Full text of Wage Differentials and Rate Structures Among 40 Labor Markets, 1951-52 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1135

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

Wage Differentials and Kate Structures
Among 40 Labor Markets
1951-52




Bulletin No, 1135
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Martin P. Durkin, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewan Clague, C o m m i s s i o n e r




Wage Differentials and Rate Structures
Among 40 Labor Markets
1951-52
From the Monthly Labor Review
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
December 1952, January and March
1953 issues.

Bulletin No. 1135
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Martin P. Durkin, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewan Clague, Com m issioner
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. - Price 20 cents






Letter of Transmittal
U nited S tates D epartm ent of L abor ,
B u r ea u of L abor S tatistics ,
W ashington , D . <7., A p ril 2 ) 1953 .
S ecretary of L abo r :

The
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report providing a comparison of
pay levels and wage structures, supplementary benefits, and union-agreement
coverage among 40 labor markets. The articles in this publication were based
on data collected in community wage surveys conducted by the Bureau be­
tween September 1951 and May 1952.
This report was prepared by members of the staff of the Division of Wages
and Industrial Relations.
E w an C lagu e , Com m issioner .
Hon. M artin P. D u r k in ,
Secretary of Labor.

Contents
Preface______________________________________________________
Wage differences among 40 labor markets________________________
Occupational wage differentials in major labor markets, 1951-52____
Wage formalization in major labor markets, 1951-52_______________
Related wage practices in major labor markets, 1951-52____________
Extent of unionization in major labor markets, 1951-52____________




Page

v
1
4
6
10
15




Preface
The articles in this bulletin are based on data obtained by the Bureau in
community wage surveys conducted in 40 major labor-market areas between
September 1951 and May 1952. Occupational earnings and related wage
benefits data were collected on a community-wide basis in each of these areas.
Survey techniques, with only minor exceptions, were identical in all areas.
Six broad industry divisions were covered. These are: manufacturing; trans­
portation (except railroads), communication, and other public utilities; whole­
sale trade; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services.
Whenever possible, separate data were presented for individual broad industry
divisions. Only establishments above a predetermined employment size were
included within the scope of the studies. This minimum size varied according
to the industry division and area studied; in no instance were establishments
with fewer than 21 workers included. The earnings information collected
excluded premium pay for overtime and night work, and data relating to
fringe benefits were confined to formal plans for which at least a part of the
cost was borne by the employer.
Individual bulletins were prepared for each area studied and provide a de­
tailed report on the survey findings. In addition, a summary report was
prepared which consolidates in a single publication the area-job averages and
fringe-benefit provisions. These bulletins are available for purchase from the
Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington 25,
D. C. See last page of this bulletin for a listing of the bulletin reports.







Wage Differences
Among 40 Labor Markets

pay levels in the highest-wage city exceeded those
in the lowest-wage city by a third for office
workers and maintenance craftsmen, by threefourths for warehousing and shipping jobs, and by
nine-tenths for custodial workers. The greater
intercity wage spread for the custodial jobs
reflects primarily the comparatively low pay
levels prevailing for such work in the South.
Regionally, Middle Atlantic cities as a group
held a pay position above New England and south­
ern cities but below the Middle West and Far
West. Differences in pay levels among cities
within each region were sufficiently great, how­
ever, to introduce overlapping of regional ranges
when all cities were arrayed according to average

Pay levels for office workers and for workers
employed in maintenance, custodial, and ware­
housing and shipping jobs were highest in Detroit
and the San Francisco Bay Area among 40 major
labor markets surveyed by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics in late 1951 and early 1952. Average
pay levels in some other large northern and
Pacific Coast cities were generally only a few
percentage points below those in these two areas.
Based on average earnings for comparable jobs,

T a b l e 1.— R elative p a y levels fo r office w orkers in 4 0 m a jo r labor m a rk ets , 1 9 5 1 -5 2 1
[New York City* 100]
Relative Rank
106
105
104
100
99

1
3
4
5
6
8
13
14
16
18
23
24
27
31
32
34
35
38
40

New England

South

Middle Atlantic

Middle West

Far West

Detroit_________________ San Francisco-Oakland.
Los Angeles.
Chicago________________
New York____________
Cleveland........................... Seattle.
[Albany-Schenectady{ Troy_________________ J-Houston............................... /Indianapolis.........................
[Milwaukee......... .................
[Newark-Jersey City...........
Pittsburgh__
____
/Buffalo................ ................. 1................................................
[Rochester............................
Columbus— ........................
Hartford................ _.......... .
[Cincinnati______________
Trenton_______________ Atlanta________________ •{Louisville_______________
[St. Louis........................... .
Kansas City........ .............
N orfolk-Portsmouth...........
Allentown-BethlehemPhoenix.
Easton.
Boston______ __________ Philadelphia ______ _____ 'Birmingham____________
Denver.
Minnaapnlis-Rt. Paul
Worcester............................
Richmond______________
Memphis_______________
/Oklahoma City_________ )
Salt Lake City.
[Jacksonville____ ________ / ......................................... .
Providence_____ _____ __
New Orleans____________
Scranton_______________

i The relatives presented in the first column relate the average standard
weekly salaries in 24 office jobs in each city to the corresponding averages for
New York City. For each city, the all-industry average for each job was
multiplied by the total employment in the job in all cities combined to arrive
at the aggregate used in the comparison. This procedure assumed a constant
employment relationship between jobs in all cities. The all-industry aver­

age for each job was computed by dividing the sum of the hourly earnings
by the number of workers in the job in the area. Inter-area differences in
the average for a job are thus affected by inter-area differences in the con­
tribution of each industry to the employment and earnings estimates for that
job.

pay level for a particular job group. For exam­
ple, Houston and Atlanta office worker salaries
equaled or exceeded salary levels in 5 of 11 cities
in the Middle West and in 4 of 10 cities in the
Middle Atlantic region.
Occupations common to a variety of manufac­
turing and nonmanufacturing industries were
studied on a community-wide basis.1 Twentyeight States were represented in the list, permit­
ting examination of interregional and intraregional variations in pay levels as well as the
relationship between area pay levels and such

factors as size of community and degree of union­
ization. The combined population of the 40 areas
exceeded 52 million and more than 10 million
workers were employed in the industries and
establishment-size groups studied.
Intercity wage relationships were expressed as
percentages of pay levels in New York City,
which was studied in January 1952. For 28 of




(i)

1 In addition to manufacturing, these studies covered: transportation and
public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate;
and selected service industries. Results of these surveys were published in
occupational wage-survey bulletins for each of the 40 areas. For list of
bulletins, see p. 18.

2

the areas, the period studied differed from the
survey month for New York by 2 months or less.2
Measures of intercity differences in pay levels
presented here are therefore subject to some
understatement or overstatement depending pri­
marily upon the time difference among the survey
dates for the areas being compared. Resurveys
could result in some changes in the relative posi­
tion of some of the areas. Data for Birmingham
and Pittsburgh, for example, do not reflect the
most recent wage increase executed in the steel
industry.

The city relatives are based on averages, in
each area, for 24 office jobs and for 17 manualtype jobs commonly found in the broad industry
divisions represented. Intercity wage relation­
ships differ somewhat by type of occupation, and
the selection of occupations other than those used
in these comparisons presumably could yield
somewhat different results.
Minor differences in city relatives and rank
position should thus be viewed in light of the
above limitations, and also in light of the differ­
ences in industrial composition of the labor force

T able 2. — R elative p a y levels fo r p la n t w orkers in in d ire c t jo b s in 4 0 m a jo r labor m a rk ets , 1 9 5 1 - 5 2 1
[New York City=100]

1 The relatives presented in the first column relate the average hourly earn­
ings in seven maintenance jobs, four custodial jobs, and six warehousing
and shipping jobs in each city to the corresponding averages for New York

City. Relatives were based on straight-time earnings, excluding premium
pay for overtime and night work. See footnote to table 1 for method of com­
putation of the average.

among areas as explained later. However, infor­
mation on area-wage differentials, used with care,
does provide an essential tool to individuals and
organizations in the administration of wage and
salary structures, in wage negotiations, and in the
selection of locations for new establishments.*

Relative Levels Among Labor Markets

* The other 12 areas were studied as follows: September 1951, Seattle;
October 1951, Cleveland, Hartford, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, and
Richmond; April 1952, Birmingham, Boston, and Columbus; and May
1952, Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Jacksonville, and Louisville.




Office-worker salaries in New York City were
exceeded, among the areas studied, only in
Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and the San
Francisco-Oakland area. Five percentage points
or less below New York in the scale were cities as
widely separated geographically as Seattle, Cleve­
land, Houston, and Pittsburgh. A majority of
the 40 areas were clustered at the 90-99 percent

8

(of New York) level. Providence, New Orleans,
and Scranton were the only areas in which officeworker salaries were less than 85 percent of the
New York average (table 1).
T a ble 3. — R elative p a y levels fo r p la n t w orkers in selected
w ork categories in 4 0 m a jo r labor m a rk etst 1 9 5 1 -5 2

[New York C ity -100]
Labor market
New England:
Boston...............................................
Hartford............................................
Providence.......................................
Worcester........................................
Middle Atlantic:
A lbany-Scheneetady-Troy.............
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton___
Buffalo.............................................
Newark-Jersey City.......................
New York.........................................
Philadelphia....................................
Pittsburgh........................................
Rochester..........................................
Scranton............................................
Trenton.............................................
South:
Atlanta..............................................
Birmingham.....................................
Houston.......................................... .
Jacksonville......................................
Memphis..........................................
New Orleans....................................
Nor folk-Portsmouth.......................
Oklahoma City................................
Richmond.........................................
Middle West:
Chicago.............................................
Cincinnati.........................................
Cleveland.........................................
Columbus.........................................
Detroit.............................................
Indianapolis.....................................
Kansas City.....................................
Louisville..........................................
Milwaukee.......................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul.....................
St. Louis...........................................
Far West:
Denver..............................................
Los Angeles.......................................
Phoenix.............................................
Salt Lake City..................................
San Francisco-Oakland..................
Seattle...............................................

Main­
tenance
(7 jobs)
93
90
85
89
96
92
100
103
100
96
100
94
88
95
88
90
101
91
85
80
89
80
90
107
95
100
94
111
97
99
101
102
99

101

92
106
97
92
111
104

Warehous­
Custodial ing and
(4 jobs) shipping
(6 jobs)
94
93
91
95
95
91
101
105
100
91
100
95
80
97
74
70
74
63
68
60
73
72
73
106
90
98
90
113
94
91
87
102
97
94
86
103
85
88
114
108

91
86
82
86
91
87
98
101
100
91
102
92
84
94
69
77
78
64
67
68
68
75
71
103
93
100
91
111
89
93
88
100
93
95
84
105
86
87
113
106

1 See footnote to table 1 for method of computation of the average.

Intercity wage relationships for plant job groups
were generally similar to those for office workers in
regions other than the South. For all plant jobs
combined (table 2) and for the custodial, and
warehousing and shipping job groups (table 3),
the southern cities were grouped at the bottom of
the city rankings. In the case of skilled mainte­
nance trades, Houston workers’ pay was well
above average, and pay levels in Jacksonville,
Richmond, and Birmingham also compared favor­

252095-53------2



ably with prevailing levels in the New England
cities, and Scranton, Denver, and Salt Lake City.
As suggested by these comparisons, skill differ­
entials (measured on either a percentage or centsper-hour basis) tend to be greater in the South
than in other regions.
The industrial composition of the areas studied
varied substantially. Thus, the explanation for
some of the intercity wage differences may be
found in dissimilar industrial distributions of the
labor force. Manufacturing industries employed
more than half of the workers in each of the New
England and Middle Atlantic areas (except New
York City) and in the Middle West areas studied.
Nonmanufacturing industries dominated employ­
ment in all southern areas except Birmingham and
all western areas except Los Angeles. Average
earnings for comparable occupations were usually
higher in manufacturing than in nonmanufactur­
ing; the earnings advantage held by workers in
manufacturing was more consistent among office
jobs than among the indirect plant jobs studied.
However, Detroit and Chicago, centers of the
relatively high-wage automotive and metalworking
industries, respectively, ranked between New York
and San Francisco where trade, finance, and service
industries were comparatively more important.
Earnings of office and maintenance workers in the
southern cities compared favorably with New
England pay levels, despite the lower degree of
industrialization.
Occupational earnings of plant workers tended
to be highest in the largest cities, particularly
those in which a large proportion of the plant
workers were employed in establishments oper­
ating under terms of union agreements. Of the
top 10 areas in the ranking (table 2), 7 were among
the 10 largest in population and 7 were among the
first 10 areas in a ranking by degree of unioniza­
tion.3 Of the last 10 areas (9 in the South)
in the earnings scale, only 5 ranked among the
10 smallest areas studied, but 8 were among the
lowest 10 in terms of collective-bargaining contract
coverage. Office-worker salary levels seemed
* In 17 of the 40 areas, 75 percent or more of the plant workers were in estab­
lishments with agreements covering such workers; in 7 areas, less than 50
percent were covered.

4
to be more often related to population size than to
degree of contract coverage. Union-contract
coverage of office workers ranged from less than
10 percent in 12 areas to 20 percent or more in only
8 areas.
Available data indicate that wage levels tended
to be lower in smaller cities than in nearby large
urban centers. Data collected by the Bureau in
cities of 50,000 to 200,000 population during the
last year 4 indicate that pay levels for comparable
jobs were substantially lower in the Augusta
(Ga.)-Aiken (S. C.) area than in Atlanta; in the

Occupational Wage Differentials
in Major Labor Markets, 1951-52
Occupational wage differentials measured on
both a percentage and a cents-per-hour basis
were greatest in the South, according to a Bureau
of Labor Statistics analysis 1 of data collected in
late 1951 and early 1952. In the process of occu­
pational wage setting, differentials provide a means
of compensating workers in accordance with differ­
ences in requirements of skill, responsibility, effort,
working conditions, and other factors. They
provide individual workers with the incentive to
attain higher skills. The high degree of job
specialization which is characteristic of most indus­
tries is reflected in a diversity of pay scales in
individual establishments.
Measured in percentage terms, differences in pay
between skilled and unskilled occupations have
exhibited substantial regional variations for a long
period of time.2 Previous studies have indicated
a long-term trend toward a reduction in the
magnitude of percentage differentials in wages for
skilled and unskilled jobs; average hourly earnings
of skilled workers in the United States in 1907
were about double those of unskilled workers,
whereas 1947 skilled rates, on the average, were
only 50 percent higher. This narrowing of differ­
entials can be attributed to the fact that wage
adjustments made in recent years have, in many
* This study compares occupational wage differentials in six different
regions of the United States.
* See Occupational Wage Differentials, 1907-47, Monthly Labor Review,
August 1948 (p. 127).



Green Bay and Manitowoc-Sheboygan areas of
Wisconsin than in Milwaukee; and in Pueblo,
Colo., as compared with Denver. However, as
among the 40 larger labor markets dealt with in
greater detail, a number of exceptions were noted
in which pay levels in smaller cities exceeded those
in larger cities in the same State or region.
4 Because of the limited amount of occupational earnings available from the
studies in these smaller areas, which were conducted at the request of the
Wage Stabilization Board, comparisons were made in individual jobs rather
than the comparable job groups upon which the tables are based.

cases, been applied on a uniform cents-per-hour
basis. While maintaining wage differentials in
absolute terms, such increases have tended to
further narrow percentage differentials in the
establishments or industries involved.
R e la tio n sh ip s betw een ea rn in g s o f sk ille d m a in ten a n ce an d
u n sk illed o cc u p a tio n s , in a ll in d u str ie s , 1 9 5 1 -5 2 1

Area group

Number
of areas
studied

Differentials in straight-time hourly
earnings between skilled maintenance
workers and—
Stock handlers

Janitors

Percent­ Cents- Percent­ Centsage per-hour age per-hour
New England......... .
Middle Atlantic_____
South.............................
Middle West.............Mountain___________
Pacific Coast...............

4
9
8
11
2
3

37
38
83
41
40
31

48
53
82
57
52
49

54
62
108
66
71
58

62
73
95
78
76
76

1 Differentials were computed as follows: (1) a simple average of the differ­
ences in the area-wide averages for maintenance carpenters, electricians, and
machinists and each of the unskilled jobs (stock handlers and janitors) was
derived to obtain area differentials; (2) a simple average of the area differ­
entials was made to obtain the average differential for the area groupings.
The area groupings used in this study include: N ew England— Boston,
Hartford, Providence, and Worcester; M iddle A tlan tic— Albany-Schenectady-Troy, Buffalo, Newark-Jersey City, New York, Philadelphia, Pitts­
burgh, Rochester, Scranton, and Trenton; South— A tlanta., Birmingham,
Houston, Jacksonville, Memphis, Norfolk-Portsmouth, Oklahoma City,
and Richmond; M iddle W est— Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus,
Detroit, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Louisville, Milwaukee, MinneapolisSt. Paul, and St. Louis; M ountain— Denver and Salt Lake City; Pacific
Coast— Los Angeles, San Francisco-Oakland, and Seattle.

Scope and Method of Analysis

Occupational wage differentials presented in the
accompanying table were based on area-wide
earnings information for selected skilled and
unskilled jobs obtained from the Bureau's 40-area
co m m u n ity -w ag e-stu d y program conducted

5
between September 1951 and May 1952.8 For
purposes of analysis, three skilled maintenance
jobs—carpenters, electricians, and machinists—
and two unskilled jobs—stock handlers and jani­
tors—were selected in order to measure percentage
and cents-per-hour differentials between skilled
and unskilled workers; the published earnings data
in 37 areas were used. Area differences in all­
industry averages between the skilled and unskilled
jobs were averaged to obtain regional wage rela­
tionships. Earnings in all jobs selected relate to
men workers.
Because occupational staffing patterns and pay
levels vary within and among industries in an area,
wage differentials based on all-industry averages
may differ, therefore, from average differentials
within individual establishments. However, such
all-industry differentials are considered to be
reasonably accurate for the purpose of illustrating
the existing spread in pay levels for particular jobs
and, more specifically, for an examination of
regional differences in wage relationships.
Percentage Differentials

Percentage wage differentials between the main­
tenance trades and unskilled jobs in the South
greatly exceeded those in other regions (see table).
Pay levels for workers in the maintenance trades
in the southern cities compared favorably with
prevailing levels in many of the northern cities,
but unskilled labor rates were substantially lower
in the South.4 The greater wage differentials in
the South thus reflect the comparatively low wage
levels at the bottom of the wage scale.
Differentials in wages for skilled maintenance
workers and stock handlers were grouped at 37-41
percent for New England, Middle Atlantic,
Mountain, and Middle West areas as compared
with the 83-percent estimate for the eight south­
ern cities combined. Pacific coast areas (Los
Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco-Oakland) had
a combined wage spread of only 31 percent. As
would be expected, the wage spread between
maintenance trades and janitors was greater than
that between maintenance trades and stock1
1 The study in each area covered manufacturing, public utilities, wholesale
trade, retail trade, finance, and selected service industries. Results of these
surveys were published in occupational wage survey bulletins for each of the
40 areas. For list of bulletins, see page 18.
* See Wage Differences Among 46 Labor Markets, p. 1.



handlers. The average wage differentials be­
tween the latter two categories ranged from 54
percent in New England to 108 percent in the
South.
Variation noted in average wage differentials
among areas within the same regional grouping
was in some cases traceable to the nature of the
wage structure in the dominant industry in
particular areas. Maintenance workers in De­
troit, for example, averaged only 31 percent more
than stock handlers as compared with differentials
of 40 percent or more found in Chicago, Indian­
apolis, Kansas City, and St. Louis. The all­
industry differential for Detroit was, nevertheless,
several percentage points higher than the per­
centage difference between the same job categories
in the motor vehicle and motor-vehicle equipment
industry in this area. Similarly, the average wage
differentials in Birmingham and Pittsburgh were
well below the differentials indicated for the South
and Middle Atlantic city groupings, respectively,
and indicate the influence of the wage structure
in the basic iron and steel industry.
Louisville was grouped with midwestern cities
for purposes of this report, but the maintenancetrade-stock-handler differential (62 percent) places
this area midway between the South and Middle
West in the matter of wage spread. Stock han­
dlers in Louisville averaged $1.23 an hour compared
with a range of 86 cents to $1.12 among the south­
ern cities and a $1.31 to $1.64 range among other
midwestern areas.
Cents-Per-Hour Differentials

Cents-per-hour occupational wage differentials
were also greatest in the South but were more
closely grouped than the percentage measures of
wage spread. Cents-per-hour differences between
the averages for skilled maintenance workers and
stock handlers ranged from 48 cents in New Eng­
land to 82 cents in the South. The maintenancetrade-janitor differential amounted to 62 cents in
New England and 95 cents in the South; among
the other four regional groupings of cities, the
differential ranged from 73 to 78 cents. Regional
differences in pay levels account for the greater
variation in percentage differentials.
The long-term trend of wages in the United
States has been toward a widening of cents-perhour differentials between skilled and unskilled

6
workers, but a narrowing of percentage differen­
tials. Uniform cents-per-hour adjustments pre­
serve absolute differences and diminish relative
differences; uniform percentage adjustments main­
tain percentage differences and increase absolute
differences. Since adjustments in the future, for

the most part, will probably represent a mixture of
these two. forms, the outlook is for a continuation
of these opposing trends. It is possible, of course,
that some adjustments will be of such a nature
as to increase relative differences in particular
situations.

Wage Formalization in
Major Labor Markets, 1951-52

rule. The definition of a “ job” or “ classification”
may be very narrow or very broad, and the single
rate may, therefore, be applicable to a very few
workers on identical jobs or to large numbers
a number of essentially different jobs
The extent and nature of wage formalization performing
which
are
regarded
as meriting the same rate of
differed substantially among the industry divi­
pay.
sions and the 40 labor-market areas included in
plans provide that specific rates
the community wage-survey program conducted for“ Rate-range”
individual
workers
within the range are de­
recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
termined
by
merit,
length
or a combina­
Formal wage structures that provide an established tion of various concepts ofof service,
merit
and
of
rate or a range of rates for each job classification service. Rate ranges may be set up withlength
various
have been widely adopted in industry—partic­ degrees of formality and more or less rigid rules
ularly in manufacturing and public utilities. respecting the position within the range at which
Nevertheless, individual rates, related to training, new workers are hired and concerning their auto­
ability, skill, and bargaining power of individual matic or nonautomatic advancement to the
workers, were commonly employed in some maximum
A rate range, like a single rate,
industries in many of the areas—especially among is usually rate.
established
experienced workers.
office occupations. Proportionately, more office However, a complete andforseparate
rate structure
workers than plant (or nonoffice) em ployees below the minimum is frequently established
worked under the individual-rate system in each workers not fully qualified (e. g., learners for
or
area, although a majority of office workers in apprentices) for the job rates.
32 of the 40 areas were employed in establish­
Incentive wage plans—applicable chiefly to pro­
ments with formalized rate structures in office duction
workers in manufacturing—may be con­
departments.
sidered
as
type of formal wage structure
Wage formalization involves the establishment even thougha third
earnings
may vary as a result of
of a single rate or a rate range for each job category differences in individual
group accomplish­
in the establishment.1 A “single-rate” establish­ ment under a given plan. orThis
is con­
ment can be defined as one that pays the same cerned mainly with the nature of analysis
the
wage
rate to experienced workers in a job classification.2 ture for time-rated workers and thereforestruc­
no
Learners or apprentices may be paid according attempt has been made to examine the various
to rate schedules which start below the single rate
of incentive wage plans as such. However,
and permit the worker to achieve the full job types
the
incidence
pay plans in manufactur­
rate over a period of time. Individual experienced ing industriesofhasincentive
been
summarized
briefly in this
workers may occasionally be paid above or below article.
the single rate for special reasons, but such
payments are regarded as exceptions to the usual* Basis and Scope of Analysis
*Establishment practice differed greatly as between office and plant depart­
ments, and information is summarized separately for these employee groups.
>The terms, “individual rate,” “rate range,” and “single rate” are more
completely defined in the Glossary of Currently Used Wage Terms, BLS
Bulletin No. 983, June 1950.




The degree of utilization of the various types of
wage structures for office workers and time-rated
plant workers has been expressed in this study as

7

.

T a b l e 1 — N a tu re o f w age stru ctu re fo r office w orkers in 4 0 m a jo r labor m arkets, by in d u str y d iv isio n , S ep tem ber 1 9 5 1 M a y 1 95 2 1
Percent of workers employed in—
All industries
Area

Manufacturing

Formal
Formal
wage Indi­ wage
structure vid­ structure
ual
rates
Single Rate
Single Rate
rate range
rate range

Public utilities

Wholesale trade

Formal
Foimal
Indi­ wage Indi­ wage
vid­ structure vid­ structure
ual
ual
rates
rates
Single Rate
Singlei Rate
rate range
rate range

Retail trade

Services

Finance

Formal
Formal
Indi­ wage Indi­ wage
vid­ structure vid­ structure
ual
ual
rates
rates
Single Rate
Single> Rate
rate range
rate range

Formal
Indi­ wage Indi­
vid­ structure vid­
ual
ual
lates
rates
Single Rate
rate range

N ew E ngland

Boston_________
Hartford________
Providence_____
Worcester_______

5
1
4
16

63
86
60
64

32
13
46
30

18
2
4
25

52
88
41
41

30 (2)
10
55 22
34 50

87
87
49
36

13
13
29
14

2
1
3

50
14
48
48

48
86
51
49

Albany-Schenectady-Troy____ 21
Allen town-Bethlehem-Easton _ 2
3
Buffalo.................
Newark-Jersey
4
City..................
1
New York______
Philadelphia____
3
Pittsburgh ____
3
Rochester_____ (J)
2
Scranton _ ____
1
Trenton ................

48
68
68
70
68
63
69
76
47
62

31 43
2
40
1
39
8
26
31
34 (*)2
4
28
24
4
61
37 (?)

43
67
69
70
53
70
74
86
56
62

14 (2)
6
31
30 17
22 (2)
1
47
28
8
22
6
14
40
38

95
71
56
95
83
84
69
92
34
80

5
23
27
16
8
25
8
66
20

1
5
2
5
7
3
3

36
11
34
44
55
21
33
27
3
31

63
2
84
6
64
51
45 (J)
72
3
64
70
97
69
4

47
43
46
43
46
35
54
50
24

1
53
56
2
53
55 10
8
51
59 15
2
43
1
47
76 (?)

44
39
43
25
43
32
78
21
15

55
61
55
65
49
53
20
78
85

69
72
77
83
55
28
21
76
76

31
27
23
17
45
70
77
16
24

57
42
30
49
35
41
73
26
6

43
51
70
51
65
56
27
65
94

62
60
71
74
75
65
61
63
61
52
60

1
37
33 10
2
28
25
23 (?)
33
4
35
36
29 15
4
46
1
39

58
59
79
77
85
78
60
69
62
70
69

41
1
31
19
23
1
15
22
36 (2)
31
23 (2)
26
30
4

88
78
89
81
88
81
90
72
90

11
5
22
5
11 (»)
8
19
11
6
19 10
10
6
28
4
10 14
2
23
23 (2)

25
27
37
77
49
48
49
61
17
28
49

70
68
63
15
45
42
45
35
69
70
51

57

42
21
32
34
31
46

84
74
53
69
67

42
14
26
41
25
30

72
90
88
87
85
56

28
5
11
12

50
60
62
46
42
49

50
38
38
45
57
48

12
3

1

62
66
30
46

38
22
70
61

1

79
88
83
94

21
11
17
6

23
26
48
68
66
77
45
39
54

77
98
68
52
32 <*>
2
31
2
23
55
61
42

62
11
59
71
70
69
75
61
71
64

38
89
41
29
30
29
23
39
29
36

45
34
31
19
38
46
34
51
7

55
66
66
79
58
54
66
49
93

6

39
42
43
39
79
27
17
67
28

61
58
56
61
21
67
83
33
72

79
43
45
48
55
66
75
45
33
56
23

19
57 (2)1
55
52
41
34
4
23
3
54
67
43
75 (2)

74
80
67
81
69
46
55
67
81
35
56

26
19
33
19
31
50
42
33
19
65
44

3
5
6
6
19
1
9
1
8

53
56
18
51
52
10

47
39
82
44
25
80

56
80
81
71
67
53

44
19
15
29
30
47

30
27
15
6

69
73
85
94

M iddle A tlan tic

5

19
3
2
3

46
43
54
32
20

81

100
51
57
44
65
80
100
76
63

24
10

27

2
9
17
14
34

28
15
34
35
11
49
14
47

72
83
57
48
89
37
52
53
100
53
48
57
63
51
58
59
71
57

5
7

44
47
37
31
30
41
32
28
35
38
30

13
3
15
41
9
12

35
57
20
16
45
37

South

Atlanta_______ (2)
Birmingham
1
1
Houston________
.Taokson villa
2
3
Memphis____ _
Nfiw Orleans
6
Norfolk-Ports3
mouth _ _ _
Oklahoma City__ 3
Richmond.____ (2)
M iddle W est

Chicago............ —
Cincinnati______
Cleveland
Columbus______
Detroit................
Indianapolis____
Kansas City____
Louisville. ____
Milwaukee_____
Minneapolis-St.
Paul...................
St. Louis...............

1
7
1
1
2
2
41
10
2
1

1

2

2
8

77

73

7
3
9

(2)

3
2
4

2
4
21
1
2

1

Far W est

Denver
Los Angeles..........
Phoenix

Salt Lake City__
San FranciscoOakland.............
Seattle...................

1
2
2

6
6

5

77

66

60
63
49

3

2

6

6
3

55

5

1
1
10
11

5
33

* Percentages are based on total office employment in establishments
according to their predominant type of wage structure for time-rated workers.




2

9
1

3

5
5

23
10

s Leas than 1 percent,

1
4
3

57

63

52
40
65
41
46

51

8

proportions of all workers employed in offices
(or plant departments) in which the given practice
predominated.3 The extent of incentive pay plans
in manufacturing is reported in terms of workers
actually being paid under this method.
The data were obtained from the Bureau’s com­
munity wage-study program conducted during
late 1951 and early 1952.4 Information concern­
ing the nature of the wage structure and the
extent of incentive pay was collected on a com­
munity-wide basis for each of 40 areas in 6 broad
industry divisions, thereby permitting both inter­
area and inter-industry comparisons.6 More than
10 million workers were within the scope of the
surveys in these areas which have a combined
population of over 52 million.

ments totaled 35 for public utilities, 30 for finance,
29 for manufacturing, 16 for retail trade, 9 for
wholesale trade, and only 2 for service industries.
In the latter two industry groups, the use of
individual rates was particularly widespread.
Formalized wage structures tended to be most
common in divisions with the highest average
number of employees per office.
Plant-Worker Wage Structure

For time-rated plant workers, among the indus­
tries and establishment-size groups studied, formal
single-rate and rate-range wage structures were
generally used in all areas and informal plans
were comparatively unimportant. Whereas indi­
vidual determination was found to be of substan­
tial importance for office workers, it was of
Office-Worker Rate Structures
significance for plant workers in only a few of the
A majority of the office workers in 32 of the 40 40 areas. (See table 2.) In two areas only—
areas studied were employed in establishments Jacksonville and Richmond—were more than a
that had formalized wage structures, in nearly all fourth of the workers employed in establishments
cases providing a range of rates for each occu­ that had rates of pay for plant workers on an
pation. Single-rate structures were of minor im­ informal basis; the proportion in most areas ran
portance, applying to more than 10 percent of the well below 20 percent.
In many of the areas, none of the three types of
workers in Albany-Schenectady-Troy and Wor­
cester only. In eight areas, office salaries were wage structures was applicable to a majority of the
primarily determined on an individual basis. plant workers, inasmuch as both types of formal­
(See table 1.) The basic importance of individual ized wage structure were used extensively and indi­
rates in offices was such, however, that even in vidual determination applied at least to a few
areas in which payment was predominantly by workers. Formalized structures providing a rate
the range-of-rates method, the proportion of in­ range for each occupation were predominant in 20
formally rated workers ranged from a fifth to areas, but covered a majority in only 11; single-rate
were the most prevalent type in 18 areas, but
more than two-fifths and represented a slight plans
applied
to a majority in only 12. Allentownmajority in seven of the nine southern areas and Bethlehem-Easton,
Detroit, Phoenix, Pittsburgh,
in Scranton.
San
Francisco-Oakland,
Seattle were the only
The degree of wage formalization varied greatly areas in which as many asand
three-fifths of the work­
among the industries studied, with rate ranges ers were employed in establishments having single­
most common in the public utility and finance rate plans; Hartford and Rochester, on the other
groups and least common among the service indus­ hand, were the only areas in which equally large
tries. Areas in which a majority of the office proportions of workers were in establishments with
workers were employed in rate-range establish-* rate ranges.
The types of wage structures varied among the
* The exclusion of incentive workers from plant employment figures would
broad
industry groups studied. Both single-rate
result in somewhat different estimates of the prevalence of particular types
and
rate-range
plans affected substantial numbers
of wage structures for time-rated workers in some areas and industry divi­
sions.
of
workers
in
manufacturing
and public utilities in
<Comprehensive results of these surveys including wages and related
nearly
all
areas,
with
individual
determination ap­
benefits data were published in occupational wage-survey bulletins for each
of the 40 areas.
plying
to
comparatively
few
workers.
In manu­
* The study in each area covered: manufacturing; transportation (except
facturing,
the
areas
were
nearly
equally
divided
railroads), communication, and other public utilities; wholesale trade;
retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and selected service industries.
between those in which single rates predominated



9

T able 2. —

,

N a tu re o f wage structure f o r tim e-rated p ro d u c tio n w orkers i n 40 m a jo r labor m arkets by in d u s tr y d iv is io n
Septem ber 1 9 5 1 -M a y 1952

1

Percent of plant workers employed in—
All industries *
Area

N ew E ngland

Boston...................................
Hartford...............................
Providence...........................
Worcester.............................

Manufacturing

Formal
Formal
wage
wage
structure Indi­
structure
vid­
ual
Single Rate rates Single Rate
rate range
rate range
40
26
37
37

48
66
39
45

57
66
44
37
38
44
64
13
51
41

25
18
41
51
44
42
30
75
28
46

34
56
41
40
37
52
30

22
22

47
33
38
19
41
27
50
56
37

38
36
42
30
70
35
46
50
27
51
47

54
50
51
57
26
53
42
37
58
39
48

38
49
71
47
74
73

47
47
15
40
25
25

12
8

24
18

Wholesale trade

Public utilities

Formal
Formal
wage
wage
Indi­ structure
Indi­ structure
vid­
vid­
ual
ual
rates Single Rate rates Single Rate
rate range
rate range

49
24
38
38

45
72
38
47

64
70
50
38
37
46
77
12
51
44

23
17
45
55
42
44
20
82
31
46

21
10

44
67
47
78
44
70
30
40
31

50
28
44
9
51
12
67
50
41

5
9
13
5
18
3
10
28

35
31
45
34
79
39
57
57
26
57
46

60
58
51
59
20
53
34
34
65
36
51

49
42
79
54
89
94

42
56
15
41

6

4
24
15

31
39
68
55

65
59
32
45

43
45
40
38
44
63
27
10
63
40

55
46
47
56
48
36

66
88

37
60

2

45
15
60
40
46
81
64
19
16

53
80
36
50
49
19
22
81
65

5
4
10
5
(*)14
19

39
50
51
51
39
51
42
37
33
42
62

60
50
49
49
61
49
52
63
67
44
36

42
43
76
41
27
38

58
57
23
59
73
59

4

2

Retail trade

Services

Formal
Formal
wage
wage
Indi­ structure
Indi­ structure
vidvid­
ual
ual
rates Single Rate rates Single Rate
rate range
rate range

r

Indi­
vid­
ual
rates

30
31
4
34

40
22
57
35

30
4
39
31

16
31
15

22

60
51
53
40

24
18
32
38

45
19
42
33

28
4
7
9

27
77
51
58

28
34
32
46
32
28
41
19
29
37

28
29
25
38
46
25
43
35
5
37

44
37
43
16
22
47
16
46
66
26

36
34
9
22
18
27
17
12
39
15

30
15
28
37
52
53
75
45
13
47

34
51
63
41
30
43
48
38

56
74
21
53
42
38
34
64
43

13
19
14
22
39
15
30
27
14
29

31
59
12
57
8
43
32
39
22
28

65
31
7
38
19
26
30

53
22
37
39
29
47
63
32

39
13
32
54
33
34
11
38
79

13
18
13
27
7
25
5

33
42
37

54
38
45
77
51
45
43
36
61

43
63
34
34
16
44
55
20
18

45
27
19
13
31
38
33
65

46
30
24
16
45
17
49
23
58
66
45

32
17
56
74
39
57
39
57
23
26
46

16
26

34
55
37
41
84
76

56
33
39
37
15
24

24

M iddle A tlan tic

Albany-Schenectady-Troy...
Allen town-Bethlehem-Easton
Buffalo.........................................
Newark-Jersey C ity................
New York...................................
Philadelphia...............................
Pittsburgh....................................
Rochester......................................
Scranton...................................... .
Trenton.......................................
South

Atlanta..........................
Birmingham.................
Houston........................
Jacksonville..................
Memphis......................
New Orleans................
Norfolk-Portsmouth..
Oklahoma City............
Richmond.....................
M iddle W est

Chicago...............................
Cincinnati..........................
Cleveland. _........................
Columbus..........................
Detroit................................
Indianapolis........................
Kansas City.......................
Louisville........................... .
Milwaukee___ ____ _____
Minneapolis-St. Paul----St. Louis..............................
F ar W est

Denver..............................
Los Angeles.....................
Phoenix............................
Salt Lake City................
San Francisco-Oakland.
Seattle...............................

18
16
15
12
18
14

6
12
21

13

19

11
21

41

22
21
20
22

41

8

14
7
13
4

12
12

13
15
10
5
15
4
14
13

1
2

13
13
5
7

3
6
18
10
6

10
6

1 Percentages are based on total plant employment in establishments
according to their predominant type of wage structure for time-rated workers,
rather than on the number of workers actually receiving pay under one type
of plan or another. Because of the prevalence of substantial numbers
of incentive workers in some establishments, percentages based on the




5
4
7

11
1
8

9
9
9
7
3
9

2
6

5

1

2

9
13

6
8
1

7

2

1

(>)
(*)

6

14

2

1

3

8

21

22

53

20
10
12
20

19
8
9

10
12

22
1

20

10
22

20
8

8

48
32
59
31

24
43
17
20
19
5
18
26
19
33
33

54
29
71
52
62
65
62
44
30
51
49

28
12
28
19
30
20
30
51
16
18

24
61
69
45
68
41

45
33
11
35
32
53

6
20
20

22

31

6

22

78
72
46
14
81
39
64
65
34
66
73
50
77
55
37
80
81

6

18

8
21

58
8
26
21
7

6
22

12
10

47
53
53
18
12
15
76
4
20
33
28
11
35
15
28
60

17

12
10

37
13
6
30

13
10
39
33
9

11
11

8

latter method would differ to some extent from the data presented herein.
2
Includes data for finance, insurance, and real estate in addition to those
industry groups shown separately.
* Less than 1 percent.

10

and those in which rate ranges were most prevalent.
On the other hand, rate ranges were predominant
in twice as many areas as were single rates in the

of rate determination was predominant in 11 areas
for both wholesale and retail trade and in 12 areas
among the services industries.

T able 3.—

Incentive-Rate Systems

P ro p o rtio n o f p la n t w orkers p a id by incentive
methods i n m a n u fa c tu rin g in d u s trie s in 40 areas 1951-52

,

40 percent or
more

30 to 39
percent

20 to 29
percent

10 to 19
percent

Under 10
percent

Albany-ScheneetadyTroy.
Allen tow nBethlehemEaston.
Boston.
Cleveland.
Milwaukee.
Norfolk-Portsmouth.
Pittsburgh.
Rochester.
Scranton.

Chicago.
Columbus.
Hartford.
Newark-Jersey City.
New York.
Philadelphia.
Providence.
St. Louis.
Trenton.
Worcester.

Atlanta.
Buffalo.
Cincinnati.
Denver.
Indianapolis.
Louisville.

Birmingham.
Detroit.
Jacksonville.
Kansas City.
Los Angeles.
Memphis.
MinneapolisSt. Paul.
Richmond.
San Francisco-Oakland.

Houston.
Okl aho ma
City.
Phoenix.
Salt Lake
City.
Seattle.

public utilities group. In wholesale trade, single­
rate structures were predominant in 13 areas, as
against 17 areas in which rate ranges predom­
inated. In retail trade, rate-range structures were
most characteristic in 23 of the 40 areas. Single­
rate structures were most common among the
services industries and were used by establishments
with a majority of the workers in 25 areas; in only
3 areas were rate-range plans predominant in this
industry group.
Individual rates were considerably more prev­
alent in the trade and services industries than in
manufacturing or public utilities. This method

Related Wage Practices
in Major Labor Markets, 1951-52
Employee benefits which supplement payments
made directly for hours worked or units produced
are commonly referred to as “supplementary,”
“related,” or “fringe.” A notable development of
“fringe” benefits has occurred in recent years and
has contributed substantially to the general wel­
fare of the worker and his family. According to a
Bureau of Labor Statistics study of data collected
in major labor markets in late 1951 and early 1952,
a variety of such benefits were widespread for all
workers, although the proportion of office workers
profiting from the fringe benefits which were ana­



A variety of types of incentive-rate systems are
employed, including both individual and groupbonus plans and the most common type—straight
piecework. Although these plans are frequently
employed in some nonmanufacturing industries,
they are of most importance in the manufacturing
industries to which the study on incentive rates
has been limited. Office workers are rarely paid
under this wage system.
Approximately 30 percent of the manufacturing
plant workers in the 40 areas studied were paid
on the basis of incentive rates. The proportion
of workers paid in this manner varied substantially
among the areas studied, ranging from less than a
tenth to more than a half.
Areas in which the highest proportions of manu­
facturing-plant workers were paid on incentives
include: Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, with large
steel-manufacturing operations; N orfolk-Portsmouth, an important shipbuilding center; Scran­
ton, important for garment and textile manu­
facturing; and Milwaukee, which has a diversified
machinery (both electrical and nonelectrical)
industry. Individual area variations are outlined
in table 3.
lyzed was usually greater than that of manual
workers who received them.
Provisions summarized in this analysis were
paid vacations, paid holidays, paid sick leave,
insurance benefits, retirement pensions, and non­
production bonuses.1 Their prevalence has been
expressed in terms of the proportion of all workers
employed in offices or plant departments that
observe the practice in question. Because of eligi­
bility requirements, the proportion actually re­
ceiving specific benefits may be smaller. The
analysis has been limited to formal plans and
excludes those informal arrangements whereby
benefits are granted at the discretion of the
employer.
1Although not summarized herein, provisions relating to the payment of
shift differentials in manufacturing industries are also available in individual
bulletins.

11

Scope and Method of Analysis

Data used in this analysis were obtained from
the Bureau’s studies of earnings and related wage
practices in 40 major labor-market areas between
September 1951 and May 1952.2 More than 10
million workers were employed in the industries
and establishment-size groups studied.3 Informa­
tion in each area was collected on an all-industry
basis; separate detail was shown, whenever pos­
sible, for each of six major industry groups: manu­
facturing; transportation (except railroads), com­
munication, and other public utilities; wholesale
trade; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real
estate; and services.
Vacations

Paid vacation plans have become so extensive
during the past few years that virtually all workers
in the 40 major labor markets were employed in
establishments providing such benefits. These
plans, with only a few exceptions, provided regular
pay for a specified period of time, graduated in
accordance with the worker’s length of service.4
In a few instances, vacation payments were based
on a percentage of earnings or were in the form of
flat-sum amounts; such plans, however, were in­
frequent and have been converted to comparable
length-of-time payments for the purpose of this
article.
Among the 40 areas studied, vacation benefits
customarily were more liberal for office workers
than for plant workers. Office workers usually
received 2-week vacations after a year of employ­
ment, compared with 1 week for plant workers.
Vacation plans typically provided increased bene­
fits for additional periods of continuous employ­
ment, with service periods of 2, 5, and 15 years
being of particular significance. Virtually all
office workers and a substantial number of plant
workers were eligible for a 2-week vacation after
a Results of these surveys were published in occupational wage survey
bulletins for each of the 40 areas.
3 Small establishments were omitted in the interest of economy. Because
of this, proportions indicated may be slightly inflated in some instances
since larger establishments customarily have more liberal provisions.
4 Required length-of-service periods varied among establishments; for
minimum benefits, however, periods of 1 year were most common, although
shorter periods were frequently employed, especially for office workers.




completing 2 years of service. After 5 years,
a majority of the plant workers in all areas
received 2-week vacations; no significant change
in benefits for office workers occurred at the
5-year point. After 15 years of continuous em­
ployment, vacation provisions, on the whole,
were still more liberal for office workers than for
plant workers, although to a lesser extent. A
2-week vacation was most commonly granted after
15 years of service to both office and plant workers
in a majority of the areas; 3-week vacations were
frequently reported in each area and applied to a
majority of all these workers with 15-year employ­
ment in Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, and Rochester.
Additional areas in which more than half the
office workers were eligible for 3-week vacations
with pay after 15 years include Boston, Indianap­
olis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, NewarkJersey City, New York, and Pittsburgh. Paid
vacations in excess of 3 weeks were uncommon
for either office or plant workers.
Although prevailing practices were remarkably
similar among the areas, the proportions of
workers comprising the majority varied consider­
ably. For example, while more than half the
office workers in nine-tenths of the areas were
employed in establishments providing a 2-week
vacation after a year of service, these proportions
ranged from slightly more than 50 percent in 7
areas to more than 80 percent in 6 areas.
Although no sharply defined regional pattern of
differences was apparent, vacation benefits for
office workers tended to be more liberal in New
England than in other regions; plant workers in
New England were not similarly affected.
Among the broad industry divisions studied,
vacation benefits for office workers were most
liberal in the finance, insurance, and real estate
group and least in retail trade. In each area,
a majority of office workers in finance were em­
ployed by establishments providing vacations of
2 weeks or more after a year of service and in
more than three-fourths of the areas these pro­
portions ran over 85 percent. On the other hand,
2-week vacations were granted to a majority of
the office workers in retail trade in only a tenth
of the areas. Vacation provisions for plant
workers were generally most liberal in wholesale
trade and public utilities and least in the manu­
facturing and services industries.

12
Holiday Pay

Pay for holidays not worked was provided to
nearly all office workers in each major labor
market and to the vast majority of the plant
workers in all areas except Birmingham and
Pittsburgh where less than half the plant workers
received holiday pay. The absence of holiday
provisions in the steel industry at the time of the
study accounted for these exceptions.6
Six days were most frequently provided to both
plant and office workers in a little over half the
areas studied. Most liberal benefits were received
by workers in the four New England labor mar­
kets, together with New York City and adjacent
Newark-Jersey City, in which a large proportion
of workers received 9 or more days. On the
other hand, substantial numbers of workers in
4 southern areas (Atlanta, Birmingham, Jackson­
ville, and Memphis) received 5 paid holidays
annually. In each of the areas studied, paid
holiday provisions were more liberal for office
workers than for plant workers.
Among the broad industry divisions studied,
holiday provisions were most liberal in the fi­
nance, insurance, and real estate division. In this
industry group, a majority of the workers em­
ployed in three-fourths of the areas received 7 or
more days a year and in 15 of the areas commonly
received 11 or more days annually.
Paid Sick Leave

Plans providing for the payment of wages or
salaries in case of sickness or injury, while not
nearly as prevalent as vacation or holiday plans,
were nevertheless frequently reported in each of
the areas studied. The composition of these
plans differed greatly not only with respect to
qualifying requirements and length-of-leave allow­
ances, but also as to the proportion of wages or
salaries paid during illness. For the purpose of
this analysis, only those plans providing full pay
and requiring no waiting period have been con­
sidered; no attempt was made to evaluate differ­
ences in the number of days of leave granted.
Paid sick-leave plans typically affected greater pro­
portions of office workers than plant workers. In
34 of the 40 areas studied, the proportion of office
* Holiday-pay benefits have since been negotiated and the workers were
granted 6 days annually, effective August 15,1952.



workers receiving these benefits ranged from a
fourth to slightly more than a half; on the other
hand, in only 2 areas were as many as a fourth
of the plant workers similarly covered and the
proportion was less than a tenth in 26 areas.
The wide differences between the numbers of
office and plant workers receiving paid sick leave
were due in large part to the prevailing practice
among manufacturing industries. Although rela­
tively more office workers than plant workers were
eligible for sick-leave benefits in each of the
broad industry groups studied, the difference was
much the greatest in the manufacturing group.
Only 8 areas had as many as a tenth of the manu­
facturing plant workers employed in establish­
ments providing these benefits, while all but 2 of
the areas had more than a tenth of office workers
in manufacturing similarly employed. Sick-leave
provisions for plant workers were most prevalent
in public utilities and in wholesale and retail trade
establishments; and for office workers, in man­
ufacturing and public utilities.
Insurance Benefits

Several million workers in the 40 major labor
markets were covered by one or more types of insur­
ance benefits paid for, either wholly or in part, by
the employer. Many of these workers were em­
ployed in establishments that maintained more
than one insurance plan—over and above those
prescribed by social security laws. Life insurance
was the most common of the insurance benefits,
although health and hospitalization plans were also
applicable to large numbers of workers. In gen­
eral, office workers received these benefits more
frequently than plant workers. Differences, how­
ever, were not great in most cases and, in a few
areas, the advantage was in the direction of plant
workers and was due to the widespread adoption
of these benefits through collective bargaining.
The proportions of workers covered by insurance
plans varied somewhat among the areas; however,
no striking regional variations were apparent.
For example, the 4 areas in which fewer than 70
percent of the office workers were covered by life
insurance benefits (Oklahoma City, Phoenix,
Providence, and Scranton) were distributed among
4 widely separated geographic regions.
Among industry groups, the prevalence of in­
surance benefits differed distinctly. Life insurance

13
1

P e r c e n t o f w orkers em ployed in establishm ents h a v in g fo rm a l p ro v isio n s f o r selected su p p le m e n ta ry wage benefits i n J+0 m a jo r
labor m arkets, Septem ber 1 9 5 1 -M a y 1952

35
17
14
17

99
98
99
100
99
99
99
99
97

100

85
93
83
69
53
81
91
57
72
85

5
10
26
35
16
6
36
23

52
44
46
51
33
36
40
40
51

91
94
84
82
93
81
83
91
92

56
58
42
71
78
66
61
64
77
64
54

63
54
52
52
69
62
54
54
72
50
54

35
67
61
65
57
26

40
45
59
34
52
37

74 61
66
67
61 63
71 62

100

23
45
36
14
9
28
22
19
48
19

75
54
61
82
90
69
76
78
48
72

33
3 70
1
67
100
10
100 (3)
1
3
100
99 (3) 28
1
67
100
1
78
100
98 (3) 66
99 1 60

64
24
32
90
96
71
32
21
29
38

84
76
85
84
84
83
87
86
69
85

71
64
65
73
54
47
59
45
53
76

69
63
56
59
52
39
57
26
53
73

67
64
57
67
67
64
71
72
30
53

98
99
97
100
98
98
96
98
99

31
33
32
37
44
29
62
42
27

67
62
63
61
54
67
32
55

68

99
84
99
97
100
98
97
99
97

47 31
37 34
10
55
44 32
46 29
5 37
10
69
6
66
10
40

13
34
21
25
56
18
27
47

89
81
85
79
74
76
83
63
73

48
49
50
49
50
39
65
37
43

61
46
69
66
58
46
66
58
35

100
100
100
100

38
26
45
13
39
42
33
50
36
28

75
60
73
54
84
58
56
66
46
61
72

99 (3) 67
99 1 75
99 1 85
99 1 71
96 (3) 79
99 5 77
99 1 68
97 5 67
99 (3) 82
98 1 62
2
54
100

32 85
23 . 74
13 87
27 81
17 90
17 84
30 81
25 82
17 85
35 81
44 84

74
56
64
77
79
73
67
69
85
65
65

38
30
44
51
24
29

60
65
54
48
76
69

95 1
5
95 3
99 1
100 (3)
99 (3)

39
44
63
93
89
91

42
73
59
73
61
40

Less than
6 days
6 days
More than
6 days
Life insurance
84
93
63
90

Total

12

93
84
90
55

Retirement pensions 1

60
74
78
79

3
16
8
42

Hospitalization

99
98
92
97

100

Less than
6 days
6 days
More than
6 days
Life insurance

Total with
provisions 2

63
73
43
59

87
92
73
87

wk. wks.

76
65
63
72

58
67
69
62

46
33
19
42

66

66

77
66
73
68
64
79
44

66
68

74
62
62
64
47
70
29
60
73

57
49
50
41
46
31
58
32
48

57
60
54
43
33
59
46
29

25
44
33
26
29
18
36
16
36

Paid holidays

Total

Retirement pensions

2

7
7
25

wk. wks.

Paid vacations
(after 1 year of
service)
1

2

Hospitalization

Health insurance

Paid holidays

1

Total with
provisions 2

Labor markets

Paid vacations
(after 1 year of
service)

Health insurance

Plant workers

Office workers

N e w E n g la n d

Boston_______________ ___
Hartford....... .......... .................
Providence___________ ____
Worcester_________________

100
100

99
99

98 2
(3)
99 1
99 2

88

91
87
91

9
3
15

17
44
42
50

62
44
37
26

75
78
60
80

4

39
9
15
69
66
38
17
10
15

77
70
79
83
77
81
90
84
56
75

8

M id d le A tla n tic

Albany-Schenectady-Troy...
Allento wn- Be thl ehe inEaston_________________
Buffalo_______ ______ _____
Newark-Jersey City_______
New York.................................
Philadelphia..........................
Pittsburgh___________ ____
Rochester_____ ___________
Scranton_________________
Trenton__________________

99
99
99

100
100
100
100

99
98

99
97

2

59
57
52
59
44
47
63
57
23
48

11

93
64
85
98
92
97
48
97
78

86

5
5
2
15
2

50
47
68
27
18
54
26
85
48
62

67
57
57
63
80
53
67
72
50

24
34
26
19
13
25
16
16
38

77
46
76
65
89
66
72
88
85

43
26
13
42
50
7
13
22
13

30
16
38
21
31
37
55
53
58

4
4
25

2
8
22

4
13
14

81
74
58
64
49
72
61
74

99
97
87
98
98
98
93
96
98
98
99

77
79
75
74
81
74
81
74
85
78
83

17
14
9

3
4
4
4

17
19
11
18
16

90
85
78
76
81
86
83
80
88
96
92

78
73
70
68
77
70
60
66
82
78
62

9
8
4
4
3
10
18
7
2
14
26

83
70
82
73
85
82
72
74
78
72
84

83
56
70
74
82
79
66
69
76
64
79

72
52
47
65
79
71
55
66
73
59
65

47
36
49
31
68
51
37
42
57
35
46

98
97
90

81
67

17
23
9
27
14

77
90
68
79
91
84

4

54
71
51
76
74
63

32
70
55
73
61
44

26
65
57
68
53

27
38
39
26
45
18

12

8
2
2
8

22

South

Atlanta___________________
Birmingham.............................
Houston__________________
Jacksonville________ _____ _
Memphis......... .........................
New Orleans______________
N orfolk- Portsmouth_______
Oklahoma City____ _______
Richmond____ ___________

21

66

66

M id d le W est

Chicago.......................... ..........
Cincinnati__________ _____
Cleveland..............................
Columbus_________ _______
Detroit___________________
Indianapolis______________
Kansas City_______ _______
Louisville______ ____ ______
Milwaukee...............................
Minneapolis-St. Paul______
St. Louis_________________

99

100
100
100

99
99

100

22

22
11
11

1
6

5
7
4
4
4

F ar W est

Denver........... .........................
Los Angeles_______________
Phoenix__________________
Salt Lake C ity.___________
San Francisco-Oakland_____
Seattle........................................

100

99
98

100
100
100

100

55
51
29
5

11
8

70
80
62
83
85
79

100
100

99

68
88
68

63

21

6
2

5
3

2

61
64
32
17
18

11

12
20

34
57
71
70

22

1 Rounded to nearest whole number.
* Includes data for provisions not shown separately.
*Less than 0.5 of 1 percent.

plans were most prevalent among the manufactur­
ing, public-utility, and finance industries and
least common in services, with the retail and
wholesale trade groups holding a median position.
Establishments maintaining these benefits em­
ployed more than four-fifths of the office workers
in manufacturing in 28 areas, in the public-utilities
group in 26 areas, and in finance in 29 areas. As



large a proportion, on the other hand, was recorded
in only 1 area for office workers in the services
group, and in 16 of the areas the proportion was
less than half.
Although health and hospitalization insurance
plans were not as widespread as life insurance
plans, their application has increased substantially
during the past few years and many hundred-

14

thousands of workers were covered by these bene­
fits at the time of the study. A majority of both
office and plant workers in three-fourths of the
areas were employed in establishments that main­
tained one or both of these plans. Hospitalization
benefits were most common in the manufacturing
industries, applying to more than half the office
workers in 34 of the areas and comparable num­
bers of the plant workers in 33 areas. They were
least frequent for office workers in the publicutilities group in which a majority of the workers
were covered in only 8 areas. Among plant
workers, the smallest proportion covered was in
the services group.
Health insurance provisions which include acci­
dent and sickness, medical and surgical benefits
were of about the same importance as hospital­
ization benefits and were frequently combined with
them into a single “package” for administrative
purposes. However, among the public-utility in­
dustries, health insurance provisions were much
more prevalent than hospitalization and applied
to more than half the office and plant workers in
three-fourths or more of the areas. These benefits
were also widely found in manufacturing in as
many areas. Health insurance plans were least
common in the services group.
Pensions

The coverage of both plant and office workers
by private retirement-pension plans increased
rapidly during the past few years. Only about 5
percent of the more than 30,000 selected establish­
ments studied by the Bureau in 1945 and 1946
provided pension benefits to plant workers, and
the coverage of office workers was not markedly
greater.6 The spread of these plans was indicated
by the proportion of workers similarly covered in
the 40 major labor markets studied in late 1951
*See Monthly Labor Keview, July 1947 (p. 53).




and early 1952. More than a fourth of the plant
workers in all except 4 of these areas were employed
by establishments granting pensions and in 9 of
the areas the proportion exceeded a half. In
each of the areas, relatively larger numbers of office
than plant workers were employed in establish­
ments with pension plans; the number of office
workers having pension benefits ranged from about
a third in 5 areas to more than two-thirds in 8 areas.
Pension benefits tended to be most widely found
in the New England and Middle Atlantic regions
and least in the South and Far West. Among
the major industry groups studied, plans providing
retirement-pension benefits were most common in
the public-utilities and finance groups and least
frequent among establishments in the services
group.
Nonproduction Bonuses

Nonproduction bonuses may be defined as
bonuses whose payment depends upon factors other
than the output of an individual worker or group
of workers. Such plans were frequently reported
in each of the major labor markets, but applied
to a majority of the workers in only a few.
Christmas or year-end bonuses were, by all meas­
ures, the most common type of nonproduction
bonus in use; profit-sharing plans and other types
of bonuses were of negligible importance. Christ­
mas bonuses were provided to a larger proportion
of office workers than plant workers in all except
five of the areas. These provisions generally were
most common in the trade and finance industries
and were usually least common in public utilities.
The amounts of and the eligibility requirements
for nonproduction bonuses varied widely among
individual establishments, ranging from “foodbaskets” to sizable monetary payments and for
periods of service ranging from a few weeks to
several years.

15

Extent of Unionization in
Major Labor Markets, 1951-52
Three-fourths of the plant workers as con­
trasted with about a seventh of the office employ­
ees in 39 metropolitan areas were employed in
establishments having collective-bargaining agree­
ments relating to these 2 categories of workers,
respectively. The extent of unionization among
plant workers varied from nearly half the workers
in the Southern cities as a group to over fourfifths in the Middle Atlantic and Far Western
cities.1 About a fifth of the office workers in the
latter two regions were employed in establish­
ments with union agreements relating to office
employees, as contrasted with a tenth in the
South and New England. The degree of unioni­
zation of both plant and office workers also varied
widely among different industry groups.
Method and Coverage

A series of wage studies conducted by the Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics in major metropolitan
areas between September 1951 and May 1952
provided the information for this analysis of un­
ionization.2 These areas had a combined popula­
tion exceeding 52 million and were located in 28
States. The estimated employment in the areas
covered by the surveys was over 10 million work­
ers (about a fourth of the workers in comparable
industries in the country). Six broad industry
divisions were covered in compiling data: manu­
facturing; transportation (except railroads), com­
munication, and other public utilities; wholesale
trade; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real
estate; and services.3 The most important exclu­
sions were the construction industries and railroads.
This analysis is not intended to measure the
proportion of workers belonging to labor organiJ The 39 cities for the broad comparative purposes of this article have been
grouped into 5 regions: New England, Middle Atlantic, South, Middle
West, and the Far West.
* Information on unionization was available for only 39 of the 40 areas
covered by the wage studies.
* Establishments employing 21 or more workers were covered in all indus­
try divisions in all cities except New York City, Chicago, Boston, Cleve­
land, Detroit, Los Angeles, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Newark-Jersey City,
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and San Franeisco-Oakland. In these
areas the minimum was 101 workers for manufacturing; transportation (except
railroads), communication, and other public utilities; and retail trade. In New
York City and Chicago, a minimum of 51 workers applied in wholesale
trade; finance, insurance and real estate; and services..



zations or even the proportion actually covered by
union agreements. The estimates relate to all
workers employed in an establishment (plant or
office) that met the test of unionization. In these
estimates each worker category—plant or office—
was computed separately; plant departments or
offices were considered unionized if the union con­
tract in effect covered a majority of the workers
in their respective category.4
The proportions given may be an overstate­
ment of the extent of union coverage in the sev­
eral industry groups, in that the surveys related
only to plants above a certain size (see footnote
3). The small plants that were excluded from
the scope of the surveys may not be as highly
organized as those surveyed; this is most likely
to be true in such industry groups as retail and
wholesale trade.
Unionization of Plant Workers

On an all-industry basis, unionization of plant
workers ranged from less than a third of the
workers in Oklahoma City to virtually all in San
Francisco-Oakland and Seattle. The unioniza­
tion of workers was usually more extensive in the
Middle Atlantic, Midwestern, and Far Western
cities than in New England or the South. In only
seven of the areas studied, less than half of the
plant workers were employed in union establish­
ments. Five of these areas were located in the
South, one in New England, and one in the Far
West. In 17 of the areas, three-fourths or more
of the plant workers were covered by union agree­
ments. None of these cities was located in the
South or New England.
The most highly organized of the six broad
industry groups studied was transportation and
public utilities. Over nine-tenths of the plant
workers in this industry group were in establish­
ments with collective-bargaining agreements, as
compared with about five-sixths in manufacturing
and two-thirds in the nonmanufacturing industries
combined. Only about half the workers in non­
manufacturing were in union establishments when
the public utilities group was excluded. Among
4 “Plant workers” include working supervisors and all nonsupervisory
employees engaged in processing, receiving, shipping, warehousing, main­
tenance, and other related functions. “Office workers” include all office
employees except executive, administrative. suDervisorv. and Drofessional
employees.

16

the industry groups studied, retail trade had the
lowest degree of plant-worker unionization; it was
the only group in which less than half of the
workers were employed in establishments with
union agreements.
Unionization of Office Workers

Unionization was much less prevalent among
office than among plant workers. In only five of
the areas were a fifth or more of the office workers
employed in union establishments. Three of
these areas were located in the Middle Atlantic
region and two in the Far West. About a fifth of
the office employees in these two regions were
unionized as contrasted with a tenth in the other
three regions. The Middle West ranked with the
Middle Atlantic and Far Western cities in plantworker unionization; with respect to office-worker
coverage, however, the Middle West was more
closely alined with New England and the South.
Unionization of office workers was highest in
Newark-Jersey City and Pittsburgh and lowest
in Hartford and Columbus.
By industry, unionization of offices was notable
only in the transportation and public utilities
group where over half of the workers were covered
by union agreements. In other groups, unioniza­
tion ranged from virtually none of the workers in
the finance group to about a fifth in retail trade.
In all 39 areas combined, about a sixth of the
office employees in manufacturing establishments
were covered by collective-bargaining agreements.
Organized office workers, in part, were repre­
sented by unions whose predominant membership
consisted of office employees. However, they
were represented to an appreciable extent by
unions whose basic membership was composed of
plant employees.
Influence of Industrial Composition

In making interarea comparisons of unioniza­
tion on an all-industry basis, the industrial




composition of the 39 areas should be considered.
Since the extent of unionization varies among
industry groups, the relative importance of cer­
tain industries or industry groups within an area
has a direct bearing on the over-all extent of
unionization. For example, on an all-industry
basis, about three-fourths of the plant workers in
Cincinnati as compared with about two-thirds in
Phoenix were employed in establishments with
union agreements. However, if these figures are
separated into manufacturing and nonmanufac­
turing, about five-sixths of the plant workers in
manufacturing and a half of the plant workers in
nonmanufacturing were employed in union plants
in both cities. The difference in proportions is
due to the relative importance of manufacturing
and nonmanufacturing in the two cities. In
Cincinnati, nearly two-thirds of the workers
within the scope of the survey were employed in
the more highly unionized manufacturing estab­
lishments as contrasted with less than a third in
Phoenix.
Birmingham and Richmond were the only two
southern cities studied in which more than threefourths of the plant workers were employed in
manufacturing establishments having union agree­
ments. The importance of the heavily unionized
steel industry in Birmingham and the large
unionized tobacco plants in Richmond greatly
influenced the extent of unionization in these
areas.
Emphasis should be given to the fact that the
extent of unionization is usually greater in large
cities and in large plants. The occupational
wage surveys on which these union-coverage
estimates are based relate primarily to the larger
cities and plants. Moreover, the proportions of
workers covered by union agreements in this
analysis relate to total employment (plant or
office) in firms having union agreements covering
a majority of these workers rather than to the
number actually covered by agreements or the
number who are members of labor organizations.

17

P roportion of workers covered by union agreements in 89 m ajor labor m arkets , 1951-5
Plant workers
Percent

All industries

Manufacturing

Office workers
N onmanufacturing

Percent

All industries

Manufacturing

N onmanufacturing

20-33

Albany-SehenectadyTroy
Los Angeles
Newark-Jersey City
Pittsburgh
Seattle

Albany-S chenectadyTroy
Atlanta
Birmingham
Boston
Denver
Detroit
Los Angeles
Newark-Jersey City
New York
Pittsburgh
Salt Lake City

Albany-SchenectadyTroy
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
Milwaukee
Newark-Jersey City
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
Seattle
Trenton

Los Angeles
Minneapolis-St. Paul
New York
Pittsburgh
St. Louis

15-19

Birmingham
Buffalo
Detroit
Milwaukee
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Francisco-Oakland
Scranton
Trenton

Buffalo
Philadelphia
Scranton

Buffalo
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Los Angeles
New York
Oklahoma City
St. Louis
San FranciscoOakland
Scranton

Boston
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Denver
Detroit
Kansas City
Milwaukee
Newark-Jersey City
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Scranton
Worcester

10-14

Atlanta
Boston
Chicago
Cleveland
Denver
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Oklahoma City
Richmond
St. Louis
Salt Lake City

Milwaukee
Providence
Richmond
San FranciscoOakland

Birmingham
Chicago
Cincinnati
Denver
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Philadelphia
Richmond
Worcester

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Hartford
Houston
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Louisville
Memphis
Minneapolis-St. Paul
New Orleans
N orfolk-Portsmouth
Oklahoma City
Phoenix
St. Louis
Seattle
Trenton
Worcester

Atlanta
Boston
Columbus
Detroit
Hartford
Houston
Louisville
Memphis
New Orleans
N orfolk-Portsmouth
Providence
Salt Lake City

Detroit
90 or
more Pittsburgh
San Francisco-Oakland
Seattle

Albany-Schenectady- San FranciscoTroy
Oakland
Buffalo
Seattle
Cleveland
Detroit
Milwaukee
Newark-Jersey City
New York
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
San FranciscoOakland
Seattle

75-89

Allentown-Bethle*
hem-Easton
Birmingham
Boston
Cincinnati
Hartford
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Louisville
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Richmond
Trenton
Chicago
Columbus
Denver
Houston
Jacksonville
Memphis
New Orleans
Norfolk-Portsmouth
Providence
Salt Lake City
Scranton

50-74

20-49

Albany-SchenectadyTroy
A1lent own-B ethlehem-Easton
Buffalo
Cleveland
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Minneapolis- St.
Paul
New ark-Jersey City
New York
Philadelphia
St. Louis
Trenton
Birmingham
Boston
Chicago
Cincinnati
Columbus
Denver
Hartford
Indianapolis
Louisville
Memphis
Norfolk-Portsmouth
Phoenix
Providence
Richmond
Scranton
Atlanta
Houston
Jacksonville
New Orleans
Oklahoma City
Salt Lake City
Worcester

Atlanta
Oklahoma City
Worcester

Albany-S chenectady- Under Allentown-BethleTroy
hem-Easton
10
Cincinnati
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton
Columbus
Atlanta
Hartford
Birmingham
Houston
Buffalo
Louisville
Columbus
Memphis
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Hartford
Houston
New Orleans
Indianapolis
N orfolk-Portsmouth
Jacksonville
Providence
Louisville
Worcester
Memphis
New Orleans
N orfolk-Portsmouth
Oklahoma City
Providence
Richmond
Salt Lake City
Trenton

i The study covered manufacturing, public utilities, wholesale trade, retail
trade, finance, and selected service industries. Major groups excluded from




study were building construction and railroads. For size of establishments
covered, see footnote 3 (p. 15).

Community Wage Studies
for 40 Major Labor Market Areas
•These bulletins, for sale at the indicated prices, provide, for each area,
cross-industry averages and distributions by earnings classes for office, pro­
fessional, technical, maintenance, power plant, custodial, warehouse, and
shipping jobs.
•Separate data (where possible) for manufacturing, utilities, trade, finance,
and services.
•Summaries of prevailing work schedules, shift differentials, vacations,
sick leave, benefit plans, and other practices.
•Special information on important local occupations and union wage
scales.

Order

only from Superintendent of documents, W ashington 25,
I ndicate BLS B ulletin N umber and D esired Quantity
A rea

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N. Y________
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa_______
Atlanta, Ga___________________________
Birmingham, Ala______________________
Boston, Mass__________________________
Buffalo, N. Y_________________________
Chicago, 111___________________________
Cincinnati, Ohio_______________________
Cleveland, Ohio:_______________________
Columbus, Ohio_______________
Denver, Colo__________________________
Detroit, Mich_________________________
Hartford, Conn________________________
Houston, Tex_________________________
Indianapolis, Ind______________________
Jacksonville, Fla_______________________
Kansas City, Mo______________________
Los Angeles, Calif_____________________
Louisville, Ky_________________________
Memphis, Tenn_______________________




BLS
B u ll. N o.

1108
1111
1102
1107
1106
1085
1105
1096
1056
1109
1066
1086
1059
1084
1075
1110
1064
1094
1112
1067

P rice
(cents)

15
15
15
15
25
25
25
20
25
20
20
25
20
20
20
15
20
25
20
15

A rea

Milwaukee, Wis_______________________
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn____________
Newark-Jersey City, N. J______________
New Orleans, La_______________________
New York, N. Y _______________________
Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va________________
Oklahoma City, Okla__________________
Philadelphia, Pa_______________________
Phoenix, Ariz__________________________
Pittsburgh, Pa_________________________
Providence, R. I _______________________
Richmond, Va_________________________
Rochester, N. Y_______________________
St. Louis, Mo_________________________
Salt Lake City, Utah__________________
San Francisco-Oakland,Calif____________
Scranton, Pa__________________________
Seattle, Wash_________________________
Trenton, N. J_________________________
Worcester, Mass_______________________

D. C.
BLS
Price
B u ll. N o. (cents)

1099
1068
1081
1074
1101
1088
1070
1060
1103
1082
1071
1058
1087
1095
1069
1076
1078
1057
1104
1077

20
25
25
15
30
15
15
25
15
20
20
15
20
25
15
25
15
20
15
20

•A comprehensive bulletin entitled “ Wages and Related Benefits—40
Labor Markets, 1951-52” provides average earnings for 65 jobs that are
common to a variety of manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries and
the prevalence of many of the fringe or related benefits. Twenty-eight
States are represented in this bulletin permitting an examination of inter­
regional as well as intraregional variations in pay levels and added benefits.
Order BLS Bulletin No. 1113, Price 35 cents.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1953