goods........

120.43

128.12

130.75

129.63

130.28

134.13

132.55

133.28

134.35

135.49

135.88

137.66

138.16

138.80

140.40

Food and kindred
products_____________
Tobacco manufactures___

127.98

110.00

136.21
116.55

137.90
114.08

135.54
108.30

136.74
109.29

142.91
118.77

140.14
113.21

139.83

111.88

142.40
113.22

143.60
114.53

145.12
116.92

145.75
122.84

146.47
121.74

145.60
120.29

146.83
118.22

97.76

104.34

104.75

106.19

107.23

108.73

109.75

111.11

111.92

111.92

111.38

113.42

110.84

113.02

113.85

84.37

88.64

89.71

90.11

91.36

91.19

90.27

92.52

92.52

92.88

91.49

93.24

92.88

95.37

95.04

144.14
147.78

154.51
157.50

158.67
161.73

157.78
160.13

158.15
160.93

162.64
165.68

159.64
161.32

161.63
162.19

162.82
165.44

164.44
167.83

164.09
168.07

168.56
169.41

169.92
170.62

171.54
171.52

172.77
175.95

Chemicals and allied
products____ ________
Petroleum and coal
products____ ________

153.50

163.90

169.66

166.00

166.40

170.11

170.56

171.39

171.80

172.63

173.06

176.40

175.97

174.71

178.49

182.76

193.77

199.91

198.09

195.34

196.27

201.41

202.11

203.01

209.53

209.39

209.46

210.23

208.40

214.35

Rubber and plastics
products, nec_________
Leather and leather
products____ ________

128.96

137.02

139.78

140.07

140.01

144.61

142.91

143.26

143.26

145.55

145.55

147.38

146.93

150.28

151.48

92.63

98.02

96.68

99.15

100.61

102.82

102.38

103.95

102.33

102.60

104.88

105.84

105.03

150.15

103.63

155.93

168.84

176.66

174.12

175.39

178.64

177.11

179.69

180.90

181.55

184.17

186.86

189.66

190.48

191.23

Transportation
equipment_____
. Instruments and related
products____ ________

Textile mill products_____
Apparel and other textile
products_____________
Paper and allied
products________ ____
Printing and publishing...

TRAN SPORTATIO N AND
PU BLIC U T IL IT IE S.........

154.95
130.54

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL
T R A D E _________________

95.66

100.74

102.08

101.50

101.56

103.31

103.06

103.11

103.70

104.40

104.05

106.50

108.36

108.00

106.70

Wholesale trade_________
Retail trade.................

137.60
82.47

146.07
86.61

147.68
87.62

148.06
87.10

148.85
86.84

151.96
89.00

151.27
88.31

151.65
87.78

152.43
88.64

153.24
89.24

152.83
89.58

154.00
91.73

155.19
93.69

154.01
93.61

155.22
91.39

FINANCE, INSURANCE,
AND REAL ESTATE_____

113.34

121.36

121.77

122.80

122.10

123.58

126.82

126.14

126.14

128.69

126.91

127.60

129.03

127.97

127.65

SER VIC ES_________________

96.66

102.94

104.35

104.35

104.04

105.68

105.77

106.42

106.76

107.44

106.47

107.39

109.27

108.68

109.76

1

The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment
and Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9)
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction
workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and


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

public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and
services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment
on private nonagricultural payrolls.
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2.
p=prelim inary.

HOURS AND EARNINGS

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

103

23. Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricuitural
payrolls, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date
Manufacturing workers

Private nonagricuitural workers

Spendable average weekly earnings

Spendable average weekly earnings
Year and month

Gross average
weekly earnings

Gross average
weekly earnings

Current
dollars

1967
dollars

Current
dollars

1967
dollars

Worker with no
dependents

Worker with 3
dependents

Worker with no
dependents

1967
dollars

Current
dollars

Current
dollars

1967
dollars

Current
dollars

1967
dollars

Worker with 3
dependents
Current
dollars

1967
dollars

1960.

$80.67

$90.95

$65.59

$73.95

$72.96

$82.25

$89.72

$101.15

$72.57

$81.82

$80.11

$90.32

1961.
1962.
1963.
1964.
1965.

82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.06

92.19
94.82
96.47
98.31
100.59

67.08
69.56
71.05
75.04
78.99

74.87
76.78
77.48
80.78
83.59

74.48
76.99
78.56
82.57
86.30

83.13
84.98
85.67

91.32

92.34
96.56
99.63
102.97
107.53

103.06
106.58
108.65
110.84
113.79

74.60
77.86
79.82
84.40
89.08

83.26
85.94
87.04
90.85
94.26

82.18
85.53
87.58
92.18
96.78

91.72
94.40
95.51
99.22
102.41

1966.
1967.
1968.
1969.
1970.

98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.46

101.67
101.84
103.39
104.38
102.72

81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
95.94

83.63
83.38
83.21
82.84
82.49

90.86
95.28
99.99
104.61

88.66

91.21
90.86
91.44
91.07
89.95

112.34
114.90
122.51
129.51
133.73

115.58
114.90
117.57
117.95
114.99

91.57
93.28
97.70
101.90
106.62

94.21
93.28
93.76
92.81
91.68

99.45
101.26
106.75
111.44
115.90

102.31
101.26
102.45
101.49
99.66

1971

126.91

104.62

103.51

85.33

112.12

92.43

142.04

117.10

114.68

94.54

123.93

102.17

1971:
September.

129.50

105.97

105.42

86.27

114.16

93.42

143.28

117.25

115.59

94.59

124.89

102.20

93.27
92.87
93.88

143.60
144.32
150.18

117.32
117.72

122.00

115.83
116.36
120.64

94.63
94.91
98.00

125.14
125.70
130.25

102.24
102.53
105.81

88.88

October...
November.
December.

129.50
129.13
131.30

105.80
105.33
106.66

105.42
105.15
106.75

86.13
85.77
86.72

114.16
113.86
115.57

1972:
January..
February.
March___

130.29
131.01
132.10

105.75
105.82
106.53

107.31
107.85
108.65

87.10
87.12
87.62

116.47
117.04
117.89

94.54
94.54
95.07

147.26
149.17
150.72

119.53
120.49
121.55

119.84
121.25
122.39

97.27
97.94
98.70

129.78
131.26
132.47

105.34
106.03
106.83

April.........
May..........
June.........

133.57
133.58
135.76

107.46
107.12
108.61

109.73
109.74
111.35

88.28

89.08

88.00

119.05
119.06
120.78

95.78
95.48
96.62

152.28
153.09
155.01

122.51
122.77
124.01

123.54
124.14
125.55

99.39
99.55
100.44

133.68
134.31
135.81

107.55
107.71
108.65

July..........
August p___
September p.

136.86
137.24
138.75

109.05
109.18
109.94

112.16
112.44
113.56

89.37
89.45
89.98

121.65
121.95
123.14

96.93
97.02
97.58

152.71
154.28
157.47

122.74
124.78

121.68

123.86
125.02
127.29

98.69
99.46
100.84

134.02
135.24
137.72

106.79
107.59
109.13

1

The industry series have been adjusted to March 1971 benchmarks (comprehensive
counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues
prior to November 1972. Comparable back data will be published in Employment
and Earnings, United States, 1909-72 (BLS Bulletin 1312-9).
Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to con­
struction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers
in transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance,
insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approxi­
mately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricuitural pay­
rolls.
Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly
earnings as published In table 22 less the estimated amount of the work­
er’s Federal social security and income tax liability. Since the amount of


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

tax liability depends on the number of dependents supported by the worker
as well as on the level of his gross income, spendable earnings have been
computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) a worker with no dependents
and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents.
The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes
In purchasing power as measured by the Bureau's Consumer Price Index.
These series are described in “The Spendable Earnings Series: A Techni­
cal Note on its Catenation,” in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Re­
port on the Labor Force, February 1969, pp. 6-13.
NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-5.
p=preliminary.

104
24.

PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 19 49 -71 1

[1967 = 100]
Wholesale prices

Consumer prices

Year

Commodities

All items

Index

Index

Percent
change

Index

Percent
change

Index

Index

75,3
78.0

-2 .1
3.6

91.9

11.4
-2 .7
-1 .4

106.9
102.7
96.0
-9 5 .7
91.2

13.8
-3 .9
-6 .5
-.3
-4 .7

86.1

10.4
-2 .3

90.7
93.3
94.6
94.8
94.9

3.3
2.9
1.4

90.6
93.7
98.1
93.5
93.7

-.7
3.4
4.7
-4 .7

94.5
94.8
94.5
94.7
96.6

-.4
.3
-.3

.2
2.0

93.7
94.7
93.8
93.2
97.1

7.9

85.9
87.0
86.7
85.9
85.1

9.0
1.3
-.3
-.9
-.9

61.8
64.5
67.3
69.5
70.9

5.3
4.4
4.3
3.3

2.0

87.4
87.6
87.8

85.9

.9
3.1
2.3

72.7
75.6
78.5
80.8
83.5

2.5
4.0
3.8
2.9
3.3

85.2

2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.2

1956________________________
1957________________________
1958________________________
1959________________________
1960........... ............. .........

81.4
84.3
87.3
88.7

.8
1.6

1961________________________
1962________________________
1963________________________
1964________________________
1965________________________

89.6
90.6
91.7
92.9
94.5

1.0
1.1

97.2

.5
-.4
1.5
3.6
2.7

88.6

90.6
90.7
91.5

92.0
92.8
93.6
94.6
95.7

1.2
1.3
1.7

98.2

.1
.9

.5
.9
.9

86.8

88.5
90.2
92.2

1.1
1.2
26
18

100.0

1966________________________
1967________________________
1968________________________
1969________________________
1970________________________

104.2
109.8
116.3

2.9
2.9
4.2
5.4
5.9

103.7
108.4
113.5

3.7
4.5
4.7

105.2
112.5

121.6

3.9
4.4
5.2
6.9

1971________________________

121.3

4.3

117.4

3.4

128.4

100.0

95.8

Percent
change

-1 1 .7
4.8

4.8
3.2

2.2
.8

Index

89.6
93.9

56.9
58.7

77.8
79.5
80.1
80.5
80.2

Percent
change

-5 .0
3.9

.6

1.0

Percent
change

Industrial
commodities

78.7
81.8

-2 . 6

1951________________________
1952________________________
1953________________________
1954________________________
1955________________________

100.0

Farm products,
processed foods
and feeds

78.3
78.8

71.4
72.1

86.6

Percent
change

All commodities

1.0

1949________________________
1950________________________

-

Services

88.6

.2
.2

.2
.1

84.1
84.8
85.0
86.9
90.8
93.3
93.6
95.3
95.3

.2
.0

94.8
94.8
94.7
95.2
96.4

1.1

-1 .0

-.6

4.2

6.6

4.5

2.8
.3
1.8
.0
-.5

.0
-.1
.5
1.3

2.2

99.8

3.3

103.5

8.1

102.5
106.5
110.4

2.5
3.9
3.7

102.4
' 108.0

111.6

-3 .4
2.4
r 5.5
r 3.3

102.5
106.0

110.0

1.5
2.5
3.4
3.8

5.6

113.9

3.2

113.8

2.0

114.0

3.6

.2

100.0

100.0

98.5

.8
.2
2.2

100.0

1 Historical price changes are shown in greater detail and for earlier years in the Bureau's Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1971 (BLS Bulletin 1705).

25.

Consumer Price Index—U.S. average—general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1971

General summary

1971

1972

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

123.1
143.1

123.2
143.3

123.8
143.9

124.0
144.3

124.3
144.6

124.7
145.0

125.0
145.4

125.5
145.9

125.7
146.2

126.2
146.8

120.3
118.2
128.3

120.3
118.2
128.6

122.4

120.6

129.4

122.4
120.4
130.0

122.3

120.5
128.9

130.4

120.2

123.0
120.9
130.9

124.2
122.4
131.3

124.6
122.7
131.9

132.5

126.8
116.9
137.0

127.3
117.1
137.8

127.6 127.9
117.5 117.7
138.0, 138.2

128.2
118.1
138.5

128.5
118.3
138.9

129.0
118.8
139.6

129.5
119.0
140.7

129.9
119.4
141.3

130.1
119.9
141.5

118.6
125.5
131.7

121.8

122.5
119.5
125.8
132.0

122.1 121.1 120.8
119.8
126.1
132.4

120.3
126.3
132.7

120.5
126.5
132.9

121.0

122.7
125.7
124.6

123.1
125.9
125.1

123.2
126.1
125.3

123.8
126.7
125.9

121.2

All items________ . __________________ ... .
All Items (1957-59=100)_________________________

121.3
141.0

142.1

122.2

122.4
142.4

Fooo_______________________
. _ _____
l ood at home_______ ____________ _____
l ood away from home__________ ... ...

118.4
116.4
126.1

119.1
116.9
127.6

118.9
116.6
128.0

122 6
6
119 0
116 7
128 2

Housing_______________________ ____ _ ..
Rent.______ ______________________________
Homeownership__________________________ .

124.3
115.2
133.7

125.5
116.1
135.1

125.9
116.4
135.7

126 4
116
136 7

Apparel and upkeep... ______ __________ ________
Transportation... ____________________________ ..
Health and recreation_____ ____________
___
Medical care_______ ..

119.8
118.6

120.6 121.6 121 9 121.8 120.2
118.6 119.3 118 8 118.6 119.0

_

122.2
128.4

123.5
129.6

123 7
129 7

123.9
130.1

124.3
130.5

120.7
118.3
124.7
131.0

121.3
118.4
125.0
131.4

120.2

120.3
123.5
'122.0

120 4
123 7
'122 2

120.9
123.9
122.7

120.9 <=121.5
124.0 124.2
123.4

122.8

124.5
123.6

'122.0
124.9
123.9

122.4
125.4
124.3

118.7
119.2
117.3
131.5

119.4 119.7
120.3
117.1 117.3
131.8 '132.1

119.9
120.7
117.7
132.4

120.3

120.7

118.4
132.7

121.0 121.2
119.2
133.1

121.7
119.6
133.5

117.7
118.1
120.3
119.9
116.8
113.7
114.9

117.8
118.4
120.9

118.2
118.9

118.5
119.1

119.2
119.7

119.4
119.5

117.0
113.6
115.0

117.3
114.1
115.6

119.4
119.3
121.3
120.7
118.2
115.3
116.4

122.1

Commodities___________________
____ _____
Nondurables________________________________
Durables___________________________________
Services_______ ___________ . . . .

117.4
117.7
116.5
'130.8

Commodities less food__________ ________
____
Nondurables less food_______ . ...
_______
Apparel commodities____ _________________
Apparel commodities less footwear__________
Nondurables less food and apparel__________
Household durables__________________________
Housefurnishings____________________________

116.8
117.0

Services less rent_____________
____
Household services less rent_________________
Transportation services_______________________
Medical care services..._____ _________________
Other services_______________________________

130.9 132.3
132.6 '134.1
133.1 133.8
133.3 135.6
122.5 123.7


See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

119.3

120.1
119.9
115.2
112.9
114.3

6

122.2

123.6
130.4

Special groups
All items less shelter_________________________
All items less food_________ ____________
.
All items less medical care_______ ____________

120.9

142

123.1
121.7

118.1 118.4
118
118.7
118.8 118
116.4 117.1 117
129.8 '129.9 '130
117.4
118.2
120.9
120.7
116.6
113.5
114.9

5 118.9
9 119.5
4 117.2
3 '130.7

118 1 118.1
118 7 118.8
122.0 122 4 122.2
121.9 122 3 122.1
116.8 116 5 116.8
113.6 113 6 113.7
115.1 115 1 115.3
'132.4 '132 8 133.3
'134.6 '135 3 '136.0
133.9 134 0 134.2
134.6 134 8 135.3
123.8 124 0 124.1
118.0
118.7

121.8

120.6

121.6 122.1 122.9 122.4
120.6 121.3 121.8 122.6 122.0
117.4
114.4
115.9

117.9
114.8
116.2

117.9
115.1
116.4

134.1 134.4 '134.6 135.0 135.3
135.7 '136.1
'136.9 '137.3 '137.6 '138.0 '138.4 '138.8 '139.5
135.6 135.7 135.5 135.6 135.8 136.0 136.3
138.0 138.4
135.8 136.4 136.9 137.3 137.6
124.3 124.5 124.7 125.1
125.3 125.6 125.8

Sept.

124.8

122.8

123.1

126.8
133.1

121.4

125.9

119.7
133.8

119.8
134.1

119.5
119.4
120.9

120.8

122.0 122.8
120.3

118.6
115.4
116.3

123.5
123.0
119.3
115.6
116.7

136.4
140.0
136.3
138.6
125.9

136.7
140.3
136.3
138.9
126.7

120.0

CONSUMER PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
25.

105

Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average

Group, subgroup, and selected items

1972

1971

Annual
average
1971
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

118.4

119.1

118.9

119.0

120.3

120.3

122.2

122.4

122.4

122.3

123.0

124.2

124.6

124.8

Food av/ay from home.
Restaurant meals..
Snacks...................

126.1
125.8
127.5

127.6
127.3
128.6

128 0
127.7
129.5

128.2
127.9
129.4

128.3
128.0
129.6

128.6
128.3
130.0

128.9
128.6
130.0

129.4
129.3
130.2

130.0
129.9
130.6

130.4
130.4
130.7

130.9
130.9
131.0

131.3
131.3
131.1

131.9
132.0
131.6

132.5
132.6
131.8

Food at home................. ......
Cereals and bakery products
Flour________________
Cracker meal__________
Corn flakes_______ ____
Rice...................... ...........
Bread, white_____ _____
Bread, whole wheat..........
Cookies..........................
Layer cake......................
Cinnamon rolls____ ____

116.4
113.9

116.9
114.6
101.5
131.5
104.2

101 1 101.1

116 6
114.3

116.7
114.1

118.2
113.7

131 6
103.6
109 9

131.7
103.5
109.8

118.2
113.8
100.5
131.9
103.0

120.5
114.3
100.9
133.9

122.4
114.4
99.2
135.9

111.4
118.5
109.3

111.2

FOOD

Meats, poultry, and fish........
Meats_________ _______
Beef and veal..............
Steak, round..........
Steak, sirloin____
Steak, porterhouse.
Rump roast..........
Rib roast..............
Chuck roast...........
Hamburger..........
Beef liver_______
Veal cutlets...........

101.0
129.8
107.3
109.4
112.3
117.5
108.7

120.1
118.2
116.9
116.7
124.9
123.5

122.8
124.1
122.4
126.2
124.4
126.2
113.7
141.7

110.1

112.1 112.0
119.2
109 9
120.7
119.6

119.3
108.7
120.5
119.2

119.1
118.8
127.7
126.1
127.8
129.5
124.0
130.8
125.9
128.3
114.0
146.0

118.4
118 3
127 1
H5.5
125.3
127 3
125.2
129.3
125 6
127.6
114.8
146.7

118.1
118.2
126.6
125.2
123.5
125.7
124.0
128.8
125.9
127.6
114.7
147.2

118.9
119.1
128.0
126.3
125.5
127.5
124.4
131.8
128.9
129.1
114.6
148.0

120.7

105.8
109.8
108.7

106.3
110.5
109.2

107.2

109.2
111.4

111.1

107.9
96.6

108.7
97.4

109.7
111.4
105.9
111.3
97.3

116.5
123.4
116.0
107.8

116.5
124.5
115.9
108.3
119.9
116.4
113.8

105.0
107.4
106.6
111.4
103.9
108.0
96.6

106.4
109.9

Other meats_______
Lamb chops___
Frankfurters___
Ham, canned__
Bologna sausage.
Salami sausage.
Liverwurst____

115.6
121.5
115.1
107.2
118.8
116.3
114.3

117.0
124.7
116.0
108.0
120.4
117.7
114.8

Poultry__________
Frying chicken..
Chicken breasts.
Turkey_______

109.0
108.5
109.5

112.2 110.0

111.1

111.9
112.7
113.3

Fish________________
Shrimp, frozen____
Fish, fresh or frozen
Tuna fish, canned...
Sardines, canned__

130.2
117.6
140.2
128.4
134.7
115.3
114.6
117.6
119.7
118.6
106.2

Ice cream_____________
Cheese, American process.
Butter.............. ........... .
Fruits and vegetables_______
Fresh fruits and vegetables.
Fresh fruits....... ..........
Apples...................
Bananas________
Oranges________
Orange juice, fresh
Grapefruit___
Grapes 1____
Strawberries 1
Watermelon *.
Fresh vegetables...
Potatoes_____
Onions______
Asparagus1. . .
Cabbage..........
Carrots______
Celery______
Cucumbers___
Lettuce______
Peppers, green
See footnotes at end of table.


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

132.2
102.5
110.3

113.4
119.1
109.9
121.5
118.6

Pork.....................
Chops_____
Loin roast__
Pork sausage.
Ham, whole..
Picnics..........
Bacon........ .

Dairy products............
Milk, fresh, grocery..
Milk, fresh, delivered
Milk, fresh, skim___
Milk, evaporated___

110.0

100.8

110.0
113.0
103.8
106.7
97.7

112.8 112.0
102.0 102.4

120.1

120.8
118.5

111.2

118.9
109.2
119.6
119.0

121.1

130.8
130.8
128.5
131.1
128.1
135.2
131.0
130.8
114.8
150.1

112.9

120.6 120.4 120.2
114.8 115.0 114.7
100.8 100.4 100.2
134.9 135.4 135.5
102.2 102.0 101.4 101.0
110.3 110.0 110.0 109.7
112.7
119.3
109.7
119.2
119.2

113.2
119.2
110.7
120.4

113.3
120.5

111.2
120.1
120.0 120.8 120.8

120.7

122.7
114.4
99.2
135.9
99.9
109.2
113.9
119.9
109.1
119.9
119.0

126.3
127.5
136.1
137.2
132.1
134.4
134.6
139.2
139.5
135.9
118.3
156.2

126.8
127.9
137.1
137.5
132.3
134.8
135.4
140.1
141.2
137.3
121.3
157.4

125.9
126.9
135.9
134.0
130.9
132.2
132.7
138.2
137.6
136.6
128.5
159.1

124.8
125.6
134.1
130.6
127.5
130.4
129.2
136.6
133.9
135.7
132.2
159.6

126.4
127.5
135.8
132.6
131.9
134.0
132.1
136.7
132.4
136.6
133.0
162.0

129.9
131.3
139.4
137.3
136.9
139.2
135.6
141.0
138.4
138.7
133.0
164.5

130.8
132.5
140.2
137.0
136.6
139.3
136.5
141.0
140.2
140.9
133.3
165.6

130.9
132.3
138.3
133.7
135.2
137.6
133.6
138.9
136.5
139.2
134.3
165.5

119.4
124.2
121.4
120.3

118.2
119.0
119.5
123.5
114.3
123.8

116.7
115.9
115.8
124.6
112.7

115.4
114.7
114.7
124.9
110.5

118.0
119.8
119.0
126.1

124.0
130.7
130.1
129.1
113.9
122.7
116.3

125.4
128.0
128.7
132.6
114.5
128.3
120.7

127.1
131.6
130.2
135.2
115.5
128.2

124.0
131.6
124.4
113.0
128.9
126.8
119.3

125.9
131.5
127.6
114.7
131.9
128.3
121.3

126.7
130.8
128.6
116.2
133.3
129.0

111.5
113.7

111.6

109.7
114.3
111.4

114.3
110.5

112.9

138.3
131.9
144.9
132.0
144.1

139.8
133.9
146 2
133.3
145.4

140.2
133.7
147.7
133.7
145.7

141.3
136.3
149.1
134.0
145.6

142.0
136.5
151.5
133.3
146.6

142.8
136.8
154.2
132.3
147.8

144.4
137.6
156.1
133.2
150.3

120.3
120.0 120.0 122.0
121.8 121.9
120.8 120.8 120.5

117.3
116.9

117.4
116.9

117.3
116.8

117.0
116.3
120.3
121.9
118.8

116.8
116.0
120.3
121.9
118.1

116.6
115.6
120.4
121.7
117.9

120.6
122.1

106.1
123.4
105.8

107.1
123.4
105.8

106.8
124.2
105.7

106.5
124.1
105.3

106.7
125.4
104.8

106.5
124.5
104.7

106.1
124.7
104.6

106.8
125.5
104.7

123.9
126.8
115.2
109.9
100.4

121.4
122.3
115.5

127.2
132.2
130.8
131.4
108.4
123.3
130.6

128.4
134.1
134.2
140.3
105.0
126.9
130.8

128.1
133.4
134.8
144.5

134.8
131.9

125.7
128.9
131.9
135.1
102.4
133.9
130.1

152.4
180.9

180.3
150.1

182.9
147.4

108.4
107.5
110.4

111.0

109.4
108.3

111.1

110.1
112.0
112.2

111.6
112.5
113.7

132.5
119.7
142.5
129.2
138.5

132.8

132.9

143.0
128.9
139.1

142.7
128.2
139.7

133.2
120.4
142.7
128.7
140.9

134.7
123.1
144.7
128.6
142.2

137.0
128.3
145.0
130.4
144.1

116.1
115.4
118.1

120.8
121.2

116.0
115.3
118.1
120.3
121.4

115.9
115.2
118.1

116.1
115.2
118.5

116.4
115.7
118.8
120.5
120.9

116.9
116.4
119.4
121.3
120.9

106.9

106.1

121.8 122.1

107.2

105.8

105.8

122.1

105.8

106.4
122.3
105.7

106.7
122.3
105.8

119.1
121.0
117.5
114.2
95.5
125.5
124.3

116.6
115.3
124.0
125.3
98.5
138.3
129.4

115.6
113.6
115.9

124.4
128.2

120.9

101.8
101.8
137.1
129.1

117.8
117.3
113.0
98.5
94.1
133.1
129.9

92.2
128.4
130.5

92.6
123.7
130.8

135.7
143.8
114.1
141.7

171.6
120.3

153.5
119.6

126.8
138.2

123.9
117.3
104.4
131.0
122.2
129.9
118.5

108.6
115.0
111.3

120.1

84.8
111.4
90.8

124.1

103.4
125.5

111.2

111.8 120.8
111.2 110.2

109.8

106.2

106.4
117.3
111.5
96.6
123.2
97.5

113.3

120.6
129.1
104.9
146.6
118.5

121.2

111.6

107.5
106.2
109.8
111.4

110.7

109.0
111.3
113.7

108.1
106.8
109.7
112.9

122.1
112.2 112.6
102.1 106.8

120.6
110.6
120.0
120.8

108.9
107.6
112.4
111.4

123.8
118.3

105.4

120.2

108.4
107.2
111.9
110.9

122.5
117.5

121.0

109.6
112.7
119.7
109.9

125.4
118.4

119.8
117.4

120.1 120.1
120.2 120.6

100.0

114.6
99.4
136.2
99.8
109.3
113.0

117.1

116,9
114.2

120.1 120.6

112.7
120.3
111.4
119.8

112.0
110.0 112.6
122.8 121.0 119.9
113.3 122.7
101.0 114.0 112.6 112.3 110.8 113.1
116.6
116.8 120.3 121.6 122.0 121.7 122.8
129.5
124.4 124.8 127.1 127.3 126.7 126.6
115.2
115,4 121.3 123.3 123.1 122.1 122.4
107.8
109.0 111.4 112.7 112.6 113.6 112.8
126.8
128.1
120.1 120.0 124.5 126.3 127.8 124.2
117.4
114.1

116.8
114.5

122.8

120.9
114.5
99.4
135.9
100.3
109.3
113.0
119.3
109.5
119.9
121.3

122.1 123.9
123.2 126.7
120.1 121.0
112.2 114.1 121.8
104.4

130.6

98.3
121.3
130.7

120.6 121.2 121.1

124.6

122.0

141.3
112.4
105.5

129.8
112.7
105.7

136.3
114.7
106.8

158.3
134.2
161.3
125.2
173.0
148.3

145.3
145.7
174.6
120.9
133.6
114.0

144.1
142.4
172.0
148.2
152.1
134.3

127.9
115.4
105.1
163.5
133.4
143.8
164.3
145.5
106.4
147.8

109.4
117.3
131.3

118.0
130.6

122.2
112.6
111.8 110.6 112.7

100.2

116.9
115.7

118.6

122.4

131.9

145.1

119.2

103.3

115.0
144.8

121.0

124.2

133.4
123.8
122.9
138.1
124.9
135.5
135.3
128.8
120.9
160.2

134.2
143.0
148.0
145.7
122.5
128.9
140.0
119.3

132.4
148.1
155.5

126.6
133.6
157.5

119.6
125.3
124.7
115.9
114.7
122.3

124.3
119.9
131.5
99.9
119.1
114.4

125.9
113.6
107.3
120.9
125.7
128.6
125.2
162.4
E.2
150.4

11

131.4
113.7

112.0
141.0
134.1
138.5
148.6

122.0

109.3
207.7

110.8

145.4

106
25.

CONSUMER PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average

Group, subgroup, and selected items

Annual
average
1971
Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

128.1
95.4

130.8
106.0

131.0
121.7

140.0
159.1

143.8
139.1

143 8
140.2

135.8
112.9

135.5
130.7

136.5
135.2

135.2
155.1

137 9
130.4

142.8

118.6

118.4

119.5
120.9
117.3
114.4
135.9
117.5

119.9
121.4
117.2
115.2
136.6
117.8

119.8

119.9

116.5
114.4
135.6
116.9

119.2
121.4
116.9
114.7
135.8
117.4

120.3

117.5
114.5
136.0
115.9

118.5
119.9
116.9
115.1
135.3
115.3

118.8

117.7
114.0
136.3
115.5

117.3
115.6
136.6
118.0

117.3
114.8
136.2
117.3

117.7
114.3
135.3
117.3

0
121 3
117 7
115 6
136 0
115.5

118.1
115.1
135.6
115.2

121.0
121.3
119.3
115.2
136.0
116.6

117.4
107.0
115.7
130.6
117.9

116.8
108.0
115.7
131.9
117.8

117.0
108.6
115.1
133.2
117.9

118.3
108.6
114.9
133.9
117.8

119.0
108.5
115.3
135.4
118.5

119.8
107.9
115.5
136.5
119.0

120.2

117.7

117.5
108.0
116.6
129.5
118.4

108.7
115.4
137.1
119.2

120.4
107.4
115.6
137.0
118.1

121.4
107.2
115.5
136.9
118.9

121 4
107 6
115 8
137 2
118.7

123.0
107.0
117.3
138.1
118.1

123.4
108.1
118.0
139.8
118.5

115.9
108.4

115.5
102.4

116.2
106.7

115.6
103.2

116.6
110.5

116.2
108.0

115.6
101.4

116.7
107.5

116.2
102.9

116.0
101.7

114.5
94.2

115.3
101.9

116.0
105.0

117.6
114.0

117.6

118.1
109.9
123.4

117.8

117.7
110.9
123.5

117.3

118.1
110.4
124.0

118.6
123.7

118.4
111.4
123.0

117.8

123.9

110.6
122.3

118.2
109.1
121.5

117.4
109.5

117.4
109.2

117.7
109.7
119.7

120.6

120.5
114.4
125.1
130.6
110.7
118.4
122.3
109.4
128.0
127.6

120.6

120.7
114.8
125.8
130 4
110 5
121.7
120.6
123.0
109.3
128.0
127.8

114.8
115.9
104.5
121.4

115.0
116.1
104.7
120.8

129.2
131.8

Processed fruits and vegetables __________
Fruit cocktail, canned___ ___________
Pears, canned............. ................... ...
Pineapple-grapefruit drink__________
Orange juice concentrate, frozen______
Lemonade concentrate, frozen_________

116.2
117.9
116.7
113.6
127.2
113.9

Beets, canned___________________
Peas, green, canned.. _____
Tomatoes, canned________
Dried beans________ .
Broccoli, frozen_________________

115.1
106.6
115.6

122.8

116.0
109.3

120.1

120.2 120.0

110.2

123.3

119.3
112.5
119.3
130.9
113.2

123.5

131.4
113.2

131.5
113.0

124.7107.6
125.9
126.4

125.4
108.0
127.0
127.6

Prepared and partially prepared foods
Bean soup, canned.. ________
Chicken soup, canned_________
Spaghetti, canned____________

112.7
114.1
106.4
117.3

113.4
114.7
106.6
117.7

110.8
110.1

110.4
110.3

125.3
107.8
127.3
127.8

131.3
112.5
120.9
119.0
125.1
107.8
127.1
127.7

131.3
112.7
120.5
118.5
125.1
106.0
127.1
127.9

130.8
113.3
120.4
118.2
124.7
106.1
127.7
127.9

120.5
114.3
122.7
130.7
113.4
120.7
118.3
125.5
107.1
127.8
127.6

113.4
114.7
106.5
117.7

113.2
114.7
106.0
117.7

113.3
114.7
105.7
117.5

113.5
114.5
106.4
118.1

114.1
115.7
106.9
117.8

110.4 110.7 111.0 111.5 112.2
109.9 108.5 109.3
108.5 110.0
111.8 111.6 111.3 111.1 111.1 111.2
119.5 120.0 120.6 121.2 122.0 122.5
114.4
114.5

114.0

114.5

HOUSING____ ____ ________

124.3

125.5

125.9

126.4

126.8

Shelter____ _______ . .
Rent______________
Homeownership______

128.8
115.2
133.7

130.1
116.1
135.1

130.6
lib .4
135.7

131.3
116.6
136.7

131.6
116.9
137.0

120.4
131.1
119.9
133.7

118.7
133.1
121.5
136.8

119.1
134.6
122.4
137.0

118.9
136.3
122.4
137.1

118.6
137.6
122.4
137.4

Commodities______
Exterior house paint____
Interior house paint_____

119.0
115.9
114.5

120.9
116.5
115.5

120.9
lib. 5
b.b

120.8 120.8

11

116.5
115.3

Services___________
Repainting living and dining
rooms______
Reshingling roofs________
.
Residing houses______
Replacing sinks__________
Repairing furnaces______ . . .

140.0

143.7

144.0

148.3
144.8
130.6
140.6
144.3

153.0
150.1
132.8
143.4
148.9

153.1
150.7
133.1
143.4
149.2

Mortgage interest rates____
Property taxes.. ___
Property insurance rates____
Maintenance and repairs

Other utilities:
Residential telephone___
Residential water and sewerage .

.

Household furnishings and operations.
House furnishings___
Textiles________ _
Sheets, percale, or muslin. .
Curtains, tailored, polyester marquisette..
Bedspreads, chiefly cotton.. .
Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/acetate...
Slipcovers, throws, ready made, chiefly
cotton............................

See footnotes at end of table.


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

■ 107.5
133.4
118.1
114.3

119.5
115.1

120.1 120.0

121.4
115.4
125.5
130.8

114.8
124.9
130.6

118.1
125.0
108.9
128.2
128.3

117.2
124.3
109.0
127.8
128.3

120.4
114.5
125.0
130.5
110 4
120.3
117.2
123.4
108.8
128.2
127.8

114.4
116.2
106.4
116.8

114.5
116.3
106.6
117.4

114.7
116.6
105.8
118.3

114.4
116.3
104.2
118.9

114.3
116.2
104.4
119.5

111.3 112.2 112.3 111.5 111.9
111.0 110.8 111.0 110.8 111.3
111.4 111.3 110.4 110.1 110.1
125.2 125.2

114.5

127.3

127.6

127.9

■ 132.4 ■ 132.6 ■ 132.8
117.5 ■ 117.8 ■ 118.0
137.8 138.0 138.2
117.7
143.6
122.4
138.6

116.8
115.4

121.3
117.7
115.8

121.3
117.9
115.6

144.1

144.6

144.9

153.6
150.6
133.2
143.6
149.1

154.0
151.6
133.3
143.7
150.2

154.4
152.0
133.4
143.9
150.9

112.6 111.1
121.0 120.5

Sept.

142.6
110.2

115.0

115.5

124.3
116.1

124.1
115.1

125.5
115.3

112 3
111 9
110 ?
126 4
115.3

128.2

128.5

129.0

129.5

129.9

130.1

■ 133.1 ■ 133.5 134.1 ■ 135.0 135.5
■ 118.4 ■ 118.6 ■ 119.0 ■ 119.2 r119.6
138.5 138.9 139.6 140.7 114.3

135.7
119.9
141.5

122.6

139.2

117.0
145.0
122.7
139.9

122.6

140.6

117.2
144.9
123.4
141.1

117 3
145.7
123 4
141.9

117^2
147 2
123 6
142.2

122.0
118.2
116.3

122.4
118.5
116.4

123.3
117.5
117.2

123.9
117.4
117.5

124.2
117.2
117.4

125.2
117 6
117.5

125 9
117 9
117.2

145.2

145.9

146.5

147.1

147.8

148.5

149 1

149 2

155.1*
152.3
133.7
144.2
151.2

155.6
153.0
133.9
145.1
152.2

156.5
154.3
134.5
145.5
152.4

157.7
155.0
135.0
145.7
152.8

159.5
156.2
135.2
145.8
153.6

160.5
156.2
135.9
146.1
154.6

161 3
157 1
136 4
146 7
155.0

162 5
156 7
137 1
147 7
152.9

■ 118.4 ■ 119.0 ■ 119.3
118.7 118.7 118.7
116.5 116.5 116.5
119.0 119.4 119.7
121.7 121.9
116.6 117.0 117.2

■ 119.6
118.6
116.5

120.1

119.4

117.9
116 6
120.5
121.4
119.6

120 3
118.0
116.6
120.5
121.3
119.8

■ 112.9 ■ 113.7 ■ 113.9
137.7 137.7 138.8

114.1
138.8

114.6
138.8

122.2

117.1
144.7

102.2
122.3
118.2

Cl10.6 ■ 112.4 ■ 112.4 ■ 112.6
136.4 136.4 137.7 137.7
119.5
114.9

119.6
115.0

107.8
119.5

105.1
118.9

106.9
119.6

112.5

112 8

113.2

113.1

113.0

110

120

121.4
115.3
125.1
130.8
113.4
120.9
118.2
125.0
108.2
128.2
128.2

114.1

119.6
115.3
113.1
116 5
6
108.8
119.1

111.8 111.6

107.8
118.4

122.2 121.6 121.1

121.0
120.2
121.0

114.9
124.5
130.6
113.5
120.9
118.3
125.1
108.1
128.1
128.2

112.3
110.4
111.4
124.4
115.2

119.5
115.1
112.9
116,5
110.9
108.4
119.0

112.2
113.4
111.b

121.2

118.2
141.8
122.4
138.0

■ 109.1 ■ 109.1 ■ 109.1 ■ 109.5
135.0 135.0 136.4 136.4
119.4
114.9
111.9
114.0
111.3
107.4
118.8

111.6
113.9
110.0

110.8

118.4
141.1
122.4
137.8

■■115.0 ■ 116.0 ■ 116.0 ■ 116.5 ■ 117.6
117.5 117.8 117.8 118.1 118.1
116.1
116.4 116.4 116.4 116.4
114.7 115.7 115.7 116.2 118.2
116.3 116.8 116.8 118.1 120.5
113.2 114.6 114.6 114.5 116.0

Fuel and utilities________
Fuel oil and coal______
Fuel oil, #2________
Gas and electricity_____
Gas... _______
Electricity_________

110.2

113.5

121.6 121.0 121.2
121.8 119.1 119.3

110.9
117.4
113.1

110.6

120.2

120.2 120.1 120.0 120.1 120.1
113.4 113.5 113.5
113.6
121.6 121.2 121.4 121.6 121.5

Sugar and sweets______________
Sugar_____________________
Grape jelly_______ ____ _____
Chocolate bar________ . ____
Syrup, chocolate flavored______
Nonalcoholic beverages_____
.
Coffee, can and bag____ ______
Coffee, instant_____ ____ ____
Tea________________ ______ .
Cola drink_________________
Carbonated fruit drink............. .

Mashed potatoes, instant
Potatoes, French fried, frozen...
Baby food, canned__
Sweet pickle relish____
Pretzels_________ ______

1972

Sept.
FOOD— Continued
Spinach_______________________
Tomatoes._____________________

Other food at home________
Eggs-------------------------------------------------Fats and oils:
Margarine...______________
Salad dressing, Italian.....................
Salad or cooking oil_______ ._

1971

110.8 112.1
110.1 114.1
110.3 111.2

120.1
115.6
113.2
114.4
110.9
109.8

120.5
115.9
113.7
116.0
111.3

117.1
144.8

■ 119.9 ■ 119.8 ■ 120.0
118.7
117.8 117.7
116.5 116.5 116.5
120.5 120.3 120.3

122.2 121.2 121.2

118.9

119.5

120.8 121.0 121.1 121.2

122.7

116.4
113.4
113.4
112.5
110.3
123.9

109.9
124.2

121.6
116.7
114.5
116.0
112.2
111.4
124.5

113.8

114.9

114.6

114.7

116.2
113.6
114.9

116.4
114.2
116.7

121.2 121.1

111.5
121.7

114.6

113.7

111.0

113.7

112.2 112.1
111.6

116.3
113.0
111.7

112.8

CONSUMER PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
25.

107

Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average

Group, subgroup, and selected Items

Annual
average

1972

1971

1971

HOUSING—Continued
Furniture and bedding-_______ ____
Bedroom furnitufe, chest and dresser2 ..
Dining room chairs2 __________________
Sofas7upholstered_____ ____
- -Sofas, dual purpose________ .. ____
Bedding, mattress, and box springs 2____
_____
Cribs
-_

119.1
103 6
103.0
117.5
116.4
103.4
117.9

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

119.7
104.6
103.4
117.5
116.3
103.7
118.4

119.9
104.7
103.3
119.4
116.4
104.1
118.0

119.9
104 8
103.4
119.1
116.4
103.9
119.2

1 2 0 .1

104.7
103.5
119.5
116.9
104.4
118.8

119.8
104.6
103.4
119.3
116.7
103.7
118.0

120.7
104.6
104.2
119.7
116.9
104.4

106.5

100 0
100 0

1 0 0 .1

99.2

119.5
104.1
103.3
119.0
115.9
104.4
118.1
99.7
98.2

106.3

106.6

1 0 1 .8

1 0 2 .1

116.5
117.4

106.3
101.9
115.6
117.6

Floor coverings____ .. _________ _______
8 roadloom carpeting, manmade fibers___
Vinyl sheet goods., _ _______________
Vinyl asbestos tile____________________

106.3
102.3
114.7
116.6

Appliances__________ .
___________
Washing machines, automatic__________
Vacuum cleaners, canister type_________

105.5
109.4
103.8

104.3

104.1

Refrigerator-freezers__________________
Ranges, free standing, gas or electric......

108.1

108 3

108.3

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .2

1 1 2 .0

1 1 1 .0

Clothes dryers, electric________________

112.4

113.4

113.1
108

Garbage disposal units.'_______________

1 1 0 .2
108 1
1 1 0 .1

1 0 0 .0

1 0 1 .8

108.3
110.4

1 0 1 .8

117.7
118.3
105.7
110.4
103.8

105.8
110.5
104.0

105.8

103.7

105.7
110.4
103.7

103.8

105.7
110.4
103.5

1 0 5 .7
1 1 0 .6
1 0 3 .6

108.3
110.5

108.0
110.4

107.9

107.9

1 1 0 .0

1 1 1 .0

107.9
111.3

107.8
111.3

1 0 8 .1
1 1 0 .8

113.6
110.4
108 5

113.6
110.4

113.7

114.4
1 1 1 .0

114.5
110.9

114.0
110.4

1 1 4 .7

1 1 1 .1

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .2

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .0

1 1 0 .9

1 2 2 .2

121.4
121.7

1 2 2 .6
1 2 1 .8
1 2 2 .2

122.9

123.7
122.9
123.0

125.4
123.7
124.4

125.7
124.7
124.8

1 2 6 .2
1 2 8 .6
1 2 4 .7

1 1 1 .1

110.9
130.8
126.0

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .1

1 1 1 .1

130.6
125.2

131.7
124.4

131.9
123.9

1 1 1 .3
1 3 1 .2
1 2 4 .9

139.2
135.6
146.6
138.5

139.6
136.9
146.6
139.5
123.0
141.4

1 4 0 .5
1 3 7 .9
1 4 6 .6
1 3 9 .8
1 2 4 .0
1 4 1 .7

105.8

103.9

1 1 0 .2

103.6

104.0

108.2

108.3
111.3

108.2
1 1 1 .2

113.0

113.0

113.3

113.5

108.5
110.3

108 9
110.4

inn R
110.9

ina

Housekeeping services:
Domestic service, general housework________
Baby sitter service_________________ _____
___ ___ . __
Postal charges
Laundry, flatwork....... ...... ..
....
Licensed day care service, preschool child____
Washing machine repair......... ..... .........

4

1 1 0 .6

119 3

119.2

119.4

122 1
1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .0
1 2 2 .2

1 2 1 .8
1 2 1 .8

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

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

110.9
128 8
123.9

1 1 0 .6

1 1 0 .8

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .2

128.3
123.7

128.9
123.6

128.6
123.8

128.6
124.5

128.4
124.8

128.9
125.1

129.5
125.6

133.8
130.0
138.1
133.3
118.2
135.3

135.1
132.1
146.6
135.0
119.1
137.4

135.3
132.3
146.6
135.4
119.4
137.6

136.0
132.4
146.6
135.6
119.1
138.2

136.1
132.8
146.6
136.3
119.4
138.2

136.4
133.4
146.6
136.4
119.4
138.1

136.4
133.8
146.6
136.6

138.4
135.0
146.6
137.6

138.4

136.9
134.8
146.6
137.0
120.3
138.9

119.8

1 2 0 .6

1 2 1 .6

121.9

1 2 1 .8

1 2 0 .2

120.7

120.3

1 2 0 .8

1 2 1 .8

1 2 1 .8

1 2 1 .6

119.9

121 9
130.5

178 4
132.4

124.4
133.0

124 2
131.5

1 2 1 .2

Jackets, lightweight_______ ___________
Slacks, wool or blend ________________
Slacks, cotton or blend____ __________
Trousers, work, cotton__________ _____

122 3
129.0
129.2
112.5
116.8
132.3
113.0

1 1 2 .2

118.2
132.5
113.7

112.9
118.2
133.9
114.0

114.2
117.6
134.7
114.0

Shirt, work, cotton______________ ____
Shirt, business, cotton_______________
T-shirts, chiefly cotton________________
Socks, cotton or manmade fibers_______
Handkerchiefs, cotton_____ ___________

113.3
112.7
119.0
115.5
114.9

114.2
113.0
118.8
115.2
115.4

114.6
113.0
118.9
115.7
115.7
119.2

APPAREL AND UPKEEP...___________________
Men’s and b oys'____________________________
Men’s:
Topcoats, wool or all weather coats, polySuits, year round weight______________

Boys^:

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

Dungarees, cotton or blend____________
Undershorts, cotton__________________
Women’s and girls’........................ ............
Women’s:
Coats, heavyweight, wool or wool blend *..
Skirts, cotton or polyester cotton or manBlouses cotton
Dresses’ street, chiefly manmade fiber___
Dresses, street, wool or wool blend 1 ......
Slips, nylon
Panties, acetate or nylon______________
Girdles, manmade blend____ ___ ______
Brassieres, nylon lace___ _____________
Hose, or panty hose, nylon, seamless____
Anklets or knee-length socks, various
fibers
..
__________
Gloves, fa b ric, nylo n or co tto n ____________

Handbags, rayon faille or plastic...........
See footnotes at end of table.


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

1 0 6 .6
1 0 1 .3
1 1 9 .1
1 1 8 .4

1 2 0 .6

116.9
104.9
119.3

101 6

1 1 0 .0

1 1 1 .1

106.5
101.4
118.7
118.4

1 2 0 .8

116.9
104.5
119.0
100.4
98.0

117.7
117.9

105.8

109.8
126.7
123.6

98.1

106.8
101.7
118.6
118.2

1 2 0 .6

106.4
101.4
117.9
118.2

1 1 0 .0

Housekeeping supplies:
Laundry soaps and detergents_____________
Paper napkins _______ ________________
Toilet tissue_____________________________

98.0

1 2 0 .2

105.8

Sept.

1 2 1 .4
1 0 5 .4
1 0 4 .0
1 2 0 .5
1 1 7 .5
1 0 5 .2
1 1 8 .0
1 0 1 .2
9 8 .5

1 2 1 .1

116.8
104.5
117.6

105.7
110.4
103.8

1 1 9 .0

Aug.

105.0
103.2
120.4
116.7
104.9
118.4

106.7

105.7

119.2
121.7

121.3
104.8
104.1

106.5

1 1 0 .0

1 2 2 .2

121.5
105.1
105,1

106.3
101.5
116.7
117.8

105.8

1 2 1 .0

121.7
105.3
105.3

106.1
101.4
116.3
117.6

105.8

117.8
120.4

1 2 1 .0

104.9
104.9

98.7

1 1 0 .1

Other house furnishings:
Dinnerware, earthenware_______ ____
Flatware, stainless steel _________ -Table lamps, with shade______________

July

1 0 0 .6

116.3
117.0

110.3

June

99.5
98.6

116.1
116.7

0
1 1 0 .2

May

117.2
104.5
118.0
100.4
98.7

106.5
102.3
116.0
116.7

1 0 2 .2

Apr.

1 2 1 .6
1 2 1 .8

1 1 0 .6

138.9

138.9
135.3
146.6
138.0
121.3
140.4

140.8

139.4
136.6
146.6
139.0
122.4
141.1

121.3

1 2 1 .8

122.5

1 2 2 .1

1 2 1 .1

1 2 0 .8

1 2 3 .1

119.7

120.3

121.9

122.4

121.9

120.4

120.4

1 2 2 .5

126.5

119.5
125.6

114.3
116.8
134.7
114.0

113.0
115.7
134.0
114.1

112.7
116.3
137.1
114.4

119.3
127.6
130.9
115.0
115.7
137.4
114.4

131.1
136.3
115.1
117.2
137.0
114.6

132.4
138.0
115.7
116.7
137.3
114.7

131.8
136.8
114.8
114.9
133.9
114.7

Ì28.Ì
131.3
114.0
113.5
133.1
115.0

128.6
130.8
113.7
114.4
135.3
115.1

1 1 3 .6
lib . 8
1 3 7 .7
1 1 4 .9

114.8
114.4
118.4
115.7
115.7

114.5
114.4
118.2
115.8
116.1

114.5

114.5
112.4
117.8
116.2
116.2

114.9
113.1
117.4
116.6
115.4

115.1
113.4
117.4
116.7
115.7

115.5
113.7
117.4
116.7
116.2

115.4

118.3
114.3
116.3

114.2
112.7
118.0
114.9
116.0

117.4
115.9
116.3

115.4
111.5
117.6
116.0
116.5

1 1 5 .3
1 1 1 .7
1 1 8 .4
1 1 5 .7
1 1 7 .0

114.8

122.3

126.1

1 1 2 .6

1 2 0 .0

1 2 0 .8

1 2 2 .2

1 1 2 .1

1 2 7 .4
1 3 1 .0

Î22 !5
119.5

123.2
119.6

123.2
119.6

120 3
118 3
125.2
119.6

118J5
121 3
125.8
119.6

115.8
118.1
126.4
119.9

126.3
120.5

127.1
120.5

127.1
120.5

127.3
120.5

127.5

127.4

1 2 0 .6

1 2 0 .8

1 2 0 .2

1 2 7 .7
1 2 0 .3

1 2 0 .1

121.3

122.7

123.4

123.2

1 2 0 .2

121.7

122.5

122.3

123.4

1 2 2 .6

1 2 1 .2

119.8

1 2 3 .9

122.9
131 7

121.7

127.2
7

127.7
142.1

126.0
142.1

116.2

.......
125.3

118 3

114 0
121.9
127.6
110.7
115.2
116.2
120.9
98.9
115.8
109.6
132.4

135

122 1

1 2 0 .0

1 2 2 .2

1 2 1 .6

127.5

129.4

131.1

130.1
147 7

117.6
129.6
ns 4

111.1

111.1

110.4
116.2
117.9
123.4

1 1 1 .2

1 1 1 .2

116.2
118.1
123.4

116.7
116.1
122.3

115.8
117.1
1 2 2 .2

97.9
114.8
109.9
135.6

116.4
117.7
123.0
98.1
114.6
109.5
134.8

98.2
115.6
109.7
136.8

98.3
116.4
109.8
138.2

97.4
115.9
1 1 0 .2

138.9

122.9
131.3

111.0
116.3
117.2
121.3
97.7
115.8
109.8
140.2

1 2 9 .5

141.3
1 2 .2

320.4
110.5
116.5
117.4
1 2 1 .6

97.5
116.1
110.3
141.5

121.4

116.7
123.4
127.4

110.4

115.5
123.7
130.1

121.3
124.3
129.6

1 2 2 .8

110.9
116.6
118.2
121.9

110.9
117.0
118.2
121.9

118.1
116.9
121.9

96.5

96.0

96.4

96.0

9 5 .8

114.4
111.7
144.6

114.4
109.9
142.8

113.8

1 1 3 .7

1 1 0 .6

111.0

144.5

1 4 4 .2

96.1
115.9
110.7
142.5

114.9
1 1 1 .2

143.2

128.8

111.0

1 1 0 .8

118.1
116.9
1 2 2 .1

1 2 0 .8

126.5
1 1 0 .8

118.3
117.9
122.5

1 2 4 .3
1 3 0 .2
1 1 1 .4
1 1 8 .8
1 1 7 .9
1 2 2 .9

108
25.

CONSUMER PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average
Annual
average
1971

Group, subgroup, and selected items

1971

1972

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

116.5
106.8
107.4
131.3
110.4
129.0

115.6
105.2
109.3

119.5
107.1
109.4
131.5
111.3
130 0

119.3
108.6
109.3
131.7
111.9
129 3

117.1

117.3

116.8

111.0
128 3

118.5
109.0
110.3
131.8
110.9
129 3

108.9 107.2
131.1
111.7 -=1 1 2 .1
124 1 127.5

. .

121.5

1 2 2 .2

122.7

132.2

123.1

122.7

Men's:
Shoes, street (oxford or buckle strap)...
Shoes, work, high____________________

119.6
118.7

120.9

119.8

1 2 1 .1

1 2 0 .1

120.4

1 2 1 .0
1 2 0 .6

119.7

1 2 0 .0

125.1

APPAREL AND UPKEEP—Continued
Girls':
Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly cotton
Skirts, wool or wool blend 1 ____________
Dresses, cotton,manmade fibers or blends.
Slacks, cotton
__________________
Slips, cotton blend___________________
Handbags___________________
. ...
Footwear______________________ ____

Women’s:
Shoes, street, pump_________________
Shoes, evening, pump_______________
Shoes, casual, pump.____ ____________
Houseslippers, scuff____________ ____

123.4
1 2 0 .2

124.1
121.9

123.2
120.3
124.3
123.4

Children’s:
Shoes, oxford_________ _______ ______
Sneakers, boys’, oxford type........ . ._
Dress shoes, girls', strap or pump_______

122.3
118.8
125.8

Miscellaneous apparel:
Diapers, cotton gauze or disposable_________
Yard goods, polyester blend_______________

1 1 2 .0
1 2 2 .1

112.7

116.6
113.8
119.1
128.5

124.5

125.2

1 2 1 .0

1 2 1 .0

1 2 1 .1

125.7
123.5

126.0
123.6

125.8
123.4

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

119.2

121.4

125.3

119.2

1 2 0 .0

1 2 2 .6

1 1 2 .1
128 8

111.1
130 fi

111.0
i?q «

1 1 0 .2

110.5

124 7

110.3

Ill R
1 2 1 !2
13fi 3
110^3

1?2 6

122.7

123.5

124.1

124.6

124.7

124.6

125.1

125.7

119.9
121.4

1 2 1 .6

121.4
121.3

123.1
121.5

123.8
120.9

124.2
123.2

124.5

1 2 1 .1

1 2 2 .8

125.1
123.7

124.3
120.7
125.1
124.0

123.8
120.5
124.7
124.0

124.6
121.4
125.5
124.2

126.6

125.1

126.5

1 2 1 .8
1 2 2 .8

1 2 2 .1

123.6
121.5
128.7

*
’
124.6
122.3
128.7

109 1

1 0 0 .2

121.3

125.8
1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .1

126.5
124.5

125.9
124.3

125.9
122.3
126.1
124.8

125,9
129.5

126.5
123.1
129.8

Sept.

125.4

123.3
125.6

127.5
123.1
124 2
125.8

126.9
123.5
129.8

127.3
124.2
130.1

128.3
124.2
130.4

128 2
124.3
130.5

123.8
119.7
128.4

124.4
119.9
128.6

124.1
120.3
128.4

128.6

1 2 2 .1

1 1 2 .8
1 2 2 .1

113.3
122.3

113.3
121.9

1 2 0 .6

113.0
120.5

113.2
118.9

113.5
118.1

114.0
117.8

114.5
119.0

115.3
119.1

116.0
119.3

116.9
119.4

117.2
113.3
119.2
130.0
114.0

117.0
113.8
119 2
131.2
114.0

117.1
113.9
120.4
131.6
113.8

117.2
113.7
120 5
131.7
113.8

117.4
114.3
120 7
131.8
113.8

117.4
114.2
120 9
132.1
114.0

117.4
114.9
i?n fi
132.1
114.6

117.5
115.1

117.5
114.8
121 0

132.5
115.1

Ï32 !5
115.4

117.6
114.9
1?1 fi
132 ;9
115.6

117.7
114.9

120 8

1 1 2 .0

117.1
113.3
119.1
129.6
113.5

133.7
116.7

117.8
115.1
111 •J
133.9
117.1

118.6

418.6

419.3

118.8

118.6

119.0

118.3

118.

118.6

119.5

119.8

120.3

120.5

1 2 1 .0

116.6

116.6
109.6

115.9
111.7
103.9
106.1
122.7

116.1
111.7
106.4
105.0
122.9

117.3
111.3

1 1 0 .0

1 1 2 .0

106.2
123.3

105.6
123.4

117.8
111.0
112.7
106.9
123.9

118.1

105.3
106.7
122.3

115.7
111.9
103.0
105.7
122.5

117.1
111.4

112.4
108.4
124.2

118.6
109.6
113.6

1 2 1 .8

116.3
110.4
107.2
107.3
121.9

116.4

1 2 0 .0

416.4 417.2
405.6 409.1
111.7
1 1 1 .6
108.7 108.8
121.7
121.5

124.5

Tires, new, tubeless...
Auto repairs and maintenance_____________
Auto insurance rates_____
Auto registration_________________________

116.3
129.2
141.4
123.2

117.5
131.2
142.9
123.7

117.6
131.3
141.8
123.7

118.8
131.6
141.8
123.7

118.3
131.9
141.8
123.7

117.9
133.1
141.0
127.1

117.4
133.6
140.8
127.1

116.6
134.0
140.9
127.1

116.0
134.3
140.7
127.5

116.3
134.6
140.6
127.5

115.8
134.9
140.7
127.5

116.0
135.2
141.1
127.5

115.5
135.7
141.1
127.5

115.3
136.3
140.4
127.5

Public_________
Local transit fares.....
Taxicab fares_____
Railroad fares, coach_______
Airplane fares, chiefly coach_________ ____ _
Bus fares, intercity_______________________

137.7
143.4
126.5
126.8
126.9
132.7

139.3
144.0
131.7
127.7
129.6
135.9

139.3
144.0
131.7
127.7
129.6
135.9

139.3
144.0
131.7
127.6
129.6
135.9

139.7
144.4
132.8
128.2
lz9.6
136.1

143.4
150.2
132.8
128.2
129.6
136.1

143.5
150.3
132.8
128.2
129.6
136.1

142.3
148.4
132.9
126.9
129.6
137.6

142.7
149.1
132.9
127.0
129.6
137.6

142.7
149.1
132.9
127.0
129.6
137.6

143.0
149.9
133.6
122.7
129.2
138.1

143.3
150.3
133.6
122.9
129.2
138.1

143.3
150.3
133.6
122 9
129.2
138.1

144.0
150 6
133 7

1 2 2 .2

123.6

123.5

123.7

123.9

124.3

124.7

125.0

125.5

125.8

126.1

126.3

126.5

126.8

130.4
105.7
110.3
95.1
115.1

129.6
105.6
110.4
95.4
115.8

129.7
105.7
110.5
95.4
115.4

130.1
105.6

130.5
105.5
110.3
95.1
114.1

131.0
105.5

131.4
105.5

132.7
105.6

1 1 0 .8

1 1 1 .6

1 1 1 .2

95.1
115.0

95.0
118.1

95.1
116.6

132.9
105.8
111 5
95 3
116.8

133 1
105.7

95.0
114.5

132.0
105.7
111.7
95.3
117.7

132.4
105.8

1 1 0 .6

131.7
105.5
110.9
95.2
115.4

100.7
124.1

100.9
123.6

1 0 0 .8

1 0 0 .8

1 0 0 .8

1 0 1 .2

1 0 1 .2

1 0 1 .2

111.3
112.4

1 1 2 .0

111.4

111.4

123.6
113.2

1 1 2 .8

111.7

123.7
113.1
112.7

123.9
113.5
112.9

124.1
113.2

1 1 1 .2

124.1
112.9
111.3

123.8

1 1 2 .0

101.3
124.1
113.9
114.1

101.3
123.6
113.9
113.9

123.4
114.2
113.5

101 4
124.1
114.5
113.7

101 7
124.6
114.1
113.5

101.3
80.2
122.9
101.7
107.1

1 0 1 .8

1 0 1 .6

1 0 1 .6

101.5
78.9
124.7

1 0 1 .2

1 0 1 .1

79.4
124.6

101.7
79.1
124.8

76.7
125.1

100.7
75.2
125.9
102.7
107.9

100.9
75.4
126.5
102.9
108.0

100.9
74.7
127.4
103.3
108.0

100.9
74 3
127.6
103.3
108.0

100.7
73 4
127.9
103.3
108.1
131 8
1 1 1 .8

Apparel services:
Drycleaning, men’s suits and women’s dresses.
Automatic laundry service_________________
Laundry, men’s shirts. .. . . . __________
Tailoring charges, hem adjustment_________
_______
Shoe repairs, women's heel lift..
TRANSPORTATION
Private_______
Automobiles, new_____ ..
Automobiles, used______
Gasoline, regular and premium_____________
Motor oil, premium__________

HEALTH AND RECREATION.
Medical care
Drugs and prescriptions_____ _____________
Over-the-counter items___ _ ________
Multiple vitamin concentrates___ ______
Aspirin compounds_____ .
______
Liquid tonics..................................
Adhesive bandages, package..
____
Cold tablets or capsules .
_____
Cough syrup_______ ____________ ____
Prescriptions_______ ______
Anti-infectives____
Sedatives and hypnotics_______
Ataractics________
Anti-spasmodics..

1 1 2 .0
110 2

106.3

128.4
105.4
1 1 0 .2

96.6
114.1
101.3
1 2 2 .6

1 2 2 .8

119.5
127.3

1 1 0 .2

106.9

1 1 0 .2

95.1
114.0

122.4
1 2 1 .0

113.0

1 1 2 .2

1 0 2 .6

1 0 2 .6

108.1

79.6
123.8
102.5
107.9

1 0 2 .6

107.8

108.0

107.9

77.4
124.9
102.7
107.7

127.4

127.2

127.2

127.1

127.8

79.9
124.2
1 6 2 .6

1 2 2 .6

1 1 2 .8

100.9
76.0
125.2

1 0 2 .8

1 0 2 .8

107.8

107.8

1 0 1 .2

1 1 0 .6

1 1 0 .6

122 0

131 9
142.1

111 6

qfi 3
117.1

Cough preparations___________________
Cardiovasculars and antihypertensives___
Analgesics, internal_______
Anti-obesity______
Hormones..

126.0
111.1
107.8
114.9
94.9

127.9

128.5

128.9

107.7
117.0
94.7

1 1 2 .0

1 1 2 .1

108.3
117.1
94.9

1 1 2 .0

1 1 1 .8

107.9
117.0
94.6

1 1 1 .8

108.3
117.3
94.8

1 1 1 .8

108.2
117.7
94.0

109.1
117.7
94.0

109.2
117.5
93.8

109.4
116.7
94.0

129.7
111.4
109.5
117.1
92.9

130.7
111.4
109.5
117.2
92.8

131.9
111.5
109.6
118.0
92.5

132.2
111.7
109.8
118.0
92.9

109.6
118.0
92.9

Professional services:
Physicians’ fee.....
General physician, office visits___________
General physician, house visits___________
Obstetrical cases
Pediatric care, office visits.................. .
Psychiatrist, off:ce visits ._ ..
___
Herniorrhaphy, adult .
Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy________

129.8
131.4
131.0
129.0
132.0
124.8
123.4
125.2

131.5
133.0
133.6
131.3
133.5
125.7
124.4
128.0

131.7
133.0
133.9
131.5
133.6
125.9
125.2
128.2

132.0
133.1
134.1
131.5
134.7
127.2
126.2
128.7

132.2
133.3
134.6
131.6
135.3
127.3
126.4
128.7

132.3
133.3
134.8
132.0
135.3
127.9
126.8
128.7

132.6
133.5
135.1
132.3
135.6
128.3
127.0
129.2

132.9
134.0
135.5
132.8
135.5
128.5
127.4
129.2

133.2
134.2
135.6
133.9
135.6
128.5
127.8
129.6

133.3
134.3
135.8
134.0
135.6
128.5
127.9
129.8

133.9
135.0
137.0
134.0
135.8
129.0
128.2
130.0

134.0
135.1
137.2
134.2
135.9
129.2
128.2
129.8

134.2
135.2
137.3
134.3
136.1
129.3
128.6
130.4

134.4
135.5
137.8
134.4
136.3
129.2
128.8
130.5

See footnotes at end of table.


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

1 1 2 .0

1 1 2 .0

CONSUMER PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
25.

109

Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average

Group, subgroup, and selected items

HEALTH AND RECREATION— Continued
Dentists' fees__________ ____ . . _________
Fillings, adult, amalgam, one surface..Extractions, adult____________________
Dentures, full uppers____ _______ _ ..
Other professional services:
Examination, prescription, and dispensing
of eyeglasses_______ _____________
Routine laboratory tests____________ .
Hospital service charges5
Semiprivate roomsl______________________
Operating room charges___________________
X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G.l-------------Laboratory test, urinalysis5
Anti-infective, tetracycline, HCL5
Tranquilizer chlordizepoxide HCL 5
Electrocardiogram5
1 ntravenous solution saline5
Physical therapy whirlpool bath 5
Oxygen inhalation therapy5

1972

1971

Annual
average
1971
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

127.0
128.0
126.9
124.9

128.2
129.5
127.7
126.0

129.6
131.0
128.9
127.7

129.8
131.0
129.4
127.7

130.0
131.3
129.6
127.7

130.5
131.8
130.4
128.2

130.6
131.8
130.6
128.3

131.0
132.3
131.0
128.3

131.6
133.0
131.5
128.8

131.9
133.4
131.9
129.0

132.4
133.9
132.6
129.1

132.7
134.2
132.8
129.5

132.8
134.3
132.9
129.5

120.3
116.1

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .6

122.9
118.6

124.5
119.7
101.5
172.7
166.6
129.0
101.5
100.9

124.7
120.7

125.0
120.7

1 2 0 .8

1 0 1 .8

1 0 2 .0

1 2 1 .1
1 0 2 .8

99.9
102.5
101.4
100.7
101.5

1 0 0 .6
1 0 2 .8

1 0 1 .1
1 0 2 .8

125.0
120.7
102.4
174.9
168.6
129.3
102.3
99.8
101.7

125.5

117.8

122.9
117.8

125.3

117.6

1 0 2 .8

1 0 2 .8

101.5

101.9
101.9
101.7

118.4
115.4
109.6
120.3
124.0

118.7
115.8
119.5

119.1
116.3
108.8

1 2 1 .1

1 2 1 .0

123.8

104.9
124.4
111.3

106.4
123.1
105.0
123.1
111.3

121.3
123.9
119.4

163.1
156.2
124.9

166.8
158.0
126.5

167.Ö
159.1
126.5

167.0
159.0
126.6

167.9
162.6
126.9

123.1
118.7

123.8
118.9

124.0
119.4

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .6

1 0 1 .2

169.6
163.5
127.7

171.1
165.0
127.9
100.9
99.7
99.7
101.9
100.5
100.5

172.2
166.0
128.6
101.4

1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0

1 0 1 .2

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .8
1 0 1 .6

173.2
167.3
128.9
101.9
100.3

173.8
167.2
128.8
1 0 2 .0
1 0 0 .1

101.9
1 0 2 .8
1 0 2 .2
1 0 2 .0

101.9

102.7
175.3
170.0
129.6
102.4
1 0 0 .0

101.9

102.3

102.4

1 0 2 .1
1 0 2 .0

1 0 2 .2
1 0 2 .0

Sept.

133.1
134.6
133.1
129.8

175.6
170.8
129.6
102.4
1 0 0 .0
1 0 2 .2
1 0 2 .8

102.4
102.3
101.9

1 2 0 .0

1 2 0 .0

1 2 0 .2

117.4
109.4

117.3
1 1 0 .0

125.1

119.7
117.1
109.9
122.9
125.2

126.0

122.5
124.9

117.4
109.9
121.9
127.1

107.2
125.1
105.6
123.4
110.5

107.5
126.2
105.6
125.4
110.9

108.0
131.4
106.0
124.3
109.1

108.2
133.3
105.5
125.1
109.1

107.0
135.0
105.6
124.5
109.2

107.1
134.2
105.1
124.7
109.6

107.3
134.3
104.6
124.9
109.7

121.5
124.1
119.7

121.7
124.2
119.9

1 2 2 .0

124.4
120.4

122.4
124.9
120.7

122.7
125.1

122.9
125.3

123.2
125.4

123.6
125.8

1 2 1 .0

1 2 1 .2

1 2 1 .6

1 2 2 .1

107.3
100.3
124.7
98.4

121.4
107.4
99.9
126.4
98.4

121.5
107.3
99.7
126.9
98.4

121.7
107.6
128.8
98.5

122.3
107.7
99.8
129.8
98.9

122.5
107.8
99.6
130.6
99.0

122.9
108.0
99.5
131.1
99.1

123.0
108.1
99.4
131.8
99.1

123.0
108.1
99.4
132.6
99.2

123.7
108.2
99.0
133.1
99.2

92.5
106.5
88.9
108.5
113.6
111.7

93.1
107.1
88.9
108.7
113.3

93.4
107.2
88.3
108.6
113.8

93.3
106.6

93.8
106.4
8 8 .8

1 1 2 .6

108.3
114.9
113.4

108.3
114.8
112.7

94.4
106.5
87.5
108.2
116.0
113.1

94.7
107.2

8 8 .8

1 1 2 .2

93.3
107.0
88.7
108.3
114.2
113.0

108.1
117.0
114.0

94.9
107.5
88.3
108.0
117.4
114.3

95.1
107.6
88.3
108.2
117.1
114.5

94.9
107.6
88.4
108.1
117.3
115.1

126.2
138.3

126.6
138.7

126.4
137.9

126.9
139.0

127.0
138.6

127.3
139.2

127.8
140.7

128.0
141.2

128.7
142.5

128.9
144.1

128.6
143.3

128.8
143.2

142.5
116.1
128.4
98.5
118.3

142.3
116.7
128.3
98.4
118.1

142.3
117.7

142.5
117.6

143.1
117.9

143.5
118.4

143.7
119.1

98.5
118.3

98.6
118.2

98.6
118.2

98.5
118.3

98.3
118.2

143.8
119.3
129.6
98.1
118.1

145.9
118.9
129.0
98.0
117.8

147.8
118.6
130.7
98.2
116.6

146.7
118.4
130.8
98.0
116.5

147.1
117.8
130 9
98.1
116.4

146.6
118.7
131.5
98.1
116.1

130.6
121.4

130.5
121.5

130.6
121.5

130.7
121.5

130.7

130.9

130.8

131.6

131.8

132.8

1 2 1 .0

1 2 1 .6

1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .2

1 2 2 .2

133.1
122.3

133.1
122.5

133.1
123.9

OTHER GOODS AND SER VIC ES_________________
Tobacco products____ _____ ___ ___ _ . ..
Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular size.
... .
Cigarettes, filter, king___ __ __ ..
---- ---Cigars, domestic, regular------- ------------- .

120.9
126.4
127.9
128.1
107.1

122.4
128.9
130.2
130.8
108.5

1 2 2 .6

1 2 2 .8

128.9
130.2
130.8
108.7

129.0
130.3
130.8
109.3

123.0
129.2
130.6
131.1
109.5

123.5
130.2
131.6
132.2
109.7

124.3
132.0
133.2
134.3
110.3

124.6
132.5
133.7
134.8

125.4
133.2
134.4
135.5
110.7

125.6
134.0
135.6
136.1
110.9

125.8
134.0
135.6
136.1
110.9

126.0
134.1
135.9
136.1

1 1 0 .6

125.1
132.7
133.9
135.0
110.7

1 1 1 . 0

126.2
134.2
135.9
136.2
111.3

Alcoholic beverages. _. _________________ _______
Beer___________________________________
Whiskey, spirit blended and straight bourbon..
Wine, dessert and table________ _____ __
Beer, away from home________
_________

116.9
112.9
106.4
122.3
126.4

117.6
113.4
107.0
124.5
127.1

117.9
113.6
106.8
124.7
127.7

118.3
113.7
106.9
124.9
128.8

118.4
113.8
107.0
125.1
128.8

118.5
113.5
107.4
125.3
129.3

118.7
113.6
108.5
125.6
129.0

118.9
113.9
108.5
125.9
129.1

119.3
114.1
108.6
126.4
130.1

119.5
114.2
108.6
126.5
130.5

119.1
113.1
108.5
126.7
130.7

119.6
113.4
109.0
127.5
131.2

119.9
113.9
108.9
127.6
131.5

114.2
108.8
127.8
132.2

Financial and miscellaneous personal expenses:
Funeral services, adult__________________ .
Bank service charges, checking accounts____
Legal services, will.. _ .. .. ... .
.. ..

117.2

118.4
110.9
137.4

118.8
109.3
139.9

119.1
109.3
140.2

119.2
109.5
141.4

119.5
109.7
141.7

1 2 0 .2

1 2 0 .6

1 2 0 .6

108.5
141.8

108.2
141.9

107.4
149.3

120.7
107.4
149.3

1 2 1 .1

135.5

107.4
150.6

121.3
107.0
150.2

121.4
107.0
150.3

121.7
107.1
150.4

Personal care _______________________________________________
Toilet goods_______________________ _____
Toothpaste, standard dentifrice
Toilet soap, hard milled..... ... ... ... . .
Hand lotions, liquid__________ ____________

116.8
113.8
107.7
114.1
119.5

117.6
114.6
108.6
115.2
119.7

117.9
114.9
108 8
118.4
120.5

117.9
114.8
108.3
118.8

Shaving cream, aerosol.. ... _________
Face powder, pressed_______ ________
Deodorants, aerosol___ _____
_. _
Cleansing tissues___... ______ . ...
Home permanent wave sets____ . ___

106.6
123.5
105.6
123.3
110.9

107.2
124.1
106.4
124.1
111.7

107.1
123.9
106.3

107.8
122.4
105.9
123.6
111.7

Personal care services________________ ...
Men's haircuts_____________ ____ ____
Beauty shop services___ . . . . . .

1 2 0 .0
1 2 2 .6

1 2 0 .8

1 2 1 .0

1 2 1 .2

1 2 1 .2

118.2

123.4
118.9

123.7
119.1

123.7
119.4

123.9
119.2

Reading anJ recreation_____________________
Recreational goods . . ... . ... ___ __ _
TV sets, portable and console____ ____
TV replacement tubes.. ____ ________
Radios, portable and table model_______

119.3
106.6

120.5
107.1

120.5
107.2

1 2 0 .8

1 2 1 .1

1 0 0 .1

1 0 0 .0

100 2

122.5
98.5

123.4
98.5

124.1
98.1

107.2
100.3
124.5
98.4

Tape recorders, portable.. _ ... ______
Phonograph records, stereophonic______
Movie cameras, Super 8 , zoom lens_____
Film, 35mm, color
... ._ .. _______
Bicycle, boys’... ..
.. _______ .
Tricycles. ... .
................ .....

94.2
103.5
89.4
108.3

93.0
106.5
89.1
108.4
113.7
1 1 2 .0

92.7
106.5
89.2
108.3
114.0
111.9

Recreational services_______ ____________
Indoor movie admissions______________

125.2
137.6

126.3
138.9

Drive-in movie admissions, adult_____ .
Bowling fees, evening..
.
Golf greens fees 1
TV repairs, picture tube replacement____
Film developing, color.. ______ _______

140.1
116.3
127.5
98.0
116.7

Reading and education:
Newspapers, street sale and delivery.
Piano lessons, beginner_____. _______

129.6

1 Priced only in season.
March 1970=100.
J June 1970=100.
* December 1971 = 100.
5 January 1972 = 100.
2


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

1 1 2 .6
1 1 1 .2

1 1 0 .6

1 2 2 .6
1 1 1 .8

1 2 0 .0

117.9
114.8
109 3
119.7
120.4

118.1
115.1
109.9
119.7

107.3

107.1

1 2 2 .0

105.9
1 2 1 .8
1 1 1 .6

1 2 1 .2

1 2 2 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 2 2 .6

8 8 .2

120.5
117.6
1 1 0 .6

122.3
126.8

1 2 0 .2

NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Con­
sumer Price Index, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS
Bulletin 1711, 1971), chapter 10.
c= corrected.
r= revised.

lio
26.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index 1—U.S. city average, and selected areas

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]

Area 2

1972

1971

Annual
average
1971
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

All items
U.S. city average*______________________________

121.3

1 2 2 .2

Atlanta, Ga___________ _________________________
Baltimore, Md__________ . ___________________
Boston, Mass_________________________________
Buffalo, N.Y__________________________________
Chicago, III.-Northwestern Ind___________________
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky_____ _________________

121.7
123.4

1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .8
1 2 1 .8
1 2 0 .8

120.7

1 2 2 .6

123.1

123.2

123.8

124.0

124.3

124.7

125.0

125.5

125.7

126.2

123.5
125.1
(4)
(4)
122.3
121.9

(4)
(4)
124.9
(4)

c123.8
(4)
124.9
(4)
(4)
(4)
124.9
(4)
123.0 123.2
123.0
(4)

(4)
(4)
126.2
(4)
123.3
(4)

(4)
(4)
(4)
126.1
123.7
(4)

124.8
125.5
(4)
(4)
124.2
124.6

(4)
(4)
127.1
(4)
124.4
(4)

(4)
(4)
(4)
126.8
125.0
(4)

126.9
127.7
(4)
(4)
125.3
126.3

(4)
(4)
123.7

(4)
(4)
124.2
(4)
123.2
(4)

125.9
123.7
124.9
(4>
(4)
(4)

(4)
(4)
125.0
(4)
124.8
(4)

126.1
124.6
125.5
(4)
(4)
(4)

(4)
(4)
126.0
(4)
123.9

(4)
Í4)
126.7
(4)
125.2
(4)

126.2
125.5
126.9
(4)
(4)
(4)

(4)
(4)
127.3
123.1
(4)
125.5

' 1 2 0 . 0 '120.3 ' 1 2 1 .1 ' 1 2 1 . 2 '121.3
1 2 2 .8
1 2 2 .2
(4)
(4)
(4)
124.2
123.8
(4)
(4)
(4)
'128.6 '129.6 '130.1 '130.4 '130.7
126.1
124.7 125.2 125.8 126.0
124.7
123.2
(4)
(4)
(4)
118.4
118.1
(4)
(4)
(4)

' 1 2 1 .6
(4)
(4)
'131.0
126.5
(4)
(4)

122.7
(4)
125.5
131.4
127.0
125.5
119.6

1 1 2 .8

124.6
(4)
131.7
127.4
(4)
(4)

123.8
(4)
(4)
132.9
128.4
(4)
(4)

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

(4)
125.1
(4)
126.8
119.9
127.7

123.6
(4)
125.6
(4)
(4)
(4)

124.4
(4)
(4)
121.7
121.4

(4)
(4)
124.5
(4)
121.7
(4)

(4)
(4)
(4)
123.1

(4)
(4)

(4)
(4)

1 2 2 .8
1 2 1 .2

1 2 2 .8

124.4
122.4
123.4
(4)
(4)
(4)

Cleveland, Ohio..................... ................................. .
Dallas, Tex_______ _____ ____ _________________
Detroit, Mich________________________________
Honolulu, Hawaii______________________________
Houston, Tex___ _____________________________
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas___________ ______ ______

1 2 2 .8

Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif____________________
Milwaukee, Wis________________________ _____
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn_________________
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J_______
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J______________________ ____
Pittsburgh, Pa_______________________________
Portland, Oreg.-Wash.5_________________________

118.5 '119.9
1 2 0 .1
(4)
121.7
(4)
125.9 127.3
123.5 124.6
121.5
(4)
116.1
(4)

St. Louis, Mo.-111______________________________
San Diego, Calif_______________________________
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif_________ _______
Scranton, Pa.5___ ____________________________
Seattle, Wash________________________ ______
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va________________________

119.6 120.5
rl 19.8
(4)
' 1 2 0 .1 '120.7
121.4
(4)
116.4
(4)
122.7
(4)

121.3
121.7
118.9
120.9
120.5

122.4

(4)
121.5

(4)
122.4
(4)

1 2 1 .8

(4)

1 2 1 .1

(4)
121.4

' 1 2 0 .2 '119.9 ' 1 2 0 .0
120.9
(4)
(4)
123.4
(4)
(4)
127.5 127.6 128.0
125.0 124.7 125.0
122.9
(4)
(4)
117.4
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
«

(4)
' 1 2 0 .8
(4)
1 2 2 .6

117.6
124.2

120.9
(4)
' 1 2 1 .6
(4)
(4)
(4)

1 2 2 .1

(4)

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

(4)
(4)
125.0
122.4
(")
122.4

1 2 0 .8
(4)
' 1 2 2 .1
(4)
'122.7
(4)
123.6
(4)
119.0
(*)
124.7
(4)

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

1 2 2 .2

121.9
(4)
'123.6
(4),
'124.1
(4)
125.1
(4)
118.8
(4>
125.6
(4)

Food
U.S. city average____ ____ _____________________

118.4

119.1

118.9

119.0

120.3

120.3

1 2 2 .2

122.4

122.4

122.3

123.0

124.2

124.6

124.8

Atlanta, Ga_____________________ ____________
Baltimore, Md________________________________
Boston, Mass___________________ _____ ________
Buffalo, N.Y__________________________________
Chicago, I I I . -Northwestern Ind____________________
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky........................................ .

118.1

119.0

118.4

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .6

1 2 2 .2

1 2 1 .8

118.4
119.8
118.9
118.9

121.9
119.5

123.2

118.5
119.6
119.4
118.7

123.9
122.3

1 2 1 .1

122.9

1 2 2 .8

119.8
120.5

1 2 2 .8

122.7
123.6

123.7
122.7
122.5
122.5
122.3
123.2

123.3
122.7

118.5
119.7
118.5
118.4

119.6
123.2
119.9
120.9
119.6
120.7

1 2 0 .6

1 2 1 .0

118.7
121.7
118.8
119.8
119.2
118.9

122.5
122.3
123.5

123.6
123.2
122.9
123.2
123.9
122.4

124.3
125.0
124.0
124.4
124.3
125.6

126.0
126.0
125.2
124.6
125.9
125.3

126.2
126.4
125.4
124.1
124.8
125.8

Cleveland, Ohio________ _______________________
Dallas, Tex___________________________________
Detroit, Mich___________ ______________________
Honolulu, Hawaii............................................................
Houston, Tex_________________________________
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas________________________

118.9
117.8
117.3
118.1
118.8
118.6

118.2
118.6
118.4
121.4

118.1
118.7
117.8

118.4
118.5
117.8
120.4

119.2

118.9

121.7
122.5

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

121.7
121.4
121.3

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

122.9

1 2 2 .1

124.4
123.0
124.2

123.7
123.2

123.2
124.0

1 2 2 .8

1 2 2 .8

124.7
123.7
124.1
122.9
125.4
124.2

125.4
124.1
123.6
123.8
126.1
125.0

Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif____________________
Milwaukee, Wis_______________________________
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn______________________
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J_________
_____
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J___________________________
Pittsburgh, Pa________________________________
Portland, Oreg.-Wash 5__________ _ ____________

114.9
115.7
119.2
123.1

St. Louis, Mo.-Ill________________________________
San Diego,Calif________________________________
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif_____________________
Scranton, Pa.5 .
...
. . . ___
Seattle, Wash_________________________________
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va................................................

118.0
117.3
116.1

1 2 0 .1

118.9
113.4

1 2 0 .2

1 2 0 .0

119.8

1 2 0 .8

115.1
116.8
119.5
124.2
121.4
119.4

115.3
116.3
119.1
124.3

115.8
116.3
119.2
124.3

1 2 1 .0

119.0
112.5

118.8
117.8
115.5

118.3
117.7
116.3

116.8
121.3

116.3
121.4

1 2 1 .8
1 2 0 .2

116.6
117.2

123.6

124.1
128.1
123.0
121.5

1 2 0 .8
1 2 1 .8

1 2 1 .0
1 2 2 .0

119.8

119.7

119.0
124.0

119.1
123.8

121.4
122.3
120.9
121.7
119.3
122.9

127.4
124.3
123.1

1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .2

120.9

120.9
114.9

118.5 119.4
118.6 119.5
116.9 118.9
119.6
116.5 rl 18.2

119.7

120.9

1 2 0 .0

119.1

1 2 1 .8
1 2 0 .2

118.4
120.9

123.6
119.6
123.7

1 2 2 .0

119.0
119.4
123.3
127.3
123.0
121.5

126.9
123.8

119.4

1 2 1 .2

119.2
119.1
122.9
127.4
124.2
122.4
116.4

118.8
119.4
1 2 2 .8

1 2 0 .6

1 2 2 .6

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .0

125.2

1 2 0 .6

1 2 2 .8

122.4
121.3
123.6
123.2

118.9
119.4

117.5
117.0
120.5
125.2

1 See table 25. Indexes measure time-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate
whether it costs more to live in one area than in another.
2 The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire urban portion of the
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1960 Census of Population;
except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago.
3 Average of 56 “cities” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places
beginning January 1966).


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

1 2 0 .8

119.7
120.7
121.9
120.9

119.5

1 2 0 .1
1 2 0 .0

1 2 0 .1

115.9

1 2 0 .6

119.2
120.9
121.5

1 2 1 .2

1 2 2 .8

123.6
122.5

122.3
123.2

1 2 0 .0
1 2 0 .1

1 2 2 .1

124.8
124.1
121.3
120.9
125.3
129.5
124.0
123.0
118.9

1 2 1 .2

123.5
124.2
122.4

120.4
124.8

126.1

1 2 2 .0

123.4

1 2 1 .1

1 2 1 .2
1 2 2 .2

121.7

125.9
129.8
124.3
123.0

125.6
130.4
124.9
123.4

123.8
124.2
1 2 2 .0

123.8
124.4
122.7

125.2
121.7
127.5

128.9

121.8

121.8

4 All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on
a rotating cycle for other areas.
5 Old series (old market basket components).
r = revised.
®= corrected.

WHOLESALE PRICES

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
27.

111

Wholesale Price Index,1 by group and subgroup of commodities

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified2]

Code

Commodity group

All commodities________________________
All commodities (1957-59=100)___ ..
Farm products and processed foods and
feeds___ ______________ _____________
Industrial commodities____ ______________

Annual
average
1971

1972

1971
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

113.9
120.9

114.5
121.5

114.4
121.4

114.5
121.5

115.4
122.4

116.3
123.4

117.3
124.5

117.4
124.6

117.5
124.7

118.2
125.4

118.8
126.0

119.7
127.0

119.9
127.2

1 2 0 .2

113.8
114.0

113.0
115.0

113.0
115.0

113.6
114.9

115.9
115.3

117.4
115.9

119.6
116.5

119.1
116.8

118.3
117.3

1 2 0 .0

121.3
117.9

124.0
118.1

123.8
118.5

124.5
118.7

112.9

110.5
103.6
89.0
119.1

111.3
115.8
88.3
120.9
93.5
96.3
119.2
92.4
107.9
115.4

1 1 2 .2

117.8
124.9
94.1
132.2
94.3
109.5
120.5
92.6
108.7
118.0

120.7
127.5
93.0
139.6
105.4
113.2
120.5
91.9

119.7

119.1
117.6
96.0
133.8
94.1

124.0
121.7
94.5
146.4
102.9
127.3
121.7
91.9
116.9
119.9

128.0
129.9
96.3
152.4
118.4
125.4

128.2
138.9
99.8
148.1
106.8

128.6
138.1
109.5
144.9
112.3
108.4

1 1 1 .8

115.8
126.3
95.3
124.7
87.2
102.5
119.0
114.4
109.2
117.3

114.1
111.3
116.9
116.4
115.3
118.7
116.4
132.1
128.9
127.9

114.4
111.5
117.1
116.3
115.4
119.1
116.6
130.1
128.6
130.4

115.9

117.2

1 1 1 .6

1 1 2 .2

120.4
117.4
115.8

125.4
117.3
116.0

118.8
112.4
130.5
117.5
116.1

1 2 0 .2

1 2 0 .1

1 2 1 .1

116.4
122.3
118.2
122.7

116.4
121.4
114.2
1 2 1 .0

1 2 2 .8

1 2 2 .8

1 2 2 .0

112.7
98.7

113.0
100.3

113.1
104.5

1 1 0 .6

117.6

Sept.

127.5

FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED
FOODS AND FEEDS
01
0 1 -1
0 1 -2

01-3
01-4
01-5
0 1 -6

01-7
0 1 -8

01-9

Farm products____________________ _____
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables____
Grains..___________ _________________
Livestock___ _______ ______________
Live poultry_________________________
Plant and animal fibers________________
Fluid milk_____ ____________________
Eggs--------------------------------------------Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds_______ ____
Other farm products__________________

1 2 0 .1

100.9
118.3
100.3
92.8
118.8
1 0 0 .8

109.2
115.4

1 0 2 .8

95.2
119.2
107.8
108.9
115.6

127.1
87.8
1 2 1 .0

92.3
97.3
118.8
88.5
109.0

02-9

Processed foods and feeds_______________
Cereal and bakery products____________
Meats, poultry, and fish_______________
Dairy products_______________________
Processed fruits and vegetables___ ____
Sugar and confectionery_______________
Beverages and beverage materials_______
Animal fats and oils__________________
Crude vegetable oils____ ______________
Refined vegetable oils_________________
Vegetable oil end products_____________
Miscellaneous processed foods__________
Manufactured animal feeds.................

03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-5
03-6
03-7

Textile products and apparel_____________
Cotton products______________________
Wool products_______________________
Manmade fiber textile products_________
Apparel___________________ ______ _
Textile housefurnishings.......... ..........
Miscellaneous textile products__________

1 0 0 .8

112.9
104.2
117.2

92.5
103.1
113.8
104.1
119.8

04
04-1
04-2
04-3
04-4

Hides, skins, leather, and related products.
Hides and skins______________________
Leather__________ ______ _______ ____
Footwear____________________________
Other leather and related products______

114.0
115.1
112.5
116.8
108.3

114.7
117.7
113.4
117.1
109.0

114.7
117.2
113.4
117.1
109.0

115.1
123.1
113.5
117.1
109.1

116.2
128.6
117.0
117.1
109.8

05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7

Fuels and related products and power_____
Coal_________________ ______ ______
Coke______________________________
Gas fuels____________________________
Electric power_______________________
Crude petroleum_____________________
Petroleum products, refined____________

114.2
181.8
148.7
108.0
113.6
113.2
106.8

115.3
182.9
150.5
108.4
116.4
113.2
107.3

114.8
182.9
150.5
108.8
116.3
113.2
106.3

114.7
182.9
150.5
108.8
116.2
113.2
106.2

115.0
190.2
150.5
107.9
116.3
113.2
106.1

06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5

104.2

104.3
102.4
115.9
99.7

104.2
102.4
115.9
99.7

115.9
101.9
102.5
115.9

06-6
06-7

Chemicals and allied products____________
Industrial chemical's__________________
Prepared paint_______________________
Paint materials_______________________
Drugs and pharmaceuticals_______ ... .
Fats and oils, inedible___ ___________
Agricultural chemicals and chemical
products____ _____________________
Plastic resins and materials____________
Other chemicals and allied products_____

07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-21
07-22
07-23

Rubber and plastic products______________
Rubber and rubber products. __________
Crude rubber_____ ___________________
Tires and tubes______________________
Miscellaneous rubber products__________
Plastic construction products3 __________
Unsupported plastic film and sheeting <...
Laminated plastic sheets, high pressure

08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4

Lumber and wood products_______________
Lumber__________________ ____ _____
Millwork____________________________
Plywood_________ ... _____________
Other wood products.........................

02
0 2 -1
0 2 -2

02-3
02-4
02-5
0 2 -6

02-71
02-72
02-73
02-74
0 2 -8

114.3
111.4
116.0
115.4
114.3
119.2
115.8
130.9
128.8
134.8
113.2
104.4

114.6
111.3
117.5
115.4
115.7
119.8
116.0
136.5
135.6
133.6
123.3
113.0
101.3

108.6

109.7

109.6

1 1 0 .6

1 1 2 .2

1 1 2 .2

93.5

92.4
102.5
113.8
104.1

109.8
112.5
92.3
103.2
113.8
104.1

1 2 0 .8

1 2 1 .2

113.6
91.5
104.3
113.8
106.1
136.2

1 2 1 .1

121.7
113.6
103.8

1 1 2 .8

93.8
136.7
107.6
114.3

1 2 2 .2
1 2 0 .6

97.5
139.8
96.3
130.1
122.5
90.6
116.9
119.5

1 2 1 .8

1 2 2 .1
1 2 2 .1

107.7
114.4
117.5

87.2
118.5
118.0

118.6

117.7

1 1 2 .6

1 1 2 .8

123.6
117.5
118.3
1 2 1 .1

1 2 0 .8

116.8
133.5
116.8

127.3
118.0
116.7
121.9
116.7
130.4
115.6

118.6
113.3
126.8
117.4
119.0
117.2
127.3
1 1 2 .8

1 1 2 .0

1 2 0 .1
1 2 1 .1

1 2 0 .6
1 2 0 .8

113.8
103.7

113.7
108.5

117.2
127.8
118.9
120.9
120.7
113.8
108.5

119.6
113.3
131.4
115.3
119.5
121.3
117.8
125.8

119.6
120.7
115.0
108.4

119.1
121.5
114.4
107.7

1 1 0 .2

116.8

1 2 2 .0
1 0 2 .2

116.8
1 2 1 .8

121.5
113.6
135.8
117.7
119.6
1 2 2 .2

117.9
124.1
106.9
115.8
121.4
114.4
110.9

1 2 0 .6
1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .8

99.3
115.9
134.6

114.9
118.0
132.7

1 2 1 .0

1 2 1 .8

115.3
132.3
118.6

116.1
131.7
119.0

1 2 0 .2

1 2 0 .1
1 2 1 .6

121.3
118.9
124.0
104.1
107.5
121.5
113.9
111.7

119.1
126.7
100.7
107.0
121.5
116.4
117.8

IN D U ST R IA L COMMODITIES

See footnotes at end of table.


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

1 0 2 .0

115.6
101.5
102.4
133.5
92.2
88.9
1 1 2 .1

109.2

1 0 2 .6

1 0 2 .6

132.9

129.0

103.8
101.7
115.9
99.7
102.4
125.3

103.4

91.0
89.5
112.4

90.4
89.9
112.5

90.3
89.2
112.5

90.3
89.0
112.4

109.7
113.7
99.3

109.5
113.3
99.0

109.5
113 3
98.5

109.4
113.3
98.5

1 0 1 .1

114.1

114.3
123.6
102.5
108.6
115.3

1 1 2 .1

1 1 2 .6

118.0
92.2
105.9
114.0
108.5
141.6

119.6
92.0
106.1
114.1
108.7
130.9

120.5
93.0
107.2
114.1
108.7
131.1

113.3
121.5
98.3
108.0
114.3
109.3
129.8

99.2
108.6
114. i.
109.125.8

108.9
115.1
109.5
1 2 2 .6

108.7
115.1
109.9
121.4

117.8
136.0

119.1
148.9

127.2
188.6
138.1
122.4
113.7

129.5
200.3
137.8
124.6
115.3

130.9
204.1
138.6
125.8
116.7

131.6
212.5
138.1
126.5
116.5

134.6
243.0
140.6
126.5
118.7

135.7
244.0
143.5
126.8
120.4

116.9
191.2
155.3
112.5
120.5
113.2
106.6

117.5
191.2
155.3
113.0

118.2
191.2
155.3
112.9
121.5
113.2
108.5

118.6
191.2
155.3
113.2

119.7
191.5
155.3
114.3

120.3
192.2
155.3
116.7

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .6

114.7
110.7

114.7
111.3

104.1
101.5
118.3
103.0
102.4

104.4
101.4
118.3
103.5

104.3
101.4
118.3
103.9
103.1
115.9

104.2
101.5
118.3
104.2
103.2
113.2

104.4
101.3
118.3
105.2
103.3
121.4

104.4
101.3
118.3
105.2
103.1
116.4

92.3
87.9
113.8

91.9
87.9
113.3

92.0
113.5

92.0
88.9
113.8

108.9
113.3
98.6
108.7

109.5
114.3
98.7
109.7

109.5
114.3
98.8
109.7

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .1

93.5
98.1
97.9

109.2
113.8
98.8
109.5
121.3
93.3
98.2
98.3

93.3
98.3
97.9

93.3
98.3
97.9

144.2
159.0
128.4
131.7
123.4

146.1
161.6
129.6
132.9
125.6

148.1
164.1
130.0
135.9
126.8

148.5
165.1
130.2
134.6
127.6

1 2 0 .0

1 2 0 .6

123.0
173.8
128.4

118.1

118.5

1 2 0 .1

1 1 0 .6

1 1 1 .2

111.9

116.0
192.7
150.5

116.1
192.6
155.0

1 1 0 .0

1 1 0 .2
1 2 0 .0

116.5
192.6
155.0
110.9

118.9
113.2
106.1
103.4
101.4
116.2
102.7
102.3
111.3
90.3
8 8 .6

112.4

1 1 0 .8

1 1 0 .8

119.2
94.6

1 1 0 .8

1 1 0 .8

119.8
94.7

119.2
94.1

119.2
93.8

1 0 1 .1

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .1

1 0 0 .0

99.2

98.6

98.2

1 0 0 .0

98.0

97.9

98.2

127.0
135.5
120.7
114.7
118.8

134.3
146.8
123.7
119.1
118.9

131.8
142.7
123.7
116.2
118.8

131.3
141.9
123.7
115.9
119.5

132.7
143.8
124.3
117.8
119.1

134.9
146.9
124.9

99.3
109.2
118.0
94.7

114.0
123.0

1 1 2 .0

109.5
113.4
99.2
110.3
119.7
93.7

1 1 2 .2

113.6

111.3
116.7
92.0
105.4
113.8
106 2
137.4

1 2 0 .2

119.6

113.2
105.5
103.5
101.4
117.3
102.7

1 2 0 .0

113.2
106.3
103.4
1 0 1 .0

110.7

117.9
102.7
102.5
103.5

90.2
89.3
112.5

1 0 2 .2

1 2 1 .2

113.2
107.3

1 0 2 .8

1 1 2 .2

116.0

90.6
88.9
112.7

92.2
88.3
113.5

114.1

109.2
113.0
98.8
108.4
120.4
93.8
99.9
98.6

108.9
112.9
98.5
108.4
120.4
93.6
98.9
98.1

108.7
112.9
98.2
108.4
120.4
93.6
98.4
98.4

108.8
113.0
98.6
108.4
120.4
93.3
98.5
98.4

137.7
150.4
125.5
125.1
119.9

139.5
152.4
125.8
128.9

141.1
155.1
126.6
128.9

1 2 0 .1

1 2 1 .1

142.7
157.0
127.6
130.3
122.7

92.1
8 8 .6

1 2 2 .6

1 2 0 .8

1 0 0 .0

113.2
109.1

1 2 2 .8
1 0 1 .1

8 8 .2

1 1 0 .0

120.4

112
27.

WHOLESALE PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Continued—Wholesale Price Index,1 by group and subgroup of commodities

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified2]

Code

Commodity group

1972

1971

Annual
average
1971
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES—Continued
09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2

Pulp, paper, and allied products________
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding
building paper and board____________
Woodpulp___________________________
Wastepaper_________ ______________
Paper______________________________
Paperboard__________________________
Converted paper and paperboard products.
Building paper and board___ __________

1 1 0 .1

1 1 0 .6

1 1 0 .6

1 1 0 .6

110.7

1 1 0 .8

1 1 1 .6

112.3

112 8

113.2

113.5

113.7

114.1

114.3

110.4

1 1 0 .8

1 1 1 .1

111.5
114.5
114.7
1 0 2 .8
1 1 0 .2

110.9
111.5
117.2
114.7
102.9

1 1 1 .0

1 1 2 .0

110.9
111.5
117.2
114.7
102.9

111.5
124.6
114.7
102.7

112.5
111.5
129.3
115.7
103.6

1 1 0 .1

1 1 0 .1

1 1 0 .1

104.5

104.6

104.7

104.6

111.5
124.9
114.9
102.7
110.3
104.7

111.9
111.5
126.6
115.3
103.5
111.4
104.7

105.6

113.1
111.5
131.0
115.9
105.6
112.7
106.1

113.4
111.5
130.5
115.9
105.8
113.3
106.5

113.8
111.5
137.7
116.2
106.0
113.5
106.6

114.0
111.5
137.7
116.7
106.0
113.7
106.8

114.4
111.5
138.9
116.7
106.0
114.3
107.2

114.6
111.5
139.2
116.7
106.5
114.6
107.3

121.4
126.8
129.6
114.4
124.2
118.4
118.2
115.9

1 2 2 .6

125.3
128 2
114.9
124.2
117.7
118.4
116.3
120.4
120.9

128.2
131.0
115.0
127.1
119.0
118.6
116.2

123.4
128.3
130.9
117.2
127.1
119.2
118.9
117.0

123.5
128.3
130.9
117.6
127.3
119.6
119.0
117.9

123.6
128.3
130.7
117.8
127.3

1 2 1 .6

1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .0

121.3

123.2

124.1

124.3

124.4

1 2 2 .2

123.5 123.7
128.3 128.6
130.3 '130.2
116.8 116.8
129.9 130.9
120.5 120.7
119.7 1 2 0 . 2
119.0 119.2
1 2 2 .2
122.5
124.2 124.7

124.0
128.8
130.2
117.4
131.1

119.0
118.1

123.6
128.1
130.4
117.6
128.8
120.4
119.7
118.6

116.5
119.9
124.3
118.5

117.1
121.5
124.7
118.9

117.3

117.6

117.9
122.3
125.6

1 2 1 .2

111.9
114.1
102.4
109.7
103.0
119.0

1 2 1 .1

1 2 1 .0

1 2 1 .8

125.6
128.2
116.5
124.2
117.7
118.3
116.7
120.3
119.9

125.5
128.1
116.3
124.2
117.7
118.3
116.3
120.3
119.7

120.9
125.3
128.2
116.0
124.2
117.7
118.3
116.5
120.3
119.7

116.0
117.5

116.0
117.5

115.9
117.5

1 2 1 .8

1 2 1 .8

1 2 2 .0

Metals and metal products______ ______
Iron and steel_______________________
Steel mill products___________________
Nonferrous metals____________________
Metal containers___ _ _ ___
_____
Hardware...____________ ____ ____ _
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings___ _
Heating equipment________________ ...
Fabricated structural metal products
Miscellaneous metal products___ _______

123.0
116.0
121.7
116.5
116.4
115.5
118.2
119.0

Machinery and equipment______________
Agricultural machinery and equipment___
Construction machinery and equipment....
Metalworking machinery and equipmentGeneral purpose machinery and equipment.
Special industry machinery and equipment.
Electrical machinery and equipment_____
Miscellaneous machinery__________ ...

115.5
117.2
121.4
117.3
119.1
120.9
109.5
117.2

Furniture and household durables______ .
Household furniture...______ _______
Commercial furniture_______ _______ .
Floor coverings________ ._ _____ ____
Household appliances____ _____________
Home electronic equipment___ _____ _
Other household durable goods_________

109.9
114.8
118.1
98.8
107.2
93.8
120.9
122.4
123.9
121.9

13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9

Nonmetallic mineral products__________
Flat glass________________ _. . _____
Concrete ingredients______________ ...
Concrete products________ ______ ____
Structural clay products excluding refrac­
tories_____________________________
Refractories_________ __ .. _________
Asphalt roofing_____________ . . _ _
Gypsum products . ___ _ . . . ___ _
Glass containers__________________ _ _
____
Other nonmetallic minerals_____

14
14-1
14—4
15
15-1

10
1 0 -1

10-13
1 0 -2

10-3
10-4
10-5
1 0 -6

10-7
1 0 -8
11
1 1 -1
1 1 -2

11-3
11-4
1 1 -6

11-7
11-9
12
1 2 -1
1 2 -2

12-3
12-4
12-5
1 2 -6

13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4

15-2
15-3
15-4
15-9

1 2 0 .8

1 2 0 .2

124.4

1 2 0 .8

120.5
119.2
122.7
124.7

118.0

118.1

118.2

1 2 0 .2

1 2 0 .2
1 2 2 .0

1 2 0 .2
1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .1

1 2 0 .8
1 2 2 .6

123.1

125.0
119.4
121.5
123.0

109.6
117.8

109.3
117.8

109.3
117.9

109.5
118.3

1 1 0 .0

1 1 0 .1

1 1 0 .2

1 1 0 .6

119.0

119.6

120.7

1 2 0 .8

1 1 0 .6
1 2 0 .8

1 1 0 .6

118.8

123.5
110.5
120.3

118.3
122.7
125.9
120.5
122.9
123.9
110.7

1 1 0 .2

1 1 0 .2

1 1 0 .2

1 1 0 .2

1 1 0 .2

1 1 0 .8

1 1 1 .0

1 1 1 .1

115.4
118.2
97.6
107.6
93.4

115.5
118.2
97.9
107.4
93.4

1 2 2 .1

115.6
118.2
97.6
107.5
93.8
121.9

1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .1

116.0
118.3
98.1
106.9
93.3
122.3

116.7
118.3
98.2
107.5
92.9
124.1

116.9
119.2
98.2
107.5
92.8
124.5

117.2
119.5
98.6
107.1
92.6
125.4

111.4
117.4
119.8
98.8
107.3
92.4
126.4

111.7
117.8
119.8
98.8
107.7
92.4
126.8

1 1 2 .0

117.1
119.4
98.2
107.2
92.9
125.0

1 1 1 .2

115.6
118.2
97.6
107.6
93.8

110.9
116.8
118.7
98.2
107.4
93.0
124.5

124.2
124.3
124.1

124.1
124.3
124.1

124.0
123.1
124.3

1 2 2 .8

126.4
125.1

125.9
121.5
126.7
125.1

1 2 2 .8

1 2 2 .6

124.8
122.4
124.6
124.5

1 2 1 .8

1 2 2 .6

124.6
123.6
124.6
123.8

1 2 1 .1

1 2 2 .6

124.3
123.6
124.4
123.4

125.6

1 2 0 .6

124.2
123.6
124.2
122.9

126.8
125.3

126.9
126.0

128.1
126.1

128.3
126.3

114.2
126.9
125.5
106.8
131.6
124.1

114.9
126.9
131.2
114.5
131.5
125.7

114.9
127.1
131.2
113.6
131.5
125.7

114.9
127.1
131.2

114.9
127.1
131.2
114.1
131.5
125.6

114.8
127.1
131.2
113.4
131.5
125.7

116.1
127.1
131.2
131.5
125.9

116.2
127.1
131.2
115.3
131.5
126.4

117.2
127.1
131.2
114.9
136.2
126.4

117.2
127.1
131.2
113.4
136.2
128.4

117.4
127.1
131.2
113.9
136.2
127.4

117.5
127.1
131.2
115.7
136.4
127.1

117.5
129.6
131.2
116.1
136.4
127.1

117.5
132.1
131.2
115.2
136.4
127.3

Transportation equipment5_____________
Motor vehicles and equipment___ ______
Railroad equipment______ ___ _______

110.3
114.7

109.6
113.8
122.5

110.7
115.2
122.5

1 1 0 .8

112.9
117.5

1 2 1 .1

113.4
117.9
123.7

113.6
118.0
123.9

113.6
118.0
127.3

113.7
118.0
128.4

113.8
118.1
129.6

114.2
118.5
129.6

114.1
118.4
130.2

114.2
118.5
130.2

114.2
118.5
130.2

Miscellaneous products_____ . . _______
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni­
tion______ ... _____________ ____
Tobacco products______ _ ... .
Notions_______________ _. _ ____
Photographic equipment and supplies____
Other miscellaneous products . _______

1 1 2 .8

113.0

113.0

113.1

113.2

113.7

114.0

114.2

114.1

114.1

114.2

114.9

115.1

115.2

1 1 2 .6

1 1 2 .6

1 1 2 .6

1 1 2 .8

116.7

116.8
111.7
106.3
112.9

116.8
111.7
106.3
112.9

116.8
111.7
106.5
112.9

113.1
116.7
111.7
106.5
113.0

113.5
117.4
111.7
106.4
113.9

114.0
117.4
111.7
106.7
114.4

114.5
117.4
111.7
106.9
114.5

114.0
117.4
111.7
106.2
115.0

114.1
117.5
111.7
106.2
114.9

114.4
117.5
111.7
106.2
115.2

114.5
117.5
111.7
106.3
117.4

114.5
117.5
111.7
107.0
117.6

114.8
117.5
112.9
107.0
117.6

1 1 1 .6

106.1
112.3

121.7
109.7
117.8

1 1 2 .1

131.5
125.6
115.3
122.5

1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting
1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure,
and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this
table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre­
viously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and
February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes.
2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59
= 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967
base furnished upon request to the Bureau.


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

116.2
118.6
123.2
118.4
120.5

1 1 2 .2

1 2 2 .6

1 1 2 .8

1 2 2 .0

1 2 2 .1

125.7
119.7
121.9
123.4

1 2 1 .1

1 2 0 .0
1 2 2 .2

118.1
122.7
125.9
1 2 0 .2

122.7
123.7

125.8

126.2

118.3

118.3

1 2 2 .8

1 2 2 .6

126.1

126.1

1 2 0 .8

1 2 1 .0

123.0
124.0

123.0
124.0

126.7

120.9
117.7
1 2 1 .1

99.0
108.1
92.9
127.0
126.9

December 1969 = 100.
December 1970 = 100.
December 1968 = 100.
c=corrected.
NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Whole­
sale Price Index, see BLS Handbook of Methods (BLS Bulletin 1711, 1971).
Chapter 11.
3

4

5

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
28.

WHOLESALE PRICES

113

Wholesale Price Index for special commodity groupings 1

[1967 =

100 unless otherwise specified2]

Commodity group

Annual
average

1971

1972

1971

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

116.9

117.8
119.4
1 2 0 .2

118.2
120.7
121.5

118.7
123.4
123.5

118.9
123.3
122.7

1 1 9 .3
1 2 3 .9
1 2 2 .9

112.5
96.2

1 1 2 .6

96.1
°1 1 0 . 2

1 1 3 .0
9 6 .2
1 1 0 .3
1 1 1 .3
1 1 9 .9
1 0 3 .1
1 0 8 .7
1 1 4 .3
1 1 3 .1

All commodities—less farm products____________
All fo o d s .._____ _____ _____________ . . . .
Processed foods________________________

114.0
115.5
115.6

114.9
115.1
116.4

114.8
115.3
116.1

114.8
116.3
116.2

115.4
118.1
117.5

116.1
118.9
119.2

1 2 0 .8
1 2 1 .2

117.1
119.3
120.3

117.3
118.0
119.1

Textile products, excluding hard and bast fiber products.
Hosiery_______________ _________ _____________
Underwear and nightwear_________________________

103.7
95.6
108.1

105.0
95.5
108.4

104.7
95.5
108.4

105.1
95.5
108.4

106.1
96.0
108.4

107.6
96.0
108.7

108.7
96.0
109.6

109.1
96.0
109.6

111.4
96.0
109.8

1 1 2 .2

96.0
109.6

1 1 0 .0

1 1 0 .1

106.3
120.4

106.6
119.9
103.1
99.2
113.3

107.3
119.9
103.1
99.2
113.3

108.5
119.9
103.1
102.3
113.3
113.0

109.1
119.9
103.1
103.8
113.3
113.0

110.7
119.9
103.1
107.2
114.3
113.1

Refined petroleum products_______________________
East Coast______________________ _ ____ ...
Mid-Continent____________________________ __
Gulf Coast__________________________________
Pacific Coast......... ......... ........ .... ............
Midwest..... .
..
_____ .
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic
rubber and manmade fibers and yarns 3 _____
Pharmaceutical preparations____ ________________
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork and
other wood products 4.. . ______ _____ ________
Special metals and metal products 5____ . . .
Fabricated metal products6 ____ _ . . . ___ ____ _
Copper and copper products 7 _____________________
Machinery and motive products__________
.. . ...
Machinery and equipment, except electrical______ ...
Agricultural machinery, including tractors. . ... . ._
Metalworking machinery__________ _. . _ _______
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 =100).
Total tractors________________ _________ ________
Industrial valves__________________________ .
Industrial fittings_______________ _ _____________
Abrasive grinding wheels__________ ______ _ ____
Construction materials_____________ . ___ ... .

96.4

106.8

107.3

120 0

1 2 0 .8

106.2
119.2

106.1
119.2

106.1
119.2

105.5
119.9

106.3
119.9

103.3

1 0 1 .6

1 0 1 .6

1 0 1 .6

1 0 1 .6

1 0 0 .2

1 0 0 .2

112.7
112.5

103.1
100.7
113.3
113.1

98.4
113.8
113.1

98.4
113.8
113.1

98.4
112.7
113.1

98.4
113.3
113.1

96.9
114.1
113.1

99.2
113.3
1 1 2 .8

1 1 2 .8

1 1 2 .8

103.2

103.3

103.3

103.0

102.9

103.0

103.2

103.2

103.7

103.9

103.8

103.7

103.8

1 0 3 .9

1 0 2 .2

102.5

102.5

102.3

102.4

1 0 2 .2

1 0 2 .1

102.5

102.4

1 0 2 .8

103.1

103.2

103.1

1 0 3 .1

139.7
118.7

135.3
119.0
119.9
116.0
115.8
119.7
117.7
119.5

137.2
119.7
120.4
114.0
116.7

140.1
120.3

150.2

156.9

1 2 1 .8

1 2 2 .0

123.3
116.9
118.5

1 2 0 .1

118.9
119.8

120.4
119.9

152.1
121.9
123.2
118.8
118.5
122.4
123.2

154.3

117.0
115.3
119.6
117.7
119.2

135.9
119.0
119.9
116.7
115.8
119.6
117.7
119.3

123.7
116.8
118.6
122.7
123.3

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 2 0 .8

1 2 0 .8

1 2 0 .8

122.5
119.1
123.0
123.5
122.4

124.1
119.1
123.8
123.5
123.2

1 5 7 .3
1 2 2 .2
1 2 3 .8
1 1 7 .4
1 1 8 .6
1 2 2 .8
1 2 3 .0
1 2 2 .5
1 0 3 .2
1 2 5 .8
1 2 1 .5
1 1 9 .2
1 2 6 .8
1 2 8 .0

1 0 0 .0

130.1
117.6
118.4
116.6
115.3
118.9
117.3
118.6
120.7
116.3
122.4
1 2 2 .1

119.5

1 2 0 .0

118.6

118.6

119.1

1 2 2 .6

1 2 2 .6

1 2 2 .6

123.5
123.0

123.5

123.5

1 2 2 .2

1 2 2 .0

1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting
1963 values of shipments. Changes were also made in the classification structure, and
titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table
conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data reviously
published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and Feb­
ruary 1967 (final) for a descri tion of the changes.
2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59
= 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967

29.

1 1 0 .0

Sept.

143.9

146.4

1 2 1 .1
1 2 2 .2

1 2 1 .6

148.4
121.7

1 2 1 .0

122.7

1 2 2 .8

115.0
117.2

116.3
117.6

1 2 0 .1

119.9
117.9

1 2 0 .6

1 2 1 .1
1 2 2 .1

120.3
100.5
124.6

117.7
121.4
1 2 2 .6
1 2 0 .8
1 0 0 .6

125.0

1 2 1 .8

122.7
1 2 1 .2

101.5
125.4

1 2 0 .2

1 2 0 .2

1 2 0 .2

123.1
123.8
124.2

123.1
126.5
124.9

124.2
126.8
125.7

1 2 1 .8

122.9
119.4
118.2
1 2 2 .1
1 2 2 .8

121.5
102.3
125.6
120.5
124.2
126.8
126.2

1 2 1 .6

102.3
125.7
121.3
121.9
126.8
126.6

1 2 2 .6

123.2
121.9
102.3
125.7
121.3
121.3
126.8
127.2

1 2 2 .2

102.5
125.7
121.4
1 2 1 .0

126.8
127.8

base furnished upon request to the Bureau.
3 Introduced in February 1971.
4 Formerly titled "Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork.”
5 Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor
vehicles and equipment.
6 Introduced in July 1972. See Wholesale Prices in Price Indexes, July 1972 for a
description.
2 Formerly titled "Copper and copper base metals.”
°= corrected.

Wholesale Price Index,1 by durability of product

[1967 = 1002]

Commodity group

Annual
average
1971

1971
Sept.

Oct.

1972

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

117.4
120.4
115.2

117.5
120.7
115.1

116.2

116.7
120.4
112.9

116.9

117.4

1 2 0 .8

1 2 1 .0

A II commodities_____ .
Total durable goods_______________
Total nondurable goods___________

113.9
117.0
111.7

114.5
118.2
111.7

114.4
118.2

114.5
118.1
1 1 1 .8

115.4
118.6
113.0

116.3
119.2
114.1

117.3

1 1 1 .6

Total manufactures . .
Durable_____________
Nondurable______ ...

113.8
117.0
110.5

114.7
118.3

114.5
118.3

116.5

1 1 0 .6

115.1
118.8
111.3

115.7
119.3

1 1 1 .0

114.5
118.3
110.7

1 1 2 .0

1 2 0 .0
1 1 2 .8

Total raw or slightly processed goods_________
Durable. _________ ________
Nondurable____ _______

114.4

113.2

1 1 2 .2

1 1 1 .1

114.6

113.4

113.8
110.4
114.0

114.3
108.9
114.6

116.8
107.4
117.3

118.9
110.3
119.3

120.9
113.1
121.3

1 As of January 1967, the index incororated a revised weighting structure reflecting
1963 values of shi ments. Changes were also made in the classification structure, and
titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table
conform with the revised classification structure and may differ from data rev iously
published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February
1967 (final) for a description of the changes.


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

1 2 0 .0

115.3

120.7
116.2
1 2 1 .0

June

July

Aug.

118.2

118.8

1 2 1 .0

1 2 1 .2

117.0

119.7
121.4
118.5

118.6

118.3
121.5
115.1

118.5
121.7
115.1

118.8
121.9
115.6

126.3
114.2
127.0

126.9
115.3
127.5

127.4
115.7
128.1

112.9

113.6

117.8
121.3
114.3

120.4
115.0
120.7

122.4
115.0
122.7

123.3
114.1
123.8

119.9
1 2 1 .6

Sept.

120.2
121.8
119.1

2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59
= 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967
base furnished upon request to the Bureau.
NOTE: For a description of the series by durability of product and data beginning
with 1947, see Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, 1957 (BLS Bulletin 1235, 1958).

114
30.

WHOLESALE PRICES

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

Wholesale Price Index,1 by stage of processing

[1967 = 1002]

Commodity group

Annual
average
1971

1972

1971
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

All commodities___ _______ ____________________

113.9

114.5

114.4

114.5

115.4

116.3

117.3

117.4

117.5

118.2

118.8

119.7

119.9

1 2 0 .2

Crude materials for further processing___________

115.0

113.9

114.3

114.3

117.0

1 2 0 .2

123.1

123.1

123.0

125.5

127.2

130.1

130.3

130.3

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs____________________

114.2

1 1 2 .1

1 1 2 .6

112.7

115.8

119.3

122.9

1 2 2 .0

1 2 1 .0

124.0

126.7

131.2

130.7

131.4

Nonfood materials except fuel_______________
Manufacturing_________________________
Construction___________________________

110.5
109.7
119.1

1 1 1 .1

1 1 1 .1

110.3
120.3

1 1 2 .8
1 1 2 .2

121.3
121.5
1 2 1 .2

122.7
123.0
121.5

124.2
124.6

1 2 1 .0

123.2
123.5
121.5

1 2 2 .6
1 2 2 .8

120.4

117.3
117.1
120.9

119.5
119.5

120.5

115.4
115.1
120.7

1 2 2 .2

110.3
120.3

1 1 1 .1
1 1 0 .2

121.5

1 2 2 .1

1 2 2 .1

Crude fuel____ _________________ _______
Manufacturing industries__
____________
Nonmanufacturing industries______________

138.5
129.6
150.4

140.3
131.4
152.0

140.6
131.8
152.2

140.6
131.8
152.2

142.7
132.8
155.7

145.4
135.5
158.4

145.6
135.7
158.6

146.2
136.5
159.0

146.9
137.6
159.1

147.3
138.1
159.4

147.2
138.0
159.4

147.5
138.4
159.6

148.5
139.5
160.4

149.1
140.1
160.9

114.0

115.4

115.0

115.0

115.4

115.9

116.7

117.2

117.7

118.2

118.5

118.8

119.2

119.7

114.2
116.6
105.9
121.4
115.4

114.2
116.8
105.9

114.4
117.3
106.3
115.8

116.4
117.8
108.7
123.7
117.0

116.9
118.5
109.3
123.9
117.6

117.1
119.2
109.6
123.8
118.0

109.7
123.8
118.1

117.7
120.3

115.6

115.9
118.6
107.5
123.3
116.6

117.5
119.8

1 2 1 .0

115.7
119.4
107.4
122.7
116.5

117.3

1 2 1 .2

114.9
117.9
107.0
121.5
116.0

1 2 1 .8

122.3

123.1

124.2

124.9

125.5

125.9

126.3

126.7

127.2

127.4

117.3

118.7

119.3
122.5
114.4

119.8
122.5
115.6

120.7
123.4
116.7

RAW M A T ER IA LS

122.4

IN T ER M ED IA T E M ATERIALS
Intermediate materials: Supplies and components.
Materials and components for manufacturing.
Materials for food manufacturing____ ..
Materials for nondurable manufacturing____
Materials for durable manufacturing.
. . .. .
Components for manufacturing___
___

113.0
116.2
105.6
118.8
114.7

114.4
117.1
106.2

Materials and components for construction___

119.5

122.5

121.9
114.6
117.2

113.4
115.2

1 2 1 .6

115.6

1 1 0 .6

114.4
117.0
110.4

117.6

117.6

117.6

117.6

117.8

110.9
113.1
109.9
104.3

110.3
113.2
109.0

1 1 0 .1

1 1 1 .1

1 1 1 .0

1 1 2 .6

113.0

109.6
113.2
107.9
97.9
113.0

Finished goods (including raw foods and fuels)___

113.5

113.6

113.8

114.0

Consumer goods __________________ _______
Foods__ ____________________________
Crude_____________________________
Processed.. ___________________ . . .
Other nondurable goods______________ _
Durable goods_________________________

112.7
115.2
115.8
115.0
111.3
110.9

112.7
114.9
109.6
115.8
111.9
110.4

112.9
115.0
115.5
111.7
111.3

113.1
115.7
116.1
115.6
111.7
111.3

Producer finished goods_______ ____ _______
Manufacturing industries_____ __________
Nonmanufacturing industries______________

116.6
117.3
116.0

116.9
117.8
116.0

117.1
117.9
116.3

122.7

123.0

114.3
1 1 1 .2

Processed fuels and lubricants________ ______
Manufacturing industries___ ____________
. ...
Nonmanufacturing industries_______

1 1 0 .6

115.3
117.5
111.9

Containers________ _____ ____ _________ ..

116.6

Supplies___ _____ _ ________ _____ _______
Manufacturing industries_________________
Nonmanufacturing industries. ____________
Manufactured animal feeds_____ ____
Other supplies______________________

1 2 0 .1

1 1 0 .0

1 1 0 .2

124.3
118.2

124.6
118.1

1 2 0 .8

1 1 1 .1

116.9
120.4
111.5

118.1
121.7

111.9

1 1 2 .6

113.7

119.5

1 2 0 .0

1 2 1 .2

121.3

1 2 2 .0

122.4

123.1

123.4

114.2
112.3
108.3
114.1

113.0
114.5
112.4
108.1
114.3

113.3
114.8

113.4
114.9

1 1 2 .8

1 1 2 .8

108.1
115.0

107.3
115.5

114.4
115.0
114.2
110.7
115.8

114.9
115.5
114.7
111.4
116.1

116.7
115.9
117.2
118.1
116.4

114.3
117.0

116.0
119.2

116.8
120.4

1 1 0 .1

1 1 1 .0

1 2 2 .0

113.2

113.2

1 1 0 .2

1 1 0 .1

104.4
113.0

103.6
113.2

111.4
113.9
110.3
103.3
113.8

115.0

115.5

116.3

116.1

115.8

116.4

116.9

117.8

117.9

118.2

114.2
117.7
121.5
117.0

114.7
118.7
117.4
118.8

115.6

115.2
119.4
115.7

115.5
119.5
115.1

116.1
120.7
115.6

117.3
123.3

1 2 1 .0
1 1 2 .1

113.2

112.4
113.1

113.1
113.1

1 2 1 .6

1 1 2 .0

112.9

113.5
113.2

123.6
113.8
113.5

117.4
123.1
124.5

1 1 1 .8
1 1 2 .6

114.8
118.0
113.4
118.7
112.7
113.2

117.7
123.6
127.6
122.9
114.5
113.7

117.0
117.8
116.3

117.8
118.2
117.4

118.4
118.7
118.1

118.8
119.1
118.4

119.0
119.2
118.8

119.3
119.5
118.9

119.4
119.6
119.1

119.6
119.8
119.4

119.7

119.8

119.9

1 2 0 .0

1 2 0 .1

1 2 0 .2

119.5

119.5

122.9

1 2 2 .6

123.4

125.6

127.0

129.1

129.3

129.9

129.8

130.2

132.3

132.6

115.9

115.7

115.6

115.8

116.4

117.2

117.6

118.2

118.6

119.0

119.2

119.5'

119.8

111.3

1 1 1 .6

1 1 1 .6

1 1 2 .1

112.3

112.5

112.7

112.9

113.1

113.4

113.7

114.0

114.2

1 0 0 .8

113.2
108.6
99.8
113.0

1 1 2 .8

FINISHED GOODS

1 1 2 .2

1 2 0 .6

117.9

1 2 0 .0

1 2 0 .2

1 2 1 .2

119.4

1 2 2 .8

114.2
113.6

SPECIAL GROUPINGS
Crude materials for further processing, excluding crude
foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers
oilseeds, and leaf tobacco______ ______ _________
Intermediate materials, supplies and components ex­
cluding intermediate materials for food manufacturing and manufactured animal feeds______________
Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer foods...

1

As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting
1963 values of shipments. Changes were also made in the classification structure, and
titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table
conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data previously
published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and Feb­
ruary 1967 (final) for a description of the changes.


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

2

As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59
= 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967
base furnished upon request to the Bureau.
NOTE: For a description of the series by stage of processing see Wholesale Prices
and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final).

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
31.

100 unless otherwise specified2]

Industry

1311
1421

MINING
Anthracite____________ . .
Bituminous coal_________ _ ..
Crude petroleum and natural gas.
Crushed and broken stone..

1442
1475
1476
1477

Construction sand and gravel
Phosphate rock__________ _
Rock salt....... ............
Sulfur............. ........

2011

Meat slaughtering plants.
Meat processing plants___
Poultry dressing plants...
Creamery butter_____
Canned fruits and vegetables

m i
1 211

115

Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries 1

[1967 =
1963
SIC
code

INDUSTRY PRICES

1971

Annual
average
1971

1972

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

144.9
185.0
113.0
117.7

145.6
186.1
113.5
118.5

144.7
186.2
113.6
118.5

144.7
186.2
113.6
118.8

144.7
194.1
113.3
118.8

146.4
196.6
113.9
119.1

146.4
196.6
114.0
119.4

146.4
196.6
114.2
119.4

146.4
195.0
114.6
119.7

146.4
195.0
114.8

146.4
195.0
114.8

146.4
195.0
114.8

150.5
195.0
116.3

1 2 0 .6

122.3
79.8
124.4
59.8

122.3
79.8
124.4
59.8

122.3
79.8
124.4
59.8

1 2 2 .2

122.5
79.8
124.4
59.8

122.5
79.8
124.4
59.8

122.7
79.8
124.4
59.8

1 2 2 .8

117.1
112.4
104.9
113.6

130.6
124.5
114.1
114.0
112.9

126.0
124.0
115.3
113.8
113.6

79.8
118.3
59.8

79.8
124.4
59.8

Sept.

159.1
195.0
116.5

1 2 0 .1

1 2 0 .1

1 2 0 .1

1 2 0 .8

120.8

123.0
79.8
124.4
59.8

123.1
79.8
124.4
59.8

123.2
79.8
124.4
59.8

123.4
79.8
124.4
59.8

123.5
79.8
124.4
59.8

104.9
113.7
114.6

128.0
123.5
107.6
113.5
114.9

133.4
125.2
113.0
113.5
115.6

136.6
128.6
124.4
113.6
115.5

133.6
130.5
115.7
116.3
116.5

131.6
131.7
119.6
117.1
116.5

79.8
124.4
59.8

MANUFACTURING
2013
2015
2021

2033

115.6
110.7

117.5

117.1

1 1 0 .2

1 1 2 .0

111.0
113.1
111.7

113.0
113.5
113.0

106.0
113.6
112.5

141.2

145.3

145.3

2042
2044
2052

Fresh or frozen packaged fish.
Flour and other grain mill products (12/71 =
1 0 0 ) ______________
Prepared animal feeds (12/71 = 100).
Rice milling___
Biscuits, crackers and cookies____

2061
2062
2063
2073
2082

Raw cane sugar .
Cane sugar refining__________
Beet sugar.
Chewing gum
Malt liquors... ____

2083
2084
2091
2092
2094

Malt_____
Wines and brandy_____ . .
Cottonseed oil mills.... ..........
Soybean oil mills..
Animal and marine fats and oils.... .........

98.5
117.0
111.4
111.4
125.7

98.9
120.4
118.1
109.2
125.4

98.9
120.5
105.2
110.3

2096
2098

1 2 1 .0

106.3
117.4
108.1
125.0

123.3
106.5
117.3
109.6
125.1

122.4
105.8
117.3
109.6
125.1

107.8
96.0

108.3
94.2

108.2
94.2

2036
2041

2131

Shortening and cooking oils............
Macaroni and noodle products
Cigarettes ...
Cigars_____
Chewing and smoking tobacco . . . . .

2254
2272
2281
2311
2321

Knit underwear mills .
Tufted carpets and rugs.
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 = 100) ..
Men's and boys' suits and coats
Men's dress shirts and nightwear.........

2322
2327
2328
2337

Men’s and boys’ underwear
Men’s and boys’ separate trousers.. _
Work clothing___ .
Women's suits, coats and skirts (12/71 = 100).

2381
2421
2426
2431
2432

Fabric dress and work gloves
Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 100)
Hardwood dimension and flooring
Millwork plants (12/71 = 100)
Veneer arid plywood plants (12/71 = 100)____

2442
2511
2512
2515
2521

Wirebound boxes and crates (12/67=100)
Wood furniture, not upholstered (12/71 = 100)..
Wood furniture upholstered (12/71 = 100)___
Mattresses and bedsprings
Wood office furniture.

2647
2654
2819
2822
2823

Sanitary paper products.
Sanitary food containers
Inorganic chemicals, nee. (12/71 = 100) .
Synthetic rubber___
Cellulosic man-made fibers

2824
2834
2841
2844
2871

Organic fibers, noncellulosic
Pharmaceutical preparations (12/71 = 100).. .
Soap and other detergents (12/71 = 100).
Toilet preparations (12/71 = 100)_____ ______
Fertilizers.............. .........................

2111
2121

See footnotes at end of table.


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

1 1 2 .6

114.2
113.0

125.4
117.4
106.8
113.9
113.3

150.0

158.1

165.3

167.9

166.0

173.2

167.9

164.1

165.8

162.1

164.5

97.8

99.5
101.7
100.5

97.7

97.7

1 0 2 .6

1 0 2 .2

1 0 1 .6

1 0 2 .8

103.1

1 2 2 .2

103.1
123.1

103.1

1 2 0 .6

98.7
101.9
100.5
123.0

97.9

100.5
119.6

98.4
100.5
100.5
119.6

103.7
103.1
126.0

107.5
106.4
112.5
121.3

126.7
120.9
118.0
125.9
110.7

123.5
123.0
119.7
125.9
110.9

126.1
123.6

123.6
125.4

119.5
124.9

1 2 0 .2

1 2 1 .2

1 2 0 .8

125.9
110.4

125.9
110.7

98.9
119.3

99.3
119.6

99.3
119.6

99.3
119.6

116.9
118.3
116.8
123.6

116.7
119.4
117.0
126.2

116.7
119.4
117.0
126.2

1 1 0 .2

1 1 0 .2

1 1 0 .2

118.1
119.6
117.0
126.2
110.9

1 2 2 .6

1 2 0 .8

114.9
1 0 0 .8

121.3
1 2 0 .0

117.3
126.2
1 1 0 .6

110.3

131.0
112.4

131.2
112.4

94.2
125.2
103.6

94.2
125.3
102.7

1 2 1 .8

1 2 0 .0

125.9
1 1 0 .6

105.8
118.2
109.1
125.1

120.3
106.2
118.2
109.1
125.8

106.1
118.2
103.1
125.8

106.1
118.2
109.1
125.8

109.8
94.9
103.1
131.2
111.9

109.8
94.9
104.2
131.0

1 1 0 .1

1 1 0 .2

131.5
111.5

109.8
95.1
102.5
131.3
111.7

94.9
105.4
131.3

110.3
95.8
106.6
132.7
112.7

110.3
95.8
106.5
132.7
112.7

110.3
96.1
106.0
133.6
112.9

111.0

111.7

1 1 2 .1

1 1 2 .1

105.8
117.3
109.6
125.1

105.8
117.3
109.1
125.1

105.8
118.2
109.1
125.1

108.3
94.2

108.2
94.5

108.7
94.8

1 1 2 .0

1 1 2 .0

95.5
106.2
131.8
112.3
1 1 2 .1

108.1
117.1

110.5

110.5

114.6

111.0

111.0

114.9

110.7
115.0
1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

1 1 1 .8

1 1 1 .8

1 1 1 .8

111.5

111.5

113.2

118.5

118.2

118.2

119.4

118.7
108.2
124.9

121.5

115.5

115.0
106.4
121.9
101.3
110.5

1 2 0 .1

1 0 2 .2
1 2 0 .6

113.6
104.8

100.5
102.3
117.9

118.3

118.5

1 1 1 .8

1 1 1 .8

1 1 2 .0

111.0

111.0

115.1

115.1

108.3
116.3

108.4
116.9

1 2 0 .8
1 0 0 .6

106.8

1 0 2 .2

109.5
125.6
103.2

110.7

1 1 2 .2

1 2 1 .6

122.3

122.5
114.5
128.3
104.7
116.8

115.0
128.7
105.0
115.7

123.9

126.5
102.3

1 0 2 .2

1 0 1 .6
1 1 1 .6

101.5
111.3

122.8

1 0 0 .6

1 0 1 .8
1 0 0 .6

1 0 0 .6

109.6
117.5

109.6
117.9

109.6
118.5

110.9
118.9

110.9
119.1

119.1

119.1

1 2 0 .1

1 2 1 .1

1 2 1 .1

1 2 1 .1

107.7
101.7

107.2
101.5

1 2 1 .2

107.2
101.9

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .2

1 0 0 .2

1 0 2 .0
1 0 0 .2

106.0

106.0

106.5

107.2

98.1

98.1
100.7

97.8

109.0
117.5

109.0
117.5

119.1
106.0

119.5
106.2

119.5
106.2

119.5
106.2

119.5
106.2

119.5
106.2

119.6
106.3

119.6
106.4

1 0 0 .1

1 0 0 .2

1 0 0 .2

99.9
102.5

99.9
1 0 2 .8

99.9
102.9

99.7
102.7

99.7
103.7

99.7
104.3

99.7
104.8

99.7
105.9

107.2
101.5
99.7
105.9

107.6
101.7
99.9
106.0

98.0

98.0

98.0

98.0

98.0

98.0
99.9

98.1
99.8

98.1

98.1

1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .1

1 0 0 .1
1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0

98.1
100.4

89.7

89.5

89.7

122.3
112.7
127.6
104.6
115.0

101.7

109.0
117.3

89.8

107.2
118.0
100.5

1 0 0 .2

109.0
117.3

89.8

112.6

107.1
118.0
100.5

1 0 0 .6

1 2 0 .1

99.8
90.2

90.6

123.9
101.9

120.2

101.4

108.8
117.1

89.7

111.0
127.0
104.1
113.6

107.1
117.1
100.5

1 2 0 .2

120.5
101.7

119.8
100.7
100.3
108.9
117.5

91.8

94.2
126.1
113.8
129.7
135.2

128.9

1 2 0 .2

111.0

117.9

94.2
126.1
107.1
122.5
133.9

120.5
106.2
118.2
109.1
125.8

1 2 0 .6

114.6

117.6

110.8

119.8
106.2
118.2
109.1
125.8

1 2 1 .1

1 2 0 .0

111.0

1 1 0 .6

1 1 0 .8

119.8
106.0
118.2
109.1
125.1

1 2 2 .2

94.2
125.1
106.4

114.6

1 1 0 .6

1 2 1 .8

126.0

128.9
126.8
121.9
126.0

119.8
105.9
118.2
109.1
125.1

94.2
125.0
106.4
112.7
115.7

113.7

1 1 0 .6

128.2
125.7

129.1

94.2
119.7
106.7
109.6
113.1

111.1

1 2 2 .2

125.0
125.5
121.5
125.9
110.7

117.0

94.2
119.4
108.5
111.3
114.0

131.3

1 2 1 .2

120.9
125.1
120.9
125.9
110.7

94.2
125.2
104.9
123.1
125.6

98.9
120.5
104.9
110.9
120.3

131.3
111.4

1 2 2 .1

94.2
126.1
107.2
125.7
128.3

1 0 1 .0

128.0
111.9

1 0 0 .2

100.5

123.0

1 0 2 .0
1 0 1 .2

111.0

126.5

121.6
121.2
107.2

97.9
100.5

1 0 0 .2

1 0 0 .6
1 0 0 .1

1 0 0 .1

1 0 0 .6
1 0 0 .2

1 0 0 .2

99.7
90.5

99.7
90.6

97.9
90.6

98.1
90.4

98.1
90.4

116
31.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

INDUSTRY PRICES

Continued—Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries 1

[1967 =

100 unless otherwise specified2]

1963
SIC
code

Industry

1972

1971

Annual
average
1971
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

102.5

102.4

102.5

102.4

105.7

106.3

105.3

105.2

102.3
112.7
105.0

101.5
112.7
104.5
106.7

113.0

113.9

114.0

114.0

117.5

102.3
112.7
105.1
102.9
120.4

103.3
113.1
105.6
106.8
139.0

103.1
114.6
105.9
106.8
138.7

103.3
114.9
107.1
106.9
139.5

103.3
114.4
107.7
106.9
138.9

102.9
114.4
109.1
106.9
141.4

103.0
115.2
109.7
107.0
144.4

127.0
106.7
98.9
136.1
131.8

136.8
107.6
98.8
136.1
131.9

136.2
108.2
98.9
136.3
132.1

137.2
108.2
99.4
136.3
134.0

136.2
108.4
99.4
136.3
134.2

Sept.

MANUFACTURING—Continued
2872
2892
2911
3021
3111

Fertilizers, mixing only____________________
Explosives____________________ ______ ___
Petroleum refining________________________
Rubber footwear (12/71 — 100)
Leather tanning and finishing._____________

121.1

102.9
112.9
105.2
106.7
129.0

3121
3141
3211
3221
3241

Industrial leather belting__________________
Shoes except rubber (12/71 — 100)
Flat glass (12/71=100)
Glass containers....................................
Cement, hydraulic.................... ........... .

125.5

125.6

125.6

126.3

126.3

125.6
100.7

126.6

125.8

131.5
124.6

131.4
127.8

131.4
127.8

131.4
127.8

131.4
127.8

131.4
127.8

131.4
128.1

131.4
128.1

126.9
104.7
99.0
136.1
131.5

3251
3255
3259
3261
3262

Brick and structural clay tile..._____ ______
Clay refractories_________ ____ _____ ____
Structural clay products nec_________ ____ _
Vitreous plumbing fixtures_________________
Vitreous china food utensils________________

119.1
128.7
109.2

120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0
128.7 128.9 128.9 128.9
110.0 110.0 109.9 109.9

132.4

114.6
133.4

114.8
133.4

114.4
133.4

114.7
133.4

119.9
128.9
109.9
113.9
133.4

122.5
128.9
109.9
114.4
135.8

122.7
128.9
109.9
114.9
137.9

123.2
128.9
109.9
115.3
137.9

123.3
128.9
109.9
115.3
137.9

123.5
128.9
109.9
116.0
137.9

123.5
128.9
110.5
116.2
140.2

123.5
131.5
110.5
116.3
140.2

123.5
133.5
110.5
116.3
140.2

3263
3271
3273
3275
3291

Fine earthenware food utensils_____________
Concrete block and brick__________________
Ready mixed concrete_____________________
Gypsum products_________________________
Abrasive products (12/71 — 100)

125.5
118.4
122.5
107.0

131.1
119.1
124.6
114.5

131.1
119.1
124.6
113.7

131.1
119.1
124.6
112.3

131.1
119.1
124.9
114.1

134.6

140.3

140.3

100.0

134.8
120.5
125.8
113.0
100.3

126.7
115.3
101.3

127.3
114.9
101.9

140.3
122.5
127.3
113.6

140.3
122.9
127.4
114.0

102.1 102.2

140.4
123.8
128.1
115.7
102.5

140.4
124.1
128.0
116.1
102.9

140.4
124.1
128.3
115.2
113.0

3312
3315
3316
3317
3321

Blast furnace and steel mills_________ _____
Steel wire drawing, etc____________________
Cold finishing of steel shapes______________
Steel pipe and tube_____________ _______ _
Gray iron foundries (12/68=100).. ...........

123.4

128.3
125.3
128.9
128.4
116.2

128.3
125.2
128.9
128.2
116.3

128.3
125.7
128.9
128.2
116.4

128.3
125.7
128.9
128.2
116.4

129.6
127.1
127.9
128.6
116.1

130.9
127.6
132.4
128.5
116.7

130.9
127.7
132.4
128.7
116.9

130.9
127.9
132.1
129.2
116.8

131.0
127.9
130.7
129.2
116.9

130.6
128.2
129.9
129.2
117.7

130.6
128.2
123.9
123.4
117.9

130.6
128.2
123.7
129.4
118.3

130.6
128.2
129.7
129.4
119.1

3333
3334
3339
3341
3351

Primary zinc____________ ________________
Primary aluminum_______________________
Primary nonferrous metals, nec_____________
Secondary nonferrous metals (12/71 — 100)
Copper rolling and drawing________________

113.3
115.9

112.8

118.8
115.9
106.5

118.8
115.9
104.9

118.8
115.9
105.1

118.8
115.9
107.2

119.1
99.2

1
100.0

119.7

118.3

122.3
95.9
115.4
100.5
125.4

125.6

126.0
95.9
120.4
99.1
125.5

126.1
96.3
123.6
99.6
123.6

126.1
96.3
126.8

120.0 120.0

112.2
96.0
122.2

119.2
95.9
114.2
99.7
125.6

126.1
95.9
1/. 8

119.0

119.0
101.5
110.4
96.3
120.3

123.5

126.1
96.1
126.8
99.3
125.4

3352
3356

108.2

108.4

108.3

108.3

108.3

108.2

108.3

108.6

108.9

108.8

108.8

108.8

108.8

100.1 101.1

3411
3423
3431

Aluminum rolling and drawing (12/68= 100)__
Nonferrous rolling and drawing, nec. (12/71
-100)
_______________ ...
Metal cans.. . .
Hand and edge tools (12/67=100).... ..........
Metal plumbing fixtures_____ ____ _________

127.5
125.0
116.9

101.3
127.6
125.0
117.5

3493
3494
3496
3498
3519

Steel springs_______________________ ____
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 — 100)
Collapsible tubes___ _______________ ... _.
Fabricated pipe and fittings________________
Internal combustion engines_______________

3533
3534
3535

Oil field machinery........................... .....
Elevators and moving stairways_____________
Conveyorsiand conveying equipment (12/71 =
)
Industrial trucks and tractors______________
Machine tools, metal cutting types (12/71 =
)

3537
3541
3542

100

112.8 112.8 112.8 112.8

112.1

120.2
124.1
121.9
115.1

121.9

120.8
114.0

108.3

124.0
123.1
117.7

124.0
123.0
117.6

124.0
123.2
117.8

124.0
123.2
117.8

3552
3562
3572
3576
3611
3612
3613
3624
3634

100

120.0

125.3
113.4

124.0
124.4
116.9

130.0
126.7
119.4

131.2
127.2
119.6

131.2
127.4
120.5

101.1

119.0
100.9

100.8
120.8 120.8
136.7 136.7
121.4 121.1

119.0

119.1
100.7
123.7
136.7
121.3

119.1
100.4
123.5
136.7
121.4

126.5
122.3

128.4
122.3

128.7
122.3

129.6
122.3

129.4

129.4

123.3

123.6

126.0
118.0

100.6 100.6

118.7

118.9

119.0
100.9

120.7
136.7

125.6
122.3

119.0

113.1

114.3

115.9

136.7
118.5

119.9
136.7
118.5

119.9
136.7
118.5

119.9
136.7
119.3

120.2

120.5
136.7
120.9

123.3

123.9

123.9

123.9

123.9

125.3
122.3

125.6
122.3

120.4

121.7

121.7

121.7

124.2

124.2

100.2 101.1 101.1 101.2
123.3

123.4

123.5

101.5
123.5

123.9

123.9

100.2

100.7

100.9

101.4

102.0 102.1 102.2 102.6

102.9

100.3
111.0
115.0
103.5
116.5

100.7
111.3
115.7
104.0
116.5

101.4
111.3
116.2
104.4
117.6

101.4
111.4
116.8
104.5
117.8

101.4
111.4
117.6
104.5
118.5 '

100.5
94.4

100.7
94.1

101.2 101.2 100.2

113.4
99.7

113.4
99.9

110.1

110.4
114.6
103.5
114.5

110.4
114.6
103.5
114.5

110.4
114.6
103.5
114.5

Transformers
____________________
Switchgear and switchboards_______________
Carbon and graphite products (12/67 = 100)___
Electric housewares and fans (12/71 — 100)

97.3
113.3
113.1

95.5
112.7
113.3

94.8
113.0
113.3

92.4
112.5
113.3

93.0
112.3
113.3

3635
3641
3642
3652
3671

Household vacuum cleaners...... .......... .....
Electric lamps ..
__________________
Lighting fixtures (12/71 — 100)
Phonograph records _____________________
Electron tubes, receiving type______________

100.4
113.6

100.5
113.8

100.5
114.3

100.5
114.0

100.4
114.2

106.8
132.0

105.4
132.2

105.4
132.2

105.4
132.2

105.4
132.2

100.4
114.2
100.3
113.2
132.1

3672
3673
3674
3692
3693

Cathode ray picture tubes__________________
Electron tubes, transmitting________________
Semiconductors_____________ ___________
Primary batteries, dry and wet_____________
X-ray apparatus and tubes (12/67 = 100).......

86.4
111.4
93.9
118.9
128.5

83.3

83.0

83.0

93.5
123.0
129.5

93.5
123.0
129.5

93.5
123.0
129.5

83.0
111.4
93.0
123.0
129.5

83.0
111.4
93.0
123.0
132.1

3361
3941

Games arid toys..).................................

112.9

113.0

113.0

113.0

113.1

111.6 111.6 111.6

For a description of the series, see BLS Handbook of Methods (BLS Bulletin
1711,1971), Chapter 12. See also "Industry and Sector Price Indexes,” in the Monthly
Labor Review, August 1965, pp. 974-982.
As of January 1971, the indexes were converted from the former base 1957-59

= 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Other bases are shown in parenthesis following
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
the title.

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

129.3
126.4
119.3

127.6
125.9
117.9

113.3

114.6
103.5
114.1

2

102.1 102.1 102.0 102.0
101.8 102.2
127.6

120.0

108.9
114.2
103.4
114.3

1

100.1

111.9

121.0 122.2 122.2 122.2 122.2

116.6
100.3
119.9
136.7

120.8 122.0

118.4
133.0
117.4

100

Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 =
)
Textile machinery (12/69=100)..................
Ball and roller bearings _________________
Typewriters
_. _____ ______ ... ____
Scales and balances____________ ______ ___

101.1 102.6
100.0 100.0 99.5

113.3

120.9
136.7
121.5

95.4
111.0
113.6
99.4

121.8 121.8
102.1 102.1 102.2 102.2

101.4
111.1
117.6
104.7
118.6

101.6 101.8
111.2 111.5
117.6
104.7
119.0

117.6
104.7
118.6

100.3
95.1
111.5
114.3
99.4

100.3
95.3
111.5
114.1
99.4

100.2
95.5
111.7
114.2
99.4

114.3

102.3
111.5
117.6
104.6
118.6
100.3
94.9

94.3
112.4
113.4

95.5
111.7
113.4
99.8

139.8

139.9

139.9

144.1

144.1

144.1

144.1

82.9

83.1

93.1
123.0
132.1

92.5
123.0
132.1

82.8
112.4
92.3
123.1
132.1

83.7
114.1
92.5
123.1
132.1

83.7
114.1
92.5
123.1
131.9

84.1
114.1
92.6
123.2
132.1

84.2
114.2
91.1
123.2
132.3

84.2
114.4
90.6
123.1
133.0

100.3
114.3

100.5
115.5

99.9
115.7

99.9
115.7

99.9
115.8

115.8

100.7
115.8

100.7
115.8

112.0 112.1

100.0

120.8
136.7
121.1 121.1

112.1

99.5
100.1
100.4 101.8 101.8 101.8 101.8 102.0 102.0
102.1
117.6 117.6 117.8
114.5 116.3 117.4 117.7
118.2
101.1 101.1 101.5 101.8 101.8 «102.1 102.1 1G2.2
111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2 111.2
113.2 113.2 113.2
144.1

111.2 112.1

100.0

NOTE: Beginning in January 1967, index weights and classifications are based on
the 1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were formerly based on the
1958 Industrial Censuses.
c =corrected.

CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
32.

LABOR MANAGEMENT DISPUTES

117

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

In effect
during month

Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)

In effect
during month
(thousands)

Number
(thousands)

Percent of
estimated
working time

1945____________________

4,750

3,470

38 000

1946______________
..
1947____________________
1948____________
1949____________________
1950____________________

4,985
3,693
3,419
3,606
4,843

4,600
2 ,170
1,960
3! 030
2,410

116 000
34’600
34 100
50 500
38 800

1 04
30
28
44
33

1951___________________
1952____________
__ .
1953_________________
1954_________________
1955_______________ .

4,737
5,117
5,091
3,468
4,320

3 ’540
2,400
1,530
2'650

2,220

22 900
59 100
28 300
600
28 200

18
48

1956___________________
1957___________________
1958______________
.
1959______________
_
1960__________________

3,825
3,673
3,694
3,708
3,333

1,900
1,390
2^060
1,880
320

33
16
23
69

24

1 9 '1 0 0

18
50
14

1961____________________
1962______________
_.
1963____________________
.
1964_____________
1965______________
._

3,367
3,614
3,362
3,655
3,963

1,450
1,230
941
1,640
l ’550

16 300
18,600
16 100
72 qnn
23^300

13
'l l
15
15

1966__________________
1967__________
1968__________________
1969_________________
1970____________________

4,405
4,595
5,045
5,700
5,' 716

1,960
2,870
2,649
2,481
3,305

25 400
42 100
49,018
42 869
414

66

1971_____________

5,135

3,263

47,417

26

1970:

1971:

1972:

22

1

100
500
900
000

n

31

22
18
22
12
11

15
25
28
24
37

January ____ ____
February.. _______
March________

279
330
427

458
529
630

71.1
116.3
316.2

269.9
329.6
402.5

3,710.8
,110.6
2,471.2

2

.25
.15
.16

April......... .........
May___
J u n e . . . __________

640
699
657

884
1,050
1,060

451.1
331.1
288.1

523.1
675.4
538.0

5,431.1
6,650.7
5,845.6

.34
.46
.36

July ___ _______
August_________ ..
September____

585
527
560

989
950
971

242.2
127.3
591.1

467.1
340.7
785.0

5,112.1
3,851.8
8,669.5

.32
.26
.57

October _ ..........
November _____
December. .. ...

448
340
224

881
695
529

231.1
83.6
455.5

753.9
552.0
919.9

11,573.6
7,798.0
3,188.7

January.... .........
February.... ........
March________

416
359
457

647
632
725

234.5
128.4
150.0

319.9
206.0
260.0

,868.2
1,934.5
2,489.5

.14
.15

April__________
May____
June__________

550
612
617

859
957
1,031

180.5
726.9
280.4

269.3
817.7
420.0

2,388.6
4,000.1
4,093.6

.15
.28
.26

July______________
August___________
September_____ ..

499
437
351

668

938
890

747.8
182.5
108.2

937.6
489.8
316.0

7,894.8
5,022.5
3,109.5

.20

October___________
November______ .
December________

304
315
218

551
561
485

245.6
234.6
43.7

311.9
450.3
236.2

5,480.6
5,032.4
3,102.8

.20

January r_________
February r_____ ..
March r. .......

310
320
400

470
480
580

80
61
127

155
140
165

2,303
1,618
1,544

April r_________ .
May r .................
Junep____

440
510
425

640
720
670

146
126
311

217
203
388

2,031
2,139
3,513

July______________
August___________

380
360

640
630

177
108

426
198

3,185
2,492

1

The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and
lasting a full day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle
cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift in establishments directly involved
in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establish-


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

2

.73
.54

.20
.20

.52
.32

.36
.33

.15

.11

.09

.14
.13

.21
.21

.15

ments or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service
shortages.
p=preliminary.
r=revised.

118

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, NOVEMBER 1972

PRODUCTIVITY

33.
Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, private economy, seasonally ad­
justed
[Indexes 1967=100]

Man-hours

Output

Compensation
per m an-hour1

Output per
man-hour

Real compensa­
tion per
m an-hour2

Unit labor costs

Unit nonlabor
payments3

Implicit price
deflator

Year and quarter
Private

Private
Private
Private
Private
nonnonPrivate
nonPrivate
nonPrivate
farm
farm
farm
farm

Private

Private
Private
Private
nonnonPrivate
nonPrivate
farm
farm
farm

1969: 1st.............
d..............
3d..............
4th............
Annual average......

107.3
107.7
108.2
107.5
107.7

107.4
108.1
108.5
107.9
108.0

103.4
104.2
104.5
104.0
104.0

104.0
104.9
105.4
105.2
104.9

103.7
103.4
103.6
103.3
103.5

103.2
103.0
103.0
102.5
102.9

112.5
114.5
116.7
119.5
115.8

111.9
113.7
115.6
118.0
114.8

104.9
104.9
105.5
106.5
105.5

104.2
104.2
104.5
105.2
104.5

108.5
110.7
112.7
115.6
111.9

1970: 1st.. ______
d..............
3d
4th.............
Annual average____

106.8
107.3
107.9
106.5
107.1

107.0
107.3
108.1
106.5
107.2

103.7
103.1

104.9
104.0
103.1

102.0

102.4

103.5

103.0
104.0
105.8
105.6
104.6

103.2
104.9
104.4
103.6

121.5
123.1
126.0
127.7
124.5

119.9
121.9
124.5
126.1
123.1

106.6
106.4
107.6
107.7
107.0

105.2
105.3
106.4
106.3
105.8

117.9
118.3
119.1
120.9
119.0

1971: 1st.............
d
3d__________
4th ..
Annual Average____

108.7
109.7
110.4
112.3
110.3

108.7
109.8
110.5
112.7
110.4

101.3
101.7
101.4

102.5

107.3
107.8
108.8
109.9
108.5

106.1
106.9
107.6
109.1
107.4

130.1
132.0
134.1
135.9
133.0

128.4
130.7
132.5
134.4
131.5

108.8
109.3
109.9

122.4
123.2
123.6

109.6

107.5
108.2
108.6
109.6
108.4

1972: 1st.............
d . ............

114.3
117.1

114.9
117.8

103.1
104.1

104.2
105.5

110.8

110.3

138.6
140.4

137.3
138.8

112.0
112.6

110.9
111.3

2

2

2

2

102.0
100.8 102.0
102.8
102.6
102.2 103.3
102.8
101.7

112.5

111.6

110.8

102.6
102.8
103.0
102.1
111.6 102.6
102.1
117.5

108.3
110.4
112.3
115.1

118.1
118.7
120.7
118.8

104.2
105.7
107.4
104.9

102.6
102.6
103.0
101.8
102.5

Private

106.2
107.6
108.9
110.4
108.3

101.6 111.8
112.8
104.1

Private
nonfarm
106.2
107.4
108.8

110.1
108.1

111.5

112.8
113.9
115.9
113.5

105.8
107.9
104.9

113.9
115.6
113.5

122.6

122.3
123.1
123.3
122.4

110.6
110.3
111.6 111.7
112.5
112.5
112.6 112.3
111.8 111.8

117.0
118.2
119.0
119.3
118.4

117.1
118.3
119.1
119.1
118.4

125.1
124.9

124.5
124.3

113.5
115.2

113.1
114.6

120.6
121.1

120.2
120.6

6.7
7.7
7.1

1.5

0.7

-3 .6

1.5
-4 .6

121.2 121.1

Percent change over previous quarter at annual rate4
3.6

1969: 1st.............
d..............
3d..............
4th...... ......

1.7
-2 .5

1970: 1st........ .
d ............
3d
______
4th.............

-2 . 6
1.7
2.3
-5 .1

1971: 1st_________
d . ______
3d__________
4th_________

8.7
8.7
2.5
7.2

2

2

2

1972: 1st.............
d ..............

2

1.8

7.0

10.2

3.2
2.5

1.8

-2 .5

-3 . 0

1.1

2.9
-5 . 7

8.6
4.1
2.4

8.1
8.1
10.6

3.4
3.3
.9
- 1 .6

4.2
3.6
1.9
-.7

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

- 1 .2
-3 .6
-3 . 5
-4 .0

2.1

1.7
-1 .2
3.0

3.6
4.0

2.1
1.0
-0 . 5
2.6
3.5
5.3

0.2
.8

- 1 .5

-1 . 0
-1 .1

-1 . 0

-1 . 8

-1 .2
4.0
7.0

-1 .8
4.8

.0

6.1
7.0
8.2
9.8

6.6
7.0
8.6
6.5
7.1
8.9
4.9
7.8
7.2
5.6

-.6

-1 . 7

6.6

-6 .9
5.4
9.6
5.6

6.5

6.4
3.1
2.9
5.4

7.7
S.l
6.4
5.6

4.5
5.0

8.1

2.0

3.8
4.1

3.3

6.0

5.6

5.4

6.0
8.7
4.4

1.1
.1
2.2

3.8

.6

0.6
1.1

-.3

2.7

.2

-1 .0
4.9

.5
4.1
-.4

4.3

4.4
2.7
1.5
3.6

.2

1.6

2.3
3.3

4.6

2.2

5.1
1.3

5.9

8.6
7.3
10.8
8.2

10.6

.6
1.0

4.2
5.5
4.9
5.4

4.4
4.9
5.0
4.9

.5

5.2
3.8
3.8
6.3

5.2
4.9
3.7
7.2

.1

8.4

1.4
2.5
6.3

2.2
2.1
6.8

.2
8.2
6.2
6.4

10.2
6.7
8.1

1.1

1.3
4.0
2.7
.5

11.3
4.9
3.2

10.5
4.0
2.7

4.7
4.3

.6

2.8
1.0

4.5
4.0
2.7

3.0
5.4

4.2
1.7

3.7
1.5

8.8

4.7
4.8
4.5
3.2

5.1
4.9
4.6

2.3

3.1
2.4

4.0
2.5
1.5
4.7

4.0
-.5

2.8

3.1
3.5
3.7

-.6

.2

3.5
5.9

.1

Percent change over previous year5

1st.............
2d...... ........

3d..............
4th.............
1972: 1st...........
d ..............

2

1

1.8

2.3
2.3
5.5

5.1
6.7

1.6
2.2

-2 . 3
-1 .3
- .5
1.4

-2 .3
-1 .2
- .4
1.3

5.6
7.3

1.8

1.6

2.3

5.8

2.3

2.7

4.2
3.7
2.9
4.1
3.3
4.3

4.0
3.5

2.6

4.4

4.0
4.4

Wages and salaries of employees plus employers contributions for social, insurance
and private benefit plans. Also includes an estimate of wages, salaries and supple­
mentary payments for the self-employed.
Compensation per man-hour adjusted for changes in the consumer price index.
Nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, rental income and
indirect taxes.
Percent change computed from original data.
Current quarter divided by comparable quarter a year ago.

2
5
4
5


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

7.1
7.2
6.4
6.4

6.6

6.4

7.2
7.2
6.4
6.7
6.9

6.2

2.1
2.7
2.1

2.9

2.9
3.1

2.1
2.7
2.0

3.1

3.2
2.9

3.4
3.4
2.3
3.2

2.0

2.1
2.8
1.7

8.0

7.2
6.4
4.8

2.9
3.2

7.3
6.3
4.1

2.6

2.8
2.6
2.0

NOTE: Data for 1969, 1970, and the first two quarters of 1971 have been adjusted
to new benchmarks and are not comparable to those previously published in the
Monthly Labor Review.
SOURCE: Output data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Man-hours and compensation of all persons from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 5 1 2 -3 6 2 /7

PUBLICATIONS OF THE
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
P e rio d ic a l su b s c rip tio n s a n d in d iv id u a l p u b lic a tio n s
m a y b e o r d e r e d th ro u g h th e B u re a u ’s re g io n a l offices
o r d ir e c tly fr o m th e S u p e rin te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts ,
G o v e r n m e n t P rin tin g O ffice, W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2 .
M a k e c h e c k o r m o n e y o r d e r p a y a b le to th e S u p e r­
in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts . U se o r d e r b la n k on n e x t p age.

Periodicals
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW. $9 a year; $11.25,
foreign; single copy, 75 cents. Articles on employ­
ment, labor force, wages, prices, productivity, unit
labor costs, collective bargaining, worker satis­
faction, social indicators, and labor developments
abroad. Regular features include a review of
developments in industrial relations, significant
court decisions in labor cases, book reviews, and
current labor statistics.
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS. Monthly. $10
a year; $12.50, foreign; single copy, $1. Current
data for the United States as a whole, for in­
dividual States, and for more than 200 local areas
on employment, hours, earnings, and labor
turnover.
OCCUPATIONAL OUTLOOK QUARTERLY. $1.50
for four issues during the school year; $2, foreign;
single copy, 45 cents. Current information on
employment trends and outlook, supplementing
and bringing up to date information in the
O c c u p a tio n a l O u tlo o k H a n d b o o k .

CURRENT WAGE DEVELOPMENTS. Monthly.
$4.50 a year; $5.75, foreign; single copy, 45 cents.
Wage and benefit changes resulting from collective
bargaining settlements and management decisions;
statistical summaries; and special reports on wage
trends.

Handbooks
HANDBOOK OF LABOR STATISTICS. Annual.
1971 edition, Bulletin 1705, $3.25. Historical
tables of major series published by BLS. Related
series from other government agencies and foreign
countries.
OCCUPATIONAL OUTLOOK HANDBOOK. Bien­
nial. 1972-73 edition, Bulletin 1700, $6.25.
Employment outlook, nature of work, training,
requirements for entry, line of advancement, loca­
tion of jobs, earnings, and working conditions for
700 occupations in 30 major industries, including
farming.
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS, STATES AND
AREAS. Annual. Latest edition (1939-70), Bulle­
tin 1370-8, $4.50. Historical State and area em­
ployment and earnings statistics in the nonfarm
sector of the economy.


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

EMPLOYMENT
AND
EARNINGS,
UNITED
STATES Annual. Latest edition (1909-71), Bul­
letin 1312-8. $5. Detailed industry statistics on
employment, hours, and earnings of the nonagricultural work force.
DIRECTORY OF NATIONAL AND INTER­
NATIONAL LABOR UNIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES. Biennial. Latest edition (1969), Bulle­
tin 1665, $1.25. Names of officers and professional
employees, number of members, and number of
locals of each union, along with sections on union
membership, structure, and function.
HANDBOOK OF METHODS. Latest edition (1971),
Bulletin 1711, $2. Brief account of each major
statistical program of the Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics, sources of original data, definition of terms
and concepts, methodology and techniques, uses
and limitations of data.

A sampling of other publications
BLACK AMERICANS: A DECADE OF OCCUPA­
TIONAL CHANGE. Bulletin 1931, 40 cents.
Companion report to Bulletin 1699. Visual pres­
entation of data on 1960-70 progress of blacks in
moving up the occcupational ladder toward higher
paid jobs.
BLACK AMERICANS, A CHARTBOOK. Bulletin
1699. $1.25. Visual presentation of data on prog­
ress and problems of blacks in recent years.
WAGE CALENDAR 1972. Bulletin 1724, 50 cents.
Resume of collective bargaining activity antici­
pated in 1972, with detailed tables on agreements
scheduled to expire, contract reopenings, and de­
ferred wage increases due.
LABOR LAW AND PRACTICE IN VENEZUELA.
Report 386, 70 cents. One of a series of studies
providing background information on the labor
scene in foreign countries. Describes the country
and its workers, the structure of government, labor,
and management, and conditions of employment.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN LABOR
MOVEMENT. 1970 edition, Bulletin 1000, $1.
PRICES, ESCALATION, AND ECONOMIC STABIL­
ITY. Interpretive pamphlet, 1971, 30 cents.
THE MEANING AND MEASUREMENT OF PRO­
DUCTIVITY. Bulletin 1714, 30 cents.
AREA WAGE SURVEY: CHARLOTTE, N.C. MET­
ROPOLITAN AREA, JANUARY 1972. Bulletin
1725-48, 35 cents. One of a series sum­
marizing results of wage surveys in 90 metropolitan

areas, with data on occupational earnings, establish­
ment practices, and supplementary wage benefits.
Various pagings and prices.
INDEXES OF OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR, SE­
LECTED INDUSTRIES. Annual. Latest edition
(1939 and 1947-70), Bulletin 1692, $1.25. Annual
indexes of output per man-hour, output per em­
ployee, and unit labor requirements. Also, indexes
for related data on output, employment, and
man-hours.

DIGEST OF SELECTED PENSION PLANS. 1970 edi­
tion, $5. (Subscribers receive basic volume and pe­
riodic revision sheets.) Principal features of selected
pension plans for (1) employees under collective
bargaining and (2 ) salaried employees.
INDUSTRY WAGE SURVEY: WOMEN’S AND
MISSES’ COATS AND SUITS, AUGUST 1970.
Bulletin 1728, 35 cents. One of a series summariz­
ing results of surveys of wages and related benefits
in a specific industry. Various pagings and prices.

To order any cf the publications listed, please complete the order form below and mail it to the Superintendent of
Documents or to the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, at any of the regional addresses
shown on the insido front cover.

Make check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents.

Order

Enclosed find $______________________ for the publications listed below:

Form
Name___
Street___
_State____________________________Zip--------------------------

City____

Item (title and publication number, if any)

Q uantity

Price

For prom pt, accurate shipm ent please fill in the follow ing label—please p rin t or typew rite

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300


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

Name

Street Address

City, State, Zip Code

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

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

U.S. GOVERNMENT
PRINTING OFFICE

FIRST CLASS MAIL

PU BLIC D O C U M E N T S D EPARTM EN T

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

WASHINGTON, D C. 20402
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY

FOR

P R IV A T E

USE


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

$300

U.S. GOVERNMENT
PRINTING OFFICE