Labor

Month

in

Review

of

Railroad bargaining. One of the few areas agreement between railroad labor and management is a mutual dislike of the Railway Labor Act, the law that governs labor-management relations in the industry. In December, a Presidential Emergency Board, appointed under that law, spotlighted some of the shortcomings of the Railway Labor Act and suggested that the law is failing to serve the public interest.

The Board-the first appointed by President Nixon-was created to investigate a dispute between the Nation's 76 Class I railroads and 4 shopcraft unions (Machinists, Electrical Workers, Sheet Metal Workers, and Boilermakers) representing 48,000 employees who maintain and repair locomotives, cars, and other equipment.

The dispute had begun in November 1968 and was still deadlocked 11 months later when the unions announced plans for selective strikes of half a dozen railroads in different parts of the country and the carriers countered with threats of a nationwide shutdown. Creation of the Emergency Board on October 3, 1969, forced both a 60-day cooling-off period and a public airing of the dispute.

After investigating the background of the dispute, the Board reported to the President that, despite the drawn-out nature of the negotiations, there had been an "apparent absence of anything more than perfunctory bargaining between the parties prior to the creation of this Board."

Said the Board: "While we do not have detailed information, we gather from the parties that between November 1968, when notices were filed, and October 1969, when the nation was threatened by strikes and retaliatory lockouts that might have brought most railroad transportation to a halt, the parties met to discuss the issues on only a few occasions, and the total time they spent in face-to-face bargaining amounted to less than 15 hours."

"It seems to us," the Emergency Board continued, "that the parties have assumed from the

start that this dispute would eventually be brought to a Presidential Emergency Board, that bargaining was futile prior to creation of such a board, and that the procedures of the National Mediation Board were little more than hurdles to be cleared before an Emergency Board could be created. Indeed, we suspect that in some minds, at least, the assumption has gone further than that and even the procedures of this Board have been considered merely a barrier to be cleared before the real test comes and it is discovered whether, as an alternative to a nationwide railroad stoppage, Congress will intervene and provide machinery for final settlement."

The Board members, Ralph T. Seward, Robert G. Howlett, and E. Robert Livernash, added this warning:

"Any system of labor and labor relations which induces the parties in an essential industry to operate on such assumptions is failing to serve the public interest, and calls for serious study and review."

Pay patterns. From the beginning, a key issue in the dispute was whether the 1969 wage pattern, set in other railroad negotiations, should also apply to the shopcrafts. Railroad management argued that it would be untair to settle with the shopcrafts at a higher level then with other railroad employees. But the shopcrafts pointed to rising living costs and larger increases negotiated in other industries. They refused to be bound by the earlier pattern.

The negotiated settlement, finally reached without Congressional intervention, came after 3 days and nights of almost continuous negotiations. The settlement went beyond the 1969 pattern and established a new, higher wage pattern for 1970. It also provided for carrier-sought work rule changes designed to reduce wage costs.

But the settlement did not end the crisis. Sheet Metal Workers objected to the work rule change and further negotiations were scheduled for January.

Special Labor Force Report shows that unemployment is not distributed evenly among all sections of the country; rates in the West are significantly higher than the U.S. average

PAUL M. SCHWAB

DURING THE 1960's the United States made great strides in reducing unemployment. Not enough was known, however, about how these improvements benefited the various areas of the Nation. In the past 2 years, more detail on the area impact of these changes has become available. This detailed information results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' publication of labor force estimates for such geographic areas as the 20 largest standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA'S), 14 central cities and suburban rings, farm and nonfarm areas, and poverty neighborhoods in the 100 largest urban areas.1

One of the significant gaps has been regional and State data showing how the different labor force groups-whites, Negroes, teenagers, adult workers-have been faring in their respective job markets. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in collaboration with the Bureau of the Census, recently explored the possibility of publishing regional and State data from the Current Population Surveys (CPS). A detailed analysis of the statistical problems involved indicated that annual averages for the four census regions (including their respective divisions) and for the 10 largest States California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Florida, and Massachusetts-were sufficiently reliable for publication. These new estimates form the basis for this article and, in most instances, represent the first area labor force data of their kind since the 1960 Decennial Census.

Unemployment in the regions

A glance at the new regional estimates from the CPS (table 1) reveals clearly that unemployment is

Paul M. Schwab is a labor economist in the Division of Employment and Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

by region and in

10 largest States

not distributed evenly among all geographic sections of the country. In the West, the incidence of joblessness in 1968 was far above the average for the United States. The unemployment rate in this region, at 4.9 percent, was significantly higher than the national rate of 3.6 percent. Approximately 650,000 persons were unemployed in this 13-State area, nearly one-fourth of national unemployment, though only 17 percent of the Nation's civilian labor force resided there.

In both the Northeast and North Central regions, unemployment rates (at 3.2 and 3.0 percent respectively) were lower than the national average. The rate in the South, at 3.7 percent, was about equal to the national average.

The unemployment rate for Negroes 2 was highest in the North Central region (table 2). Of every 100 Negro workers in the region, 8 were unemployed. The rate for Negroes living in the South was slightly below the Negro national average, but a disproportionately high percentage of Southern Negroes were employed part time, and they were also more concentrated in low-skill occupations. According to the new Current Population Survey estimates, 7 out of every 10 Negro wage and salary workers employed in private household work reside in the South.

NORTH. In 1968, the two northern regions had the lowest total unemployment rates. Although 54 percent of the Nation's labor force lived in the Northeast and North Central 3 regions combined, these areas accounted for only 46 percent of the total unemployed in the country (or 1.3 million persons).

In both northern regions, workers were more heavily concentrated in manufacturing than in the South or West, and the current high production levels and industry growth may in large part account for the relatively low unemployment in the area. The northern regions included 55

percent of the Nation's nonagricultural wage and salary workers in 1968, and 62 percent of manufacturing workers. In addition, the North has not had the heavy net migration characteristic

Concepts and methods

The State and regional labor force data were developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from information collected as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS), a national sample survey of 50,000 households conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for BLS. (The CPS is explained in Concepts and Methods Used in Manpower Statistics From the Current Population Survey, BLS Report 313, which is available from the BLS upon request.) All data presented are averages of the 12 monthly estimates for 1968. The States covered by the Bureau's analysis are the 10 most populous on the basis of their 1968 populations. Data also are presented for the four major census regions and the nine census divisions. Figures for the 10 States have been adjusted to independent population estimates (provisional estimates) made by the Bureau of the Census for the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years of age and over in these States as of July 1, 1968, a central point for the annual averages. The population adjustment increases the accuracy of the civilian labor force estimates for these States. It should be noted, however, that the statistical variability for State and regional estimates is somewhat larger than that for national data, and thus small differences between figures should be interpreted with caution.

Labor force and unemployment data in this report differ in some cases from those published by the Manpower Administration (MA) as part of its State reporting program. The MA figures are estimated by State Employment Security agencies using insured unemployment as a base for unemployment and then applying standardized methodology to estimate the unemployed not included in these counts. The MA estimates of employment are based upon employer payroll records, with the nonagricultural wage and salary segment being prepared in cooperation with BLS. Variations between CPS data presented in this article and the MA estimates chiefly reflect differences in sources of data, definitions, methods of collection, estimating procedures, sampling variability, and response errors.

Additional tables and a technical note on sources, extent of statistical variability, methodology, and comparability with MA statistics are available from BLS.

of the West, and the resultant unemployment normally associated with it."

A closer examination, however, indicates that in both northern regions, only white joblessness was lower than the U.S. average. The four census divisions in the area-New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, and West North Central-all had unemployment rates for white workers below the corresponding national rate of 3.2 percent.

The jobless situation for Negroes, on the other hand, differed considerably between the two northern regions. The Northeast had the lowest Negro rate (5.7 percent) of the regions, and the North Central region the highest (8.0 percent). Negroes constituted approximately 8 percent of each region's labor force.

This interregional difference largely reflected conditions in the large urban areas located within these regions. For example, in New York City and Philadelphia Negro joblessness was among the lowest of the Nation's 20 major metropolitan areas in 1968, but Negro-white jobless rate differentials were higher than average in Chicago, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Detroit."

SOUTH. Unemployment in the South," for both white and Negro workers, was generally in line with the national situation in 1968. Within the region, joblessness varied only slightly among the three divisions; unemployment rates for the individual sectors were all within about one-half a percentage point of the national rate. Slightly higher unemployment in the East South Central division reflected the fact that a large part of Appalachia lies within the area."

Although joblessness in the South was in line with national averages, a relatively high proportion of workers, especially Negroes, was working part time for economic reasons. The percentage of the Negro labor force that could find only part-time work was twice as high in the South as in the other three regions, and, the difference in the proportions of Negro and white workers on part time for economic reasons was considerably greater in the South, as shown below:

A primary reason for the extent of economic part-time work among Negroes in the South is their heavy concentration in such occupations as private household work and farm and nonfarm labor. With generally low wages prevailing in the region and with a relatively high proportion of Negroes engaged in low-skilled occupations and working only part time, it is not surprising that their median family income in the South ($4,283 in 1968) lagged far behind the national median for this group ($5,360).8

9

WEST. In 1968, the overall unemployment rate in the West was substantially higher than in the other regions. Considerable migration into the region was a major reason. Evidently, the many jobseekers who arrive from other areas, although often well educated and highly skilled, face relocation problems and cannot be promptly absorbed by the local labor market.

The region's 4.9-percent unemployment rate also reflected the age composition of the West's labor force, which was comparatively younger than nationally. Furthermore, the industrial distribution of employment was also conducive to higher joblessness. For example, in the region above-average employment concentrations continue to exist in seasonal industries (construction, food processing, logging, and so forth) and in the highly volatile defense and aerospace industries.

In both the Pacific and Mountain divisions, white joblessness (4.9 and 4.2 percent, respectively) was considerably higher than in most areas of the Nation. The unemployment rate for Negroes and other races was more in line with those in the other subdivisions-6.8 percent, virtually the same as the U.S. rate.

Although current data are not available, the 1960 Decennial Census-the latest available data-showed that of all persons in the West other than white, one-half were Negro, with Orientals accounting for most of the remaining half. The incidence of joblessness among Orientals has traditionally been very low. Given the high unemployment among whites in the area, it appears that the presence of this substantial proportion of Orientals in the category "races other than white" keeps unemployment rates of this latter group low relative to white unemploy

ment rates.