The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
LY LABOR REVIEW
rtment of Labor
Labor Statistics
• 1980
L 3>.(o:
103
/9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEPOSITORY
In this issue:
Job-related injuries and illnesses of women
Worker perceptions of occupational hazards
Geographic wage indexing for CETA and Medicare
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Ray Marshall, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, D.C. 20212.
Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year —
$18 domestic; $22.50 foreign.
Single copy $2.50.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-0818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402
Make checks payable to
Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through October 31, 1982. Second-class
postage paid at Riverdale, MD.,
and at additional mailing offices.
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I — Boston: W endell D. M acdonald
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: Sam uel M. Ehrenhalt
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944-3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: A lvin /. M argulis
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596 -11 54
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: D onald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Phone: (404) 881 -4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: W illiam E Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 3 5 3 -18 80
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Library of Congress Catalog
Card Number 15-26485
MONTHLYI
Region VI — Dallas: Bryan Richey
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
Phone:(214) 767-6971
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and VIII — Kansas City: E llio tt A. Brow ar
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
September cover:
Workers in trimming department
of the J.B. Stetson Co.
Photograph courtesy of
Archives of Labor History
and Urban Affairs,
Wayne State University
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Regions IX and X — San Francisco: D. Bruce H anchett
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556 -46 78
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Reference D ep t
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 1980
VOLUME 103, NUMBER 9
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
Norman Root, Judy R. Daley
3
Kalamazoo Public Library
Are women safer workers? a new look at the data
The better overall record of women may reflect the fact that few are in hazardous jobs;
26-State survey suggests men and women doing same kind of work incur similar injuries
Richard L. Frenkel and others
11
Occupational safety and health: a report on worker perceptions
Hazardous working conditions erode the job satisfaction of increasing numbers of workers;
especially threatened is the inexperienced employee, who is most likely to be injured
Richard Greene
15
Geographic wage indexing for CETA and Medicare
The tailoring of grants-in-aid to local wage levels enjoys growing popularity among
Federal policymakers; two programs illustrate the flexibility of this technique
Thomas A. Kochan
20
Industrial relations research: an agenda for the 1980’s
An organized effort is needed to improve our understanding of collective bargaining,
and this calls for renewed academic interest in the study of industrial relations
REPORTS
P. F. Gerhart, J. E. Drotning
David E. Bloom
W. Thomas, A. Clem, E. Lamb
Larry T. Adams
Anne McDougall Young
Barbara L. Wolfe
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
26
30
34
41
44
48
Do uncertain cost/benefit estimates prolong public-sector disputes?
Customized ‘final-offer’: New Jersey’s arbitration law
Slowdown in energy prices eases second-quarter inflation
Auto Workers seek Government aid for laid-off workers, ailing industry
School and work among youth during the 1970’s
How the disabled fare in the labor market
DEPARTMENTS
2
26
34
41
44
48
53
57
59
62
69
Labor month in review
Communications
Anatomy of price change
Conventions
Special labor force reports— summaries
Research summaries
Significant decisions in labor cases
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
Labor M onth
In Review
STATE AND LOCAL PAY. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics issued
the first of a new series of releases on
wages and benefits of State and local
government employees in collective
bargaining units of 5,000 workers or
more. About one-fourth of all workers
covered by collective bargaining
agreements in State and local govern
ment were in such units in 1979. The
release includes data on both first-year
changes and annual rates of change over
the life of multiyear settlements
negotiated in 1979.
those without such clauses averaged 7.0
percent.
Wages and benefits. First-year wage and
benefit adjustments averaged 7 percent
under 1979 settlements covering 5,000 or
more State and local government
workers. Major settlements in the
private economy brought wage and
benefit changes of 9 percent in 1979, but
were not entirely comparable because
they included pensions and other
benefits not subject to collective
bargaining in the public sector.
Contracts which offered the prospect
of additional adjustm ents under
autom atic cost-of-living escalator
(COLA) clauses provided smaller (6.5
percent) first-year settlements than con
tracts without such clauses (7.2 percent).
First-year changes were slightly higher
(7.0 percent) for State government
workers than for workers in local
government (6.8 percent).
Over the life of multiyear contracts,
wage and benefit adjustments averaged
6.3 percent a year for both State and
local government workers. Contracts
with COLA clauses provided wage and
benefit changes of 5.1 percent, while
Groups covered. Agreements reached in
1979 affected 568,000 workers in 45
State and local government bargaining
units of 5,000 or more employees.
Teacher units accounted for about 25
percent of the workers covered, with
general government or administrative
units accounting for another 20 percent.
The rest were in clerical, blue-collar,
health, and other units.
About 48 percent were in the
Northeast region, 22 percent in
the North Central States, 21 per
cent in the West, and 9 percent
in the South.
Two-year agreements covered about
43 percent of the workers under the 1979
agreements. About 23 percent were
under 1-year pacts and 34 percent under
3-year agreements.
2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wages only. Data on wage settlements
alone show average first-year changes of
6.8 percent for workers in large State
and local government units, with local
government workers holding a slight
edge (7.0 percent) over State government
employees (6.7 percent). Similarly, over
the life of multiyear contracts, local
government workers won slightly higher
settlements (6.5 percent) than State
government employees (6.2 percent).
Escalator provisions. Nine of the 1979
settlements included COLA provisions.
Eight other COLA clauses were in effect
from bargaining in prior years. A total
of 309,000 workers were covered by
escalator provisions in 1979. Mainly
because 1979 agreements deferred
escalator reviews until 1980 or later,
cost-of-living clauses triggered perma
nent wage-rate adjustments in only
seven agreements, covering 76,000
workers. Of these, 71,000 were
employed by local governments, largely
as transit workers(43,000).
Effective changes. In addition to repor
ting on 1979 settlements, the new BLS
release also reports on the wage increases
actually paid during the year to State
and local government workers in units
of 5,000 or more. A total of 884,000
workers in 69 public sector collective
bargaining units collected increases
averaging 6.2 percent. About 73,000
workers in 10 bargaining units received
no increases. When prorated over all
957,000 workers in major bargaining
units, the effective wage adjustment
averaged 5.8 percent in 1979, with 4.0
percent coming from new settlements,
1.2 percent from deferred increases paid
under agreements negotiated in prior
years, and 0.5 percent from COLA
clauses.
More complete data. Information in the
new BLS release is based on preliminary
data. A revised report, based on more
complete data, will appear in a forth
coming issue of Current Wage
Developments, a monthly periodical
published by BLS.
Meanwhile, single copies of the
release, USDL: 80-501, are available
from the Inquiries and C orre
spondence Section, BLS, Wash
ington, D.C. 20212.
0
Are women safer workers?
a new look at the data
The overall better record of women may reflect
the fact that relatively few are in hazardous jobs;
data from 26 States suggest that men and
women doing the same kind o f work incur
similar injuries with about the same frequency
N
orman
R oot
and
Ju d y R . D
aley
Women have a relatively better work injury record than
do men, much of which may be attributed to the kinds
of work in which women are engaged. They are under
represented in the crafts and kindred occupations, in
which very large numbers of injuries occur. A large
proportion of on-the-job injuries among women occurs
in traditionally female-dominated occupations— teach
ing, nursing, clerical jobs, assembling, and retail sales,
for example.
The characteristics of occupational injuries and ill
nesses are similar for women and men. There are a few
noteworthy exceptions: women suffer relatively more
“falls on the same level” than do men, which may be
the result of wearing shoes with higher heels; women
also appear to experience relatively more illnesses relat
ed to occupations, particularly inflammation of joints,
tendons, and muscles.
This article provides the first comprehensive look at
female work-related injuries and illnesses by occupation,
Norman Root is a division chief and Judy R. Daley a research ana
lyst in the Office of Occupational Safety and Health Statistics, Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
industry, and by specific characteristic of the injury (for
example, nature of the injury or illness, part of body af
fected, source of the injury, and type of accident or ex
posure causing the injury). In this analysis, the term
“injury” includes both injuries and illnesses.
The data are from reports made to State workers
compensation agencies. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
developed the Supplementary Data System to assist
States in uniformly classifying and coding data obtained
in connection with administration of State workers’
compensation laws. The State agencies, in turn, provide
the Bureau with information about the industrial classi
fication of the establishment in which the injured was
employed, occupation, age, and sex of the injured em
ployee, nature of injury, part of body affected, source of
the injury, and type of accident or exposure which pro
duced the injury.1 Although classification and process
ing are uniform, the injury data are subject to a number
of limitations because reporting and coverage require
ments for workers’ compensation differ among States.2
This report compares the proportionate values of in
juries and employment within a given universe (for
example, female workers, manufacturing). Employment
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Are Women Safer Workers?
data for industry and occupation are from Employment
and Earnings, a monthly publication of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.3Data limitations do not permit compu
tation of rates. The 26 States, whose data are used in this
analysis, accounted for about 40 percent of wage and
salary employment and are considered representative of
the industrial activity in the Nation. These States provid
ed information on cases that either occurred or were re
ported to workers’ compensation agencies in 1977.
Young workers susceptible
About 1.5 million injuries,4 or 21 percent of all
occupational injuries, occur to women. The proportion
of work-related injuries ranged from 10 percent of all
such injuries in Wyoming to 25 percent in Minnesota.
Employment of women in these States ranged from 37
percent to 45 percent of all employed workers.5 (See ta
ble 1.) Wyoming, Alaska, New Mexico, and Utah had
noticeably low percentages of injuries, probably because
of the industrial mix of jobs in these States. They have
large numbers of traditionally male-dominated hazard
ous jobs, such as mining, ranching, construction, and
oil-well drilling.
The largest percentage of female injury cases was
accounted for by younger workers. The injury-to-employment ratio for women was relatively consistent for
all age groups. However, compared with men, younger
women (16 to 34 years) had lower injury-to-employTable 1. Employment and work-related injuries and
illnesses among women, selected States, 1977
State
T o ta l........................
Alaska .................................
California.............................
C olorado.............................
Connecticut ........................
H aw aii.................................
Idaho...................................
Indiana.................................
Iowa ...................................
Kentucky.............................
Maine .................................
M aryland.............................
Michigan .............................
Minnesota ..........................
Missouri...............................
Montana .............................
Nebraska.............................
New J e rs e y ........................
New M exico........................
Oregon ...............................
South D akota......................
Tennessee ..........................
Utah ...................................
Vermont .............................
Virgin Islands ......................
Wisconsin ...........................
W yom ing.............................
Female employment as percent
of total
employment1
40.6
41.8
41.1
40.4
42.2
44.5
39.0
40.2
40.0
39.8
40.5
40.8
38.6
39.9
42.4
36.8
41.4
40.7
40.9
39.9
39.4
41.6
38.6
40.3
( 3)
40.5
37.6
4
Injuries more frequent in manufacturing
Despite some changes in their employment patterns,
women remain concentrated in the same industry
groups as in previous years.7 And, significant numbers
of injuries continued to occur in those industries. Man
ufacturing industries accounted for 30 percent of all in
juries to female workers, followed by 24 percent in
services, 19 percent in retail trade, and 17 percent in the
public sector. The following tabulation shows the distri
bution of female work injuries by industry, 1977:
Percent
Injuries and Illnesses
Total cases
1,250,284
8,841
327,868
33,954
211,441
36,603
38,290
38,398
18,510
51,015
43,828
30,551
70,537
50,802
128,590
32,281
35,249
84,753
4,046
43,777
17,397
25,649
20,491
17,952
1,531
60,626
17,304
Percent incurred
by women
21.1
14.9
22.5
19.9
17.4
22.5
17.9
21.8
19.8
18.9
21.0
20.7
23.0
25.0
20.4
18.0
20.6
21.8
15.4
21.0
21.4
19.9
16.6
21.6
18.0
21.5
10.3
1 State Profile o f Employment and Unemployment, 1977, Report 539 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, October 1978). The total is for the 25 States for which data were available.
2 In 1977, Connecticut provided injury and illness information only for manufacturing indus
tries, excluding boat building and repair.
3 Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment ratios and older women (35 to 64 years), higher
ratios. For men, the injury-to-employment ratio was
higher for those age 16-34 and lower for the suc
ceeding age groups.
Because a high proportion (about 40 percent) of all
occupational injuries are sustained during a worker’s
first year on the job, the relatively high injury-to-employment ratio experienced by younger men can be
expected.6 The consistent injury to employment ratio of
women, therefore, could indicate that they, perhaps, are
“safer” workers in the sense that their injury experience
remains proportionate to their exposure; that, perhaps,
women are experiencing more turnover in employment,
(that is, continue to enter and leave the work force
throughout their working years); or that the low level of
upward mobility in the “female jobs” (such as char
women, nursing aides, and assemblers) keeps women
exposed to the same hazards of the work environment
throughout their working years.
Private sector .............................................................
Agriculture, forestry,and fishing ...........................
M ining....................................................................
Construction...........................................................
Manufacturing........................................................
Transportation andpublicutilities ..........................
Wholesale tr a d e ......................................................
Retail tra d e .............................................................
Finance, insurance and real estate............................
Services....................................................................
Public sector................................................................
State government....................................................
Local government....................................................
82.9
1.3
-2
-6
30.0
2.5
2.9
19.4
2.3
23.7
17.1
5.5
11.6
Among manufacturing industries with significant num
bers of female work-related injuries, food and kindred
products accounted for the most, followed by electric
and electronic equipment, fabricated metals products,
transportation equipment, apparel and other textile
products, rubber and miscellaneous plastics products,
and machinery (except electrical) products. About twothirds of the female work-related injuries in the private
sector of the services industry occurred in hospitals and
health care facilities. In retail trade, the largest compo
nents of female work-related injuries occurred in eating
Table 2.
Employment and work-related injuries and illnesses among women in selected industries, 1977
Industry
Female
employment as
percent of total
employment
Injuries and illnesses
Total cases
Percent
incurred
by women
Industry
Trucking, local and long distance .
Water transportation....................
Air transportation ........................
Certificated and noncertificated air transportation ..
Pipelines, except natural gas . . . .
Transportation services...............
Communication ...........................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services
Wholesale trade .................................
Retail tra d e ..........................................
Building materials and garden
supplies...................................
General merchandise stores . . . .
Department stores .............
Variety s to re s ......................
Food store s.................................
Grocery stores ....................
Automotive dealers and service
stations ...................................
Apparel and accessory stores . . .
Furniture and home furnishings
stores ......................................
Eating and drinking places .........
Miscellaneous retail ....................
Finance, Insurance, and real estate . . .
Banking........................................
Credit agencies other than banks
Security, commodity brokers and
services...................................
Insurance carriers ......................
Insurance agents, brokers and
service......................................
Real estate .................................
Combined real estate,
insurance, etc............................
Services...............................................
Hotels and other lodging places .
Personal services........................
Business services........................
Auto repair, services and garages
Miscellaneous repair services . . .
Motion pictures ...........................
Health service .............................
Hospitals ........... .............
Legal services.............................
Educational services....................
Miscellaneous services...............
Public sector........................................
State government........................
Local government ......................
Total ..........................................
40
1,250,284
21.1
Private sector— all industries...............
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing ...........
Mining.....................................
Construction ..........................................
Manufacturing ......................................
Durable goods ...............................
Lumber and wood products...........
Mlllwork, plywood structural
members ...............................
Furniture and fixtures ....................
Household furniture ......................
Stone, clay, and glass products . . .
Primary metals Industries .............
Fabricated metal products.............
Metal forgings and stampings .
Machinery, except electrical .........
Electric and electronic equipment..
Electronic components and
accessories........................
Transportation equipment......................
Motor vehicles and equipment . . . .
Instruments and related products .........
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries............................................
Nondurable g o o d s .................................
Food and kindred products....................
Meat products ...............................
Preserved fruits and vegetables . . .
Miscellaneous foods and
kindred products........................
Tobacco manufacturers ........................
Textile mill products...............................
Apparel and other textile products.........
Men’s and boys’ furnishings...........
Paper and allied products......................
Miscellaneous converted paper
products......................................
Printing and publishing ...........................
Chemical and allied products ...............
Petroleum and coal products ...............
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics
products ............................................
Miscellaneous plastics products ...........
Leather and leather products ...............
Footwear, except rubber...............
Transportation and public utilities...........
Local and Interurban passenger
transit ........................................
Trucking and warehousing ...........
39
(’ )
8
7
30
23
13
1,085,223
29,403
27,266
117,474
429,075
271,467
47,046
20.2
11.5
1.6
1.3
18.4
15.5
9.1
15
28
31
18
9
20
21
17
42
10,668
12,449
7,970
19,065
26,906
47,921
8,012
43,980
22,831
14.7
19.9
22.0
11.3
6.6
14.6
19.1
11.6
38.0
53
13
12
40
4,554
38,091
24,033
6,239
51.6
14.2
14.6
43.5
46
40
28
31
43
6,939
157,608
69,238
22,501
11,231
35.2
23.5
18.2
15.7
34.2
28
38
47
81
84
21
4,900
661
6,208
8,716
2,867
17,653
30.0
38.6
29.1
64.1
71.9
16.8
33
36
22
11
5,479
11,564
14,254
2,379
24.9
21.9
16.6
5.0
34
41
60
66
23
19,645
11,999
7,287
4,360
80,942
28.8
35.5
42.8
54.7
8.1
20
11
4,617
45,260
15.5
3.0
Female
employment as
percent of total
employment
Injuries and illnesses
Total cases
Percent
incurred
by women
10
11
30
42,512
1,017
8,774
2.7
2.5
26.0
31
9
30
45
17
25
47
8,134
98
1,323
5,951
13,799
80,080
171,561
27.6
(' )
11.4
25.1
4.0
9.5
29.9
20
67
67
75
40
C)
12,675
25,510
21,541
3,156
36,925
34,230
5.9
47.0
45.8
56.9
25.6
24.9
15
67
29,265
2,653
4.5
58.8
30
57
47
56
68
63
6,149
47,084
11,300
15,897
3,058
1,494
10.5
46.8
31.4
38.8
67.2
41.2
36
56
169
2,595
37.9
50.7
58
36
837
7,222
46.0
20.5
52
56
(’ )
63
38
(’ )
18
37
81
80
65
52
29
49
45
50
512
131,635
14,693
4,528
19,013
10,110
4,864
1,690
48,587
28,561
520
5,548
3,035
165,031
37,819
127,212
49.4
47.6
46.8
39.8
24.0
5.3
4.7
16.4
78 9
74.2
59.2
40.7
18.6
27.4
38.5
24.0
1Data are not available.
and drinking places, general merchandise stores, and
food stores. In the public sector, local government
accounted for two-thirds of the work-related injuries
sustained by women, many of whom were in education.
Relative to their employment, work-related injuries
among women varied widely by industries. (See table 2.)
In manufacturing industries, their relative injury experi
ence was greater than or close to their relative employ
ment in these industries: lumber and wood products,
primary metals, metal forgings and stampings, electric
and electronic equipment, transportation equipment, in
struments and related products, miscellaneous foods
and kindred products, and tobacco manufacturing. In
air transportation, banking, and health services, similar
relative positions occurred. The work-related injury rates
for women in these industries would be at least compa
rable to those of men.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
In contrast, the following industries with a signifi
cantly large number of cases show a much higher pro
portion of employment than of injuries incurred by
women: miscellaneous manufacturing, food and kindred
products, textile mill products, apparel and other textile
products, printing and publishing, leather and leather
products, transportation and public utilities generally,
wholesale and retail trade generally, real estate, services
generally and local government.
Service workers— most cases
Two occupational groups— service workers and oper
atives, except transport— accounted for slightly more
than 50 percent of total injuries to women. Clerical oc
cupations made up 12 percent of the cases, followed by
laborers (except farm) and professional, technical and
kindred workers with 9 and 8 percent. Following are
5
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Are Women Safer Workers?
Table 3.
Employment and work-related injuries and illnesses among women in selected occupations, 1977
Occupation
Total ...................................................
Professional, technical and kindred workers ..
Registered nurses ..........................................
Teachers, excluding college and university . . .
Elementary school teachers ..................
Secondary school teachers....................
Teachers, nec ........................................
Managers and administrators, except farm . . .
Restaurant, bar managers......................
Sales managers and department heads,
retail trade ..........................................
Sales clerks, retail tra d e ........................
Clerical and kindred workers ........................
Teacher aides ........................................
Crafts and kindred workers ...........................
Operatives, except transport...........................
Female
employment
as percent of
total
employment
Injuries and illnesses
Total cases
Percent In
curred by
women
40.5
42.6
96.7
70.9
84.2
51.2
75.2
22.3
34.7
1,250,284
43,738
6,564
10,216
3,804
3,558
2,346
33,915
3,416
21.1
49.3
94.8
62.3
76.3
45.7
60.7
22.3
41.8
36.2
43.3
45.0
70.4
78.9
90.0
87 0
99 1
30 8
93.4
96 3
(’ )
( ')
5.0
39.6
50 3
5,242
22,430
17,020
2,516
56,474
2,133
5,393
3,721
8 748
2^257
1,964
6,692
2^079
230,306
255,123
31,312
26.2
42.3
42.7
60.0
55.3
85.9
77.7
96.3
20.9
87.0
94.1
73.7
74.3
3.0
22.5
37.9
(’)
4,912
9,007
45.1
15.5
Checkers, examiners, inspectors,
Meatcutters, butchers, manufacturing
35.2
1Data not available.
Percent
8.2
2.9
3.6
11.8
2.6
21.8
1.6
8.6
.9
30.6
.2
The occupational distribution of work-related injuries
indicates one reason for the relatively low numbers of
injuries to women. Men accounted for 95 percent of
employment and experienced 97 percent of the work in
juries in the crafts and kindred workers group. The in
juries in this occupational group accounted for 22
percent of all work injuries to men. For women, on-thejob injuries in this occupational group made up only 3
percent of all work injuries. (See table 3.) Thus, women
had very little exposure to one of the most hazardous
occupations.
Work-related injuries among women generally reflect
ed their concentrations of employment. In the following
occupations, women made up 60 percent or more of
employment and injuries: nursing and other health re
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Packers, wrappers, except retail .............
Sewers and stitchers ...............................
Machine operatives, miscellaneous...........
Not specified operatives ...........................
Transport equipment operatives ......................
Bus drivers.................................................
Laborers, except farm ......................................
Freight, material handlers ........................
Stock handlers..........................................
Miscellaneous laborers .............................
Not specified laborers...............................
Farmers and farm managers ..........................
Farm laborers and foremen .............................
Farm laborers, wage workers ..................
Service workers, except private household . . . .
Chambermaids and m aids........................
Cleaners and charwomen ........................
Janitors and sextons.................................
Cooks .......................................................
Food counter and fountain workers .........
Waiters and waitresses.............................
Food service workers, n e c ........................
Health aides, except nursing ....................
Nursing aides, orderlies and attendants ..
Practical nurses ........................................
Airline stewardesses.................................
Housekeepers ..........................................
Private household workers ...............................
63.6
95.2
( 1)
(’ )
6.8
42.2
9.4
7.9
22.7
(’ )
( 1)
6.4
29.4
17.0
58.3
( 1)
96.1
15.4
56.3
85.7
90.4
74.3
84.5
86.3
96.8
n
64.6
97.0
Injuries and illnesses
Total cases
10,322
4,412
11,420
6,709
87,328
5,366
237,161
26,253
17,852
83,644
26,683
517
20,838
19,800
175,556
3,807
7,412
26,064
17,815
3,449
10,704
18,804
2,984
24,536
4,891
1,743
2,517
469
Percent In
curred by
women
54.9
90.6
23.4
16.8
4.7
34.6
9.6
8.0
19.2
13.7
10.0
2.5
11.9
12.4
46.0
89.6
41.5
15.5
44.3
78.3
90.3
61.9
65.6
84.7
93.3
90.1
73.4
86.6
NOTE: nec = Not elsewhere classified.
the occupational distribution of female work-related in
juries, 1977:
Professional, technical and kindred workers ............
Managers and administrators, except farm ..............
Salesworkers .............................................................
Clerical and kindred workers .................................
Crafts and kindred workers ......................................
Operatives, except transport......................................
Transport equipment operatives ...............................
Laborers except farm .................................................
Farm laborers and foremen ......................................
Service workers, except privatehousehold..................
Private household w orkers........................................
Occupation
Female
employment
as percent of
total
employment
lated occupations, teaching, retail sales, bookkeeping,
clerical jobs, sewing and stitching, and several food-re
lated occupations. Women employed as managers and
administrators, sales workers, operatives (such as as
semblers, and packers and wrappers), and laborers ex
perienced significant percentages of injuries relative to
their employment.
Profile of occupational injuries
The characteristics of the work-related injuries that
occurred to women were generally similar to those af
fecting men. For example, sprains and strains were the
most frequently occurring injuries for both groups; the
back and fingers were the body parts affected more than
one-third of the time; and overexertion resulted in about
1 of 5 injuries. However, the sources of the injuries var
ied markedly for the two groups, reflecting the different
work environments and, therefore, different potentials
for producing injuries. Working surfaces caused 19 per
cent of all female work-related injuries, but only 12 per
cent of the male injuries. Conversely, metal items were
responsible for 15 percent of male injuries, but only 5
percent of injuries to women. A person as a source of
injury (primarily the lifting and handling of them) was
responsible for 9 percent of the female injuries, but for
only 2 percent of the men’s.
As noted, sprains and strains accounted for more
than one-third of the injuries occurring to women,
followed by contusions and bruises, cuts, lacerations,
and punctures, fractures, and burns. Other frequent
injuries included scratches and abrasions and in
flammation of joints, tendons, and muscles. (See table
4.)
About 30 percent of the injuries involved the upper
extremities and about half of the time included the fin
gers. An additional 30 percent of injuries involved the
trunk, largely the back. (See table 5.) The lower extrem
ities frequently involving the toes, accounted for 19 per
cent of the injuries; the head and multiple body parts
each accounted for about 8 percent; and injuries to the
eyes accounted for 3 percent.
Data on the sources of work injuries generally reflect
the work environment more closely than any other
classification because many of the individual categories
are peculiar to specific industries, each with special ma
chines, equipment, or exposures. Thus, the source classi
fication has many more categories than other classifica
tions. (See table 6.) Two categories— working surfaces
and boxes, barrels and containers— common to all in
dustries, accounted for nearly one-third of all the inju
ries occurring to women, and for 22 percent of injuries
occurring to men. Three other categories combined
made up nearly 1 of 4 female work-related injuries—
person, bodily motion, and machines. Again, these
sources reflect the fact that women are heavily em
ployed as nurses, teachers, wrappers and packers, as
semblers, and health and food service workers.
A look at accidents which cause injuries on the job
can provide clues for targeting safety programs.8Among
women, the most frequent accidents were struck against
or struck by, overexertion, and fall on the same level.
(See table 7.) Nearly 1 of 5 injuries were caused by the
combined accidents, bodily reaction, caught in-underbetween, and fall from elevation. Similar types of acci
dents caused injuries to women and men. The only sig
nificant differences were for fall from the same level,
Table 4.
Nature of work-related injury
Nature
Total cases ..................
Amputation or enucleation . . .
Burns:
Heat .................................
C hem ical..........................
Infective or parasitic disease . . .
Contusion, crushing, bruise . . . .
Cut, laceration, puncture .........
Derm atitis.................................
Dislocation ...............................
Fracture ...................................
Hernia ......................................
Inflammation or irritation of joints,
tendons, or m uscles.............
Systemic poisoning ..................
Scratches, abrasions...............
Sprains, strains ........................
Multiple injuries ........................
All other ...................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Women
Men
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
264,136
1,337
100.0
.5
986,147
8,227
100.0
.8
8,520
1,548
1,259
42,277
38,014
4,322
2,498
16,632
866
3.2
.6
.5
16.0
14.4
1.6
1.0
6.3
.3
26,315
8,778
1,256
134,306
180,069
9,191
11,936
79,718
15,581
2.7
.9
.1
13.6
18.3
.9
1.2
8.1
1.6
4,550
2,630
5,543
99,523
3,508
31,109
1.7
1.0
2.1
37.7
1.3
11.8
8,478
8,656
40,825
326,746
13,940
112,125
.9
.9
4.1
33.1
1.4
11.4
Table 5.
injury
Selected parts of body affected by work-related
Women
Part of body affected
Men
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total cases....................
H ead..........................................
Eyes .................................
Face .................................
264,136
19,957
7,332
4,896
100.0
7.6
2.8
1.9
986,147
111,957
65,275
22,516
100.0
11.4
6.6
2.3
N e c k..........................................
3,652
1.4
11,133
1.1
Upper extremities......................
Arms .................................
E lbow .............................
Wrist .................................
Hand .................................
Finger(s) ..........................
81,759
14,494
3,671
10,174
14,995
38,687
31.0
5.5
1.4
3.9
5.7
14.7
285,567
47,667
14,440
25,073
58,418
145,558
29.0
4.8
1.5
2.5
5.9
14.8
Trunk ........................................
Abdom en...........................
Back .................................
C hest.................................
H ip s ...................................
Shoulders...........................
78,318
2,987
56,051
4,444
4,263
6,778
29.7
1.1
21.2
1.7
1.6
2.6
292,509
21,648
195,449
22,123
14,727
26,959
29.7
2.2
19.8
2.2
1.5
2.7
Lower extremities......................
Legs .................................
Knee .............................
A n k le .................................
F o o t.....................'.............
Toes .................................
48,864
19,702
10,921
13,127
9,773
4,013
18.5
7.5
4.1
5.0
3.7
1.5
200,937
87,092
48,164
40,951
45,614
20,707
20.4
8.8
4.9
4.2
4.6
2.1
Multiple p a rts .............................
21,653
8.2
52,623
5.3
Body system .............................
5,897
2.2
19,528
2.0
which accounted for 1 of 6 injuries to female workers,
compared with 1 of 13 for men, and for struck against
or struck by which accounted for one-fourth of the inju
ries incurred by women and one-third of those incurred
by men.
Table 6.
Selected sources of work-related injury
Women
Source
Total cases...........................
Animals, Insects, etc..........................
Bodily m otion...................................
Boxes, barrels, containers...............
Buildings and structures ..................
Doors and g a te s ......................
Chemicals, chemical compounds . . .
Food products.................................
Furniture, fixtures, etc........................
Glass items, nec .............................
Hand tools, not powered..................
Knife ........................................
Hand tools, powered ......................
Liquids, n e c ......................................
Machines..........................................
Shears, slitters, slicers.............
Metal items ......................................
Vehicles ..........................................
Highway vehicles, powered . ..
Plant or industrial vehicles . . . .
Nonpowered vehicles . . . .
Powered c arriers.............
Wood ite m s ......................................
Working surfaces.............................
Floor ........................................
Ground ......................................
Stairs, s te p s .............................
Person ............................................
Person, other than Injuried . . . .
Men
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
264,136
2,045
21,306
31,637
7,154
4,233
4,615
4,000
13,893
2,996
11,341
6,021
1,888
3,205
19,703
3,921
14,361
11,585
5,463
4,679
3,907
659
5,125
50,503
26,189
5,338
5,343
22,519
19,645
100.0
.8
8.1
12.0
2.7
1.6
1.8
1.5
5.3
1.1
4.3
2.3
.7
1.2
7.5
1.5
5.4
4.4
2.1
1.8
1.5
.3
1.9
19.1
9.9
2.0
2.0
8.5
7.4
986,147
7,880
63,894
98,767
20,733
8,979
17,151
7,593
22,631
10,164
59,589
21,220
19,185
5,813
62,908
6,369
148,837
78,674
43,457
26,691
12,507
11,166
46,684
118,939
40,222
32,901
7,394
15,591
10,564
100.0
.8
6.5
10.0
2.1
.9
1.7
.8
2.3
1.0
6.0
2.2
2.0
.6
6.4
.7
15.1
8.0
4.4
2.7
1.3
1.1
4.7
12.1
4.1
3.3
.8
1.6
1.1
NOTE: nec = Not elsewhere classified.
7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Are Women Safer Workers?
education, and social services provided by State and
local governments.
Table 7. Selected types of accident or exposure
resulting in work-related injury
Accident or exposure
Total c a s e s ..................
Struck against ........................
Struck b y .................................
Fall from elevation ..................
Fall on s ta irs....................
Fall on same level ..................
Caught in, under, between . . . .
Rubbed or abraded ...............
Bodily reaction........................
Overexertion ...........................
Lifting objects ..................
Contact with temperature
extremes .............................
Contact with radiation,
caustics, etc..........................
By absorption ..................
Motor vehicle accidents...........
Women
Men
Are women safer workers than men?
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
264,136
27,203
41,637
12,580
6,805
44,271
17,402
8,126
21,012
59,162
36,268
100.0
10.3
15.8
4.8
2.6
16.8
6.6
3.1
8.0
224
13.7
986,147
107,745
217,720
65,385
10,116
77,728
75,364
48,180
65,473
211,653
124,171
100.0
10.9
22.1
6.6
1.0
7.9
7.6
4.9
6.6
21.5
12.6
8,674
3.3
26,570
2.7
10,115
5,966
3,478
3.8
2.3
1.3
32,989
19,309
21,925
3.4
2.0
2.2
Illness a greater problem. Illnesses peculiar to one’s oc
cupation were a relatively greater problem for women
than men. Occupational illnesses accounted for nearly 7
percent of all injuries and illnesses of women, but less
than 5 percent of the men’s.9
Three categories made up two-thirds of the occupa
tional illnesses of women— inflammation or irritation of
joints, tendons, and muscles, dermatitis, and systemic
poisoning. (See table 8.) These accounted for 59 percent
of the illnesses occurring to men. Other significant cate
gories of female occupational illnesses were infective or
parasitic diseases, mental disorders, and effects of
changes in atmospheric pressure (limited almost exclu
sively to stewardesses in the air transportation indus
try).
The frequency and types of illnesses reflect employ
ment and exposures (as indicated, for example, by the
experience of airline stewardesses). Nearly a third of all
female work-related illnesses occurred in manufacturing
industries; 62 percent of the illnesses involved inflam
mation of joints, tendons, and muscles; 53 percent, der
matitis, and 39 percent, systemic poisoning. Five indus
tries combined— food, fabricated metals, machinery
(electric and nonelectric) and transportation equipment
— had more than 50 percent of each of these illnesses.
Inflammation of joints, tendons and muscles were par
ticularly associated with the repetitive movements of as
sembly-type activities, and women appeared to be more
prone to this illness than men. Services accounted for
24 percent of all female occupational illnesses, with a
large concentration in health services, reflecting among
other things, exposures to infective and parasitic dis
eases. Retail trade, especially eating and drinking
places, accounted for 19 percent of female occupational
diseases. The public sector accounted for 17 percent of
female occupational illnesses and included high propor
tions of infective and parasitic diseases, mental disor
ders, and circulatory conditions. Many of these con
ditions are associated with occupations in health,
8
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Given the same job will women suffer the same inju
ries as do men? Comparisons of the relative frequency
and kinds of injuries occurring to both women and men
in the same occupations and industries indicate that
work activity, not the worker, is a more important de
terminant of injuries. The data show that women in tra
ditionally male-dominated jobs will suffer the same
kinds of injuries and generally with the same relative
frequency as their male counterparts. Also men in tradi
tionally female-dominated occupations will suffer inju
ries common to their female counterparts and with the
same frequency.
Table 9 presents some injuries and illnesses frequent
ly occurring in selected occupations. The similarities of
characteristic clusters which reflect exposures to the
work environment are the main features of the data.
For example, if the category “strains and sprains”
among female nursing aides is larger than the national
average for women, it is also larger than the average for
men; or if a “person” as a source of injury among fe
male laborers is smaller than the national average for
women, it is also markedly smaller for men. Other sig
nificant clusters which reflect the exposures of the work
ing environment include: dermatitis and inflammation of
joints, tendons, and muscles among assemblers; bodily
Table 8.
Frequency of occupational illness
Illness
All workers
Women
Men
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
All occupational illnesses.........
Infective or parasitic
disease........................
Derm atitis........................
Effects of exposure to
low temperature...........
Effects of environmental
heat .............................
Inflammation of joints,
tendons, or muscles . . .
Poisoning, system ic.........
Pneumoconiosis...............
Radiation effects .............
Hemorrhoids....................
Effects of changes in
atmospheric pressure ..
Conditions of circulatory
system ........................
Complications peculiar
to medical care ...........
Diseases of the e y e .........
Mental disorders .............
Neoplasm, tu m o r.............
Conditions of nervous
system ........................
Conditions of respiratory
system ........................
Symptoms and ill-defined
conditions ....................
Occupational disease,
n e c ...............................
Heart conditions (includes
heart attack) ...............
62,366
100.0
17,455
100.0
44,911
100.0
2,515
13,513
4.0
21.7
1,259
4,322
7.2
24.8
1,256
9,191
2.8
20.5
773
1.2
133
.8
640
1.4
790
1.3
109
.6
681
1.5
13,028
11,286
822
4,292
334
20.9
18.1
1.3
6.9
.5
4,550
2,630
24
116
28
26.1
15.1
.1
.7
.2
8,478
8,656
798
4,176
306
18.9
19.3
1.8
9.3
.7
431
.7
351
2.0
80
.2
1,121
1.8
339
1.9
782
1.7
351
274
1,171
243
.6
.4
1.9
.4
213
52
594
79
1.2
.3
3.4
.5
138
222
577
164
.3
.5
1.3
.4
821
1.3
286
1.6
535
1.2
1,223
2.0
275
1.6
948
2.1
3,578
5.7
1,188
6.8
2,390
5.3
1,716
2.8
585
3.4
1,131
2.5
4,084
6.5
322
1.8
3,762
8.4
NOTE: nec = Not elsewhere classified.
Table 9.
Characteristics of injuries and illnesses and proportion occurring in selected occupations, 1977
Food and kindred products
All industries1
Selected characteristics of the
injury or illness
Laborers
Operatives
except
transport
Fabricated metals
Machine
operatives
Electrical machinery
Machine
operatives
Laborers
Assemblers
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Nature of injury or illness ..........................................
Amputations.......................................................
Burns ................................................................
Contusions, crushing, bruise .............................
Cut, laceration, puncture...................................
Dermatitis ..........................................................
Fractures............................................................
Inflammation or irritation of joints, tendons,
or m uscles.....................................................
Scratches, abrasions ........................................
Sprains, strains...................................................
100.0
.5
3.8
16.0
14.4
1.6
6.3
100.0
.8
3.6
13.6
18.3
.9
8.1
100.0
.7
3.2
19.5
14.8
4.0
5.1
100.0
.7
4.4
16.5
18.1
1.4
5.5
100.0
1.0
2.0
17.5
18.6
3.6
4.7
100.0
.9
4.4
13.2
29.0
1.5
4.3
100.0
2.1
1.9
16.3
19.9
1.9
6.4
100.0
2.0
3.7
15.9
22.5
1.0
7.6
100.0
.9
6.1
15.4
13.8
4.3
6.4
100.0
2.2
5.6
12.7
18.8
2.4
7.3
100.0
.8
2.9
16.9
13.2
7.4
4.8
100.0
1.0
3.6
15.1
16.1
1.7
6.1
100.0
.1
5.7
13.5
14.4
4.0
5.0
100.0
.7
3.1
12.0
19.8
1.7
5.3
1.7
2.1
37.7
.9
4.1
33.1
4.8
1.8
33.3
1.8
2.0
36.7
4.2
2.1
34.1
1.8
2.8
30.7
2.3
3.6
33.2
.6
4.9
29.6
3.4
4.9
29.9
1.0
4.7
30.6
2.0
1.3
32.0
1.8
1.6
37.4
3.8
4.6
32.8
1.7
4.8
37.0
Source of injury or illness..........................................
Bodily m otion.....................................................
Boxes, barrels, containers.................................
Chemicals, chemical compounds......................
Furniture, fixtures, etc..........................................
Hand tools, not pow ered...................................
Machines............................................................
Metal items .......................................................
Vehicles..............................................................
Working surfaces ...............................................
Person................................................................
100.0
8.1
12.0
1.8
5.3
4.3
7.5
5.4
4.4
19.1
8.5
100.0
6.5
10.0
1.7
2.3
6.0
6.4
15.1
8.0
12.1
1.6
100.0
10.0
15.8
2.3
1.7
6.8
7.9
4.7
3.2
17.6
.3
100.0
7.1
19.7
2.3
1.0
7.7
4.9
7.5
7.0
11.4
.2
100.0
10.5
15.2
1.7
2.0
9.6
11.3
3.6
2.0
16.2
.4
100.0
6.3
14.3
1.9
1.0
18.1
8.1
6.1
3.3
9.4
.2
100.0
6.4
13.8
2.1
1.5
4.0
23.0
21.8
1.2
7.4
.3
100.0
5.2
9.8
2.2
1.2
4.6
17.0
33.2
2.3
5.3
.3
100.0
7.3
10.9
9.9
2.4
3.6
17.2
13.2
1.3
10.1
.5
100.0
5.3
11.2
5.2
1.7
3.5
14.9
24.5
3.3
5.2
.5
100.0
7.5
16.8
7.8
1.8
3.6
8.7
13.8
2.5
7.0
.2
100.0
4.6
19.3
5.1
2.5
3.1
6.4
17.0
8.0
7.7
.1
100.0
9.2
9.9
8.7
3.8
5.7
9.2
13.8
1.8
11.3
.6
100.0
5.8
11.3
4.5
4.1
4.7
9.1
20.8
2.7
5.3
.7
Type of accident or exposure...................................
Struck by or against..............................................
Fall from elevation .................................................
Fall on same level .................................................
Caught in, under, between ...................................
Bodily reaction.......................................................
Overexertion ..........................................................
Contact with radiations, caustics, etc......................
Motor vehicle accidents ........................................
100.0
25.8
4.8
16.8
6.6
8.0
22.4
3.8
1.3
100.0
33.0
6.6
7.9
7.6
6.6
21.5
3.4
2.2
100.0
25.0
3.9
16.1
9.6
8.7
18.9
6.2
.1
100.0
31.6
4.7
9.5
9.3
7.4
23.8
3.8
.2
100.0
28.0
4.1
14.1
10.1
9.7
19.7
5.7
.1
100.0
38.2
3.7
7.7
9.1
6.2
20.9
3.6
.1
100.0
29.6
1.8
8.0
17.8
6.1
23.9
3.7
.0
100.0
36.8
2.0
4.9
14.3
5.3
22.0
3.8
.0
100.0
22.5
1.5
10.1
14.0
6.7
19.8
12.2
.1
100.0
31.7
1.2
5.8
14.2
5.3
23.6
6.7
.0
100.0
28.0
1.3
8.1
9.2
6.7
22.6
9.4
.1
100.0
31.9
3.1
6.2
10.1
4.5
29.5
4.8
.3
100.0
23.8
1.7
11.2
8.2
8.0
20.8
10.8
.1
100.0
33.4
1.7
5.3
8.4
6.2
28.7
4.8
.1
Retail trade
Sales workers
Medical services
Clerical workers
Registered
nurses
Local government
Nursing aides,
orderlies, etc.
Teachers
Police and fire
protection
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
100.0
.1
1.2
17.7
18.7
.4
6.2
.9
2.1
36.8
100.0
.2
.8
11.7
22.1
.2
6.2
.4
2.9
38.6
100.0
.2
1.5
17.2
15.8
.3
6.7
1.1
1.9
38.1
100.0
.3
.8
14.2
25.1
.4
5.9
.5
2.2
36.9
100.0
.0
1.8
12.6
12.1
1.1
3.8
.7
2.2
49.4
100.0
.0
1.4
9.1
13.5
.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
53.5
100.0
.1
1.5
13.6
5.5
.8
2.3
.7
1.7
60.5
100.0
.2
1.2
13.3
7.8
1.0
2.4
.6
1.7
56.8
100.0
.2
.8
18.9
7.0
.3
11.4
.4
1.6
35.8
100.0
.4
1.4
10.6
10.3
.3
8.4
.9
2.3
41.9
100.0
.0
.5
15.0
6.1
.6
8.7
1.1
1.4
41.2
100.0
.0
2.6
12.2
9.8
.9
6.1
.5
3.0
39.9
Source of injury or illness............................................
Bodily m otion .......................................................
Boxes, barrels, containers...................................
Chemicals, chemical compounds........................
Furniture, fixtures, etc............................................
Hand tools, not pow ered......................................
Machines..............................................................
Metal items .........................................................
Vehicles................................................................
Working surfaces .................................................
Person..................................................................
100.0
8.4
20.8
.7
8.5
5.1
6.9
4.5
2.8
20.8
1.0
100.0
7.7
16.7
.4
7.5
7.2
6.0
6.7
9.9
12.0
2.1
100.0
7.6
25.4
.5
6.5
6.0
4.8
4.5
4.0
20.5
1.5
100.0
5.0
25.2
.6
5.3
9.8
3.2
8.8
7.7
11.1
1.0
100.0
8.2
2.8
.9
6.0
5.1
.8
3.3
3.3
14.9
35.1
100.0
6.1
2.0
.7
3.4
4.7
1.4
2.0
3.4
12.5
45.8
100.0
6.3
2.3
.5
6.1
1.3
.4
1.7
2.7
14.2
48.9
100.0
6.5
4.2
.6
6.2
1.2
.8
1.6
3.2
10.9
44.5
100.0
13.3
4.0
.4
6.5
1.7
1.3
1.3
2.2
33.6
11.7
100.0
19.5
4.2
1.2
5.7
1.7
3.0
4.3
2.6
18.3
14.1
100.0
14.3
1.7
.9
2.5
.7
.2
1.1
14.7
28.3
15.1
100.0
13.2
1.7
1.6
1.5
3.0
.4
4.0
14.3
16.2
14.8
Type of accident or exposure......................................
Struck by or against.................................................
Fall from elevation ...................................................
Fall on same level ...................................................
Caught in, under, between ......................................
Bodily reaction..........................................................
Overexertion ............................................................
Contact with radiations, caustics, etc........................
Motor vehicle accidents ..........................................
100.0
34.3
8.3
15.3
3.5
8.4
22.2
1.3
.6
100.0
34.2
5.9
8.6
4.4
7.7
28.1
1.0
3.3
100.0
30.7
5.8
17.5
5.2
7.8
24.3
1.1
.7
100.0
38.7
5.1
7.8
6.3
5.2
28.6
1.3
1.0
100.0
21.1
1.5
15.0
2.9
8.0
35.2
5.5
1.4
100.0
21.6
2.4
11.5
1.0
6.1
42.4
7.1
.7
100.0
18.6
1.5
14.4
2.9
6.5
47.9
2.6
.3
100.0
25.6
1.6
10.0
3.0
7.0
43.6
3.7
.3
100.0
28.2
8.2
26.7
2.3
13.4
11.8
3.0
.7
100.0
31.1
5.1
14.7
1.8
19.4
15.9
2.4
1.2
100.0
18.8
7.5
21.8
2.5
14.4
14.0
3.7
7.0
100.0
24.0
6.3
10.7
2.4
13.3
15.3
6.1
8.1
Nature of injury or illness ............................................
Amputations..........................................................
Burns ..................................................................
Contusions, crushing, bruise ...............................
Cut, laceration, puncture......................................
Dermatitis ............................................................
Fractures..............................................................
Inflammation or irritation of joints, tendons, or muscles
Scratches, abrasions ..........................................
Sprains, strains.....................................................
.. .
11ncludes occupations other than those shown separately.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
9
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Are Women Safer Workers?
motion and working surfaces as sources of injuries
among teachers in local government; boxes and contain
ers as sources of injuries among laborers and clerical
workers; metal items as a source of injury among ma
chine operatives and laborers and assemblers; person as
a source among nurses and nurses aides, and teachers,
and in police and fire departments in local government;
struck by or against among clerical workers; caught inunder, between and fall from elevation among opera
tives.
□
FOOTNOTES
' The industry codes are based on the Office of Management and
Budget’s S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la ssifica tio n M a n u a l, 1972, occupation
codes are based on the B u r e a u o f th e C en su s O c c u p a tio n a l C la ssifica
tio n M a n u a l, 1 9 7 0 ; and the nature, part, source, and type codes are
based on the American National Standards Institute’s A m e r ic a n N a
injuries and illnesses. Because the annual survey does not include
public sector employment injuries, the estimate includes an upward
adjustment to account for such injuries. Public sector injuries
accounted for 17 percent of all injuries in the Supplementary Data
System; of these, women accounted for 27 percent.
tio n a l S ta n d a r d M e th o d o f R e c o r d in g B a sic F a cts R e la tin g to th e N a tu r e
a n d O c cu rren ce o f W o rk In ju rie s, ANSI Z16.2-1962.
5See S ta te P r o file o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n e m p lo y m e n t,
539 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, October 1978).
2See Norman Root and David McCaffrey, “Providing more infor
mation on work injury and illness,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April
1978, pp. 16-21.
1The industry and occupational employment series are not compa
rable but are the most reliable data available on national employment
by sex. The occupational employment series also contains significant
numbers of workers not covered by State workers’ compensation (for
example, self-employed and unpaid family workers) and to this extent,
relative employment ratios are overstated. The major factors which
have a differential effect on the two series are detailed in E m p lo y m e n t
a n d E a rn in g s, March 1978, pp. 139-59.
4
The estimate was derived by applying the percentage of female
work injuries in the Supplementary Data System data base to the
1977 national total of injuries and illnesses— approximately 5.5 mil
lion— obtained through the Bureau’s annual survey of occupational
10
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1977,
Report
6 Norman Root and Michael Hoefer, “The first work-injury data
available from new BLS study,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , January 1979,
pp. 3 -8 .
7Elizabeth Waldman and Beverly McEaddy, “Where women work
— an analysis by industry and occupation,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
May 1974, pp. 3-13.
8For details on this subject, see Norman Root and David McCaf
frey, “Targeting worker safety programs: weighing incidence against
expense,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , January 1980, pp. 16-21.
9 It should be noted that occupational illnesses among all workers
are reputed to be understated because of difficulties in diagnosis and
in associating an illness with the workplace. To this extent, occupa
tional illnesses as a proportion of all injury and illness cases may be
larger than that identified.
Occupational disease— difficult diagnosis
T h e prim ary d ifficu lty in id e n tify in g d isea ses as o c cu p a tio n a l in origin o c
curs w h en th e ca u se o f d isea se is n o t k n o w n , as in m en ta l illn ess. In 1970
over 8 0 0 ,0 0 0 p erso n s h ad th eir a c tiv ities lim ite d to so m e d egree d u e to m en tal
an d n erv o u s c o n d itio n s . E ven th o u g h p s y c h o lo g ic a l, ch e m ic a l, p h y sica l in ju
ries, h ered ity, or o th er c a u ses o f so m e m en ta l d iso rd ers m a y b e id en tified , w e
h a v e n o id ea h o w th e b u lk o f su ch illn e sses o rigin ate. B eca u se th e ca u se o f
m an y su ch d istu rb a n ces is n o t k n o w n , th e co n tr ib u tin g role o f th e w o rk p la ce
c a n n o t read ily b e ev a lu a ted . D u e to th e large n u m b er o f p o te n tia l c a ses in
v o lv ed , h o w ev er, th e h a n d lin g o f su ch c o n d itio n s w o u ld su b sta n tia lly affect
th e n u m b er o f o c cu p a tio n a l d isea se c a ses estim a ted . T h e p ro b lem in v o lv es
m ore th an sim p ly th e a b sen ce o f m ed ica l certa in ty a b o u t cau se. E ven if it
w ere k n o w n th at th e stresses o f life can ca u se su ch illn e sses, w h at co n tr ib u tiv e
role d o jo b -r ela te d p ressu res p lay in th e d e v e lo p m en t o f th e disorder? If jo b
lo s s b egan th e p ro cess th a t led to an e m o tio n a l d istu rb an ce, c o u ld th is be
term ed an o c cu p a tio n a l disease? If so , o n e p ro b a b ly sh o u ld a lso c o n sid e r as
an o c cu p a tio n a l d isea se an illn e ss resu ltin g from th e fru stration o f an u n su c
cessfu l jo b search even if th e in d iv id u a l in q u estio n h ad never p rev io u sly been
e m p lo y ed .
If stress-in d u ced e m o tio n a l d isa b ilities can be c o n sid e r ed o ccu p a tio n a l d is
eases, so can sim ila rly ca u sed ca rd io v a scu la r illn e sses an d a lc o h o lism . W o rk
e rs’ co m p e n sa tio n p ractitio n ers are aw are th a t so m e h eart d ise a se c a ses are
cu rren tly b ein g c o m p e n sa te d as jo b related , b u t few if an y c a ses o f a lc o h o lism
are b ein g seen b y th e sy stem .
------- P e t e r S. B a r t h
w it h
H. A
llan
H
unt
Workers' Compensation and Work-Related Illnesses and Diseases
(C am b rid ge, M a ss., T h e M IT P ress, 1980),
pp. 1 1 - 1 2 .
Occupational safety and health:
a report on worker perceptions
Hazardous working conditions erode job satisfaction,
say increasing numbers of workers; especially threatened
is the inexperienced employee, who is the most likely
to be injured on the job but least willing to bring
potential dangers to the attention of management
R i c h a r d L. F r e n k e l , W. C u r t is s P r ie s t ,
N ic h o l a s A . A s h f o r d
and
In 1969, 1972, and most recently in 1977, the Institute
for Social Research at the University of Michigan con
ducted opinion surveys of production workers, under
U.S. Department of Labor sponsorship. These studies,
known as the “Quality of Employment Surveys,” gather
data on numerous characteristics of the worker and his
job, and perhaps most importantly, on the worker’s
subjective assessment of his worklife.1 For the analyst,
the surveys provide information about worker opinions
and job satisfaction not readily available elsewhere.
And, because many of the questions asked remain es
sentially unchanged from one survey to the next, the
data may be used to chart major changes in attitudes
toward various aspects of work over time.
Certain questions relate to job safety and health, or
to workers’ evaluation of safety as a job attribute. Un
der contract to the Department of Labor, the Center for
Policy Alternatives at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology has examined data pertaining to a number
of these safety- and health-related questions.2 This arti
cle summarizes some salient results of that study.
Time trends in injury rates
Over the 8 years spanned by the Quality of EmployRichard L. Frenkel is a research specialist, W. Curtiss Priest, the
project director, and Nicholas A. Ashford, a principal investigator at
the Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of Tech
nology.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment Surveys, work-injury rates reported by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics have fallen.3 Similarly, results from
the Quality of Employment Surveys also indicate that
the number of injuries clearly related to job activities,
such as fractures and cuts, has declined. It is surprising
then, that when asked generally about “work-related”
injuries, survey respondents note a slight increase be
tween 1969 and 1977.4 A detailed breakdown of the
types of injuries reported by the workers suggests the
cause of this apparent paradox: health problems of vari
ous kinds are increasingly perceived as due to work
place exposures. Because of the difficulty in proving the
work-relatedness of many of these health problems, such
“injuries” are not reflected in government statistics.
It is likely that the increase in perceived injuries re
sults from greater worker sensitivity to a variety of oc
cupational hazards. In 1977, 78 percent of those
surveyed noted one or more safety and health hazards
in the workplace, compared with only 38 percent in
1969. Respondents in the most recent study were asked
to be more specific about the types of dangers they en
countered on the job. Seventy-two percent of the men
reported exposure to “fumes, dust, or other air pollu
tion,” as did 52 percent of the women. Similarly, 45
percent of the men and 21 percent of the women felt
themselves exposed to “dangerous chemicals.” Other
significant workplace hazards, arid the percentage of
workers reporting each are shown below:
11
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Worker Perceptions o f Hazards
H azard
Men
Women
E x p o su r e to d a n g ero u s ch e m ic a ls ................
F ire or electric s h o c k ............................................
F u m e s, d u st or air p o l l u t i o n ............................
W ea th er (o u td o o r ) ...............................................
E x trem es o f in d o o r tem p eratu re or
h u m id ity ...............................................................
B a d ly m a in ta in e d or dirty w o rk p la ce . . . .
D a n g e r o u s ly sto red o r m isp la c ed item s . .
N o is e ............................................................................
D a n g e r o u s to o ls or eq u ip m en t ......................
D ise a se (c o n ta g io u s) ............................................
T r a f f i c ............................................................................
P erso n a l v io le n c e ...................................................
D a n g e r o u s w o rk m e th o d s ................................
O th er h a za rd s .........................................................
45
52
72
52
21
30
52
10
35
37
24
45
55
19
38
21
30
3
47
26
13
54
37
15
13
11
19
2
Another trend evident in the data is the increase in
work-related injuries reported by women. Female pro
duction workers averaged over twice as many injuries in
1977 as in either 1972 or 1969, perhaps because by
making inroads into traditionally male occupations,
women are sharing the greater risks of these jobs as
well.5
Job satisfaction and risk
In the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey, workers
were also asked questions about their level of job satis
faction. Workers who reported exposure to a greater
number of hazards, or who felt these hazards were more
severe than average, were significantly less satisfied with
their jobs.6 However, while it is tempting to infer that
hazard exposure leads to lower job satisfaction, it is
also possible that workers who were generally dissatis
fied with their jobs for other reasons noted a greater
number of hazards.7
Worker preference for safety and health
In 1977, respondents were asked to decide whether
they would prefer a 10-percent pay raise or various oth
er job improvements. Among these other improvements
was “a little safer or healthier working conditions.” By
this “revealed preference” method, it was determined
that nearly a third of all production workers would be
willing to trade the pay increase for more safety and
health at work. Other compensating benefits, and the
fraction of production workers willing to trade a pay
raise for each one:
Benefit
Percent o f workers
In crea sed retirem en t b e n e f i t s ...................
M o re m ed ica l i n s u r a n c e .............................
M o re p a id v a c a t i o n ......................................
S h orter w o r k w e e k .........................................
G rea ter c h a n c e for p r o m o t i o n ................
G rea ter jo b secu rity ...................................
A little m o re sa fety a n d h e a l t h .............
G rea ter c o m fo r t a t w ork ..........................
M o re in terestin g w o r k ................................
G rea ter freed o m to d ecid e w ork . . . .
6 5 .9
58.1
57.5
4 2 .4
4 0 .6
33.7
33.1
28.7
27.5
18.2
12
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
While retirement benefits and medical insurance are
universal concerns, occupational safety and health is
likely to be im portant chiefly to those significantly at
risk. Consequently, the figures above may underrep
resent the willingness of hazard-exposed workers to for
go pay increases for safety improvements. For example,
the 1977 data show that previously injured workers are
more concerned about safety and health improvements
than other groups. The same is true of union members,
perhaps reflecting the greater unionization of risky jobs.
And, workers who note workplace hazards, or who
have specific health symptoms, are also generally more
willing to sacrifice increased pay for a little more safety
and health.
Working conditions and injury rates
A number of possible working conditions were intro
duced in the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey ques
tionnaire. Workers were asked to decide which of these
conditions were characteristic of their jobs. Thus, a
worker could describe his job as being repetitious or in
teresting, or as requiring a high level of skill, or much
physical effort.
Workers who noted “negative” working conditions
also reported, on average, a greater number of job-relat
ed injuries. In particular, “fast” or “hard” work, and
work requiring “considerable physical effort,” were fre
quently associated with injuries. Workers who felt that
they did not have enough authority, information, or as
sistance to do their jobs properly also had higher injury
rates than other workers.
Many of these job characteristics were likewise relat
ed to the number of health symptoms reported by
workers. These symptoms include such problems as
“trouble breathing” or “back pains,” and do not have
to be work related. A larger number of symptoms
seems to be associated with generally “negative” job
qualities, while fewer symptoms are associated with
“positive” job qualities:
“Negative”jo b qualities
F a st w ork p ace
W ork hard
R e p e titio u s w ork
N o t e n o u g h h elp
N o t e n o u g h a u th o rity
N o t e n o u g h fa cts an d
in fo rm a tio n
N o t e n o u g h to o ls an d
eq u ip m en t
N o t e n o u g h tim e to d o th e
jo b righ t
“Positive” jo b qualities
N e e d to learn n e w th in g s
fast
Jo b a llo w s freed om
Jo b req uires h igh sk ill level
Jo b h as variety o f w ork
These results suggest a causal relationship between
work characteristics and health problems. Again, how
ever, subjective bias may influence the results, as work
ers who are “generally dissatisfied” may tend to report
both more negative job characteristics and a greater
number of health problems.
Tenure and perceived hazards
Other studies have found a significant relationship be
tween a worker’s tenure and the probability that he will
have an accident.8 The survey data illustrate this rela
tionship dramatically: workers employed between 1 and
3 months report 3 times as many injuries as workers
with from 1 to 3 years on the job, and 8 times as many
as those employed for more than 20 years.9
Perceived hazard exposure is also related to tenure.
Workers who note badly maintained or dirty work
places, or dangerously stored items, stay significantly
shorter periods than other workers. Only perceived
noise exposure does not seem to bear much relationship
to tenure; workers who report exposure to noise do not
have shorter average tenures than others.10
While workers who have been on the job for a rela
tively short time often note exposure to a greater num
ber of hazards than other workers, they do not
generally feel endangered. On the other hand, workers
with longer tenures cite fewer hazards, but are more apt
to judge them as “severe.” It would seem from these re
sults, and the data on injuries, that workers relatively
new to the job may in fact be exposed to a greater
number of hazards, but that they may underestimate
the danger from these hazards.
Reporting of hazards by workers
When workers noted a hazard they felt to be “great”
or “sizable,” they were asked if they had “reported” it
to anyone. The rate at which workers reported such
dangers is influenced by a number of factors, the most
important of which is tenure: fewer than 30 percent of
employees with less than 3 months’ tenure reported a
severe hazard, compared with nearly 70 percent of those
with between 5 and 10 years on the job. Union mem
bership, age, and education were not significantly relat
ed to the hazard report rate. However, women, and
employees who felt that their employers would not keep
them fully informed about potential dangers were more
likely than others to report a severe hazard.
When workers did report a hazardous condition to
someone, 8 out of 10 did so to an immediate supervisor
or other management personnel. Reports to a Govern
ment agency at any level constituted about 7 percent of
all complaints, and reports to union representatives, less
than 6 percent.11
Priorities of union members
The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey provides
considerable information about worker-perceived union
performance in various areas of concern, including job
safety and health. The following tabulation lists a num
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ber of possible areas of union activity, in the order in
which workers feel effort should be expended. Thus,
“handling grievances” is the area in which union work
ers want their unions to expend most effort, while “in
creasing worker input in business decisions” is the area
in which they feel the least effort is needed:
Area o f union concern
H a n d lin g g r i e v a n c e s ................................................
K ee p in g m em b ersh ip in fo rm ed o f u n ion
a ctio n .........................................................................
Im p ro v in g frin ge b e n e f i t s ......................................
In creasin g m em b ersh ip in p u t in u n ion
d irectio n ...................................................................
In crea sin g jo b secu rity .........................................
In crea sin g w a g es ......................................................
In crea sin g o c cu p a tio n a l sa fety an d h ealth . .
In crea sin g w ork er “ s a y ” in h o w th e jo b is
p erform ed ...............................................................
In crea sin g jo b i n t e r e s t ............................................
In crea sin g w ork er in p u t in b u sin ess
d e c isio n s ...................................................................
Effort ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
By and large, workers feel that their unions do pur
sue these goals in the correct order.12The greatest short
falls between “desired effort” and “perceived perfor
mance” are in the areas of increasing membership input
in union direction and handling of grievances. M onitor
ing of health and safety ranks seventh in shortfall of
perceived union effort. However, it is noteworthy that
union workers want almost as much effort spent on im
proving safety and health conditions as on increasing
wages.
osha
fines and survey data compared
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
( o s h a ) collects data on inspection activity and fines as
part of the Management Information System.13 By com
bining these data with those from the Quality of Em
ployment Survey, it was possible to explore the
relationship of worker-perceived hazards to the level of
OSHA fines in any industry. Dollars of proposed penalty
per hour of inspection time was chosen as a measure of
the severity of safety violations noted by OSHA inspec
tors. This measure was assumed to be fairly indepen
dent of total industry employment.
OSHA’s proposed penalty per hour of inspection time
was higher in industries in which workers themselves
noted the hazards of “noise,” “dangerous work meth
ods,” “fire or shock,” or “dangerous equipment.”
Worker perception of these dangers would thus seem to
agree with the findings of OSHA inspectors.
OSHA fines did not vary significantly with the mean
age of surveyed workers in an industry, or with their
sex, race, income, or willingness to pay for health and
safety. On the other hand, proposed penalties were
highest for industries represented predominantly by
13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Worker Perceptions o f Hazards
very small firms (those with under 10 employees) or
very large firms (those with over 2,000 employees) on
the Quality of Employment Surveys. While these dif
ferences are not large, they are unexpected, because me
dium-size firms have the highest reported injury rates.14
Conclusions
Information gathered in the Quality of Employment
Surveys permits investigation of the relationship be
tween various aspects of work, and worker satisfaction.
The results of this study reveal that job safety and
health are important concerns for most workers, and
that such concerns are on the increase. While this con
clusion should be encouraging to policymakers, certain
problem areas in safety and health regulation were also
identified.
The first of these involves the long recognized rela
tionship between job tenure and injury probability.
Stated simply, workers who are new on their jobs have
several times the probability of injury of more experi
enced workers. At the same time, they are the least
willing to report even severe perceived hazards to any
one, probably because hazard reports must usually be
directed to management. Finally, union handling of
safety-related grievances is often felt to be inadequate
by union members, and, consequently, few reports of
dangerous conditions are directed through union chan
nels. Mechanisms are needed to encourage new workers
to report what they feel are severe hazards, and to pro
vide all workers with alternatives when appeals to man
agement fail.
The results of this study have implications for
employers as well. Unpleasant working conditions gen
erally, and injury-causing hazards in particular seem to
go hand in hand. It is likely that a concerned manage
ment acts to alleviate unpleasant working conditions,
including hazards. On the other hand, it is possible that
workers who report hazards tend to note unpleasant
work conditions because of their general job dissatisfac
tion. Further investigations are needed to help pinpoint
the relationship between inadequate job safety and
health and individual firm management styles. Such
studies could also clarify the role of hazard abatement
in improving employee morale.
□
Data are based on personal interviews with members of a national
household probability sample of employed persons 16 years or older
who worked for pay 20 hours a week or more. Thus, the term “work
ers” is defined to include adults substantially engaged in remunerative
employment.
The 1969 survey included all eligible respondents in each of the
sample households. During the 1973 and 1977 surveys, only one
worker per household was interviewed, but responses were appropri
ately weighted to compensate for the underrepresentation of workers
in multiple-worker families.
5In 1969, the 100 female production workers reported 12 injuries,
and in 1972, there were 13 injuries for 115 women. But in 1977, the
101 female production workers reported 32 injuries.
2U.S. Department of Labor, Contract J-9-F-8-0131, funded by the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Evaluation and Research.
See Richard L. Frenkel and W. Curtiss Priest, H e a lth , S a fe ty , a n d th e
*See Nicholas A. Ashford, C risis in th e W o rk p la c e : O c c u p a tio n a l
(Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 1976), pp. 107
-1 3 , for a discussion of accident causation studies.
6 Significant at the 10 percent or better level.
Others have noted the problem of subjective bias. See Daniel
Hamermesh, “Economic Aspects of Job Satisfaction,” E ss a y s in L a b o r
M a r k e t A n a ly sis, Orley Ashenfelter and Wallace Oates, eds., (New
York, John Wiley & Sons, 1978).
D isea se a n d I n ju r y
W o rk er: A n I n -D e p th C o n sid era tio n o f H a z a r d s a n d E ffe c ts a s R e v e a le d
in S u r v e y D a ta (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for
"The rate for low-tenured workers is biased upwards because they
may have changed jobs subsequent to, and because of, injury.
Policy Alternatives, September 1979) for a detailed full report on the
study.
5The following injury and illness rates for manufacturing have been
computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
11The figure is approximately 5.6 percent when limited to union
workers, and lower, of course, when all workers are considered.
1969, 14.8; 1970, 15.2; 1972, 15.6; 1973, 15.3; 1974, 14.6; 1975,
13.0; 1976, 13.2.
Rates for 1969 and 1970 are frequency rates, and are not strictly
comparable with figures for later years, which are incidence rates. Al
though these data indicate a modest decline in work-related illness
and injury, it should also be noted that the lost workday case rate
rose steadily over the same period.
4 Frenkel and Priest, H e a lth , S a f e ty a n d th e W orker, p. 81. The fol
lowing injury rates for production workers were computed:
Male
Female
1969— .2177
1969— .1212
1972— .2628
1972— .1139
1977 — .2882
1977 — .3179
These rates represent the total number of injuries experienced by
workers in the 3 previous years, divided by the total number of work
ers. Thus, the annual injury rate equivalent may be computed by di
viding by 3.
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10Corrected for age.
2See also “On Trial: A Union’s Fairness,”
1979, p. 76.
B u sin e ss W eek,
Aug. 13,
11 We wish to express our appreciation to the Office of Management
Data Systems of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
for providing these data in machine readable form.
14The Quality of Employment Survey provided a convenient, but
not very suitable, vehicle for investigating this relationship. The ques
tion is better suited to aggregate firm data. However, these results do
contrast with the intent of the Schweiker Amendment to exempt es
tablishments of 10 or fewer employees in selected SIC coded indus
tries. The presumption in that amendment is that SIC coded
industries with low injury rates should be exempted because their in
jury rates are low. However, this presumption ignores the possibility
that although injury rates may be lower in some industries than oth
ers, the opportunity for improvement in reducing injuries and fatali
ties may be greater in some of the lower injury rate industries,
especially if these industries are dominated by smaller firms.
Geographic wage indexing
for CETA and Medicare
The tailoring of grants-in-aid to wage levels
in the localities which receive them enjoys
growing popularity among Federal policymakers;
two ongoing programs illustrate the
flexibility of this technique
R ic h a r d G
reene
During the 1970’s, a goal of Federal domestic policy
was the direction of aid packages to specific geographic
areas and groups of people. Federal grants-in-aid to
State and local governments rose from $10.9 billion in
1965 to an estimated $88.9 billion during fiscal 1980.
This new approach to managing the economy consider
ably altered the relationship between the Federal gov
ernment and State and local governments and created a
strong demand for accurate and timely information on
the economic conditions in States and smaller areas.
Local statistical indicators are vital to effective policy
formulation and evaluation and, in a narrower sense,
are the primary requisite for identifying and directing
assistance to economically distressed areas. In fiscal
1979, more than $19 billion in Federal aid was alloca
ted on the basis of the BLS program Local Area Unem
ployment Statistics, and an additional $20 billion was
distributed through programs based on the Bureau of
Economic Analysis’ State and substate data on personal
and per capita income. And, growing numbers of multi
establishment employers— both private and public— are
using area wage determinations to establish appropriate
pay structures for employees in diverse locations.
Recent congressional action on the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act reauthorization and the
Richard Greene is a labor economist in the Office of Employment
Structure and Trends, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
jobs component of welfare reform, regulations issued or
under study by various Federal agencies, and the Ad
ministration push to tie Federal pay scales to local wage
levels indicate acceptance of the concept of geographic
wage indexing by national policymakers. Use of the
procedure in Federal grant programs is largely the re
sult of congressional interest in finetuning grant-in-aid
allocation formulas. At the same time, the expansion
and refinement of an important administrative record
system— the ES-202 program — has made a body of
data available to support index development.
Obviously, the amount of financial assistance needed
to operate a given program varies by locality. The goal
of geographic wage indexing is to produce a more effi
cient funds allocation system by accounting for differ
ences in local labor-market conditions. According to the
1978 CETA reauthorization, wage indexing is a tool to
“provide the maximum number of employment and
training opportunities under this Act.’’
Proper construction is especially im portant for a geo
graphic index used to distribute Federal funds. The
chief problem in developing such an index arises from
the fact that people travel to work across political
boundaries; that is, labor markets do not conform to
political boundaries. Consequently, for many jurisdic
tions, a place-of-residence index will differ substantially
from a place-of-work index. Other major variables in
volved in index design are summarized as follows:
15
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Geographic Wage Indexing
Variable
Examples
G eo g r a p h ic area
R e g io n , S tate, S tan d ard M etr o
p o lita n
S ta tistica l
A rea,
city ,
co u n ty , an d p rim e sp o n so r
T y p e o f w ork er
A ll e m p lo y ee s, n o n g o v er n m e n t,
service p ro d u cin g , m ed ica l ser
v ices, h o sp ita l
T y p e o f d a ta
A n n u a l average w a g e, average
w eek ly
w age,
average
h o u rly
earn in gs
T y p e o f in d ex
P la ce o f w ork , p lace o f resid en ce
R eferen ce p eriod
Y ear, qu arter, m o n th , w eek
This article describes the procedures currently used to
index the Federal CETA and Medicare programs, and
their data source, the ES-202 system. The indexing
techniques for both programs are very straightforward;
each index is simply the ratio of a specific locality’s
wage level for a particular segment of the labor force to
that segment’s national wage average and is based on a
place-of-work concept. An index value greater than 1
indicates that area wages generally exceed the national
average, and the Federal program’s disbursement level
is adjusted accordingly.
The data source
The E S-202 program compiles information on the
employment of, and total wage payments to, workers
covered by unemployment insurance (ui). Each calendar
quarter, all Ul-covered employers submit mandatory re
ports of employment and wage data to the appropriate
State Employment Security Agency. These reports are
edited, summarized by county, State, and detailed in
dustry, and forwarded to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
which computes national totals. Among the final prod
ucts of the system are monthly employment and total
quarterly wages by county, State, detailed industry,
type of employer (Federal, State and local government
or private sector), and (for the first quarter) employ
ment size of establishment.
In 1978, U i coverage was extended to employees of
State and local governments. Thus, the ES-202 pro
gram now provides a virtual quarterly census of the em
ployment and wages of all nonagricultural sectors of the
economy. (A significant portion of agriculture was also
covered for the first time beginning in 1978.) Because of
their broad scope, UI data provide a means to evaluate
overall labor-market trends and industry developments
for the Nation as a whole and for individual States,
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and counties.
The data are used in the construction of major statisti
16
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
cal series, including the U.S. Department of Commerce’s
national income accounts and personal income estimates
by State and county, and to benchmark employment in
formation for Federal and State government surveys.
The employer listings maintained by this system also
serve as a sampling frame for most establishment stud
ies conducted by BLS.
CETA wage adjustment index
The 1978 Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act ( c e t a ) Amendments require the calculation of an
area wage adjustment index, showing the relationship
between the local and national average wage rates.
Specifically, this index is used to determine: (1) the av
erage annual federally supported wage rate which must
be maintained in each CETA prime sponsor area1; and,
(2) the maximum wage payable to any Public Service
Employee ( p s e ) from CETA funds.
Each year, BLS prepares the c e t a wage adjustment
index, in accordance with the requirements of the Em
ployment and Training Administration. The index for
fiscal 1980 was published in the Federal Register on
September 28, 1979.
Index calculation. The first step in calculating the CETA
wage adjustment index is computation of the average
annual wage for each county. This is defined as the ra
tio of total wages paid during the previous calendar
year to average monthly employment for that year. Ap
proximately 6 percent of CETA prime sponsors represent
combinations of counties or of portions of counties. In
such cases, the sponsor’s annual average wage is the
mean of the component counties’ annual wages after the
latter have been weighted by the proportion of the
sponsor’s employment which they represent. In those
instances in which more than one prime sponsor is con
tained entirely within a county (Los Angeles County,
for example, wholly contains 5 prime sponsors), each
prime sponsor is assigned the annual wage for the coun-
Exhibit 1. CETA index calculation1for Cleveland
City prime sponsor (Cuyahoga county)
A n n u a l average c o u n ty e m p lo y m e n t (E m p ) = 7 6 2 ,7 6 6
T o ta l an n u al c o u n ty w a g es (T W ) =
$ 1 0 ,8 4 6 ,3 2 2 ,4 3 0
C o u n ty average an n u al w a g e = T W /E m p =
$ 1 4 ,2 2 0
A v e ra g e an n u al w age
C E T A In d ex = ------------------------------------- — —
A v e ra g e an n u al w a g e United S(ates
$ 1 4 ,2 2 0
$ 1 2 ,1 4 4
’ See table 1, footnote 1.
1.171
ty as a whole. The c e t a index is then determined by
comparing the prime sponsor’s annual wage to the na
tional average, which was $12,144 in 1978. Exhibit 1 il
lustrates the CETA index calculation for the Cleveland
City prime sponsor, which is wholly contained in Cuya
hoga county.
Index values are similarly computed for each prime
sponsor, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area ( s m s a ),
and county with more than 50,000 inhabitants. Prime
sponsors may use the index of a component SMSA or
county, if higher than their overall index, for that por
tion of their jurisdiction which is in the higher index lo
cality.
Application. The wage index is used to compute average
and maximum wages payable to CETA employees by a
prime sponsor. (The most recent index values are based
on 1978 data, and are used for wage adjustments made
during fiscal 1980.) The construction of a sponsor’s av
erage wage takes into account the 1978 legislated na
tional average wage of $7,200, the over-the-year mean
percentage change in wages nationwide, and the local
area’s current-year wage index. For the Cleveland City
prime sponsor, the fiscal 1980 average wage would be
computed as follows:
• U p d a t e th e n a tio n a l average w a g e “ b a se ” b y a d ju stin g
for th e o v er-th e-y ea r w a g e c h a n g e. T h e in crease in an n u al
w a g es n a tio n w id e averaged 6 .3 p ercen t d u rin g 1978.
R e v ise d b a se = ($ 7 ,2 0 0 ) (1 .0 6 3 ) = $ 7 ,6 5 4
• D e t e r m in e th e C lev ela n d C ity p rim e sp o n s o r ’s average
w a g e b y a d ju stin g th e revised n atio n a l b ase b y C le v ela n d ’s
curren t-y ea r in d ex. (T h e m in im u m average an n u al w a g e for
a n y sp o n so r m u st be at least 10 p ercen t a b o v e th e
a n n u a lized F ed eral m in im u m w a g e.)
C lev ela n d average w a g e =
(R e v ise d n a tio n a l b a se) (C u rren t-year in d ex)
$ 8 ,9 6 3 = ($ 7 ,6 5 4 ) (1 .1 7 1 )
The prime sponsor’s maximum wage is similarly con
structed, except that the national base is $10,000, rather
than $7,200. Thus, the maximum wage for Cleveland
City was:
C lev ela n d m a x im u m w a g e = ($ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ) (C u rren t-year in d ex )
$ 1 1 ,7 1 0 = ($ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ) (1 .1 7 1 )
The maximum wage for local areas has a ceiling of
$12,000, except for prime sponsors whose average
wages are at least 50 percent greater than the national
m ean— a situation occurring only in Alaska. This upper
limit was established to ensure that CETA wages are
compatible with the skill levels of the disadvantaged
population which Congress intended the program to
serve.
According to the current regulations, a prime spon
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 1.
A v e r a g e a n n u a l w a g e a n d C E T A in d e x le v e ls , 1
s e le c t e d S M S A ’s
SMSA
Average wage
Index
$20,363
16,917
15,964
15,715
15,254
15,149
15,058
14,810
14,754
14,736
1.677
1.393
1.315
1.294
1.256
1.247
1.240
1.219
1.219
1.213
$14,511
14,217
13,604
12,739
15,964
14,135
14,262
12,191
12,134
12,361
1.195
1.171
1.120
1.049
1.315
1.164
1.174
1.004
.999
1.018
10 highest wage SMSA's:
Anchorage .....................................
F lin t.................................................
Detroit ............................................
Saginaw..........................................
Gary-Hammond .............................
Peoria ............................................
Steubenville-Weirton, O h io .............
Ann Arbor ......................................
Kokom o..........................................
Richland-Kennewick, Wash..............
10 largest SMSA 's:
New Y o rk ........................................
Chicago..........................................
Los Angeles...................................
Philadelphia ...................................
Detroit ............................................
San Francisco ...............................
Washington, D.C..............................
Boston............................................
Nassau-Suffolk...............................
Dallas-Fort Worth ..........................
1The index determination, based on 1978 data, is used to adjust CETA wage levels during
fiscal 1980.
sor’s average wage is adjusted each year for overall
wage level changes, but its maximum wage is left
unadjusted. In the future, this anomaly could result in
prime sponsor average wages which exceed correspond
ing maximum levels. Currently, the average CETA wage
is approximately 63 percent of the average annual wage
for all workers in an area; the mean potential maximum
wage is about 88 percent of the all-worker figure.
An analysis of the variation among locality indexes is
important, because these data directly determine CETA
wages. Table 1 presents index levels for the 10 largest
and 10 “highest average annual wage” SMSA’s. Detroit
is the only area appearing on both lists. All of the larg
est SMSA’s are at or above the average annual wage for
the United States, and six exceed the national mean by
12 percent or more. Eight of the highest wage SMSA’s
are located in areas dominated by high-paying steel and
automobile manufacturing industries; four of these are
located in Michigan.
As the following tabulation indicates, there is a
Table 2. Percent distribution of SMSA’s by region and
CETA index level1
Index value
Region
United S tates.........
Northeast..........................
South.................................
M idw est.............................
West .................................
Total
100
100
100
100
100
Under .90
34
28
53
16
26
.90 to .99 1.00 to 1.09
32
40
30
26
40
20
21
13
29
19
1.10 and
above
15
12
5
30
14
1See table 1, footnote 1.
NOTE: Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 100.
17
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Geographic Wage Indexing
stron g p o sitiv e correlation
and CETA in d ex value:
SM SA
b etw een
population
U n d e r 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 ...................................
2 5 0 ,0 0 0 to 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ......................
G rea ter th a n 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ................
sm sa
p op u lation
Exhibit 2. Hospital wage index calculation1for
the Cleveland SMSA
Average index value
.9 3 0
.9 7 4
1.065
• C a lcu la te th e average h o sp ita l w a g e for C levelan d
(W c ):
w
= __________ T o ta l h o sp ita l w a g e sc|CTd>nJ
A v e ra g e an n u al h o sp ita l e m p lo y m e n tclevdand
Larger cities generally have higher overall relative wages
because of favorable industry and occupational mix, lo
cation factors, labor force composition, and other tradi
tionally cited reasons for area wage differentials. Al
though only 35 percent of the SMSA’s had index values
greater than 1, these areas accounted for over 63 per
cent of the total population in SMSA’s nationwide.
Table 2 presents the distribution of SMSA’s by wage
index and region. Note that in the Midwest a majority
of the SMSA’s had wages above the national mean. In
contrast, averages for more than two-thirds of those in
both the Northeast and South fell below the U.S.
average.
Medicare
=
$ 1 1 ,6 1 2
• C a lcu la te th e n a tio n a l a verage h o sp ita l w a g e for ur
b an areas (U
W nar,):
v
1 (average an n u al h o sp ita l w a g e for ea ch
T o ta l n u m b er o f
smsa)
s m s a ’s
=
$ 9 ,9 1 2
C a lcu la te th e h o sp ita l w a g e in d ex for C lev ela n d (Ic):
W
'e = TJw~ =
1See table 3, footnote 1.
In 1974, the Health Care Financing Administration
( h c f a ) of the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare established a schedule of limits on the hospital
inpatient general routine operating costs which may be
reimbursed by the Federal Government under Medi
care. This procedure limits reimbursable costs to those
recognized as reasonable for the efficient delivery of
needed health services. Authority to set these reim
bursement limits was established by the 1972 Social Se
curity Amendments.
According to estimates of health care expenditures,
wages and salaries account for about 60 percent of total
inpatient general routine operating costs.2 In recognition
of the interarea differences in hospital labor costs, the
Health Care Financing Administration developed a
wage index from the ES-202 data to adjust the labor
component of the reimbursement limit. In this way, the
limit for an individual hospital will reflect the wage lev
els appropriate to the area in which the hospital is lo
cated. The most recent index, based on 1978 data, will
be used to adjust limits for hospitals whose cost report
ing periods begin on or after July 1, 1980.
As in the CETA program, the hospital wage index is
used to adjust an established reimbursement level to the
wage structure of the local labor market. But the CETA
index is used to adjust the legislated $7,200 national av
erage wage, while the hospital wage index is applied to
a reimbursable schedule according to such factors as the
location (urban or nonurban) and size of the hospital.
Calculation o f the hospital labor cost index. The follow
ing discussion summarizes the Hospital Care Financing
Administration’s procedures described in the April 1,
1980 Federal Register. Because the level of reimburseDigitized18
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment depends in part upon hospital location, separate
indexes are calculated for urban and nonurban areas.
Exhibit 2 shows the wage index calculation for a hospi
tal in the Cleveland SMSA.
There is a major difference between the CETA and
health program procedures used to compute the nation
al average wage. The CETA national average is weighted
according to the employment size of the component
areas, while the hospital wage mean is unweighted. This
implies that a large city will have a greater proportional
influence on the CETA national wage, but will have the
same impact as a smaller-sized city on the health pro
gram index.
Exhibit 3. Cost reimbursement procedure for a
500-b e d Cleveland hospital
• D e ter m in e th e la b o r an d n o n la b o r reim b u rsem en t
lim its: F ro m th e sc h e d u le s ap p earin g in th e A p ril 1,
1980 Federal Register, th e la b o r an d n o n la b o r reim
b u rsem en t lim its for a 5 0 0 - b e d urban h o sp ita l are
$ 9 4 .4 9 an d $ 2 6 .4 7 per d ay, resp ectiv ely , or $ 1 2 0 .7 6 ,
co m b in ed .
• C o m p u te th e a d ju ste d la b or c o m p o n en t:
A d ju ste d la b or c o m p o n e n t =
(L a b o r reim b u rsem en t lim it) (C le v ela n d w a g e in d ex )
$ 1 1 0 .4 6 = ($ 9 4 .2 9 ) (1 .1 7 1 5 )
• C o m p u t e n ew reim b u rsem en t lim it:
N e w lim it =
(A d ju ste d la b o r c o m p o n e n t) +
(N o n la b o r c o m p o n e n t)
$ 1 3 6 .9 3 = 1 10.46 + 2 6 .4 7
Application. Once determined, the hospital labor cost in
dex is applied to the reimbursement limits for individual
hospitals. Exhibit 3 illustrates the calculation of the ad
justed limit for a 500-bed hospital in Cleveland. Hospi
tals are also permitted to make other adjustments to
their reimbursable limits which do not involve the wage
index.
An analysis of the variation among the area indexes
reveals some similarities to and differences from CETA
patterns. Table 3 presents index data for the 10 largest
and 10 highest hospital labor cost indexed SMSA’s. An
index value greater than 1 indicates that the SMSA has
higher hospital wages than the unweighted average hos
pital wage for all SMSA’s. The high-index SMSA’s include
four of the largest SMSA’s in the country, and are domi
nated by California areas.
The same positive population-to-wage-index correla
tion observed in CETA determinations occurs with the
hospital wage data. Only 45 percent of the SMSA’s had
labor cost indexes greater than 1, but they accounted for
over 71 percent of the total U.S. population in SMSA’s.
The following tabulation illustrates this tendency of
larger cities to have higher hospital unit labor costs.
SMSA p o p u l a t i o n
A v e r a g e hcfa in d e x
U n d e r 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 ......................................
2 5 0 ,0 0 0 to 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 .......................................
G rea ter th a n 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ......................................
.966
1.021
1.119
The regional distribution of SMSA’s by labor cost in
dex level (table 4) shows that in both the Northeast and
West, approximately two-thirds of the SMSA’s have hos
pital wages greater than the national average, while the
Table 3.
SMSA’s
Hospital labor cost index levels, selected
SMSA
HCFA index
10 highest index SMSA 's:
Vallejo, Calif ................................................................................
Anchorage ..................................................................................
New York ....................................................................................
Oxnard, C a lif................................................................................
San Francisco.............................................................................
San Jose ....................................................................................
Santa Rosa, Calif .......................................................................
Nassau-Suffolk ...........................................................................
Stockton, C a lif..............................................................................
Los Angeies ................................................................................
1.54
1.52
1.45
1.41
1.38
1.38
1.32
1.31
1.30
1.29
10 largest SMSA 's:
New York ....................................................................................
Chicago ......................................................................................
Los Angeles ................................................................................
Philadelphia..................................................................................
Detroit ........................................................................................
San Francisco..............................................................................
Washington, D.C .........................................................................
Boston .........................................................................................
Nassau-Suffolk ...........................................................................
Dallas-Fort Worth .......................................................................
1.45
1.22
1.29
1.16
1.18
1.38
1.28
1.14
1.31
.94
1The index determination, based on 1978 data, is used to adjust reimbursement levels for
hospitals whose cost reporting periods begin on or after July 1,1980.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 4. Percent distribution of SMSA’s by region and
hospital labor cost index level1
Index
Region
Total
United States .........
Northeast ...........................
South .................................
Midwest...............................
W e s t...................................
100
100
100
100
100
Under .90
.90 to .99
1.00
to 1.09
1.10 and
above
16
10
38
22
23
29
24
34
35
9
39
38
16
25
23
16
29
12
18
45
1See table 3, footnote 1.
NOTE: Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 100.
South is dominated by low-wage SMSA’s. Thus, a com
parison of the hospital labor cost and CETA indexes re
veals that wage adjustments resulting from the former
will tend to be larger in the West and Northeast while
the latter will yield larger adjustments in the Midwest.
Summary
The practice of adjusting Federal compensation ac
cording to an area’s relative pay level is rapidly gaining
acceptance among designers of Federal grant programs.
Although similar in concept, the mechanics underlying
the calculations of the two wage indexes described in
this article vary according to the goals and limitations
of the authorizing legislation. For example, the hospital
wage index is based only on data for hospital employees
because studies indicate that the wages of other groups,
particularly the “total service” sector, do not properly
reflect pay levels in hospitals.3The CETA index, however,
is based on the wages of all non-CETA employees, be
cause there are no restrictions on the types of industries
in which CETA workers may be employed. (Traditional
ly, however, most CETA workers have been hired by
State and local governments.)
The other major difference between these indexes is in
the calculation of the national average wage, the base to
which the area pay levels are compared. In order to
maintain the $7,200 average wage (in fiscal 1979 dol
lars) nationwide established by the 1978 CETA Amend
ments, the program’s national average is weighted by
the employment of the component counties, and thus
largely reflects the average wages of larger cities. But
because the intent of the Health Care Financing Ad
ministration is merely to effect a labor-cost adjustment,
independent of area employment size, that agency relies
on an unweighted national average which treats each
area’s average hospital wage equally, regardless of total
area employment.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1CETA programs function principally through prime sponsors —
the States, cities and counties of 100,000 inhabitants or more, and
combinations of such areas. There were 473 sponsors in fiscal 1980.
2 F e d e r a l R eg iste r, June 1, 1979, p. 31806.
’ F e d e r a l R eg iste r, June 1, 1979, p. 31807.
19
Industrial relations research:
an agenda for the 1980’s
An organized effort is needed to fill
critical gaps in our understanding of the
collective bargaining process, and this
calls for renewed academic interest
in the study of industrial relations
T hom as A. K o ch an
Is industrial relations today attuned to the needs of the
1980’s? Because a good deal of evidence says “no,” a
group of practitioners has designed a research effort to
reverse the perceived decline. This article casts these
proposals into an agenda for industrial relations re
search for the next decade.
The nature of the decline
In recent years, two central criticisms of industrial re
lations research have been offered by a variety of
researchers: (1) linkages among researchers, policymak
ers, and practitioners were more common previously,
but have eroded in recent years, and, (2) research on la
bor-management relations has not kept pace with gener
al theoretical and methodological developments in the
social sciences. As a result, research is not adequately
meeting the demand for informed policy analysis.1
Four interrelated causes of these developments have
frequently been cited. First, the number of researchers
in the field has declined since the time of the National
War Labor Board. Most of the labor economists trained
in the 1960’s and 1970’s specialized in labor market
economics, human resource policy, or other areas in
which abundant funding was available, and which
allowed more direct use of economic theories and
econometric techniques. Similarly, persons with stronger
interest in the behavioral sciences entered the expanding
fields of organizational behavior and development, and
Thomas A. Kochan is a professor of industrial relations at the Massa
chusetts Institute of Technology.
20
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
generally abandoned the study of collective bargaining
and labor-management relations.
Secondly, since 1960, public labor policy has drifted
toward more direct governmental regulation of the
terms and conditions of employment, with little regard
for the role of collective bargaining. Direct regulation
appeared necessary to achieve some labor policy objec
tives, because neither collective bargaining nor the com
petitive market had produced the results desired by
society in such areas as equal employment opportunity,
occupational safety and health, pension security, and
wage and price stability. However, there is a growing
recognition of the limits of direct regulation, and the
problems that gave rise to such laws will continue to be
of critical concern to labor, management, and the public
during the next decade. Thus, the 1980’s should be a
time to test the ability of unions and employers to ad
dress public objectives through collective bargaining re
lationships.
Thirdly, the U.S. Department of Labor has shifted
priorities to its growing regulatory responsibilities and
expanding employment and training programs at the ex
pense of labor-management relations research, policy
development, and services. Less than 7 percent of the
budget of the Labor Management Services Administra
tion, the organization with primary labor relations re
sponsibilities, and less than 1 percent of the Labor
Department’s total budget, is currently allocated to ac
tivities designed to improve labor-management rela
tions.
Finally, relations between labor and management in
the private sector have polarized in recent years. During
the 1970’s, many employers devoted more resources to
opposing union organizing efforts than to improving
their collective bargaining relationships. Over the same
period, union membership in the private sector declined,
and labor became defensive of its status in society and
industry. This polarization limited the bilateral develop
ment of new approaches for dealing with common
problems at the workplace.
One result of the deterioration of labor-management
relations was the political stalemate between business
and labor, which impeded congressional passage of la
bor legislation, whether backed by labor or business.
Policy development on labor issues, therefore, is cur
rently at a standstill.
General directions for research
In order to redirect and revitalize the study of indus
trial relations, a research agenda for the 1980’s was
developed by the Department of Labor and a number
of scholars in the field. Four points drawn from recent
research critiques formed the basis of the agenda:
• A richer blending of institutional and quantitative
methods should be achieved.
• More attention should be paid to the organiza
tional behavior and functioning of micro institutions
— firms and union locals— and to their implications
for macro performance.
• Research should measure the actual impacts of prac
tices, laws, and bargaining agreements on the goals of
the parties, rather than limiting itself to description
of the anticipated results.
• Research findings should be disseminated more effec
tively to interested professionals in the field.
The specific research topics included in this agenda re
flect the labor policy issues likely to be most critical in
the 1980’s.2
The outcomes and effects of bargaining
Two types of research on bargaining outcomes are
needed. The first would investigate the current effects of
collective bargaining on the terms and conditions of em
ployment, and on public policy objectives. The second
would evaluate the costs and benefits of specific experi
ments (or demonstration projects) designed to improve
the performance of bargaining. In short, we need to de
scribe all pertinent aspects of the industrial relations
scene, and then measure the effect that change in any
one aspect would have on the collective bargaining pro
cess.
Determination of wages and economic benefits
Wage determination. Over the past two decades, most
wage research has taken one of two forms: (1) aggregate
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
wage adjustment models, or (2) analysis of union-non
union differentials for individuals, occupational groups,
or industries. However, a well-conceived and tested
model of the wage determination process at the level of
the bargaining unit has yet to be developed. This is un
fortunate, because effective public policy must be based
on such a theoretically sound and empirically verified
model.
For example, most incomes policies make certain as
sumptions about the effects of pattern bargaining across
major bargaining units, industries, and geographic
areas. (Pattern bargaining is the determination of the
terms of union contracts according to the precedent set
by an agreement previously negotiated by another union
local or firm, or in another locality.) Some analysts be
lieve pattern bargaining exerts a very strong effect,
while others discount its importance in wage determina
tion. An assessment of its true impact requires analysis
of specific wage and fringe benefit changes in identifi
able firms or bargaining units.
Pattern bargaining is only one key variable chosen
here to illustrate the need to study the ways in which
characteristics of a particular bargaining relationship
and its external environment determine the results of
the negotiating process. Other factors, such as the for
mal bargaining structure, strikes, and union and em
ployer expectations and wage targets, should also be
included in models which attempt to explain variations
in the outcomes of negotiation at the bargaining unit
level.
Fringe benefits. Difficult choices face unions and em
ployers in the area of fringe benefit bargaining. For ex
ample, as the ratio of retired persons to the work force
increases over the next 20 years, the costs of funding
pension plans will grow considerably. And, if inflation
continues, conflicts concerning the adequacy and
funding of private pension plans will be even more in
tense. Questions regarding the control and use of pen
sion funds, the relationship between private funds and
the social security system, and the vesting and portabili
ty of pensions, require cautious examination by re
searchers skilled in demographic and financial analysis.
Demand for professionals with expertise in financial
management, funding of fringe benefits, and the simula
tion of costs and advantages of alternative benefit pack
ages is likely to increase considerably as a result.
Clearly, the area of compensation management should
take on added importance in the training of industrial
relations professionals.
Nonmonetary bargaining
A number of recent studies have examined the deter
minants of nonmonetary provisions of bargaining agree
ments. In the future, similar efforts should probe the re21
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Industrial Relations Agenda
lationship between monetary and nonmonetary out
comes, and identify reasons for and the effects of the
spread of various nonmonetary provisions among firms
and industries. This type of research permits assessment
of the ability of the private bargaining system to ad
dress public policy or regulatory concerns.
Safety and health. Following passage of the Occupation
al Safety and Health Act in 1970, contract safety and
health provisions proliferated. However, there has been
no systematic study of the relationship of these provi
sions to the safety and health conditions in the firms in
volved, or to the injury and illness experience of
covered workers.
Such studies are essential groundwork for any experi
ments which seek to use collective bargaining to address
safety and health problems. For example, more than 40
percent of all agreements covering 1,000 workers or
more currently provide for a union-management safety
and health committee. A starting point for this type of
research might be a study of the effectiveness of these
committees. The job safety issue offers an important op
portunity to test the ability of the collective bargaining
system to achieve labor policy objectives.
Job security and dislocation. As with safety and health,
the central policy questions regarding job and income
security provisions in union contracts are twofold: (1)
what factors influence the spread or the comprehensive
ness of such provisions, and, (2) how do these provi
sions affect the goals of workers, employers, and the
public?
The job security issue has not been seriously ad
dressed since the controversies surrounding automation
and technological change during the 1960’s. However,
recent plant shutdowns, and international trade policy
shifts, as well as industry deregulations and other gov
ernment actions, are reviving discussion. There are cur
rently a number of ad hoc public programs dealing with
economic dislocation effects, including those established
by the 1978 Redwoods National Park Act Amend
ments, the Regional Rail Reorganization Act (1973),
and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Amendments
(1974). Research in the 1980’s must quantify the prob
lems of economic dislocation, and evaluate alternative
solutions, based on an appropriate balance of public
and private efforts.
Productivity. The effect of collective bargaining on pro
ductivity has been a longstanding concern in industrial
relations, but has generally defied rigorous research.
The sluggish growth in productivity experienced over
the past decade has once again alerted government offi
cials to the importance of this issue. The Federal Gov
ernment lacks a successful strategy for encouraging
22
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
productivity improvement through union-management
relations; results of attempts to link productivity to
wage guidelines have been ambiguous. Similarly, “pro
ductivity bargaining” (agreements that buy out outmod
ed work rules) and various profit sharing programs are
employed from time to time by unions and manage
ment, but the outcomes of such efforts have not been
systematically evaluated.
The recent work of James L. Medoff, Charles Brown,
Richard B. Freeman, and their colleagues suggests that
the nature of the labor-management relationship itself
has a significant effect on productivity.3 Their findings
lend empirical support to what has traditionally been
labeled the “shock effect” hypothesis; that is, that the
presence of a union (or a negotiated increase in wages
or other components of labor costs) provides an
incentive for management to become more efficient.
What is not yet well known, however, is the nature of
the managerial adjustments, and the characteristics of
the labor-management relationship, which influence pro
ductivity. Thus, we need to examine more closely the
determinants of successful productivity increase.
Quality o f worklife. Because the quality of worklife was
the subject of heated debates in the early 1970’s, several
experiments with new forms of work organization were
implemented. As a result, behavioral scientists were in
troduced to the collective bargaining system, bringing
with them strategies to change organizational practices
within union-management relationships. This is an en
couraging sign that the knowledge gaps among behav
ioral scientists, industrial relations researchers, and
practitioners are being narrowed. The experience gained
in these experiments taught important lessons about the
obstacles that must be overcome if change is to be suc
cessfully introduced into union-management relations
via jointly planned programs that supplement the for
mal collective bargaining process. Attempts to extend
the application of behavioral strategies should build on
the lessons from these programs. During the 1980’s,
similar efforts in unionized settings may increase the re
sponsiveness of our collective bargaining system to the
needs of individual workers and employers.
Improving labor-management relations
Research in the field of industrial relations failed to
keep abreast of changing characteristics and policies of
unions and employers during the 1970’s. Research in
the 1980’s, therefore, should seek to update our knowl
edge of the structures, policies, practices, and internal
dynamics of union and management organizations.
Specific union and management characteristics and be
haviors must then be evaluated for their impact on the
process of bargaining, its outcomes, and the goals of all
concerned, including society as a whole.
Management organizations. In 1960, a comprehensive
study of the collective bargaining policies and practices
of management was published by Sumner Slichter,
James J. Healy, and E. Robert Livernash, under the
auspices of the Brookings Institution.4 In subsequent
years, however, management researchers turned their at
tention to the growing fields of organizational behavior
and human resource management, and away from
union-management topics. As a result, few personnel
and organizational behavior researchers currently are
experienced in collective bargaining issues.
A start has already been made in closing the gap in
our understanding of current management structures,
practices, and policies. The Conference Board recently
conducted a broad ranging survey of the labor relations
structures, goals, and priorities of a sample of the larg
est unionized companies in the private sector.5 Data
from this survey provide a basis for further studies re
lating these (and other) management characteristics to
industrial relations and economic performance.
American management has a history of strong oppo
sition to the unionization of its employees. The Confer
ence Board survey clearly documented that this is still
the dominant labor relations objective of nonunion
firms. Preventing the growth of unions was also found
to be a high priority of firms with a minority of their
employees currently organized. Anti-unionism receives a
low priority among highly organized companies. What
are the long-run costs and benefits of strong manage
ment resistance to unionization? How does it affect the
climate of labor-management relations, the economic
performance of the firm, and the welfare of individual
workers? We need to address the controversial and ex
tremely important issue of the effects of alternative
management policies toward unions and collective
bargaining on the economic interests of firms, individual
workers, unions, and the public.
Union organization. The study of unions as complex or
ganizations is also beginning to reemerge after more
than a decade of decline.6 Recently, a number of studies
have appeared on such subjects as union democracy, ef
fectiveness in bargaining, member participation, atti
tudes of workers towards unions, propensity of workers
to join unions, and the organizational structure of
unions. Future research should yield a basic under
standing of the representational and administrative
functions of modern unions, the criteria by which mem
bers evaluate the performance of their leadership, and
the way in which the internal structure of individual
bargaining units affects negotiation.
Unions face a number of critical organizational chal
lenges in the 1980’s, the most obvious of which is rever
sal of the decline in organization of the labor force.
Clearly, a study of the causes of change in union pene
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tration demands an important place in our research
agenda. Careful historical analysis of the labor move
ment will help to explain recent trends, and predict fu
ture developments.
An equally im portant challenge to labor lies in
maintaining the responsiveness of local and national
union officials to the interests of rank-and-file members.
While data from the 1977 Quality of Employment Sur
vey showed that unions are generally attuned to the pri
orities of their members, the respondents also indicated
that they would like to see improvement in the adminis
trative performance of the local union (that is, better
handling of grievances, more feedback on local union
affairs, and more member involvement in union deci
sions).7 These preferences, coupled with increased gov
ernment regulation of the terms and conditions of
employment, and the growing complexity of union con
tracts, suggest that the administrative functions of local
unions will take on added significance in the coming
years. This will be especially true if there is to be more
experimentation with union-management committees or
other mechanisms for introducing public policy changes
to the workplace. Study of the administrative functions
and performance of local unions should therefore be an
important priority for research in the next decade. Spe
cial care should be taken to ensure that this research is
translated into labor education and training programs,
so that it may have a direct effect on practice.
Strikes and dispute resolution. Research on the role of
strikes, lockouts, other forms of economic pressure, and
alternative procedures for resolving interest disputes is
vital to an understanding of the collective bargaining
process. Analysis of the alternatives for dealing with
strikes which threaten national health and safety fea
tured prominently in industrial relations research in the
1950’s and 1960’s, but interest in this issue waned con
siderably in the 1970’s. Apparently most researchers be
lieve that society benefits most from very limited use of
emergency dispute procedures. The question of the ap
propriate policy for the Federal Government in dealing
with strikes that affect the national interest deserves an
important place in our research agenda, regardless of its
immediate political significance.
Experimentation with a wide variety of third party
procedures for resolving labor-management disputes
blossomed in the 1970’s. Most of the attention was di
rected toward studies of mediation, fact-finding, and ar
bitration in the public sector, but a number of private
sector experiments, most notably the Experimental Ne
gotiation Agreement in the steel industry, also stimulat
ed interest in the subject. Furthermore, third parties are
assuming such additional roles as expert consultants to,
or coordinators of, labor-management committees. We
need to learn more about the nature and effectiveness of
23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Industrial Relations Agenda
third party roles, and to find ways to implement both
well-established and newer forms of conflict resolution
and problem solving within the context of a complex
modern society.
Grievance procedures and arbitration
Grievance arbitration has been cited as one of the
most successful innovations that the American system
of collective bargaining has contributed to the conduct
of industrial relations.8 Grievance procedures ending in
arbitration became common in union contracts because
both labor and management saw them as efficient and
equitable means for interpreting and enforcing the col
lective bargaining agreement. However, the apparent
fairness of grievance and arbitration has discouraged re
search on the actual performance of the system. Fur
thermore, pressures caused by delays, excessive costs,
and legal technicalities raise profound questions about
the future viability of the formal grievance procedure
and arbitration as it is now practiced. Conventional
views on grievance arbitration therefore merit careful
evaluation, supported by empirical research.
Beyond proposing changes in current practices, re
search on grievance procedures should ask fundamental
questions about the real impact of this institution. So
much emphasis has been placed on the arbitration pro
cess itself that we have failed to adequately assess the
effects of the decisions on the parties. For example, how
do arbitration awards affect the subsequent behavior of
the employers, individuals, and unions involved? What
happens to workers reinstated in their jobs? And, do ar
bitration decisions result in more than a temporary
modification of the behavior that brought about the
grievance? We should no longer be satisfied to leave the
study of arbitration at the point at which the decision is
rendered.
Another basic assumption about grievance procedures
is that they are the cornerstone of the contract adminis
tration process— the means by which workers enforce
their contractual rights. Yet, we have very little data on
just how individual workers perceive the operations and
results of the formal grievance procedure. The need for
empirical evidence on the performance of grievance pro
cedures and arbitration is especially important if these
provisions for adjudicating disputes are extended be
yond rights provided by the bargaining agreement to in
clude rights derived from public laws.
of methodologies and theories developed in the single
area studies to interarea variations in policies. This type
of data and analysis is needed by policymakers at every
level who must evaluate existing laws or consider the
enactment of new legislation.
Public sector bargaining offers the largest arena for
observing the long-run consequences of bargaining sys
tems that place varying priorities on avoiding work
stoppages. An understanding of the positive and nega
tive consequences of these alternative systems should
therefore be a basic component of our approach to in
dustrial relations in the 1980’s.10
Policy formulation and administration
The signing of the National Accord in 1979 rekindled
interest in group participation and consultation in the
formulation of labor and economic policies. The same
question is confronted periodically at the State level,
most notably when pressures arise for changes in the
bargaining rights of State and local government em
ployees. Today, this issue has added importance because
of the apparent political stalemate over labor policy af
flicting the Federal Government. Thus, the policy for
mulation process is an important topic for research in
the 1980’s. Such research might focus on the “political
economy” — the relationships among the major actors
and interests in society as they affect political and eco
nomic activity. A more action-oriented approach would
be the establishment of multilateral study commissions
on key policy issues to test the effectiveness of coopera
tive policy development.
Furthermore, there is a need for the experimental use
of arbitration or other procedures to reduce the backlog
of cases in administrative agencies such as the Occupa
tional Safety and Health Administration, the Equal Em
ployment Opportunity Commission, and the National
Labor Relations Board. More intensive study to assess
the performance of these agencies could identify the na
ture of the problems they are experiencing, and provide
innovative strategies for overcoming them.
Comparative research: the broader picture
Public sector labor-management relations
Researchers should not lose sight of the broad politi
cal, philosophical, and normative ideas underlying our
economic system. One way to ensure that these con
cepts receive adequate attention is to maintain a strong
international and comparative component to industrial
relations research.
Some questions suitable for study:
Many of the theoretical and methodological advances
in industrial relations research in the 1970’s arose from
public sector studies.9 These studies were generally lim
ited to description and intensive analysis of the effects
of specific public policies within particular States and
areas. The next step in research will be the application
• When is employee ownership a viable form of indus
trial organization? Should it be promoted as an alter
native to plant shutdowns? Should it be promoted in
other situations as well?
• Can European style formal systems of worker par-
24
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
•
•
•
•
•
ticipation in, and control over, firm decisions work
effectively in the United States?
What is the appropriate role for the U.S. Government
in the International Labor Organization and similar
international bodies?
What are the implications of adopting a more formal
“social contract” system for formulating labor and
economic policies in the United States?
Is the pluralistic model of society upon which the
U.S. industrial relations system is based still a valid
normative model for guiding policy, research, and
practice?
What is the effect of multinational corporations on
industrial relations in the United States, and con
versely, what are the economic and social effects of
American multinationals in their host countries?
What are the implications of the increased activities
' See, for example, John T. Dunlop, “Policy Decisions and Research
in Economics and Industrial Relations,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la
tio n s R ev ie w , April 1977, pp. 275-82; Thomas A. Kochan, “Theory,
Policy Evaluation, and Methodology in Collective Bargaining Re
search,” 1 9 7 6 P ro c ee d in g s o f th e I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s R e s e a rc h A ss o c ia
tion, pp. 236-48; Clark Kerr, “Industrial Relations Research: A
Personal Retrospective,” I n d u s tr ia l R ela tio n s , May 1978, pp. 131-42;
George Strauss and Peter Feuille, “IR Research: A Critical Analysis,”
I n d u s tr ia l R ela tio n s , October 1978, pp. 258-77; and David Lewin,
“Why Labor Policy is Out of Date,” B u sin e ss W eek, Jan. 15, 1979, p.
18.
' For a more complete discussion of the assumptions underlying
this agenda, see Thomas A. Kochan, “Labor Management Research
Priorities for the 1980’s,” final report to the Secretary of Labor (U.S.
Department of Labor, 1980). The final report, from which this article
is excerpted, was prepared by the author pursuant to the Secretary’s
January 1979 request, and represents the collected contributions of in
dustrial relations academics, labor leaders, and management profes
sionals.
3 For a summary of the results of these studies see Richard B.
Freeman and James L. Medoff, “The Two Faces of Unionism,” T h e
P u b lic I n te re st, Fall 1979, pp. 69-93.
4 Sumner Slichter, James J. Healy, and E. Robert Livernash, T h e
I m p a c t o f C o lle c tiv e B a rg a in in g on M a n a g e m e n t, (Washington, The
Brookings Institution, 1960).
5The results of the survey are reported in Audrey Freedman, M a n
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
of international union secretariats? Will transnational
bargaining become a reality in the 1980’s?
Studies of industrial relations developments, public poli
cies, and private practices in other countries may pro
vide alternatives for dealing with many of the issues
discussed in earlier sections of this article.
B e t t e r r e s e a r c h cannot ensure that the 198()’s will
be a decade of resurgence, experimentation, and im
proved performance in our industrial relations system.
Yet, it is a necessary and im portant component of the
larger strategy that must be undertaken if labor-man
agement relations policies and practices are to make
significant contributions to the economic and social
challenges that face our Nation in this decade.
□
a g in g L a b o r R ela tio n s , (New York, The Conference Board, 1979), and
in Thomas A. Kochan, C o lle c tiv e B a rg a in in g a n d I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s :
F ro m T h eo ry to P o lic y a n d P r a c tic e (Homewood, 111., Richard D. Ir
win, 1980).
6
For a recent collection of articles on union organizational research
see I n d u s tr ia l R ela tio n s , May 1977.
Thomas A. Kochan, “How American workers view labor unions,”
April 1979, pp. 23-31.
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,
8A discussion of all of the issues raised in this section may be
found in Benjamin Aaron and others, T h e F u tu r e o f L a b o r A r b itr a tio n
in A m e r ic a (New York, The American Arbitration Association, 1976).
9 For a recent review of public sector collective bargaining research,
see Benjamin Aaron, Joseph R. Grodin, and James L. Stern, P u b lic S e c to r B a rg a in in g (Washington, The Bureau of National Affairs,
1979).
10A longstanding problem in the public sector has been the lack of
adequate data on wages, benefits, and contract provisions covering
State and local government employees, and on the financial conditions
of their employers. Most State statutes require factfinders and arbitra
tors to take comparability and ability to pay into account in render
ing their recommendations and awards. A study of the data needs in
public sector bargaining, under the title of “Data Probe 80,” is cur
rently being conducted under the direction of Robert D. Helsby and
Ronald A. Leahy of the Public Employment Relations Service, Alba
ny, N.Y.
25
Communications
Do uncertain cost/benefit estimates
prolong public-sector disputes?
P a u l F. G e r h a r t a n d J o h n E. D r o t n i n g
During 1978-79, we conducted a study to investigate
the relative effectiveness of impasse procedures (statuto
ry and de facto) in six States— Iowa, Michigan, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.1 The States
were selected, in part, on the basis of the types of pro
cedures used and the experience of the parties with the
procedures. In-depth interviews were conducted in 111
bargaining units of 54 municipal and school employers.
Interviews included a discussion of the most recent
round of negotiations and the factors contributing to
whether or not the parties came to an impasse or uti
lized any impasse procedures.
The study did not rely on extensive statistical data or
random selection to draw statistical inferences. Rather,
cases were selected purposefully. In each State, bar
gaining units which had frequently relied on impasse
procedures were compared with units where little or no
use had been made of such procedures. Interviews with
union and management negotiators as well as neutrals
who may have been involved allowed an in-depth explo
ration of the reasons for the observed bargaining rela
tionship between the parties.
Contrary to a traditionally accepted hypothesis,2 it
appears that the parties in public-sector bargaining are
more likely to push disputes on to the terminal step of
an impasse procedure— whether compulsory arbitration
or a strike— the greater their uncertainty about future
costs and benefits of continued bargaining.
Uncertainty is behind the general phenomenon that
impasses appear to increase and subside soon after a
public-sector bargaining law is passed.3This may be be
cause inexperienced negotiators are not able to antici
pate opponent reactions nor properly assess what lies
ahead if settlement is not reached. Alternatively, the
rise in impasses immediately following a bargaining law
may be related to the added “power” the public unions
Paul F. Gerhart is associate professor of industrial relations and John
E. Drotning is professor of industrial relations and Head, Division of
Industrial Relations, Case Western Reserve University.
26 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
gain through the statute. If a new
bargaining power, then bargaining
substantially from the mean as the
new equilibrium point that reflects
ance.
law increases union
outcomes will vary
parties search for a
the new power bal
Economics of continued disagreement
An effective impasse procedure raises the cost to at
least one of the parties of continuing to disagree and,
perhaps, at the same time, lowers the cost to the other
party of agreeing voluntarily. Under the traditional
view, additional uncertainty about the future would in
crease the parties’ costs of continued disagreement.
Therefore, it is necessary to consider these costs before
discussing how the expected cost is changed by the en
actment of impasse procedures. However, both costs
and benefits flow from continued disagreement:4 the pro
cess cost to each party and the incremental improve
ment in outcome benefit to each party.
Process cost. For the union, this includes the cost of lost
wages, strike benefits, and other similar monetary costs.
Where the strike is prohibited and mandatory arbitra
tion is part of the procedure, the process cost of con
tinuing to disagree includes the cost of the neutrals and
advocates used. Even before the parties reach the termi
nal step of the negotiation process— strike or binding
arbitration5— there is a cost of continuing to disagree
involved in negotiator time. In many cases, this is a
cost to the union in terms of forgone leisure or lost
earnings for union negotiators which is not insignificant
where the union is too small to afford a full-time staff.
Earnings may be lost from the public-sector job, but
more often they become a factor where “moonlight”
jobs are affected. For firefighters this is highly signifi
cant. We have found that management engages in a
strategy of “wearing down” union negotiators, clearly
recognizing that such a tactic is a feasible way to win
settlement short of the terminal step in the impasse pro
cedure. Delay has thus become a significant factor in a
union’s decision to “agree now and avoid delay” in re
ceiving wage and benefit improvements.
Thus the process cost of continuing to disagree is
nearly always a “net cost” for unions; on rare occa
sions, a strategy of continued disagreement may repre
sent a net gain for unions.6
For management, process costs might be calculated
by the ability to bear the political cost of strikes. In ev
ery strike situation we studied, management gave care
ful consideration to public reaction to the strike. Public
employers also incur the cost of outside negotiators,
and delays mean larger fees for the “hired gun.” How
ever, the cost of outside experts relative to the agree
ment costs may be small. Thus, public employers
usually overlook or ignore these costs in deciding
whether to continue to disagree.7 But the absolute costs
of outside help are not insignificant. We found several
employers who spent in excess of $50,000 on outside
negotiators in one round of negotiations. Even in a
moderately large city or school district, this could make
possible a fringe benefit or an increase in the wage rate.
Management, more often than the union, may achieve
a net gain by dragging out the negotiating process. As
long as a strike does not occur, management continues
to function without any increase in costs resulting from
a new bargaining agreement. Moreover, the agreement
ultimately reached may not include retroactivity so that
the settlement actually becomes much cheaper for man
agement because of its delay. Even where retroactivity
is included, the delay in reaching an agreement is a gain
for management because of the time value of money—
which includes more than risk-free interest in the public
sector. Delaying a tax increase may mean the difference
between winning or losing an election. Furthermore,
there may be political gains for management negotiators
who “hang tough” at the bargaining table. In no in
stance can a public negotiator afford to give his constit
uency the impression that he has “caved in” to the
union too quickly.
Outcome benefit. This is the incremental improvement
between the final outcome of negotiations following a
strike or binding arbitration and the best real offer by
the opponent prior to the final outcome. We use the
phrase “real offer” to distinguish it from public or for
mal offers at the bargaining table.
Where disputes went to the terminal step, only rarely
did we find that such public offers represented the best
offer a party was willing to make.8 Ordinarily, parties
which push a dispute on into the terminal step of an
impasse procedure expect the incremental benefit to be
positive. Incremental benefits can be, and usually are,
positive for both parties simultaneously, for an arbitra
tor usually issues a binding award which lies between
the best real positions of the parties.
We also observed two instances where the incremen
tal benefit was negative for one of the parties; that is,
the final outcome was worse than the best real offer of
the opponent. Both of these cases involved the use of
arbitration rather than the strike; one occurred in Penn
sylvania under conventional arbitration and one in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Michigan with last-offer-by-issue arbitration. A negative
incremental benefit is possible because the parties al
most universally employ the “pull back” tactic. That is,
the stated position before an arbitrator is not as favor
able to the opponent as the best real offer.9 Management
typically makes a wage offer before an arbitrator below
what it was willing to offer, and perhaps did offer pri
vately, prior to the arbitration hearing. The union, typi
cally, does the opposite. Either party will raise issues on
which it had previously made concessions and even
reached agreement.10
Where final-offer-by-package arbitration is used (Wis
consin), the use of the pull back tactic guarantees that
one party will suffer negative incremental benefits. The
arbitrator cannot engage in issue or package splitting so
one party’s position on every issue must be adopted. In
terestingly, we observed no instances of the “pull back”
in Wisconsin.
Finally, it is possible that incremental benefits might
be negative for both parties simultaneously. This is pos
sible where an arbitrator, faced with multiple issues,
awards outcomes in such a way that both parties per
ceive the final outcome as worse than what the other
had offered in negotiations.11 Interestingly, package lastoffer arbitration prevents both sides from losing simul
taneously.
We found no instance where both sides became worse
off simultaneously, even though it is popular for neu
trals to threaten the parties that this might happen. A r
bitrators seek to write acceptable awards. At a
minimum, this is one in which both sides reap a non
negative incremental benefit. Thus, it would require
greater misjudgment than even the least skilled arbitra
tor possesses to achieve an outcome where both parties
suffer negative incremental gains.
Sources of uncertainty
As noted earlier, when the components of the process
cost and the incremental benefit of agreeing were un
known and largely unpredictable, parties most frequent
ly preferred to continue to disagree. Some sources of the
uncertainty that appears to generate such a response are
the role of the judiciary in handling strikes, the devel
oping nature of various compulsory arbitration proce
dures, and the public reaction to strikes.
The judicial response to strikes. The most general
legislated response to strikes in the public sector is one
where the strike is illegal but the penalties are unclear.
Next most common is legislation mandating penalties,
as in New York and Ohio. Finally, Pennsylvania,
among the six States in our study, permits strikes only
under certain conditions. Regardless of the legal status
of strikes, we found that the treatment of them by the
courts varied substantially within some jurisdictions.
27
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Communications
Only after considerable experience in Michigan and
Pennsylvania do the parties now have the ability to pre
dict judicial responses. In Ohio, such a prediction is
still not possible.12 In New York, Wisconsin, and Iowa,
however, the courts acted swiftly and with uniformity
(within each of the jurisdictions) concerning strikes, so
that the parties were able to predict that element of the
process cost of continuing to disagree.
A more common uncertainty concerning judicial re
action concerns whether a judge will enjoin a strike.
Judges throughout the six States, but particularly in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, were found to be
notorious for their attempts to mediate disputes in
chambers after an employer had sought an injunction.
(Although strikes are legal in Pennsylvania, provided all
procedures are followed, they can nonetheless be
enjoined where a judge finds a threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare.)13 In one Scranton, Pa. school
strike, a three-judge panel heard a request by the school
board for an injunction, ordered a settlement, and set
the term s.14 If such a pattern of judicial involvement
had persisted in Pennsylvania, the uncertainty concern
ing judicial action would have remained quite high.
What has happened, however, is that judges have
tended to show much greater restraint; a consistent pat
tern has developed.
Compulsory arbitration. The case for uncertainty gener
ated by arbitration may be more difficult to make, par
ticularly in a room filled with arbitrators. Fortunately,
we are not attempting to make the case that arbitrators
have any uncertainty, only the parties.
The “new toy” hypothesis is one for which we found
some support in nearly every jurisdiction we visited.
The natural inquisitiveness of the parties, particularly
the union, leads them to want to try out a new tool
such as arbitration, “just to see what we can get.” A
more serious characterization of a union’s reaction to
new legislation is the “new weapon” hypothesis. The re
sult is the same, though. The union will push more dis
putes into arbitration even if management is responding
with “reasonable” offers.15 However, after some experi
ence with a new law and a determination of process
costs and incremental benefits, union aggressiveness
typically dropped off sharply.
Uncertainty in the arbitration process also can sur
round the criteria for arbitrators’ decisions. Every stat
ute in our study, except Pennsylvania’s, contained an
explicit list of criteria to guide arbitrators. In every case
where arbitration had been used by the parties, though,
both sides indicated a great deal of uncertainty in their
initial resort to arbitration about what the arbitrator
would use for the basis of his decision. Even if the crite
ria are clear, the weight attached to them is not speci
fied. In every statute there is an open-ended approach
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to the criteria, as well. In Iowa, for instance, the section
of the law outlining the criteria begins as follows: “The
panel of arbitrators shall consider, in addition to any
other relevant factors, the following factors. . . .” 16 In
several jurisdictions, the parties reported that since the
initiation of arbitration both sides had begun to agree
on the “relevant” criteria (as a result of several arbitra
tion decisions relying on those same criteria), so that
the outcome was much more predictable now than it
had been initially. Among the most im portant criteria is
which cities or school districts are “comparable.” Once
this has been established, the determination of economic
benefits and many other terms and conditions of em
ployment becomes similar to the “prevailing rate” for
mula approach long familiar in the government contract
area.
There is reason to expect that as criteria for decision
making by arbitrators become more certain, disputes
subject to arbitration will be resolved short of the actu
al arbitration hearing.
Last-offer arbitration introduces constraints on the
arbitrator which, on a first analysis, would appear to
prevent the reduction of uncertainty. The arbitrator is
prevented from taking a middle ground between the
parties’ final offers so that the variance of the expected
outcome or incremental benefit is quite wide. But this
first analysis does not take account of each party’s
strategy for reducing the risk of loss: both will attempt
to reduce such risk by taking a more reasonable posi
tion than the opponent, hence moving toward some
middle ground just as a conventional arbitrator might.
The uncertainty premise, in fact, does not predict
whether last-offer or conventional arbitration will be
more successful in promoting voluntary settlement. The
key element of uncertainty in both is what position the
arbitrator is likely to view as most reasonable. In con
ventional arbitration, the arbitrator selects that as the
outcome for the dispute. In last-offer arbitration, the ar
bitrator selects the position of the party closest to the
most reasonable position. In either instance, the more
precisely the parties can predict the arbitrator’s judg
ment of reasonableness, the more likely they are to be
able to settle their dispute voluntarily at that point.
Where their estimates of arbitrator judgment are uncer
tain, the parties are most likely to resist concession for
fear that it might be unnecessary.
Some empirical data are available from Iowa’s experi
ence with last-offer arbitration. There, as in every other
State we studied, the parties are permitted to develop
alternatives to the State-mandated procedure. In Iowa,
the Public Employee Relations Act procedure provides
for mediation, factfinding, and final-offer arbitration by
issue, where one of the three final offers the arbitrator
may select is the recommendation of the factfinder. The
parties, where they have modified the process, have
tended to drop the factfinding step. Board data reported
in i p e r b , a publication of the University of Iowa’s In
dustrial Relations Institute, show
. . that when arbi
tration was preceded by factfinding, the number of
issues at impasse tended to be less than when arbitra
tion immediately followed mediation.” 17 Why? Because
the parties are conditioned to know that arbitrators will
tend to adopt the factfinders’ recommendations. The in
cremental benefit uncertainty is reduced.
Data from Michigan show that the majority of all ar
bitration cases are resolved voluntarily, after an
arbitrator is appointed but before the arbitrator issues
an award. Our own experience as well as our discus
sions with Michigan arbitrators and the parties suggests
that arbitrators, in the course of conducting a hearing,
will nearly always caucus with the parties privately and
give them clues, sometimes subtle and sometimes not so
subtle, concerning what the arbitrators are likely to
consider the “more reasonable” position. With such in
put, the parties “might as well settle.” (Whether such
settlements should be considered voluntary is another
question.)
A hypothesis we are presently considering but have
not yet tested relates to arbitrator turnover on the vari
ous State panels. In Michigan, a number of union and
management representatives expressed the concern that
there was no “new blood” among the arbitrator ranks.
In fact, they were complaining that arbitrators working
in Michigan had settled on the appropriate criteria for
most issues in arbitration and that the complaining par
ty was not satisfied with those criteria for at least some
issues. The only way the complainer saw the possibility
of winning on these issues was by the introduction of
“new blood” with a new set of criteria or weights for
the old criteria. In New York, there is considerable
turnover among arbitrators because the New York Pub
lic Employee Relations Board ad hoc panel is limited to
charging a comparatively low rate for its services. As
soon as a person establishes himself or herself as a neu
tral, other, more lucrative opportunities become avail
able. Under these circumstances, one would anticipate
greater uncertainty toward neutrals and hence a greater
resort to arbitration. A preliminary review of the data
appears to mildly support the hypothesis. A higher pro
portion of agreements subject to arbitration are reached
at that step than in most of the other States in our
study.
Public reaction to strikes. Perhaps the best illustration of
how uncertainty contributes to impasses involves the
public reaction to strikes and the parties’ inability to es
timate it accurately. For example, management may
perceive a public which is resistant to “excessive” union
demands— a public which will reward, politically, a
tough stance by management even to the point of tak
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ing a strike. The union, however, may perceive a much
more sensitive public which will not tolerate an inter
ruption of its public services. With such perceptions,
continuation of the impasse to the point of a strike is
likely. However, where both parties have accurate infor
mation on the public reaction to a strike— where uncer
tainty approaches zero— a strike is, ceteris paribus, less
likely to occur. This appears to be true regardless of
what that reaction is predicted to be— tolerant or intol
erant. If tolerant, the union bargaining position is
strengthened and the outcome will be higher settlement
costs; if intolerant, the settlement will be lower. The
point is that the parties do not have to go through the
exercise (of striking or other impasse procedure) to
eliminate the uncertainty. They have the answer before
they begin.
Our examples illustrate several subtle but important
points. First, uncertainty must be considered collective
ly across both parties. Simply because one party accu
rately assesses process costs and incremental benefits, a
dispute will not necessarily be resolved short of the ter
minal step of an impasse procedure. As a consequence,
an accurate assessment is not as critical as a shared as
sessment of the costs and benefits. Even if wrong, when
both parties predict each other’s as well as their own
costs and benefits identically, a settlement is highly like
ly. Examples alone do not adequately treat these issues,
but they should be considered in the development of a
general model of impasse behavior.
h a v e d e a l t completely on the point that uncertain
ty precipitates and contributes to the continuation of
impasses. Perhaps we have overstated our case. Even in
this brief discussion, the point was made that, theoreti
cally, both parties could be left worse off than the op
ponent’s “best real offer.” If an arbitrator’s (or judge’s)
skill is viewed by the parties as likely to lead to such an
outcome, the uncertainty will perhaps induce a volun
tary settlement. Sufficient anecdotal evidence exists to
suggest that parties have been “frightened into a settle
ment.”
Nonetheless, we believe that our analysis as well as
the examples from our research support a conclusion
that uncertainty contributes more to creating impasses
than resolving them. To be more specific, uncertainty
with respect to the future costs and benefits of contin
ued disagreement decreases the likelihood of early set
tlement. This conclusion runs counter to the con
ventional wisdom which the authors shared before
conducting the interviews. The response of the various
participants forced us to reconsider the role of uncer
tainty and while a definite conclusion must await a
more detailed review of our data, it appears that our
hypothesis, if true, could and should play a role in the
evolution of public-sector labor legislation.
□
We
29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Communications
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1Our work was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, Em
ployment Standards Administration.
2Some State laws, such as in Massachusetts, enacted following
World War II to deal with a rash of public and private sector strikes
left a range of dispute resolution methods open to the State executive.
This approach was based on the hypothesis that uncertainty as to
eventual outcome would encourage the parties to voluntary settle
their dispute. For a discussion of the merits of this approach as expe
rienced in Massachusetts, see George P. Shultz, “The Massachusetts
Choice-of-Procedures Approach to Emergency Disputes,” I n d u s tr ia l
a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R ev ie w , April 1957, p. 361.
1This pattern is examined in other reports based on this project
which are not yet published.
4 If the net cost of continuing to disagree is negative (that is, there
is a net benefit), the parties will continue to disagree. An impasse pro
cedure should work to increase the costs or lower the benefits, or
both, of continued disagreement so that the net cost of continuing to
disagree becomes positive (that is, there is a net loss). Then the
parties will agree.
5It is our conclusion that there are, d e fa c to , two terminal impasse
steps in public-sector bargaining in those States we have surveyed.
Where arbitration is not available, the unions have demonstrated a
willingness to strike regardless of statutory prohibitions. While it is
not inconceivable, our research revealed no instance of a strike where
a dispute was submitted to binding arbitration. This issue is addressed
elsewhere in project reports.
6 For example, a union seeking additional members might attempt
to portray an image of militance and aggressiveness by forcing a
strike. Or, a union might sell itself by saying that if it does not get its
demands, it will go to arbitration. In our study, we found no exam
ples of strikes designed to enhance the image of the union and only
one clear case in which the union sold itself to the membership on the
basis of a promise to arbitrate.
7Paul F. Gerhart and Richard Krolikowski, “Bargaining Costs and
Outcomes in Municipal Labor Relations,” J o u r n a l o f C o lle c tiv e N e g o ti
a tio n s in th e P u b lic S ector, forthcoming.
8We have found that an important part of the public sector
bargaining process is the development of mechanisms to convey real of
fers. Experienced mediators, trusted by the parties, facilitate the devel
opment of such mechanisms.
9Some negotiators feel such a tactic represents a failure to bargain
in good faith, and is therefore an unfair labor practice (which is ille
gal). Where the negotiator makes any offer contingent upon accept
ance of the whole package, however, it clearly is not. Arbitration
hearings tend to become quite heated, however, when one party at
tempts to introduce evidence concerning what the other had offered
privately.
10In one instance, the parties indicated that for the first several
times arbitration was used, they engaged in the “pull back.” Howev
er, in each instance, it appeared useless because the arbitrator quickly
cut through their respective facades and dealt with the key issues as
though there had been no pull back. They also realized the potentially
counterproductive nature of this tactic and reached a mutual under
standing to submit only those issues not truly agreed upon to arbitra
tion in the future. Both were more satisfied with the process. Such a
development represents extraordinary maturity and, perhaps, special
circumstances. It is not likely to be adopted universally.
" For example, consider a case where a union attaches great impor
tance to binding grievance arbitration and less importance to a large
wage increase, while management, just the opposite, attaches great
importance to a low-wage settlement and less to arbitration. The best
real offer of the union prior to arbitration was 6 percent in wages plus
binding arbitration. Management’s best real offer was 4 percent in
wages plus binding arbitration. In the arbitration proceeding, howev
er, both sides “pull back” from their best real offers for tactical rea
sons. The union, hoping to provide the arbitrator with something to
“give to management” increases its wage demand to 10 percent while
staying firm on the demand for arbitration. Management, using the
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
same tactic, withdraws its offer of binding arbitration and drops its
wage offer to 2 percent. The arbitrator, misjudging the priorities of
the parties, awards a 10-percent wage increase without binding arbi
tration of grievances. The benefit to the union is negative because the
additional 6 percent in wages over management’s best real offer is not
as valuable as a grievance arbitration. Management loses because the
additional 4 percent in wages over the best real union offer is more
costly than the value “saved” by avoiding grievance arbitration.
12The most extreme case of uncertainty with respect to judicial re
sponse is Ohio. In spite of the existence of the severe penalties of the
Ferguson Act (or perhaps because of them), public employers did not
invoke the act in any of the nine bargaining units we studied where
strikes had occurred. These cases included sanitation, fire, police, and
teacher strikes in medium to large cities (50,000 to 700,000 popula
tion). Due process under the act requires individual hearings, which
(in larger cities, at least) add considerably to employers’ process cost
without any assurance that a judge will not subsequently dismiss the
action on various technical grounds. The Ferguson Act has been in
voked effectively, however, so that the threat (uncertainty) remains for
unions and management, particularly in smaller jurisdictions where
individual hearings could be conducted. The Ferguson Act, itself,
merely requires individual notice, not a hearing. Civil service law re
quires hearing prior to dismissal of any certified employee.
13Public Employee Relations Act (1970), Section 1003.
14 600 G o v e r n m e n t E m p lo y e e R e la tio n s R e p o r t, p. B16, Apr. 7, 1975.
15The phenomenon was observed in Pennsylvania, for example,
where one police union attorney reported that virtually all police or
ganizations he represented shortly after Act 111 was passed told him
to take the case to arbitration. The process cost in Pennsylvania for
the union is mitigated by the fact that the neutral’s expenses and fees
are borne entirely by the employer. Over time, however, the attorney
noticed a distinct loss of aggressiveness among his clients. It became
clearer (more certain) to them just what they could get from arbitra
tion (the incremental benefit) and how much his attorney’s fees (pro
cess costs) would be.
16Iowa Public Employment Relations Act (Senate File 531), Section
22, para. 9.
17IPERB, Winter 1977, p. 4.
Customized ‘final-offer’:
New Jersey’s arbitration law
D a v i d E. B l o o m
The New Jersey Fire and Police Arbitration Act took
effect in November 1977, adding New Jersey’s name to
the growing list of States that currently utilize finaloffer arbitration in the resolution of labor disputes in
the public sector.1The final-offer procedures in New Jer
sey differ, however, from the procedures adopted in oth
er States, and this report describes the uniqueness of the
New Jersey mechanism and the philosophy in which it
is grounded.
In 1968, the New Jersey Legislature passed the Em
ployer-Employee Relations Act, granting New Jersey’s
public sector employees the right to organize and to ne-
David Bloom is a graduate student in the Department of Economics
at Princeton University.
gotiate collectively the terms and conditions of their
employment.2 The act did not grant the right to strike,
but it did establish the New Jersey Public Employment
Relations Commission to help resolve bargaining im
passes through mediation and factfinding. Unfortunate
ly, neither mediation nor factfinding guaranteed finality
in the resolution of labor disputes, and long drawn-out
negotiations were quite common. In recognition of this
situation, the New Jersey Legislature established the
Public Employment Relations Study Commission in
1974 to make recommendations on alternative methods
of dispute resolution. The implementation of final-offer
arbitration in New Jersey is essentially an outgrowth of
the commission’s report.3
The report recommended that final-offer arbitration
be the compulsory last step in the resolution of
bargaining impasses in the public sector. This recom
mendation rested on three major premises: 1) because of
the essential nature of public services, the interests and
welfare of the public would be well-served by guaran
teeing finality in the resolution of public-sector labor
disputes;4 2) while guaranteeing finality in negotiations,
final-offer would also foster the voluntary negotiation of
a settlement because it tends to induce concessions by
the parties; and 3) a final-offer mechanism could be
designed which would allow the parties a wide scope
for determining the conditions under which they could
settle their dispute, so that the bargaining relationship
would be undamaged. The first two arguments are stan
dard and need not be discussed here. The third argu
ment, which is somewhat novel, accounts for the variety
of options available to the parties under New Jersey’s
arbitration law. In fact, this is precisely the feature of
the New Jersey law which most differentiates it from
the final-offer arbitration laws operating in other States.
Resolution mechanisms
Under the New Jersey law, the rules for imple
menting compulsory interest arbitration in labor dis
putes involving public safety employees are established
by the Public Employment Relations Commission.5 Ac
cording to those rules, covered employees and employ
ers must begin their contract negotiations at least 120
days before the employer’s budget submission date.6 If
an impasse develops, the commission may assign media
tors to aid in the resolution of the impasse at the re
quest of either party or on its own initiative. In the
event mediation fails, factfinders may be assigned at the
request of either party to study the dispute and recom
mend a settlement. The costs of mediation are borne by
the commission; the costs of factfinding are shared
equally by the parties.
If negotiations are still at impasse 60 days before the
employer’s required budget submission date, then re
gardless of the use of mediation or factfinding, the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
parties must file a “60-Day Notification.” This informs
the commission of whether the parties have at least
agreed upon a terminal procedure for settling the issues
in dispute and, if so, it enables the commission to re
view and to approve or disapprove of the proposed pro
cedure. In the event that the parties fail to agree on a
terminal procedure within 50 days of the employer’s
budget submission date, they must each notify the com
mission of the unresolved issues.7 Under these circum
stances, the parties are compelled to have their dispute
resolved by final-offer arbitration— with all economic
issues as a single package and noneconomic issues on
an issue-by-issue basis.8
There are basically five terminal procedures which the
parties may request as an alternative to the compulsory
procedure specified in the law. First, the parties may
have conventional arbitration of all unsettled items. Sec
ond, the parties may require the arbitrator to choose
between the final offers of the parties on all issues as a
single package. Third, the parties may require the arbi
trator to choose between the final offers of the parties
on each issue separately. Finally, when there is a
factfinder’s report, the arbitrator may be requested to
confine his or her choice to the parties’ final offers and
the factfinder’s recommendations on either an issue-byissue or a total package basis. The law explicitly does
not limit terminal procedures to the five listed here, al
though it does require the parties to petition the com
mission for approval of any other variations.
Regarding the factors arbitrators consider in reaching
their decisions, the law directs that arbitrators consider
the overall compensation presently received by the em
ployees, the comparability of wages, hours, and working
conditions to those available in similar public and pri
vate employment, the cost of living, the lawful authority
of the employer, the financial impact of the settlement
on the governing unit and its residents and taxpayers,
and the interests and welfare of the public. In addition,
the New Jersey courts have held that arbitrators must
also consider the constraints imposed by a 1977 State
law, generally limiting annual increases in municipal
budget expenditures to 5 percent.9
Arbitrators are appointed by the Director of Concili
ation and Arbitration in recognition of the parties’ pref
erences after the circulation among the parties of a list
of seven members of the Public Employment Relations
Commission’s special panel of arbitrators. The costs of
arbitration are borne entirely by the parties (subject to
a fee schedule approved by the commission). Once the
arbitrator is appointed, the parties are required to sub
mit their final offers to the arbitrator in a form that is
consistent with the terminal procedure in effect. At that
point, the arbitration proceeding is completely under
the control of the arbitrator. Existing wages and terms
and conditions of employment cannot be changed by
31
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Communications
one party without the consent of the other during the
pendency of an arbitration proceeding. Following the
close of the arbitration hearings, arbitrators are
expected to reach their decision and to convey it in
writing to the parties as soon as possible. All changes
called for in the arbitration award take place retroactive
to the date of implementation prescribed in the award.
Arbitrators cannot render an award involving pensions
or benefits in the New Jersey State Health Benefits Pro
gram.10
From this discussion, it should be apparent that the
basic orientation of the New Jersey arbitration law is
toward encouraging the voluntary settlement of labor
disputes at all stages of negotiation. Clearly, the variety
of terminal procedures available to the parties is consis
tent with this view. In this same spirit, the law explicit
ly permits, and even seems to encourage, arbitrators to
mediate disputes at all stages in the arbitration proceed
ing. The law also allows the parties substantial opportu
nity to modify or amend an award, even though awards
are binding and enforceable. Finally, the law has even
been interpreted to permit the parties to modify their fi
nal offers during an arbitration proceeding.11
Early experience
The law establishing compulsory interest arbitration
in New Jersey took effect on November 1, 1977. Be
tween that time and the end of the fiscal year on June
30, 1978, 259 public employers and public employee or
ganizations filed requests for mediation, factfinding, or
interest arbitration.12 Of course, some units filed for
more than one form of impasse resolution, but each is
counted only once in this number. A breakdown of
these cases according to whether mediators, factfinders,
and arbitrators were actually appointed is given in table
1. The small number of mediator and factfinder ap
pointments relative to arbitrator appointments stands
out. It also stands out in statistics on cases initiated
during the second fiscal year under the law.13 As noted
earlier, however, arbitrators are permitted to, and, as
shown below, often do, mediate settlements so that the
use of mediation may actually remain unaffected by the
1977 law.
Looking more closely at the breakdown of arbitrator
appointments, table 2 presents the distribution of these
appointments by employer type and by union type. The
majority of public employers requesting arbitration are
municipal governments. This is not surprising because
about 95 percent of the public employers in New Jersey
are municipal governments. Also, few of the unions in
volved in arbitration proceedings are firefighter unions.
This is not surprising either because fire departments
are local organizations operated by volunteers in ap
proximately 85 percent of New Jersey’s 567 municipali
ties.
32
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
As described in the previous section, one of the
central features of the New Jersey arbitration statute is
the wide scope it grants the parties to devise their own
terminal procedures. However, during its first 8 months
of operation, the parties relied on the law’s example ter
minal procedure (final-offer on economic issues as a
package and on noneconomic issues on an issue-by-issue
basis) in 72 percent of the cases that were ultimately re
solved by arbitration. Conventional arbitration was the
next most frequently chosen alternative (16 percent),
followed by issue-by-issue final-offer arbitration (5 per
cent), and one-package final-offer arbitration (1 per
cent); other commission-approved terminal procedures
were used in 6 percent of the cases. Perhaps more ex
perimentation with alternative terminal procedures can
be expected as the parties gain experience under the
new law, although, on the basis of awards rendered in
cases initiated during the second fiscal year under the
law, such a pattern has not yet emerged.
It was implied in the description of the law that there
are a variety of stages at which a labor dispute involv
ing public safety employees can end. Ordered from the
least to the most extensive form of third-party interven
tion, these stages of settlement are as follows: 1) in di
rect negotiations with no appointments at all; 2) with
the appointment of a mediator; 3) with the issuance of a
factfinder’s report with recommendations for settlement;
4) with the appointment of an arbitrator but before ar
bitration hearings have begun; 5) with the appointment
of an arbitrator who mediates the dispute during the ar
bitration proceedings and who may issue a ‘consent
award’ consisting of the terms of the dispute on which
the parties have voluntarily settled; and 6) with the ap
pointment of an arbitrator who issues a binding and en
forceable award under conventional arbitration, finaloffer, or any other terminal procedure devised by the
parties and approved by the commission. Table 3 pro
vides a breakdown of cases according to these six
stages. Arbitration awards were clearly the most preva
lent method for resolving disputes, with 79 of the 95
awards being final-offer in nature (the rest were conven
tional arbitration awards). At the other end of the spec
trum, factfinding, which has rarely been used, led to no
settlements; in fact, the commission received no requests
for factfinding in cases involving public safety employ
ees during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1979. It is
also interesting to observe that arbitrators acted as me
diators in a large proportion of cases. Combined with
other mediated settlements, the use of mediation by a
third party was nearly as important as the issuance of
final-offer awards in the settlement of disputes. Thus, it
is possible to regard mediation and arbitration as a
joint mechanism for resolving labor disputes under the
New Jersey law, rather than simply as disjoint proce
dures.14
□
FOOTNOTES
1Other States which also utilize some form of final-offer arbitration
to resolve labor disputes involving public safety employees are Wis
consin (1972), Michigan (1972), Massachusetts (1973), Iowa (1974),
and Connecticut (1979). In Wisconsin and Massachusetts, the arbitra
tor is limited to choose among the parties’ final offers on all issues as
a single package. In Michigan, Iowa, and Connecticut, the arbitrator
may choose among the parties’ final offers on an issue-by-issue basis.
The Michigan procedure is limited, however, to the resolution of eco
nomic issues.
' The New Jersey Fire and Police Arbitration Act, approved May
10, 1977 (P.L. 1977, Chapter 85, 1977 Senate No. 482), amendment
to the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, approved April
30, 1941 (P.L. 1941, Chapter 100; Chapter 34: 13A -1 et. seq.).
Report to the Governor and the Legislature by the Public Em
ployer-Employee Relations Study Commission pursuant to P.L. 1974,
c. 124, State of New Jersey, February 2, 1976.
4Conventional arbitration schemes also guarantee finality, but it has
been argued that they do so in a way which reduces the likelihood of
a voluntary settlement. This is the so-called ‘chilling effect’ of conven
tional arbitration. (However, see Craig A. Olsen, “Does ‘final offer’
allow the bargaining that conventional arbitration chills?” M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , May 1979, pp. 38-39.) Another criticism of conven
tional arbitration mechanisms is that when these mechanisms are op
erative, the parties tend to rely on the judgment of arbitrators
regarding acceptable agreements and therefore do not bargain as seri
ously as they otherwise would. This is referred to as the ‘narcotic ef
fect’ of conventional arbitration.
5Although the Study Commission’s Report to the Governor
recommended that final-offer arbitration procedures apply to all pub
lic sector employees, this was not acceptable to teachers, school
boards, and several other major groups in New Jersey. Consequently,
the law was written so that it applied only to public safety employees.
" The law is broadly construed to cover employees in all firefighting,
police, and other corrections units on the municipal, county, and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
State levels of government. The required budget submission date re
fers to the first budget which implements the new labor agreement.
7It is worthwhile to note that, according to the rules, the failure of
any party to file any notification, petition, or other statement will not
preclude the implementation of compulsory interest arbitration.
8In the event the parties disagree over the classification of an item
as economic or noneconomic or over the negotiability of an issue as
required, permissive, or illegal, the parties must petition the Public
Employment Relations Commission, which makes the final determina
tion.
9The Cap Law was enacted by the New Jersey Legislature in 1977.
This law places a 5-percent ceiling on increases in municipal budget
expenditures, although municipalities may file for specific exemptions.
Undoubtedly, this law has restricted the bargaining range in public
sector negotiations. At the very least, it would certainly seem to ac
count for the prevalence of public employers to choose 5-percent in
creases for their final salary offers. The existence of this law has also
heightened the controversy surrounding the use of final-offer arbitra
tion in New Jersey because arbitrated awards are, by definition, bind
ing on the public employer and are not limited to 5-percent increases.
10N.J.S.A. 34: 13-A18.
"See N e w a r k F ire m a n 's U n io n o f N e w J e r s e y v. C ity o f N e w a rk ,
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County,
Docket No. C-347-78, 1978.
12There were also several cases in the Public Employment Relations
Commission files in which nonpublic safety organizations requested
arbitration. These cases are not analyzed here.
13 Because a large number of cases initiated during the second fiscal
year under the New Jersey law are not yet closed, statistics on those
cases are not presented in this report.
14 For an analysis of first-year salary settlements under the law, see
David E. Bloom, “The Effect of Final Offer Arbitration on the Sala
ries of Municipal Police Officers in New Jersey,” Working Paper No.
129, Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, 1979.
33
The A natom y of
Price Change
Slowdown in energy prices
eases second-quarter inflation
W il l ia m T h o m a s , A
ndrew
Clem ,
and
tion slowdown were evident in prices for intermediate
and crude materials.
The relative slowdown of inflation during the second
E d d ie L a m b
After a sudden acceleration in the opening months of
1980, the pace of inflation slowed somewhat during the
second quarter. From March to June, the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers ( c p i -u ) moved up
at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 11.6 percent, fol
lowing an 18.1-percent rate in the previous 3 months
and a 13.3-percent increase from December 1978 to De
cember 1979. Most of the slowdown was due to energy
prices, which dropped from a 64.8-percent rate of in
crease in the first quarter to a rate of 8.1 percent in the
second. Retail price advances for commodities other
than food and energy also decelerated, but much more
modestly. In contrast, charges for consumer services
other than energy rose sharply for the second consecu
tive quarter. Food prices continued to rise moderately.
(See table 1.)
The slowdown in the CPI would have been more pro
nounced except for the continued sharp increase in the
home financing component, which reflected steep in
creases in interest rates during the opening months of
the year. Excluding mortgage interest costs, the rate of
advance in the CPI decelerated from 14.8 percent in the
first quarter to 7.5 percent in the second.
The easing of inflation in the second quarter was con
siderably greater at the primary market level. The Pro
ducer Price Index ( p p i ) for Finished Goods rose at a
seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.3 percent, only onethird of the 18.9-percent rate registered in the preceding
3 months and half as fast as the 12.6-percent climb in
1979. As in the CPI, the most dramatic slowdown oc
curred for energy goods, which had skyrocketed at a
rate of more than 100 percent in the first quarter before
slowing to a rate of 17.1 percent in the second. Price
rises for consumer goods other than foods and energy
also decelerated markedly. Further signals of an infla
William Thomas, Andrew Clem, and Eddie Lamb are economists in
the Office of Prices and Living Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
They were assisted by Craig Howell and Mary Burns, economists in
the same office.
34
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Changes in selected components of the
Consumer and the Producer Price Indexes, 1979-80
Compound annual rate, seasonally
adjusted except as noted, for 3
months ended —
Index
1980
1979
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
1 2.8
13.8
6.5
15.9
7.7
13.7
11.9
17.4
5.1
14.3
18.1
4.3
19.5
15.3
35.2
15.9
15.0
June
Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U)1
All item s..........................................................
Food and beverages .............................
Housing . . . . ' . ......................................
Apparel and upkeep...............................
Transportation........................................
Medical c a r e ..........................................
Entertainment ........................................
Other goods and services......................
23.4
6.7
6.4
5.3
2 0 .6
Food.......................................................
Commodities less fo o d ...........................
Services .................................................
6.4
15.6
13.2
6.5
16.4
14.3
Energy ...................................................
Fuel oil, coal and bottled g a s .........
Gas and electricity ........................
Gasoline, motor oil, coolants, etc.2 .
All items less energy .............................
All items less food and energy2 ...........
59.2
76.3
28.7
83.2
9.0
49.9
93.9
16.6
62.2
10.1
10.9
7.9
75.2
-9.2
14.2
8.5
17.2
6.4
15.1
1.0
10.7
7.7
12 .2
1 2 .0
5.3
5.1
12.1
1 0 .6
3.8
1 1 .6
5.8
2 0 .6
.5
2.5
7.3
8.4
8.9
5.6
4.7
12.7
15.8
20.9
2 1 .6
19.2
24.9
64.8
65.4
8.1
1 .0
2 1 .0
28.3
13.5
13.9
105.2
12.9
15.7
16.1
106.2
15.3
16.4
7.6
23.4
13.3
45.7
18.9
109.2
- 1.2
25.7
15.2
34.2
6.3
17.1
-7 .8
7.9
9.4
9.1
5.9
11.5
17.4
12.7
8.3
11.7
14.7
52.8
19.7
71.1
24.8
16.0
37.1
1.2
21.9
62.2
-1.7
5.5
6.4
13.9
15.4
19.4
17.0
23.1
5.2
1 1 .0
13.4
13.9
17.2
5.1
6.3
35.4
-4 .5
23.1
7.6
2 0 .0
14.9
32.5
5.7
27.8
-1.3
30.4
-16.7
21.4
10 .6
22.1
3.9
39.8
-5 .7
12.3
13.5
Producer Price Index (PPI)
by stage of processing1
Finished g o o d s ...............................................
Finished energy g o o d s ..........................
Consumer foods ...................................
Finished goods less food ......................
Finished goods less food and energy . . .
Finished consumer goods less food . . . .
Finished consumer goods less food and
energy.................................................
Capital equipment .................................
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components ..............................................
Intermediate energy g o o d s ....................
Intermediate foods and feeds ...............
Intermediate materials less foods and
feeds...................................................
Intermediate materials less food and
energy .................................................
Crude materials for further processing .........
Crude energy materials2 ......................
Crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs ...........
Crude nonfood materials ......................
Crude nonfood materials less energy . .
2 .8
50.7
16.4
25.1
-7.1
8 .6
15.0
1 1 .0
17.9
1 0 .0
20.1
6.6
1 1 .0
9.9
1 0 .6
-7 .2
2 0 .6
-10.5
-3 .5
-37.5
1 See “ Definitions” and "Notes’1 preceding tables 22-30 Current Labor Statistics in this
Review.
2 Not seasonally adjusted.
NOTE: Monthly data for Producer Price Indexes have been revised through February
1980 to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. For this rea
son, some of the figures shown above and elsewhere in this report differ from those
previously published.
quarter reflected, among other things, the completion of
most of the direct and indirect pass-through of the lat
est round of steep crude oil price boosts and of the im
pact of the recession. The National Bureau of Economic
Research designated January 1980 as the beginning of
the business cycle downturn. The recession first affected
the residential construction and automobile markets and
then spread through much of the rest of the economy.
The collapse of a speculative boom in prices of a broad
variety of basic materials, particularly precious metals
and other nonferrous metals, also contributed to the
general easing of inflation.
Energy
The rate of increase for energy prices slowed in the
second quarter. (See table 2.) Substantially weakened
demand worldwide for petroleum resulted in inventories
that were more abundant than at any time since 1978.
The crude petroleum market calmed in the early
months of 1980, and prices set by the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries temporarily stabilized.
In late 1979, panic buying of crude oil again broke
out among the oil-consuming nations, partly as a result
of fears concerning the security of oil supplies during
the crises in Iran and Afghanistan. This enabled some
OPEC members to put through another round of price
hikes. Saudi Arabia raised its benchmark oil price in
December and again in January in an effort to achieve a
unified price structure for OPEC. However, this action
Table 2.
o n ly led to further increases by oth er OPEC m em bers.
Between February and May, on the other hand, con
tract prices for OPEC crude oil changed very little as a
consequence of slack demand associated with a reces
sionary trend in many Western Nations. During this
time, the volume of spot market transactions fell, and
spot prices for crude oil dropped from an average of
about $40 per barrel in December to $32 in June. At
the end of the second quarter official OPEC contract
prices ranged between $28 for Saudi light crude to $37
for top quality African crudes.
Stocks of crude petroleum in the United States were
increased to record levels during the second quarter, re
flecting the reduction in both output and consumption
of refined products. Primary stocks1of refined petroleum
products were substantially above those of a year ago,
as demand fell in response to the sharp price increases
registered during 1979 and early 1980, and declining
economic activity. Lower demand and slower rises in
crude oil prices led to more moderate price increases by
petroleum refiners.
In the second quarter, price increases slowed dramati
cally for most energy items sold to consumers. Retail
energy prices rose at an 8.1-percent rate, after climbing
at a 64.8-percent rate in the first quarter and advancing
37.4 percent during 1979. Producer prices for finished
energy goods also slowed, from a 109.2-percent annual
rate of increase during the first quarter to a 17.1-percent
rate in the second; these prices had advanced more than
Changes in retail and producer prices for energy-related items, 1979 -80
Index
Compound annual rate, seasonally adjusted except
as noted, for 3 months ended —
Relative
importance
December
1979
1979
1980
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
59.2
75.2
83.2
84.5
61.7
38.1
88.5
109.4
23.7
24.9
49.9
106.2
62.2
63.1
89.4
31.7
99.7
141.5
22.5
9.7
19.2
45.7
28.3
29.1
58.7
7.0
64.8
109.2
105.2
105.7
136.6
31.5
68.4
78.7
14.3
20.3
171
57
- 6 .2
14 7
28.9
3.7
17.6
29.3
39.4
52.8
115.8
107.6
109.8
75.9
15.9
71.1
157.0
157.5
Finished items
Energy items, (gas, electricity, fuel oil, coal, gasoline, motor o i l) .........
Finished energy goods ........................
Gasoline, motor oil, coolants, etc.....................
Gasoline1 ............................................
Household fuels .................................
Fuel oil 1 ......................................
Gas (piped)2 .......................................................
Electricity.......................................................
CPI
PPI
CPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
CPI
1 0 0 .0
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
1 0 0 .0
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
55.3
54.5
64.1
44.7
10.3
24.0
13.4
19.5
2 2 .2
2 2 .0
20.4
2.3
8 1
Intermediate materials
Intermediate energy goods ......................
Diesel fuel ........................................
Commercial jet fuel12 .................................
Residual fuel1 ...................................
Liquefied petroleum gas 2 .............................
Electric power3 ............................................
10.3
8.4
14.6
7.1
35.7
204.4
14.8
37.1
26.1
60.6
23.2
95.7
24.7
50.7
45.5
96.7
32.5
27.4
54.8
2.1
6 .8
1 1 1 .2
62.2
8 6 .8
97.6
71.8
75.1
20.1
6.4
109
24 9
39 9
19
15.7
Crude materials
Crude energy materials2 ..............................................
Natural gas 1 2 ............................................
Crude petroleum2 ..............................................
C o a i.....................................................
1 Prices for these items are
2 Not seasonally adjusted.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
lagged 1 month in the PPL
35.4
43.7
46.0
-1 .2
43.9
38.1
17.8
3
30.4
25.4
52.1
6.4
2 0 .6
26.2
2 1 .6
-1 .9
Includes commercial and industrial power, but not residential Dower.
35
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Anatomy o f Price Change
60 percent in 1979. Retail gasoline prices turned down
slightly for the first time in two years, responding to
sagging demand. These prices had risen 68.1 percent
during the year ended March 1980, as consumption de
clined about 8 percent.2 In contrast to the retail price
drop, prices received by gasoline refiners continued to
rise, although at a much slower pace than in the previ
ous year and a half. Prices for home heating oil contin
ued to rise in the second quarter at both the retail and
producer levels, but at a substantially slower rate than
in the first quarter. Primary stocks of middle distillates
(fuel oil and diesel fuel) were more than 50 percent
above the level of a year earlier, when these products
were in short supply. At the urging of the Carter Ad
ministration, oil companies had increased their stocks of
fuel oil during the summer and fall of 1979. However,
because the winter weather was milder than in recent
years in most parts of the country, demand was lighter
than expected.
In contrast to moderating petroleum prices, retail
prices for piped gas rose considerably more than in the
first quarter, as higher prices for imported and domestic
natural gas were passed on to the consumer. Most of
the increase in the CPI for piped gas was accounted for
by cities in the Western region. Household electricity
rates also increased more than in the first quarter be
cause of earlier price increases for power-generating
fuels.
Producer prices for intermediate energy goods (those
sold to business establishments) increased at a 6.4-percent annual rate, far less than the 62.2-percent rate of
the previous quarter. Residual fuel prices fell sharply,
after advancing 62.8 percent during 1979, and continu
ing this upward trend in the first quarter of 1980. The
decrease was due to plentiful supplies and the substitu
tion of other fuels by some industrial users. Demand
was further weakened by the recession-induced drop in
production levels in certain industries. The rate of in
crease in prices for diesel fuel and commercial jet fuel
slowed considerably.
Liquefied petroleum gas prices were virtually un
changed following very rapid advances during 1979 and
early 1980; demand for butane by gasoline refiners and
for propane and ethane by petrochemical producers had
been strong but weakened when the recession began.
Electric power rates for industrial and commercial
consumers rose at a 15.7-percent rate in the second
quarter, somewhat faster than during 1979, but not as
fast as in the first quarter. Fuel cost adjustments
accounted for part of the increase, and some utilities in
curred extra investment costs by switching from petro
leum fuels to coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.
Prices for crude energy materials increased much less
than in any of the preceding four quarters. The crude
petroleum index (which only includes domestic produc
36
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion) slowed to a 21.6-percent rate, following a 61.3percent advance in the 12 months ended in March. The
deceleration was partly due to the fact that prices for
the 24-percent share of U.S. crude oil production which
was not controlled changed very little during the
spring, reflecting the flat prices on the world market.
Natural gas prices continued to rise rapidly, primarily
because of sharp advances in prices for natural gas
imported from Canada.
Finished goods except foods and energy
Consumer goods. In the CPI, prices for commodities ex
cept food and energy advanced at a seasonally adjusted
annual rate of 7.3 percent, less than the rate posted in
the first quarter and somewhat below the 8.8-percent
rise for 1979. (See table 3.) At the producer level, the
slowdown was more pronounced. The PPI for finished
consumer goods less foods and energy rose at an
8.3-percent rate after rising at a 17.4-percent rate in the
first quarter and 9.6 percent in 1979. The slowdown re
sulted partly from a decline in economic activity which
began in January.
Home purchase prices increased at a 14.9-percent an
nual rate from March to June, much faster than in the
first quarter but not as fast as in 1979. (The CPI for
home purchase is derived from Federal Housing Ad
ministration data.) When home purchases are excluded,
the CPI for commodities except food and energy in
creased at an annual rate of 4.5-percent, compared with
an 11.1-percent rate in the first quarter, and a rise of
6.0 percent in 1979.
Jewelry prices moved up at a much slower pace at
both the retail and manufacturing levels. Prices for pre
cious metals, which had soared at the beginning of the
year, declined significantly and then rebounded some
what in June.
Used car prices fell for the second consecutive quar
ter, as dealers lowered prices on the larger, less fuel
efficient models in the face of rapidly rising gasoline
prices. Price increases for new cars continued to rise, in
spite of a major sales slump; rebates for some models
were more than offset by price advances resulting from
earlier cost increases, particularly among metals. In ad
dition, price increases for imports reflected strong con
sumer demand for smaller models. Prices for tires rose
much less than in the first quarter, a result of the re
duced demand for autos.
Among the capital goods increasing steeply early in
the quarter but more slowly afterwards were motor
trucks, construction machinery, machine tools, plastic
and rubber industry machinery, oilfield machinery, and
aircraft. Demand for most kinds of capital goods other
than motor vehicles remained strong during the second
quarter, and most producers were able to continue to
pass through higher costs for metals and other inputs.
However, after advancing at a rate of nearly 15 percent
in the preceding quarter, commercial furniture prices
rose only one-third as rapidly from March to June.
but faster than during 1979. On the other hand, prop
erty taxes turned down. Charges for home maintenance
and repair moved up at a much slower rate than in any
of the previous 4 quarters.
Prices for transportation services rose at a higher rate
than in the preceding quarter. Because of jet fuel costs,
airline fares continued to increase sharply, although not
as much as during the second half of 1979. The large
advances for intercity train fares and taxi fares also
were due to fuel costs. Automobile finance charge in
creases reflected earlier rises in market interest rates.
The rate of increase slowed for the other service cate
gories. Medical care services rose at a rate much less
than in the 3 preceding quarters; this slowdown was ev
ident in both professional and hospital related services.
Similarly, the indexes for entertainment and personal
care services registered much smaller advances than in
the first quarter.
Services less energy
The CPI for services other than energy rose at a
20-percent annual rate, nearly as much as in the first
quarter, and considerably more than the 13.6-percent
advance in 1979. (See table 4.) Much of the second
quarter increase occurred because of sharp advances in
the contracted mortgage interest cost index, which re
flected interest rate hikes that occurred earlier in the
year. Transportation service charges continued to move
up rapidly, but charges for most other services rose
considerably less than in the previous quarter.
The index for mortgage interest rates advanced at an
annual rate of about 40 percent for the second consecu
tive quarter, after rising 16.1 percent in 1979. The sharp
boost during the spring reflected the credit-tightening
actions by the Federal Reserve Board in the previous
quarter. Conventional mortgage interest rates are repre
sented in the CPI by actual contract mortgage loan
transactions and not by current commitment rates for
future mortgages. Property insurance premiums, which
reflect both insurance rate changes and changes in the
insured values of constant quality housing, rose at a
16.7-percent rate, about as much as in the first quarter,
Table 3.
Foods and related products
Consumer prices for foods rose at a 5.6-percent annu
al rate from March to June, more than the 3.8-percent
rate in the first quarter, but considerably less than the
12.1-percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 1979.
Retail food increases in the second quarter were greatly
influenced by advances in distribution costs, which re
sulted in large part from earlier rises in energy prices.
Changes in retail and producer prices for consumer goods other than food and energy, 1979-80
Commodity
Commodities less food and energy1 ............................................
Apparel, excluding footwear2 .......................................................
Footwear.........................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings2 ..............................................................
Soap and detergents3 ..................................................................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins3 4 .............
Tires5 6 ....................................................................................
Furniture2 .......................................................................................
Appliances, including radio and T V .................................................
New c a rs .........................................................................................
Sporting goods and equipment5 ...................................................
Tobacco products2 .........................................................................
Gold jewelry 7 ..................................................................................
Home purchase8 ...........................................................................
Usea cars“ ....................................................................................
Index
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
CPI
1979
1 0 0 .0
1 0 0 .0
'Commodities less food and energy account for 34.5 percent of the CPI-U and 51.7
percent of the PPI for finished consumer goods.
2 Not seasonally adjusted in the PPI.
3 Not seasonally adjusted in the CPI or the PPI.
4“ Sanitary papers and health products" in the PPI.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Compound annual rate, seasonally adjusted except
as noted, for 3 months ended —
Relative
importance
December
1979
10.9
13.8
1.9
3.0
1.5
2.1
.9
1.7
.7
2.7
1.3
1.9
3.5
4.3
4.4
6.3
9.6
15.4
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
7.5
7.9
-2.3
4.4
11.9
22.7
8.7
7.0
8.3
9.1
7.3
4.8
7.7
10.4
11.5
3.0
2.5
9.2
4.3
7.8
7.3
8.3
-2 .4
8.1
9.7
17.4
16.3
13.9
7.4
3.7
18.3
5.6
1 1 .8
2 1 .2
- .2
4.7
5.7
4.2
8 .8
11.7
4.4
7.5
2.4
1.2
2.9
30.1
7.5
.5
8.7
9.7
22.4
- 1.0
21.7
7.8
24.6
4.4
8 .0
1.8
2.5
7.1
10 .2
1.8
10.5
8.3
1.3
.7
5.2
37.7
16.3
-2.5
1.8
12.1
11.3
2 .8
1.3
3.1
3.9
1980
June
7.5
19.7
1 0 .0
14.7
16.4
62.2
17.1
-4.9
8.4
14.9
8 .6
18.3
17.3
9.3
11.7
3.9
5.0
0
7.5
3.3
4.5
2.5
8.7
28.6
147.8
18.8
10.5
8 .6
3.5
0
7.3
5.9
4.9
3.1
19.0
12.5
11 .6
11 .8
31.0
16.9
20.9
17.0
1 0 .8
9.6
6 .0
10.3
4.1
6.1
3.8
7.6
12.3
8.5
19.1
16.2
13.8
19.9
60.7
155.2
7.0
-2.5
1 0 .0
10.5
11.4
4.9
1 0 .0
10.5
14.2
1 0 .8
9.6
14.9
-16.8
5Not seasonally adjusted in the CPI.
and tubes” in the PPI
7 “ jewelry and luggage” in the CPI; not seasonally adjusted In the CPI or the PPI.
a n 0( included in the PPI.
6 “ Tires
37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Anatomy o f Price Change
At the primary market level, processor prices for foods
fell even more sharply (7.8-percent annual rate) than in
the first quarter (1.2-percent annual rate). In both the
CPI and p p i , prices for meats fell sharply, while prices
for sugar and sweets continued to soar. (See table 5.)
Prices for beef and veal, pork, and poultry declined
substantially at both the retail and processor levels re
flecting abundant supplies for pork, increased poultry
production, and competitive price reductions for beef
and veal. At the farm level, prices for cattle, hogs, and
live poultry fell at an annual rate of more than 30 per
cent, the second consecutive quarterly decline. Heavy
hog slaughter resulted in lower prices for both hogs and
cattle. Live poultry prices fell primarily in response to
more than ample broiler and fryer supplies.
Abundant supplies of soybeans caused prices to de
cline in world markets. As a result, the index for fats
and oils moved down, led by lower prices for margarine
and shortening. The index for grains declined for the
second consecutive quarter, mostly as a result of lower
prices for wheat. Favorable growing conditions in areas
producing winter wheat raised expectations for an excel
lent harvest. On the other hand, corn prices averaged
higher over the quarter, as extremely dry weather in
growing areas resulted in concern about a smaller har
vest due to planting delays and inadequate moisture.
Retail prices for sugar and sweets rose at an annual
rate of more than 40 percent for the second consecutive
quarter, after rising 7.4 percent in 1979. Producer prices
for refined sugar for consumers soared nearly as much
as in the first quarter; in June, prices were double the
year-ago level. Raw sugar prices rose from 18 to 29
cents per pound from December to June. The pattern of
price movement in the first and second quarters was
Table 4.
Changes in consumer service prices, 1979-80
Item
Services .................................
Services less energy ...........................
Rent, residential ...................................
Household less rent ' ..........................
Home financing, taxes, and Insurance .
Mortgage interest ra te s........................
Home maintenance and repairs...........
Gas (piped) and electricity....................
Housekeeping services........................
Transportation services........................
Auto maintenance and repairs.............
Other private transportation services ..
Public transportation.............................
Medical care services..........................
Entertainment services ........................
Personal care services2 ......................
Apparel services2 .................................
Personal and educational services . . . .
1 1ncludes
2 Not
38
items not listed.
seasonally adjusted.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Relative
impor
tance
Decernb e r1979
1 0 0 .0
91.7
12.9
53.0
26.6
6 .8
8.3
4.9
13.9
3.6
7.7
Compound annual rate, seasonally
adjusted except as noted,
for 3 months ended —
1979
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
13.2
11.7
14.3
14.2
20.9
2 1 .6
2 0 .0
1 0.2
15.8
17.1
9.0
2 1 .0
8 .2
17.7
17.3
25.3
2 2 .0
11.5
11.5
28.7
8.7
10.1
11.3
1 1.2
1 2.2
38.1
24.2
1 1.8
2 0 .0
1.0
2 1 .0
7.6
12.7
9.5
8 .8
8 .6
16.3
18.5
11.9
21.3
18.6
6.4
9.2
7.4
14.3
7.9
2 1 .2
39.5
11 .2
12 .6
5.0
9.0
1.9
7.2
12.7
5.2
2 .2
1.6
10 .0
1 1 .0
2.9
7.5
17.7
9.8
3.7
June
8.3
28.5
43.9
42.8
9.7
16.6
9.0
12.7
9.6
10.5
25.2
5.3
6.7
9.0
8.5
2 .6
1980
June
6 .2
1 1 .0
18.7
17.3
16.9
12.9
11.3
18.3
9.8
1 0 .0
30.8
44.5
39.2
6.7
39.8
similar; unusually sharp increases in February and May
were followed by downward adjustments, as speculative
purchases contributed to price instability.
Intermediate materials less foods and energy
The index for intermediate materials less foods and
energy slowed to a 5.1-percent annual rate in the sec
ond quarter, after accelerating to a 17.2-percent rate
from December to March. The first quarter advance
was the largest since the third quarter of 1974, while
the second quarter rise was the smallest since the final
quarter of 1977. This dramatic slowdown was principal
ly the result of the sharp drop in precious metals prices,
as well as the steep decline in business activity in early
spring. In response to low sales levels and high interest
costs, manufacturers tried to reduce their stocks of ma
terials and supplies in the second quarter; this led to
weaker demand for many items whose prices had risen
sharply earlier in the year.
One factor which tended to magnify inflation in the
first quarter was widespread commodity speculation,
particularly among precious metals. Extremely sharp in
creases in January brought gold prices to a level more
than triple that of January 1979, while silver prices
were more than seven times what they were a year prior
to then. Partly because of tightened credit markets, gold
prices fell about 30 percent over the next 3 months, and
prices for silver plummeted about 70 percent through
May. Gold and silver prices then rebounded somewhat
in June. If the categories for precious metals and photo
graphic film (which contains substantial proportions of
silver) were removed from the index for intermediate
materials less foods and energy, the first and second
quarter annual rates of increase would have been 13.8
percent and 7.2 percent.
The sharp declines in precious metals prices contrib
uted to the downturn in the durable manufacturing ma
terials category, which fell at a 4.4-percent annual rate,
after increasing at a 16.1-percent rate in the first quarter
and moving up 16.8 percent in 1979. In addition, prices
were lower for several other primary nonferrous metals.
Copper prices fell because of weakened industrial, con
struction, and speculative demand and lead prices con
tinued to drop, as production of automobile batteries
remained at low levels. In contrast, the index for prima
ry aluminum rose sharply despite weaker domestic de
mand. The increase reflected higher energy costs, which
have a larger impact on aluminum prices than on prices
of other metals. Prices for finished steel mill products
were raised an average of 3 percent in April, with the
largest increases for flat rolled sheet and strip. The in
crease was attributed to higher labor and energy costs,
but there was some discounting by the end of June, in
response to slack demand from the automotive industry
and others.
Table 5.
Changes in retail and producer prices for consumer foods, 1979-80
Commodity
Consumer foods1 ...........................................................................
Beef and veal2 ................................................................................
P o rk ..................................................................................................
Poultry .............................................................................................
Cereal and bakery products............................................................
Dairy products..................................................................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables
............................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables.....................................................
E ggs..................................................................................................
Sugar and sweets3' 4 .......................................................................
Coffee, ro asted................................................................................
Fats and oil products5 .....................................................................
Index
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
Relative
importance
December
1979
100.0
100.0
10.3
14.6
4.7
6.7
2.2
3.3
8.6
12.7
9.3
15.1
5.0
3.8
4.6
6.7
1.3
1Includes Items not listed. The CPI Includes prices of food away from home, which account
for about 31 percent of the food index. The PPI for finished consumer foods does not reflect
restaurant prices.
2Not seasonally adjusted in the CPI.
Hardwood lumber prices declined even more than in
the first quarter, reflecting weakened demand for house
hold furniture. The indexes for plastic components and
laminated plastic film registered very little change after
advancing sharply in the previous quarter. The reces
sion restricted the ability of plastic producers to contin
ue passing through petrochemical feedstock price hikes.
The construction materials index slowed to a 3.8percent annual rate of increase, the smallest quarterly
advance in more than 3 years. The annual rate of pri
vate housing starts was about 1 million units in the sec
ond quarter, less than half the average rate during 1978.
Softwood lumber prices fell sharply for the third con
secutive quarter, and millwork prices turned down after
rising in the first quarter. However, plywood prices
turned up sharply in May and June as producers cut
their output levels in response to the 13.2-percent de
cline in prices in the 12 months ending in April. The
slowdown in housing construction also led to sharp de
clines in prices for copper wire and cable, gypsum prod
ucts, and clay tile. In addition, price increases slowed
for several other items such as heating equipment and
brass fittings.
The nondurable manufacturing materials index rose
at a 13.4-percent annual rate, somewhat less than in
any of the five previous quarters. The surge in crude oil
prices in early 1980 led to substantial increases in April
in the indexes for industrial chemicals, plastic resins and
materials, and synthetic rubber. However, decreased de
mand resulted in moderating prices by June. Among
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.1
2.4
4.2
1.0
4.4
2.0
1.9
Compound annual rate, seasonally adjusted
except as noted, for 3 months ended
1979
June
Sept.
6.4
-9.2
25.6
-20.9
-26.3
-48.2
-14.6
-48.5
8.3
21.4
9.2
6.5
15.3
-17.7
32.0
-23.5
1.4
-21.6
-5 .0
15.1
11.8
4.8
-12.0
9.2
4.2
19.7
7.4
8.0
5.3
-1.1
22.7
5.1
6.8
22.8
12.2
15.2
31.8
-7.3
10.1
5.1
-35.7
-38.8
6.8
12.1
126.2
96.9
9.0
14.3
1980
Dec.
12.1
8.6
13.2
7.9
14.8
4.4
27.5
100.6
11.1
3.3
7.4
-.2
-.2
15.0
-1.7
-8.6
12.8
10.3
3.7
35.6
14.6
21.0
4.2
9.8
Mar.
June
3.8
-1.2
10.9
-4.3
-12.4
-21.1
-3 .9
-49.0
5.6
-7.8
-7 .6
-22.9
-23.3
-35.7
-15.2
-25.5
15.8
8.4
9.7
-28.2
-21.5
9.0
7.3
-21.8
- .5
47.2
59.9
-2.8
-17.8
13.2
1.9
14.5
17.5
38.1
35.0
11.7
7.7
22.7
-18.6
41.6
130.2
-4.7
-7.1
-1.5
-8.4
12.6
12.8
11.0
3“ Sugar and confectionery” in the PPL
4 Not seasonally adjusted in the PPL
5“ Vegetable oil end products” in the PPL
textile products, synthetic fibers prices continued to
move up about as much as in the first quarter, mainly
because of higher petrochemical feedstock costs. Price
increases slowed, however, for processed yarns and
threads and finished fabrics, as apparel manufacturers
reduced their orders in response to the recession.
Woodpulp prices rose sharply in April, largely be
cause the decreased output of lumber curtailed supplies
of wood chips. Higher woodpulp prices, in turn, con
tributed to accelerating price increases for paper and
paperboard. Prices continued to decline for leather and
inedible fats and oils, as world supplies exceeded de
mand.
The manufacturing components index moved up only
half as much as in the previous quarter. Weakened in
dustrial demand was the primary factor behind the
slowing rates in the indexes for electronic components
and accessories, internal combustion engines, motor ve
hicle parts, electric motors, and switchgear and switch
boards.
Price moderation was also evident in other inter
mediate products. Wooden pallet prices turned down at
the beginning of 1980 and continued to decrease through
June because of weaker demand, which reflected the low
er levels of manufacturers’ shipments. Photographic sup
ply prices fell after climbing steeply in February, in
response to similar fluctuations in prices for silver, which
is heavily used in making camera film. Price increases for
mixed fertilizers slowed significantly, following rapid ad
vances during the first quarter of 1980 and much of
39
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Anatomy o f Price Change
of 1979. Fertilizer demand was slow because of poor
prospects for crop earnings and high interest costs.
Crude nonfood materials less energy
The index for crude nonfood materials less energy
turned down sharply at a 37.5-percent annual rate fol
lowing an increase at a 6.6-percent rate in the first quar
ter of 1980. From December 1978 to December 1979,
this index rose 13.1 percent. Prices for ferrous scrap fell
at an even sharper rate in the second quarter (64.1 per
cent) than in the first (21.2 percent). Domestic produc
tion of steel was far below the levels experienced in
1979; foreign demand for ferrous scrap was also low.
Prices for aluminum base scrap declined at a 90.4-per
cent annual rate after skyrocketing in the previous 2
quarters. The index for copper base scrap registered de
clines over both the first and second quarters; prices fell
sharply in March and April in response to a weakening
world market.
Prices for hides and skins and cotton declined as a
result of weak export and domestic demand. Prices for
wastepaper declined because of poor demand from pa
perboard mills and the building materials industry. N at
ural rubber prices turned down as speculators liqui
dated holdings because of reduced demand from tire
manufacturers and other industrial users. In contrast,
higher prices were registered for iron ore, in response to
increased labor costs, and for sand and gravel, because
of higher energy costs.
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' “Primary stocks” refer to petroleum products stored at the refin
ery or at bulk terminals, and exclude inventories of retailers, jobbers,
etc.
2
American Petroleum Institute figures show a decrease in gasoline
deliveries from primary storage of about 8 percent from April 1979 to
April 1980.
new indexes were computed by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, using new expenditure weights derived from
1972-73 Consumer Expenditure Survey data for Wash
ington, D.C. The new weights are being used to com
pute all indexes based on retail price surveys conducted
after July 1979.
The higher index of living costs for Americans in Ma
drid reflects the depreciation of the U.S. dollar relative
to the peseta, and the lower index for Canberra reflects
a small improvement in the exchange rate value of the
U.S. dollar versus the Australian dollar. For Americans
in Ottawa and Caracas, the exchange rates were essen
tially unchanged, but the new surveys showed average
prices paid in national currency were up by 2 percent in
Ottawa, but were 2 percent less in Caracas, compared
with prices in Washington, D.C.
Because exchange rates are subject to sudden shifts, it
is advisable to check the prevailing rates whenever using
the indexes of living costs abroad.
The indexes for all 162 reporting cities are published
in quarterly reports entitled U.S. Department o f State
Indexes o f Living Costs Abroad and Quarters Allowances.
The entire list is published in April of each year. The
reports are available upon on request from the Office of
Publications, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The methods of compilation and use of the indexes
are described in U.S. Department o f State Indexes o f
Living Costs Abroad and Quarters Allowances: A Techni
cal Description (BLS Report 568, April 1980), also
available from the Office of Publications, Bureau of La
bor Statistics.
□
Table 1. Indexes of living costs abroad, excluding
housing and education, May 1980
[Washington, D.C.=100]
Survey
date
Monetary
unit
Rate of
exchange
per
US $1
Argentina: Buenos Aires ..................
Australia: Canberra...........................
Belgium: Brussels.............................
Brazil: Sao Paulo .............................
Canada: O tta w a ...............................
Oct. 1979
Dec. 1979
Mar. 1979
Apr. 1979
Nov. 1979
Peso
Dollar
Franc
Cruzeiro
Dollar
1483
0.8917
30.0
23.0
1.18
142
118
158
115
France: Paris ...................................
Germany: Frankfurt..........................
Hong Kong: Hong K ong....................
India: New Delhi ...............................
Italy: Rom e........................................
Mar. 1979
Mar. 1979
May 1979
July 1979
Oct. 1978
Franc
Mark
Dollar
Rupee
Lira
4.32
1.87
5.08
166
164
Japan: Tokyo ...................................
Mexico: Mexico, D.F ........................
Netherlands: The Hague ..................
Philippines: Manila.............................
South Africa: Johannesburg.............
Mar. 1979
Feb. 1977
Feb. 1979
Jan. 1979
Dec. 1977
Yen
Peso
Guilder
Peso
Rand
212
22.0
Spain: M adrid...................................
Sweden: Stockholm ........................
Switzerland: G eneva........................
United Kingdom: London ..................
Venezuela: Caracas ........................
Dec. 1979
June 1979
May 1979
July 1979
Oct. 1979
Peseta
Krona
Franc
Pound
Bolivar
Country and city
Cost-of-living indexes
fo r Americans living abroad
The U.S. Department of State has prepared new indexes
of living costs abroad for Americans in Canberra, O tta
wa, Madrid, and Caracas. The new indexes are 3 per
cent higher for Madrid, 1 percent higher for Ottawa,
and about 2 percent lower for Canberra and Caracas
than previous indexes. (See table 1.) The periods be
tween survey dates were 8 months for Canberra and
about 1 year for the other cities.
The new indexes reflect changes in the exchange rates
used to calculate the indexes, as well as changes in the
prices of goods and services (excluding housing and
children’s education) between survey dates. Also, the
40
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
SOURCE:
U.S. Department of State, Allowances Staff.
8.11
840
2.06
7.38
0.8697
66.0
4.24
1.65
0.4757
4.28
Local
index
100
112
93
114
183
78
154
89
91
124
173
184
130
137
(P
Conventions
Auto W orkers seek Government aid
fo r laid-off workers, ailing industry
L a r r y T. A
dam s
Amid the most severe downturn in automobile produc
tion since 1963, the United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America ( u a w Ind.) held its 26th constitutional convention in Ana
heim, Calif. In his keynote speech, President Douglas
Fraser reminded the 3,000 delegates that 235,000 auto
workers were on layoff, foreign auto and truck imports
were taking an ever increasing share of a shrinking U.S.
domestic market and, summing up the outlook for the
industry, that “if you see a light at the end of the tun
nel, it is probably an oncoming freight train.”
The triennial convention was held June 1 -6 during a
sharp slump in automobile demand. For the most part
the problems in the industry are due to the recession
and high interest rates and the related encroachment of
imports into the U.S. domestic market. With the high
cost of gasoline, as well as concern about its continued
availability, demand for autos has shifted from large
and mid-size cars to more efficient compact and sub
compact models. Foreign carmakers have captured a
growing share of the market; imports rose from 18 per
cent of auto sales in 1978 to 28 percent in early 1980. A
similar trend has occurred in the U.S. truck market with
foreign models accounting for 9 percent of sales in
1978, 15 percent in 1979 and 23 percent in early 1980.1
As the U.S. car and truck makers close plants, some
permanently and others for retooling to manufacture
smaller, more efficient vehicles, record numbers of auto
workers have been placed on temporary or permanent
layoff. Nearly 325,000 are now on layoff, with more fur
loughs anticipated in the future, in contrast to the
downturn experienced during 1973-75 when 213,000
UAW members were out of work.2
Government help sought
Historically, the UAW has pursued the goals of eco
nomic security for its members through creative collecLarry T. Adams is an economist in the Division of Industrial Rela
tions, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tive bargaining strategies. However, faced with a
deepening nationwide recession and severe competition
from imports, the union is now turning to the govern
ment for measures which will secure the long-term sur
vival of the industry.
Trade barriers. In a dramatic break with the UAW’s free
trade position, the delegates were told that the union
has begun legal steps to secure temporary import pro
tection until U.S. automakers increase small car capaci
ty to obtain a competitive marketing position.
Claiming that “Japanese auto manufacturers— espe
cially Toyota and Nissan— are unfairly exploiting the
U.S. companies’ past neglect of small car production,”
the UAW has filed for import relief under the Trade Act
of 1974.3 As domestic automakers move toward a mix
of vehicles consistent with current market demand, the
Auto Workers seek temporary trade barriers to protect
the shrinking U.S. share of the domestic auto market.
Confronted with forecasts that 60 percent of auto sales
by 1985 will be foreign made vehicles, Fraser noted that
“as penetration increases you’re going to find it more
difficult to turn back that penetration and get your
market back. And there is a very simple reason for that.
When the American consumer goes into the market and
buys a big ticket item, like an automobile, and that au
tomobile is well designed, a quality product on which
they get good service and durability— when they go
back in the market three or four or five years after that
first purchase, they’re apt to buy the same product.”
The petition requests relief from import competition
by all countries, except Canada, for 5 years (to be
phased down after 3 years). The UAW asked the Inter
national Trade Commission to recommend to the Presi
dent (1) that the duty on new passenger vehicles be
increased from 2.9 percent to 20 percent; (2) that quo
tas be imposed on imports based on 1975 or 1976 im
port levels; and (3) that imports assembled principally
from U.S. or Canadian labor, components, or material
be excluded from the tariffs and quotas.
Assistance to workers on layoff. The delegates adopted a
number of resolutions aimed at maximizing the econom
ic assistance available to workers on layoff. The main
stay of the Auto Workers economic aid package is the
Supplemental Unemployment Benefits Plan ( s u b ), pio41
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Conventions
neered by the UAW in 1955. Under this program, partic
ipating employers contribute a specified amount per
hour worked to the SUB fund. The benefits disbursed
from the fund, when added to the unemployment com
pensation or other transfer payment due the worker,
provide compensation equal to a specified percent of the
employees’ pre-layoff earnings. However, during pro
longed periods of high unemployment in the auto indus
try funds have been depleted, with workers furloughed
late in the layoff period receiving little or no compensa
tion from the fund. Any increase in transfer payments
(unemployment insurance benefits, Federal-State extend
ed unemployment benefits and Trade Readjustment As
sistance benefits) to affected workers increases the fund’s
ability to assist a greater number of workers over a
longer period of time.
$168 million in assistance was paid to 94,300 UAW
members. Since October 1, of last year, $150 million
has been paid to 50,000 workers on layoff from
Chrysler and 200,000 more auto industry workers have
been certified as eligible to receive benefits.
The delegates lauded the Trade Readjustment Assis
tance as a great help in adjusting to the economic dislo
cations currently rocking the industry, but many felt
that the act unfairly discriminates against many thou
sands of employees on layoff from independent parts
suppliers. Parts employees are deemed eligible for assis
tance only if the manufactured part is imported as a
separate item, not as a part of an assembled vehicle.
Under the present act, few, if any, of the parts workers
will receive benefits during the current downturn. A res
olution was passed to seek benefits for these workers.
Plant closings. While there was much concern about the
Unemployment insurance. The delegates called for the
thousands of workers on temporary layoff, the most fer
enactment of a single Federal unemployment insurance
vently
debated resolution dealt with a cause of perma
program to supplant State laws currently in force. The
nent job loss— plant closings. Although conceding the
proposal commits the UAW to seek an unemployment
inevitability of economic change in a free economy, the
insurance program that would insure payment equal to
resolution, detailing the personal and social costs of
at least two-thirds of the employee’s average weekly
economic dislocations, called for the passage of the N a
earnings; provide medical and hospital benefits for the
tional Employment Priorities Act now before Congress.
duration of the eligibility period; protect pension and
The pending legislation would require advance notice
social security credits; and increase the basic eligibility
of plant closings and investigatory hearings by the De
period to 52 weeks.
partment of Labor to determine the economic necessity
To provide additional economic assistance to laid-off
for the closing, the anticipated economic and social loss
workers and protect the solvency of the SUB funds, the
to the employees and the local government, and alterna
UAW and the AFL-CIO joined in filing suit against the
tives to mitigate the adverse impact of the plant closing.
U.S. Department of Labor on the issue of extended un
In addition to providing financial assistance to the
employment insurance payments authorized under the
employer to aid in averting a plant closing, the pro
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation
posed act would provide an affected employee with
Act 1970. This legislation provides an additional period
transfer rights, relocation expenses, income and fringe
of unemployment insurance eligibility when the national
benefit protection, job search assistance and special pro
rate of insured unemployment reaches 4.5 percent for a
tections for older workers. To aid the affected local
period of 13 weeks. At issue in the suit is the method of
communities, the act stipulates payment by the corpora
calculating the 4.5-percent trigger rate. During previous
tion to the local government to compensate for the loss
economic downturns, the trigger percentage was calcu
of tax revenue and a similar payment to the Federal
lated using both the number of currently eligible unem
Government if the plant closing involves moving opera
ployment insurance recipients as well as those having
exhausted their benefits. Under regulations now issued * tions out of the United States.
by the Department of Labor, only the currently insured
unemployed are used to calculate the trigger, thereby
Changes in leadership
,
forestalling or precluding extended Federal-State unem
Four officers who worked with Walter Reuther in
ployment benefits during the current recession.
shaping the UAW announced their retirement: Emil
Mazey, Pat Greathouse, Irving Bluestone, and Ken
Trade Act coverage. Extensive use has been made of the
Bannon. The turnover of leadership will be complete
benefits provided workers under the Trade Act of 1974.
with Fraser’s retirement in 1983, but the liberal and in
The Act provides that workers laid off substantially as
novative outlook of the union is not expected to change.
a result of imports are eligible for a Trade Read
President Fraser, three incumbent vice presidents and
justment Assistance allowance of up to 70 percent of
the four new international officers ran unopposed and
their average weekly earnings for up to 52 weeks (with
were elected by acclamation. Ray Majerus was elected
the SUB fund augmenting that amount up to a fixed per
to the office of secretary-treasurer. Owen Beiber, Don
centage). Between April of 1975 and September of 1979,
42
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ephlin, and Stephan Yokich were elected to replace the
three retiring vice-presidents.
In announcing the responsibilities of the four new of
ficers, Fraser cautioned against using the distribution of
duties for speculation on his successor. Ray Majerus
will handle negotiations with the American Motors
Corp. and the union’s aerospace employers; Yokich will
direct the agricultural implement department, a function
performed primarily by Greathouse before his retire
ment. Don Ephlin will succeed Ken Bannon as director
of the Ford Motor Corp. department; and Owen Bieber
will assume responsibility for the General Motors Corp.
department.
Other issues
Constitutional changes. In action to amend the constitu
tion, the delegates raised the salaries of the international
officers and changed the dues levy on members receiv
ing SUB payments from a fixed $5 per month to one
hours’ pay (before layoff) per month. The convention
also ratified an amendment diverting one-half of the in
terest earned on strike-fund investments to a special ac
count, under the control of the International Executive
Board, for organizing, education, and communication.
' U A W R e s o lu tio n s C o m m itte e R e p o r t N u m b e r 3, 26th Constitutional
Convention, 1980, p. 85.
2 See Clyde W. Farnsworth, “Carter Gets Car-Industry Aid Study,”
T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, July 3, 1980, p. D - l .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Presidential endorsement. Fraser stressed the need for
the UAW to play an active part in the upcoming nation
al elections. He further stated, however, that “the poli
tics of our nation are in disarray” and that “the
international executive board and the [delegates] . . . are
never of one mind” on the matter of a presidential en
dorsement. Therefore, the union will poll the delegates
at a later date to determine the will of the membership
prior to making an endorsement.
Codetermination. While Fraser has drawn criticism from
management, academicians and other union leaders for
his election to the board of directors of the Chrysler
Corp., similar feelings were not common among the del
egates. Fraser won a seat on Chrysler’s board as a con
cession for the union’s role in aiding the ailing auto
maker. He acknowledges that his dual role might pose a
conflict but considers it necessary for a voice to be
heard within the boardroom before irrevocable decisions
are made. He declared to the delegates and the share
holders of Chrysler that the principle which will guide
him in the role of board member “is that the workers of
this country, whether it [sic] be [at] Chrysler or Ford or
anyplace else are entitled to a voice in their own destiny
and their own future.”
□
3
A companion petition has been filed by the Coalition of Auto
Component and Supply Workers, an alliance of 11 auto industry
unions. (See p. 60, this issue.)
>
43
Special
Labor Force
Reports—Summaries
School and work among youth
during the 1970’s
A
nne
M cD
ougall
Young
The employment situation for 16-to-24-year-old youths
enrolled in school was about the same in October 1979
as a year earlier. Among out-of-school youths, unem
ployment had risen for the first time since the 1974-75
recession.
The number of youths not enrolled in school who
were in the labor force was about 200,000 higher in Oc
tober 1979 than in October 1978,1mostly because of an
increase in unemployment (table 1). Surprisingly, how
ever, this rise in unemployment did not occur among
the groups usually most susceptible to joblessness.
Rather than affecting school dropouts, the increased
burden fell primarily on high school graduates who had
not gone on to college; their unemployment rate rose
from 8.7 to 9.8 percent. Thus, while the proportion of
workers with some college education was increasing in
all occupational groups, the youths with no more than
a high school diploma were apparently at some disad
vantage during the uncertain economic conditions of au
tumn 1979.
There was little change over the year in the already
high unemployment rate for high school dropouts,
which remained at about 19 percent in October 1979.
However, the number of employed youths with less
than a high school education increased, particularly
among those 20 to 24 years old. This may reflect, in
part, the entry into the youth labor force of recent im
migrants from less developed countries, many of whom
have only a few years of formal schooling. (Data from
the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service for fis
cal year 1978 indicate that nearly 30 percent of the
601,000 legal immigrants were 20 to 29 years old.)2
Approximately 7.3 million youths, half of all stu
dents, were combining school and work in October
1979. Young women were about as likely as young men
to be working or looking for work. Among younger
Anne McDougall Young is an economist in the Office of Current Em
ployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
44
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
students with jobs, most worked part time (less than 35
hours per week); among the older students, those 22 to
24 years old, about half worked full time (35 hours or
more per week).
Black youths enrolled in school were much less likely
than white youths to be in the labor market. Their la
bor force participation rate was almost 25 percentage
points below that for white students at the high school
level and over 10 points lower among those enrolled in
college. These lower rates reflect, in part, the limited
employment opportunities in the inner city, where
blacks are concentrated, and the isolation of many
black colleges in rural areas where the chances of em
ployment are also slim. High unemployment rates
among black students— triple those of white students—
were also apt to discourage job seeking.
Recent high school graduates and dropouts
The high school graduating class of 1979 was the
same size as in 1978— about 3.2 million. As in 1978,
approximately half of these high school graduates had
enrolled in college by October (table 2). The probability
of going on to college after graduation from high school
was nearly the same for women as for men and differed
little between whites and blacks, these differences hav
ing gradually disappeared since 1970. However, even
though the proportion of graduates entering college was
about the same for all sex and minority groups, the pro
portion of 18-and-19-year-olds who were eligible for
college was much lower among minority groups than
among whites. Just 57 percent of the blacks and 54 per
cent of the Hispanics, compared with 75 percent of the
whites in that age group, had completed high school.
Overall, the proportion of young people enrolling in
college immediately after high school graduation has
been inching downward in recent years— from 51 per
cent in 1977 to 49 percent in 1979.
Labor force participation rates in October 1979 for
recent high school graduates continued close to the
peak levels reached in 1977— 42 percent among those
in college and 87 percent among those not in college.
As might be expected, youth enrolled full time in col
lege had a relatively low labor force rate of 39 percent,
but the rate for part-time college students (84 percent)
almost matched that of recent high school graduates no
Changes over the decade
longer in school. Unemployment edged upward among
all recent graduates, whether or not enrolled in school.
Both the labor force participation rate and the unem
ployment rate for the approximately 800,000 youths
who had dropped out of elementary or high school over
the course of the year were about the same in October
1979 as in October 1978, at 66 and 26 percent, respec
tively. School dropouts were not nearly as likely to be
in the labor force as youths of the same age who had
graduated from high school. Also, the unemployment
rate for dropouts was more than one and a half times
that of graduates.
The 1970’s have witnessed a sharp increase in the size
of the youth labor force, not only because of population
growth but also because of a substantial rise in the la
bor force participation rates of various youth groups.
For example, in October 1970 there were about 18 mil
lion 16-to-24-year-olds in the labor force, or 59 percent
of the group’s population (table 3). As the decade was
drawing to a close, the rapid growth of the youth popu
lation, fueled by the baby boom which followed World
War II, was also coming to an end. Reflecting the rapid
decrease in births which began in the early 1960’s, the
Table 1. Employment status of persons 16 to 24 years old, by school enrollment status, educational attainment, sex and
race, October 1978 and October 1979
(Numbers in thousands)
Civilian labor force
Characteristic
Unemployed
Civilian noninstitutional
population
Percent of
population
Number
1978
1979
1978
1979
Employed
Unemployment
rate
Number
1978
1979
1978
1979
1978
1979
1978
1979
35,931
36,131
24,278
24,340
67.6
67.4
21,654
21,556
2,621
2,785
10.8
11.5
Enrolled in school........................
16 to 19 years ....................
20 to 24 years ....................
15,329
11,084
4,245
15,262
10,972
4,290
7,475
5,066
2,409
7,341
4,883
2,458
48.8
45.7
56.7
48.1
44.5
57.3
6,539
4,289
2,250
6,392
4,143
2,249
936
775
161
949
739
12.5
15.3
6.7
12.9
15.1
8.5
M e n ......................................
W omen.................................
7,948
7,381
7,861
7,402
3,937
3,538
3,802
3,539
49.5
47.9
48.4
47.8
3,431
3,106
3,295
3,093
506
430
506
445
12.9
White ...................................
Black ...................................
12,920
2,024
12,921
2,006
6,707
600
6,594
622
51.9
29.6
51.0
31.0
5,990
411
5,868
409
716
188
726
213
10.7
31.3
34.2
Elementary and high school.........
M e n ......................................
W omen.................................
8,061
4,220
3,841
7,971
4,233
3,738
3,699
2,023
1,676
3,628
1,985
1,643
45.9
47.9
43.6
45.6
47.0
44.0
3,069
1,671
1,398
3,021
1,353
626
350
276
607
317
290
16.9
17.3
16.5
16.7
16.0
17.7
W h ite ...................................
Black ...................................
Hispanic origin......................
6,616
1,291
490
6,556
1,266
483
3,318
323
181
3,268
319
143
50.2
25.0
36.9
49.8
25.1
29.6
2,825
207
141
2,811
177
107
493
117
39
458
143
37
14.9
36.2
21.5
14.0
44.8
25.8
College ........................................
Men ......................................
Women.................................
7,269
3,730
3,539
7,291
3,628
3,663
3,778
1,917
1,861
3,711
1,816
1,895
52.0
51.4
52.6
50.9
50.1
51.7
3,467
1,759
1,708
3,368
1,629
1,739
314
157
157
345
189
156
8.3
9.3
10.4
8.4
Full-time students ...............
Part-time students...............
6,043
1,225
6,079
1,213
2,674
1,106
2,608
1,103
44.2
90.3
42.9
90.9
2,411
1,054
2,315
1,053
260
54
293
50
9.7
4.9
W h ite ...................................
Black ...................................
Hispanic origin......................
6,305
733
269
6,365
741
311
3,391
276
174
3,327
302
150
53.8
37.7
64.7
52.3
40.8
48.2
3,162
207
168
3,057
234
134
225
70
269
6.6
Total, 16 to 24 years old
1,668
10
210
68
17
12.2
8.2
13.3
12.6
11.0
8.2
11.2
4.5
8.1
25.4
5.7
22.5
11.3
10.0
10.8
Not enrolled in schoo l..................
20,602
20,869
16,803
16,999
81.6
81.5
15,115
15,164
1,685
1,836
School dropouts...........................
Men ......................................
Women.................................
5,113
2,572
2,541
5,263
2,650
2,614
3,412
2,225
1,187
3,512
2,248
1,264
66.8
86.5
46.7
66.7
84.8
484
2,777
1,851
926
2,845
1,892
953
634
373
261
667
356
311
18.6
16.8
22.0
19.0
15.8
24.6
16 to 19 years ....................
20 to 24 years ....................
2,087
3,027
2,085
3,178
1,381
2,030
1,344
2,168
66.2
64.5
67.1
68.2
1,052
1,725
1,036
1,809
329
305
308
359
23.8
15.0
22.9
16.6
W h ite ...................................
Black ...................................
Hispanic origin......................
4,101
939
726
4,167
988
758
2,811
558
499
2,873
565
521
68.5
59.4
68.7
68.9
57.2
68.7
2,350
392
419
2,402
386
437
461
166
80
471
179
84
16.4
29.7
16.0
16.4
31.7
16.1
High school graduates ................
M e n ......................................
Women.................................
15,489
7,062
8,427
15,604
7,197
8,407
13,391
6,747
6,644
13,488
6,863
6,625
86.5
95.5
78.8
86.4
95.4
78.8
12,341
6,297
6,044
12,322
6,359
5,962
1,050
450
600
1,166
504
663
7.8
6.7
9.0
86
10.0
W h ite ...................................
Black ...................................
Hispanic origin......................
13,602
1,664
697
13,653
1,675
691
11,865
1,338
564
11,940
1,325
573
87.2
80.4
80.9
87.5
79.1
82.9
11,109
1,066
510
11,050
1,068
512
757
272
54
890
257
61
6.4
20.3
9.6
7.6
19.4
High school, no college . . . .
College, 1 to 3 y e a rs ...........
College graduates...............
11,063
3,018
1,408
11,094
3,017
1,493
9,383
2,652
1,355
9,382
2,683
1,423
84.8
87.9
96.2
84.6
88.9
95.2
8,569
2,502
1,269
8,460
2,509
1,352
814
150
922
174
71
8.7
5.7
6.3
9.8
6.4
5.0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
86
7.3
10.6
45
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Special Labor Reports— Summaries
Table 2. School enrollment and labor force status of
1979 high school graduates and 1978-79 school
dropouts,1by sex and race, October 1979
Civilian labor force
Characteristic
Total, 1979 high
school gradu
ates .............
Civilian
noninstitutional
population
Number
Labor
force
participa
tion rate
Employed
Unemployed
Number
Unemploy
ment rate
3,160
2,048
64.8
1,741
307
15.0
1,474
1,686
974
1,074
60.1
63.7
846
895
128
179
13.1
16.7
2,773
317
1,848
156
66.6
1,607
241
56
13.0
35.9
154
104
67.5
18
17.3
Enrolled in
college.........
1,559
660
42.3
582
78
11.9
M e n .........
Women. . .
743
816
302
358
40.6
43.9
267
315
35
43
11.6
12.0
1,431
553
38.6
478
75
13.6
2
68
8
M e n .........
Women . . .
White . . . .
Black . . . .
Hispanic
origin ..
Full-time
students
Part-time
students
White . . . .
Black . . . .
Hispanic
origin ..
49.2
100
86
128
107
83.6
52
1,376
147
613
33
44.5
22.4
545
25
69
35
Not enrolled In
college.........
1,601
M e n .........
Women. . .
731
870
White . . . .
Black . . . .
Hispanic
origin . .
1.9
11.1
( 2)
( 2)
28
7
1,388
86.7
1,159
229
16.5
672
716
91.9
82.3
579
580
93
136
13.8
19.0
1,397
170
1,235
123
88.4
72.4
1,062
75
173
48
14.0
39.0
85
69
81.1
58
11
Total, 1978-79
school drop
outs3 ...........
794
523
65.9
387
136
26.0
M e n .........
Women . . .
394
400
310
213
78.6
53.3
252
135
58
78
18.7
36.6
White . . . .
Black . . . .
Hispanic
origin ..
622
154
426
82
68.5
53.2
328
46
98
36
23.0
43.9
71
47
( 2)
38
9
( 2)
( 2)
number of youths under 20 years of age had already be
gun to decline. However, the youth labor force had con
tinued to grow, having reached 24.3 million by October
1979, while the labor force participation rate for
16-to-24-year-olds had risen to 67 percent.
Whether because of inflation, peer pressure, desire for
work experience, or other reasons, the proportion of
students participating in the labor force rose about 6
percentage points for men and 10 percentage points for
women during the 1970’s. This growth largely reflects
the recent enrollment increase in 2-year colleges. These
students are much more likely to be in the work force
while attending school than are students enrolled in
4-year colleges and universities.
46
Characteristic
1970
1979
E n ro lled
T o ta l .................................................................................
W h ite ...........................................................................
B lack a n d o th er races .......................................
13.2
12.1
2 6 .0
12.9
11.0
3 4 .2
N o t en ro lled
T o ta l .................................................................................
W h ite ......................................................................
B lack an d o th er races ........................................
10.9
9.7
18.8
10.8
9 .2
23.1
( 2)
116 to 24 years old.
2Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000.
3Persons who dropped out of school between October 1978 and October 1979. In addi
tion, 94,000 persons 14 and 15 years old dropped out of school.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Among whites, the increase in student labor force ac
tivity over the 1970’s was evident both among young
men and women. Among blacks, however, labor force
participation increased only among women, but overall
population growth for blacks was faster than for whites.
As a result, blacks constituted about the same propor
tion of the student labor force in 1979 as in 1970.
Despite the increases in participation among students,
it should be noted that 7 out of 10 of the 16-to-24-yearolds in the labor force were not enrolled in school either
in 1970 or 1979. The labor force participation rates of
the nonstudent youths, already relatively high in 1970,
edged up slightly for men, from 92 to 93 percent, and
increased sharply for women, from 60 to 72 percent. De
layed marriage and childbearing have contributed to the
rise in labor force activity among these young women.3
Although high relative to the rates for other segments
of the population, the unemployment rates for youths in
and out of school were about the same or slightly lower
in October 1979 than in October 1970, as shown below:
The major exception was the situation among black
youths; the unemployment rate of black students (34.2
percent in October 1979) had increased by about 9 per
centage points over the decade, and the rate for those
not enrolled (23.1 percent) was 4 percentage points
higher than in 1970.
A striking feature of youth employment problems
during the 1970’s was that, unlike the previous decade,
half of all unemployed teenagers were enrolled in school
— mainly high school. For example, 42 percent of the
unemployed black youths were in high school in Octo
ber 1979— up from 34 percent 9 years earlier— as were
40 percent of the whites. The importance of determining
the school enrollment status of unemployed youths in
terms of public policy has been reemphasized by the
National Commission on Employment and Unemploy
ment Statistics. The Commission has recently recommend
ed that youth enrollment status be determined each
month in the Current Population Survey, rather than
annually in October.4 More frequent enumeration of the
unemployed by school enrollment status would provide
improved estimates of the number and type of jobs
needed to relieve teenage unemployment. Certainly the
unemployment problems of students, many of whom are
seeking only part-time work, require very different poli-
Table 3. Population and labor force participation rates of persons 16 to 24 years old, by school enrollment status, sex, race,
and age, October 1970 and October 1979
All persons
1970
1979
1979
1970
Labor
force
partici
pation
rate
Popula
tion
Labor
force
partici
pation
rate
29.2
23.9
31.5
31.0
<2)
1,182
617
287
150
128
31.0
22.9
27.2
40.7
67.2
98
46
25.3
20.4
26.9
29.6
( 2)
1,158
570
300
145
143
32.9
25.1
29.7
54.5
49.0
93.6
72.6
91.3
95.0
95.7
1,050
74
251
258
467
84.9
( 2)
75.7
87.2
92.3
1,325
40
291
386
608
85.4
73.5
55.8
77.0
73.4
73.7
1,340
74
299
378
589
57.9
1,726
85
356
500
785
Popula
tion
Popula
tion
48.4
45.9
42.3
50.8
66.4
6,612
3,086
1,625
1,030
871
44.5
41.1
42.3
44.5
61.1
6,679
3,141
1,587
1,088
863
51.4
50.4
45.1
52.2
7,401
3,521
1,819
1,208
853
47.8
43.5
45.9
51.3
64.7
5,375
2,922
1,301
719
433
40.0
35.5
39.4
46.9
60.3
6,243
2,951
1,519
1,063
710
50.6
47.1
49.1
50.9
67.9
201
91.9
75.7
86.7
92.6
95.5
9,847
379
2,149
2,679
4,640
92.5
71.0
89.9
93.0
95.2
5,790
264
1,276
1,263
2,987
93.2
79.9
88.9
93.7
96.0
8,522
339
1,858
2,294
4,031
60.0
41.1
63.7
62.8
58.4
11,022
71.6
53.5
73.9
70.6
72.8
8,463
361
1,808
2,272
4,022
60.3
43.5
65.0
63.6
57.9
9,296
414
2,016
2,474
4,392
Popula
tion
Labor
force
partici
pation
rate
Popula
tion
7,420
3,537
1,822
1,130
931
42.9
38.9
41.2
43.3
60.9
7,861
3,758
1,874
1,239
990
6,187
3,389
1,502
817
479
38.0
33.5
37.7
44.8
60.1
6,840
338
1,527
1,522
3,453
9,804
435
2,107
2,651
4,611
1979
1970
Labor
force
partici
pation
rate
Labor
force
partici
pation
rate
Characteristic
Black and other races
White
Labor
force
partici
pation
rate
Popula
tion
ENROLLED
Men
16 to 24 years ...................................................
16 and 17 years ........................................
18 and 19 years ........................................
and 21 years ........................................
22 to 24 years ..........................................
20
66.2
808
451
197
100
60
Women
16 to 24 years ...................................................
16 and 17 years ........................................
18 and 19 years ........................................
and 21 years ........................................
22 to 24 years ..........................................
20
811
466
NOT ENROLLED
Men
16 to 24 years ...................................................
16 and 17 years ........................................
18 and 19 years ........................................
and 21 years ........................................
22 to 24 years ..........................................
20
( 2)
81.1
81.1
91.9
Women
16 to 24 years ...................................................
16 and 17 years ........................................
18 and 19 years ........................................
and 21 years ........................................
22 to 24 years ..........................................
20
499
2,372
2,974
5,177
( 2)
55.9
58.2
62.3
61.0
42.4
56.2
56.6
68.0
1Data are for black and other races, whereas data in other tables in this report are for blacks only.
2Percent not shown where base Is less than 75,000.
cy approaches than do those of youths who have dropped
out of school before high school graduation or who are
graduates just starting their careers.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S — ------' This report is based primarily on supplementary questions in the
October 1979 Current Population Survey, conducted and tabulated
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census. Most
data relate to persons 16 to 24 years of age in the civilian noninstitutional population in the calendar week ending Oct. 13, 1979.
Sampling variability may be relatively large in cases where the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
numbers are small. Small estimates, or small differences between esti
mates, should be interpreted with caution.
The most recent report in this series was published in the M o n th ly
L a b o r R ev ie w , October 1979, pp. 34-38, and printed with additional
tabular data and explanatory notes as Special Labor Force Report
223.
2 U.S. I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tu r a liz a tio n S ervice, A n n u a l R ep o rt, F isc a l
1978, table 10.
3Beverly L. Johnson, “Changes in marital and family characteristics
of workers, 1970 to 1978,” M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , April 1979, pp. 4 9 52, reprinted as Special Labor Force Report 219.
4 National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statis
tics, C o u n tin g th e L a b o r F orce, Sept. 2, 1979, p. 90.
47
Research
Summaries
How the disabled fare
in the labor market
B a r b a r a L. W o l fe
Increasing attention is being paid to the disabled. Legis
lation has been passed requiring easier access to build
ings; income maintenance plans now exist for those
with reduced earnings capacity; there are training pro
grams to improve the productivity of some of the dis
abled. Yet, little is known about the disabled. Who are
they? Do they work, and where? Are they married? Are
they as educated as the nondisabled? What is their eco
nomic position?
This report provides a description and some analysis
of noninstitutionalized disabled persons ages 20 to 64.
Emphasis is on labor force behavior, including amounts
of work, occupational distribution, and wage rates.
The problem is widespread. Some 12 to 15 percent of
the population in this age range is disabled. (The spread
reflects differences in the definition.) This represents
some 15 million prime-age adults. According to the
1972 Survey of the Disabled, musculoskeletal disorders
(36 percent), followed by cardiovascular problems (21
percent), account for much disability. Considerably
smaller amounts are accounted for by mental, respirato
ry, and digestive disorders. For some purposes, it would
clearly be more interesting to study individually, each
medically classified group. But, to get an overall, cur
rent view of the disabled, and to compare them to the
nondisabled, in terms of socioeconomic well-being, a
choice was made to use data that do not contain such
medical information, but instead, focus on the overall
socioeconomic picture.
The first part of this report presents the methods
used to define the disabled. The second details who the
disabled are.
f
/
DQflf
a
'» ,
tation or self-assessed capacity for work.2 This is tied to
current program definitions that emphasize the long-run
or chronic nature of the disability.
In this study the Current Population Survey ( c p s )
was selected because a recent data source is desirable.
Also, the base should be one that is nationwide,
representive, and contains both labor force and demo
graphic information. These reasons made the most re
cent CPS most attractive for studying the disabled.
The CPS does not include as much information on
disability as is available in alternative data sources. For
example, there is no information regarding limitations
in housekeeping. But there is information about whether
the amount of work the disabled person can do is limit
ed. In addition, the information on program participa
tion makes it possible to identify some other members
of the disabled population. Thus, it seems that the most
recent CPS (1977) was perhaps the best suited data
source.
The goal is to define all those who are disabled in a
long-term sense— not just those who are working parttime or who are being served by a program for the
disabled. The targeted group was restricted to the non
institutionalized population ages 20 to 64 because youn
ger persons are generally dependents or students, while
those older are eligible for a wide variety of programs
because of their age. Using the 1977 CPS, the disabled
are defined by three basic categories: program participa
tion, work limitation, and low wage and participation in
a sheltered workshop occupation.
One major difficulty in all research in this area is how
to define the disabled. Some recent studies have used
self-reported health status,1which emphasizes work limi-
By program participation. There are a number of pro
grams designed specifically for the disabled. Included
here are those that provide income: disability benefits
under social security; supplemental security income (ssi),
an income-tested program; railroad disability annuities;
workers’ compensation; and disabled veterans’ benefits.3
Seven percent of the population is defined as dis
abled, according to program participation (table 1).
This includes 9.1 percent of men and 5.04 percent of
women; 6.7 percent of white persons and 8.3 percent of
non white; and 4.5 percent of those ages 20 to 34, 5.6
percent of those 35 to 44, 8.6 percent of those 45 to 54,
and 12.9 percent of the oldest age group, 55 to 64.
Barbara L. Wolfe is an assistant professor of economics and preven
tive medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
By work limitation. The individuals included here either
do not work or are limited in the amount of work they
Defining disability
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
can perform.4 This approach should include those who
are unable to work or who are ill for substantial periods
of time, while excluding those who missed work because
of short-term, acute illnesses. By this definition, 6.9 per
cent of the population is disabled. This includes 7.5 per
cent of men and 6.3 percent of women; 6.3 percent of
white persons and 11.1 percent of nonwhite; and 3.5
percent of those 20-34, 5.7 percent of those 35-44,
9.2 percent of those 45-54, and 14.1 percent of those
55-64.
The highest percentages of persons are designated
“unable to work” on the basis of not working at all the
previous year; the second highest percentages represent
those who worked some last year. Unfortunately, the
study directed no questions specifically toward limita
tions in housework, and the resulting low percentages
of disabled women are probably largely the result of
this.
By special work program. It is also desirable to include
individuals who are in work programs designed espe
cially for the disabled. Because many individuals may
not respond to inquiries directed at work limitations, an
additional definition is used; individuals whose wage
rate is positive but less than $1 are included as disabled
if their occupations are in sheltered workshops. This in
cludes nonprivate housecleaning, food, health and per
sonnel, certain laborers, some operatives, and certain
sales and clerical workers. A total of 1.46 percent of in
dividuals ages 20-64 are disabled by this definition.5
Using all of these definitions, 12.3 percent of the pop
ulation ages 20-64 is disabled, or about 14.3 million
individuals, slightly below the 14.6 percent (15.5 mil
lion) in the 1972 Survey of the Disabled ( s d a ). Most of
the differences lie in the count of women: in the survey,
Table 1. Government program and labor force
participation rates for the disabled
Category
Disabled as percent of
population aged 20 -64
Men
Women
Total
Total1 ..............................................................
13.5
11.2
12.3
Programs
Total .......................................................
Supplementary Security Incom e.............
Social Security ........................................
Veterans Compensation...........................
Workmen’s Compensation......................
9.1
0.9
3.0
4.7
3.0
5.0
1.4
3.4
—
7.0
7.5
4.2
2.3
3.1
6.3
3.6
Reductions in labor force participation
Total .......................................................
Did not work: ill last y e a r ........................
Unable to work: last week ......................
Worked some last year: ill ......................
Worked some last week: ill ....................
Low wage: Sheltered workshop occupation . .
0.2
1.0
0.6
1.3
2.4
0.4
6.9
3.9
1.5
2.7
0.3
1.9
1.5
0.8
1Nonadditive: many defined to be disabled by more than one definition.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.2
3.2
2.1
15.2 percent of women were classified as disabled, while
here only 11.2 percent are classified as disabled. The
comparative percentages for males are 14.0 percent for
the SDA and 13.5 percent for W-CPS. The larger dif
ference for women is probably related to the lack of in
formation concerning housewives.
In other respects, the two surveys show similar dis
ability patterns: more of the disabled in the South than
in the other major regions, fewer white persons than
nonwhite, and a greater percentage among older age
groups.
Characteristics of the disabled
The disabled population tends to be older, has a
higher proportion of nonwhite persons, is less likely to
work, and if working, less likely full time. The disabled
are also less likely to be married, and tend to have less
education than the nondisabled, and lower wages, even
allowing for educational differences.
General characteristics. For both sexes, the probability
of being disabled increases with age, the only exception
being the close percentage of the two younger agegroups of men. (See table 2.)
The disabled have significantly lower educational lev
els (table 3), although the modes are the same for both
(12 years). Some of the biggest differences occur at the
very lowest levels of education— eight years and less;
much higher percentages of the disabled are in this cate
gory. A comparison to the SDA is possible by including
the educational distribution for this sample. It tends to
show the same overall educational differences but does
emphasize that the educational distribution has been in
creasing overall— the surveys are 1972 and 1977, and
this holds for the disabled as well as nondisabled.
Marital status distributions (table 4) show lower cur
rent marriage rates among the disabled. This is empha
sized by the large difference in the “being marriedspouse present” category in the two populations— 57.7
percent versus 72.3 percent.
The regional distribution shows that the proportion
of the disabled population living in the South is greater
than that of the nondisabled population, while it is less
in other regions.
Labor force characteristics. If we broadly define labor
force participants to include all those who, during 1976,
worked or looked for work, or said they were unable to
find work, 59 percent of the disabled were in the labor
force. This compares with 80 percent of the nondis
abled, or 78 percent overall. Among women, 53 percent
of the disabled and 66 percent of the nondisabled were
in the labor force. Among men, 65 percent of the dis
abled and 97 percent of the nondisabled were in the la
bor force.
49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Research Summaries
Table 2.
sex
Percentage of population disabled, by age and
Age categories
Men
Women
T o ta l.....................................................................
13.5
11.2
20-34 ................................................................
10.3
7.1
35-44 ...............................
..........................
10.1
10.3
45-54 ..............................................................
15.5
13.7
55-64 ................................................................
23.4
19.2
Except for white women ages 20-34, the nondisabled
are more likely to be in the labor force. This suggests
the difficulty in defining the disabled among women;
many list their occupation as “housewife” and there is
no way to discern who may be disabled.
The percentages in the labor force are large. It in
cludes all those who worked in 1976, even briefly, or
said they were unable to find work. About 1.05 percent
of men and 1.13 percent of women were unable to find
work. Among the disabled, the percentages are lower:
men .98 percent and women .56 percent. But there is a
difficulty— those unable to work. Adding the two per
centages shows that 32.1 percent of disabled men and
32.4 percent of disabled women did not work either be
cause they are unable or could not find work. This com
pares to 1.03 percent of nondisabled men and 1.2
percent of nondisabled women. By age, the percentages
of these disabled individuals are:
2 0 -3 4
3 5 -4 4
4 5 -5 4
5 5 -6 4
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
Men
Women
14.7
30.5
3 8 .2
4 7 .9
16.0
2 5 .8
3 5 .0
4 8 .9
Thus, large percentages of the disabled population do
not work because of their disability or lack of opportu
nities, and the percentage increases with age, for both
sexes.
Full or part time. A detailed look at the amount of time
spent working shows further differences between the
disabled and nondisabled populations. Many more of
the disabled do not work (36 percent of men and 47
percent of women, compared to 4 percent of nondis
abled men and 36 percent of nondisabled women). A
far lower percentage of the disabled work full time (30
percent of men and 11 percent of women, compared to
74 percent of nondisabled men and 33 percent of non
disabled women. These large differences suggest that
transfer payments are important for the disabled.
Do the differences reflect handicaps that make it dif
ficult to work, or lack of opportunity, or discrimina
tion? They may also reflect that those with low oppor
tunity costs, older persons with less education, for
50
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
example, may be more likely to regard some physical or
mental limitation as a disability, and to seek transfer
payments.
One way of gaining some insight into this is to look
at the wage rate of the disabled versus nondisabled pop
ulation. The average wage rate is lower among the dis
abled. Of more interest, however, is wage rates accord
ing to educational level:
Years o f education
Disabled
Nondisabled
T o ta l .........................................
L ess th an 8 ................................
8 ......................................................
9 - 1 1 ...............................................
1 2 ......................................................
1 3 - 1 5 ............................................
16 or m o r e ...................................
$ 2 .5 7
1.08
1.79
1.87
2.93
3 .64
5.07
$ 4 .2 7
2 .85
3.18
3 .2 4
3.86
4 .4 3
6.73
Wage rates
Educational level. For every educational level, the
average wage rate of the disabled population is below
that of the nondisabled population. For all groups with
less than 12 years of education, the average wage rate of
the disabled is below the minimum wage. This may be
partly because of individuals in sheltered workshops.
However, even among those who have attended college,
the differences are large. The jump in wage rates from 9
to 11 years of education to 12 years is much greater for
the disabled, possibly suggesting a high return to educa
tion for the disabled; the disabled may have lower op
portunity costs.
Part of the difference may reflect hours worked. On
an average, the disabled who are employed work fewer
hours, although the difference is small— all are close to
40 hours per week. Average number of workweeks show
somewhat larger differences, especially for white per
sons, among whom the disabled work 40 weeks per
year, and the nondisabled, 47. Thus the major partici
pation decision seems to be whether to work rather
Table 3. Educational distribution for the disabled and
nondisabled
[In percent]
Education
Disabled
Nondisabled
All
Current Population Survey, 1977
Less than 8 ............................................
8 ..............................................................
9-11 .....................................................
12............................................................
13-15 ...................................................
16 or more ............................................
15.7
10.1
19.7
33.9
13.4
7.3
5.2
5.2
14.1
40.9
17.6
17.0
6.5
5.8
14.8
40.0
17.1
15.8
6.1
8.4
7.5
16.3
39.9
14.4
Survey of the Disabled, 1972
Less than 8 ............................................
..............................................................
9-11 .....................................................
............................................................
13-15 ...................................................
16 or more ............................................
8
12
21.9
12.3
21.2
29.6
7.8
6.4
6.7
15.5
41.7
15.5
13.6
12.6
than the number of hours.
Another way of getting a better picture of wage rate
differentials is to look at wage rates for full-time work
ers only, by educational groups. (See table 5.)
Among men who are full-time, full-year workers, the
disabled earn, in general, less than 90 percent of what
the nondisabled earn. The biggest difference is among
the lowest educational group, where the disabled earn
less than 80 percent of what the nondisabled earn. Simi
larly, among women who work full time, year round,
the largest difference is also among the lowest educa
tional group, where the disabled earn approximately
half of what the nondisabled earn. In other educational
groups, disabled women also do more poorly (relative
to men) compared to their nondisabled peers, earning
between 62 percent and 79 percent of what the
non disabled earn.
Racial differences. The average wage rate differences are
substantial among the disabled and nondisabled men’s
groups when race is considered. Among the disabled,
there are very large differences between white and non
white persons in the lower educational groups; for full
time workers, earnings of nonwhite persons are between
50 percent and 65 percent of earnings of white persons.
Among the nondisabled, there is a generally lower
educational level among the nonwhite but no particular
employment pattern according to education. Among
women, there is a quite different pattern: within the dis
abled population, nonwhite women with 8 or fewer
years of education earn less than white women with
similar education, but they earn more with 1 to 3 years
of high school through the highest educational levels.
The pattern is similar among nondisabled women; non
white women earn less at lower educational levels than
their white peers but more (though only slightly so) at
higher levels of education.
Thus, among full-time, full-year workers there is evi
dence within each sex, educational, and racial group
that the disabled earn less. It appears that individuals
with more than one disadvantage are worst off— dis
abled non white persons with low education— and per
haps women, for their wages are lower than those for
men in every education category. In fact, except for the
two lowest categories of nonwhite women compared to
Table 4. Marital status of the disabled and nondisabled
according to Current Population Survey, 1977
[In percent]
Marital status
Married, spouse p re se n t......................
Married, spouse absent........................
Widowed ...............................................
Divorced ...............................................
Separated ............................................
Never married ......................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Disabled
Nondisabled
All
57.7
72.3
70.5
10.7
9.2
4.9
16.4
2.3
5.9
3.3
6.3
2.9
16.2
1.1
0.8
2.6
16.2
0.8
Table 5. Average wage rates for disabled and
nondisabled workers,1 by education and race
Nondisabled
Disabled
Education
White
Nonwhite
All
White
Nonwhite
All
T o ta l....................
Less than 8 .........
........................
9-11 ..................
......................
13-15 ...............
16 or more .........
5.77
$3.54
4.95
5.04
5.42
5.98
7.76
4.22
$2.26
2.52
3.13
4.33
5.41
6.96
5.62
$3.35
4.67
4.74
5.33
5.91
7.74
6.72
$4.46
5.20
5.53
6.18
6.72
8.95
5.16
$3.91
4.77
4.61
5.01
5.73
7.17
6.58
$4.32
5.16
5.39
6.08
6.65
8.85
Women
T o ta l....................
Less than 8 .........
........................
9-11 ..................
......................
13-15 ...............
16 or more .........
2.60
1.57
2.35
1.94
2.52
2.90
4.20
2.85
1.23
2.06
2.63
1.45
2.29
2.06
2.55
3.19
4.32
4.12
2.82
3.04
3.36
3.88
4.26
5.45
3.98
2.64
2.77
3.08
3.78
4.41
5.70
4.10
2.77
2.99
3.31
3.87
4.28
5.48
Men
8
12
8
12
2.66
2.81
4.83
5.47
11ndividuals working full-time, full-year.
SOURCE: 1977 CPS tape.
nonwhite men, nondisabled women have lower average
earnings than disabled men.
Wage rates within occupational categories may un
derstate differences between the disabled and nondis
abled because discrimination, and physical and mental
disabilities may limit choice of occupation. Differences
may also reflect less experience and levels of labor force
participation.
By occupation. Table 6 shows average wage rates and
occupational distribution by broad occupational groups,
among men. Overall, the nondisabled have higher wage
rates in all occupations, but the differences range from
nearly the same rates, 2 percent to 50 percent greater
than the wage rate in the disabled men’s category.
Among white men, the wage rate of the nondisabled
is higher in most occupations. The exception is service
workers. Among nonwhite men, wages of the nondis
abled are also higher in all but one occupational catego
ry: managers and proprietors.
Turning to the occupational distribution, one again
notes the much higher percentages of disabled who do
not work: 36.2 percent of all disabled men, 48.2 percent
of nonwhite disabled men. Beyond this, the disabled
men are less likely to be in prestigious occupations,
such as professional or managerial, than the nondis
abled. Note again the compounding effects of race and
disability on the low probability of being in such an oc
cupation.
Disability and deprivation
Thus, from the perspective of comparing the socio
economic status of the disabled to nondisabled, a con
sistent picture emerges. The disabled are much worse
off in terms of education, probability of working,
occupation, and wage rates, despite controlling for
many characteristics important in explaining differential
51
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Research Summaries
Table 6.
Average hourly wage rates and occupational percent distribution of disabled and nondisabled men1
All men
Occupation
Professional, technical and kindred workers . . .
Managers and proprietors.................................
Sales workers ...................................................
Clerical w o rkers................................................
Craftsmen and kindred w orkers........................
Operatives, except transport.............................
Nonfarm laborers............................................
Service workers, except private household . . . .
Farm workers...................................................
No current job ..............................................
Disabled
Wages
Percent
$6.44
6.87
3.61
3.80
6.1
6.12
5.33
3.68
2.70
2.74
White men
Nondisabled
5.9
3.3
4.3
15.6
13.7
5.7
7.1
1.1
36.2
Wages
$7.25
7.04
5.44
4.29
6.37
4.72
4.80
3.72
3.15
Percent
15.0
14.5
5.5
6.0
20.4
17.5
6.2
7.2
2.1
Disabled
Wages
$7.53
7.56
4.04
5.50
6.42
5.37
4.04
4.88
3.01
4.1
1There may be bias in measuring disability among women; the definition depends partly on
labor force participation. Thus, a comparison of disabled and nondisabled women might also
wage rates. Adding race to the analysis suggests a
compounding effect; the nonwhite disabled fare more
poorly than their white counterparts. Thus, there is
some evidence of labor market imperfections that nega
tively impact this large part of our population.
What we have then is a picture of a group far worse
off than the nondisabled. And, this does not take ac
count of pain and suffering— possible greater needs
based on the disability— including medical care, help
meeting day-to-day limitations on activities, psychologi
cal stress, and other hardships.
The incentives to qualify for a number of programs
Percent
6.7
6.5
3.9
4.5
16.8
13.8
5.0
6.6
6.6
Nonwhite men
Nondisabled
Wages
$8.43
7.93
6.99
6.15
6.60
5.46
5.15
4.71
3.32
34.1
Percent
15.8
15.5
6.0
5.9
21.1
16.6
5.5
6.3
2.3
3.6
Disabled
Wages
Nondisabled
Percent
$6.80
6.27
2.4
4.38
5.00
4.12
3.27
3.04
3.2
8.4
13.4
9.7
10.3
2.2
0.2
.6
48.2
Wages
$7.70
5.81
5.36
5.01
5.77
4.83
4.33
4.05
1.90
Percent
8.7
6.3
2.0
6.5
14.0
24.3
12.1
14.7
0.5
8.3
be biasedSOURCE: 1977 CPS tape.
are clearly present for a number of disabled; they do
have lower opportunity costs. Yet, a substantial number
work full time and experience less success than their
nondisabled counterparts. Perhaps help other than trans
fer payments needs to be stressed for this group. Laws
on physical access, laws on discrimination, and training
programs may be worth further investigation for the
disabled. Others will continue to need income transfer
policies. But perhaps most of all we should be aware
that disability may interact with other labor market dis
advantages— educational for example. Policies will be
better designed if they are aware of these effects.
□
FOOTNOTES
' See, for example, H. S. Luft, “The Impact of Poor Health on
Earnings,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tistic s , 57:1, who used the
1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity Data.
2This is the basis for the 1972 Survey of the Disabled.
3Except for payments under social security and railroad retirement,
individuals who receive any dollar benefits from one or more of these
programs are generally designated as disabled. The exceptions include
those receiving veterans’ benefits, where only those who are veterans
and nonstudents are designated as disabled. Among social security re
cipients ages 20-64, distinctions are made to designate the disabled:
individuals 19-61 who are not students, students 23-61, and widows
and individuals 19-59 who have no dependent children under 18. Of
those receiving railroad benefits, those under 62 are classified as dis
abled if they are not retired. These distinctions are based on program
eligibility. The 1977 cps enables far better identification of recipients
for many of these programs than earlier cps surveys. For example,
veterans’ pensions and other payments are separated. The source for
the definitions under social security and veterans’ benefits is the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare S o c ia l S e c u r ity H a n d
book, 1 9 7 4 , 5th ed.
Individuals who do not work are so designated for one of two rea
52
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
sons: they did not work last year because they were ill or disabled
(variable P I33= 1, 1977 cps tape), or they are classified as unable to
work on the employment status recode (variable P 12=6). The latter
variable is the one generally used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Individuals are designated as “limited in amount of work” if per
sonal illness is the reason they usually work less than 35 hours. This
is done for two groups: one that worked some last week but less than
35 hours, and another that did not work last week (variable P I8 = 2
and P 1 9 -2 0 = 1 0 , or P23 = 2 and P21 = l). Alternatively, they are des
ignated as disabled if they work less than 50 weeks and most of the
remaining weeks they were ill or disabled (PI45 = 1). In a sense, this
attempt to define an eligible disabled population is similar to that
used by Projector and Murray in “Eligibility for Welfare and Partici
pation Rates” (HEW 78-11776), Social Security Administration, who
attempt to define those eligible for welfare by using the 1971 CPS.
Their procedure for defining the eligible disabled population is by us
ing persons who worked less than 50 -5 2 weeks in 1970 because of ill
ness.
5
See Barbara L. Wolfe, “Impacts of Disability, and Some Policy
Implications,” Institute for Research on Poverty, Discussion Paper
539-79, unpublished.
Significant Decisions
In Labor Cases
OSHA standards: the burden of proof
„
_
*
*
*
■*
(■
-
Although much of the controversy surrounding the
Supreme Court’s decision in the “benzene case” (Indus
trial Union Dept., A F L -C IO v. American Petroleum
Institute') has passed, the ambiguities of the result con
tinue. The main opinion of the Court plurality, written
by Justice John Paul Stevens, stated that the Occupa
tional Safety and Health Administration had exceeded
its statutory authority by reducing permissible exposure
limits to benzene at industrial work sites without mak
ing a “threshold determination” that a significant risk
was present at the original level. The result might place
a greater burden of proof on a regulatory agency to jus
tify its actions, but leaves unchanged (at least facially)
an agency’s ability to promulgate and enforce regulato
ry policy once the need for it has been demonstrated.
Some feel that the narrow factual circumstances of the
case should preclude any sweeping effects on other reg
ulatory agencies. But, for OSHA, the additional time and
effort required to justify standards could severely strain
limited resources and may seriously diminish the agen
cy’s effectiveness in many areas.
Benzene, a colorless gas used in the manufacture of
m otor fuels, detergents, and pesticides, is highly toxic,
producing an immediate effect on the central nervous
system when inhaled. Benzene has long been considered
carcinogenic. As early as 1928, industrial health experts
were exploring the possibility of a link between benzene
and leukemia; by the mid 1970’s, a connection was
clearly established. In 1977, OSHA issued an emergency
standard lowering the benzene exposure limit from 10
parts per million of air to 1 part per million, stating
that benzene had been shown to cause leukemia at lev
els below 25 parts per million and that reports had
shown the lower level feasible for industry compliance.
Although no evidence indicated that leukemia oc
curred at the 10 parts per million exposure level, the
agency’s standard policy on carcinogens required the
lowest feasible exposure in the absence of proof of a
risk-free level of exposure. Equally, the industries involved had failed to prove to OSHA’s satisfaction that
“Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” is written by Gregory J.
Mounts of the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w staff. Kate Farrell of the Uni
versity of Notre Dame, an intern with the R ev ie w , wrote the summary
of I n d u s tr ia l U n ion D e p t., A F L - C I O v. A m e r ic a n P e tr o le u m I n stitu te .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
there is a safe level of exposure to benzene below which
no excess leukemia cases would occur.
The agency claimed authority for reducing exposure
levels under Section 6 (b) (5) of the 1970 Occupational
Safety and Health Act, which it felt authorized the Sec
retary of Labor to set the most protective standard
“feasible” to ensure employee safety. The affected indus
tries brought suit, and the Fifth Circuit enjoined opera
tion of the lower exposure limit, ruling it was not
supported by appropriate findings.
The Supreme Court’s resolution of the case hinged on
the relationship between the act’s definition of an occu
pational safety and health standard and its provisions
authorizing OSHA to regulate toxic substances. The act
requires that any standard be “reasonably necessary
and appropriate to provide safe or healthful employ
ment and places of employment.”2 For toxic substances,
however, the law appeared to require maximum protec
tion for individual workers:
T h e S ecretary, in p r o m u lg a tin g sta n d a rd s d ea lin g w ith
to x ic m a teria ls or h arm fu l p h y sica l a g e n ts u n d er th is su b
se c tio n , sh a ll set th e sta n d a rd w h ich m o st a d eq u a tely a s
su res, to th e e x ten t feasib le, on th e b asis o f th e b est
a v a ila b le ev id en ce, th at n o e m p lo y e e w ill suffer m aterial im
p airm en t o f h ea lth or fu n ctio n a l c a p a c ity even if th e e m
p lo y e e h as regu lar e x p o su re to th e h azard d ealt w ith by
su ch sta n d a rd for th e p eriod o f his w o rk in g life. D e v e lo p
m en t o f sta n d a rd s u n d er th is su b sec tio n sh a ll be b a sed
u p o n research d e m o n stra tio n s, ex p erim en ts an d oth er su ch
in fo r m a tio n as m a y be ap p ro p ria te . . . oth er c o n sid e r a tio n s
sh a ll be th e la test a v a ila b le scien tific d a ta in th e field . . .
[and] th e fea sib ility o f th e sta n d a rd s . . .3
In the opinion written by Stevens and joined by Chief
Justice Warren Burger and Justices Potter Stewart and
Lewis Powell, OSHA’s authority to regulate toxic sub
stances was declared constrained by the law’s general
requirement that all standards be “reasonably necessary
or appropriate to remedy a significant risk of material
health impairment.” Only after such a threshold deter
mination is made can the Secretary select “the most
protective” standard “consistent with economic and
technological feasibility.” The standard should be
geared to eliminate “significant risk of harm,” Stevens
wrote, but the statute was not designed to provide ab
solutely risk-free workplaces. In the absence of an ex
plicit mandate, he concluded, Congress “requires the
Secretary to undertake some cost-benefit analysis before
he promulgates any standard.”
53
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Significant Decisions
Having defined the Secretary’s power to promulgate
regulations, Stevens turned to the question of proving
“significant risk” when scientific knowledge is imperfect
and risk unquantifiable. He found the burden of proof
to be on OSHA “to show on the basis of substantial evi
dence, that it is at least more likely than not that long
term exposure to 10 parts per million of benzene pre
sents a significant risk of material health impairment.”
In this case, Stevens wrote, “ OSHA did not even attempt
to carry its burden of proof.” ( o s h a ’s policy for carcin
ogens was to impose the burden of proof of “safe” ex
posure levels on industry.)
Both Stevens and Powell, in his separate concurring
opinion, were careful to emphasize the discretionary
power of the agency to set safety policy. Stevens wrote
that the agency must determine what a “significant
risk” is, but such a determination “will be based largely
on policy considerations.” Powell, stressing the necessi
ty of intelligent cost-benefit analysis, conceded that “the
decision that costs justify benefits is largely a policy
judgment delegated to OSHA by Congress.” Stevens,
concluded that “so long as they are supported by a
body of reputable scientific thought, the agency is free
to use conservative assumptions in interpreting the data
with respect to carcinogens . . . ”
Justice William Rehnquist, whose concurring opinion
was the decisive fifth vote in the 5 -4 judgment, posed a
more fundamental challenge to the regulatory powers of
OSHA. Rehnquist held that in view of the seriousness of
the issue in question— the trade-off between possible fu
ture deaths and present economic costs— Congress is
best suited to make the choice; instead, it had improper
ly delegated its responsibility to the Secretary of Labor.
Congress must delegate authority in areas where it has
no expertise, he acknowledged, but it should “lay down
the general policy and standards that animate the law,
leaving the agency to refine those standards.” Labeling
the feasibility requirement for all OSHA standards a
“legislative mirage,” Rehnquist called for the invalida
tion of the law’s provision concerning toxic substance
regulation and the reassumption by Congress of the re
sponsibility for critical policy decisions.
Justice Thurgood Marshall authored the dissent; join
ing him were Justices William Brennan, Byron White
and Harry Blackmun. Charging that the plurality ig
nored the “plain meaning” of the 1970 act, Marshall
identified the issue in question to be scientific uncertain
ty rather than the statutory authority of the Secretary.
In the face of such uncertainty, the dissenting justices
felt Congress had intended the Secretary to have the
broad powers implied by the law for regulating toxic
substances. Also disputed was the plurality’s contention
that OSHA had not carried its burden of proof; the dis
senters pointed to the 50 volumes of data collected and
the 2 weeks of hearings on the proposed regulation as
54
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
evid en ce o f o s h a ’s a ttem p t to ju stify th e 1 part per m il
lion regulation.
In addition to its impact on health standards, the
Court’s judgment could limit the scope of o s h a ’s jobsafety regulations. Stevens’ declaration that the Secre
tary “make a threshold finding that a place of employ
ment is unsafe” before setting standards is fairly
straightforward when the regulation is a generic health
standard, such as acceptable atmospheric levels of ben
zene gas. But safety policies are considerably more com
plex, particularly in the more comprehensive programs
designed to regulate specific workplaces (for example,
the regulations for dock safety currently being devel
oped by OSHA). If the Court’s decision were strictly ap
plied, OSHA might have to make a threshold determina
tion for each standard within the overall program.
Depending in the range of the program, this could in
volve prohibitive costs.
Constitutional quotas
In its continuing effort to clarify the constitution
ality of racial quotas, the Supreme Court recently up
held the authority of Congress to remedy prior
discrimination by imposing racial and ethnic quotas in
allocating Federal money. As in prior rulings on racial
quotas, the Court failed to achieve a majority verdict.
Nonetheless, the three opinions among the six justices
who voted to uphold Congress on this sensitive issue
agreed, at least, that Congress may assign benefits
based on racial and ethnic (and, perhaps, other) criteria
whenever it makes a finding of past discrimination and
tailors a preference scheme to correct that discrimina
tion. (Fullilove v. Klutznick.4)
The opinion of Chief Justice Warren Burger an
nounced the Court’s ruling, upholding the constitution
ality of a 1977 law that set aside 10 percent of Federal
public works contract funds (totaling more than $4 bil
lion) for minority business enterprises— businesses con
trolled by “citizens of the United States who are
Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos,
and Aleuts.” The law required that the States, as recipi
ents of grants under the law, assure the Secretary of
Commerce that at least 10 percent of the amount of
each grant would be expended for bona fide minority
business enterprises. Administrative regulations were
adopted under the law that permitted waiver of the
quota requirement when enough minority firms were
not available in an area or when such firms requested
an “unreasonably” high price. White contractors chal
lenged the set-aside provision as a violation of the equal
protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution.
Burger, joined by Justices Byron White and Lewis
Powell, offered a lengthy explanation of Congress’ pow
er under the Constitution to spend money. Because
Congress has the power to regulate commerce and,
thus, could have regulated the practices of private con
tractors to remedy past discrimination, Burger wrote,
Federal lawmakers can pursue the same objective by in
ducing voluntary cooperation through spending policies.
Congress also has the power to involve State and local
governments in such remedial efforts under its mandate
to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment by “appropriate
legislation,’’ he reasoned. Thus, Burger concluded that
the remedial objective of the minority business enterprise
provision was a legitimate application of Congress’
Fourteenth Amendment authority to ensure that minor
ities were not denied equal protection of the laws.
Burger then turned to the question of whether the
means— racial and ethnic quotas— employed by Con
gress to achieve such a legitimate objective passed con
stitutional muster. He cited earlier cases where judicial
remedies for racial discrimination incorporated racial
criteria; this has been permitted when either constitu
tional or statutory violations were found. Thus, Burger
reasoned that, because Congress has the most compre
hensive remedial power and because Congress had
found evidence that the effects of racial discrimination
existed in the award of Federal procurement contracts,
Congress may act to alter the status quo when it seeks
to fulfill a legitimate objective— such as the elimination
of racial discrimination:
H ere we deal . . . n ot w ith th e lim ited rem edial p o w ers o f
a F ed era l co u rt . . . bu t w ith th e b road rem edial p o w ers o f
C o n g ress. It is fu n d a m en ta l th at in n o organ o f g o v e rn
m en t, S ta te or F ed eral, d o e s there rep o se a m ore c o m p r e
h en siv e rem ed ial p ow er th an in th e C o n g ress, ex p ressly
ch a rg ed b y th e C o n stitu tio n w ith c o m p e te n c e an d au th o rity
to en fo rce eq u al p r o tectio n gu aran tees. C o n g re ss n o t o n ly
m a y in d u ce v o lu n ta ry a ctio n to assu re c o m p lia n ce w ith
e x istin g
F ed eral
sta tu to ry
or
c o n stitu tio n a l
a n tid is
crim in a tio n p r o v isio n s, but a lso , w h ere C o n g re ss h as a u
th o rity to d ecla re certain c o n d u ct u n law fu l, it m ay, as here,
a u th o rize an d in d u ce S ta te a ctio n to a v o id su ch actio n .
Burger also reasoned that other challenged aspects of
racial and ethnic quotas were permissible under the
Constitution— at least in this case. For example, he
found that the reduction in benefits available to white
contractors innocent of any prior discrimination was
simply a “relatively light” burden that they must share.
Congress had the power to assume that such firms
“may have reaped competitive benefit over the years”
because of the “virtual exclusion” of minority firms
from similar contracting opportunities. Whether the
remedy Congress fashioned was too broad or too nar
row in its application to victims of prior discrimination
could not be answered by this case, Burger declared. He
felt that such challenges could only be decided based on
the inclusion or exclusion of specific persons. But he did
reason that the administrative framework based on the
law provided adequate assurance that participation of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
minority firms in the program would not deviate from
the remedial purpose of the law. Specifically, he cited
the requirement that minority firms be “bona fide” (at
least 50-percent owned or controlled by minorities),
that this requirement was enforced partly through a
complaint procedure, and that waiver of the quota was
possible when minority contractors were unavailable or
charged excessive prices.
Although Burger specifically avoided an examination
of the quotas under the tests established by the Court’s
Bakke decision,5 he concluded that the set-aside provi
sion would “survive judicial review” in such an analy
sis. Justice Powell, in a separate concurring opinion,
applied the Bakke analysis he had agreed to and found
that Congress’ race-conscious remedy was an appropri
ate and justifiable response because of a compelling
governmental interest in curing the effects of prior racial
discrimination.
Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was joined in a con
curring opinion by Justices William Brennan and Harry
Blackmun, agreed only with the result of Burger’s opin
ion because he felt that the constitutionality of racial
classifications should be reviewed on the basis of his
concurring opinion in Bakke. There, he wrote that, if a
racial classification designed to further remedial pur
poses serves legitimate government objectives and if the
classification is substantially related to the achievement
of those objectives, it is constitutionally permissible.
Thus, Marshall would go substantially further than the
Burger opinion by reasoning that racial classifications
are not per se violations of constitutional equal protec
tion guarantees and that race-conscious remedies are
within the authority of Congress to correct social imbal
ances.
The significance of Marshall’s opinion may be mea
sured by the outcome of lower court decisions inter
preting Bakke. In the past 2 years, lower courts have
adopted whichever one of the three Bakke opinions that
comes closest to their own views.6Thus, as with the quo
ta issue involving school admissions, lower courts are
free to adopt Marshall’s more permissive constitutional
analysis in future cases involving minority preference
schemes used by Federal, State, or local governments in
areas such as housing, employment, or education.
In dissent, Justice Potter Stewart (joined by Justice
William Rehnquist) argued that the Constitution’s re
quirement of equal protection means what it says— all
racial classifications are intolerable. He wrote that Con
gress has no greater authority under the Constitution to
impose detriments based on race than does the judicia
ry— and the latter is limited to remedying specific ef
fects of illegal racial discrimination. Congress intended
to compensate the “disadvantaged,” but this does not
permit an unconstitutional racial classification, Stewart
concluded.
55
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Significant Decisions
Justice John Paul Stevens, in a separate dissent, ar
gued that the lack of precision regarding who had been
disadvantaged made the application of a remedy to all
minority business unconstitutional. He reasoned that
there was no basis to the assumption that the minorities
who owned or controlled contracting firms had been
discriminated against.
A t b est, th e sta tu to ry preferen ce is a so m e w h a t p erverse
form o f rep aration for th e m em b ers o f th e in ju red cla sses.
F o r th o s e w h o are th e m o st d isa d v a n ta g e d w ith in ea ch cla ss
are th e lea st lik ely to receive a n y benefit from th e sp ecial
p riv ileg e ev en th o u g h th ey are th e p erso n s m o st lik ely still
to be su fferin g th e c o n se q u en ce s o f th e p ast w ron g.
Pension liability despite disclaimers
Settling an issue of limited proportions under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the
Supreme Court recently ruled that employers who ter
minated pension plans under the law prior to January
1, 1976 (when it became fully effective) can be held lia
ble for employee benefits paid through ERISA insurance
despite provisions in the terminated plan protecting the
employer from such liability. (Nachman Corp. v. Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corp.1)
Writing for the narrow 5 -4 majority, Justice John
Paul Stevens found that disclaimers of employer liability
in pension plans protect against any direct claims made
by employees, but that even during the phase-in period
of benefit insurance Congress intended employers to be
liable for up to 30 percent of their net assets to com
pensate the ERISA insurance fund for benefits paid. Of
the 136 pension plan terminations during the initial
phases of the law (September 2, 1974 to December 31,
1975), 78 plans contained provisions disclaiming em
ployer liability in the event of asset shortfalls.
The 1974 act established the Pension Benefit Guaran
ty Corp. within the Department of Labor to insure
employees’ “nonforfeitable” benefits against the possi
bility of insufficient plan assets in the event of termina-
1I n d u s tr ia l U n ion D e p t., A F L - C I O v. A m e r ic a n P e tr o le u m I n stitu te ,
48 U.S.L.W. 5022 (U.S., July 2, 1980).
2 29 U.S.C. Sec. 652 (8).
329 U.S.C. Sec. 655 (b) (5).
4 F u llilo v e v. K lu tz n ic k , 48 U.S.L.W. 4979 (U.S., July 2, 1980).
56
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion. The Nachman Corp., which terminated its pension
plan on December 31, 1975, argued that a plan provi
sion limiting employee benefits to the assets of the plan
(and disclaiming Nachman’s liability for any additional
amounts) made such benefits “forfeitable” and, thus,
not insured under the law.
Stevens found that Congress had used the word
“nonforfeitable” to describe benefits that were vested
under the conditions of the specific plan. (Since January
1, 1976, the law has specified minimum vesting require
ments for all plans.) He reasoned that an employee’s
claim to such benefits remained “unconditional” and
“legally enforceable” against the plan regardless of an
employer’s protection against direct liability. “Nonfor
feitable” describes the quality of an employee’s right to
the benefit, Stevens concluded, and a disclaimer of em
ployer liability imposes no condition on rights created
through vesting.
Stevens, who was joined by Chief Justice Warren
Burger and Justices William Brennan, Thurgood M ar
shall, and Harry Blackmun, also pointed out that when
Congress passed the pension insurance law it was aware
that most plans contained disclaimers of employer lia
bility. If such provisions prevented insurance coverage,
he reasoned, ERISA protection would apply only to the
few plans without such disclaimers and to those termi
nating because of employer insolvency. But because
Congress included a reimbursement provision (creating
employer liability for up to 30 percent of a firm’s net
assets) beginning on the first day of the law’s operation,
it clearly intended to insure benefits in plans where the
employer had disclaimed liability, Stevens concluded.
In dissent, Justice Potter Stewart argued that the
specific language in the Nachman plan disclaimed liabil
ity for the plan itself in addition to the disclaimer of
employer liability. The lack of liability for the plan un
der contract law, he reasoned, should make vested ben
efits forfeitable under the initial phases of ERISA (and,
therefore, uninsured) because such benefits are condi
tional and legally unenforceable.
□
5 U n iv e rs ity
o f C a lifo r n ia R e g e n ts
v.
B akke,
6See Peter Elkind, “Bakke Aftermath,”
3, 1980, p. A 13.
7 N a c h m a n C orp. v. P en sio n
4524 (U.S., May 12, 1980).
438 U.S. 265 (1978).
T h e W a sh in g to n Post,
B e n e f it G u a r a n ty C orp.,
July
48 U.S.L.W.
-
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in October 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.
Employer and location
Industry
Number of
workers
Union '
American Can Co. (Naheola, A l a . ) ................................................
American Chain & Cable Co., Inc. (Bridgeport, C o n n .) .............
American Steel Foundries (Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana) ...........................
P ap er..............................................
Fabricated metal products . . .
Primary m e t a ls ...........................
Paperworkers ...........................................
Steelworkers ..............................................
Steelworkers ..............................................
1,600
1,000
3,800
Bendix Corp. Electrical Components Division (Sidney, N.Y.) .....................
Boeing Co. (Interstate) .........................................................................
Boeing Co., Boeing Vertol Co. Division (Delaware and Pennsylvania) . . .
Electrical products.....................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Transportation equipment . . . .
Machinists ................................................
Machinists .................................................
Auto Workers (In d .)................................
1,950
30,000
2,500
Commercial Shearing, Inc. (Ohio, Illinois, and U ta h ) ......................................
Consolidated Gas Supply Corp. (Intersta te)................................
Cyclops Corp., Empire-Detroit Steel Division (Mansfield, Ohio) ................
Fabricated metal products . . .
Utilities ........................................
Primary m e t a ls ...........................
Steelworkers ..............................................
Service Employees ...................................
Steelworkers ..............................................
1,250
1,450
1,150
Duval Corp. (Arizona) .........................................................
M inin g...........................................
Steelworkers; Operating Engineers;
Laborers; and Teamsters (Ind.)
1,700
First National Stores, Inc. (New York and New J ersey )......................
Retail trade
................................
Food and Commercial W o r k e rs...........
1,400
General Dynamics Corp., Quincy Shipbuilding Division (Quincy, Mass.)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., Indianapolis-Louisville Division
(Indiana and Kentucky)
Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Interstate) ................................................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Retail trade ................................
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers . . .
Food and Commercial W o r k e rs...........
2,000
1,800
T ran sit...........................................
Amalgamated Transit Union ................
13,000
Hershey Foods Corp. (Hershey, P a . ) ......................................
Hughes Tool Co. (Houston, T e x .) ...................................................
Food products ...........................
Machinery ...................................
Bakery and Confectionery Workers . . .
Steelworkers ..............................................
2,300
3,700
Ingersoll-Rand Co. (New Jersey and Pennsylvania)...........................
Machinery ...................................
Steelworkers ..............................................
1,950
Koppers Co., Inc., Metal Products Division (Baltimore, M d .) .....................
Machinery ...................................
Machinists
................................................
1,500
Libby-Owens-Ford Co. (Interstate)...........................................
Lincoln Telephone and Telegraph Co. (N ebrask a)................................
Lockheed Aircraft Corp., LMSC Division (California and Florida) ...........
Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Lockheed Georgia Co. Division (Interstate) . . .
Lone Star Steel Co. (Dallas, T e x .)..............................................
Stone, clay, and glass products
Communication...........................
O rdnan ce......................................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Primary m e t a ls ...........................
Glass and Ceramic Workers ................
Communications W ork ers.....................
Machinists ................................................
Machinists ................ ................................
Steelworkers ..............................................
7,500
1,500
5,650
5,550
5,000
McDonnell Douglas Corp., Douglas Aircraft Co. subsidiary (California
and Florida)
McDonnell Douglas Corp., Douglas Aircraft Co. subsidiary (Long Beach,
Calif.)
McLouth Steel Corp. (Trenton, Mich.) ...........................
Midland-Ross Corp., National Castings Division (Sharon, P a . ) ................
Transportation equipment . . . .
Machinists
................................................
5,100
Transportation equipment . . . .
Auto Workers (In d .)................................
9,900
Primary m e t a ls ...........................
Primary metals ...........................
Steelworkers ..............................................
Steelworkers ..............................................
3,700
1,050
National Standard Co. (Interstate) ..............................................
Primary metals ...........................
Steelworkers ..............................................
1,200
Ohio Ferro-Alloys Corp. (Ohio and Alabama) ...........................
Olin Corp. (Pisgah Forest, N.C.) ..............................................
Outboard Marine Corp., Johnson Outboard Division (Waukegan, 111.) . . .
Primary m e t a ls ...........................
P ap er..............................................
Machinery ...................................
1,000
1,850
3,400
Owens-Illinois, Inc. (Vineland, N . J . ) ................................
Stone, clay, and glass products
Steelworkers ..............................................
Paperworkers ...........................................
Independent Marine and Machinists
Association
Flint Glass W orkers................................
Revere Copper and Brass, Inc., Rome Division (Rome, N .Y .) ...................
Primary metals ...........................
Mechanics Educational Society
...........
1,400
Southern California Shoe Manufacturers Association, Inc. (California) . . .
Star Supermarkets, Inc. (Rochester, N.Y.) ..............................
Leather ........................................
Retail trade ................................
United Shoe W o r k e rs..............................
Food and Commercial W o r k e rs...........
1,100
1,650
Titanium Metals Corp. of America, Standard Steel Division (Burnham,
Penn.)
Primary metals ...........................
Steelworkers ..............................................
1,650
Walt Disney World Co. (Orlando, F l a .) ................................
A m usem ents................................
Service Trades Council Union
4,650
.............
1,100
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Continued— Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Union1
Industry
Employer and location
White Consolidated Industries, Franklin Manufacturing Co. Division
(St. Cloud, Minn.)
Electrical p r o d u cts.....................
M achinists...................................................
Youngstown Steel Door Co. (Youngstown, Ohio)
Transportation equipment . . . .
Steelworkers
...........................................
..............................................
Government activity
Employee organization '
Tennessee: Memphis Board of Education ...........................................................
E d u cation ......................................
Washington: Seattle Metropolitan Transit Division ........................................
Wisconsin: Madison Board of Education ...........................................................
T r a n sit...........................................
E d u cation ......................................
American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees
Amalgamated Transit Union ................
National Education Association (Ind.) .
'Affiliated with A F L -C IO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
Klein Award contributions
The Trustees of the Lawrence R. Klein Award Fund recently made
their 19th award to an author of a Monthly Labor Review article. The
awards are presented annually for articles which (1) exhibit originality
of ideas or method of analysis, (2) adhere to principles of scientific in
quiry and (3) are well written. Initially $100 each, the awards now
carry a $200 stipend.
The award fund was established by Lawrence R. Klein, who was
Editor in Chief of the Review for 22 years until his retirement in 1968.
Instead of accepting a retirement gift, he donated it and matched the
amount collected to initiate the fund. Since then, he has contributed
regularly, as have others. Among the latest to donate their retirement
gifts have been John H. Chandler, former chief of the Bureau of La
bor Statistics’ Division of Foreign Labor and Trade, and Edgar
Weinberg, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics’ Office of Productivity and Technology.
Contributions to the fund are tax deductible and may be sent to
Ben Burdetsky, Secretary-Treasurer of the Lawrence R. Klein Fund,
c/o School of Government and Business Administration, The George
Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052.
58
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Number of
workers
11,600
1,400
1,800
1,800
1,800
Developments in
Industrial Relations
Actions taken to aid auto industry
Moves to aid the automobile industry included a plan
announced by President Carter to counter declining
sales and increasing unemployment; approval of
Chrysler’s loan guarantee followed by renewed doubts
about the company’s viability; formation of an 11-union
coalition to attempt to curtail imports; and further an
nouncements of cost reduction measures by domestic
manufacturers.
President Carter described the proposal to aid the
auto industry as “a first step” in a “permanent partner
ship” between Washington and Detroit. The plan was
outlined in a meeting with the heads of five automobile
companies and Auto Workers President Douglas A.
Fraser and drew a mixed reaction. The industry offi
cials favored most aspects of the plan, particularly the
idea of establishing a permanent Automobile Industry
Committee of management, labor, and government rep
resentatives to study further steps to aid the industry.
(This committee is similar to a tripartite committee
established in the steel industry in 1978.) Fraser termed
“very significant” the President’s announcement that he
would ask the U.S. International Trade Commission to
expedite its decision on the UAW’s June petition for a
ruling on whether the increasing level of imports is
harming the domestic industry and, if so, whether im
port restrictions should be imposed.
Other parts of the plan would
•E ase a requirement that all 1984 cars meet exhaust
requirements for high altitude operation.
•C hange standards of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration to permit companies to counter
the dangers of exposure to lead and arsenic by having
employees wear individual protective equipment, rather
than by removing the hazard.
•E ase Environmental Protection Agency rules to re
duce the number of cars that must be tested prior to
the start of full-scale production and, in some cases, to
allow production to begin without prototype vehicles
first being made.
•Establish a program under which the Small Busi-
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee
Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on in
formation from secondary sources.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ness Administration will guarantee working capital
loans for 95 percent of the Nation’s automobile dealers.
•A llocate $100 million of Economic Development
Administration funds during fiscal 1981 to aid commu
nities severely harmed by industrial dislocations, with at
least half of the amount to be reserved for communities
hurt by the transitions in the automobile industry.
The first result of the $1.5 billion Federal loan guar
antee for Chrysler Corp. came when the company bor
rowed $500 million from a group of banks. The loan
was made after the Government’s Chrysler Loan Guar
antee Board, which had earlier approved the overall
guarantee plan, gave its required approval to the loan.
A few weeks later, the board approved an additional
guarantee of $300 million, as Chrysler reported a loss of
$1,017 billion for the first half of the year, reportedly
the largest loss ever suffered by an American corpora
tion for a half year. The $300 million guarantee includ
ed $50 million to be available only if Chrysler obtained
a matching $50 million of nonguaranteed loans. Trea
sury Secretary G. William Miller, who heads the board,
released a study by the board’s staff which forecast that
the company will have to borrow a total of $1 billion in
1980, instead of the $800 million originally forecast,
and $200 million in 1981, instead of $300 million.
In another area, Chrysler’s board of directors formed
a five-member committee “charged with insuring that
every possible action is taken to alleviate the impact on
the workers, the community in which the plant is locat
ed, and the government units involved” in any future
plant closings. The action was proposed by Auto Work
ers President Fraser, now a Chrysler board member.
The company and the union announced plans to set
up joint “quality action teams” to help resolve any
quality problems at the two plants producing the com
pany’s new line of compact cars. The quality commit
tees at the Newark, Del., and Jefferson Street (Detroit)
plants are similar to more general cooperative programs
established in recent years at Ford Motor Co. and Gen
eral Motors Corp.
There were announcements of further employment
cutbacks in the industry. Ford announced that by
yearend an unspecified number of its salaried employees
would join the 6,100 already on layoff. Prior to that re
duction, Ford had about 88,000 salaried employees.
American Motors Corp. announced that it would re
duce its white-collar staff by 10 percent, or about 700
59
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Developments in Industrial Relations
employees, by the end of summer.
Checker Motors Corp. said it had cut the salaries of
its 200 nonunion employees by approximately 10 to 15
percent. The taxicab manufacturer reported that total
employment at its Kalamazoo, Mich., plant had been
reduced to 500 workers, from a normal 1,000.
The Auto Workers campaign to restrict automobile
imports was strengthened when 11 unions of the Indus
trial Union Department of the A F L -C IO formed the Co
alition of Auto Components and Supply Workers.
According to Elmer Chatak, secretary-treasurer of the
IUD and a chief spokesman for the coalition, about
650.000 workers in the automobile components and
supply industry have lost their jobs— about twice the
number of workers who have lost jobs at the automo
bile assembly companies. Chatak also said that the
slump in domestic car production may be part of a per
manent structural change in the industry, rather than a
temporary slump, “unless President Carter takes imme
diate action to curb imports.”
The coalition called on the President to impose a
5-year quota on auto and truck imports limiting the
number to the 1975-76 levels of 1.7 million units a
year. According to the IUD, 2.4 million vehicles are en
tering the country each year, amounting to 28.4 percent
of all sales in the United States.
Uniroyal workers accept pay cut
There were several adverse developments in the tire
industry, resulting from the slump in domestic car sales,
reduction in driving attributable to increased fuel costs,
and the switch to longer wearing radial tires. At
Uniroyal, Inc., workers represented by the Rubber
Workers agreed to a 12- to 13-percent cut in wages and
benefits after the company had imposed the same reduc
tion on its nonunion employees. (A combined total of
37.000 workers was affected.) Uniroyal said the action
was designed to “pare costs to combat the effects of the
recession.” The company, which lost $120 million in
1979, also announced the closing of its bias-tire plant in
Chicopee, Mass., which employs 1,600 people. Talks
were under way between the company and a prospective
buyer. Production workers at the facility reportedly
were willing to accept a cut in pay to assure continued
operation.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. announced that it
would end quarterly cost-of-living adjustments for its
20.000 nonunion salaried employees. The employees
would continue to receive the $350-a-month in adjust
ments that accumulated since Firestone started the
quarterly adjustments in April 1977. Jack Miller, Fire
stone coordinator for the Rubber Workers, said that the
company had not asked for a concession from the union
but he did not rule out the possibility.
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Anti-inflation plan pay standard changed
The Council on Wage and Price Stability announced
a revision in the Carter Administration’s voluntary anti
inflation plan. The revision permits union-represented
employees to receive a wage and benefit increase of up
to 10.5 percent in any contract year, if the average an
nual rate of increase over the entire contract term falls
within the existing 7.5- to 9.5-percent standard. Pre
viously, the 7.5- to 9.5-percent guideline applied to each
year.
The change, retroactive to October 1, 1979, was
backed by the Pay Advisory Committee, which con
tended that contract bargainers needed the additional
flexibility in arranging their contract packages.
Southern textile workers get pay raise
Several major textile companies in the South an
nounced wage increases for their employees. The size of
the increase was not disclosed, but Burlington Indus
tries, Inc., said that the raise for its 46,000 employees
varied “to some degree” among its various divisions
“since they are different types of operations.” One firm,
Chatham Manufacturing Co. of Elkin, N.C., announced
that its increase was 10 percent. The last round of in
creases in the industry was in July 1979.
Among the other companies granting increases were
Cone Mills, Inc., Spring Mills, Inc., and West Point
Pepperell.
The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, which represents about 10 percent of the
280,000 textile workers in the south, settled with Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., on a 10-percent wage increase for more
than 7,000 workers in North Carolina, Virginia, Geor
gia, and Alabama. The increase was negotiated under a
wage-reopening provision of a contract scheduled to ex
pire in 1981. The union also settled with Cone Mills,
Inc. on a 9.5-percent general wage increase, an addition
al amount equal to 1 percent of payroll to be used to
reduce or eliminate wage inequities among jobs, and an
increase in company financing of pensions.
Firestone accused of ‘affirmative action’ failure
The Department of Labor barred Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co. from doing business with the Federal Gov
ernment, contending that the company had failed to im
plement an acceptable affirmative action plan to
increase the number of minorities and women employed
at the Firestone Petrochemical Center in Orange, Tex.
Department officials said that the order ended some $40
million a year of company sales to the Government,
making it the largest purchase cutoff under authority of
Executive Order 11246, which bars discrimination by
Government contractors. The record had been held by
Uniroyal, Inc., which settled its discrimination dispute
in 1979. (See Monthly Labor Review, February 1980, p.
17.)
Firestone officials said the ruling would be appealed
in the Federal courts, and that the action was based on
“an unreasonable interpretation of a technicality in the
law, and not on any pattern of discrimination as such.”
They claimed that the company has had an affirmative
action plan at the facility for more than 10 years and
that about 25 percent of its 650 employees were women
or minorities.
Another Federal discrimination case ended when
Philadelphia agreed to hire women for 30 percent of the
next 2,670 vacancies in its police patrol ranks and to
promote women to the next 16 detective openings and
the next 17 sergeant vacancies. The consent decree,
signed by the city and the Department of Justice, ended
a discrimination suit filed in February 1974. The city
also is required to pay $700,000 to 96 female police offi
cers who were victims of alleged discrimination in pro
motions. Some of the women will receive as much as
$22,488.
The city, which now has 186 female police offi
cers, had been permanently enjoined against discrimi
nating against women in the police department after a
1979 trial in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.
President of seafarers union dies
Paul Hall, who was one of the original members of
the Seafarers and rose to become president of the union,
died at the age of 65. Hall also was the senior member
of the A F L -C IO ’s Executive Council and president of
its Maritime Trades Department.
A F L -C IO President Lane Kirkland and SecretaryTreasurer Thomas R. Donahue said that Hall’s imprint
could be found on many of the programs and policies
of the Federation, citing his contributions to the growth
and vitality of the Maritime Trades Department and to
the improvement of labor-management relations in the
industry.
Vice President Frank Drozak, who has been acting
head of the union since Hall was hospitalized in No
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
vember, will continue in that capacity until an election
is held later this year.
Two railroad and airline unions merge
The 8,000 member Railway and Airway Supervisors
union is now a division of the Railway, Airline and
Steamship Clerks. Railway and Airline Supervisors
President Frank J. Ferlin, who heads the new division,
said that “given all the changes in today’s industry, in
cluding a trend towards consolidation of railroads and
airlines, we believe the interests of our members can
better be served by joining forces with a larger organi
zation.” The Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
headed by Fred J. Kroll, had 200,000 members prior to
the merger.
Boycott called off against southern chain
The Food and Commercial Workers union called off
its 3-year boycott campaign against Winn-Dixie, Inc.,
after the parties agreed to rules governing some aspects
of the union’s efforts to organize the supermarket chain.
According to the company, both parties agreed to con
duct future representational or organizational cam
paigns in accordance with National Labor Relations
Board rules and Federal law and to engage in informal
discussions before exercising legal rights to contest any
elections certified by the Board. However, company
president Bert L. Thomas said that “we will continue to
oppose with every proper and legal means any efforts
by unions to organize Winn-Dixie employees.” Jack
Jones, the chain’s director of industrial relations,
commented, “the boycott hasn’t affected us.”
During the boycott campaign, the various participat
ing unions charged that Winn-Dixie has an anti-union
policy dating back to the 1950’s and had repeatedly ig
nored rulings by the NLRB and Federal courts.
The Food and Commercial Workers officials said that
since the start of the boycott the union has won repre
sentation elections at Winn-Dixie facilities in Asheville,
N.C., Jacksonville, Fla., and Atlanta, Ga. Winn-Dixie’s
1,300 stores and 52,000 employees are concentrated in
the South.
61
Book Reviews
Evolution in medical science
Medicine and the Reign o f Technology. By Stanley Joel
Reiser. New York, Cambridge University Press,
1978. 317 pp. $15.95.
This book, by Stanley Joel Reiser, traces the evolu
tion of medical instruments, the clinical laboratory, and
the hospital and the profound changes in diagnostic
methods this evolution has wrought. Yet, the author of
fers more than a history. The very title of the book
implies the critical theme that pervades it. The author is
concerned not only with the possibilities of medical
technology, but also with its limitations and degenera
tive potential.
At first, medical instruments merely enlarged the
physician’s perceptual faculties. His judgment derived
from his observations and experience. Increasingly,
medical instruments became measuring devices. Chemi
cal analysis, routinized with the development of clinical
laboratories, became an indispensable part of the diag
nostic effort. Radiology permitted the nonintrusive
study of anatomy and morphology. The computer ap
peared to make diagnostic syntheses possible, which
conventional medical records, with their large lacunae,
preclude. Thus, the physician’s judgment came to be
more and more shaped by objective tests and data. Di
agnostic methods became increasingly complex, foster
ing specialization, and the general practitioner declined
in relative importance. This development resulted in an
ever more tenuous relationship between physician and
patient— an estrangement which, in turn, threatens the
very reliability of the diagnostic methods the evolution
of medical technology had been expected to enhance.
This is the major theme of the work.
Reiser devotes but a brief chapter to the techniques
of patient examination used in earlier centuries. His
story really begins with the 19th century, when effective
diagnostic instruments were first invented. Of course,
knowledge of anatomy and physiology antedated these
inventions. Dissection was performed and pathologies
classified as early as the 16th century. But no consensus
emerged regarding the relation between pathological ex
aminations of cadavers and the symptoms of the living
patient. The practicing physician of the 17th and 18th
centuries typically analyzed his patient’s description of
his illness and observed his patient’s symptoms, but he
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
did not examine him physically. He eschewed manual
methods as being “beneath his dignity’’; it would place
him on a par with the surgeon, who usually lacked aca
demic credentials and background in medical theory.
The principle of physical examination as the keystone
of diagnosis encountered great resistance, and was de
bated for decades, before it came to be firmly estab
lished around 1850— and then mainly as a result of the
proliferation of instruments which revealed the relation
between symptom and disease. For example, the diag
nostic value of sounds generated by the heart or by
breathing was now explored by the stethoscope, the
findings of which were eventually confirmed by autop
sies. According to Reiser, the stethoscope, invented in
1819, represented the first major step towards basing
medical practice on scientific findings. While medicine
had indeed evolved as a distinct science since the days
of Fernel, Vesalius, and Harvey in the 16th and 17th cen
turies, the gap between medical theory and medical prac
tice began to be closed only in the early 19th century.
The stethoscope also initiated the breakdown of the
doctor-patient relationship. The patient’s own account
of his symptoms and experience with illness began to
diminish in importance. The stethoscope and the instru
ments that succeeded it generated a “model of disease”
which often differed from the patient’s explana
tions. Nevertheless, acoustical and visual methods of ex
amination (for example, the ophthalmoscope, the laryn
goscope, X-rays) might still be considered as belonging,
as it were, to the handicraft stage of medical practice—
they were tools applied by the physician, not testing de
vices. They altered his view of the causes and location
of disease, but did not give the precision to his
findings which subsequent inventions would. Further
more, the focus of medical diagnosis was still gross
anatom y— the diseased part rather than the disturbed
function, the visible tissue rather than tissue cells invisi
ble to the naked eye.
The single most im portant instrument underlying the
transformation of diagnosis was the microscope. The
microscope had been invented in the 17th century, but
the microstructures and microlife it revealed were not
linked to disease by its inventors or by its students until
the mid-19th century. Only then, after severe problems
of distorted images had been overcome, did some physi
cians urge its use in tissue analysis. Only then was dis-
ruption of the function of the cell— which had been dis
covered long before— recognized (by Rudolf Virchow)
as the basis of disease. The discovery by Rudolf Koch
and Louis Pasteur that micro-organisms could cause
disease and the development of bacteriology as a science
was a result of the microscope.
The microscope, like other diagnostic instruments,
was at first still associated with anatomical concepts.
Yet, many physicians urged that changes in natural
functions, such as breathing, blood circulation, and
temperature also be read as indicators of pathology.
This view was promoted by the invention of measuring
and graphing devices, such as the sphygmometer and
the sphygmograph between 1836 and 1860 (these de
vices measure the pulse rate). The sphygmograph
“transformed the subjective character of pulse feeling
into an objective, visual, graphic representation that
was a permanent record of a transient event, amenable
to study and criticism alone or by a group of physi
cians.” Such devices— and here they also include the
thermometer, the electrocardiograph, the microscope,
and later the X-ray tube— were no longer mere tools or
aides to the physician’s perceptions. They were akin to
machines, with outputs no longer directly dependent
upon the skills of their operator but with skills built
into them. Furthermore, they engendered some of the
consequences associated with machines; in time, they
gave rise to the norming of such “output” variables as
blood pressure, body heat, and pulse rate. Being com
plex apparatus, they required specialization, thus en
couraging the practice of delegating medical tasks to
health specialists other than physicians (in 1900, of
200,000 s u c h w o r k e r s , 60 p e r c e n t w e r e p h y s ic ia n s ; in
1969, of 1.7 million, 20 percent were physicians); in ad
dition, they contributed to the centralization of medical
care in urban hospitals. Equally, they radically eroded
the relationship between physician and patient.
These developments were promoted by the rise of
chemical analysis of bodily fluids and tissues. Unlike
the diagnostic instruments discussed by Reiser, chemi
cal analysis evolved in a distinct institutional context,
the laboratory, “the organized workshop of science
where investigators analyzed the objects of their interest
firsthand,” which was largely a creation of the 19th cen
tury (being essentially conceived by Justus Liebig, the
great German chemist). Reiser devotes but a few pages
to the laboratory, and does not fully explore its signif
icance. The laboratory created a new environment,
unimpeded by tradition and convention, for research,
which must have contributed to its productivity in
terms of the basic knowledge it produced. The laborato
ry not only accentuated the trend toward separation of
patient and physician, but also began to sever medical
knowledge from medical practice.
The specialization and professionalization of medical
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
practice that arose from the evolution of medical tech
nology and knowledge created an ever more refined di
vision of labor among health workers. The hospital and
group practice institutionalized this division of labor.
“(By) the 1930’s, a number of leaders in medicine
looked to hospitals, and the cooperative model of prac
tice, as the key to reorganizing the practice of medicine
. . . The . . . Committee on the Costs of Medical Care
. . . proposed turning hospitals into comprehensive cen
ters that would be the focus of all medical activities.”
The hospital proved to be a far more potent centralizing
agent than group practice. In 1929, 8 out of 10 physi
cians were affiliated with a hospital; 1 out of 25
maintained offices or hours there. By 1975, virtually all
practicing physicians were affiliated, and 1 out of 4
practiced full-time there. The professional necessity of
such affiliation is indisputable, but affiliation surely
helped congeal the corporate interests of physicians.
In the final third of the book, Reiser offers a search
ing critique of what he regards as excessive reliance
upon medical technology, and the consequences for
medical practice and practitioners. He cites the enor
mous increase in the use of laboratory tests, X-rays,
and other diagnostic procedures in the face of their of
ten doubtful utility; the steep resulting rise in costs and,
most important to him, the tendency to substitute such
tests for the physician’s own perceptions and judgment.
The patient’s subjective symptoms and comments have,
as a result, been ignored, history-taking has declined in
importance and, hence, medical thought has lost coher
ence; medical practice has been “decerebrated.”
The author did not perhaps fully appreciate the depth
of the gap between the two parts of his work. The his
tory of the technological and medical developments
presented in the first part does not prepare the reader
for the disturbing critique advanced in the second. The
creation of a scientific, objective basis of medical diag
nosis, made possible in large part by an evolving medi
cal technology, could not but change the relationship
between physician and patient, voiding it of some of its
human concerns. But why should medical technology
have come to dominate medical practice, rather than
serve it? Why should it have engendered “an attitude in
which the patient (is) less than a person and more of an
object”? Reiser does not explicitly address these ques
tions. He mentions such factors as preoccupation with
scientific apparatus as supposedly embodying the “spirit
of science,” the emphasis on laboratory techniques and
biology in physicians’ training, broader insurance cover
age, and the threat of malpractice suits. But these are
conditioning, rather than casual factors.
One of the fascinating aspects of the book is that the
author does not simply describe the progress of medical
technology and diagnosis, but that he also carefully de
tails the professional resistance to it, as well as the fre63
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Book Reviews
quent unreliability of early generations of instruments—
all of which hindered the ready adoption of given tech
nologies and diagnostic concepts. There is, thus, at least
a hint of a corporate interest on the part of the medical
profession in then existing modes of diagnosis. The rise
of the hospital as a central and centralizing institution
of medical practice undoubtedly accentuated the corpo
rate interest of the medical profession. The huge invest
ment in complex equipment and lengthy specialized
study further solidified this interest, also imparting to it
a large economic dimension. It is certainly true that
changing conditions eventually compel a redefinition of
interest, but they must then match the stakes involved,
and these are very great now.
After the end of World War II, some physicians re
flected on the one-third rejection rate of men called to
service, because of neuropsychiatrie disorders. They be
gan to consider disease “as a maladaptation to biologi
cal, familial, and environmental circumstances— as
disturbances of thoughts, feelings and social relation
ships as well as disturbances of tissues and bodily fluids
. . . ” Nevertheless, “the view of man as primarily a
physico-chemical organism has remained the dominant
view of postwar medicine . . . ” That view of course re
mains anchored in existing health care institutions. The
reign of medical technology, of which Reiser gives such
a superb account and which so deeply troubles him,
seems destined to institutionalize the physico-chemical
approach to diagnosis for decades to come. For, judg
ing by Reiser’s own testimony, medical technology is in
large measure conceptually based upon that approach,
and in turn it generates professional and corporate in
terests that are hard to dislodge.
— H
o rst
Br
and
O ffice o f P ro d u c tiv ity a n d T e c h n o lo g y
B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistics
Myth-making and myth-breaking
The Economics o f Sex Differentials. By Cynthia B.
Lloyd and Beth T. Niemi. New York, Columbia
University Press, 1979. 355 pp. $16.50.
During the past quarter century, changes in social at
titudes, life styles, marital and family patterns, and a
host of other developments have contributed to a dra
matic increase in the labor force participation of wom
en. Since 1950, the proportion of women engaged in or
seeking market work has climbed from about one-third
to more than one-half. During the most recent decade,
the increase has been concentrated among young wom
en— those under 35 years of age— and the traditional
separation of market work and home production has
become less sharp for young wives and mothers. Prior
64
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
to the midsixties, the bulk of the growth in female labor
force participation had occurred among those 45 to 59
years of age, a group that had largely completed the
time-consuming portion of their child-rearing responsi
bilities. The return of these middle-aged women to the
paid-work force had required fewer adjustments by
their families, the social structure, and their employers,
since, on average, this group was less career oriented
than the younger women who followed them into the
job market.
It is against this backdrop of social, economic, and
political developments that this book, by Cynthia B.
Lloyd and Beth T. Niemi, was written. It takes its place
among a raft of articles, speeches, and books that have
been written on the subject.
Unfortunately, the large quantity has not always been
of the highest quality, so it is with much appreciation
that this work by two well-qualified economists ought
to be received. Unlike much of the literature in this
area, this work is even-handed in tone, neither strident
with political overtones nor so overloaded with details
that it can be read only by specialists in the field. The
first chapter, in particular, should be required reading
for every person interested in the subject. Academics,
journalists, policymakers, and the public at large can all
benefit from this careful discussion of the myths and re
ality of the current situation.
Among the subjects discussed in this chapter are var
ious misinterpretations of statistical data including: the
drawing of conclusions about individual behavior based
upon group averages, the expectation that cross-section
al data can be used as a proxy for developments over
time, and the attribution of too much weight to anec
dotal evidence. When employers or policymakers fall
prey to these misinterpretations, they may well perpetu
ate the problems that they perceive.
In regard to the use of statistical averages, the au
thors point out the fallacy of drawing conclusions about
individuals based upon group norms by illustrating the
amount of dispersion around the averages. They then
discuss the “statistical discrimination” which occurs
when an employer chooses not to hire a particular
woman, because he has read that women, on average,
have higher turnover than men. The specific man that is
hired may or may not stay at the job longer than the
woman who was avoided; she was never given the op
portunity to begin her tenure. Actually, the data show
that women’s rates of turnover are not greatly unlike
men’s if one controls for age and occupation.
Another common misunderstanding results from a
confusion between cross-sectional and time-series data.
As the authors put it:
T h e d ra m a tic in crease in la b or force p articip a tio n rates
a m o n g w o m e n o f all a g es, b u t p articu larly a m o n g yo u n g er
w o m e n , in th e la st 10 years h a v e m ea n t th a t for th e y o u n g
c o h o r ts o f w o m e n (th a t is, w o m en b orn in th e sa m e year),
la b o r fo rce p a rticip a tio n rates ap p ear to b e risin g a lm o st
c o n tin u o u sly o v er th e life c y cle. T h is p resen ts a sh arp c o n
trast to th e c ro ss-se ctio n a l p ictu re, w h ich im p lies th a t w o m
en are d ro p p in g o u t in their ch ild -b ea rin g years. T h e
d e c ep tio n arises b e ca u se th e la b or force b eh avior o f d iffer
en t w o m e n o f v a ryin g a g es is b ein g u sed to sim u la te th e life
c y c le o f a h y p o th e tic a l w o m a n . H o w e v er , b eca u se o f d ra
m a tic c h a n g e s in b eh a v io r a m o n g y o u n g er w o m e n , it is n o t
a ccu ra te to lo o k at o ld e r w o m en to d a y an d a ssu m e th a t
th a t is w h ere y o u n g er w o m en w ill be a certain n u m b er o f
y ears d o w n th e road.
A related misconception occurs when someone be
lieves that a rate for a particular group at a particular
time can be used as a proxy for the overall behavior of
a “typical” member of that group. For example, a labor
force participation rate of 50 percent means that half of
the relevant group is currently in the labor force, not
that a typical member of the group spends half of her
lifetime in the labor force. The authors cite an actual
longitudinal study which suggests that one-third of all
women work just about continuously, one-third inter
mittently, and one-third never work outside the home.
Misunderstandings of the nature of change sometimes
result from the use of anecdotal evidence. These exam
ples, which are often used in popular press, may over
state the amount of change that has actually occurred.
For example, female carpenters, crane operators, and
mineworkers are interviewed and some observers con
clude that such occupational choices have become com
monplace. While it is true that there have been some
women who have been able to move into traditionally
male occupations, most women remain in those fields
that are predominately female. Six out of every 10
women are in retail trade, clerical, or service occupa
tions. Specific occupations that are at least 90 percent
female include secretaries, bank tellers, cashiers, and
nurses; occupations that are less than 10 percent female
include mechanics, carpenters, dentists, and engineers.
It is important to correct misconceptions concerning
women in the work force for several reasons. First, ac
curacy in understanding the world around us enables
individuals to better plan tneir lives. Second, the behav
ior of individuals is dependent on their beliefs concern
ing the facts, and their misunderstandings may serve to
be self-fulfilling. An employer may be reluctant to in
vest in training for a female employee if he believes her
likely to leave; without training to improve her skills,
she may have little incentive to stay. Lastly, policy deci
sions based on traditional assumptions tend to foster
and perpetuate a situation that might otherwise change.
Often cited examples relate to tax policies and the
structure of social security benefits.
The remaining chapters of the book are amplifications
of the foundation chapter, providing theory, data, and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
analysis. Among the topics covered are: labor attach
ment, educational investment, job training, earnings,
unemployment, evidence of discrimination, government
policies and programs. One could certainly quarrel with
the policy conclusions of the authors, since these are
clearly dependent on philosophical attitudes. More im
portantly, their research is thorough, based on careful
and proper use of data and a broad knowledge of
sources and research in their area.
— D e b o r a h P i s e t z n e r K l e in
O ffice o f C u rren t E m p lo y m e n t A n a ly s is
B u reau o f L ab or S ta tistics
Publications received
Agriculture and natural resources
B ro w n , W illiam M . an d H erm an K a h n , “ W h y
n e r a b le,” Fortune, Ju ly 14, 1980, pp. 6 6 - 6 9 .
opec
Is V u l
B u sch , L aw ren ce, “ S tru ctu re a n d N e g o tia tio n in th e A g r ic u l
tural S c ien ce s,” R ural Sociology, Sp rin g 1980, pp. 2 6 - 4 8 .
Economic and social statistics
“ D a ta C o v era g e o f th e F u n c tio n a lly L im ited E ld erly: R ep o rt
o f th e In tera g en cy S ta tistica l C o m m ittee on L o n g -T erm
C are for th e E ld e r ly ,” Statistical Reporter, Ju ly 1980, pp.
2 8 1 -3 1 6 .
P h e lp s, M ich a el G ., “ L a m en ts, A n c ie n t a n d M od ern : K ey n es
on M a th e m a tic a l a n d E c o n o m e tric M e th o d o lo g y ,” Jour
nal o f Post Keynesian Economics, S u m m er 1980, pp. 4 8 2 93.
Education
F o x , W illiam F ., Relationships Between Size o f Schools and
School Districts and the Cost o f Education. W a sh in g to n ,
U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f A g ricu ltu re, E c o n o m ic s , S ta tistics,
a n d C o o p er a tiv es Service, 1980, 25 pp. (T ech n ica l B u lle
tin , 1621.)
K ep p e l, F ra n cis, “ E d u ca tio n in th e E ig h tie s ,” Harvard Educa
tional Review, M a y 1980, pp. 1 4 9 - 5 3 .
“ N e w D ir e c tio n s in In tern a tio n a l E d u c a tio n ,” The Annals,
T h e A m erica n A c a d e m y o f P o litica l an d S ocial S cien ce,
M a y 1980, pp. 1 - 1 6 4 .
Health and safety
A lle n , R o b ert F ., “T h e C orp o ra te H ea lth -B u y in g Spree: B o o n
or B o o n d o g g le ? ” S.A.M. Advance Management Journal,
Sp rin g 1980, pp. 4 - 2 2 .
R o b er tso n , Jam es M c D . a n d T h e o d o r e H . In g a lls, “ A M o rta l
ity S tu d y o f C arb on B lack W ork ers in th e U n ite d S ta tes
from 1935 to 1 9 7 4 ,” Archives o f Environmental Health,
M a y - J u n e 1980, pp. 1 8 1 - 8 6 .
U .S . B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistics, Accidents Involving Face Inju
ries, Washington, 1980, 2 0 pp. (R e p o r t 6 0 4 .)
U .S .
O cc u p a tio n a l S afety an d H ea lth A d m in istra tio n , A ll
About OSHA. W a sh in g to n , U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f L ab o r, O c
c u p a tio n a l S afety a n d H ea lth A d m in istra tio n ,
pp. ( o s h a 2 0 5 6 .) S in g le c o p y free.
1980, 4 7
65
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Book Reviews
Industrial relations
B la ck b u rn , Jo h n D . a n d K a th ry n P. S h eeh an , “ R e ce n t D e v e l
o p m e n ts in R e lig io u s D iscrim in a tio n : T h e EEOC’s P ro
p o s e d G u id e lin e s,” Labor Law Journal, Ju n e 1980, pp.
3 3 5 -3 9 .
B ro d y , M ich a el, “ C o n g ress, th e P resid en t, a n d F ed eral E q u al
E m p lo y m e n t P o licy m a k in g : A P ro b lem in S ep aration of
P o w e r s,” Boston University Law Review, M arch 1980, pp.
2 3 9 -3 0 5 .
C larke, Jack, “ S u b sta n tia l E v id en ce a n d L ab or A r b itr a tio n in
th e F ed era l S e c to r,” Labor Law Journal, Ju n e 1980, pp.
3 6 8 -7 4 .
D o u g la s , Joel M ., “T h e L ab or In ju n ctio n : E n jo in in g P u b lic
S ecto r S trikes in N e w Y o r k ,” Labor Law Journal, June
1980, pp. 3 4 0 - 5 2 .
H en k e l, Jan W ., “ C o llec tiv e B a rgain in g in H ig h er E d u ca tio n :
S ta te L eg isla tu res Still H o ld th e P u rse S tr in g s,” Labor
Law Journal, Ju n e 1980, pp. 3 5 3 - 6 7 .
In d u stria l R e la tio n s R esea rch A s s o c ia tio n , Proceedings o f the
32d Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Ga„ Dec. 2 8 -3 0 , 1979.
E d ite d b y B arbara D . D e n n is. M a d iso n , W is., In d u strial
R e la tio n s R esea rch A s so c ia tio n , 1980, 4 1 3 pp. $10.
K ru p m a n , W illia m A . a n d R o g e r S. K a p la n , “T h e S to ck P u r
ch a ser A fte r Burns: M u st H e B u y th e U n io n C o n tra ct? ”
Labor Law Journal, Ju n e 1980, pp. 3 2 8 - 3 4 .
L eap, T erry a n d Irvin g K o v a rsk y , “ W h a t Is th e Im p a ct o f
Weber o n C o llec tiv e B argain in g?” Labor Law Journal,
Ju n e 1980, pp. 3 2 3 - 2 7 .
L ew in , L eif, Governing Trade Unions in Sweden. C am b rid ge,
M a ss., H arv a rd U n iv e r sity P ress, 1980, 180 pp. $20.
N a tio n a l R ig h t to W o rk C o m m ittee , The National Right to
Work Committee Annual Report, 1980. S p rin gfield , V a.,
1980, 28 pp.
U .S . B ureau o f L a b o r S ta tistics, B LS File o f State, County,
and Municipal Collective Bargaining Agreements, Fall
1979. W a sh in g to n , 1980, 65 pp. (R e p o r t 5 98.)
----------- Collective Bargaining in the Basic Steel Industry. W a sh
in g to n , 1980, 11 pp. (R e p o r t 6 0 3 .)
----------- Collective Bargaining in the Telephone Industry. W a sh
in g to n , 1980, 11 pp . (R e p o r t 6 0 7 .)
Industry and government organization
D u n lo p , J o h n T „ ed ., Business and Public Policy. B o sto n ,
H a rv a rd U n iv e r sity , G ra d u a te S c h o o l o f B u sin ess A d m in
istra tio n , D iv isio n o f R esea rch , 1980, 118 pp. $ 6 .9 5 , H a r
vard U n iv e r sity P ress, C a m b rid ge, M a ss.
M cQ u a id , K im , “ B ig B u sin ess an d P u b lic P o lic y in
C o n tem p o ra ry U n ite d S ta te s,” Quarterly Review o f Eco
nomics and Business, S u m m er 1980, pp. 5 7 - 6 8 .
Problems. W a sh in g to n , T h e W h ite H o u se , O ffice o f th e
S p ecial A s sista n t for C o n su m er A ffairs, 1979, 76 pp. S in
g le c o p ie s a v a ila b le from th e C on su m er In fo rm a tio n C e n
ter, D e p t. 532 G , P u e b lo , C o lo . 81009.
International economics
B o w en , W illia m , “ C lo sin g th e T rad e G a p C o u ld T a k e T en
Y e a r s,” Fortune, Ju ly 14, 1980, pp. 1 2 8 - 3 7 .
H em p h ill, W illia m L „ “ E stim a tio n o f th e T im in g A sy m m etr y
in In tern a tio n a l T r a d e ,” International Monetary Fund
S ta ff Papers, M arch 1980, pp. 1 3 5 - 6 0 .
J o h n so n , O m o tu n d e an d J o a n n e S a lo p , “ D istr ib u tio n a l A s
p e c ts o f S ta b iliza tio n P ro g ra m s in D e v e lo p in g C o u n tr ie s,”
International Monetary Fund S ta ff Papers, M arch 1980,
pp. 1 - 2 3 .
L ip sch itz, L eslie a n d V. S u n d ararajan , “T h e O p tim a l B a sk et
in a W o r ld o f G en era lized F lo a tin g ,” International Mone
tary Fund S ta ff Papers, M arch 1980, pp. 8 0 - 1 0 0 .
“ M ig ra n t W ork ers in th e C u rren t E c o n o m ic C o n te x t,” The
OECD Observer, M a y 1980, pp. 2 4 - 2 5 .
O rg a n iza tio n
for E c o n o m ic C o o p er a tio n
an d
D e v e lo p m e n t,
Interfutures: Facing the Future— Mastering the Probable
and Managing the Unpredictable. P aris, 1979, 4 2 5 pp.
$ 2 0 .5 0 . A v a ila b le in th e U n ite d S ta tes from OECD P u b li
c a tio n s a n d In fo rm a tio n C en ter, W a sh in g to n .
S ach s, Jeffrey, “ W a g es, F le x ib le E x c h a n g e R a te s, an d M a cro e c o n o m ic P o lic y ,” The Quarterly Journal o f Economics,
Ju n e 1980, pp. 7 3 1 - 4 7 .
Labor and economic history
C ah n , W illia m , Lawrence 1912: The Bread and Roses Strike.
N e w Y o r k , T h e P ilgrim P ress, 1980, 238 pp. $ 6 .9 5 ,
paper.
Stieb er, Jack, “ L a b o r ’s W a lk o u t from th e K o rea n W a g e S ta b i
liz a tio n B o a r d ,” Labor History, Sp rin g 1980, pp . 2 3 9 - 6 0 .
Straw , R ich a rd , “ A n A c t o f F aith : S o u th ea stern O h io M in ers
in th e C o a l S trike o f 1 9 2 7 ,” Labor History, Sp rin g 1980,
pp. 2 2 1 - 3 8 .
Labor force
B arad, C ary B ., “ F le x itim e U n d e r S crutiny: R esea rch on
W ork A d ju stm e n t a n d O rg a n iza tio n a l P erfo rm a n ce,” Per
sonnel Administrator, M a y 1980, pp. 6 9 - 7 4 .
D u g g a n , Jam es E ., “T h e E m p irical R e la tio n o f L ab or F o rce
to E m p lo y m e n t an d U n e m p lo y m e n t,” Quarterly Review
o f Economics and Business, S u m m er 1980, pp. 6 9 - 8 1 .
G reen e, Ju d ith A ., “Y o u th U n e m p lo y m e n t W o rse T h a n
T h o u g h t B u t N o t I n so lu b le ,” Jobs Watch, M a r c h - A p r il
1980, b e g in n in g o n p. 1.
S u m , A n d r ew M ., E d w a rd M eeh a n , Jack D r a g o , Trends in the
Labor Force Status o f Youth in New England: Implications
fo r Targeting Youth Employment and Training Resources.
M a tto , E d w a rd A ., A Manager's Guide to the Antitrust Laws.
N e w Y o rk , a m a c o m , A d iv isio n o f A m erica n M a n a g e
m e n t A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 195 pp. $ 1 4 .9 5 .
B o sto n , M a ss., N o r th e a ste rn U n iv e r sity , C en ter for L a
b or M ark et S tu d ies, D e p a r tm en t o f E c o n o m ics, 1980, 76
pp.
S h a n k lin , W illia m L „ “ D o n ’t P lan o n B u sin ess as U s u a l,”
Business, M a y - J u n e 1980, pp. 3 0 - 3 3 .
S u zaw a, G ilb ert, “ G o ld , R e c e ss io n a n d Jew elry M a n u fa ctu r
in g E m p lo y m e n t, P t. I ,” American Jewelry Manufacturer,
M a y 1980, pp. 7 2 - 7 7 .
The
W h ite H o u se , O ffice o f th e S p ecial A s sista n t for
C o n su m er A ffairs, Consumer’s Resource Handbook: A
What-to-Do, Where-to-Go M anual fo r Resolving Consumer
66
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U .S . B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, Employment Projections fo r
the 1980’s. W a sh in g to n , 1979, 106 pp. (B u lletin 2 0 3 0 .)
S to ck N o . 0 2 9 - 0 0 1 - 0 2 3 1 2 - 0 . $ 4 .2 5 , S u p erin ten d en t of
D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g to n , 2 0 4 0 2 .
----------- Perspectives on
5 pp.
Working Women. W a sh in g to n , 1980,
“ W o m en in th e L ab ou r M arket: A C on feren ce at OECD,” The
OECD Observer, M a y 1980, pp. 3 - 1 5 .
Management and organization theory
B ru sh , D o n a ld H . an d L y le F . S ch o e n fe ld t, “ Id en tify in g M a n
agerial P o ten tia l: A n A lte rn a tiv e to A s se ssm e n t C en te rs,”
Personnel, M a y - J u n e 1980, pp. 6 8 - 7 6 .
C o o p er, C ary L., “ H u m a n iz in g th e W ork P la ce in E urope: A n
O v erv iew o f Six C o u n tr ie s,” Personnel Journal, June
1980, pp. 4 8 8 - 9 1 .
C o x , K eith K ., “ M a rk etin g in th e 1 9 8 0 ’s — B ack to B a sic s,”
Business, M a y - J u n e 1980, pp. 1 9 - 2 3 .
F o rd , R o b ert N ., Why Jobs Die and What to Do About It: Job
Redesign and Future Productivity. N e w Y o rk , a m a c o m ,
A d iv isio n o f A m erica n M a n a g em en t A s so c ia tio n s , 1979,
2 2 0 pp. $ 1 4 .9 5 .
G o rd o n , P aul C , “ M a g n e tic M a n agem en t: T h e R eal R o le of
P e r so n n e l,” Personnel Journal, Ju n e 1980, b eg in n in g on
p. 485.
G reen b erg , P aul D . an d E d w ard M . G la ser, Some Issues in
Joint Union-Management: Quality o f Worklife Improve
ment Efforts. K a la m a z o o , M ic h ., W . E. U p jo h n In stitu te
vanced Management Journal, Sp rin g 1980, pp. 3 9 - 4 4 .
P erry, R o b ert A ., “ P u b lic S ecto r S electio n S p ecialist: A Sur
vey o f S ta te an d L ocal G o v er n m e n t U tiliz a tio n and
T ra in in g N e e d s ,” Public Personnel Management, M a r c h A p ril 1980, pp. 8 6 - 9 3 .
P eters, T h o m a s J., “ P u ttin g E x c ellen ce in to M a n a g e m en t,”
Business Week, Ju ly 21, 1980, b e g in n in g on p. 196.
P o w e ll, G ary N ., “ C areer D e v e lo p m e n t an d th e W om a n M a n
a g e r — A S ocial P er sp ec tiv e ,” Personnel, M a y - J u n e 1980,
pp. 2 2 - 3 2 .
R im ler, G eo r g e W . an d N e il I. H u m p h re y s, Sm all Business:
Developing the Winning M anagement Team. N e w Y o rk ,
AMACOM, A d iv isio n o f A m erica n M a n a g e m en t A s s o c ia
tio n s, 1980, 180 pp. $ 1 3 .9 5 .
Sh apek, R a y m o n d A ., “T h e In terg o v ern m en ta l P erso n n el A c t
P rogram an d M a n a g em en t C a p a city D e v e lo p m e n t,” Pub
lic Personnel Management, M a r c h - A p r il 1980, pp. 7 5 85.
Siegel, Jerom e, Personnel Testing Under EEO. N e w Y o rk ,
a m a c o m , A d iv isio n o f A m erica n M a n a g em en t A s s o c ia
tio n s,
1980,
92
pp .
$ 7 .5 0 ,
ama
m em b ers;
$10,
n o n m em b ers.
“ S ixty Y ea rs o f H irin g P ra c tic e s,” Personnel Journal, Jun e
1980, b eg in n in g on p. 4 62.
S lom a, R ich ard S., How to Measure Managerial Performance.
N e w Y o rk , M a cm illa n P u b lish in g C o ., In c., 1980, 2 5 7
pp. $ 1 0 .9 5 .
for E m p lo y m e n t R esea rch , 1980, 85 pp. $4.
H ec h t, M au rice R ., What Happens in Management: Principles
and Practices. N e w Y o rk , AMACOM, A d iv isio n o f A m e ri
can M a n a g em en t A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 2 1 2 pp. $ 1 5 .9 5 .
H eisei, W . D „ “ A N o n -B u r ea u cr a tic V iew o f M a n a g em en t
D e v e lo p m e n t,” Public Personnel Management, M a r c h A p ril 1980, pp. 9 4 - 9 8 .
H iv ely , Janet M . a n d W illiam S. H o w e ll, “T h e M a le - F e m a le
M a n a g em en t T eam : A D a n c e o f D e a th ? ” Management
Review, Ju n e 1980, pp. 4 4 - 5 0 .
K o v a c h , K en n eth A ., “ W h y M o tiv a tio n a l T h eo ries D o n ’t
W o r k ,” S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Sp rin g
1980, pp. 5 4 - 5 9 .
L eb ell, D o n , “ M a n a g in g P rofessio n a ls: T h e Q u iet C o n flic t,”
Personnel Journal, Ju ly 1980, b eg in n in g on p. 566.
L u b b en , G a ry L., D u a n e E. T h o m p so n , C h arles R . K la sso n ,
“ P erfo rm a n ce A p p raisal: T h e L egal Im p lic a tio n s o f T itle
V I I ,” Personnel, M a y - J u n e 1980, pp. 1 1 - 2 1 .
L y n ch , E d ith M ., “ H o w W om en C an G et O u t o f D e a d -E n d
J o b s ,” S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Spring,
1980, pp. 6 0 - 6 3 .
W alk er, A lfr ed J., “ A rriv in g S oon : T h e P ap erless P erso n n el
O ffic e,” Personnel Journal, Ju ly 1980, b eg in n in g on
p. 559.
W itk in , A rth u r A ., “ C o m m o n ly O v er lo o k e d D im e n sio n s o f
E m p lo y e e S e le c tio n ,” Personnel Journal, July 1980, b e g in
n in g on p. 573.
Monetary and fiscal policy
A a r o n , H en ry J. an d M ich ael J. B o sk in , e d s., The Economics
o f Taxation. W a sh in g to n , T h e B r o o k in g s In stitu tio n ,
1980, 4 1 8 pp. $ 1 7 .9 5 , clo th ; $ 6 .9 5 , paper.
B ryce, H errin g to n J., ed ., Managing Fiscal Retrenchment in
Cities. C o lu m b u s, O h io , A c a d e m y for C o n tem p o ra ry
P ro b lem s, 1980, 33 pp. S in g le c o p y free.
L ieb lin g, H erm an L, US. Corporate Profitability and Capital
Formation: Are Rates o f Return Sufficient? N e w Y o rk ,
P erg a m o n P ress, 1980, 146 p p ., b ib lio g ra p h y . (P erg a m o n
P o lic y S tu d ies on U .S . an d In tern a tio n a l B u sin ess, 4 7 .)
$14.
R ao,
D ile e p , Handbook o f Business, Finance and Capital
Sources, 1979 Edition. N e w Y o rk , a m a c o m , A d iv isio n o f
A m erica n M a n a g em en t A s so c ia tio n s , 1979, 4 6 0 pp.
M ayer, R ich a rd J., “ K e y s to E ffective A p p r a is a l,” Manage
ment Review, Jun e 1980, pp. 6 0 - 6 2 .
M illett, Joh n D ., Management, Governance and Leadership: A
Guide fo r College and University Administrators. N e w
Y o rk , a m a c o m , A d iv isio n o f A m erica n M a n a g em en t
A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 208 pp. $ 1 5 .9 5 .
O liv a s, L o u is, “ U s in g A sse ssm e n t C en ters for In d iv id u a l an d
O rg a n iza tio n a l
D e v e lo p m e n t,”
Personnel, M a y - J u n e
1980, pp. 6 3 - 6 7 .
P en ley , Larry E. an d Brian L. H a w k in s, “ C o m m u n ica tin g for
Im p ro v ed M o tiv a tio n an d P erfo rm a n ce,” S.A.M. A d
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T o u h ey , Joh n C ., Stock M arket Forecasting fo r Alert Investors.
N e w Y o rk , a m a c o m , A d iv isio n o f A m erica n M a n a g e
m en t A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 184 pp. $ 1 1 .9 5 .
W ein trau b , S id n ey, “ M o n e y , S u p p ly an d D e m a n d In terd ep en
d e n c e ,” Journal o f Post Keynesian Economics, S u m m er
1980, pp. 5 6 6 - 7 5 .
Productivity and technological change
B ays, C arson W ., “ U tility P ro d u c tiv ity an d R eg u la to r y
In c e n tiv e s,” Quarterly Review o f Economics and Business,
S u m m er 1980, pp. 5 1 - 5 6 .
67
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Book Reviews
M ilitzer, K . H ., “ M a cro vs. M icro: I n p u t/O u tp u t R a tio s ,”
Management Review, Jun e 1980, pp. 8 - 1 5 .
S a lo m o n , J ea n -J a cq u es, “T ech n ica l C h a n g e an d E c o n o m ic
P o lic y ,” The OECD Observer, M a y 1980, pp . 1 6 - 2 2 .
W ise, J o sep h , “ S ettin g U p a C o m p a n y P ro d u c tiv ity
g r a m ,” Management Review, Ju n e 1980, pp . 1 5 - 1 8 .
P ro
Wages and compensation
B rin k s, Ja m es T ., “ Is T h ere M erit in M erit In creases?” Per
sonnel Administrator, M a y 1980, pp . 5 9 - 6 4 .
M iller, Jo h n J., “ T ren d s a n d P ra ctices in E m p lo y e e B en efits,”
Personnel Administrator, M a y 1980, b eg in n in g o n p. 48.
M o y n a h a n , Jo h n K ., Designing an Effective Sales Compensa
tion Program. N e w Y o rk , a m a c o m , A d iv isio n o f A m e ri
can M a n a g e m en t A s so c ia tio n s , 1980, 2 1 4 pp. $ 1 6 .9 5 .
Welfare programs and social insurance
K o p its , G eo r g e a n d P a d m a G o tu r , “T h e In flu en ce o f S o cial
S ecu rity o n H o u se h o ld Savin gs: A C r o ss-C o u n try In v e s ti
g a tio n ,” International Monetary Fund S ta ff Papers, M arch
1980, pp. 1 6 1 - 9 0 .
U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f H ea lth , E d u ca tio n , a n d W elfare, Employ
ment and Training Issues in Social Work with the Elderly.
W a sh in g to n , U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f H ea lth , E d u ca tio n , an d
W elfare, N a tio n a l C lea rin g h o u se o n A g in g , A d m in is tr a
tio n o f A g in g , O ffice o f H u m a n D e v e lo p m e n t Services,
1979, 2 0 pp. ( A o A O cc a sio n a l P ap ers in G e r o n to lo g y , 4 .)
( d h e w P u b lica tio n N o . ( o h d s ) 7 9 - 2 0 0 9 0 .) S to c k N o . 0 1 7
- 0 6 2 - 0 0 1 1 7 - 1 . $ 1 .7 5 , S u p erin ten d en t o f D o c u m e n ts ,
W a sh in g to n 2 0 4 0 2 .
Worker training and development
C o n su lta n t N e w s , Directory o f Executive Recruiters. F itzw illia m , N .H ., C o n su lta n ts N e w s , 1980, 2 1 6 pp. $12, p re
paid .
G in zb erg , E li, ed ., Employing the Unemployed. N e w Y o r k , B a
sic B o o k s, In c., P u b lish ers, 1980, 2 0 9 pp. $15.
H ow ard
W„
Community-Based Employment
B a ltim o re, T h e J o h n s H o p k in s U n iv e r sity
P ress, 1980, 177 pp. (P o lic y S tu d ies in E m p lo y m e n t an d
W elfare, 3 6 .) $ 8 .9 5 .
H a llm a n ,
Programs.
N a tio n a l In stitu te for W ork a n d L earn in g, Calling the Tune:
Communication Technology fo r Working, Learning, and
Living (b y T e d C arp en ter, 8 0 p p ., $12); Patterns o f A dult
Participation in Learning Activities (b y Ivan C harner, 68
p p l, $10); The Source o f A dult Learning, Education,
68
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and Training Opportunity in the United States (b y B ryna
S h ore F raser, 75 p p ., $10); Education and Training fo r
M iddle-Aged and Older Workers; Policy Issues and Op
tions (b y Ju lia R . F ren ch , 4 8 p p ., $8); Training and Edu
cation by Industry (b y H a ro ld G o ld ste in , 7 0 p p ., $12.50);
Worker Education and Training Policies Project: Alterna
tive Work Patterns— Implications fo r Worklife Education
and Training (b y Jan e S h ore, 4 6 p p ., $8); Worklife Edu
cation and Training and the Ordeal o f Change (b y C h arles
D . S tew art, 6 9 p p ., $10); Issues in Education and Train
ing fo r Working Women (b y D e n ise W ild er, 138 p p .,
$1 5 ). W a sh in g to n ,
L earn in g, 1980.
N a tio n a l
In stitu te
for
W ork
an d
N o r th e a ste rn U n iv e r sity , Current Issues in Employment and
Training Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. (P ap ers p res
en te d at th e N e w E n g la n d B u sin ess a n d E c o n o m ic s C o n
ference, N o v . 1 - 2 , 1 979.) B o sto n , M a ss., N o r th e a ste rn
U n iv e r sity , D e p a r tm en t o f E c o n o m ic s , C en ter for L ab o r
M ark et S tu d ies, 1979, 5 0 9 pp.
R a d in , B eryl A ., “ L ea d ersh ip T ra in in g for W o m en in S ta te
a n d L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t,” Public Personnel Management,
M a r c h - A p r il 1980, pp . 5 2 - 6 0 .
U .S . B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, Exploring Careers: The World
o f Work and You (B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 1 , 28 p p ., $2); Industri
al Production Occupations (B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 2 , 4 8 p p ., $2);
Office Occupations (B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 3 , 32 p p ., $2); Service
Occupations (B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 4 , 50 p p ., $2); Education Oc
cupations (B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 5 , 36 p p ., $2); Sales Occupations
(B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 6 , 32 p p ., $2); Construction Occupations
(B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 7 , 38 p p ., $2); Transportation Occupations
(B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 8 , 34 p p ., $2); Scientific and Technical
Occupations (B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 9 , 34 p p ., $2); Mechanics and
Repairers (B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 1 0 , 28 p p ., $2); Health Occupa
tions (B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 1 1 , 5 0 p p ., $2); Social Scientists (B u l
letin 2 0 0 1 - 1 2 , 28 p p ., $2); Social Service Occupations
(B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 1 3 , 28 p p ., $2); Performing Arts, Design,
and Communications Occupations (B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 1 4 , 4 4
p p ., $2); Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery Occupations
(B u lletin 2 0 0 1 - 1 5 , 37 p p ., $2). W a sh in g to n , 1979. A v a il
ab le from th e S u p erin ten d en t o f D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g to n
20402.
U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f L ab or L ibrary, Apprenticeship: Selected
References, 1974-1979. W a sh in g to n , U .S . D e p a r tm en t o f
L ab or, O ffice o f th e A s sista n t Secretary for A d m in is tr a
tio n a n d M a n a g e m en t, 1979, 53 pp. $ 2 .5 0 , S u p erin ten
d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g to n 2 0 4 0 2 .
W alk er, M ich a el J., “ G u id e for O cc u p a tio n a l E x p lo r a tio n ,”
Occupational Outlook Quarterly, S p rin g 1980, pp. 2 6 - 2 8 .
Current
Labor Statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics
.....................................................................................................................................
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
..........................................................................
Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.............................................................
Employment status of noninstitutional population, selected years,1950-79 ..................................................................
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................................
Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes
8.
9.
10.
11
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Employment by industry, 1950-79 .......................................................................................................................................
Employment by State ...............................................................................................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group ................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ........................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date ........................................................................................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group ..................................................................................
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1949-79 ..........................................................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p .............................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonallyadjusted .......................................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date .....................................................
Unemployment insurance data. Definitions and notes
71
71
72
73
74
75
75
75
76
77
77
78
79
80
80
81
82
83
84
84
85
86
87
..........................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, 1967-79 .............................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items
......................................................
Consumer Price Index, cross classification of region and population size class
......................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected areas .....................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ..................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings .............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ..................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
.................................................................................
88
89
89
95
96
97
98
100
100
100
Price data. Definitions and notes
Productivity data. Definitions and notes
31.
32.
33.
34.
70
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
21. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
70
.......................................................................................................................
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,1950-79 ............................................
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1969-79 .............................................
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted ...................
Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices . .
Labor-management data. Definitions and notes
........................................................................................................
35. Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date
.....................................................
36. Effective wage rate adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units,1975 to date ........................
37. Work stoppages, 1947 to date ...............................................................................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
87
103
103
104
104
105
106
106
107
107
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section of the Review presents the principal statistical se
ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi
nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually
found in footnotes.
Readers who need additional information are invited to
consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov
er of this issue of the Review. Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying
periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short
term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated
on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com
puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev
eral preceding years. For a technical discussion of the method used to
make seasonal adjustments, see X - l l V a ria n t o f th e C en su s M e th o d I I
S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t P r o g ra m , Technical Paper No. 15 (Bureau of the
Census, 1967).
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 2 - 7 were last revised
in the February 1980 issue of the R e v ie w to reflect the preceding year’s
experience. Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major
modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force
data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new proce
dure called X -ll/A R IM A , which was developed at Statistics Canada
as an extension of the standard X -ll method. A detailed description
of the procedure appears in T h e X - l l A R I M A S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t
M e th o d by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No.
12-564E, September 1979). The second change is that seasonal factors
are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months of the year,
rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for
the July-December period. Revisions of historical data continue to be
made only at the end of each calendar year.
Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll data in tables
11, 13, 16, and 18 begins with the August 1980 issue using the
X -ll ARIMA seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal fac
tors for productivity data in tables 33 and 34 are usually intro
duced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent
changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are
published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series.
However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S.
average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are
available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
Availability of information. Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information
published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. The H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis
tic s 1978, Bulletin 2000, provides more detailed data and greater his
torical coverage for most of the statistical series presented in the
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w . More information from the household and es
tablishment surveys is provided in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, a
monthly publication of the Bureau, and in two comprehensive data
books issued annually— E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d S ta te s and
E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, S ta te s a n d A rea s. More detailed informa
tion on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining appears in
the monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts . More detailed
price information is published each month in the periodicals, the C P I
D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P ric e s a n d P r ic e In d e x es.
Symbols
p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series,
preliminary figures are issued based on representative
but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generally this revision reflects the availability
of later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.
Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
Title and frequency
(monthly except where indicated)
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
MLR table
number
Employment situation..................................................................
Producer Price Index ..................................................................
Consumer Price Index ................................................................
Real earnings ............................................................................
Work stoppages..........................................................................
Labor turnover In manufacturing ..................................................
Productivity and costs (quarterly):
Nonfarm business and manufacturing ..................................
Major collective bargaining settlements (quarterly) ........................
September 5
September 5
September 23
September 23
September 29
September 30
August
August
August
August
August
August
October 3
October 3
October 24
October 24
October 28
October 30
September
September
September
September
September
September
1-11
26-30
22-25
14-20
37
12-13
October 27
October 27
3rd quarter
1st 9 months
31 -34
35-36
70FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
d a t a in this section are obtained from the
Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews
conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 65,000
households beginning in January 1980, selected to represent the
U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are
interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the
sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months.
E m plo ym ent
Definitions
Employed persons are (1) those who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise
and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs
because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A
person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and
had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new
jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed.
The unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a
percent of the civilian labor force.
The civilian labor force consists of all employed or unemployed
persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the total labor
force includes military personnel. Persons not in the labor force are
1.
those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not
working while attending school, those unable to work because of
longterm illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of
personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle.
The noninstitutional population comprises all persons 16 years of age
and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions,
sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy.
Full-time workers are those employed at least 35 hours a week;
part-time workers are those who work fewer hours. Workers on parttime schedules for economic reasons (such as slack work, terminating
or starting a job during the week, material shortages, or inability to
find full-time work) are among those counted as being on full-time
status, under the assumption that they would be working full time if
conditions permitted. The survey classifies unemployed persons in
full-time or part-time status by their reported preferences for full-time
or part-time work.
Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census,
adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These
adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of E m p lo y m e n t
a n d E a rn in g s.
Data in tables 2 - 7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1979.
Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-79
[Numbers inthousands]
Total labor force
Year
Total non
institutional
population
Civilian labor force
Employed
Number
Percent of
population
Total
Unemployed
Total
Agriculture
Nonagricultural
industries
Number
Percent of
labor
force
Not in
labor force
1950
1955
I960
1964
1965
............................................
........................................
..........................................
..........................
..........................................
106,645
112,732
119,759
127,224
129,236
63,858
68,072
72,142
75,830
77,178
59.9
60.4
60.2
59.6
59.7
62,208
65,023
69,628
73,091
74,455
58,918
62,170
65,778
69,305
71,088
7,160
6,450
5,458
4,523
4,361
51,758
55,722
60,318
64,782
66,726
3,288
2,852
3,852
3,786
3,366
5.3
4.4
5.5
5.2
4.5
42,787
44,660
47,617
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
84,240
85,903
60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
61.3
75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
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
2,832
4,088
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,280
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
........................................................
......................................
..................................................
..................................
....................................................
142,596
145,775
148,263
150,827
153,449
86,929
88,991
91,040
93,240
94,793
61.0
61.0
61.4
61.8
61.8
84,113
86,542
88,714
91,011
92,613
79,120
81,702
84,409
83,935
84,783
3,387
3,472
3,452
3,492
3,380
75,732
78,230
80,957
82,443
81,403
4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7,830
5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5
55,666
56,785
57,222
57,587
58,655
1976
1977
1978
1979
................................................
................................................
..................................................
......................................................
156,048
158,559
161,058
163,620
96,917
99,534
102,537
104,996
62.1
62.8
63.7
64.2
94,773
97,401
100,420
102,908
87,485
90,546
94,373
96,945
3,297
3,244
3,342
3,297
84,188
87,302
91,031
93,648
7,288
6,855
6,047
5,963
7.7
7.0
6.0
5.8
59,130
59,025
58,521
58,623
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
71
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1980
1979
Annual average
Employment status
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Mayc
June
July
1978
1979
July
161,058
102,537
158,941
100,420
94,373
3,342
91,031
6,047
6.0
58,521
163,620
104,996
161,532
102,908
96,945
3,297
93,648
5,963
5.8
58,623
163,685
105,475
161,604
103,093
97,184
3,267
93,917
5,909
5.7
58,511
163,891
105,218
161,801
103,128
97,004
3,315
93,689
6,124
5.9
58,673
164,106
105,586
162,013
103,494
97,504
3,364
94,140
5,990
5.8
58,519
164,468
105,688
162,375
103,595
97,474
3,294
94,180
6,121
5.9
58,780
164,682
105,744
162,589
103,652
97,608
3,385
94,223
6,044
5.8
58,937
164,898
106,088
162,809
103,999
97,912
3,359
94,553
6,087
5.9
58,810
165,101
106,310
163,020
104,229
97,804
3,270
94,534
6,425
6.2
58,791
165,298
106,346
163,211
104,260
97,953
3,326
94,626
6,307
6.0
58,951
165,506
106,184
163,416
104,094
97,656
3,358
94,298
6,438
6.2
59,322
165,693
106,511
163,601
104,419
97,154
3,242
93,912
•',265
7.0
59,182
165,886
107,230
163,799
105,142
96,988
3,379
93,609
8,154
7.8
58,657
166,105
106,634
164,013
104,542
96,537
3,191
93,346
8,006
7.7
59,471
166,391
107,302
164,293
105,203
96,996
3,257
93,739
8,207
7.8
59,091
67,006
53,464
51,212
2,361
48,852
2,252
4.2
13,541
68,293
54,486
52,264
2,350
49,913
2,223
4.1
13,807
68,319
54,579
52,325
2,327
49,998
2,254
4.1
13,740
68,417
54,597
52,311
2,375
49,936
2,286
4.2
13,820
68,522
54,735
52,453
2,377
50,076
2,282
4.2
13,787
68,697
54,760
52,443
2,371
50,072
2,317
4.2
13,937
68,804
54,709
52,374
2,438
49,936
2,335
4.3
14,095
68,940
54,781
52,478
2,427
50,051
2,303
4.2
14,159
69,047
54,855
52,279
2,387
49,892
2,577
4.7
14,192
69,140
55,038
52,531
2,435
50,096
2,507
4.6
14,102
69,238
54,996
52,300
2,394
49,906
2,696
4.9
14,242
69,329
55,114
51,868
2,320
49,548
3,246
5.9
14,215
69,428
55,467
51,796
2,384
49,412
3,671
6.6
13,961
69,532
55,220
51,510
2,270
49,240
3,710
6.7
14,312
69,664
55,398
51,668
2,292
49,376
3,730
6.7
14,266
75,489
37,416
35,180
586
34,593
2,236
6.0
38,073
76,860
38,910
36,698
591
36,107
2,213
5.7
37,949
76,897
39,033
36,873
585
36,288
2,160
5.5
37,864
77,006
39,304
37,000
600
36,400
2,304
5.9
37,702
77,124
39,239
37,075
628
36,447
2,164
5.5
37,885
77,308
39,362
37,112
572
36,540
2,250
5.7
37,946
77,426
39,445
37,248
612
36,636
2,197
5.6
37,981
77,542
39,659
37,402
582
36,820
2,257
5.7
37,883
77,656
39,878
37,574
540
37,034
2,304
5.8
37,778
77,766
39,857
37,604
567
37,037
2,254
5.7
37,909
77,876
39,751
37,496
582
36,914
2,255
5.7
38,125
77,981
40,137
37,602
552
37,051
2,534
6.3
37,844
78,090
40,246
37,576
616
36,960
2,670
6.6
37,844
78,211
40,125
37,530
541
36,989
2,596
6.5
38,086
78,360
40,471
37,769
565
37,204
2,702
6.7
37,889
16,447
9,540
7,981
395
7,586
1,559
16.3
6,907
16,379
9,512
7,984
356
7,628
1,528
16.1
6,867
16,387
9,481
7,986
355
7,631
1,495
15.8
6,906
16,377
9,227
7,693
340
7,353
1,534
16.6
7,150
16,367
9,520
7,976
359
7,617
1,544
16.2
6,847
16,370
9,473
7,919
351
7,568
1,554
16.4
6,897
16,360
9,498
7,986
335
7,651
1,512
15.9
6,862
16,326
9,559
8,032
350
7,682
1,527
16.0
6,767
16,317
9,497
7,952
344
7,608
1,545
16.3
6,820
16,305
9,365
7,818
325
7,493
1,547
16.5
6,940
16,302
9,346
7,859
381
7,478
1,487
15.9
6,956
16,291
9,168
7,683
370
7,313
1,485
16.2
7,123
16,281
9,429
7,616
379
7,237
1,813
19.2
6,852
16,271
9,197
7,497
380
7,117
1,700
18.5
7,074
16,268
9,334
7,560
401
7,159
1,774
19.0
6,934
139,580
88,456
83,836
4,620
5.2
51,124
141,614
90,602
86,025
4,577
5.1
51,011
141,661
90,659
86,120
4,539
5.0
51,107
141,822
90,759
85,976
4,783
5.3
51,161
141,981
91,082
86,425
4,657
5.1
50,900
142,296
91,147
86,454
4,693
5.1
51,149
142,461
91,242
86,571
4,671
5.1
51,219
142,645
91,579
86,894
4,685
5.1
51,066
142,806 142,951
91,852 91,977
86,895 87,081
4,896
4,957
5.4
5.3
50,954 50,975
143,115
91,821
86,822
4,999
5.4
51,294
143,254
92,083
86,385
5,698
6.2
51,171
143,403
92,535
86,148
6,386
6.9
50,868
19,361
11,964
10,537
1,427
11.9
7,397
19,918
12,306
10,920
1,386
11.3
7,612
19,943
12,386
11,023
1,363
11.0
7,579
19,979
12,343
10,982
1,361
11.0
7,639
20,032
12,404
11,063
1,341
10.8
7,264
20,079
12,512
11,076
1,436
11.5
7,567
20,128
12,391
11,044
1,347
10.9
7,737
20,163
12,432
11,024
1,408
11.3
7,731
20,301
12,266
10,823
1,443
11.8
8,035
20,346
12,319
10,771
1,549
12.6
8,027
20,395
12,559
10,813
1,746
13.9
7,836
TOTAL
Total noninstitutional population1 ..........................
Total labor force ......................................
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ................................
Employed ......................................
Agriculture ..............................
Nonagricultural industries ........
Unemployed ..................................
Unemployment rate ........................
Not in labor force ..................................
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
Both sexes, 16-19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Agriculture ....................................
Nonagricultural industries ................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
White
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
143,565 143,770
92,096 92,456
85,792 86,063
6,303
6,392
6.9
6.8
51,469 51,314
Black and other
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ......................
Civilian labor force ......................................
Employed ............................................
Unemployed ........................................
Unemployment rate ..............................
Not in labor force ........................................
1As in table 1, population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
NOTE; The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979.
72
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
c = corrected.
20,214
12,453
10,979
1,474
11.8
7,761
20,261
12,362
10,937
1,424
11.5
7,899
20,448
12,446
10,751
1,695
13.6
8,002
20,523
12,739
10,932
1,807
14.2
7,784
3.
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[ In thousands]
Annual average
1979
Selected categories
1980
1978
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Mayc
June
July
94,373
55,491
38,882
38,688
21,881
96,945
56,499
40,446
39,090
22,724
97,184
56,570
40,614
39,176
22,908
97,004
56,408
40,596
39,180
22,869
97,504
56,714
40,790
39,198
22,937
97,474
56,629
40,845
39,124
22,919
97,608
56,580
41,028
38,845
22,940
97,912
56,734
41,178
38,924
23,027
97,804
56,486
41,318
38,749
23,111
97,953
56,732
41,221
38,955
23,178
97,656
56,601
41,051
38,745
23,202
97,154
55,998
41,156
38,342
23,080
96,988
55,823
41,165
38,147
23,155
96,537
55,457
41,079
38,193
23,144
96,996
55,629
41,367
37,999
23,097
47,205
14,245
49,342
15,050
49,536
15,057
49,663
15,068
49,816
15,141
49,738
15,057
49,912
15,131
49,911
15,272
50,313
15,337
50,448
15,444
50,302
15,397
50,405
15,542
50,606
15,551
50,861
15,712
51,114
15,741
10,105
5,951
16,904
31,531
12,386
10,875
3,541
4,729
12,839
2,798
10,516
6,163
17,613
32,066
12,880
10,909
3,612
4,665
12,834
2,703
10,612
6,163
17,704
32,051
12,876
10,884
3,627
4,664
12,766
2,678
10,698
6,145
17,752
31,849
12,761
10,909
3,604
4,575
12,621
2,707
10,659
6,181
17,835
32,209
12,993
10,964
3,617
4,635
12,859
2,722
10,639
6,261
17,781
32,205
13,001
10,967
3,593
4,644
12,937
2,695
10,617
6,362
17,802
32,110
12,925
10,963
3,628
4,594
12,899
2,718
10,535
6,346
17,758
32,302
13,041
11,042
3,635
4,584
12,970
2,694
10,608
6,452
17,915
31,882
12,814
10,678
3,616
4,774
12,979
2,660
10,971
6,185
17,848
31,754
12,728
10,661
3,571
4,795
13,080
2,764
10,755
6,113
18,037
31,670
12,767
10,579
3,558
4,767
12,981
2,733
10,745
5,988
18,129
31,127
12,773
10,408
3,483
4,463
13,034
2,658
10,882
6,022
18,152
30,681
12,523
10,336
3,421
4,402
13,932
2,745
10,911
5,981
18,256
30,243
12,301
10,131
3,395
4,416
12,930
2,606
11,046
6,128
18,199
30,149
12,382
10,134
3,335
4,299
13,045
2,689
1,419
1,607
316
1,413
1,580
304
1,419
1,558
291
1,384
1,614
310
1,399
1,642
325
1,381
1,602
313
1,475
1,622
310
1,451
1,596
310
1,428
1,554
293
1,417
1,648
283
1,449
1,600
300
1,370
1,591
281
1,405
1,662
289
1,365
1,590
269
1,352
1,631
292
84,253
15,289
68,966
1,363
67,603
6,305
472
86,540
15,369
71,171
1,240
69,931
6,652
455
86,454
15,393
71,061
1,219
69,842
6,752
519
86,421
15,279
71,142
1,211
69,931
6,689
450
86,912
15,407
71,505
1,313
70,192
6,731
449
86,982
15,423
71,559
1,261
70,298
6,812
430
87,020
15,358
71,662
1,211
70,451
6,781
417
87,384
15,397
71,987
1,228
70,759
6,737
409
87,578
15,414
72,163
1,132
71,031
6,752
379
87,419
15,540
71,879
1,178
70,702
6,899
397
87,221
15,622
71,599
1,115
70,484
6,825
376
86,741
15,668
71,072
1,123
69,949
6,813
363
86,631
15,799
70,832
1,206
69,625
6,648
411
86,257
15,891
70,365
1,219
69,147
6,666
445
86,407
15,760
70,647
1,245
69,402
6,765
441
85,693
70,543
3,216
1,249
1,967
11,934
88,133
72,647
3,281
1,325
1,956
12,205
88,769
72,915
3,274
1,334
1,940
12,580
88,855
73,053
3,298
1,401
1,897
12,504
88,723
73,159
3,167
1,273
1,894
12,397
88,638
73,204
3,315
1,354
1,961
12,119
88,617
72,997
3,392
1,413
1,979
12,228
89,180
73,137
3,519
1,491
2,028
12,524
89,454
73,223
3,513
1,549
1,964
12,718
88,985
73,110
3,406
1,380
2,026
12,469
88,585
72,749
3,418
1,463
1,955
12,418
87,660
71,807
3,816
1,709
2,107
12,037
87,680
71,224
4,349
2,064
2,285
12,106
87,910
71,206
3,999
1,781
2,217
12,706
87,454
70,649
4,113
1,847
2,266
12,692
CHARACTERISTIC
Total employed, 16 years and over ..................
Men ..............................
Women........................
Married men, spouse present ......................
Married women, spouse present..................
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers..................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ..............................................
Salesworkers..........................................
Clerical workers..............................
Blue-collar workers......................................
Craft and kindred workers ........................
Operatives, except transport..........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers..........................................
Service workers ..............................
Farmworkers ..................................
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Government ........................................
Private industries....................................
Private households ..........................
Other industries ..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ............................
PERSONS AT WORK'
Nonagricultural industries ..............................
Full-time schedules ......................................
Part time for economic reasons......................
Usually work full time..............................
Usually work part tim e............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons................
'Excludes persons with a job but not at work
vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
during the survey period for such reasons as
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979
c = corrected.
73
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
[Unemployment rates]
1980
1979
Annual average
Selected categories
1978
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Mayc
June
July
Total, 16 years and over......................................
Men, 20 years and over................................
Women, 20 years and over ..........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ............................
6.0
4.2
6.0
16.3
5.8
4.1
5.7
16.1
5.7
4.1
5.5
15.8
5.9
4.2
5.9
16.6
5.8
4.2
5.5
16.2
5.9
4.2
5.7
16.4
5.8
4.3
5.6
15.9
5.9
4.2
5.7
16.0
6.2
4.7
5.8
16.3
6.0
4.6
5.7
16.5
6.2
4.9
5.7
15.9
7.0
5.9
6.3
16.2
7.8
6.6
6.6
19.2
7.7
6.7
6.5
18.5
7.8
6.7
6.7
19.0
White, total ..................................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................
5.2
3.7
5.2
13.9
5.1
3.6
5.0
13.9
5.0
3.6
4.8
13.8
5.3
3.7
5.2
14.8
5.1
3.7
4.8
14.3
5.1
3.7
5.0
14.1
5.1
3.7
4.9
13.9
5.1
3.7
5.0
13.9
5.4
4.1
5.1
14.0
5.3
4.0
5.2
13.8
5.4
4.4
4.9
13.8
6.2
5.3
5.5
14.6
6.9
5.9
5.8
17.4
6.8
6.0
5.8
16.4
6.9
6.0
5.9
16.7
Black and other, total....................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................
11.9
8.6
10.6
36.3
11.3
8.4
10.1
33.5
11.0
8.4
10.0
31.5
11.0
8.1
10.3
32.6
10.8
8.0
9.8
32.3
11.5
8.6
10.2
35.1
10.9
8.4
9.5
32.8
11.3
8.6
10.0
34.3
11.8
9.6
10.0
34.6
11.5
9.2
9.0
37.9
11.8
9.3
10.5
33.0
12.6
10.9
11.4
29.8
13.9
12.0
11.9
35.2
13.6
12.6
10.9
34.4
14.2
12.7
11.5
36.6
Married men, spouse present........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who head families............................
Full-time workers..........................................
Part-time workers ........................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................
Labor force time lost1 ..................................
2.8
5.5
8.5
5.5
9.0
1.4
6.5
2.7
5.1
8.3
5.3
8.7
1.2
6.3
2.8
4.9
8.1
5.3
8.3
1.0
6.4
2.9
5.3
7.9
5.4
8.8
1.1
6.4
2.9
4.8
7.7
5.3
8.4
1.1
6.2
2.9
5.2
8.4
5.4
8.9
1.2
6.4
2.9
4.8
8.4
5.4
8.3
1.1
6.4
2.8
5.0
8.4
5.4
8.5
1.2
6.4
3.4
5.2
9.2
5.7
8.7
1.3
6.7
3.1
5.4
8.5
5.6
8.9
1.2
6.6
3.4
5.3
8.7
5.8
8.3
1.3
6.8
4.1
5.7
9.3
6.6
8.9
1.6
7.5
4.7
6.3
8.3
7.5
9.3
1.6
8.8
4.9
6.1
8.4
7.4
8.8
1.7
8.3
5.1
6.2
8.9
7.6
8.7
1.8
8.5
3.5
2.6
3.3
2.4
3.3
2.5
3.5
2.5
3.3
2.4
3.4
2.7
3.2
2.4
3.3
2.3
3.4
2.2
3.4
2.3
3.3
2.3
3.7
2.4
3.9
2.7
3.7
2.6
3.7
2.4
2.1
4.1
4.9
6.9
4.6
8.1
5.2
10.7
7.4
3.8
2.1
3.9
4.6
6.9
4.5
8.4
5.4
10.8
7.1
3.8
2.0
3.5
4.5
6.8
4.4
8.3
5.1
11.0
7.1
4.2
2.3
4.0
4.9
7.3
4.7
8.9
6.2
11.3
7.1
3.9
2.2
3.8
4.5
7.1
4.3
9.0
6.1
11.0
6.7
4.1
2.2
3.8
4.7
7.2
4.6
9.1
5.6
10.7
6.8
4.3
1.9
3.7
4.4
7.5
4.9
9.0
5.2
12.2
6.6
4.5
2.0
3.8
4.6
7.2
4.4
9.0
5.0
12.2
6.6
4.3
1.9
4.4
4.8
8.0
4.9
9.9
6.9
12.3
6.9
4.4
2.2
4.5
4.7
7.7
4.8
9.2
6.7
12.0
6.9
3.9
2.4
4.0
4.5
8.0
5.4
9.3
6.6
13.0
7.1
4.0
2.6
4.7
5.1
9.7
6.7
11.6
8.9
14.1
8.0
5.0
2.7
4.5
5.4
11.3
8.1
14.0
9.0
15.4
8.5
4.8
2.4
4.4
5.3
11.5
8.0
13.8
10.5
16.2
8.1
4.2
2.5
4.2
5.4
11.5
7.4
14.6
10.5
16.1
8.4
4.8
5.9
10.6
5.5
4.9
6.3
3.7
6.9
5.1
3.9
8.8
5.7
10.2
5.5
5.0
6.4
3.7
6.5
4.9
3.7
9.1
5.7
10.0
5.7
5.4
6.2
3.8
6.3
4.9
3.6
9.7
6.0
10.1
5.9
5.4
6.8
3.7
6.5
5.2
3.7
9.9
5.8
9.6
6.0
5.3
7.1
4.0
6.4
4.7
3.3
10.0
5.9
9.9
6.0
5.5
6.8
3.8
6.4
4.9
4.0
9.9
5.8
10.2
5.9
5.6
6.3
4.2
6.5
4.6
3.6
10.1
5.8
10.3
5.9
5.5
6.4
4.1
6.4
4.7
3.6
9.4
6.2
10.8
6.7
6.7
6.8
4.4
6.6
4.6
3.8
10.3
6.0
10.5
6.4
6.3
6.7
4.4
6.4
4.6
4.0
9.2
6.2
13.0
6.5
6.4
6.7
3.8
6.3
4.9
4.2
10.2
7.1
15.1
7.9
8.3
7.4
4.6
7.0
5.1
4.4
11.9
8.2
17.5
9.9
10.5
8.8
5.1
7.6
5.7
4.2
11.7
8.3
16.5
9.9
11.2
8.0
5.2
8.0
5.7
3.5
9.7
8.2
16.1
10.3
11.2
8.8
5.8
7.5
5.7
4.1
10.8
CHARACTERISTIC
OCCUPATION
White-collar workers ..........................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
‘arm ........................................................
Salesworkers ..............................................
Clerical workers ..........................................
Blue-collar workers ............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport ........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers ........................................
Service workers..................................................
Farmworkers......................................................
INDUSTRY
Nonagricuitural private wage and salary workers2
Construction ................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Durable goods ......................................
Nondurable goods..................................
Transportation and public utilities ..................
Wholesale and retail trad e............................
Finance and service industries ......................
Government workers ..........................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers ..................
1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.
2 Includes mining, not shown separately.
74
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through
1979.
c = corrected.
6.
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
1979
Reason for unemployment
1980
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Mayc
June
July
2,526
797
1,729
846
1,762
726
2,680
915
1,765
875
1,788
745
2,632
855
1,777
825
1,760
801
2,731
929
1,802
835
1,762
804
2,729
987
1,742
845
1,698
736
2,728
944
1,784
800
1,771
858
2,988
1,019
1,969
779
1,797
811
2,907
1,031
1,876
813
1,784
827
3,047
1,129
1,918
788
1,803
805
3,611
1,424
2,188
926
1,967
743
4,301
1,944
2,357
992
2,015
884
4,625
2,117
2,508
898
1,822
863
4,558
1,975
2,583
857
1,868
930
100.0
43.1
13.6
29.5
14.4
30.1
12.4
100.0
44.0
15.0
29.0
14.4
29.4
12.2
100.0
43.7
14.2
29.5
13.7
29.2
13.3
1000
44.5
15.2
29.4
13.6
28.7
13.1
100.0
45.4
16.4
29.0
14.1
28.3
12.3
100.0
44.3
15.3
29.0
13.0
28.8
13.9
100.0
46.9
16.0
30.9
12.2
28.2
12.7
100.0
45.9
16.3
29.6
12.8
28.2
13.1
100.0
47.3
17.5
29.8
12.2
28.0
12.5
100.0
49.8
19.6
30.2
12.8
27.1
10.3
100.0
52.5
23.7
28.8
12.1
24.6
10.8
100.0
56.3
25.8
30.6
10.9
22.2
10.5
100.0
55.5
24.0
31.5
10.4
22.7
11.3
2.5
.8
1.7
.7
2.6
.8
1.7
.7
2.5
.8
1.7
.8
2.6
.8
1.7
.8
2.6
.8
1.6
.7
2.6
.8
1.7
.8
2.9
.7
1.7
.8
2.8
.8
1.7
.8
2.9
.8
1.7
.8
3.5
.9
1.9
.7
4.1
.9
1.9
.8
4.4
.9
1.7
.8
4.3
.8
1.8
.9
NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Lost last job ............................................................
Or layoff ....................................................................
Other job losers ......................................................
Left last jo b ................................................
Reentered labor force ..................................................
Seeking first jo b ..............................................
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed ..................................................................
Job losers................................................................
On layoff ............................................................
Other job losers ................................................................
Job leavers ............................................................
Reentrants ........................................................
New entrants..............................................................
UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF
THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers....................................................................
Job leavers........................................................
Reentrants ............................................................
New entrants............................................................
7.
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Weeks of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks..............................................
5 to 14 weeks ....................................................
15 weeks and over ............................................
15 to 26 weeks............................................
27 weeks and over ......................................
Average (mean) duration, in weeks......................
Annual average
1979
1980
1978
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May0
June
July
2,793
1,875
1,379
746
633
11.9
2,869
1,892
1,202
684
518
10.8
2,820
1,934
1,067
615
452
10.1
3,168
1,738
1,185
658
527
10.7
2,778
2,035
1,152
644
508
10.7
2,955
1,963
1,195
678
517
10.5
2,919
1,869
1,191
660
531
10.6
2,916
1,966
1,230
711
519
10.5
3,184
1,907
1,334
795
539
10.5
2,995
2,081
1,286
790
496
10.7
2,995
2,169
1,363
776
587
11.0
3,309
2,391
1,629
953
676
11.3
3,872
2,697
1,722
1,014
709
10.5
3,333
2,922
1,766
1,027
739
11.7
3,363
2,700
1,915
1,057
858
11.6
NOTE: The monthly data in these tables have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1979.
c = corrected.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
75
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS
E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a t a in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun
tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat
ing State agencies by 166,000 establishments representing all
industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling
probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab
lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others
not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the
survey because they are excluded from establishment records.
This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures
between the household and establishment surveys.
L a b o r t u r n o v e r d a t a in this section are compiled from per
sonnel records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies.
A sample of 40,000 establishments represents all industries in
the manufacturing and mining sectors of the economy.
Bureau of Labor Statistics computes spendable earnings from gross
weekly earnings for only two illustrative cases: (1) a worker with no
dependents and (2) a married worker with three dependents.
Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the por
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.
Labor turnover is the movement of all wage and salary workers
from one employment status to another. Accession rates indicate the
average number of persons added to a payroll in a given period per
100 employees; separation rates indicate the average number dropped
from a payroll per 100 employees. Although month-to-month changes
in employment can be calculated from the labor turnover data, the re
sults are not comparable with employment data from the employment
and payroll survey. The labor turnover survey measures changes dur
ing the calendar month while the employment and payroll survey
measures changes from midmonth to midmonth.
Notes on the data
Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holi
day and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the
12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per
cent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establish
ment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 14-20 in
clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction
workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta
tion and public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in finance, in
surance, and real estate, and in services industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to eliminate the effects
of price change. The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from aver
age hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types
of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments:
fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector
for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries. Spendable earnings are earnings from which estimat
ed social security and Federal income taxes have been deducted. The
76
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the re
lease of June 1980 data, published in the August 1980 issue of the R e
view. Consequently, data published in the R e v ie w prior to that issue
are not necessarily comparable to current data. Complete comparable
historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a
Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from April
1977 through March 1980 and seasonally adjusted data from January
1974 through March 1980) and in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d
S ta tes , 1 9 0 9 - 7 8 , BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
Data on recalls were shown for the first time in tables 12 and 13 in
the January 1978 issue of the R ev ie w . For a detailed discussion of the
recalls series, along with historical data, see “New Series on Recalls
from the Labor Turnover Survey,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, Decem
ber 1977, pp. 10-19.
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur
veys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , December 1969, pp. 9-2 0 . See also
B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bu
reau of Labor Statistics, 1976).
The formulas used to construct the spendable average weekly earn
ings series reflect the latest provisions of the Federal income tax and
social security tax laws. For the spendable average weekly earnings
formulas for the years 1978-80, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s,
March 1980, pp. 10-11. Real earnings data are adjusted using the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W).
8.
Employment by industry, 1950-79
[Nonagricultural payroll data, inthousands]
Year
Total
Mining
Construc
tion
Manufac
turing
Trans
portation
and
public
utilities
Whole
sale
and
retail
trade
Wholesale
trade
Retail
trade
Finance,
insur
ance,
and real
estate
Services
Government
Total
Federal
State
and local
1950 ..........................
45,197
901
2,364
15,241
4,034
9,386
2,635
6,751
1,888
5,357
6,026
1,928
4,098
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
......................................
........................................
..............................................
......................................
..........................................
47,819
48,793
50,202
48,990
50,641
929
898
866
791
792
2,637
2,668
2,659
2,646
2,839
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
2,727
2,812
2,854
2,867
2,926
7,015
7,192
7,393
7,368
7,610
1,956
2,035
2,111
2,200
2,298
5,547
5,699
5,835
5,969
6,240
6,389
6,609
6,645
6,751
6,914
2,302
2,420
2,305
2,188
2,187
4,087
4,188
4,340
4,563
4,727
1956
1957
1958
1959’
1960
..........................................
............................................
..........................................
............................................
................................................
52,369
52,853
51,324
53,268
54,189
822
828
751
732
712
3,039
2,962
2,817
3,004
2,926
17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796
4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004
10,858
10,886
10,750
11,127
11,391
3,018
3,028
2,980
3,082
3,143
7,840
7,858
7,770
8,045
8,248
2,389
2,438
2,481
2,549
2,629
6,497
6,708
6,765
7,087
7,378
7,278
7,616
7,839
8,083
8,353
2,209
2,217
2,191
2,233
2,270
5,069
5,399
5,648
5,850
6,083
1961
1962
'963
1964
1965
..................................
..............................
..............................
................................
..............................................
53,999
55,549
56,653
58,283
60,765
672
650
635
634
632
2,859
2,948
3,010
3,097
3,232
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
3,133
3,198
3,248
3,337
3,466
8,204
8,368
8,530
8,823
9,250
2,688
2,754
2,830
2,911
2,977
7,620
7,982
8,277
8,660
9,036
8,594
8,890
9,225
9,596
10,074
2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378
6,315
6,550
6,868
7,248
7,696
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
................................
....................................
....................................
........................
....................................
63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880
627
613
606
619
623
3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588
19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367
4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515
13,245
13,606
14,099
14,705
15,040
3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993
9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047
3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645
9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548
10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554
2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731
8,220
8,672
9,102
9,437
9,823
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
........................................
............................................
............................................
..........................
............................................
71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945
609
628
642
697
752
3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525
18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323
4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542
15,352
15,949
16,607
16,987
17,060
4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415
11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645
3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165
11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892
12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686
2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748
10,185
10,649
11,068
11,446
11,937
1976
1977
1978
1979
............................................
..........................................
......................................
......................................
79,382
82,471
86,697
89,886
779
813
851
960
3,576
3,851
4,229
4,483
18,997
19,682
20,505
21,062
4,582
4,713
4,923
5,141
17,755
18,516
19,542
20,269
4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
13,209
13,808
14,573
15,066
4,271
4,467
4,724
4,974
14,551
15,303
16,252
17,078
14,871
15,127
15,672
15,920
2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
12,138
12,399
12,919
13,147
'Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
9.
Employment by State
[Nonagricultural payroll data, inthousands]
State
June 1979
May 1980
June 1980 p
State
June 1979
May 1980
June 1980
294.2
641.2
384.5
382.2
3,087.5
286.6
634.4
397.6
381.7
3,046.9
291.0
634.2
399.8
385.8
3,096.6
Alabama ..............
Alaska ..................
Arizona ................
Arkansas ..............
California..............
1,366.6
1,360.0
1,344.8
954.1
755.1
9,707.0
1,003.4
751.4
9,803.8
979.9
747.6
9,820.5
Montana..........................................
Nebraska............................................
Nevada ................................
New Hampshire ..............................
New Jersey ........................
Colorado..............
Connecticut..........
Delaware..............
District of Columbia.
Florida..................
1,229.5
1,419.4
261.0
621.2
3,380.3
1,251.8
1,415.0
260.7
619.5
3,534.3
1,259.7
1,417.8
2588
622.1
3,519.2
New Mexico....................................
New York......................................
North Carolina ........................
North Dakota ................................
Ohio ........................................
466.5
7,269.4
2,399.5
250.6
4,562.9
477.3
7,199,3
2,423.9
250.7
4,432.5
477.7
7,240.3
2,429.9
250.6
4,450.7
Georgia................
Hawaii..................
Idaho....................
Illinois'..................
Indiana..................
2,119.3
395.9
342.7
4,920.0
2,285.2
2,134.2
409.5
328.6
4,836.7
2,230.2
2,124.5
410.5
329.5
4,846.6
2,217.9
Oklahoma ......................................
Oregon ..................................
Pennsylvania ....................................
Rhode Island ......................................
South Carolina ..................................
1,095.8
1,074.0
4,911.3
404.5
1,193.7
1,134.0
1,036.2
4,834.4
392.3
1,200.7
1,137.9
1,041.2
4,831.1
395.0
1,194.1
Iowa ....................
Kansas ................
Kentucky..............
Louisiana..............
Maine ..................
1,141.9
957.6
1,259.8
1,494.1
426.8
1,125.3
955.5
,221.1
1,521.1
415.9
1
1,107.0
953.7
1,207.9
1,530.9
425.2
South Dakota..................................
Tennessee ..................................
Texas ..............................................
Utah ..................................
Vermont............................................
249.0
1,805.9
5,621.3
550.9
197.9
243,9
1,787.6
5,761.4
567.5
197.2
247.1
1,765.9
5,779.6
568.7
198.6
Maryland..............
Massachusetts . . . .
Michigan ..............
Minnesota ............
Mississippi ............
Missouri................
1,652.0
2,617.0
3,684.7
1,800.6
850.1
2,027.0
1,642.9
2,667.9
3,423.2
1,798.2
830.3
1,994.9
1,639.1
2,689.8
3,439.1
1,814.6
820.2
1,986.4
Virginia....................................
Washington ........................
West Virginia ......................................
Wisconsin..................................
Wyoming ........................
2,122.5
1,602.8
639.8
1,991.8
208.1
2,119.9
1,634,4
636.4
1,975.8
216.7
2,130.7
1,640.3
634.3
1,995.0
219.7
35.8
368
36.7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Virgin Islands ....................................
77
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands]
1980
1979
Annual average
Industry division and group
1978
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Junep
JulyP
TOTAL ........................................................
86,697
89,886
90,018
90,093
90,629
91,062
91,288
91,394
89,630
89,781
90,316
90,761
90,849
90,975
89,682
MINING ............................................................
851
960
979
989
983
984
986
985
982
987
996
1,006
1,024
1,046
1,030
CONSTRUCTION ..............................................
4,229
4,483
4,813
4,863
4,801
4,792
4,698
4,536
4,194
4,109
4,150
4,311
4,471
4,603
4,631
MANUFACTURING
Production workers................................
20,505
14,734
21,062
15,085
21,054
15,026
21,096
15,048
21,295
15,265
21,193
15,170
21,055
15,034
20,987
14,964
20,777
14,738
20,730
14,678
20,793
14,727
20,533
14,466
20,250
14,172
20,187
14,080
19,663
13,617
Durable goods
Production workers................................
12,274
8,805
12,772
9,120
12,797
9,105
12,683
8,979
12,891
9,190
12,824
9,131
12,744
9,054
12,733
9,040
12,600
8,885
12,599
8,869
12,647
8,909
12,414
8,672
12,150
8,409
12,050
8,293
11,723
8,005
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ....................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
Machinery, except electrical..........................
Electric and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
754.7
494.1
698.2
1,214.9
1,672.6
2,325.5
2,006.1
2,002.8
653.1
451.5
766.1
499.3
709.7
1,250.2
1,723.7
2,481.6
2,124.3
2,082.8
688.9
445.6
785.4
486.5
726.0
1,267.4
1,711.8
2,504.9
2,127.6
2,063.0
691.2
433.2
788.2
497.1
726.5
1,250.6
1,711.7
2,489.7
2,105.7
1,965.5
693.7
454.5
785.0
499.6
721.6
1,250.6
1,731.4
2,513.8
2,152.8
2,087.4
691.6
457.1
780.0
502.5
718.6
1,231.4
1,733.8
2,465.1
2,162.0
2,076.5
694.6
459.7
757.2
503.1
710.3
1,222.6
1,733.3
2,458.7
2,164.0
2,044.2
694.9
455.5
737.4
501.8
697.4
1,209.9
1,725.2
2,471.6
2,171.9
2,079.3
698.8
439.4
717.4
498.0
678.2
1,207.2
1,696.8
2,538.5
2,162.9
1,975.8
697.7
427.7
718.9
494.6
674.7
1,205.1
1,699.4
2,536.5
2,157.7
1,983.1
700.5
428.8
716.9
494.1
679.0
1,203.7
1,703.8
2,539.9
2,167.7
2,005.6
703.6
432.9
678.4
488.7
675.5
1,193.8
1,671.4
2,523.5
2,156.2
1,891.1
702.2
433.0
654.8
469.1
668.1
1,149.8
1,619.8
2,509.3
2,120.2
1,835.1
699.4
424.6
669.2
458.8
666.0
1,112.8
1,593.1
2,487.2
2,098.1
1,843.4
702.8
418.9
668.2
432.7
659.7
1,046.6
1,515.7
2,446.3
2,058.1
1,802.7
693.8
399.6
Nondurable goods ........................................
Production workers................................
8,231
5,929
8,290
5,965
8,257
5,921
8,413
6,069
8,404
6,075
8,369
6,039
8,311
5,980
8,254
5,924
8,177
5,853
8,131
5,809
8,146
5,818
8,119
5,794
8,100
5,763
8,137
5,787
7.940
5,612
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures ................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products ................
Paper and allied products ............................
Printing and publishing..................................
Chemicals and allied products ......................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................
1,724.1
70.6
899.1
1,332.3
698.7
1,192.0
1,095.5
207.7
754.5
256.8
1,728.1
69.9
8885
1,312.5
706.7
1,239.5
1,110.7
210.0
775.6
248.0
1,749.5
65.0
872.3
1,276.0
711.8
1,242.3
1,120.9
213.9
776.0
228.8
1,828.8
73.8
886.8
1,308.1
715.6
1,242.5
1,119.0
214.1
774.1
250.4
1,834.5
77.5
885.0
1,308.8
710.5
1,243.0
1,112.7
213.7
770.2
247.9
1,781.8
77.4
886.1
1,317.3
709.3
1,251.4
1,113.7
213.5
770.8
247.9
1,736.3
68.6
890.4
1,305.8
707.8
1,262.0
1,113.9
212.6
765.9
247.6
1,706.2
70.8
889.7
1,287.1
705.9
1,268.5
1,114.2
210.6
755.6
245.2
1,659.9
69.1
884.0
1,282.0
703.5
1,266.3
1,113.1
208.6
750.3
240.3
1,644.1
67.1
884.6
1,305.8
701.9
1,270.4
1,112.1
155.9
746.3
242.6
1,641.1
64.4
886.9
1,318.4
701.8
1,272.1
1,118.1
153.1
746.5
243.4
1,626.2
62.9
882.1
1,304.2
698.8
1,270.4
1,120.6
173.6
737.2
243.3
1,638.5
62.7
870.6
1,299.0
692.4
1,267.8
1,119.5
203.4
702.4
243.2
1,677.3
64.8
852.4
1,314.2
694.6
1,271.4
1,121.5
206.4
688.5
245.5
1,682 9
62.5
812.9
1,229.6
676.8
1,264.6
1,107.6
208.3
667.7
227.5
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES . .
4,923
5,141
5,187
5,197
5,229
5,233
5,243
5,240
5,136
5,130
5,143
5,147
5,167
5,185
5,152
19,542
20,269
20,254
20,296
20,425
20,474
20,756
21,114
20,325
20,155
20,226
20,373
20,497
20,540
20,496
WHOLESALE TRADE ........................................
4,969
5,204
5,243
5,243
5,239
5,266
5,282
5,264
5,241
5,250
5,269
5,265
5,263
5,283
5,275
RETAIL TRADE..................................................
14,573
15,066
15,011
15,053
15,186
15,208
15,474
15,850
15,084
14,905
14,957
15,108
15,234
15,257
15,221
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE . . .
4,724
4,974
5,048
5,068
5,015
5,025
5,039
5,047
5,052
5,061
5,085
5,104
5,137
5,201
5,220
SERVICES ........................................................
16,252
17,078
17,324
17,315
17,238
17,297
17,284
17,271
17,135
17,317
17,478
17,636
17,747
17,825
17,929
GOVERNMENT ..................................................
Federal........................................................
State and local ............................................
15,672
2,753
12,919
15,920
2,773
13,147
15,359
2,838
12,521
15,269
2,844
12,425
15,643
2,751
12,892
16,064
2,756
13,308
16,227
2,760
13,467
16,214
2,770
13,444
16,029
2,763
13,266
16,292
2,803
13,489
16,445
2,869
13,576
16,651
3,103
13,548
16,556
2,963
13,593
16,388
2,994
13,394
15,561
2,918
12,643
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
78
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11.
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1979
Industry division and group
TOTAL ....................................
MINING
CONSTRUCTION ............
MANUFACTURING............................
Production workers..................................
Durable goods
Production workers....................................
Lumber and wood products ..................
Furniture and fixtures..........................
Stone, clay, and glass products ............................
Primary metal industries..........................
Fabricated metal products................................
Machinery, except electrical..................................
Electric and electronic equipment..........................
Transportation equipment..........................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ............................
Nondurable goods ............................
Production workers..................................
Food and kindred products......................
Tobacco manufactures ....................
Textile mill products............................
Apparel and other textile products ..............................
Paper and allied products ................................
Printing and publishing......................................
Chemicals and allied products ..................
Petroleum and coal products ............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ..........
Leather and leather products......................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES .
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE....................
WHOLESALE TRADE ..................
RETAIL TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE ....................
1980
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Junep
JulyP
90,054
90,222
90,283
90,441
90,552
90,678
91,031
91,186
91,144
90,951
90,468
89,973
89,735
963
974
976
982
985
992
999
1,007
1,009
1,023
1,026
1,013
1,012
4,491
4,499
4,507
4,529
4,553
4,615
4,745
4,659
4,529
4,467
4,436
4,371
4,320
21,128
15,140
21,055
15,046
21,071
15,058
21,043
15,025
20,966
14,948
20,983
14,956
20,971
14,911
20,957
14,871
20,938
14,850
20,642
14,550
20,286
14,186
19,999
13,919
19,742
13,722
12,841
9,173
12,782
9,103
12,822
9,129
12,764
9,069
12,693
9,001
12,706
9,009
12,681
8,953
12,715
8,967
12,707
8,961
12,442
8,686
12,140
8,386
11,933
8,191
11,772
8,064
766
499
709
1,260
1,726
2,513
2,140
2,092
691
445
764
499
710
1,250
1,713
2,509
2,109
2,089
693
446
767
497
708
1,242
1,723
2,518
2,140
2,090
693
444
768
498
709
1,236
1,723
2,478
2,149
2,063
696
444
757
498
704
1,230
1,722
2,460
2,150
2,033
695
444
746
497
704
1,219
1,718
2,459
2,163
2,057
698
445
743
497
705
1,215
1,707
2,532
2,169
1,970
699
444
745
495
705
1,214
1,711
2,529
2,168
2,006
702
440
737
494
700
1,209
1,711
2,530
2,176
2,006
705
439
689
491
680
1,193
1,678
2,518
2,167
1,885
703
438
654
472
663
1,144
1,620
2,517
2,127
1,819
700
424
649
459
647
1,096
1,579
2,477
2,090
1,827
696
413
651
443
644
1,040
1,528
2,454
2,071
1,837
693
411
8,287
5,967
8,273
5,943
8,249
5,929
8,279
5,956
8,273
5,947
8,277
5,947
8,290
5,958
8,242
5,904
8,231
5,889
8,200
8,146
5,800
8,066
5,728
7,970
5,658
1,722
71
1,722
70
883
1,305
708
1,244
1,712
70
881
1,298
708
1,245
1,723
70
885
1,302
709
1,251
1,114
1,725
64
887
1,294
708
1,259
1,116
1,724
1,716
67
1,713
1,704
1,691
70
869
1,291
692
1,268
1,677
71
842
1,291
684
1,269
1 656
767
247
766
247
762
246
889
1,296
708
1,261
1,118
213
756
246
1,690
69
884
1,302
702
1,272
1,123
175
740
243
886
1,316
709
1,243
1,112
1,110
208
781
239
209
774
248
5,156
5,182
5,185
5,203
5,216
20,254
20,301
20,352
20,414
5,214
5,222
5,228
15,040
15,079
1,110
211
66
888
1,305
710
1,269
68
888
1,313
709
1,273
68
888
1,316
708
1,274
1,123
157
749
244
5,864
68
825
1,269
674
1,266
1,099
203
672
238
1,121
1,121
214
755
245
161
751
245
5,212
5,202
5,198
5,202
5,178
5,167
5,134
5,121
20,479
20,448
20,529
20,637
20,610
20,531
20,487
20,437
20,496
5,246
5,269
5,251
5,278
5,302
5,301
5,286
5,268
5,241
5,244
15,124
15,168
15,210
15,197
15,251
15,335
15,309
15,245
15,219
15,196
15,252
212
212
1,120
203
703
239
1,111
202
681
238
4,989
5,019
5,017
5,033
5,049
5,064
5,091
5,101
5,115
5,119
5,137
5,150
5,158
SERVICES ......................
17,114
17,152
17,192
17,264
17,308
17,362
17,462
17,540
17,580
17,618
17,659
17,631
17,716
GOVERNMENT
Federal............................................
State and local ................................
15,959
2,784
13,175
16,040
2,811
13,229
15,983
2,762
13,221
15,973
2,769
13,204
15,996
2,773
13,223
16,002
2,773
13,229
16,032
2,791
13,241
16,087
2,826
13,261
16,161
16,384
3,115
13,269
16,273
2,960
13,313
16,225
2,950
13,275
16,169
2,861
13,308
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2,886
13,275
79
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
12.
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date
[Per 100 employees]
Year
Annual
average
Jan.
Mar.
Feb.
June
May
Apr.
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
4.3
4.4
4.3
5.3
5.4
5.0
4.6
4.9
4.5
3.9
4.3
4.1
3.1
3.3
3.0
2.4
2.4
3.0
3.3
3.1
4.0
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.0
3.5
3.1
2.2
2.6
2.2
Total accessions
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.9
4.9
4.8
»3.9
4.6
4.7
4.7
3.4
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.1
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.7
3.2
3.4
3.3
2.2
New hires
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.4
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.3
2.1
1.2
1.0
.9
1.1
1.3
.7
.7
.9
1.1
.8
.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
2.8
3.1
2.9
3.7
3.9
3.8
»2.4
3.5
3.6
3.6
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.1
1.6
1.7
1.5
Recalls
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
.9
.7
.7
.8
.7
.8
.7
.9
.8
.8
.8
.8
1.0
.6
.6
.7
.5
.5
.5
.5
4.9
4.9
4.7
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.4
3.4
3.5
2.8
1.9
2.3
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.1
.9
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.4
1.7
.9
1.0
.8
.7
.8
.6
.6
.9
.9
.9
4.3
4.1
4.3
5.1
5.3
5.7
1.9
3.1
3.5
3.3
.8
.7
.7
p1.2
Total separations
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
3.9
3.6
3.8
4.1
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.4
3.6
3.7
4.7
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.9
p4.2
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.8
Quits
1977
1978
1979
1980
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
1.5
1.5
p 1.4
2.1
2.0
3.1
2.7
2.1
1.6
Layoffs
1977
1978
1979
1980
13.
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
1.1
.9
1.1
1.0
.9
.8
1.4
.9
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.6
.8
1.2
.9
.8
.9
2.3
.7
.7
2.5
.8
1.3
.8
.7
.9
p2.0
1.5
1.1
1.0
.8
1.4
1.3
1.1
.8
1.1
1.5
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group
[Per 100 employees]
Separation rates
Accession rates
Layoffs
Quits
Total
Recalls
New hires
Total
Major industry group
June
1979
May
1980
June
1980 p
June
1979
May
1980
June
1980 p
June
1979
May
1980
June
1980 p
June
1979
May
1980
June
1980 p
June
1979
May
1980
June
1980 p
June
1979
May
1980
June
1980 p
MANUFACTURING..............................
Seasonally adjusted..........
4.8
4.0
3.4
3.0
3.9
3.3
3.8
3.0
2.4
0.7
1.0
1.2
3.9
4.1
4.8
5.7
4.2
4.8
1.4
1.4
0.9
2.5
3.5
2.0
2.6
4.3
7.3
4.9
5.2
3.1
4.8
3.7
4.0
3.5
4.2
6.4
2.8
3.5
3.5
1.9
3.1
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.6
3.5
5.8
4.9
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.8
4.7
4.4
5.7
4.9
3.4
3.9
1.2
2.1
2.2
1.3
.6
1.3
1.0
1.2
.8
1.2
1.1
2.1
1.6
1.2
.5
1.2
.9
1.1
1.2
2.9
3.4
2.5
2.9
5.1
3.5
2.4
1.4
.5
.5
5.0
6.5
5.8
5.1
6.4
5.8
3.8
4.2
5.6
.7
1.1
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.4
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products —
Furniture and fixtures ..............
Stone, clay, and glass products .
Primary metal industries ..........
Fabricated metal products........
Machinery, except electrical
Electric and electronic equipment
Transportation equipment ........
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing . . .
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.9
1.7
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products
Tobacco manufacturers............
Textile mill products ................
Apparel and other products
Paper and allied products ........
Printing and publishing..............
Chemicals and allied products ..
Petroleum and coal products . . .
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products..................
Leather and leather products . . ,
5.5
9.0
3.7
5.0
5.7
3.9
4.3
80
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2.8
5.5
3.1
3.9
6.8
6.1
2.2
1.8
.8
3.4
5.3
4.3
4.2
2.4
3.9
3.2
3.2
2.5
3.7
5.2
6.6
4.5
7.9
4.3
6.5
3.8
3.8
5.6
2.7
3.2
3.5
4.9
3.0
3.5
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.7
2.3
2.9
3.9
.9
3.0
3.5
1.7
2.0
3.2
2.2
2.5
2.6
2.6
3.9
4.2
2.0
3.2
4.1
2.7
3.8
2.5
2.8
2.2
1.6
3.1
3.3
3.7
2.6
6.0
3.3
7.0
4.0
5.7
5.1
5.5
6.9
2.4
1.9
1.5
1.7
1.1
2.2
2.6
2.6
1.5
2.6
2.0
5.4
1.8
2.0
2.2
.8
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
5.0
2.7
3.2
1.8
2.8
1.7
2.9
2.1
4.3
.5
.5
.7
.4
.8
2.9
.7
.6
1.8
.9
1.1
.3
.4
.4
.4
.6
.2
1.0
1.0
2.3
.7
.4
1.4
.5
.5
.3
.3
.5
1.1
.8
.2
1.2
1.1
2.3
1.1
.5
1.8
.8
3.5
.3
2.1
1.2
2.7
.5
1.4
.9
2.2
2.8
3.3
3.5
2.5
5.3
4.6
6.5
2.3
4.8
5.8
2.7
3.4
.5
.3
.5
.6
.3
.7
1.8
2.0
.9
1.4
1.5
5.3
7.8
1.0
3.7
3.0
2.8
6.0
2.8
2.1
1.0
2.2
1.5
1.8
1.2
1.6
5.1
2.9
4.6
5.6
1.9
4.8
4.1
4.9
3.3
6.1
3.0
3.4
2.0
2.3
6.7
7.2
4.1
5.0
3.3
3.3
2.0
1.8
6.0
6.1
2.0
1.8
2.3
3.1
3.3
1.4
2.3
.9
2.4
.3
2.4
3.0
.9
1.9
.7
3.1
4.3
3.5
2.6
.6
1.0
.6
1.8
2.1
2.5
.8
1.8
.6
.6
1.7
2.8
1.2
.8
.6
.6
.4
.8
.4
.5
1.4
.3
1.2
1.1
2.2
.8
.6
1.6
.5
.5
.3
.5
.9
2.4
2.0
2.1
1.8
2.3
2.3
4.4
2.8
1.7
1.9
4.0
.9
3.1
.9
2.4
1.8
1.5
2.4
.7
1.3
2.3
1.4
.8
.8
1.1
4.0
2.7
1.8
1.0
1.7
1.7
.9
,8
.8
3.3
2.3
14.
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1949-79
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]
Average
weekly
earnings
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Total private
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Mining
1949
1950
$50.24
53.13
39.4
39.8
$1,275
1.335
$62.33
67.16
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
19591
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
2.02
2.09
95.06
98.25
96.08
103.68
105.04
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8
2.14
2.22
2.28
2.36
2.46
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
1976
1977
1978
1979
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Average
weekly
earnings
Construction
Average
weekly
hours
Average
hourly
earnings
Manufacturing
$1,717
1.772
$67.56
69.68
37.7
37.4
$1,792
1.863
$53.88
58.32
39.1
40.5
$1,378
1.440
1.93
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
2.20
2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45
63.34
66.75
70.47
70.49
75.30
40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7
1.56
1.64
1.74
1.78
1.85
40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4
2.33
2.45
2.47
2.56
2.60
96.38
100.27
103.78
108.41
112.67
37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7
2.57
2.71
2.82
2.93
3.07
78.78
81.19
82.32
88.26
89.72
40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7
1.95
2.04
2.10
2.19
2.26
106.92
110.70
114.40
117.74
123.52
40.5
41.0
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
99.23
102.97
107.53
39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2
2.32
2.39
2.45
2.53
2.61
2.56
2.68
2.85
3.04
3.23
130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40
42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7
3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85
146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45
37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3
3.89
4.11
4.41
4.79
5.24
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8
2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35
36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1
3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53
172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31
42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9
4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95
211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08
37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4
5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5
3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83
36.1
36.0
35.8
35.6
4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
273.90
301.20
332.88
365.50
42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
6.46
6.94
7.67
8.50
283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
7.71
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
5.22
5.68
6.17
6.69
Transportation and public
utilities
2.01
8.10
8.66
9.27
Finance, insurance, and
real estate
Wholesale and retail trade
Services
1949
1950
$42.93
44.55
40.5
40.5
$1,060
1.100
$47.63
50.52
37.8
37.7
$1,260
1.340
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
54.67
57.08
59.57
62.04
63.92
37.7
37.8
37.7
37.6
37.6
1.45
1.51
1.58
1.65
1.70
1956
1957
1958
1959'
1960
57.48
59.60
61.76
64.41
66.01
39.1
38.7
38.6
38.8
38.6
1.47
1.54
1.60
1.66
1.71
65.68
67.53
70.12
72.74
75.14
36.9
36.7
37.1
37.3
37.2
1.78
1.84
1.89
1.95
2.02
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
$118.78
125.14
41.1
41.3
$2.89
3.03
67.41
69.91
72.01
74.66
76.91
38.3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7
1.76
1.83
1.89
1.97
2.04
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
$70.03
73.60
36.1
35.9
$1.94
2.05
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
128.13
130.82
138.85
147.74
155.93
41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5
3.11
3.23
3.42
3.63
3.85
79.39
82.35
87.00
91.39
96.02
37.1
36.6
36.1
35.7
35.3
2.14
2.25
2.41
2.56
2.72
92.13
95.72
101.75
108.70
112.67
37.3
37.1
37.0
37.1
36.7
2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.07
77.04
80.38
83.97
90.57
96.66
35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34.4
2.17
2.29
2.42
2.61
2.81
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975 ,
168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44
40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7
4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5.88
101.09
106.45
111.76
119.02
126.45
35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
33.9
2.88
3.05
3.23
3.48
3.73
117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5
3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06
103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67
33.9
33.9
33.8
33.6
33.5
3.04
3.27
'3.47
3.75
4.02
1976
1977
1978
1979
256.71
278.90
302.80
325.98
39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
6.45
6.99
7.57
8.17
133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
4.31
4.65
4.99
5.36
.
.
.
.
1Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
81
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1980
1979
Annual average
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE..........................................
1978
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Junep
July p
35.8
35.6
36.0
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.6
35.9
35.1
35.1
35.2
35.0
35.0
35.4
35.3
MINING..............................................................
43.4
43.0
41.7
43.1
43.4
43.7
43.6
43.9
43.4
43.2
43.4
42.8
42.7
43.3
42.4
CONSTRUCTION................................................
36.8
37.0
37.8
38.1
38.0
37.7
36.6
37.2
35.3
35.7
36.2
36.7
36.9
37.9
37.6
MANUFACTURING ............................................
Overtime hours......................................
40.4
3.6
40.2
3.3
39.9
3.2
40.0
3.3
40.3
3.6
40.2
3.4
40.3
3.4
40.9
3.4
39.8
3.0
39.8
2.9
398
3.0
39.4
2.7
39.3
2.5
39.4
2.5
38.9
2.4
Durable goods
Overtime hours......................................
41.1
3.8
40.8
3.5
40.4
3.4
40.4
3.4
40.8
3.6
40.8
3.5
40.8
3.4
41.6
3.5
40.3
3.1
40.3
3.0
40.3
3.1
39.9
2.7
39.7
2.5
39.8
2.4
39.2
2.3
Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
39.8
39.3
41.6
41.8
41.0
39.4
38.7
41.5
41.4
40.7
39.4
38.1
41.5
41.3
40.3
39.9
38.8
41.8
40.8
40.5
40.1
39.0
41.7
41.3
40.8
39.8
39.3
41.7
40.9
40.9
38.8
39.3
41.7
40.7
41.0
39.2
39.9
41.8
40.9
41.9
38.1
38.4
40.1
40.7
40.6
38.5
38.4
40.1
40.7
40.4
38.3
38.5
40.7
40.7
40.6
37.1
37.9
40.4
40.6
40.2
37.6
37.3
40.6
39.3
39.9
38.6
37.5
41.0
39.2
40.2
38.1
37.2
40.6
38.3
39.4
Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................
42.1
40.3
42.2
40.9
38.8
41.8
40.3
41.1
40.8
38.8
41.2
39.6
40.9
40.3
38.5
41.2
39.7
40.5
40.4
38.8
41.8
40.5
40.7
40.7
39.2
41.5
40.3
41.3
40.8
39.1
41.8
40.8
40.8
41.4
39.4
42.7
41.3
42.7
41.7
39.5
41.5
40.2
40.0
41.0
38.8
41.5
40.2
40.4
40.8
38.6
41.5
40.0
40.4
40.6
38.8
41.1
39.6
39.8
40.4
38.4
40.8
39.3
39.9
40.3
38.2
40.8
39.4
39.9
40.6
38.3
40.0
38.5
39.6
39.6
38.1
Nondurable goods
Overtime hours......................................
39.4
3.2
39.3
3.1
39.2
3.0
39.4
3.2
39.6
3.5
39.4
3.2
39.6
3.3
39.9
3.2
39.0
2.9
38.9
38.9
2.9
38.7
2.7
38.7
2.5
38.7
2.5
38.6
Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................
39.7
38.1
40.4
35.6
42.9
39.9
38.0
40.4
35.3
42.6
40.1
36.1
39.9
35.5
42.5
40.3
37.6
40.3
35.6
42.6
40.6
39.2
40.8
35.3
42.7
40.0
38.9
40.8
35.5
42.7
40.2
38.8
41.3
35.6
42.9
40.4
39.4
41.5
35.9
43.5
39.5
37.3
40.9
35.2
42.7
39.1
36.9
40.8
35.4
42.4
39.0
37.7
40.9
35.4
42.4
38.9
38.2
39.9
35.3
42.2
39.7
38.7
39.8
35.3
41.6
39.5
38.5
39.5
35.6
41.7
39.6
35.3
38.8
35.2
41.7
Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................
37.6
41.9
43.6
40.9
37.1
37.5
41.9
43.8
40.5
36.5
37.4
41.7
44.1
40.2
36.9
37.9
41.8
43.6
40.0
36.6
37.9
41.8
44.7
40.5
36.8
37.5
41.7
44.1
40.5
36.5
37.9
42.2
44.8
40.3
36.8
38.1
42.2
43.5
40.7
37.3
37.2
41.7
36.2
40.3
36.7
37.0
41.6
39.7
39.9
36.8
37.2
41.7
39.4
40.0
36.4
36.8
41.6
41.1
39.7
36.7
36.9
41.3
42.3
39.0
37.0
36.8
41.1
42.3
39.3
37.3
36.8
40.9
43.8
38.9
36.7
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES . . . .
40.0
39.9
40.0
40.3
39.9
40.0
40.2
40.0
39.5
39.4
39.5
39.5
39.3
39.6
39.8
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ....................
32.9
32.6
33.3
33.2
32.6
32.4
32.4
32.9
31.9
31.9
32.0
31.8
31.9
32.4
32.6
WHOLESALE TRADE..........................................
38.8
38.8
39.0
39.0
38.8
38.9
38.9
39.1
38.5
38.4
38.4
38.4
38.5
38.6
38.5
RETAIL TRADE..................................................
31.0
30.6
31.5
31.4
30.6
30.4
30.4
31.0
29.8
29.8
29.9
29.7
29.9
30.4
30.7
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..........................................................
36.4
36.2
36.2
36.1
36.1
36.2
36.3
36.4
36.2
36.3
36.3
36.2
36.1
36.5
36.4
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.4
32.3
32.8
33.1
SERVICES..........................................................
82
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32.8
32.7
33.3
33.2
32.7
32.6
32.6
32.8
2.8
2.6
16.
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1979
1980
Industry division and group
TOTAL PRIVATE ..............................................
MINING ....................................................
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
35.6
35.7
35.6
35.6
35.6
41.7
43.1
43.4
43.7
43.6
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
35.7
35.6
43.9
43.4
35.5
35.4
43.2
43.4
May
Junep
35.3
35.1
35.1
35.0
42.8
42.7
43.3
42.4
July p
CONSTRUCTION ....................................
36.9
37.3
37.5
368
37.0
37.2
37.3
37.1
36.6
36.7
36.8
37.1
36.7
MANUFACTURING................................................
Overtime hours............................................
40.1
3.3
40.1
3.3
40.1
3.2
40.1
3.2
40.1
3.3
40.2
3.2
40.3
3.2
40.1
3.0
39.8
3.1
39.8
3.0
39.3
39.1
2.4
39.1
2.5
Durable goods
Overtime hours............................................
40.7
3.5
40.7
3.4
40.7
3.3
40.7
3.3
40.6
3.3
40.7
3.2
40.8
3.3
40.6
3.1
40.3
3.2
40.3
3.0
39.7
2.5
39.5
2.4
39.5
2.4
Lumber and wood products ................................
Furniture and fixtures..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..........................
Primary metal industries......................................
Fabricated metal products ..................................
39.3
38.5
41.4
41.3
40.7
39.6
38.6
41.4
41.0
40.6
39.6
38.7
41.5
41.1
40.7
39.2
38.8
41.3
41.1
40.8
38.9
38.9
41.4
40.8
40.7
39.0
38.9
41.5
40.7
40.9
39.4
39.2
41.4
40.8
40.9
39.1
39.0
41.2
40.8
40.8
38.7
38.5
40.9
40.7
40.7
37.3
38.5
40.6
40.6
40.8
37.5
37.6
40.3
39.2
39.9
37.8
37.2
40.4
38.9
39.8
38.0
37.6
40.5
38.3
39.8
Machinery, except electrical................................
Electric and electronic equipment ........................
Transportation equipment....................................
Instruments and related products ........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..............................
41.8
40.2
41.0
40.8
39.0
41.6
39.9
41.5
40.6
38.9
41.7
40.3
40.6
40.7
39.0
41.5
40.3
41.0
40.7
38.9
41.5
40.4
40.5
41.0
38.9
41.5
40.5
40.9
41.0
39.0
41.6
40.5
40.9
41.4
39.2
41.5
40.3
40.8
40.9
39.1
41.3
40.0
40.4
40.4
38.6
41.5
39.9
40.5
40.7
38.5
41.0
39.5
39.7
40.3
38.3
40.7
39.2
39.5
40.5
38.2
40.6
39.0
39.7
40.1
38.6
Nondurable goods
Overtime hours............................................
39.2
3.0
39.3
3.1
39.3
3.1
39.3
3.1
39.4
3.2
39.4
3.1
39.5
3.1-
39.4
2.9
39.0
3.0
39.1
3.0
38.9
38.5
2.5
38.6
Food and kindred products..................................
Tobacco manufactures ......................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products ......................
Paper and allied products ..................................
39.8
38.1
40.3
35.3
42.5
39.8
38.1
40.3
35.3
42.6
40.0
38.4
40.7
35.2
42.5
39.9
38.3
40.8
35.4
42.6
39.9
37.8
41.0
35.3
42.7
39.9
38.5
41.0
35.6
42.8
39.8
38.5
41.5
36.0
43.0
39.7
37.9
41.1
35.9
42.9
39.3
37.7
40.8
35.3
42.6
39.6
38.2
40.3
35.8
42.5
39.9
38.2
39.7
35.3
41.7
39.5
37.5
39.0
35.2
41.4
39.4
37.3
39.2
35.0
41.7
Printing and publishing........................................
Chemicals and allied products ............................
Petroleum and coal products ..............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products........
Leather and leather products ..............................
37.5
41.8
43.6
40.6
36.6
37.8
41.9
43.6
40.2
36.5
37.5
41.8
44.0
40.3
36.8
37.4
41.7
43.5
40.2
36.5
37.5
42.0
44.4
40.0
36.6
37.4
41.8
43.4
40.0
37.0
37.8
42.0
36.9
40.7
37.2
37.4
41.9
40.7
40.0
37.2
37.2
41.8
39.7
39.9
36.9
37.2
41.5
41.1
40.1
37.3
37.1
41.3
42.5
39.3
36.7
36.9
41.0
42.3
39.2
36.6
36.9
41.0
43.3
39.3
364
39.5
39.3
39.6
39.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ..........
40.0
40.3
39.9
40.0
40.2
40.0
39.5
39.4
39.5
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.4
32.3
32.0
32.1
32.0
31.8
WHOLESALE TRADE ............................................
38.8
38.8
38.8
38.8
38.9
38.9
38.9
38.8
38.5
38.5
38.6
38.4
38.3
RETAIL TRADE....................................................
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.6
30.4
30.3
30.0
30.1
30.0
29.8
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..................................................
36.2
36.1
36.1
36.2
36.3
36.4
36.2
36.3
36.3
36.2
36.1
36.5
36.4
SERVICES ..........................................
32.8
32.7
32.7
32.6
32.7
32.8
32.7
32.7
32.7
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
17.
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
TOTAL PRIVATE..................................................
1980
1979
Annual average
Industry division and group
Apr.
May
Junep
JulyP
$6.57
$6.61
$6,62
1978
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
$5.69
$6.16
$6.16
$6.18
$6.30
$6.31
$6.34
$6.38
$6.42
$6.46
$6.51
$6.53
MINING......................................................................
7.67
8.50
8.54
8.50
8.59
8.59
8.73
8.75
8.88
8.90
8.95
9.10
9.08
9.11
9.08
CONSTRUCTION
866
9.27
9.26
9.34
9.52
9.50
9.52
9.58
9.49
9.61
9.68
9.69
9.77
9.81
9.92
6.17
6.69
6.72
6.70
6.80
6.82
6.87
6.97
6.96
7.00
7.06
7.09
7.13
7.20
7.28
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products ............................
Furniture and fixtures......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................
Primary metal industries..................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................
6.58
5.60
4.68
6.33
7.15
7.13
5.09
6.90
9.10
6.85
7.25
6.23
5.19
7.01
9.11
6.98
5.21
7.08
9.26
7.01
7.42
6.24
5.26
7.11
9.28
7.14
7.39
5.04
6.90
9.04
6.83
7.24
6.30
5.18
6.99
9.16
6.95
7.29
6.35
7.13
6.08
5.06
6.85
8.97
6.84
7.46
6.33
5.32
7.14
9.44
7.14
7.54
6.35
5.37
7.27
9.45
7.24
7.56
6.28
5.39
7.34
9.53
7.27
7.60
6.40
5.42
7.45
9.61
7.32
7.69
6.57
5.47
7.52
9.68
7.40
7.74
6.69
5.49
7.54
9.87
738
Machinery, except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment................................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................
6.78
5.82
7.91
5.71
4.69
7.32
6.32
8.54
6.17
5.03
7.34
6.28
8.56
6.17
5.01
7.35
6.37
8.45
6.15
5.02
7.48
6.47
8.59
7.44
6.49
8.70
6.32
5.10
7.50
6.52
8.72
6.39
5.13
7.63
6.64
8.93
6.50
5.20
7.66
6.67
8.81
6.57
5.28
7.69
6.71
7.76
6.78
9.04
6.63
5.34
7.81
6.79
9.04
6.63
5.37
7.91
6.78
9.06
6.72
5.40
7.98
8.03
689
9.29
6.82
5.49
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products..............................
Tobacco manufactures....................................
Textile mill products........................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................
Paper and allied products................................
5.53
5.80
6.13
4.30
3.94
6.52
6.00
6.04
6.28
6.51
4.77
4.21
7.24
6.11
6.14
6.35
6.33
4.83
4.31
7.36
6.21
6.26
6.55
6.98
4.87
4.38
7.50
6.28
6.61
7.08
4.90
4.44
7.49
6.27
6.64
7.36
4.90
4.45
7.52
6.30
6.27
6.65
4.66
4.23
7.13
6.03
6.28
6.83
4.65
4.23
7.18
6.36
6.75
7.79
4.91
4.46
7.63
6.42
6.82
7.64
4.90
4.45
7.65
6.48
6.85
8.07
4.93
4.51
7.77
6.61
6.95
8.27
4.99
4.45
Printing and publishing ....................................
Chemicals and allied products ........................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . . .
Leather and leather products ..........................
6.51
7.02
8.63
5.52
3.89
6.95
7.60
9.36
5.96
4.22
6.94
7.61
9.38
5.95
4.18
6.98
7.66
9.34
5.94
4.21
7.08
7.74
9.50
6.03
429
7.21
7.92
9.48
7.29
9.83
6.30
4.52
7.44
8.17
10.07
6.34
4.53
746
9.37
6.25
4.47
7.34
805
9.29
6.27
4.51
7.34
4.35
7.24
7.97
9.46
6.25
4.45
10.30
6.42
4.54
7.58
8.35
10.42
6.53
4.57
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES..............
7.57
8.17
8.19
8.31
8.54
8.55
8.58
8.62
8.71
8.72
8.77
8.81
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ............................
4.67
5.06
5.05
MANUFACTURING
8.20
6.22
WHOLESALE TRADE..................................................
5.88
6.39
6.40
6.22
6.21
5.06
6.32
6.43
4.82
4.27
7.33
7.10
7.83
9.48
6.22
6.50
6.97
4.86
4.32
7.43
6.21
5.27
7.06
9.30
7.09
8.86
6.59
5.30
6.68
7.57
4.92
4.49
7.55
6.86
9.25
6.78
5.44
8.00
4.31
7.13
7.88
9.56
6.14
4.33
8.44
8.43
8.51
5.06
5.13
5.15
5.18
5.18
5.34
5.36
5.40
5.40
5.42
5.43
5.45
6.42
6.52
6.52
6.58
6.69
6.72
6.77
6.83
6.87
6.89
6.94
6.98
6.12
6.21
8.01
8.12
8.22
RETAIL TRADE ..........................................................
4.20
4.53
4.51
4.52
4.57
4.59
4.62
4.61
4.78
4.78
4.81
4.80
4.82
4.82
4.85
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ..................................................................
4.89
5.27
5.28
5.28
5.37
5.35
5.41
5.48
5.53
5.60
5.68
5.68
5.70
5.75
5.72
SERVICES..................................................................
4.99
5.36
5.29
5.31
5.45
5.48
5.55
5.61
5.65
5.70
5.75
5.75
5.79
5.82
5.79
18.
Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division
[Seasonally adjusted data: 1967= 100]
1979
1980
Industry
TOTAL PRIVATE (in current dollars)
Mining..........................................
Construction ................................
Manufacturing ..............................
Transportation and public utilities . . .
Wholesale and retail trade ............
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services ......................................
TOTAL PRIVATE (In constant dollars)
1 Includes
84
Jan.'
Feb.'
237.3
239.4
240.3
272.0
226.5
241.9
258.7
229.7
215.7
234.9
274.6
228.1
244.1
260.1
231.4
217.9
237.8
277.0
225.8
245.2
260.8
234.2
218.4
237.7
104.1
103.8
102.7
102.2 102.0
July'
Aug.1
Sept.1
Oct.’
Nov.1
229.2
230.8
232.3
234.3
235.0
263.4
220.4
234.1
247.1
265.0
265.6
224.5
238.6
255.1
227.2
214.0
231.6
267.7
224.7
239.9
255.8
227.6
212.9
232.3
104.9
104.2
222.8
235.5
249.9
223.9
208.4
225.9
210.1
227.5
264.7
223.2
337.0
252.4
225.5
211,4
228.7
105.9
105.5
105.2
corrections for data listed in August issue.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Dec.1
June'
222.1
0.2
-.2
.7
.8
7.4
6.7
10.5
242.4
245.2
246.2
248.3
250.7
251.3
278.5
229.8
247.8
262.4
235.2
280.9
232.2
250.2
265.9
237.8
225.7
242.7
283.7
233.0
252.4
267.2
238.0
224.9
243.0
284.2
234.2
255.0
268.7
239.8
226.3
245.7
285.1
235.4
258.2
271.0
241.3
229.3
248.5
284.5
237.0
260.2
270.2
242.4
227.0
247.7
-.3
.5
-1.0
-.3
8.1
8.3
8.0
101.4
101.4
101.5
<2)
(2)
(2)
239.7
2 Not available.
June"
JulyP
July 1979
to
July 1980
Apr.
221.1
Mayp
June 1980
to
July 1980
Mar. ’
8.9
8.9
19.
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1980
1979
Annual average
Industry division and group
1978
TOTAL PRIVATE....................................
$203.70
MINING..............................................................
332.88
1979
July
Aug.
$219.30
$221.76
365.50
356.12
366.35
350.03
Sept.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
$229.04
$225.34
384.13
385.39
384.48
335.00
$225.27
$225.70
372.81
375.38
380.63
355.85
361.76
358.15
348.43
356.38
274.16
276.86
285.07
291.48
378.31
283.56
295.80
247.95
203.97
292.32
372.60
285.48
297.43
241.34
204.75
295.24
376.88
287.41
308.67
244.61
209.87
297.20
379.55
299.17
$222.48
$225.54
Oct.
Feb.
Mar.
$226.75 $229.15
Apr.
May
Junep
JulyP
$22855 $229.95 $233 99 $233.69
387.72
394.46
384.99
388.43
389.48
343.08
350.42
355.62
360.51
371.80
372.99
277.01
278.60
280.99
279.35
280.21
283.68
283.19
297.82
236.60
202.37
283.11
378.51
287.85
300.64
243.71
204.29
286.31
384.21
288.46
303.86
243.21
206.75
295.89
384.62
293.94
301.64
232.99
204.28
296.54
386.92
292.25
301.72
240.64
202.17
302.47
377.67
292.07
306.06
253.60
205.13
308.32
379.46
297.48
303.41
254.89
204.23
306.12
378.02
290.77
CONSTRUCTION................................................
318.69
342.99
MANUFACTURING ............................................
249.27
268.94
268.13
268.00
274.04
Durable goods................................................
Lumber and wood products..........................
Furniture and fixtures ..................................
Stone, clay, and glass products....................
Primary metal industries ..............................
Fabricated metal products............................
270.44
288.86
245.07
192.02
286.35
373.35
275.25
288.05
248.18
197.49
288.42
371.28
277.43
295.39
252.63
183.92
263.33
342.76
260.35
290.90
239.55
195.82
284.28
371.36
278.39
Machinery except electrical..........................
Electric and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment ............................
Instruments and related products..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing........................
285.44
234.55
333.80
233.54
181.97
305.98
254.70
350.99
251.74
195.16
302.41
248.69
350.10
248.65
192.89
302.82
252.89
342.23
248.46
194.78
312.66
262.04
349.61
252.75
198.35
308.76
261.55
359.31
257.86
199.41
313.50
266.02
355.78
264.55
202.12
325.80
274.23
381.31
271.05
205.40
317.89
268.13
352.40
269.37
204.86
319.14
269.74
357.94
268.87
204.58
322.04
271.20
365.22
269.18
207.19
320.21
268.88
359.79
267.85
206.21
322.73
266.45
361.49
270.82
206.28
325.58
270.28
369.08
275.27
208.35
321.20
265.27
367.88
270.07
209.17
Nondurable goods..........................................
Food and kindred products ..........................
Tobacco manufactures ................................
Textile mill products ....................................
Apparel and other textile products................
Paper and allied products ............................
217.88
230.26
233.55
173.72
140.26
279.71
235.80
250.17
252.70
188.26
149.32
303.74
236.38
251.83
246.56
185.54
150.17
305.15
237.98
253.08
244.78
192.23
149.88
308.42
241.96
256.59
252.06
196.66
150.73
312.99
241.92
254.00
246.24
197.06
153.01
314.27
245.92
261.30
270.44
200.72
153.79
318.75
249.77
264.62
275.01
157.24
326.25
244.92
261.10
264.08
200.41
156.29
319.82
243.90
259.62
271.58
199.92
157.53
318.85
245.07
260.52
285.39
201.23
158.95
320.12
246.13
262.58
297.58
195.91
157.44
321.99
248.45
270.75
295.67
195.02
157.09
318.24
250.78
270.58
310.70
194.74
160.56
324.01
255.15
275.22
291.93
193.61
156.64
333.60
Printing and publishing..................................
Chemicals and allied products......................
Petroleum and coal products........................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products......................................
Leather and leather products........................
244.78
294.14
376.27
260.63
318.44
409.97
259.56
317.34
413.66
264.54
320.19
407.22
268.33
323.53
424.65
266.25
326.51
418.07
270.23
332.54
428.29
274.70
334.22
412.38
269.33
332.35
342.45
269.73
333.22
371.99
273.05
335.69
366.03
270.11
337.79
404.01
274.54
337.42
425.96
274.53
337.84
435.69
278.94
341.52
456.40
225.77
144.32
241.38
154.03
239.19
154.24
237.60
154.09
244.22
157.87
247.86
157.32
247.44
159.34
252.75
162.26
251.88
163.32
249.38
164.50
250.80
164.16
250.11
165.88
247.26
167.61
252.31
169.34
254.02
167.72
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES . . . .
302.80
325.98
327.60
334.89
336.76
337.20
342.10
341.60
337.73
338.05
340.49
344.05
342.70
347.29
350.64
222.88
202.02
202.11
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ....................
153.64
164.96
168.17
167.99
167.24
166.86
167.83
170.42
170.35
170.98
172.80
171.72
172.90
175.93
177.67
WHOLESALE TRADE ........................................
228.14
247.93
249.60
250.38
252.98
253.63
255.96
261.58
258.72
259.97
262.27
263.81
265.27
267.88
268.73
RETAIL TRADE..................................................
130.20
138.62
142.07
141.93
139.84
139.54
140.45
142.91
142.44
142.44
143.82
142.56
144.12
146.53
148.90
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE . . . .
178.00
190.77
191.14
c 190.61
193.86
193.67
196.38
199.47
200.19
203.28
206.18
205.62
205.77
209.88
208.21
SERVICES..........................................................
163.67
175.27
176.16
176.29
178.22
178.65
180.93
184.01
183.63
185.25
186.88
186.30
187.02
190.90
191.65
c=corrected.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
85
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
20.
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date
[Averages for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Private nonagricultural workers
Year and month
1960 ........................................
Gross average
weekly earnings
Manufacturing workers
Spendable average weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Spendable average weekly earnings
Married worker with
3 dependents
weekly earnings
Worker with no
dependents
Married worker with
3 dependents
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
Current
dollars
1967
dollars
$80.67
$90.95
$65.59
$73.95
$72.96
$82.25
$89.72
$101.15
$72.57
$81.82
$80.11
$90.32
92.19
94.82
96.47
98.31
74.87
76.78
77.48
80.78
83.94
74.48
76.99
78.56
82.57
86.63
83.13
84.98
85.67
91.67
92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53
103.06
106.58
108.21
110.84
113.79
74.60
77.86
79.51
84.40
89.08
83.26
85.94
86.71
90.85
94.26
82.18
85.53
87.25
92.18
96.78
91.72
94.40
95.15
99.22
102.41
88.66
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
....................................
........................................
82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45
101.01
67.08
69.56
71.05
75.04
79.32
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
........................................
..................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83
101.67
101,84
103.39
104.38
103.04
81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
96.21
83.63
83.38
83.21
82.84
82.73
90.86
95.28
99.99
104.90
91.21
90.86
91.44
91.07
90.20
112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33
115.42
114.49
117.57
117.95
114.64
91.45
92.97
97.70
101.90
106.32
94.08
92.97
93.76
92.81
91.42
99.33
100.93
106.75
111.44
115.58
102.19
100.93
102.45
101.49
99.38
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53
104.95
109.26
109.23
104.78
101.45
103.80
112.19
117.51
124.37
132.49
85.57
89.54
88.29
84.20
82.19
112.43
68
127.38
134.61
145.65
92.69
97.11
95.70
91.14
90.35
142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79
117.43
123.47
125.06
119.70
118.36
114.97
125.34
132.57
140.19
151.61
94.78
100.03
99.60
94.92
94.05
124.24
135.57
143.50
151.56
166.29
102.42
108.20
107.81
102.61
103.16
1976
1977
1978
1979
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
102.90
104.13
104.30
100.73
143.30
155.19
165.39
177.55
84.05
85.50
84.69
81.56
155.87
169.93
180.71
194.35
91.42
93.63
92.53
89.27
209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
122.77
126.12
127.63
123.54
167.83
183.80
197.40
212.43
98.43
101.27
101.08
97.58
181.32
200.06
214.87
232.07
106.60
1979: July..................................
August ............................
September ......................
221.76
222.48
225.54
101.08.
100.44
100.82
179.35
179.87
182.10
81.75
81.21
81.40
196.26
196.83
199.15
89.45
122.21
211.88
89.03
268.13
268.00
274.04
120.99
122.50
211.79
215.89
96.57
95.62
96.51
231.46
231.36
235.94
105.50
104.45
105.47
October............................
November........................
December........................
225.27
225.70
229 04
99.85
99.17
99.58
181.90
182.22
184.59
80.63
80.06
80.26
198.94
199.27
201.80
88.18
87.55
87.74
274.16
276.86
285.07
121.52
121.64
123.94
215.97
217.80
223.38
95.73
95.69
97.12
236.04
238.08
244.31
104.63
104.60
106.22
1980: January............................
February..........................
March ..............................
225.34
226.75
229.15
96.59
95.88
95.52
181.96
182.98
184.67
77.99
77.37
76.98
199.00
200.07
201.89
85.30
84.60
84.16
277.01
278.60
280.99
118.74
117.80
117.13
217.91
218.99
220.61
93.40
92.60
91.96
238.20
239.40
241.22
101.23
100.55
April ................................
May ................................
Junep ..............................
228.55
229.95
233.99
94.21
93.82
94.43
184.25
185.23
188.05
75.95
75.57
75.89
201.43
202.49
205.56
83.03
82.62
82.95
279.35
280.21
283.68
115.15
114.32
114.48
219.49
220.08
222.43
90.47
89.79
89.76
239.97
240.63
243.26
98.92
98.18
98.17
Julyp ..............................
233.69
(’ )
187.84
(' )
205.33
(’ )
283.19
( ')
222.10
( 1)
242.89
<’ )
121
'Not available.
NOTE: The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in price level
as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
These series are described in “The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Cal-
86
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
88.88
88.86
106.35
110.23
110.02
102.10
culation," Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labo Force, February 1969, pp.
-13. See also “ Spendable Earnings Formulas, 1978-80,” Employment and Earnings, March 1980,
pp. 10-11.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA
U n e m p l o y m e n t in s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly by
the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De
partment of Labor from records of State and Federal unem
ployment insurance claims filed and benefits paid. Railroad
unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Rail
road Retirement Board.
ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about onethird of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. Ini
tial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance
programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv
ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The
rate of insured unemployment expresses the number of insured unem
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.
Definitions
Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation
for Ex-Servicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act.
An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be
ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap
plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Num
ber of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all com
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set
tlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been
adjusted.
Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs
for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of
at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem
21.
Unemployment Insurance and employment service operations
[All items except average benefits amounts are inthousands]
1980
1979
Item
All programs:
Insured unemployment............
July
June
Sept.
Aug.
Oct.
Nov.
Jan.
Dec.
Feb.
Mar.
May
Apr.
2.119
2,429
2,377
2,164
2,236
2,559
3,047
3,740
3,730
3,652
3,627
1,400
1,978
1,545
1,219
1,641
1,827
2,263
2,837
1,818
1,705
2,192
1,991
2.5
2,300
2,245
2.7
2,024
2.4
2,057
2.4
2,384
2,864
3.4
3,537
4.1
3,518
4.1
3,356
3.9
3,278
3.8
9,171
13,792
'12,801
13,170
12,689
June
'3,680
3,790
'3,343
3.9
3,456
4.0
State unemployment insurance
program:1
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ...............
Rate of insured unemployment .....
Weeks of unemployment
2.8
2.8
7,197
7,889
8,830
6,993
7,638
8,107
$87 25
$610,269
$8640
$8856
$665,687
$767,025
$89 07
$606,095
$90 59
$673,965
$92 39
$728,370
24
28
28
23
26
24
24
25
21
21
21
45
51
52
52
52
54
56
60
58
63
52
50
193
$18,623
216
$20,965
234
$23,861
211
$19,634
236
$23,325
232
$23,093
233
$23,093
299
$29,635
255
'$25,308
249
$24,928
246
$24,518
$22,025
13
16
13
13
18
15
15
19
11
Average weekly benefit amount
$96.41
$94.54
' $98.39
$99.15
$99.52
$843,869 $1,283,946 $1,229,877 $1,218,231 $1,232,173 $1,196,836
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ...............
Weeks of unemployment
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ...............
Weeks of unemployment
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications.....................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ...............
Number of payments .............
Average amount of benefit
payment......................
Total benefits paid ...............
12
23
2.5
25
25
28
29
31
34
32
30
25
22
96
$8,802
107
$9,829
91
$8,453
109
$10,093
118
$11,063
118
$11,047
150
$14,118
129
'$12,226
123
$11,901
108
$10,323
$8,280
9
15
11
22
7
5
4
8
11
20
19
41
40
80
39
71
30
36
68
27
62
23
54
$199.01
$14,967
$208.73
$14,573
$210.79
$13,884
$201.87
$13,002
$193.44
$9,953
7,285
1,561
’ 8,708
'1,853
10,021
19
13
11
21
26
32
18
51
10
20
$183.13
$3,314
$190.10
$3,699
$195.61
$3,767
$189.08
$5,747
$189.61
$8,003
$183.38
$6,462
$197.22
$8,085
11 907
3*051
13 186
3,482
14 479
3,935
15,525
4,349
1,855
458
3 183
768
4,378
1,044
Employment service:5
Nonfarm placements .............
1 Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
2 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
4 Includes the Virgin Islands. Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State pro-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
11
91
$8,341
8
12
45
6
20
24
27
55
$199.06
$10,140
2,143
grams.
5 Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1 - September 30).
NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico included. Dashes indicate data not available,
r = revised.
87
PRICE DATA
P r ic e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).
Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser
vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new CPI for All Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the
new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri
al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the
unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali
ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi
sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000
housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country.
All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi
tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it mea
sures only price change, which is just one of several important factors
affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the
level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received
in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities
in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in
dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations
per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com
modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial
transactions in primary markets in the United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or
semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure
organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In
dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit
ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.
88
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari
ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com
modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in
dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura
bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite
groupings.
Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries measure av
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la ssifica tio n M a n u a l 1 9 7 2
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notes on the data
Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the R ev ie w , regional CPI’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri
ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 24.)
For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
CPI, see F a c ts A b o u t th e R e v is e d C o n s u m e r P r ic e I n d e x , a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also T h e
C o n s u m e r P r ic e I n d e x : C o n c ep ts a n d C o n te n t O v e r th e Years. Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stan
dards of living, see the family budget data published in the H a n d b o o k
o f L a b o r S ta tistic s , 1 977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P ric e s a n d P ric e
I n d e x es, both monthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val
ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963
values of shipments were used as weights.
For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer,
producer, and industry price indexes, see B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s
f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the mea
surement of producer price change,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April
1978, pp. 7 -1 5 . For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , August
1965, pp. 974-82.
22.
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-79
[1967= 100]
Food and
beverages
All Items
Year
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Apparel and
upkeep
Housing
Index
Percent
change
Index
Transportation
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
Other goods
and services
Entertainment
Medical care
Index
Percent
change
Index
Percent
change
1967
1968
1969
1970
..................
..................
..................
..................
100.0
104.2
109.8
116.3
4.2
5.4
5.9
100.0
103.6
108.8
114.7
3.6
5.0
5.4
100.0
104.0
110.4
118.2
4.0
6.2
7.1
100.0
105.4
111.5
116.1
5.4
5.8
4.1
100.0
103.2
107.2
112.7
3.2
3.9
5.1
100.0
106.1
113.4
120.6
6.1
6.9
6.3
100.0
105.7
111.0
116.7
5.7
5.0
5.1
100.0
105.2
110.4
116.8
5.2
4.9
5.8
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2
4.3
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1
118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1
3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4
123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5
4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6
119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3
3.2
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5
118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6
5.2
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4
128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6
6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3
12.0
122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2
5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
8.9
122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9
4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4
1976
1977
1978
1979
..................
..................
..................
..................
170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
23. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1979
1980
June
Jan.
All items......................................................................................
216.6
Food and beverages ....................................................................
Housing........................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep......................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................
Medical care ................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................
Other goods and services..............................................................
229.3
225.5
165.7
212.6
237.7
188.2
187.9
Commodities................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ....................................
Nondurables less food and beverages..................................
Durables ............................................................................
Services ......................................................................................
Rent, residential..................................................................
Household services less rent ..............................................
Transportation services........................................................
Medical care services..........................................................
Other services....................................................................
1980
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
233.2
236.4
239.8
242.5
244.9
247.6
216.9
233.3
237.5
247.3
171.0
233.5
253.9
195.3
206.3
238.6
250.5
171.9
239.6
257.9
197.8
208.1
241.0
254.5
176.0
243.7
260.2
200.6
208.9
242.8
257.9
177.3
246.8
262.0
202.5
209.8
244.1
261.7
177.5
249.0
263.4
204.0
211.2
245.7
266.7
177.2
249.7
264.7
205.3
212.5
229.3
225.5
165.3
213.7
238.2
187.5
194.3
237.8
247.3
169.8
234.1
254.9
193.9
206.0
208.4
196.0
200.5
191.1
222.4
212.0
224.6
201.3
225.2
215.5
231.8
202.1
228.0
218.4
237.5
203.0
229.9
220.4
239.5
204.9
231.4
222.0
240.3
207.1
232.8
223.2
241.1
208.6
208.7
196.3
201.6
190.8
232.1
174.7
264.5
210.9
255.9
198.4
253.1
184.1
295.1
226.8
274.4
209.0
256.8
185.6
300.2
229.6
279.0
211.1
261.3
186.6
307.3
233.4
281.5
212.9
265.3
187.0
313.4
238.1
283.4
214.5
269.2
188.9
319.6
241.5
284.7
215.9
274.2
191.1
328.8
242.6
285.9
216.9
All items less food ........................................................................
All items less mortgage interest costs ............................................
Commodities less food..................................................................
Nondurables less food ..................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel................................................
Nonourables ................................................................................
Services less rent ........................................................................
Services less medical care ............................................................
Domestically produced farm foods ................................................
Selected beef cuts........................................................................
Energy ........................................................................................
All items less energy ....................................................................
All items less food and energy ............................................
Commodities less food and energy....................................
Energy commodities ........................................................
Services less energy........................................................
211.8
211.0
194.7
197.6
217.0
215.7
242.6
228.0
224.9
268.3
275.4
212.2
205.8
184.8
284.9
229.9
229.9
224.3
210.4
220.5
248.6
232.0
266.1
249.2
229.2
265.7
327.9
225.9
220.6
193.7
361.5
251.6
233.5
227.1
213.8
227.3
258.2
236.3
270.2
252.7
229.1
267.2
344.6
228.0
222.8
194.9
385.0
255.2
237.1
229.8
216.7
232.6
264.1
240.3
275.4
257.4
231.2
270.2
355.0
230.8
225.7
196.5
398.5
259.6
239.9
231.8
218.6
234.6
266.5
242.2
280.0
261.5
232.7
268.0
358.8
233.4
228.5
198.2
402.3
263.5
242.6
233.7
220.2
235.5
267.9
243.2
284.4
265.7
233.6
265.6
363.2
235.7
231.0
199.9
403.0
267.0
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ....................
$0,462
$0,429
$0,423
$0,417
$0,412
$0,408
June
236.5
239.9
242.6
245.1
247.8
239.0
250.5
171.5
240.2
258.7
196.2
207.7
241.2
254.4
175.1
244.3
260.9
199.5
208.3
243.2
257.8
176.1
247.7
263.1
201.3
209.2
244.7
261.7
176.8
249.9
264.9
202.4
210.6
246.4
266.9
176.0
250.6
265.9
204.0
212.1
222.3
212.0
226.3
199.6
225.3
215.7
234.1
200.3
228.1
218.7
239.8
201.2
230.1
220.6
241.7
203.3
231.7
222.3
242.6
205.4
233.0
223.4
243.2
206.8
232.3
174.7
265.6
211.6
256.1
198.7
253.6
183.9
297.2
226.6
275.6
209.3
257.3
185.5
302.4
229.3
279.8
211.4
261.7
186.4
309.6
232.7
282.2
213.5
265.8
186.9
315.8
238.0
284.5
214.6
269.9
188.7
322.2
241.5
286.3
216.5
275.1
190.8
331.9
242.7
287.3
217.9
245.5
235.4
221.4
236.3
269.3
244.5
290.0
271.0
234.8
264.8
367.8
238.3
233.7
201.2
404.1
271.5
212.0
211.5
194.9
198.6
218.0
216.3
243.0
228.2
224.6
269.9
277.3
212.3
205.5
184.5
286.2
230.1
230.0
224.7
210.3
222.1
250.2
232.9
266.7
249.5
229.0
268.1
331.5
225.3
219.6
192.4
362.8
252.2
233.7
227.6
214.0
229.4
260.1
237.4
270.8
253.1
229.2
270.3
348.7
227.3
221.8
193.5
386.4
255.7
237.3
230.2
216.9
234.8
266.3
241.4
275.9
257.7
231.0
272.3
359.6
230.0
224.6
195.1
400.3
260.0
240.2
232.4
218.9
236.7
268.7
243.3
280.8
261.9
232.4
269.5
363.3
232.7
227.5
196.9
404.0
264.2
242.9
234.2
220.5
237.7
270.0
244.6
285.4
266.3
233.4
267.5
367.3
235.1
230.0
198.6
404.7
267.8
245.7
235.7
221.6
238.3
271.4
245.7
291.2
271.8
234.7
267.1
371.8
237.6
232.7
199.8
405.6
272.5
$0,404
$0,461
$0429
$0,423
$0,417
$0,412
$0,408
$0,404
Special indexes:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
89
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
90
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1979
1980
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
FOOD AND BEVERAGES ..........................
229.3
237.5
238.6
241.0
242.8
244.1
245.7
229.3
237.8
239.0
241.2
243.2
244.7
246.4
Food ......................................................
235.4
243.8
244.9
247.3
249.1
250.4
252.0
235.4
244.0
245.2
247.5
249.5
251.0
252.7
Food at home ..............................................
Cereals and bakery products..............................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100)....................
Cereal (12/77 = 100) ......................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 10 0 )........................
Bakery products (12/77 = 100) ......................................
White bread............................................................
Other breads (12/77 = 100) ............................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100)..................
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) ......................
Cookies (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Crackers and bread and cracker products (12/77 = 100) ..
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . . .
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products '
and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 100) ..........
234.2
217.8
115.5
117.8
115.8
112.8
115.2
190.3
115.3
115.8
114.0
114.1
112.2
115.9
240.6
234.2
125.0
125.7
123.7
126.4
123.5
208.6
123.8
124.8
121.7
119.7
117.5
122.2
241.3
236.8
125.8
125.7
124.9
127.4
125.1
210.7
124.6
126.2
122.8
122.8
119.9
123.8
243.6
238.6
126.6
126.6
126.0
127.6
126.1
212.0
125.6
127.0
124.4
124.4
120.2
125.0
245.3
242.0
129.4
127.8
129.4
130.8
127.6
215.1
127.0
126.9
126.5
125.3
122.0
126.6
246.5
244.5
131.5
129.0
131.5
133.8
128.7
216.7
128.3
127.8
127.4
126.1
122.2
128.4
248.0
245.9
133.1
131.1
133.0
135.2
129.1
216.9
128.1
129.5
127.6
126.3
123.6
129.1
233.6
218.2
115.4
118.4
116.0
111.8
115.5
189.5
117.1
115.4
114.8
116.2
112.7
117.8
240.1
234.7
126.1
126.9
124.2
127.9
123.6
207.4
126.9
123.1
120.8
121.5
118.4
124.1
241.1
237.4
127.2
127.3
125.5
129.2
125.1
209.7
127.5
124.3
122.2
124.0
121.0
125.4
243.1
239.3
127.7
127.5
126.6
129.4
126.2
212.1
129.3
124.9
123.2
125.6
121.8
126.2
245.0
242.2
130.1
128.9
129.7
131.9
127.5
215.1
129.3
125.3
125.4
126.3
122.2
128.0
246.1
244.4
132.4
129.9
132.0
135.2
128.3
216.0
130.6
126.4
126.5
126.8
123.0
129.2
247.7
245.7
133.9
131.4
133.3
137.0
128.8
215.4
130.8
127.9
126.9
126.9
124.5
130.0
117.6
125.7
127.2
127.9
129.7
131.0
131.2
113.9
122.5
123.8
124.0
125.3
126.0
127.2
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs..........................................
Meats, poultry, and fis h ..................................................
Meats ......................................................
Beef and veal..................................................
Ground beef other than canned ..................................
Chuck roast ..........................................................
Round roast ................................................
Rojnc steak ................................................
Sirloin steak ..........................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ............................
Pork............................................................
Bacon ....................................................................
Pork chops ............................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 = 100)........................
Sausage ....................................................................
Canned ham ..........................................................
Other pork (12/77 = 100)..........................................
Other meats..................................................................
Frankfurters ......................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) ............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100)................................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100)........................
Poultry ....................................................................
Fresh whole chicken ................................................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100) ............
Other poultry (12/77 = 100) ....................................
Fish and seafood ............................................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)......................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)........
Eggs..........................................................................
239.8
246.1
249.6
266.9
278.7
279.7
236.8
250.0
259.8
151.3
217.2
203.9
206.4
99.5
276.1
226.0
124.4
248.9
249.3
136.7
123.1
143.9
187.2
185.8
120.3
123.4
301.0
110.3
117.2
161.9
238.0
243.0
244.1
264.6
271.4
274.7
241.9
249.8
250.9
151.8
206.4
194.5
192.1
99.1
256.6
220.8
116.2
243.2
239.0
134.1
121.2
141.6
187.8
191.1
120.7
119.3
316.7
118.5
121.9
178.2
236.2
242.6
244.1
266.2
273.3
277.7
244.5
252.3
251.1
152.2
202.8
190.1
189.7
95.7
255.1
219.5
114.3
244.7
242.7
135.6
120.7
142.4
182.6
183.6
116.8
118.8
320.4
120.3
123.0
157.2
237.8
243.8
245.7
269.1
275.3
286.2
244.2
254.2
254.3
153.8
202.6
187.6
190.7
95.8
257.6
219.3
113.6
245.8
244.6
135.5
121.8
142.3
180.7
179.5
116.8
118.2
322.6
120.4
124.3
164.5
235.1
241.1
242.6
267.0
272.9
277.9
242.7
253.5
256.1
153.3
197.1
182.1
187.0
90.6
255.1
213.5
110.7
243.9
240.6
134.9
121.9
140.1
177.2
174.7
114.5
117.3
325.3
122.9
124.5
161.2
231.5
238.2
239.2
264.8
269.4
273.0
243.4
250.6
256.2
152.4
191.8
177.4
182.4
87.4
250.2
210.0
107.1
240.2
234.8
133.5
121.4
136.3
176.5
172.9
114.4
117.4
324.5
125.4
122.5
148.4
231.2
237.9
238.1
263.8
266.9
268.6
240.9
247.4
264.8
152.5
190.4
173.1
182.7
87.8
246.2
208.1
106.3
239.4
230.9
133.4
121.0
137.6
177.9
176.3
115.7
115.9
329.1
127.3
124.2
147.9
239.0
245.3
248.8
268.2
278.8
286.0
240.0
247.5
261.1
151.6
217.2
206.0
207.4
97.0
276.0
226.4
124.4
245.2
249.0
133.4
120.6
145.9
185.1
181.5
120.1
122.7
295.9
109.2
114.9
161.6
237.5
242.5
243.7
266.7
272.7
283.6
245.1
249.4
253.5
151.9
206.8
195.3
194.8
96.5
260.3
219.3
116.2
239.3
239.5
130.5
118.7
142.5
184.3
183.8
118.7
120.1
315.4
118.4
121.2
177.0
236.4
242.8
244.3
268.9
276.2
288.7
245.8
250.5
253.0
152.8
204.1
193.8
191.0
95.2
257.0
218.9
114.6
240.9
242.1
132.3
118.6
143.4
118.1
178.9
117.0
119.4
317.9
119.7
122.0
156.7
237.1
243.0
245.0
270.8
278.7
293.4
244.5
251.1
256.0
153.7
203.0
189.4
190.5
94.7
259.8
217.4
113.7
241.5
242.8
132.2
118.8
144.3
177.4
172.5
116.3
117.7
320.2
119.5
123.5
164.3
234.3
240.2
241.3
268.2
274.7
286.1
242.1
249.6
257.8
153.1
196.7
183.9
184.7
88.7
258.0
214.5
110.0
239.0
239.3
131.1
118.4
141.3
176.0
170.6
114.7
118.1
325.1
121.8
125.1
161.5
230.7
237.2
238.1
266.3
270.6
280.0
245.5
250.2
257.5
152.2
191.8
177.7
180.9
85.4
253.9
213.0
106.5
235.6
234.0
129.5
117.6
138.4
173.8
168.0
112.7
117.7
323.0
124.0
122.4
148.9
230.4
237.1
237.5
265.6
269.0
275.0
243.8
247.3
268.3
152.4
190.5
175.6
180.6
86.1
249.6
210.1
105.9
235.9
231.0
130.7
118.1
139.3
175.7
170.7
115.6
116.1
324.9
125.7
122.6
147.2
Dairy products ........................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Fresh whole milk..............................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) ..................
Processed dairy products (12/77 = 100)............................
Butter..............................................
Cheese (12/77 = 100)..........................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100)................
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) ..............................
205.5
115.7
189.4
115.6
116.8
199.9
116.9
116.9
114.5
218.4
123.2
202.3
122.1
123.8
216.9
123.5
124.0
119.8
219.5
123.7
203.2
122.7
124.5
213.3
124.2
124.6
120.9
220.3
124.1
204.0
122.7
125.1
218.3
124.9
125.1
121.6
222.4
124.7
204.9
123.5
127.0
219.9
126.2
128.6
124.0
226.2
127.0
208.5
125.9
129.1
222.2
127.8
131.9
126.1
227.2
127.1
208.6
126.0
130.4
225.0
128.8
133.7
127.3
205.9
116.0
189.8
116.0
117.0
202.0
116.3
117.8
114.6
218.9
123.2
201.8
122.8
124.5
219.8
123.6
125.6
120.4
219.8
123.6
202.7
123.0
125.1
220.9
124.4
125.6
121.3
221.1
124.2
203.8
123.1
126.2
220.9
125.5
127.2
121.9
223.1
124.9
204.8
124.1
128.0
222.7
126.8
130.4
123.6
226.9
127.2
208.4
126.8
129.9
225.3
128.5
132.9
125.7
227.8
127.4
208.7
127.2
130.7
227.2
129.0
133.8
127.4
Fruits and vegetables ................................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables..............................................
Fresh fruits..............................................
Apples ....................................................
Bananas ........................................................
Oranges....................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100) ................................
Fresh vegetables ..................................................
Potatoes ..........................................................
Lettuce..................................................
Tomatoes ................................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100) ........................
233.8
243.3
266.0
232.9
225.3
311.5
141.4
222.0
221.5
193.1
222.0
128.1
229.8
227.2
233.6
230.4
221.9
236.2
122.5
221.2
203.8
197.6
216.7
132.0
228.3
223.1
235.8
239.6
238.5
231.1
121.4
211.2
203.3
198.7
184.9
125.1
232.4
229.9
245.4
250.2
243.9
238.1
127.4
215.5
203.3
208.3
201.4
125.4
240.9
245.2
257.0
265.5
242.8
240.6
136.5
234.2
201.7
271.9
201.2
134.6
246.6
255.1
264.7
276.3
249.7
243.9
140.8
246.2
210.1
279.9
230.8
140.1
250.1
260.0
273.9
293.3
242.6
264.4
143.7
247.0
246.3
238.8
230.6
140.2
231.5
240.4
261.1
233.7
221.7
293.0
140.7
221.8
224.3
186.0
223.0
128.7
227.2
224.9
232.7
230.1
219.5
231.3
122.7
217.9
200.9
193.2
213.2
130.5
225.9
220.6
234.7
237.6
234.6
228.4
121.3
207.9
199.8
191.7
184.3
123.9
230.1
227.4
245.4
249.0
240.8
240.9
126.9
211.3
200.3
203.8
197.2
123.0
239.8
244.8
255.6
264.4
243.5
234.3
135.7
235.2
198.2
281.9
197.7
135.3
245.5
254.4
263.8
277.3
244.5
237.6
140.9
246.0
205.6
288.6
228.4
139.7
250.2
261.4
274.9
297.4
237.7
251.0
146.5
249.4
244.4
241.7
228.6
143.4
Processed fruits and vegetables ......................................
Processed fruits (12/77 = 100)......................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 100) ..................
Fruit juices and other than frozen (12/77 = 100)..........
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 100)........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100) ............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
225.4
117.6
114.3
115.6
122.5
108.9
107.1
234.7
122.9
117.2
125.1
125.3
113.0
111.9
236.2
123.4
117.6
126.0
125.5
114.0
113.0
237.2
123.9
117.7
127.2
125.5
114.6
112.6
238.4
125.0
119.3
128.3
126.3
114.5
113.3
239.4
125.4
118.1
129.3
127.5
115.2
114.7
241.4
126.4
120.1
129.5
128.3
116.2
116.4
223.5
117.0
114.4
115.1
121.2
108.1
107.7
231.8
122.4
116.5
124.5
124.8
111.2
111.4
233.9
123.6
117.8
126.3
125.3
112.2
111.7
235.0
123.9
116.5
127.4
125.9
113.0
111.9
236.2
124.9
118.4
128.4
126.4
113.2
113.0
237.6
125.7
117.5
129.8
127.8
113.9
114.6
239.7
126.7
118.9
130.4
128.9
115.0
116.3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Apr.
May
June
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May | June
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1980
1979
1979
1980
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Fruits and vegetables— Continued
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) . . .
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77=100)............
Other foods at hom e......................................................................
Sugar and sweets..........................................................................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77=100) ....................................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77=100)......................
Other sweets (12/77=100) ..............................................
Fats and oils (12/77=100) ......................................................
Margarine ........................................................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77-100) ..........
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77=100) ..............
Nonalcoholic beverages ..........................................................
Cola drinks, excluding diet c o la ..........................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77=100)............
Roasted coffee ................................................................
Freeze dried and instant coffee..........................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77-100)..........................
Other prepared foods ..............................................................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77=100)..........................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77=100)..................................
Snacks (12/77=100)........................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77=100)............
Other condiments (12/77=100) ........................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77=100) ......................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) ..
113.2
107.7
267.1
277.4
117.4
115.4
112.6
226.3
239.1
112.8
117.8
350.4
237.9
115.3
347.3
330.2
113.4
207.8
112.6
119.2
113.3
114.4
113.6
115.1
115.6
114.5
112.9
283.5
289.8
121.3
122.2
118.7
233.9
248.3
115.3
121.9
378.5
249.5
119.9
443.2
378.2
116.8
218.8
116.5
126.0
121.8
121.4
120.8
119.6
119.4
115.2
113.9
288.0
297.5
122.4
131.5
119.5
235.9
247.9
116.4
123.6
384.5
255.9
122.3
439.6
382.2
118.3
221.8
118.1
126.6
123.4
123.6
123.7
120.7
121.2
116.0
114.8
292.0
313.5
123.8
153 0
120.4
236.8
248.8
117.9
123.7
387.1
259.3
123.5
437.6
381.7
118.6
224.1
118.0
128.2
124.1
124.9
126.0
122.2
122.2
115.6
114.7
295.1
319.5
126.3
156.9
121.3
238.3
247.9
119.8
124.8
390.3
261.7
125.6
434.0
380.2
120.7
226.6
120.5
130.4
124.8
125.2
127.1
124.4
123.1
116.0
115.1
298.1
326.8
128.9
161.4
123.6
239.5
246.1
121.4
125.8
393.0
265.4
126.2
433.5
381 9
120.7
229.1
122.0
131.3
126.1
125.4
127.9
127.6
124.6
116.6
115.9
301.8
342.0
130.5
180.3
125.8
240.0
249.0
123.1
124.9
395.9
267.8
128.3
432.4
380.2
121.8
230.9
122.9
132.0
127.2
127.5
128.8
128.6
125.2
112.0
106.3
266.2
276.6
117.0
115.3
111.9
226.6
238.4
112.5
118.2
348.5
234.7
112.5
347.3
328.9
112.3
207.9
112.6
118.6
113.7
114.0
114.9
114.8
115.3
112.7
110.4
282.6
289.6
121.2
122.7
117.5
234.9
248.8
116.1
122.3
375.6
246.5
116.4
440.1
376.8
116.2
219.1
116.8
125.1
122.8
121.1
121.4
119.7
119.5
113.4
111.9
287.3
297.1
122.2
131.6
118.5
236.5
247.9
117.2
123.8
383.0
253.6
120.2
436.8
380.4
117.5
221.7
117.9
125.5
124.7
123.1
124.6
120.5
120.3
115.4
112.3
290.9
314.1
123.9
153.8
119.3
236.8
248.3
118.5
123.4
384.4
255.4
121.1
432.3
380.3
118.1
224.0
117.6
127.1
125.3
124.0
126.6
122.2
122.0
114.3
112.7
294.6
320.8
126.5
158.6
120.0
238.3
248.3
120.0
124.4
389.2
260.1
123.4
430.4
379.2
119.6
226.6
120.6
128.8
126.0
124.5
128.1
123.7
123.3
114.2
113.3
298.0
328.0
129.0
163.3
122.2
240.1
2484
121.6
125.5
392.3
263.2
124.8
430.0
380.4
120.0
229.6
122.5
131.0
127.3
125.5
129.2
127.0
124.3
115.2
114.2
301.4
342.9
130.8
180.7
124.6
240.5
249.4
123.5
124.9
395.1
267.1
125.2
429.2
378.7
120.8
230.8
123.7
130.8
127.9
127.3
129.9
128.3
124.1
Food away from home..........................................................................
Lunch (12/77=100) ......................................................................
Dinner (12/77=100) ......................................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77=100)............................................
242.7
118.5
117.7
116.6
256.1
124.6
124.8
122.5
258.3
125.9
125.8
123.2
260.9
127.0
127.0
124.9
263.0
127.9
127.9
126.4
264.6
128.5
128.7
127.4
266.6
129.3
129.5
129 0
244.4
119.6
118.2
117.4
258.0
125.7
125.6
123.7
260.1
126.7
126.8
124.4
262.7
127.6
128.1
126.2
265.3
128.9
129.1
127.7
267.6
129.9
130.5
128.6
269.9
130.7
131.0
131.1
Alcoholic beverages ..........................................................................
172.1
179.3
180.4
181.7
183.9
185.4
186.4
172.4
179.7
181.1
182.8
185.0
186.9
188.0
Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77=100)............................................
Beer and a le ..................................................................................
Whiskey ........................................................................................
Wine..............................................................................................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77=100)..........................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77-100)................................
111.9
170.0
126.8
193.2
105.2
113.9
116.8
179.0
131.6
201.6
107.1
118.0
117.4
179.9
132.6
202.5
107.3
119.2
118.2
182.0
132.8
204.1
107.4
120.0
119.9
185.9
133.4
206.6
108.2
120.5
120.9
187.7
133.9
208.5
109.0
121.5
121.4
188.2
134.7
211.5
108.7
122.3
112.7
169.8
128.2
196.2
104.9
111.7
117.6
178.8
132.9
203.8
106.4
115.9
118.3
179.9
133.8
206.1
106.7
117.6
119.3
181.7
134.4
208.4
107.2
119.1
120.8
185.1
134.6
209.8
107.8
120.5
122.0
187.5
135.1
212.0
108.7
121.7
122.7
188.8
135.4
213.7
108.9
122.5
HOUSING............................................................................................
225.5
247.3
250.5
254.5
257.9
261.7
266.7
225.5
247.3
250.5
254.4
257.8
261.7
266.9
FOOD AND BEVERAGES
Continued
Food —Continued
Food at home— Continued
Shelter................................................................................................
236.7
264.0
267.2
271.6
276.0
280.2
286.3
237.2
265.1
268.3
272.7
277.2
281.6
288.0
Rent, residential....................................................................................
174.7
184.1
185.6
186.6
187.0
188.9
191.1
174.7
183.9
185.5
186.4
186.9
188.7
190.8
Other rental costs ................................................................................
Lodging while out of town................................................................
Tenants’ insurance (12/77=100) ....................................................
232.3
244.3
108.0
251.1
267.0
116.2
255.7
272.8
117.8
258.6
276.8
118.6
260.7
279.3
119.9
261.9
279.9
121.2
264.2
282.1
122.6
231.8
243.1
108.2
251.1
266.1
116.8
255.6
271.6
118.5
258.6
275.7
119.3
260.5
278.0
120.1
261.7
278.6
121.4
263.9
280.8
122.7
Homeownership....................................................................................
Home purchase..............................................................................
Financing, taxes, and Insurance ......................................................
Property insurance ..................................................................
Property taxes ........................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t............................................
Mortgage interest rates......................................................
Maintenance and repairs ................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ..............................................
Maintenance and repair commodities ........................................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77-100) ................................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77=100)............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77=100)....................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77=100) ..........
258.8
220.9
302.2
310.6
181.3
366.0
163.0
255.5
277.4
204.4
292.5
242.1
359.8
327.7
186.7
452.8
183.7
270.6
293.2
2176
296.3
243.0
367.7
333.7
188.2
464.0
187.5
273.7
297.1
218.9
302.0
244.0
379.9
335.7
188.2
483.0
194.4
278.8
303.2
221.4
307.7
246.5
390.6
338.9
188.4
499.4
199.4
282.9
307.9
224.3
312.9
249.7
399.7
344.9
187.6
513.6
202.4
284.9
310.1
225.8
3204
252.6
416.1
351.8
187.7
538.9
210.3
285.9
310.6
228.0
259.9
220.8
304.2
310.1
182.8
366.2
163.1
256.7
280.2
204.9
294.6
242.3
363.4
328.8
188.2
453.7
183.8
271.9
295.9
218.4
2984
243.0
371.6
335.2
189.9
465.0
187.8
274.4
299.3
219.5
304.0
243.8
384.1
337.4
189.9
484.1
194.8
278.2
303.5
222.3
310.0
246.5
395.3
340.4
190.1
500.9
199.8
281.7
307.7
224.3
315.4
249.8
404.9
346.4
189.3
515.6
202.8
283.4
309.1
226.5
323.4
253.0
422.0
352.7
189.4
541.5
210.8
283.8
308.5
228.8
111.8
112.9
122.5
115.9
123.5
115.8
125.0
117.6
126.6
118.8
128.7
118.0
131.3
118.9
112.1
113.9
122.2
118.6
122.3
119.3
123.6
119.9
126.0
119.7
128.7
118.4
130.9
118.5
108.6
109.3
114.7
115.4
115.3
116.4
116.4
117.0
119.1
118.2
119.3
118.7
119.9
119.1
109.3
107.6
117.0
113.2
117.9
114.5
119.3
118.2
120.0
119.4
122.0
120.1
123.8
120.7
Fuel and othei utilities
239.0
258.6
263.8
268.0
270.5
275.9
282.2
239.4
259.2
264.4
268.7
271.0
276.4
283.0
Fuels ..................................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..........................................................
Fuel o il....................................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ........................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ..............................................................
Electricity................................................................................
Utility (piped) gas ....................................................................
286.2
391.2
4059
102.6
259.9
223.7
301.8
318.0
514.0
534.4
132.7
273.0
226.6
335.1
327.1
539.1
561.9
136.6
278.8
233.8
336.8
333.9
553.4
577.9
138.3
284.0
237.9
343.9
337.8
556.4
580.7
139.6
288.0
241.5
347.9
346.4
556.0
5804
139.4
298.2
248.1
364.6
355.8
558.7
583.2
140.1
308.8
261.9
366.7
286.1
391.6
406.1
102.6
259.8
224.3
300.1
318.1
515.1
534.9
133.7
273.0
226.8
333.8
327.0
540.3
562.5
137.9
278.5
233.9
335.4
333.9
554.1
577.9
139.5
283.9
238.1
342.6
337.6
557.1
580.7
140.8
287.6
241.5
346.4
346.0
557.1
580.5
141.3
297.5
248.0
362.3
355.8
559.8
583.3
141.9
308.5
262.3
364.9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
91
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1979
1980
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Other utilities and public services ............................................................
Telephone services ..........................................................................
Local charges (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ....................................................
159.2
132.0
100.0
98.4
102.0
243.1
161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.8
250.0
161.3
132.8
102.7
97.4
98.8
252.3
161.9
133.2
103.3
97.4
98.7
253.9
162.3
133.4
103.5
97.3
99.0
255.2
163.1
134.0
104.3
97.3
99.4
256.5
164.9
135.5
105.3
99.5
99.6
259.3
159.2
132.0
100.1
98.5
101.1
243.3
161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.6
250.5
161.4
132.8
102.7
97.5
98.7
253.0
161.9
133.1
103.2
97.5
98.6
254.7
162.3
133.2
103.3
97.4
98.9
256.2
163.1
133.9
104.0
97.4
99.3
257.6
164.9
135.4
105.1
99.5
99.5
260.5
Household furnishings and operations ................................................
190.1
196.9
199.0
201.3
203.0
204.2
205.5
188.8
194.9
196.8
199.2
200.7
201.9
202.9
Housefurnishings............................................................................
Textile housefurnishings....................................................................
Household linens (12/77 = 100) ................................................
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) .
Furniture and bedding ......................................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Sofas (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Other furniture (12/77 = 100)....................................................
Appliances including TV and sound equipment....................................
Television and sound equipment (12/77 - 100) ..........................
Television ..........................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................................
Household appliances................................................................
Refrigerators and home freezer............................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other household appliances (12/77 = 100)..........................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 = 100)................................
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Floor and window coverings, infants’ laundry
cleaning and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) .
163.1
174.9
106.8
111.4
177.5
112.9
107.8
103.5
114.7
135.6
104.0
102.7
106.3
155.4
151.9
110.8
109.5
167.6
176.7
105.4
115.1
184.0
119.1
108.2
108.9
1181
137.8
105.3
103.7
107.8
158.5
156.7
114.1
110.5
169.3
182.9
110.1
118.2
185.2
120.5
108.5
110.0
118.3
138.3
105.4
103.7
108.1
159.4
156.5
115.0
111.3
171.5
187.2
113.9
119.7
189.2
122.5
110.9
110.8
122.6
138.8
105.7
104.0
108.3
160.2
157.9
116.8
111.2
172.7
188.2
114.8
119.9
190.9
124.3
111.6
110.9
124.0
139.3
105.7
104.0
108.3
161.4
160.6
117.5
111.5
173.4
187.3
114.4
119.3
191.9
125.0
111.4
110.8
125.6
139.9
105.7
104.1
108.3
162.6
162.7
118.2
112.1
174.6
189.4
116.0
120.1
193.6
126.2
113.0
110.6
127.1
140.2
105.6
104.2
107.9
163.4
163.2
119.1
112.7
162.8
174.0
105.1
112.3
177.6
111.7
110.1
105.4
113.3
135.3
103.3
102.0
105.5
155.6
156.0
110.5
108.3
166.5
175.3
106.0
113.2
183.6
116.8
110.6
109.4
117.8
137.2
104.9
102.2
108.2
157.7
159.4
113.8
108.6
167.9
181.2
109.8
116.6
184.3
117.5
110.3
111.2
117.5
137.8
104.9
102.3
108.2
158.8
159.7
114.7
109.5
170.4
185.3
113.2
118.2
187.9
119.2
112.7
111.9
121.3
139.0
105.5
102.9
108.7
160.7
161.4
116.6
110.7
171.5
186.3
113.8
118.9
189.4
120.9
111.8
112.6
123.1
139.7
105.4
102.8
108.6
162.3
163.5
117.8
111,6
172.2
186.1
113.4
119.0
190.1
121.7
112.0
112.6
123.5
140.2
105.4
102.8
108.7
163.4
166.0
118.5
111.8
172.9
189.6
116.2
120.5
190.8
123.1
112.7
111.7
123.9
140.1
105.2
103.1
108.0
163.6
166.8
118.9
111.7
109.8
110.0
110 8
110.9
110.0
110.3
111.2
108.9
109.2
110.5
111.1
111.6
111.9
111.4
109.2
109.5
111.1
114.6
112.0
115.9
111.6
117.3
113.1
118.4
114.2
119.0
114.4
120.2
107.6
109.6
107.8
113.3
108.4
114.4
110.2
116.0
111.6
117.0
111.7
117.8
112.0
118.5
108.5
105.9
113.1
111.6
114.5
112.7
116.4
114.9
118.2
115.6
117.6
117.6
120.2
118.8
104.2
106.3
108.9
109.4
109.4
109.8
110.8
112.3
113.1
112.6
113.2
114.4
114.3
115.9
113.2
107.9
119.9
110.6
121.4
111.7
122.6
112.2
123.4
113.5
124.1
114.0
125.4
113.7
112.9
110.6
117.3
113.0
118.9
114.2
120.8
115.0
121.4
115.9
121.7
117.4
122.2
117.6
Housekeeping supplies............................................................................
Soaps and detergents ......................................................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) ..
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100) ..............
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 100)..........................................
221.5
210.2
110.7
116.7
108.2
111.8
112.3
231.1
224.1
116.1
120.6
111.6
117.7
114.4
235.0
228.9
117.2
121.2
112.7
119.4
119.4
238.0
232.1
117.0
123.9
113.8
120.9
121.4
240.7
233.2
117.6
126.2
115.6
122.0
123.8
243.6
235.0
119.8
128.6
116.3
123.0
125.2
245.4
234.9
121.1
129.4
116.9
124.4
126.8
219.9
208.8
110.8
117.2
107.0
110.1
110.3
228.8
222.2
115.6
121.8
109.0
115.0
111.3
232.8
226.5
117.1
123.4
112.3
116.6
113.3
235.5
230.0
116.9
125.8
113.6
118.3
114.0
238 1
231.1
118.1
128.1
114.9
119.2
116.5
241.2
232.1
119.5
130.8
116.0
120.9
118.9
243.0
232.3
120.8
131.5
116.5
122.1
121.0
Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage ..........................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) ....................................
248.0
257.3
260.0
257.3
261.6
257.3
263.6
257.3
266.0
257.3
267.6
257.3
269.1
257.3
247.0
257.2
259.2
257.2
261.1
257.2
262.7
257.2
264.3
257.3
265.6
257.3
267.0
257.3
115.1
109.1
122.9
114.0
124.2
114.7
125.4
115.8
128.3
116.5
129.4
117.2
130.5
117.7
115.5
108.8
123.3
114.4
124.6
115.5
126.1
116.0
127.8
116.2
128.5
116.7
129.2
117.4
HOUSING
Continued
Fuel and other utilities—Continued
APPAREL AND UPKEEP........................................................................
165.7
171.0
171.9
176.0
177.3
177.5
177.2
165.3
169.8
171.5
175.1
176.1
176.8
176.0
Apparel commodities............................................................................
160.2
164.3
165.1
169.2
170.2
170.1
169.7
160.0
163.6
165.2
168.7
169.5
169.8
168.8
Apparel commodities less footwear....................................................
Men’s and boys' ..............................................................................
Men's (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ......................
Coats and jackets (12/77 = 100)........................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100) ....................
Shirts (12/77 = 100)..........................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ....................
Boys’ (12/77 = 100) ................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100) ..............
Furnishings (12/77 = 100)..................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ........
Women’s and girls' ..........................................................................
Women’s (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Coats and jackets ..............................................................
Dresses ..............................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100)................
Suits (12/77 = 100)............................................................
Girls (12/77 = 100) ..................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 100)..................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 = 100)..............................................
157.4
160.4
101.1
98.5
94.5
108.1
103.5
99.9
103.5
100.0
108.3
104.4
150.8
100.8
162.4
163.5
98.4
105.6
91.7
98.0
95.8
95.7
161.1
162.8
102.6
98.8
95.5
112.2
108.6
98.2
105.6
99.3
111.5
108.2
151.5
100.8
166.4
161.3
96.1
108.6
91.0
100.5
97.5
99.9
161.8
162.7
102.3
98.2
93.6
112.7
109.3
97.7
106.3
99.9
110.9
109.5
151.1
100.8
163.1
160.6
97.1
110.2
88.2
98.9
95.7
98.2
166.2
165.6
104.3
99.9
96.9
115.0
111.9
98.7
107.5
102.5
112.0
109.8
155.5
103.8
167.6
169.3
99.8
111.0
91.6
101.8
98.9
100.8
167.2
166.9
105.0
101.1
96.5
116.6
111.5
99.4
108.9
104.4
113.3
110.7
155.9
103.9
168.3
167.8
101.1
111.5
90.4
102.6
99.8
101.4
166.9
168.0
105.7
101.2
97.3
117.9
112.2
100.2
109.7
105.2
114.3
111.3
154.1
102.4
162.0
163.9
100.3
111.8
88.0
102.7
99.4
101.8
166.4
166.8
104 8
99.7
96.3
118.2
110.8
99.5
109.5
104.6
114.6
111.3
153.0
101.7
158.1
163.3
99.5
112.1
86.5
102.1
98.1
100.7
157.2
160.9
101.6
96.8
97.8
106.2
104.5
101.7
103.1
99.4
107.8
104.1
149.9
100.6
166.9
156.6
98.5
106.5
92.4
95.9
93.4
93.8
160.2
162.4
102.3
94.9
95.6
109.3
108.3
102.2
104.7
99.8
109.7
106.6
149.9
100.1
165.0
150.0
97.1
109.1
94.0
97.9
91.9
99.8
161.9
162.9
102.4
94.4
92.2
111.1
109.4
102.2
105.9
101.9
109.5
107.7
151.3
101.4
162.4
151.2
99.2
110.6
96.8
97.3
926
98.1
165.7
166.0
104.4
96.4
96.9
113.2
112.0
102.7
107.5
105.0
110.7
108.2
154.9
103.7
167.0
157.5
101.0
111.5
100.2
100.1
95.7
99.8
166.3
167.3
105.2
97.3
97.0
114.2
111.7
104.2
108.7
107.2
111.6
108.8
154.7
103.3
167.8
154.1
101.6
111.7
98.2
101.1
96.8
100.5
166.4
168.9
106.3
97.1
97.2
116.4
113.7
105.2
109.6
107.7
112.7
109.9
154.1
103.0
162.4
154.5
101.2
112.2
98.2
100.5
95.3
99.9
165.3
168.1
105.5
95.4
97.1
115.4
112.9
105.0
109.8
107.8
113.3
110.1
151.2
100.8
155.2
152.5
99.2
112.3
91.7
99.6
93.8
98.5
105.7
106.7
105.6
108.4
109.5
110.0
111.4
103.4
104.4
103.5
107.8
108.9
110.0
110.9
92
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1980
1979
1980
1979
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Apparel commodities less footwear—Continued
Infants’ and toddlers’ ......................................................................
Other apparel commodities ............................................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 - 100) ............................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 - 100) ........................................
220.9
167.3
101.0
111.3
224.9
184.4
103.2
126.1
226.6
191.4
106.3
131.2
231.4
199.9
107.1
138.6
234.3
201.9
107.9
140.1
237.4
202.7
109.1
140.4
240.9
205.3
110.2
142.2
223.9
167.8
95.7
114.3
229.1
185.5
101.2
128.4
232.7
191.8
105.7
132.3
237.3
197.8
107.2
137.3
241.1
198.5
106.9
138.1
242.8
197.4
108.6
136.3
246.8
201.0
110.9
138.6
Footwear..............................................................................................
Men’s (12/77 - 100) ....................................................................
Boys'and girls’ (12/77 - 100) ......................................................
Womens' (12/77 - 100)................................................................
176.7
114.0
110.3
108.4
183.7
117.8
117.3
111.6
184.6
118.3
117.9
112.1
187.0
119.0
119.5
114.2
188.3
119.7
119.5
115.6
189.3
120.0
121.3
115.8
189.0
121.3
121.0
114.6
176.0
113.2
110.0
107.9
183.3
119.3
116.9
109.4
183.9
119.4
118.0
109.5
186.3
120.9
119.5
110.9
188.1
122.4
119.5
112.6
189.3
122.7
121.5
112.9
188.9
123.6
121.3
111.7
Apparel services ................................................................................
Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 - 100)............
Other apparel services (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
204.8
119.7
111.4
220.7
129.3
119.6
222.9
130.6
120.7
225.9
132.5
122.1
230.0
135.5
123.3
232.2
136.9
124.5
233.6
137.5
125.5
203.6
119.2
111.1
216.9
129.0
115.1
219.8
130.6
116.9
223.5
132.3
119.6
226.0
134.1
120.4
230.8
135.6
125.0
231.8
137.3
123.9
APPAREL AND UPKEEP
Apparel commodities
Continued
Continued
TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................
212.6
233.5
239.6
243.7
246.8
249.0
249.7
213.7
234.1
240.2
244.3
247.7
249.9
250.6
Private................................................................................................
213.3
233.5
239.8
244.0
247.0
249.2
249.7
214.1
234.1
240.4
244.6
248.0
250.1
250.8
New cars ............................................................................................
Useo c a rs ............................................................................................
Gasoline ..............................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair........................................................
Body work (12/77 - 100)..............................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 - 100) ................................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Power plant repair (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
Other private transportation ..................................................................
Other private transportation commodities ........................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 - 100) ................
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Tires ................................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 =100) ........................
Other private transportation services................................................
Automobile insurance ..............................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . .
State registration ..............................................................
Drivers’ license (12/77 = 100) ..........................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Other vehicle related fees (12/77 - 100) ..........................
166.3
208.9
265.0
242.0
116.0
173.9
197.2
334.6
255.1
125.0
175.3
195.3
357.6
258.2
126.5
175.0
195.2
370.9
260.9
127.3
177.0
196.7
374.7
264.1
129.1
178.9
199.3
375.4
266.1
130.6
178.5
200.7
376.2
267.3
131.4
165.9
208.9
266.2
242.3
116.0
174.1
197.2
335.9
256.2
124.3
175.4
195.3
359.0
259.2
126.1
175.4
195.2
372.7
261.7
127.2
177.7
196.8
376.3
264.3
128.4
179.6
199.3
377.1
266.1
129.7
179.4
200.8
377.6
268.0
130.8
115.8
115.0
113.9
197.3
171.8
110.3
111.2
151.9
114.1
206.0
227.3
116.3
106.8
144.0
104.5
114.6
113.6
121.8
120.2
120.4
209.8
188.4
120.9
121.9
165.8
126.6
217.6
237.1
129.9
109.1
144.2
104.7
117.5
118.8
123.2
121.3
122.5
212.6
191.2
123.9
123.5
168.5
127.3
220.4
240.2
132.1
109.8
145.2
104.8
119.0
119.6
124.1
123.1
123.5
216.5
192.7
126.4
124.3
170.1
127.2
225.0
244.0
137.4
110.8
145.3
104.7
119.7
122.0
126.1
124.7
124.4
221.3
194.1
129.8
124.8
171.2
127.1
230.6
245.2
148.6
111.5
146.4
104.7
119.7
122.7
126.6
125.9
125.1
224.5
195.3
132.2
125.4
172.6
126.5
234.5
247.1
155.0
112.1
146.4
104.7
120.4
124.0
127.5
126.1
125.9
225.0
195.5
134.1
125.3
172.3
126.8
235.0
248.5
153.7
112.9
146.4
104.7
121.5
126.1
116.7
114.6
114.3
197.7
172.6
109.3
111.9
153.7
113.4
206.3
227.2
115.6
107.2
143.9
104.3
115.5
116.6
123.6
120.4
120.9
210.6
188.0
122.4
121.4
166.3
124.0
218.7
236.8
129.4
109.8
144.1
104.5
118.3
123.8
124.8
121.3
123.1
213.6
191.7
124.0
123.9
170.6
125.0
221.5
239.7
131.3
110.9
145.3
104.5
119.7
125.4
126.1
122.8
124.0
217.1
193.2
126.1
124.7
172.5
124.4
225.7
243.8
135.2
111.6
145.5
104.4
120.2
127.0
127.4
124.2
124.6
223.1
195.8
129.1
126.2
174.9
125.1
232.6
244.9
147.8
112.2
146.5
104.4
120.3
127.8
127.8
125.4
125.4
226.7
196.7
131.5
126.5
175.6
125.0
236.8
246.9
153.8
113.1
146.5
104.4
121.0
130.0
128.8
126.2
126.2
227.3
196.8
133.6
126.3
174.9
125.4
237.6
248.2
153.5
114.0
146.5
104.4
122.1
132.7
Public..................................................................................................
194.0
226.8
229.5
232.1
235.9
239.5
242.2
194.8
221.9
223.9
226.1
229.7
232.9
234.9
259.3
290.2
198.6
251.2
237.1
263.9
291.0
200.8
261.6
237.2
270.0
293.4
202.0
265.7
251.1
275.4
293.6
201.9
267.6
255.5
263.1
264.9
265.9
Airline fare............................................................................................
Intercity bus fare ..................................................................................
Intracity mass transit ............................................................................
Taxi fare ..............................................................................................
Intercity train fa re ..................................................................................
194.3
253.9
188.4
217.2
205.3
251.1
284.7
198.5
243.1
237.2
255.4
288.5
199.7
244.0
237.2
259.9
290.7
200.8
245.6
237.2
264.3
291.5
203.0
256.4
237.3
270.0
293.6
204.6
259.9
250.0
275.5
293.8
204.4
262.0
255.2
193.8
253.2
188.4
223.3
205.2
251.0
284.8
196.7
248.9
237.1
255.2
288.2
197.6
249.3
237.0
MEDICAL CARE ..................................................................................
237.7
253.9
257.9
260.2
262.0
263.4
264.7
238.2
254.9
258.7
260.9
Medical care commodities..................................................................
153.3
160.5
162.1
163.5
164.9
166.4
167.9
154.5
161.0
162.7
164.4
166.0
167.2
168.5
Prescription drugs ................................................................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 - 100)..................................................
Tranquillizers and sedatives (12/77 - 100)......................................
Clrculatories and diuretics (12/77 - 100)........................................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription and supplies (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 - 100)................................................
141.3
112.0
113.7
108.3
147.9
115.8
119.9
112.4
149.8
117.2
121.3
113.4
150.9
117.9
122.2
113.3
152.2
118.5
122.9
114.2
153.5
118.7
124.1
114.6
154.8
120.5
124.9
115.1
142.4
112.9
114.2
109.2
148.8
118.2
119.7
113.0
150.7
119.8
121.0
114.2
152.0
120.1
122.2
114.7
153.5
120.4
122.7
115.9
154.6
120.7
123.5
116.8
155.8
122.0
124.2
117.3
117.9
112.1
126.0
118.8
128.7
119.7
130.0
120.5
131.3
121.4
133.2
122.9
134.3
124.2
118.0
113.4
124.8
119.0
127.8
120.1
129.6
121.3
131.3
122.6
132.4
124.2
133.7
125.5
109.4
112.6
113.7
115.5
117.1
118.2
118.6
110.9
114.2
115.2
116.5
118.5
119.5
120.2
Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 - 100) ....................
Eyeglasses (12/77 - 100) ............................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ................................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100)........
110.2
107.4
170.3
109.1
115.3
111.5
179.1
113.8
116.3
112.9
180.4
114.6
117.3
114.1
182.2
115.1
118.4
115.0
184.4
115.3
119.5
116.5
186.0
116.5
120.6
118.2
187.3
117.5
111.2
107.7
172.0
110.3
115.6
111.4
179.0
115.0
116.6
112.6
180.8
115.6
118.0
114.5
183.0
116.1
119.2
115.3
185.4
116.3
120.1
116.3
186.9
117.1
121.0
117.3
188.4
117.5
Medical care services
255.9
274.4
279.0
281.5
283.4
284.7
285.9
256.1
275.6
279.8
282.2
284.5
286.3
287.3
Professional services ............................................................................
Physicians' services........................................................................
Dental services..............................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 - 100)......................................
225.7
241.8
214.3
110.6
238.9
256.0
227.4
116.6
242.9
260.2
231.5
118.1
245.3
262.3
234.1
119.5
248.2
264.8
237.2
121.7
250.3
267.5
238.8
122.2
251.8
269.2
240.3
122.9
227.3
243.6
216.5
110.0
241.7
260.3
229.5
115.9
245.5
264.1
233.4
117.4
247.8
266.2
235.7
119.3
251.2
269.7
238.9
121.1
253.5
272.3
241.2
121.6
255.1
273.9
243.1
122.2
Other medical care services..................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)..........................
Hospital room..........................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services ..................................
292.5
116.2
366.0
115.2
317.4
125.6
395.3
124.7
322.7
127.8
403.4
126.5
325.3
128.8
405.8
127.8
325.8
129.7
408.0
128.8
326.3
130.4
410.1
129.5
327.2
131.4
412.6
130.6
291.2
115.3
362.9
114.3
317.3
124.9
393.9
123.8
322.1
126.8
398.8
125.9
324.4
127.7
401.2
126.9
325.3
128.6
403.6
128.0
326.5
129.7
406.7
129.1
326.5
130.3
408.5
129.7
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
93
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.
Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary
1979
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
1979
1980
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
ENTERTAINMENT......................................
188.2
195.3
197.8
200.6
202.5
204.0
205.3
187.5
193.9
196.2
199.5
201.3
202.4
204.0
Entertainment commodities..................
1887
197.6
200.4
203.4
205.7
207.0
208.3
187.4
194.2
196.9
200.3
202.8
203.4
204.5
Reading materials (12/77 = 100)....................................
Newspapers ........................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)..........................
109.5
211.6
111.6
116.7
226.8
118.1
117.4
227.7
119.2
119.4
232.4
120.8
120.1
234.8
120.8
121.5
237.2
122.4
122.3
239.0
123.1
109.1
211.1
111.6
116.2
226.4
117.8
117.0
227.3
118.9
119.1
232.0
120.7
119.7
234.3
120.6
121.1
236.4
122.3
121.8
238.2
122.8
Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)................
Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) ........................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100) ..
Bicycles ..........................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........
1093
110.3
106.1
160.1
106.9
113.8
117.2
118.7
109.5
177.2
1129
118.7
120.6
111.3
178.6
113.1
118.5
119.9
112.0
179.7
113.7
118.6
119.8
111.1
180.6
114.6
106.6
107.0
103.3
160.0
105.4
108.6
107.6
170.5
111.8
115.9
117.4
108.3
174.5
112.4
106.4
170.5
111.9
110.8
109.1
107.8
174.9
112.6
112.4
110.8
109.3
177.8
113.4
114.1
113.0
110.5
179.8
114.0
114.0
112.5
110.3
180.9
114.6
114.2
112.6
110.2
181.4
115.3
Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)........
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Pet supplies and expense (12/77 = 100)................................
108.9
109.2
107.6
109.2
113.2
112.1
110.8
116.8
115.1
114.1
114.1
117.6
116.9
115.7
118.2
118.2
118.4
117.3
120.1
119.2
119.4
118.5
120.8
120.1
120.6
119.6
121.8
121.7
109.0
109.0
107.3
110.0
112.6
110.9
111.2
116.7
114.3
112.3
114.2
117.9
116.4
114.9
116.9
119.0
118.0
116.5
118.9
120.0
118.1
115.8
120.5
120.9
119.0
117.0
121.1
121.4
Entertainment services ........................
187.9
192.5
194.5
197.0
198.5
200.1
201.4
188.8
194.4
196.0
199.1
199.9
201.8
204.3
Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100)........................
Admissions (12/77 = 100)....................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100)..........................
111.6
113.3
109.0
114.6
117.9
109.1
116.0
118.3
111.4
117.5
119.1
113.2
119.0
118.7
114.8
120.2
118.8
116.4
120.9
120.4
116.6
111.5
113.2
111.0
115.6
119.4
109.3
116.3
119.7
111.8
118.8
120.0
113.9
119.3
120.1
115.1
120.5
121.0
116.5
121.5
123.2
118.2
OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES..........................
194.5
206.3
208.1
208.9
209.8
211.2
212.5
194.3
206.0
207.7
208.3
209.2
210.6
212.1
Tobacco products ......................................
186.4
196.7
198.1
198.4
198.8
200.4
203.4
186.5
197.1
198.3
198.6
198.9
200.5
203.6
Cigarettes..................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)
188.8
110.3
199.7
113.9
200.9
115.6
201.2
116.3
201.4
117.6
202.9
119.0
206.0
120.2
189.0
109.8
200.3
113.4
201.3
114.8
201.6
115.7
201.6
117.2
203.2
118.5
206.4
119.5
Personal care ................................
195.0
204.2
206.5
208.1
209.7
211.6
212.4
194.6
204.4
206.6
207.7
209.5
210.9
211.8
Toilet goods and personal care appliances..............................
Products for the hair, hairpieces and wigs (12/77 = 100)................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)
187.9
108.8
112.6
196.4
114.2
117.8
198.6
116.1
118.6
200.2
116.6
119.2
201.8
117.9
120.5
204.1
120.0
121.0
205.1
120.7
122.3
187.8
108.9
110.2
196.2
114.0
115.3
198.3
114.9
116.8
199.6
114.9
118.4
201.8
117.9
119.3
203.9
120.0
118.8
204.5
119.7
120.4
108.6
106.9
112.9
112.1
114.2
112.9
115.1
114.7
115.7
115.4
116.5
117.4
116.7
117.6
107.8
109.8
112.9
114.0
114.0
115.6
114.8
116.6
115.2
117.2
116.2
119.0
116.6
119.1
Personal care services....................................
Beauty parlor services for women..............................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) ___
202.0
203.7
112.6
211.6
213.3
118.1
214.2
216.1
119.3
215.7
217.9
119.7
217.2
218.6
121.7
218.8
220.4
122.2
219.6
220.6
123.4
201.4
203.6
111.7
212.7
214.2
118.8
215.0
216.6
120.0
215.8
217.8
120.1
217.2
218.6
121.5
218.1
219.4
122.0
219.1
220.2
122.8
Personal and educational expenses
209.1
226.3
228.0
228.3
228.7
229.2
229.5
209.6
226.2
227.8
228.2
228.7
229.4
229.8
School books and supplies..........................................
Personal and educational services................................
Tuition and other school fees ....................................
College tuition (12/77 = 100) ............................
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ....................
Personal expenses (12/77 = 100)....................................
191.6
213.6
108.8
109.1
107.5
112.6
206.0
231.4
118.3
117.6
120.9
120.1
206.5
233.3
118.5
117.8
120.9
124.4
206.9
233.6
118.6
117.9
120.9
125.0
207.1
234.0
118.6
117.9
120.9
126.1
207.1
234.7
118.6
117.9
120.9
127.8
207.1
235.0
118.6
117.9
120.9
128.7
194.2
213.7
108.7
109.1
107.4
112.6
209.8
230.6
118.4
117.6
120.7
117.7
210.4
232.5
118.6
117.8
120.7
121.4
210.7
232.9
118.7
117.9
120.7
122.1
210.9
233.4
118.7
117.9
120.7
123.3
210.9
234.2
118.7
117.9
120.7
125.1
210.9
234.8
118.7
117.9
120.7
126.4
261.9
268.2
212.7
270.2
329.9
310.5
225.0
284.7
352.5
316.7
227.9
287.6
365.5
326.3
230.9
292.0
369.3
335.2
233.4
295.7
370.1
342.6
238.9
297.6
370.9
353.8
244.8
298.6
263.1
267.9
213.2
217.4
331.3
310.0
224.4
286.0
353.8
316.2
227.2
288.7
367.2
325.6
230.2
292.0
370.8
335.2
232.6
295.1
371.6
342.8
237.9
296.5
372.2
354.0
244.0
296.7
Special indexes:
Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products............
Insurance and finance ................................
Utilities and public transportation............................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ............
94
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)
Category and group
1980
Feb.
Apr.
Feb.
Apr.
1980
1980
1980
June
Size class D
(75,000 or less)
Size class C
(75,000 385,000)
Size class B
(385,000-1.250 million)
June
Feb.
Apr.
June
Feb.
Apr.
June
Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
122.1
122.1
122.9
109.5
129.9
120.6
114.4
114.4
125.0
124.5
126.1
112.5
133.8
122.4
116.7
114.7
127.1
126.2
129.6
111.5
135.3
123.0
117.7
116.1
125.6
124.3
126.7
107.1
135.0
121.6
115.7
116.5
129.0
127.1
130.0
111.1
140.8
122.4
117.9
117.5
131.0
128.6
133.1
111.3
141.7
123.2
120.2
119.0
129.1
126.0
135.5
107.3
133.1
121.3
112.2
119.2
132.7
128.8
140.2
112.7
136.2
122.5
115.7
119.6
135.6
130.5
144.9
113.2
138.2
123.5
116.5
121.9
124.2
123.4
124.8
106.8
133.5
121.4
118.9
114.8
127.4
125.2
127.9
113.0
138.1
122.7
121.5
116.0
131.0
127.6
133.5
115.0
140.2
124.4
123.8
116.8
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
124.1
125.3
119.5
126.5
127.8
122.9
128.4
129.7
125.4
127.5
129.1
122.5
130.8
132.5
126.3
132.1
133.8
129.2
128.5
129.7
129.9
131.6
132.9
134.5
133.8
135.4
138.5
125.6
126.6
122.2
128.0
129.3
126.5
131.5
133.3
130.2
North Central
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel anc upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
129.6
124.9
136.7
105.2
133.5
123.2
116.9
115.4
133.2
126.8
141.1
109.2
138.1
125.3
118.9
116.2
136.7
128.1
147.5
108.5
140.1
126.1
120.1
117.9
127.2
122.6
131.5
107.1
133.4
122.2
111.5
119.4
130.9
124.9
135.8
111.2
137.6
125.0
114.0
121.5
134.4
126.7
141.2
111.0
140.7
125.8
117.1
123.2
126.4
124.8
127.6
109.0
135.8
124.5
116.2
115.5
128.9
127.0
130.4
110.7
139.3
125.7
118.7
116.7
131.9
128.7
135.6
111.0
140.4
126.6
121.3
117.5
125.8
126.9
125.9
110.4
132.6
126.8
115.9
119.1
128.7
128.9
129.1
113.6
137.4
127.4
116.1
119.8
131.9
129.6
134.5
114.6
139.8
128.9
117.3
121.6
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
128.1
129.6
131.8
130.9
132.8
136.6
132.9
135.2
142.3
124.5
125.2
131.6
127.9
129.2
135.6
129.9
131.2
141.7
125.9
126.4
127.1
128.1
128.5
130.3
129.7
130.1
135.5
124.3
123.1
128.2
126.0
124.8
132.9
128.0
127.3
138.1
South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and jpkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
127.1
125.0
129.1
112.5
135.7
119.7
114.5
118.5
130.7
126.4
133.9
116.4
139.7
121.9
115.7
119.3
133.5
128.5
138.5
116.4
140.9
124.1
116.3
120.9
128.0
124.4
131.9
109.6
134.7
121.6
115.4
117.7
131.7
127.0
136.7
112.9
138.4
123.3
119.8
118.1
134.7
127.9
141.4
112.6
140.6
125.8
122.5
119.5
127.9
126.0
131.8
105.5
133.7
124.8
115.9
117.5
131.3
127.8
136.6
108.2
137.2
126.4
118.3
118.8
133.1
129.1
138.9
107.3
139.7
127.5
120.3
120.2
125.9
124.0
127.7
100.9
133.1
129.0
121.6
121.5
128.3
126.2
129.7
104.7
136.5
131.2
124.4
121.9
131.4
128.1
134.0
107.2
138.7
133.9
128.0
123.9
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
126.7
127.5
127.7
129.3
130.6
132.6
130.9
132.0
137.2
125.9
126.6
131.1
129.0
129.8
135.8
130.6
131.7
140.9
126.4
126.5
130.2
128.7
129.1
135.3
129.7
130.0
138.4
124.7
125.0
127.7
127.2
127.7
129.8
129.0
129.3
135.1
West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ......................................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................
129.6
124.2
132.9
113.6
137.4
125.6
113.5
119.2
132.8
126.5
136.3
115.7
141.2
128.8
117.8
121.2
136.1
127.7
142.5
114.5
141.1
129.5
119.5
121.7
130.6
126.9
134.6
112.4
135.8
124.8
118.6
120.3
134.1
128.8
139.1
115.8
139.2
126.9
123.1
121.5
136.0
130.2
141.4
118.4
140.7
127.9
123.9
124.3
128.1
123.8
131.0
104.2
137.1
124.6
117.8
116.3
131.4
125.7
134.8
107.7
141.2
126.7
121.0
117.7
133.6
127.6
137.9
107.4
142.1
129.4
122.4
119.0
127.1
125.7
127.1
114.7
134.8
126.2
123.6
119.7
130.4
128.0
129.7
121.8
139.6
128.9
127.5
122.5
134.3
129.6
135.9
123.6
141.7
132.5
130.3
124.4
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Commodities ......................................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverage............................................................
Services ............................................................................................................
127.0
128.1
133.2
129.5
130.8
137.2
130.4
131.6
143.6
128.8
129.6
133.0
131.5
132.7
137.7
132.5
133.5
140.8
126.7
127.8
130.0
129.0
130.4
134.8
130.1
131.1
138.5
126.7
127.2
127.6
129.8
130.6
131.2
131.7
132.6
138.2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
95
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
25.
Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
Area1
U.S. city average2 ..............................................................
Anchorage, Alaska (10/67=100) ........................................
Atlanta, Ga...................................................................
Baltimore, Md.........................................................
Boston. Mass........................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y..........................................................................
Chicago, III-Northwestern Ind................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.........................................................
Cleveland, O hio..................................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex............................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo............................................................
Detroit. Mich.........................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii ................................................................
Houston, Tex........................................................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ....................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif...............................
Miami, Fla. (11/77=100) ....................................................
Milwaukee, Wis.....................................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis..............................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J...........................................
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)....................................................
1979
1980
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
June
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
216.6
233.2
236.4
239.8
242.5
244.9
247.6
216.9
233.3
236.5
239.9
242.6
245.1
247.8
242.2
214.5
218.2
212.6
223.5
230.3
234.4
227.3
209.3
213.5
245.0
234.2
227.9
230.3
239.5
219.9
217.5
232.7
237.2
232.6
213.8
214.5
San Francisco-Oakland, Calif................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash...........................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.......................................................
212.5
226.1
224.4
227.2
240.4
220.9
255.9
238.7
237.6
231.1
235.5
243.1
251.6
247.3
251.4
242.9
241.3
248.2
227.4
260.8
243.8
244.6
231.2
229.0
234.6
249.1
237.4
240.9
234.5
232.5
239.4
209.7
248.2
213.2
250.1
256.4
221.2
218.0
227.9
229.9
241.0
256.7
227.5
266.5
247.8
250.1
215.5
203.6
234.5
218.4
214.5
232.5
246.4
237.2
223.4
212.2
242.5
246.1
214.5
215.0
235.0
124.9
240.8
225.5
225.8
228.0
231.6
235.9
248.0
2Average of 85 cities.
213.7
242.4
243.9
230.8
231.3
235.1
250.5
254.5
248.0
228.4
257.3
242.2
247.8
248.9
252.6
255.8
228.0
262.8
246.3
253.4
130.9
255.2
245.7
232.4
237.9
242.2
234.1
235.8
239.9
248.4
236.7
243.8
246.8
255.9
242.6
264.8
242.8
241.3
239.2
248.0
262.4
251.7
238.5
255.6
240.0
233.8
233.0
234.6
243.0
252.9
248.4
249.6
128.8
247.8
239.6
227.7
243.5
233.5
251.0
249.6
241.2
239.8
259.4
239.9
221.3
251.9
236.6
240.0
244.7
247.8
236.8
233.3
235.2
249.7
244.1
240.9
236.4
223.1
239.3
243.9
234.2
250.9
257.3
241.8
269.7
243.5
243.8
238.8
235.4
129.7
250.3
244.3
233.1
253.6
238.1
258.3
240.7
248.4
220.2
233.5
234.5
226.9
258.0
127.7
242.7
237.9
228.0
244.6
232.7
254.0
236.0
231.9
240.1
255.2
123.3
236.4
222.3
212.5
235.5
247.8
215.9
249.1
236.9
233.7
243.5
241.7
247.3
215.4
204.4
235.5
219.5
212.9
226.5
235.3
’ The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated
Area is used for New York and Chicago.
96
1979
June
Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.............................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash............................................................
St. Louis, Mo.-lll....................................................................
San Diego, Calif...................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)
1980
247.7
246.8
242.0
26.
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
[1967 = 100]
Commodity grouping
Annual
average
1979
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
1980
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb
Mar.'
Apr.
May
June
July
FINISHED GOODS
Finished goods....................................................................
216.1
216.2
217.3
220.7
224.2
226.3
228.1
232.4
235.7
238.5
240.0
241.0
242.6
246.6
Finished consumer goods..............................................
Finished consumer foods ..........................................
Crude ................................................................
Processed ............................................................
Nondurable goods less foods ....................................
Durable goods..........................................................
215.7
226.3
231.4
223.8
225.9
181.9
215.6
224.9
224.9
222.8
227.1
181.6
217.5
223.5
231.7
220.7
233.4
181.6
221.7
228.1
214.0
227.0
239.0
182.9
224.7
226.7
215.5
225.5
243.3
189.0
227.1
230.5
228.1
228.6
245.5
190.0
229.1
232.1
227.9
230.3
247.9
191.8
233.5
231.4
226.0
229.7
254.7
199.1
237.6
231.6
220.1
230.4
262.7
202.1
240.8
233.1
230.9
231.1
270.9
200.3
241.6
228.7
222.2
227.1
276.5
200.3
242.8
230.0
227.7
228.1
279.1
199.7
244.5
231.0
223.4
2294
280.3
202.7
249.1
239.5
230.7
238 0
282.8
205.3
Capital equipment ........................................................
216.7
217.2
216.5
217.8
222.8
223.9
225.3
229.3
230.5
232.2
235.8
236.0
237.5
240.2
Intermediate materials, supplies, and components..................
242.8
244.6
247.5
251.0
255.0
256.3
258.7
265.9
271.6
273.7
274.5
275.8
277.7
280.3
Materials and components for manufacturing..................
Materials for food manufacturing................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing......................
Materials tor durable manufacturing............................
Components for manufacturing ..................................
234.1
223.6
220.1
271.3
206.8
236.0
226.7
222.5
273.3
207.7
238.0
225.1
225.3
275.2
209.3
240.7
228.9
227.6
278.8
211.3
244.3
225.5
231.4
284.7
213.2
245.5
227.8
233.4
284.6
214.8
247.8
230.4
235.3
287.8
216.3
255.5
226.0
241.1
303.7
219.2
259.8
245.6
244.0
306.5
223.2
259.5
240.1
247.4
301.4
225.3
259.7
238.7
251.8
296.2
227.4
261.8
255.4
254.9
295.1
228.0
263.9
260.2
256.0
298.3
229.6
264.7
262.6
256.9
297.9
231.2
INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS
Materials and components for construction ....................
246.9
247.4
249.2
252.5
254.7
254.0
253.7
257.7
262.1
265.5
265.3
265.3
267.3
269.2
Processed fuels and lubricants......................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................
360.9
298.9
422.9
364.8
304.0
425.5
384.6
311.2
458.8
399.4
317.2
483.0
410.6
322.5
500.6
416.5
325.2
510.0
424.6
332.2
519.1
444.0
340.5
550.3
464.0
351.4
579.9
481.0
356.6
609.5
486.7
358.4
619.5
488.3
363.6
617.0
489.6
368.2
614.7
504.9
378.4
635.3
Containers ..................................................................
235.3
235.4
237.6
237.9
242.6
243.8
247.1
250.9
251.6
253.8
262.5
263.7
265.3
267.1
Supplies......................................................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................
Feeds ..................................................................
Other supplies ......................................................
217.6
204.4
224.7
224.1
221.5
219.6
204.2
227.8
241.3
221.5
219.6
208.6
225.4
220.8
223.1
221.2
209.4
227.5
224.0
224.9
224.9
212.2
231.7
228.9
228.9
226.4
213.7
233.3
226.9
231.2
229.2
216.3
236.1
2304
233.9
232.5
220.9
238.7
224.4
238.3
239.0
222.5
247.8
223.3
249.6
240.8
223.7
249.8
218.9
252.9
240.7
226.8
248.1
207.1
253.5
240.8
228.4
247.5
210.6
251.9
242.3
230.2
248.8
208.1
254.1
246.2
232.3
253.6
223.0
256.6
CRUDE MATERIALS
Crude materials for further processing..................................
282.2
287.1
281.7
288.3
289.5
290.8
296.2
296.8
308.4
303.5
296.9
300.7
299.5
316.3
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs..............................................
247.2
254.1
243.7
248.7
247.5
246.4
249.7
243.0
252.6
245.9
235.5
242.4
242.5
263.3
Nonfood materials........................................................
(2)
349.3
353.6
363.1
368.9
374.9
384.2
398.9
414.3
412.7
413.5
410.4
407.9
416.8
Nonfood materials except fuel....................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Construction..........................................................
284.5
293.3
207.0
285.2
294.0
207.2
286.1
294.9
208.6
293.3
302.8
209.9
298.1
307.8
212.6
304.6
314.9
214.8
311.6
322.5
216.6
330.1
342.1
226.0
341.7
354.9
228.7
339.8
352.5
229.9
336.9
349.0
232.4
c 329.2
340.2
232.9
c 324.4
334.6
234.2
331.3
342.3
235.3
Crude fu e l................................................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ..................................
568.2
607.6
548.3
570.7
610.4
550.7
586.2
629.2
563.6
604.0
651.8
577.8
612.9
662.5
585.5
617.4
667.8
589.3
634.5
688.3
603.9
636.3
690.3
605.7
664.8
725.7
628.8
664.1
724.5
628.8
677.4
740.8
639.8
690.4
756.7
650.6
695.5
762.6
655.1
711.0
781.9
667.8
Finished goods excluding foods............................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods......................
(2)
208.2
211.4
208.4
213.2
212.3
216.2
216.3
221.3
220.6
222.8
223.1
224.6
225.3
230.5
232.3
234.6
238.3
237.8
242.3
241.2
245.5
242.0
246.8
243.8
248.8
246.4
251.4
Intermediate materials less foods and feeds..........................
244.0
245.4
249.0
252.5
256.8
258.1
260.5
268.4
273.7
276.2
277.4
278.0
279.9
282.3
Intermediate foods and feeds ..............................................
223.2
231.0
223.1
226.6
226.0
226.9
229.8
224.8
237.5
232.4
227.5
239.7
242.1
248.7
Crude materials less agricultural products ............................
390.5
391.7
396.9
408.6
417.0
424.1
435.0
452.9
469.3
469.0
4694
464.6
463.7
470.5
SPECIAL GROUPINGS
1Data for March 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2 Not available,
c = corrected.
97
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
27.
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
average
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.'
Apr.
May
June
July
All commodities ........................................................................
All commodities (1957 - 59 = 100) ............................................
235.6
250.0
236.9
251.4
238.3
252.8
242.0
256.7
245.6
260.6
247.2
262.3
249.7
267.3
254.9
r270.2
260.2
275.6
261.9
277.4
262.3
278.3
263.7
279.7
265.2
282.5
269.8
286.3
Farm products and processed foods and feeds
Industrial commodities ..............................................................
229.8
236.5
232.2
237.5
227.5
240.6
231.8
244.2
230.6
249.0
232.3
250.6
234.6
253.1
231.9
260.6
237.0
265.9
234.9
268.6
229.2
270.7
233.9
271.2
234.2
273.0
246.1
275.6
01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01 -4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9
FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS
Farm products ............................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ........................................
Grains......................................................................................
Livestock ................................................................................
Live poultry..............................................................................
Plant and animal fibers..............................................................
Fluid milk ................................................................................
Eggs........................................................................................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................................
Other farm products ................................................................
241.4
229.0
214.8
260.3
194.3
209.9
250.1
176.5
244.3
289.0
246.8
226.7
247.4
256.0
183.8
207.6
247.6
167.6
260.1
311.9
238.5
241.7
229.1
240.2
171.9
207.9
250.0
166.8
251.9
310.8
241.0
208.3
224.4
256.4
173.5
211.3
258.5
175.4
240.9
315.9
239.6
218.0
229.0
251.7
162.0
212.9
260.8
155.9
235.6
313.6
240.2
216.5
226.6
248.3
195.5
215.4
262.5
178.7
229.8
318.3
242.5
210.7
227.9
252.5
194.7
222.0
264.0
198.4
230.3
319.4
236.4
219.0
214.6
247.8
195.2
239.0
262.3
165.6
218.1
301.1
242.3
220.6
223.3
257.2
184.6
269.5
263.8
150.4
224.7
304.7
239.3
218.5
217.9
251.8
180.1
254.9
263.1
184.2
215.9
311.5
228.9
223.0
210.8
230.5
171.9
266.9
265.4
153.3
205.1
304.8
233.6
243.8
219.0
233.3
171.3
272.7
265.4
145.7
206.7
311.0
233.4
233.4
215.3
240.0
166.6
247.0
265.5
146.8
207.4
309.4
253.9
247.5
244.8
260.5
227.2
267.0
265.8
159.3
251.4
292.4
02
02-1
02-2
02-3
02-4
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9
Processed foods and feeds..........................................................
Cereal and bakery products......................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Dairy products..........................................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables................................................
Sugar and confectionery ..........................................................
Beverages and beverage materials............................................
Fats and o ils ............................................................................
Miscellaneous processed foods ................................................
Manufactured animal feeds ......................................................
222.5
210.3
242.0
211.2
221.9
214.7
210.7
243.3
216.5
219.4
223.3
212.4
237.7
209.0
223.6
215.7
214.1
253.2
212.7
234.9
220.5
216.0
225.5
215.2
224.6
218.3
216.5
251.7
217.6
216.2
225.8
218.7
239.9
218.3
225.1
217.2
217.9
253.3
219.0
219.2
224.8
219.8
234.2
218.1
223.4
218.9
218.9
246.0
220.8
224.0
227.1
222.5
239.3
219.3
222.4
222.9
221.2
241.9
222.2
222.4
229.3
223.6
242.8
219.9
222.6
234.4
221.6
235.6
223.1
224.9
228.5
225.4
239.6
221.0
222.9
235.0
224.0
225.1
225.4
219.7
233.1
229.9
239.6
220.8
223.3
287.5
224.8
226.4
223.5
219.8
231.6
231.8
239.2
223.0
223.7
264.1
225.9
222.6
224.7
216.6
228.5
231.5
226.0
227.8
224.5
274.8
227.9
214.7
225.1
205.4
233.1
233.5
224.8
228.9
225.2
327.4
231.4
212.1
223.2
207.3
233.8
233.1
226.6
229.9
227.3
324.7
233.6
213.0
223.0
205.4
241.1
234.6
248.5
230.5
229.5
313.7
234.4
221.7
223.6
220.6
03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82
Textile products and apparel ........................................................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100)..................................................
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) ............................
Gray fabrics (12/75 = 100)......................................................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100) ................................................
Appare....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings............................................................
168.7
119.0
109.2
127.1
107.4
160.4
190.4
169.3
119.5
109.5
128.3
108.2
160.3
189.9
170.5
120.6
110.6
128.7
109.0
161.4
190.5
171.3
123.6
111.7
128.7
109.1
161.6
193.9
172.0
124.7
112.1
129.7
108.9
162.2
196.3
172.8
124.2
112.5
130.7
109.7
163.1
196.5
173.1
124.7
112.7
132.3
109.9
162.6
197.1
175.2
127.0
114.6
132.7
110.5
165.5
199.0
176.5
127.2
118.0
132.3
111.1
166.8
199.7
179.3
129.1
119.3
136.8
113.2
168.0
201.3
180.6
130.7
122.1
136.1
114.5
169.1
201.6
181.5
133.5
123.5
135.3
115.2
169.7
202.6
182.4
134.8
122.4
133.7
115.5
172.0
202.7
184.3
136.3
121.9
134.8
116.5
174.1
210.7
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............................................
252.4
535.4
356.7
218.0
205.0
261.9
566.5
385.2
221.8
212.1
257.9
511.9
365.9
225.4
210.9
251.1
465.3
330.0
226.9
210.1
253.9
478.8
343.6
227.5
209.7
248.9
447.6
319.8
227.9
208.4
249.2
443.9
324.8
227.9
208.0
255.7
468.8
347.6
229.1
213.1
250.9
404.8
340.3
228.0
214.8
246.8
348.7
311.0
231.8
217.8
243.6
328.6
297.6
231.9
216.3
240.7
289.7
290.4
231.9
217.5
241.0
315.7
284.4
232.1
216.0
244.9
356.6
292.2
232.9
216.3
05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7
Fuels and related products and power ..........................................
C oal........................................................................................
Coke ......................................................................................
Gas fuels2 ..............................................................................
Electric power..........................................................................
Crude petroleum 3 ....................................................................
Petroleum products, refined4 ....................................................
408.1
450.9
429.2
544.1
270.2
376.5
444.8
411.8
452.5
430.6
548.4
274.8
370.6
449.8
432.8
454.2
430.6
572.4
278.8
385.7
482.8
454.8
452.5
430.6
603.4
280.5
422.1
513.7
468.5
454.6
431.2
619.9
283.5
436.7
533.7
476.9
455.1
431.2
637.0
281.9
450.4
545.4
487.9
458.6
431.2
662.4
287.0
470.8
555.2
508.0
459.3
430.6
677.5
290.5
513.6
583.3
532.7
459.6
430.6
716.6
299.3
515.1
620.4
553.5
461.7
430.6
716.6
305.5
522.8
659.0
566.3
463.3
430.6
730.2
310.4
533.9
677.3
571.9
464.8
430.6
744.8
316.4
540.1
680.6
574.8
466.9
430.6
750.1
320.5
549.0
681.1
585.4
467.8
430.6
763.3
331.4
550.9
693.3
06
06-1
06.-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7
Chemicals and allied products......................................................
Industrial chemicals5 ................................................................
Prepared paint..........................................................................
Paint materials ........................................................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals ......................................................
Fats and oils, Inedible ..............................................................
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products ............................
Plastic resins and materials ......................................................
Other chemicals and allied products..........................................
222.3
264.0
204.4
241.2
159.4
376.7
214.4
235.9
191.8
225.0
270.4
205.3
246.7
159.2
381.6
211.2
244.5
191.8
228.5
277.1
205.3
247.9
159.6
376.4
215.3
250.1
194.4
230.8
280.0
206.0
252.0
161.0
379.9
219.4
252.0
195.8
234.2
285.7
206.7
253.6
162.8
366.9
224.3
260.0
197.0
236.0
288.4
209.4
256.6
163.0
344.3
229.5
261.4
198.8
238.2
292.3
210.7
256.8
164.4
327.1
232.9
262.5
201.4
246.0
302.9
223.3
259.9
166.5
325.6
241.9
270.4
209.4
248.7
307.9
223.3
263.4
167.6
302.2
248.0
272.1
211.3
252.8
313.3
228.7
267.5
168.9
299.9
256.1
274.5
215.0
258.1
316.8
231.5
271.1
172.8
298.2
2583
285.6
223.3
261.1
261.7
324.8 c 327.3
236.8
236.8
272.9
274.0
171.8
173.0
294.7
255.8
258.3
257.7
287.8
287.9
225.0
226.3
262.7
327.8
236.8
277.0
175.4
260.0
258.2
286.2
228.0
07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-2
Rubber and plastic products ........................................................
Rubber and rubber products......................................................
Crude rubber ..........................................................................
Tires and tubes........................................................................
Miscellaneous rubber products..................................................
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................................
194.3
209.2
221.4
205.9
206.4
110.0
195.5
209.5
226.1
206.2
205.4
111.2
198.8
214.6
233.0
211.6
209.4
112.2
200.7
217.1
232.2
215,0
211.9
113.0
203.0
220.3
236.5
218.3
214.7
114.0
204.9
223.7
237.2
223.1
217.1
114.3
205.9
224.3
240.2
223.1
217.7
115.2
207.8
226.1
252.7
225.1
215.9
116.3
210.7
231.5
263.9
231.6
c 217.8
116.7
212.7
231.5
255.8
231.6
220.6
119.0
214.6
234.6
263.8
231.3
225.9
119.5
215.1
235.3
263.0
231.8
227.5
119.6
217.1
237.6
263.2
234.6
229.7
120.8
218.3
239.4
262.5
237.0
231.8
121.1
08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4
Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Lumber....................................................................................
Miliwork. ..................................................................................
Plywood ..................................................................................
Other wood products................................................................
300.4
354.3
254.3
250.5
235.4
300.1
355.0
252.5
249.7
237.6
304.7
365.3
249.6
254.3
237.4
309.7
373.9
250.9
257.9
238.0
308.8
370.3
255.6
254.0
237.7
298.9
355.6
252.3
242.2
239.9
290.1
339.5
250.3
237.9
240.5
290.0
294.7
341.4
336.3
254.1
258.0
238.2
243.4
242.2 c 243.4
294.9
340.6
262.2
240.0
243.1
275.2
310.1
256.6
219.2
241.7
271.6
301.3
250.9
229.9
240.7
279.8
313.0
253.0
241.6
238.7
288,9
327.3
255.9
251.1
236.9
Code
Commodity group and subgroup
1979
1980
INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
See footnotes at end of table.
98
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
c = corrected.
27.
Continued— Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Code
Commodity group and subgroup
Annual
average
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.1
Apr.
May
June
July
1979
1980
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..........................................................
219.0
220.7
314.3
206.6
229.6
202.1
209.9
182.4
218.3
219.6
320.3
207.9
228.2
201.7
209.0
178.0
222.2
223.6
320.6
206.6
229.5
206.4
214.4
179.1
223.0
224.3
320.6
206.7
230.3
209.6
214.6
182.6
227.5
229.0
337.5
206.7
238.7
211.3
217.3
183.5
229.5
231.1
338.0
220.0
241.8
212.8
219.0
183.6
231.7
233.4
338.0
221.2
242.7
215.4
221.9
184.6
237.4
239.2
356.6
222.9
245.5
221.8
227.7
186.2
239.2
240.8
356.4
223.4
247.2
223.7
229.5
191.7
242.6
244.1
356.8
224.9
250.3
227.4
233.0
198.7
246.5
248.0
386.8
242.5
253.6
230.2
234.6
201.3
248.9
250.3
388.0
226.1
256.5
239.2
236.1
206.8
251.3
252.7
388.0
206.6
258.3
242.7
239.3
208.9
252.4
253.7
388.6
194.0
258.5
237.5
242.4
211.8
10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
Metals and metal products ..........................................................
iron and steel ..........................................................................
Steel mill products....................................................................
Nonferrous metals....................................................................
Metal containers ......................................................................
Hardware ................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings............................................
Heating equipmert....................................................................
Fabricated structural metal products..........................................
Miscellaneous metal products....................................................
259.3
283.5
280.4
261.7
269.2
218.7
217.1
187.1
248.9
231.4
260.8
286.8
284.6
262.3
267.2
218.5
219.6
186.0
250.5
231.8
261.8
286.1
284.7
263.1
268.4
220.1
222.4
188.1
252.2
235.6
263.7
285.5
284.8
269.3
268.7
221.5
223.0
191.3
253.7
236.7
269.6
289.2
288.3
283.1
279.9
224.0
223.5
192.2
256.3
238.5
271.1
292.0
288.8
284.1
280.9
225.5
225.4
193.1
256.7
238.6
273.6
292.8
289.3
291.9
280.9
226.2
226.5
195.6
257.7
239.1
284.6
297.4
293.6
326.3
283.3
228.2
232.8
199.5
258.9
240.6
288.9
300.3
294.2
337.7
284.4
230.4
236.7
202.6
259.7
241.6
286.8
301.8
295.5
321.4
288.5
231.5
242.4
202.6
265.1
244.2
284.6
307.0
304.1
298.9
301.1
2369
243.7
204.2
268.2
247.1
281.9
304.7
305.5
289.8
302.7
238.2
247.4
204.0
269.4
247.7
282.4
303.1
305.8
290.6
302.7
239.7
248.5
205.1
270.0
251.4
281.5
300.4
301.0
289.0
303.0
241.9
249.6
206.1
271.9
251.8
11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9
Machinery and equipment ............................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment........................................
Construction machinery and equipment......................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ....................................
General purpose machinery and equipment................................
Special industry machinery and equipment ................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ..........................................
Miscellaneous machinery..........................................................
213.9
232.1
256.2
241.3
236.4
247.0
178.9
208.9
214.8
231.2
257.0
241.4
237.1
249.8
179.9
209.7
216.0
233.3
258.5
243.5
238.3
251.0
181.2
209.7
217.7
237.4
258.9
246.4
240.2
251.2
182.5
212.0
220.0
240.0
263.9
249.6
242.8
253.8
184.3
213.6
221.3
243.4
265.4
252.2
244.2
254.9
184.9
214.9
223.4
244.2
268.8
254.6
247.6
256.1
186.6
216.3
227.6
248.4
276.0
258.9
251.0
260.6
190.6
220.3
230.2
249.9
278.3
261.8
253.3
263.2
194.3
221.1
232.5
252.0
279.5
264.1
256.7
265.5
196.5
223.2
235.8
252.8
282.9
269.9
260.0
271.9
198.7
226.8
237.0
254.9
284.2
272.6
262.3
273.1
199.2
226.9
238.8
255.7
286.8
275.4
264.3
274.5
201.2
227.8
241.3
257.3
290.9
278.0
265.8
277.2
203.5
230.7
12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6
Furniture and household durables ................................................
Household furniture..................................................................
Commercial furniture................................................................
Floor coverings........................................................................
Household appliances ..............................................................
Home electronic equipment ......................................................
Other household durable goods ................................................
171.3
186.3
221.8
147.9
160.9
91.3
228.2
170.7
185.8
222.7
149.1
161.1
90.2
223.7
171.5
186.2
222.7
150.0
162.2
90.2
226.6
172.7
188.5
222.7
150.4
162.7
90.3
231.0
175.1
190.1
223.3
152.1
163.2
90.3
245.6
176.4
193.0
223.3
152.8
164.5
90.3
248.2
177.9
194.8
225.1
152.9
165.3
90.5
254.4
183.4
197.4
226.9
159.0
166.5
91.0
287.4
185.6
198.5
231.4
158.5
168.9
91.2
295.3
185.7
198.9
232.8
160.8
169.9
91.3
288.3
183.1
198.9
233.5
161.7
170.2
88.9
2668
184.1
200.3
233.8
163.6
172.1
89.1
265.2
185.3
202.0
235.5
162.2
174.7
89.3
266.1
186.7
204.3
237.1
163.2
174.8
89.3
271.1
13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9
Nonmetalllc mineral products........................................................
Flat glass ................................................................................
Concrete ingredients ................................................................
Concrete products....................................................................
Structural clay products excluding refractories............................
Refractories ............................................................................
Asphalt roofing ........................................................................
Gypsum products ....................................................................
Glass containers ......................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals........................................................
248.6
183.9
244.0
244.1
217.9
236.5
325.3
252.3
261.1
313.7
249.5
184.1
245.1
245.2
220.3
240.8
328.4
251.8
265.2
310.5
249.9
184.1
245.9
246.3
222.3
241.7
325.9
252.3
265.2
309.9
254.6
184.5
246.7
248.7
223.7
242.4
333.0
254.9
265.2
336.0
256.2
184.7
248.3
250.1
221.1
244.6
337.5
255.3
265.2
341.2
257.4
185.4
249.6
250.6
221.8
247.4
347.4
256.2
265.2
342.2
259.6
186.4
251.0
253.2
226.7
248.0
346.5
255.0
274.2
342.2
268.4
191.0
265.0
265.4
229.6
248.5
356.6
255.4
274.3
351.8
274.0
191.0
266.6
266.7
231.0
251.1
372.5
262.2
274.3
381.7
276.5
191.4
267.5
269.1
231.4
253.9
388.8
267.6
274.3
387.0
282.8
191.4
270.5
273.0
234.4
262.6
404.7
264.0
294.6
399.5
282.9
191.4
271.1
275.0
229.5
265.2
398.2
256.5
294.6
399.5
283.2
193.6
271.9
275.9
230.2
266.7
400.7
257.1
294.6
394.5
284.0
194.3
272.5
275.9
230.2
269.6
412.0
253.1
2946
396.1
14
14-1
14-4
Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100)......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ..................................................
Railroad equipment ..................................................................
188.1
190.5
277.3
188.4
190.8
280.6
185.9
187.8
280.9
186.6
188 6
281.6
194.2
197.1
286.3
194.8
197.4
288.2
195.6
198.2
289.0
198.7
200.7
297.5
198.2
200.1
299.3
198.8
200.7
302.1
202.6
204.9
303.9
201.1
203.1
304.6
202.2
204.4
306.2
204.9
207.1
316.4
15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-51
15-9
Miscellaneous products................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition............................
Tobacco products ....................................................................
Notions....................................................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ........................................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)....................................................
Other miscellaneous products ..................................................
208.7
176.2
217.8
191.8
153.7
138.1
263.7
207.0
176.9
214.8
192.0
152.0
138.2
261.4
208.9
177.6
221.3
191.9
152.2
139.5
261.4
213.1
179.8
221.9
191.9
154.3
140.7
272.5
218.9
181.1
222.1
195.7
157.4
142.9
288.3
221.4
181.2
222.2
195.8
161.2
144.0
293.3
227.4
183.0
226.6
196.8
164.3
144.1
308.8
242.9
190.9
236.6
203.1
165.9
144.7
351.6
262.9
193.5
237.2
203.2
218.6
146.8
378.3
256.1
194.5
237.3
207.2
219.1
147.1
351.3
252.2
195.3
237.6
216.8
212.6
148.9
339.2
250.9
196.4
244.6
217.0
200.0
149.9
339.1
257.4
197.2
245.1
217.0
203.4
150.6
358.8
261.3
200.3
247.6
221.7
202.0
151.2
369.4
'Data for March 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and correctlons by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3 Includes only domestic production,
4 Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month.
5 Some prices for Industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
99
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
28.
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings
[1967 =100 unless otherwise specified]
Commodity grouping
Annual
average
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.1
Apr.
May
June
July
234.4
2264
227.2
218.3
113.9
112.6
168.9
235.4
225.4
226.4
219.0
114.0
114.1
168.5
237.5
224.7
224.8
220.3
115.1
113.0
170.8
241.4
228.5
230.8
222.0
115.8
112.7
170.8
245.3
226.9
228.9
225.9
116.4
113.3
171.2
247.0
230.0
231.8
226.9
117.0
114.6
171.6
249.5
232.2
234.2
228.5
117.2
115.3
172.9
255.7
231.2
233.3
234.7
118.9
119.2
175.3
260.9
235.8
238.6
238.0
119.3
119.4
177.4
262.9
234.8
236.9
238.9
121.3
120.3
182.1
264.3
231.7
234.0
239.9
122.1
120.7
182.0
265.4
237.4
239.0
239.9
123.1
121.5
182.8
267.0
237.7
239.9
241.6
123.5
122.2
187.4
270.3
245.4
247.1
243.3
125.4
123.1
188.5
1979
1980
All commodities — less farm products
All foods
Processed foods
Industrial commodities less fuels ..........................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 100) ..................
Hosiery ..............................................................................
Underwear and nightwear....................................................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and manmade fibers and yarns ........................................
Pharmaceutical preparations ................................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork and
other wood products ........................................................
Special metals and metal products ......................................
Fabricated metal products....................................................
Copper and copper products................................................
Machinery and motive products............................................
2124
152.0
215.0
151.7
218.6
152.0
220.9
153.6
224.3
155.6
226.3
155.4
228.7
156.9
236.3
159.2
239.2
160.3
243.2
161.7
248.4
165.9
251.6
164.7
252.8
166.1
253.8
167.8
325.0
234.6
236.8
299.3
207.0
325.3
235.5
237.4
191.9
207.7
333.9
234.9
239.8
197.1
207.2
341.0
236.4
241.1
200.5
208.5
337.3
243.4
244.0
212.2
213.4
323.3
244.5
244.6
213.8
214.3
310.8
246.3
245.3
217.1
215.9
308.6
253.7
247.2
227.7
219.7
313.9
256.0
248.4
260.7
220.9
312.2
255.1
252.0
240.9
222.5
284.5
255.6
256.0
2247
226.1
281.7
253.4
257.0
212.3
226.1
293.5
254.2
258.9
208.7
227.7
306.4
254.9
260.0
211.7
230.2
Machinery and equipment, except electrical ..........................
Agricultural machinery, including tractors ..............................
Metalworking machinery ......................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100) . . . .
Total tractors ......................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts....................
Farm and garden tractors less parts ....................................
Agricultural machinery excluding tractors less parts................
Industrial valves ..................................................................
Industrial fittings ..................................................................
Abrasive grinding wheels......................................................
Construction materials ........................................................
234.2
237.4
259.1
199.8
251.6
232.7
236.1
238.7
256.0
261.7
226.2
251.4
235.1
235.8
260.1
202.2
251.2
231.4
233.9
237.6
257.0
260.8
222.8
252.3
236.2
238.4
261.7
204.2
253.8
233.7
237.6
239.2
258.2
262.3
224.6
254.3
238.2
243.6
265.6
206.5
256.0
238.4
244.1
243.5
260.1
264.3
224.6
256.6
240.8
246.3
269.5
208.5
261.2
241.0
247.6
245.4
261.8
272.6
239.0
258.5
242.5
250.8
272.7
208.8
262.5
244.9
250.5
251.3
263.1
276.8
239.0
256.7
244.8
251.5
276.0
211.2
266.2
245.8
251.1
252.0
266.1
276.8
239.0
255.4
249.1
256.1
281.9
213.1
273.0
250.0
256.0
256.4
271.0
276.8
239.0
259.3
251.1
257.2
284.4
215.4
275.1
251.5
257.5
257.3
273.5
280.4
244.0
262.6
253.5
260.0
287.5
216.7
276.6
254.1
261.5
258.9
280.0
282.8
244.0
265.1
257.5
259.7
294.3
223.9
278.4
254.2
261.0
259.0
283.5
289.9
258.4
262.1
259.0
261.7
296.8
227.0
280.0
256.1
262.0
261.7
286.6
291.5
261.3
261.4
260.8
262.5
299.9
228.7
281.8
256.8
262.7
262.6
288.6
295.9
261.3
264.1
263.2
264.1
303.6
228.7
286.1
258.9
264.9
263.7
289.5
295.9
261.3
266.5
1Data for March 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
29.
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product
[1967 = 100]
Annual
average
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.1
Apr.
May
June
July
Total durable goods ..........................................................
Total nondurable goods......................................................
226.9
241.7
227.6
243.7
228.0
245.8
230.1
251.1
234.6
253.7
235.3
256.2
237.0
259.3
243.8
263.2
247.1
270.2
247.0
273.4
247.2
274.0
246.4
277.3
248.3
278.4
250.3
285.3
Total manufactures............................................................
Durable......................................................................
Nondurable ................................................................
228.8
226.1
231.1
229.8
226.6
232.5
231.7
227.2
235.9
235.2
229.4
241.0
239.0
234.0
244.0
240.6
234.6
246.6
242.6
236.2
249.0
248.4
242.9
253.9
253.2
245.7
260.8
255.2
245.6
265.2
256.5
246.2
267.3
257.8
245.9
270.3
259.4
248.2
271.3
262.5
250.1
275.6
Total raw or slightly processed goods ................................
Durable......................................................................
Nondurable ................................................................
270.4
262.1
270.1
274.3
265.4
274.0
272.1
259.8
272.0
276.9
255.7
277.5
278.7
259.2
279.2
281.0
265.8
281.2
285.9
267.8
286.3
287.6
282.8
2869
295.9
305.3
294.2
295.4
303.4
293.8
290.4
286.0
289.7
292.7
262.2
294.0
293.0
249.9
295.3
307.5
253.9
310.4
Commodity grouping
1979
1980
1Data for March 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
30.
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.1
Apr.
May
June
July
134.8
234.4
451.3
459.8
217.6
125.8
136.0
270.8
453.1
457.5
219.3
125.5
138.8
245.8
454.8
476.0
220.1
125.5
138.1
252.1
452.9
508.4
221.0
125.5
140.2
275.0
455.1
522.1
224.0
126.7
140.2
252.1
455.5
533.9
224.7
124.2
142.0
300.0
458.9
551.3
225.6
129.3
142.0
308.3
459.2
582.7
238.8
136.6
147.3
335.4
459.6
598.0
243.2
136.6
152.6
330.0
461.7
600.6
243.9
136.6
152.6
337.5
462.9
612.3
248.4
136.6
152.6
337.5
464.4
620.2
249.4
136.6
152.6
332.9
463.3
631.3
250.1
136.6
155.8
331.2
467.2
637.8
249.6
136.6
247.4
219.6
187.1
228.8
243.8
214.7
178.4
227.5
229.3
203.4
169.6
237.9
247.2
211.7
171.2
240.6
238.9
211.9
163.1
240.1
241.5
213.4
188.3
241.7
243.9
220.0
188.5
243.1
240.8
211.9
186.1
241.8
240.1
207.8
178.2
242.8
238.9
209.4
173.5
243.4
225.6
197.7
164.5
252.8
227.4
194.7
164.7
253.7
229.9
190.6
164.2
255.7
249.1
213.4
214.2
256.3
1979
1980
MINING
1011
1092
1211
1311
1442
1455
Iron ores (12/75 = 100)................................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)..........................................
Bituminous coal and lignite ............................................
Crude petroleum and natural gas....................................
Construction sand and gravel ........................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 = 100) ..................................
2011
2013
2016
2021
Meat packing plants ......................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats ..............................
Poultry dressing plants ..................................................
Creamery butter............................................................
MANUFACTURING
See footnote at end of table
100
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30.
Continued— Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
Annual
average
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.1
Apr.
May
June
July
1979
1980
2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067
MANUFACTURING Continued
Cheese natural and processed (12/72 = 100) ..............
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100) ..............
Canned fruits and vegetables........................................
Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 100)......................
Flour mills (12/71 = 100) ............................................
Rice milling..............................................
Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............................
Raw cane sugar ..........................................................
Beet sugar ..................................................
Chewing gum ............................................................
189.2
172.5
208.6
174.2
173.1
204.0
120.4
210.3
202.6
245.8
186.3
171.5
209.9
182.0
190.9
206.8
128.1
209.0
202.0
242.9
195.4
175.0
210.5
180.7
176.9
218.7
119.4
216.8
199.4
242.9
200.8
176.1
212.0
170.0
183.5
223.5
120.9
216.7
200.0
242.9
196.8
177.5
212.9
158.2
184.2
227.3
123.6
224.3
204.7
242.9
193.6
179.9
212.2
156.2
184.4
231.8
124.3
223.3
210.6
262.3
193.9
180.1
212.2
157.3
184.1
218.1
125.0
248.4
223.2
262.3
195.4
180.9
213.4
157.6
181.7
217.5
122.0
260.5
224.6
2623
192.9
181.5
213.6
159.0
183.6
233.0
122.6
374.9
293.2
262.3
195.7
185.0
214.7
156.4
181.6
258.0
121.5
276.0
305.7
281.9
203.6
191.4
216.3
157.5
175.9
260.4
116.8
320.2
295.4
281.9
203.6
192.1
217.4
156.4
183.3
254.5
117.2
456.1
338.0
282.0
204.2
195.2
220.1
156.3
181.8
236.0
116.6
402.4
343.9
282.0
205.1
195.2
222.6
157.7
189.6
225.3
122.6
381.8
343.5
282.4
2074
2075
2077
2083
2085
2091
2092
2095
2098
2111
Cottonseed oil m ills......................................................
Soybean oil m ills..........................................................
Animal and marine fats and oils ....................................
Malt ....................................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) ................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ..................
Fresh or frozen packaged fish ......................................
Roasted coffee (12/72 = 100)......................................
Macaroni and spaghetti ........................................
Cigarettes................................................................
207.4
245.0
338.4
203.7
113.7
146.4
381.6
254.5
199.7
225.0
224.5
262.8
352.0
201.4
113.6
148.5
403.7
271.0
203.5
221.5
214.1
250.0
321.4
201.4
115.7
148.2
391.5
279.2
210.4
228.9
217.9
248.6
333.8
214.9
117.1
154.0
389.2
279.2
210.4
229.1
214.9
244.7
333.7
214.9
117.1
154.3
400.1
280.0
210.4
229.2
204.7
242.4
315.2
228.2
118.1
155.6
391.4
287.5
221.5
229.2
205.6
241.9
300.7
228.2
118.1
159.8
388.4
287.5
227.7
234.3
182.4
235.1
298.1
244.1
118.6
160.9
389.7
281.3
227.7
245.8
184.4
230.4
292.6
244.1
118.7
164.0
385.5
273.9
227.7
245.9
170.4
222.3
297.4
244.1
118.7
165.7
391.6
274.0
227.7
246.0
154.8
212.6
274.0
244.1
118.7
170.2
371.5
273.9
230.5
246.1
150.5
212.5
263.0
244.1
118.9
173.2
361.6
273.9
230.5
254.2
155.1
209.1
238.3
244.1
118.9
175.3
362.8
283.1
230.5
254.3
190.1
224.6
274.4
244.1
118.9
175.9
365.2
274.5
230.5
257.2
2121
2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262
Cigars ........................................................................
Chewing and smoking tobacco......................................
Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 = 100) ............................
Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) ........................
Women's hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100)..............
Knit underwear mills ..............................................
Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 = 100)............................
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100) ............................
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100) ................
147.3
248.4
195.3
115.0
97.5
173.3
95.2
121.8
107.2
149.8
246.4
196.1
116.2
99.6
172.9
96.1
122.5
107.5
150.1
246.4
196.5
116.3
98.1
174.0
96.4
123.2
108.2
150.1
255.8
198.7
116.2
97.5
174.0
96.2
124.0
108.3
149.8
260.4
201.1
116.8
98.2
174.3
96.9
126.1
109.3
150.4
260.8
201.6
117.3
100.3
174.6
98.4
126.3
109.7
150.4
260.8
201.9
117.2
100.2
178.3
98.6
126.6
109.8
151.2
260.9
204.4
118.1
103.3
182.5
99.3
128.7
110.3
154.2
265.1
206.9
118.3
103.3
184.1
100.4
129.6
109.4
154.4
267.3
209.5
122.7
104.3
186.5
103.4
131.9
110.4
152.7
274.3
210.9
122.4
104.4
186.4
103.6
131.9
111.3
152.7
274.6
211.6
121.8
105.4
187.1
104.1
133.2
112.1
157.1
274.7
211.9
120.4
105.4
190.5
104.7
133.7
111.5
157.2
274.7
217.4
122.3
105.4
192.5
105.1
137.2
173.7
2272
2281
2282
2284
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327
Tufted carpets and rugs..........................................
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 =100) ..........................
Throwing and winding mills (6/76 = 100) ......................
Thread mills (6/76 = 100)..................................
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100)................................
Men’s and boys' suits and coats....................................
Men's and boys' shirts and nightwear ............................
Men’s and boys' underwear........................................
Men’s and boys’ neckwear (12/75 = 100) ..............
Men’s and boys' separate trousers................................
128.0
176.7
107.4
123.7
107.0
204.2
194.0
188.9
106.5
161.5
127.6
177.5
108.5
120.5
105.4
205.8
194.7
188.7
103.4
162.5
128.6
177.4
109.7
128.1
113.5
206.5
195.9
190.0
110.9
162.7
129.0
179.4
111.2
128.1
115.1
206.5
196.0
190.0
110.9
162.7
129.8
181.2
110.4
128.4
114.9
206.6
196.1
190.0
110.9
162.9
130.1
183.0
109.6
128.4
114.9
206.8
196.6
190.0
110.9
163.4
130.1
183.7
109.2
128.6
114.9
206.7
196.3
194.0
110.9
163.5
134.7
188.0
110.1
128.7
115.0
209.0
197.7
199.8
112.4
164.2
134.5
197.8
110.6
129.2
117.2
208.1
196.2
202.0
112.4
174.2
137.0
199.5
112.0
130.0
118.5
208.3
199.3
204.0
112.4
174.3
135.9
203.8
114.8
133.9
123.6
205.7
202.9
204.2
106.3
174.8
138.7
204.5
116.3
142.2
123.8
207.0
203.5
204.3
106.3
174.9
137.5
202.9
114.8
142.1
125.0
207.4
204.9
208.5
106.3
175.1
137.6
203.0
113.4
143.0
125.0
214.9
205.4
211.1
106.3
175.3
2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421
Men's and boys’ work clothing ................................
Women’s and misses' blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) .
Women’s and misses’ dresses (12/77 = 100)................
Women’s and children's underwear (12/72 = 100) .,
Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) ..............
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)..............
Fabric dress and work gloves..............................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100)..................
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100)..........
Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 1 0 0 )......................
208.6
102.0
107.0
144.3
116.9
104.8
241.4
109.3
111.3
251.0
208.9
102.6
106.4
144.2
117.5
102.4
245.4
108.4
114.3
251.3
210.7
102.7
108.3
145.3
117.8
102.4
245.4
111.0
114.3
259.1
210.9
102.8
108.3
145.3
117.8
103.7
245.4
111.4
114.3
265.6
213.4
103.0
108.7
146.7
117.8
105.7
245.4
112.3
114.3
262.2
219.1
105.9
108.8
147.4
117.8
105.7
246.9
112.1
114.3
250.2
219.6
106.8
108.8
147.7
118.8
105.6
246.9
120.1
114.3
237.9
225.1
107.1
112.9
149.4
119.7
105.3
257.7
122.1
114.3
234.8
233.6
106.6
113.8
150.0
122.9
105.3
261.7
122.8
114.3
c 239.5
235.4
106.7
113.8
153.1
124.9
105.5
265.0
123.4
122.3
239.1
240.9
107.6
113.9
152.4
125.4
106.0
267.5
123.4
122.3
215.7
241.7
107.7
113.9
153.2
125.4
106.0
271.1
123.4
122.3
209.3
242.5
107.8
114.0
155.2
127.0
106.7
271.1
123.4
122.3
218.1
244.8
111.4
114.0
155.4
128.2
112.4
271.1
123.4
122.3
228.8
2436
2439
2448
2451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611
Softwood veneer and plywood (12/75 = 100)..............
Structural wood members, ne.c. (12/75 = 100) ............
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100)..................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)..........................
Particleboard (12/75 = 10 0 )..............................
Wood household furniture (12/71 = 100) ......................
Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 1 0 0 )..............
Mattresses and bedsprings......................................
Wood office furniture ....................................................
Pulp mills (12/73 = 100)..............................................
152.3
151.2
166.5
138.2
139.1
165.5
150.0
165.7
215.3
200.6
148.1
150.0
166.9
138.2
134.3
164.5
150.0
164.5
216.8
205.4
153.4
149.9
166.8
139.6
134.7
164.6
150.2
165.8
216.8
205.7
156.0
150.8
167.9
140.7
138.5
168.0
151.6
165.8
216.8
205.8
153.1
158.2
167.9
143.0
139.5
169.3
151,8
168 9
217.6
213.5
142.9
158.2
171.0
144.0
136.8
172.3
153.8
172.3
217.6
213.9
138.9
158.2
170.5
144.1
134.5
174.5
155.7
172.3
221.9
213.9
138.5
158.2
169.8
144.8
136.9
177.5
155.9
169.9
226.2
225.2
143.7
158.2
167.0
146.9
150.7
178.2
158.7
170.5
233.8
225.1
139.8
158.3
166.3
147.2
158.9
178.9
158.7
170.5
233.8
225.5
121.4
158.2
164.6
149.0
161.9
179.7
158.7
171.5
233.9
244.9
129.6
152.1
162.8
150.0
167.3
180.8
158.9
174.8
233.9
246.0
140.5
152.1
159.7
150.6
171.7
182.4
160.3
174 8
233.9
246.0
148.7
152.1
157.1
151.2
168.7
183.8
163.3
180.7
236.1
246.6
2621
2631
2647
2654
2655
2812
2821
2822
2824
2873
Paper mills, except building (12/74 = 100)....................
Paperixiard mills (12/74 = 100) ........................
Sanitary paper products................................................
Sanitary food containers ..............................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) ..
Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 100)..............................
Plastics materials and resins (6/76 = 100)....................
Synthetic rubber ........................................
Organic fiber, noncellulosic..........................................
Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 100) ..........................
130.2
119.8
277.7
188.7
134.8
208.8
121.2
210.3
117.6
103.4
130.2
119.7
276.4
189.6
136.6
209.5
124.9
214.2
118.6
102.8
131.0
121.9
285.9
189.6
136.6
212.2
127.8
223.4
119.8
104.1
131.4
123.4
285.4
191.8
136.6
213.1
128.9
223.8
123.5
106.1
135.1
125.4
286.3
195.8
138.5
214.1
132.9
225.7
123.6
108.0
136.5
126.3
288.4
198.2
138.5
216.7
133.8
228.0
123.2
111.7
136.8
127.6
2909
199.9
142.3
217.3
134.1
230.4
122.6
113.5
139.0
131.3
295.8
202.6
143.2
220.4
138.5
240.9
124.1
114.3
139.8
132.3
303.9
2048
143.2
226.5
139.7
244.2
124.7
119.8
142.5
134.6
311.7
208.9
143.3
233.7
140.8
244.7
126.9
122.1
145.1
137.0
312.2
212.9
145.7
234.0
145.4
255.7
128.8
123.9
146.1
141.5
318.1
216.7
147.8
238.6
147.0
258.2
131.9
124.4
146.6
143.1
321.1
218.3
150.6
245.3
147.1
258.5
133.0
123.4'
146.7
140.4
328.4
219.4
155.2
250.4
146,3
258.9
133.6
122.6
2874
2875
2892
2911
2951
2952
3011
Phosphatic fertilizers ....................................................
Fertilizers, mixing only ....................................
Explosives ........................................................
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ..........
Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 = 100)....................
Asphalt felts and coatings (12/75) = 100) ....................
Tires and inner tubes (12/73 = 100) ..........
193.8
203.8
239.4
163.6
134.3
162.5
176.4
188.9
198.1
240.1
165.5
134.4
143.6
176.8
199.4
2056
240.7
176.6
134.9
142.7
181.2
204.3
211.1
250.3
188.9
141.6
145.8
184.2
213.2
218.3
250.8
196.4
145.6
147.6
186.9
221.6
227.0
251.7
201.0
145.6
152.2
191.2
223.4
227.1
252.5
204.8
145.7
151.9
191.4
229.2
233.2
253.6
213.9
150.0
156.1
193.0
233.2
239.8
255.2
228.4
161.5
162.7
198.7
235.0
242.5
260.2
242.3
167.9
169.9
198.8
237.3
247.9
271.3
2504
172.6
176.5
198.8
236.4
246.0
272.6
253.0
172.6
173.6
199.0
236.8
248.9
273.6
253.2
171.6
175.0
201.4
234.9
248.3
273.6
255.8
173.7
180.1
203.3
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
101
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
30.
Continued— Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Annual
1972
SIC
code
Industry description
3021
3031
3079
3111
3142
3143
3144
3171
3211
3221
1980
1979
1979
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.1
Apr.
May
June
July
Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 -1 0 0 ) ....................................
Reclaimed rubber (12/73 - 100) ....................................................
Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 - 100)....................................
Leather tanning and finishing (12/77 - 100) ....................................
House slippers (12/75 - 100) ........................................................
Men's footwear, except athletic (12/75 - 100) ................................
Women's footwear, except athletic ..................................................
Women’s handbags and purses (12/75 - 100) ................................
Flat glass (12/71 - 100) ................................................................
Glass containers ............................................................................
171.1
170.0
109.9
167.5
135 8
152.7
194.5
128.9
151.7
261.1
171.0
169.2
111.4
181.8
135.0
155.4
198.7
131.8
151.9
265.2
173.4
169.2
112.3
172.9
135.0
158.2
201.5
131.8
151.9
265.2
173.4
177.7
113.1
155.2
135.0
160.1
201.6
131.8
152.3
265.2
173.5
178.8
114.3
161.9
135.8
160.4
202.3
131.8
152.6
265.2
173.5
179.2
114.6
150.8
135.9
160.3
204.0
131.8
153.3
265.2
173.5
179.5
115.6
153.5
135.9
160.3
204.0
131.8
153.9
274.2
173.5
179.7
116.6
164.3
143.5
160.3
205.6
131.9
157.6
274.3
173.6
180.0
117.0
160.8
145.4
157.9
206.3
131.9
157.6
274.3
173.6
184.9
119.1
146.7
145.4
158.5
213.5
132.1
157.9
274.3
173.8
183.7
120.1
140.8
146.8
158.4
213.8
132.1
157.9
294.5
173.8
184.3
120.3
137.9
146.8
158.4
213.8
140.8
157.9
294.5
173.9
184.3
121.6
134.6
146.8
158.6
213.8
140.9
158.9
294.5
181.9
184.4
121.9
137.7
152.5
158.6
214.3
140.9
159.5
294.5
3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271
Cement, hydraulic ..........................................................................
Brick and structural clay tile ............................................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 - 100) ........................................
Clay refractories ............................................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c............................................................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures................................................................
Vitreous china food utensils..............................................................
Fine earthenware food utensils ........................................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100) ............................................
Concrete block and brick ................................................................
283.1
258.6
117.2
242.1
189.2
207.4
295.2
244.9
132.5
233.0
285.4
261.0
120.2
246.5
188.2
210.1
297.5
238.8
131.0
232.7
285.4
263.3
120.2
246.7
192.1
212.4
297.5
238.8
131.0
235.7
285.4
265.9
120.2
247.1
192.1
213.1
298.0
246.0
133.3
237.8
285.4
261.3
120.2
251.0
192.8
214.5
298.0
246.0
133.3
240.0
285.5
261.3
120.2
252.9
192.3
215.7
305.4
248.4
135.5
240.0
286.2
262.7
130.3
254.0
196.5
217.3
308.2
294.3
150.1
240.2
305.7
268.3
130.4
255.1
196.3
219.2
308.2
294.3
150.1
249.5
305.9
270.4
130.4
259.4
198.1
224.6
308.2
294.3
150.1
250.6
306.3
271.9
130.4
263.7
196.4
226.7
308.2
294.3
150.1
252.3
309.8
276.4
130.4
275.4
200.6
227.6
313.4
294.8
151.3
259.3
310.7
278.5
117.6
277.1
201.6
236.1
313.4
293.6
151.4
259.4
310.8
278.5
117.6
277.5
204.9
235.8
318.6
294.4
152.6
259.4
310.5
278.5
117.6
280.7
205.1
237.2
318.2
294.3
152.6
259.4
3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321
Ready-mixed concrete ....................................................................
Lime (12/75 - 100)........................................................................
Gypsum products............................................................................
Abrasive products (12/71 - 100)....................................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 - 100) ................................................
Blast furnaces and steel mills ..........................................................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 = 100) ....................................
Cold finishing of steel shapes ..........................................................
Steel pipes and tubes......................................................................
Gray iron foundries (12/68 - 100) ..................................................
248.2
141.0
252.8
187.8
145.6
288.8
111.9
265.5
268.6
255.8
249.6
141.8
252.3
187.7
148.1
292.8
116.5
270.6
271.9
253.9
250.5
142.9
252.8
188.6
149.1
293.0
116.5
270.8
271.3
253.8
252.4
144.2
255.4
190.4
149.7
293.2
116.0
270.9
271.3
254.8
254.0
144.6
255.9
195.1
150.1
296.4
116.2
271.7
272.7
267.1
254.6
144.3
256.8
195.3
152.3
297.1
117.5
273.4
273.1
269.6
257.0
144.6
255.6
196.5
152.3
297.7
117.6
273.9
273.2
269.7
270.8
149.5
255.9
199.4
152.6
302.4
117.8
274.1
280.5
273.7
272.6
153.5
262.8
203.3
153.3
302.9
117.8
277.1
281.0
276.9
275.5
155.6
268.1
203.9
154.2
304.1
118.0
277.2
283.2
277.2
278.9
156.7
264.6
210.1
157.4
311.9
118.7
285.9
286.9
278.4
281.6
156.9
257.0
211.9
159.7
313.2
118.5
288.1
286.9
279.0
282.5
157.4
257.5
213.5
161.2
313.4
118.7
288.2
290.5
279.9
282.5
159.6
253.5
215.2
162.8
308.5
117.0
282.2
292.5
280.4
3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465
Primary zinc....................................................................................
Primary aluminum ..........................................................................
Copper rolling and drawing..............................................................
Aluminum sheet plate and foil (12/75 - 100) ..................................
Aluminum extruded products (12/75 - 100) ....................................
Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100)................................
Metal cans ....................................................................................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 - 100)......................................
Metal sanitary ware ........................................................................
Automotive stampings (12/75 - 100) ..............................................
265.7
243.1
213.2
148.9
149.3
132.4
264.1
163.3
224.8
128.5
281.4
244.9
211.2
149.6
150.3
132.7
262.2
162.8
226.4
127.8
265.5
247.4
213.6
149.8
151.9
133.1
262.9
166.3
228.9
130.9
264.2
248.2
216.7
150.0
151.9
133.5
263.5
166.4
229.2
131.6
265.2
256.0
226.3
150.7
155.2
136.9
273.8
167.1
230.1
132.4
257.8
263.2
222.6
151.3
157.4
139.9
274.6
169.5
231.7
132.4
265.7
266.6
225.0
151.7
158.0
140.5
274.7
169.8
232.9
132.4
266.1
267.0
231.0
153.2
158.8
140.7
276.6
173.1
237.8
132.4
272.4
267.0
253.1
153.5
158.9
141.0
277.3
174.6
242.1
132.4
279.6
267.8
238.6
155.5
160.9
141.1
279.9
176.4
243.1
132.7
274.2
276.0
230.1
158.0
167.6
143.8
295.1
177.8
245.5
133.8
268.2
287.0
222.9
157.6
167.7
145.2
295.2
181.3
249.7
134.1
268.6
288.6
220.4
157.7
167.7
146.5
294.9
181.7
249.9
138.1
255.8
293.3
223.3
158.2
168.3
147.2
295.6
183.3
250.9
138.1
3482
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542
Small arms ammunition (12/75 - 100) ............................................
Steel springs, except w ire................................................................
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 - 100) ............................................
Fabricated pipe and fittings..............................................................
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c......................................................
Construction machinery (12/76 - 100) ............................................
Mining machinery (12/72 - 100) ....................................................
Oilfield machinery and equipment ....................................................
Elevators and moving stairways ......................................................
Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 - 100)............................
132.2
219.8
204.8
289.2
243.3
125.1
229.4
291.6
215.9
242.8
134.0
221.6
205.3
294.8
242.3
125.6
231.2
292.0
215.4
244.6
134.0
222.1
206.2
294.8
245.7
126.3
231.5
293.3
214.6
245.1
134.0
222.8
207.5
294.9
251.8
126.5
232.7
296.8
219.1
247.9
133.2
223.7
210.4
297.3
254.2
128.9
233.1
300.5
219.4
249.8
133.6
224.1
212.5
297.4
254.9
129.4
235.4
302.8
220.6
253.7
143.2
225.6
214.3
297.4
254.9
130.9
236.4
309.1
220.9
256.7
143.2
226.1
216.9
301.7
260.5
134.6
245.8
314.2
225.6
266.1
143.2
226.6
219.6
301.8
261.8
135.7
247.1
316.2
226.1
268.1
142.6
228.6
223.1
303.5
266.1
136.3
247.8
318.9
229.1
269.4
146.3
228.9
227.3
306.8
269.2
138.0
254.1
329.5
232.6
276.1
147.1
228.9
229.1
306.9
270.2
138.7
256.2
332.9
234.1
275.7
150.2
230.1
231.2
313.8
270.3
140.0
257.1
337.4
242.5
279.8
149.8
230.1
231.8
317.2
275.1
141.5
259.4
342.6
244.2
284.9
3546
3552
3553
3576
3592
3612
3623
3631
3632
3633
Power driven hand tools (12/76 - 100) ..........................................
Textile machinery (12/69 = 100) ....................................................
Woodworking machinery (12/72 - 100) ..........................................
Scales and balances, excluding laboratory........................................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 = 100) ..............................
Transformers..................................................................................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 100) ......................................
Household cooking equipment (12/75 = 100) ..................................
Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 = 100) ................................
Household laundry equipment (12/73 = 100) ..................................
119.3
194.7
185.4
194.2
139.6
168.1
192.2
122.2
113.6
148.8
119.2
195.0
185.9
194.8
139.2
167.9
193.5
122.0
113.6
148.8
120.2
197.5
187.7
195.4
139.6
167.6
194.1
123.4
114.3
149.9
120.4
198.2
190.0
195.4
140.7
168.4
195.1
124.3
115.1
150.6
122.0
199.3
192.6
195.7
142.8
171.2
196.9
124.4
115.1
150.9
122.8
200.6
192.7
199.5
145.1
170.4
198.6
125.9
115.7
152.3
124.4
200.6
192.9
201.0
145.3
171.6
200.3
126.3
116.3
153.5
126.3
202.6
201.2
204.2
147.5
172.9
201.3
128.7
117.0
154.0
126.6
205.2
201.6
205.8
147.8
176.6
203.3
129.3
118.5
156.6
127.4
207.0
205.1
206.6
148.6
177.5
206.0
129.4
118.6
158.3
128.6
212.5
212.7
205.1
152.5
180.0
207.3
129.6
119.0
159.0
130.4
213.0
212.5
208.2
152.8
181.7
2098
132.5
119.0
159.7
130.6
217.0
214.0
208.6
153.2
183.2
211.0
133.4
121.5
162.8
133.5
222.1
216.3
208.8
158.3
186.2
212.3
134.7
121.7
160.1
3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676
Household vacuum cleaners............................................................
Sewing machines (12/75 - 100) ....................................................
Electric lamps ................................................................................
Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 = 100)............................
Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 - 100) ......................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100)..........................................
Electron tubes receiving type ..........................................................
Semiconductors and related devices ................................................
Electronic capacitors (12/75 - 100)................................................
Electronic resistors (12/75 - 100) ..................................................
141.7
121.4
235.2
204.6
126.5
126.0
220.3
84.8
125.2
124.4
141.6
121.8
240.8
203.3
127.9
127.6
226.5
84.2
126.7
124.0
141.7
122.2
244.3
207.7
127.9
128.2
226.6
84.3
129.3
124.6
141.9
122.2
242.7
209.1
130.5
128.5
227.2
84.7
134.1
125.2
144.5
122.6
244.8
210.5
131.4
129.6
227.2
85.1
133.9
126.6
144.7
122.6
238.7
211.9
131.6
129.8
227.4
856
135.8
126.7
145.8
122.6
240.8
215.0
131.9
130.5
227.7
86.4
138.0
127.3
146.1
122.6
248.5
212.9
133.4
133.0
229 1
868
147.7
127.4
149.7
129.2
252.4
215.2
134.3
133.2
229.4
88.5
149.1
128.8
151.3
129.2
251.8
215.3
136.2
134.6
229.7
89.3
151.3
131.8
150.2
128.6
252.4
219.7
138.4
138.6
253.9
89.7
155.6
131.9
149.2
128.6
252.3
220.3
138.9
139.4
254.3
90.7
156.4
132.8
149.6
128.6
260.0
222.5
139.6
140.4
254.8
91.0
156.2
135.0
151.9
129.4
266.4
222.3
139.6
140.5
255.1
91.6
164.3
135.1
3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996
Electronic connectors (12/75 - 100) ..............................................
Primary batteries, dry and wet ........................................................
Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 - 100) ..................................
Dolls (12/75 - 100) ......................................................................
Games, toys, and children's vehicles................................................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 - 100)................................
Burial caskets (6/76 - 100)............................................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 - 100) ....................................
131.7
170.1
125.1
110.8
182.7
118.6
122.5
126.3
133.4
172.8
125.1
111.8
183.5
117.1
123.3
128.3
134.1
172.8
122.1
112.6
184.4
118.3
123.8
128.3
137.6
172.8
122.5
112.6
185.1
118.7
124,8
128.3
138.9
173.1
130.2
112.9
186.2
123.1
123.1
131.0
140.7
173.1
130.1
112.9
186.3
125.2
124.8
134.1
142.1
174.1
130.4
113.0
186.6
125.2
124.8
134.1
145.1
174.2
132.7
122.7
198.7
126.2
128.3
138.6
146.4
176.5
131.6
125.4
203.8
128.2
128.3
138.7
146.7
176.6
131.8
125.6
204.0
128.3
128.3
138.7
147.3
176.8
135.0
126.0
202.6
131.5
128.1
143.2
146.8
176.4
133.2
126.7
203.5
133.3
130.0
143.3
148,8
176.4
134.1
126.7
204.0
136.4
132.2
143.3
149.0
176.4
136.8
126.7
204.4
136.4
132.2
146.1
' Data for March 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication,
c = corrected.
102
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
PRODUCTIVITY DATA
P roductivity data are compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com
pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.
Definitions
Output is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of output per hour of labor input, or labor pro
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
of labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries of em
ployees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private
benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and
supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. Real com
pensation per hour is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Unit labor cost measures the labor compensation cost required to
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, in
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, Unit
nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and invento
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.
The implicit price deflator is derived by dividing the current dollar
estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.
31.
The use of the term “man-hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 31 through 34, has been discontin
ued. Hours of all persons is now used to describe the labor input of
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
Output per all-employee hour is now used to describe labor productiv
ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.
Notes on the data
In the private business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the
basis for the output measure employed in the computation of output
per hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National
Product. Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and
farm proprietor hours.
Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly
manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating)
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Beginning with the September 1976 issue of the R ev ie w , tables 3 1 34 were revised to reflect changeover to the new series— private busi
ness sector and nonfarm business sector— which differ from the
previously published total private economy and nonfarm sector in
that output imputed for owner-occupied dwellings and the household
and institutions sectors, as well as the statistical discrepancy, are
omitted. For a detailed explanation, see J. R. Norsworthy and L. J.
Fulco, “New sector definitions for productivity series,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R ev ie w , October 1976, pages 40-42.
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1950-79
[1967 = 100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ....................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
' Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
61.2
42.6
59.2
69.6
73.1
70.8
70.6
56.1
69.9
79.4
80.4
79.8
79.0
72.2
81.4
91.4
85.4
89.3
95.1
88.7
93.9
93.3
95.9
94.2
104.4
123.3
106.0
118.2
105.8
113.9
111.5
139.8
111.6
125.4
118.9
123.2
113.6
151.3
113.6
133.2
124.9
130.3
110.2
165.2
111.8
149.8
130.3
143.1
112.6
181.7
112.7
161.3
150.3
157.5
116.6
197.6
115.9
169.5
157.9
165.5
118.7
213.3
117.5
179.7
165.5
174.8
119.3
r 231.4
'118.4
194.0
174.3
187.2
118.3
'253.1
116.4
214.0
184.4
203.8
67.2
45.6
63.3
68.0
71.4
69.1
74.6
59.0
73.6
79.1
80.1
79.4
81.2
74.5
84.1
91.7
84.4
89.2
96.0
89.4
94.6
93.2
95.8
94.1
103.2
121.9
104.8
118.1
106.0
114.0
110.1
138.4
110.5
125.7
117.4
122.9
112.0
149.2
112.1
133.2
117.8
127.9
108.6
163.0
110.4
150.1
124.7
141.4
110.7
179.3
111.2
161.9
145.9
156.4
114.6
194.2
113.9
169.5
156.0
164.8
116.4
209.6
115.5
180.1
163.8
174.5
r 116.9
'227.5
'116.4
194.6
169.9
186.1
115.7
'247.9
'114.0
214.4
178.6
202.1
(’ >
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
80.6
76.0
85.7
94.3
90.8
93.1
96.9
90.1
95.3
93.0
100.1
95.5
103.7
121.8
104.7
117.4
103.5
112.5
110.6
136.7
109.1
123.7
114.8
120.5
112.9
147.6
110.9
130.7
116.8
125.8
108.7
161.7
109.5
148.8
124.8
140.2
112.2
177.9
110.4
158.6
148.1
154.9
115.8
192.7
113.0
166.4
156.8
163.0
117.0
208.0
114.6
177.7
164.4
173.0
'118.0
'225.0
'115.2
190.6
170.6
183.5
'117.5
'244.9
'112.7
208.4
179.5
198.1
75.0
61.2
76.3
81.6
88.6
83.8
79.8
78.0
88.0
97.7
92.3
96.1
98.4
91.1
96.4
92.6
103.3
95.9
105.0
122.3
105.1
116.5
96.2
110.3
115.7
136.6
109.0
118.1
107.4
114.8
118.9
146.5
110.1
123.2
106.4
118.0
113.0
161.7
109.5
143.1
105.6
131.6
118.8
181.1
112.3
152.4
128.4
145.1
124.0
196.1
115.0
158.2
139.6
152.5
127.7
212.7
117.2
166.6
147.4
160.7
'128.2
'229.9
'117.6
179.4
152.4
171.1
'129.2
'250.8
'115.3
194.1
'154.4
'181.9
65.8
45.6
63.3
69.4
82.3
73.3
, = revised.
103
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW September 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
32.
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1969-79
Annual rate
of change
Year
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per ho u r......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per h o u r......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
0.2
6.9
1.4
6.6
1.0
4.7
0.7
7.2
1.2
6.4
1.2
4.7
3.3
6.7
2.3
3.3
6.8
4.4
3.4
6.2
2.8
2.8
5.3
3.6
1.9
8.2
1.9
6.2
5.0
5.8
-3.0
9.2
-1.6
12.5
4.4
9.8
2.1
10.0
.8
7.7
15.3
10.1
3.5
8.8
2.8
5.0
5.1
5.0
1.8
8.0
1.4
6.0
4.8
5.6
0.5
8.5
0.8
8.0
5.3
7.1
' —0.8
r9.4
-1.7
10.3
5.8
8.9
2.5
5.9
2.5
3.3
3.0
3.2
2.1
6.9
2.0
4.7
4.2
4.5
-.2
6.4
1.0
6.7
.4
4.5
.2
6.8
.8
6.5
1.6
4.9
3.0
6.7
2.3
3.5
6.7
4.5
3.6
6.4
3.0
2.7
3.8
3.1
1.7
7.8
1.5
6.0
.3
4.1
-3.1
9.2
-1.6
12.7
5.9
10.5
2.0
10.0
.8
7.9
17.0
10.6
3.5
8.3
2.4
4.7
6.9
5.4
1.5
7.9
1.4
6.3
5.0
5.9
.5
8.6
r,8
8.0
3.7
6.6
-1.1
r9.0
-2.1
10.2
5.1
8.6
2.1
5.6
2.2
3.4
2.9
3.3
1.9
6.7
1.7
4.7
4.0
4.5
.4
6.8
1.3
6.3
0
4.1
.0
6.8
.8
6.8
.5
4.6
3.3
6.2
1.8
2.7
7.3
4.2
3.1
5.7
2.4
2.5
3.3
2.8
2.1
7.9
1.6
5.7
1.8
4.4
-3.7
9.6
-1.3
13.8
6.8
11.5
3.2
10.0
.8
6.6
18.7
10.5
3.2
8.3
2.4
4.9
5.8
5.2
1.1
7.9
1.4
6.8
4.9
6.1
'.9
r8.2
r .5
7.3
3.8
6.1
-.4
8.9
' -2.2
9.3
5.2
7.9
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
( 1)
( ')
1.9
6.5
1.6
4.5
3.6
4.2
1.3
6.6
1.2
5.2
-4.4
2.3
-.1
7.1
1.1
7.2
-3.2
4.2
5.2
6.2
1.9
.9
9.2
3.1
4.8
5.2
1.8
.4
2.3
1.0
2.8
7.2
.9
4.3
-1.0
2.8
-5.0
10.4
-.5
16.1
-.7
11.5
5.1
12.0
2.6
6.6
21.6
10.2
4.4
8.3
2.4
3.8
8.8
5.1
3.0
'8.4
1.9
5.3
5.5
5.4
' .4
'8.1
'.4
7.7
3.4
6.5
r0.9
'9.1
' -2.0
8.2
01.3
06.3
r2.5
5.5
2.1
2.9
r 1.9
2.6
2.5
r6.4
r 1.5
'3.9
'2.5
' 3.5
r = revised.
1Not available.
33.
1960-79
1950-79
1969
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted
[1967=100]
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Total unit costs ..................................................
Unit labor cost ............................................
Unit nonlabor costs......................................
Unit profits ........................................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour for all persons............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
1Not available.
104
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Annual
average
Quarterly Indexes
1980
1979
1978
1977
I
IIP
'117.7
'260.3
'114.2
221.1
'188.3
209.7
'117.7
267.6
112.9
227.5
'190.0
214.5
116.7
275.3
112.5
235.8
191.3
220.4
'115.0
'254.9
'113.2
217.3
'180.5
204.7
'115.2
'255.6
'112.1
221.8
182.5
208.4
114.9
262.2
110.6
'228.2
'185.9
'213.7
113.7
269.0
109.9
236.6
189.2
220.3
'117.3
'242.1
'113.1
208.0
206.4
213.2
129.2
196.3
'117.2
'247.1
'111.9
213.2
210.8
220.5
127.5
200.4
'117.1
'252.1
'110.6
218.0
215.3
226.1
124.0
204.0
117.1
'258.8
109.2
'224.3
221.1
'234.4
'120.5
'208.9
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
r>
<’ )
<1)
'129.6
'248.0
'115.9
192.6
'129.6
'252.7
'114.4
195.0
'129.1
'258.0
'113.2
199.8
'128.4
'264.6
'111.6
'206.0
127.4
273.8
111.9
214.9
1978
1979
IV
I
II
in
IV
1
II
III
119.3
231.5
'118.4
194.0
174.3
187.2
118.3
'253.1
116.4
214.0
184.4
203.8
119.0
218.8
117.9
183.9
168.5
178.6
118.5
'224.6
118.8
189.4
164.8
180.9
119.1
228.8
118.3
192.1
173.9
185.8
'119.7
'233.7
'118.2
195.2
177.0
188.9
'119.8
'238.4
'117.9
199.0
'181.3
192.9
'118.9
'244.8
'117.9
205.9
180.8
197.2
'118.3
'250.4
'117.0
211.7
'183.7
202.0
'117.8
'255.7
'115.8
217.0
'185.6
206.1
'116.9
'227.5
'116.4
194.6
169.9
186.1
115.7
'247.9
'114.0
214.4
178.6
202.1
116.4
215.1
115.9
184.8
165.9
178.3
'116.2
'221.0
116.9
190.2
161.1
180.2
116.7
'224.9
116.3
192.8
169.1
184.7
'117.4
'229.5
'116.1
195.6
173.0
187.8
'117.6
'234.4
'115.9
'199.3
176.0
191.4
'116.6
'240.2
'115.7
206.0
174.3
195.1
'115.4
'244.9
'114.4
212.2
177.6
200.3
'118.0
'225.0
'115.2
193.3
190.6
201.8
127.2
183.5
'117.5
'244.9
'112.7
210.4
208.4
216.6
127.8
198.1
116.9
213.2
114.9
186.3
182.3
198.7
122.2
176.8
116.9
'219.0
115.8
190.8
187.3
201.5
107.1
178.3
'118.0
'222.6
'115.1
191.6
188.7
200.8
129.2
182.3
'118.5
'226.9
'114.8
194.0
191.5
201.6
132.7
184.9
'118.8
'231.3
'114.4
196.8
194.8
203.1
138.7
188.2
'118.1
'237.3
'114.3
202.3
201.0
206.5
130.3
191.6
'128.2
'229.9
'117.6
179.4
'129.2
'250.3
'115.3
194.1
128.3
218.3
117.6
170.1
126.3
'223.9
118.4
177.2
'127.7
'227.1
117.5
177.9
129.5
'231.7
'117.2
179.1
'128.3
'236.6
'117.0
182.7
'128.8
'242.3
'116.7
189.0
r = revised.
IV
34. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1967 = 100]
Quarterly percent change at annual rate
Item
Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o st....................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o s t........................................
Unit nonlabor payments ............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Total unit costs ..........................................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor costs..................................
Unit profits ......................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o s t............................................
1Not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
IV 1978
to
I 1979
1 1979
to
I11979
II 1979
to
III 1979
' -3.1
'11.0
'- . 2
14.6
-1.0
9.3
' -2.0
'9.5
'- 2 .9
11.8
'6.5
10.1
-1.4
'8.7
' -4.1
10.3
4.2
8.3
'- 3 .3
'10.2
'- . 9
14.0
-3.9
8.1
'- 3 .9
'8.1
'- 4 .2
12.5
7.7
11.0
' -2.3
'10.8
'- . 4
11.7
13.4
6.8
-22.1
7.6
' -3.8
10.1
'- . 9
14.5
III 1979
to
IV 1979
Percent change from same quarter a year ago
IV 1979
to
11980p
I 1980
to
111980»
-0.3
'7.5
-5.4
7.8
'5.9
7.2
-0.3
11.7
-4.5
12.1
3.8
9.4
-3.1
12.0
-1.5
15.5
2.6
11.5
'0.3
'9.0
' —0.8
8.7
9.7
9.0
' -0.7
'9.4
' —1.1
10.2
'5.7
8.7
' -1.5
8.5
'- 4 .4
10.1
6.6
9.0
'0.8
'9.5
'- 3 .6
8.6
4.6
7.4
' —1.1
'10.7
'- 5 .3
'12.0
'7.5
'10.6
-4.1
10.8
-2.6
15.6
7.3
13.0
'.4
'8.7
' —1.0
8.3
8.2
8.3
'- 2 .7
'8.3
' -4.1
11.8
11.2
13.5
-3.4
10.2
' -0.3
'8.5
'- 4 .3
10.2
8.8
14.6
-5.3
8.6
' -0.4
'8.4
'- 4 .5
9.3
8.9
10.6
' -10.4
7.3
' —0.1
'11.0
' -5.1
'12.2
11.1
'15.4
' -10.9
'9.9
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
<1)
C)
'1.7
'9.6
'- 2 .8
7.9
'2.5
'7.8
'- 4 .9
5.2
' —1.4
'8.8
'- 4 .2
10.3
'- 2 .2
'10.5
'- 5 .5
'13.0
-3.2
14.7
0.9
18.5
I 1978
to
1 1979
II 1978
to
II 1979
III 1978
to
III 1979
IV 1978
to
IV 1979
1 1979
to
I 1980»
II 1979
to
II 1980»
-1.6
9.4
' —2.1
11.2
4.8
9.1
-1.7
9.2
-3.2
11.1
3.9
8.7
' —1.0
'9.3
'- 4 .2
10.5
'5.1
'8.8
-1.3
10.0
-3.9
11.4
4.1
91
' —1.1
'8.9
' —1.6
10.1
5.0
8.5
-2.0
8.9
-2.5
11.1
4.3
9.0
-2.0
'9.1
-3.3
11.3
3.7
8.9
r —1.4
'9.2
'- 4 .4
'10.8
'6.6
'9.5
15
9.8
-4.0
11.5
6.5
10.0
'1.0
'8.4
' —1.3
6.1
7.3
2.5
21.7
7.5
'- . 6
'8.7
' —1.8
8.6
9.4
6.2
0
7.7
' —1.1
8.9
'- 2 .6
9.9
10.1
9.4
-3.9
8.4
-1.4
9.0
-3.3
10.8
10.6
11.3
-10.6
8.4
' -0.9
'9.0
'- 4 .5
'10.9
10.0
'13.5
'- 7 .6
9.0
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
( 1)
'1.5
'8.2
' —1.5
6.6
'.9
'9.2
' —1.3
8.2
'0.2
'9.1
'- 2 .4
8.9
' -0.3
'9.1
'- 3 .3
9.4
0.1
'9.2
'- 4 .4
'9.0
-1.1
104
-3.5
11.6
r = revised.
105
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DATA
M a jo r c o l l e c t iv e b a r g a in in g d a t a are obtained from
contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, direct
contact with the parties, and from secondary sources. Addi
tional detail is published in Current Wage Developments, a
monthly periodical of the Bureau. Data on work stoppages
are based on confidential responses to questionnaires mailed
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to parties involved in work
stoppages. Stoppages initially come to the attention of the
Bureau from reports of Federal and State mediation agencies,
newspapers, and union and industry publications.
the agreement. Changes over the life of the agreement refer to total
agreed upon settlements (exclusive of potential cost-of-living escalator
adjustments) expressed at an average annual rate. Wage-rate changes
are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings, while wage
and benefit changes are expressed as a percent of total compensation.
Effective wage-rate adjustments going into effect in major
bargaining units measure changes actually placed into effect during the
reference period, whether the result of a newly negotiated increase, a
deferred increase negotiated in an earlier year, or as a result of a costof-living escalator adjustment. Average adjustments are affected by
workers receiving no adjustment, as well as by those receiving in
creases or decreases.
Definitions
Work stoppages include all known strikes or lockouts involving six
workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a
stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on
other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or
service shortages.
Data on wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry agree
ments covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on wage and benefit
changes c o m b in e d apply only to those agreements covering 5,000
workers or more. First-year wage settlements refer to pay changes go
ing into effect within the first 12 months after the effective date of
35.
Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date
[In percent]
Quarterly average
Annual average
Sector and measure
1975
1976
1977
1978
1980 p
1979
1978
1979
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
Wage and benefit settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract ......................
11.4
8.1
8.5
6.6
9.6
6.2
8.3
6.3
9.0
6.6
7.2
5.9
6.1
5.2
2.8
5.3
10.5
7.8
9.0
6.1
8.5
6.0
8.6
6.4
10.1
6.8
Wage rate settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract ......................
10.2
7.8
8.4
6.4
7.8
5.8
7.6
6.4
7.4
6.0
7.5
6.4
7.4
5.9
5.7
6.6
8.9
7.2
6.8
5.1
6.3
5.3
7.8
6.3
8.7
6.8
Manufacturing:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
9.8
8.0
8.9
6.0
8.4
5.5
8.3
6.6
6.9
5.4
8.4
7.2
9.5
7.4
8.7
7.7
9.7
8.1
6.3
4.7
5.6
4.2
7.0
5.6
6.6
4.9
Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction):
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
11.9
8.0
8.6
7.2
8.0
5.9
8.0
6.5
7.6
6.2
7.4
5.9
6.4
5.1
3.2
5.6
8.5
5.8
9.4
6.5
7.8
7.4
9.1
7.1
10.4
8.6
Construction:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................
8.0
7.5
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.2
8.8
8.3
7.0
7.2
8.4
7.1
9.7
8.2
8.7
8.3
9.7
8.5
7.5
7.6
9.6
9.3
12.7
10.3
106
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36.
Effective wage adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date
[In percent]
Average annual changes
Average quarterly changes
Sector and measure
1975
Total effective wage rate adjustment, all industries..........
Change resulting from —
Current settlement ..............................
Prior settlement ..................................
Escalator provision ........................................
Manufacturing........................................
Nonmanufacturing......................................
1976
1977
1978
1978
1979
1979
1980 p
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
8.7
8.1
8.0
8.2
9.1
2.6
2.7
1.4
1.4
2.6
3.3
1.6
1.4
2.6
2.8
3.7
2.2
3.2
3.2
1.6
3.0
3.2
1.7
2.0
3.7
2.4
3.0
3.0
3.1
.6
1.4
.6
.5
1.2
1.0
.4
.5
.5
.2
.6
.6
1.1
1.0
.5
1.0
1.0
1.2
.5
.4
.7
.4
.5
.6
.7
1.2
.6
8.5
8.9
8.5
7.7
8.4
7.6
8.6
7.9
9.6
8.8
2.2
2.9
2.9
2.5
1.9
1.1
1.5
1.4
2.3
2.8
3.2
3.4
2.4
1.0
1.7
1.2
2.9
2.2
NOTE: Because of rounding and compounding, the sums of individual items may not equal totals.
37.
Work stoppages, 1947 to date
Number of stoppages
Month and year
Beginning in
month or year
In effect
during month
Workers involved
Beginning in
month or year
(thousands)
Days Idle
In effect
during month
(thousands)
Number
(thousands)
Percent of
estimated
working time
1947
1948
1949
1950
..................
..................
..................
....................
3,693
3,419
3,606
4,843
2,170
1,960
3,030
2,410
34,600
34,100
50,500
38,800
.30
.28
.44
.33
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
4,737
5,117
5,091
3,468
4,320
2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530
2,650
22,900
59,100
28,300
22,600
28,200
.18
.48
.22
.18
.22
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
3,825
3,673
3,694
3,708
3,333
1,900
1,390
2,060
1,880
1,320
33.100
16,500
23,900
69,000
19.100
.24
.12
.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
1,550
16.300
18,600
16,100
22,900
23.300
.13
.11
.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
66,414
.15
.25
.28
.24
.37
1971
.....
1972 ....................
1973 ....................
1974 ....................
1975 ....................
5,138
5,010
5,353
6,074
5,031
3,280
1,714
2,251
2,778
1,746
47,589
27,066
27,948
47,991
31,237
.26
.15
.14
.24
.16
1976 ....................
1977 ....................
1978 ....................
5,648
5,506
4,230
2,420
2,040
1,623
37,859
35,822
36,922
.19
.17
.17
1979:
1980:
.11
June
536
137
2,989
.16
J u ly ........
August . . .
September
471
463
464
168
119
135
3,001
3,152
2,319
.16
.15
.13
October ..
November
December
443
257
134
230
91
42
2,968
2,720
1,976
.15
.15
.11
Januaryp .
February p
Marchp ..
April........
M ay........
June . . . .
352
354
396
425
505
435
3,142
3,025
2,705
2,786
2,464
2,553
.16
.17
.14
.14
.13
.13
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
441
590
631
663
752
714
207
114
123
116
139
164
☆ U .S . G O VERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 O —
292
332
310
231
214
201
311-406/45
107
How to order BLS publications
PERIODICALS
O r d e r f r o m (a n d m a k e c h e ck s p a y a b le to ) S u
p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts , W ash in gton , D .C .
2 0 4 0 2 . F o r fo r e ig n su b scrip tio n s, a d d 2 5 p e rc e n t.
BULLETINS AND HANDBOOKS
A b o u t 1 4 0 b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s p u b lis h e d ea ch y e a r a r e f o r s a le b y reg io n a l
o ffices o f th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s (see in s id e f r o n t c o ver) a n d b y th e S u
p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts . W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2 . M a k e c h e ck s 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 . A m o n g th e b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s c u r re n tly
in p r in t a r e these:
Monthly Labor Review. T h e o ld e st an d m o st
a u th o rita tiv e g o v ern m en t research jo u rn a l in
e c o n o m ic s a n d th e so cia l scien ces. C u rren t
sta tistic s, a n a ly sis, d e v e lo p m en ts in in d u strial
rela tio n s, c o u rt d e c isio n s, b o o k review s. $18
a year, sin g le c o p y , $2.5 0 .
Employment and Earnings. A co m p reh en siv e
m o n th ly rep ort o n e m p lo y m en t, h o u rs, earn
in g s, a n d la b o r tu rn over b y in d u stry , area,
o c c u p a tio n , et cetera $22 a year, sin g le c o p y
$ 2 .7 5 .
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. A p op u lar
p erio d ica l d e sig n e d to h elp h ig h sc h o o l s tu
d en ts a n d g u id a n ce c o u n selo r s a ssess career
o p p o rtu n ities. $6 for four issu es, sin g le c o p y
$ 1 .7 5 .
Current Wage Developments. A m o n th ly re
p ort a b o u t c o lle c tiv e b argain in g settlem e n ts
a n d u n ilateral m a n a g em en t d e c isio n s a b o u t
w a g e s a n d benefits; sta tistica l su m m aries.
$ 1 2 a year, sin g le c o p y $1 .3 5 .
Producer Prices and Price Indexes. A c o m
p reh en siv e m o n th ly rep ort on p rice m o v e
m e n ts o f b o th farm an d in d u strial c o m m o d i
ties, b y in d u str y a n d sta g e o f p ro cessin g . $17
a year, sin g le c o p y $2.25.
CPI Detailed Report. A m o n th ly p eriod ical
fea tu rin g d eta iled d ata an d ch arts o n th e
C o n su m er P rice In d ex. $15 a year, sin g le
c o p y $ 2 .2 5 .
PRESS RELEASES
T h e B u rea u ’s sta tistica l series are m a d e a v a il
a b le to n e w s m ed ia th ro u g h p ress releases is
su ed in W a sh in g to n . M a n y o f th e releases
a lso are a v a ila b le to th e p u b lic u p o n req uest.
W rite: B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistic s, W a sh in g
to n , D .C . 2 0 2 1 2 .
Regional. E ach o f th e B u reau ’s e ig h t region al
offices p u b lish es rep orts an d press releases
d ea lin g w ith reg io n al d ata. S in g le co p ies
a v a ila b le free from th e issu in g region al office.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1980-81 Edition. B u lletin 20 7 5 . A
u sefu l resou rce su p p ly in g v a lu a b le a ssista n c e to all p erso n s seek in g sa tis
fy in g an d p r o d u ctiv e e m p lo y m en t. $8, p ap erback; $11 c lo th cover.
BLS Handbook of Labor Statistics 1978. B u lletin 20 0 0 . A 6 0 4 -p a g e v o l
u m e o f h isto rica l d a ta on th e m ajor B L S sta tistica l series. $9 .5 0 .
Handbook of Methods. B u lletin 1910. B rief tech n ica l a c co u n t o f each
m ajor sta tistica l p rogram o f th e B ureau o f L ab or S ta tistics. $3 .5 0 .
B L S Measures of Compensation. B u lletin 1941. A n in tr o d u c tio n to the
v ariou s m easu res o f e m p lo y ee co m p e n sa tio n ; d escrib es each series, th e
m an n er in w h ich it is d e v e lo p ed , its u ses a n d lim ita tio n s. $2.75.
Occupational Projections and Training Data. B u lletin 20 2 0 . P resen ts
b o th gen eral a n d d eta iled in fo r m a tio n on th e rela tio n sh ip b etw een o c c u
p a tio n a l req u irem en ts an d train in g n eed s. (U p d a te s B u lletin 1918
p u b lish ed in 1976.) $3 .2 5 .
Technological Change and its Labor Impact in Five Energy Industries.
B u lletin 20 0 5 . A 6 4 -p a g e stu d y a p p raisin g m a jo r te ch n o lo g ic a l c h a n g e
a n d d isc u ssin g th e im p a ct o f th ese c h a n g e s o n p r o d u ctiv ity an d o c c u p a
tio n s over th e n ex t 5 to 10 years. $2.40.
B L S Publications, 1972-77. B u lletin 1990. A n u m erical listin g an d su b
je c t in d ex o f b u lle tin s a n d rep orts issu ed b y th e B ureau from 1972
th ro u g h 1977, su p p le m en tin g B u lletin 1749, co v erin g 1 8 8 6 - 1 9 7 1 . $1.80.
International Comparisons of Unemployment. B u lletin 1979. B rin gs t o
geth er all o f th e B u reau ’s w ork on in tern a tio n a l u n em p lo y m e n t c o m p a r i
so n s. D e sc rib es th e m e th o d s o f a d ju stin g foreign u n em p lo y m e n t rates in
8 c o u n tr ies to U .S . c o n c ep ts. $3 .5 0 .
Productivity Indexes for Selected Industries, 1979 Edition. B u lletin
205 4 . A 190-p age rep ort o f in d ex es o f o u tp u t, e m p lo y m en t, an d e m p lo y
ee h o u rs in se lec ted in d u stries from 1954 to 1978. T h is e d itio n co n ta in s
m ea su res for three in d u stries p rev io u sly n o t cov ered , as w ell as c o m p o
n e n ts o f p rev io u sly p u b lish ed m easu res in 10 in d u stries. $5.5 0 .
Profiles of Occupational Pay: A Chartbook. B u lletin 2 0 3 7 . A grap h ic il
lu stra tio n o f so m e o f th e fa cto rs th at affect w o rk ers’ earn in gs. T h is threepart p resen ta tio n lo o k s at w a g e va ria tio n s a m o n g an d w ith in o c c u p a tio n s
a n d p o rtrays ch ara cteristics o f h igh - a n d lo w -p a y in g urban areas an d
m an u fa ctu rin g in d u stries. $3 .5 0 .
REPORTS AND PAMPHLETS
S in g le co p ies a v a ila b le f r e e f r o m th e B L S r e g io n a l o ffices o r f r o m th e B u r e a u o f
L a b o r S ta tistic s , U.S. D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r, W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 2 1 2 .
How the Government Measures Unemployment. R e p o r t 505. A c o n c ise
rep ort p ro v id in g a b a c k g ro u n d for a p p raisin g d e v e lo p m en ts in th e area
o f u n em p lo y m e n t.
Directory of BLS Studies in Industrial Relations 1960-78. R e p o r t 550.
A listin g o f stu d ies prep ared b y th e D iv isio n o f In d u stria l R e la tio n s as
part o f th e B u reau ’s regu lar p rogram o f d a ta c o lle c tio n a n d a n a ly sis in
th e field o f in d u strial relation s.
Employment
and
Earnings
. . . .one of six periodicals
published by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor,
gives m onthly figures on
those two topics for the
Nation as a whole, for in
dividual States, and for
more than 200 areas.
Included are household
and establishment data,
seasonally and not
seasonally adjusted. The
data are collected by the
Bureau of the Census
(Department of Com
merce), State Employ
ment Security Agencies,
and State Departments of
Labor in cooperation with
BLS.
Employ^
June 1979
Vd *
Subscription Order Form:
Enter my Subscription to: Employment and Earnings $22; ($5.50 additional for foreign mailing).
P R e m ittan ce is enclosed. □ Charge to GPQ deposit account
no.PPPPPPP - p
Credit Card Orders Only-Master Charge and Visa.
Total charges $______________________
Credit
Card No. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
Expiration Date
Month/Year
□ □ □ □
Mail Order Form to:
Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Make checks payable to
Superintendent
of Documents.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Name
Address
City, State, and Zip Code
Order No.
müüpm
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER