American of either period. The shortage of animal products is traceable to the great losses of livestock during forced collectivization and again during the war. Soviet consumption of clothing, though still below the American level of either period, is closer to the current American level than is the case with respect to less essential goods, services, and housing. In the Soviet planned economy, the Government decides what kinds of consumer goods are to be made and in what quantities. Of necessity, its policy has been to attempt to provide first the basic necessities to all. Soviet leaders have also placed high priority on health care and education, which are exclusively governmental matters in the Soviet Union, reflecting their interest in a healthy and educated labor force. In comparison with America of the 1890's, this policy also reflects the great subsequent advances in knowledge and technology. The advanced level of knowledge and technology available at the time the Russians launched their industrialization drive meant that education was crucial to that drive. Since 1928, enrollment in secondary technical schools and in universities has increased elevenfold.3 The advance in medical knowledge enabled the Soviet Union, in a way which was not possible for 19th century America, to make great strides in public health with a direct investment in health care. In the last three decades there has been a fourfold expansion in the number of doctors and hospital beds on a per

Narodnoye (see table footnote 1), pp. 806-807. Includes students taking correspondence courses.

4 Ibid, pp. 31, 879.

Nimitz, op. cit., pp. 16, 123-125.

• Computed from 1956 data in U.S. Income and Output, 1958 (U.S. Department of Commerce), pp. 118-119, 134–135, 144-145, 150-151; Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1960), p. 193.

capita basis, and the mortality rate has been significantly reduced and life expectancy increased.*

5

Currently, of total household consumption including communal services, the Soviet Government devotes about 5.5 percent to health care and 10 percent to education. In the United States, counting both government and private expenditures, health care accounts for about 7 percent and education for about 4.5 percent of household consumption including communal services. While it

is impossible here to attempt to make comparisons in these areas, it is at least clear that the Soviet consumer receives extensive health care and education and is much closer to current American standards in these matters than in many other areas of consumption.

Once the basic necessities, including health care, and the high educational requirements of the regime are met, there is relatively little left over. Consumer durables, pleasant housing, adequate utilities, and many services are for the most part luxuries in the Soviet context. Some luxuries must be made available as incentives. And the Soviet consumer can look forward to more such "luxuries," for the leaders apparently plan to allow further increases in consumption as total output continues to expand. Yet the "highest standard of living in the world" promised the Soviet people for 1980 involves apartment dwelling and many areas of communal consumption and is not to include the private car; Khrushchev promises, instead, better (and/free) public transportation, more taxis, and car-rental shops. The fully mechanized private house and yard and the private automobile, which so symbolize the present American pattern of living, form an enormously expensive complex far beyond the resources of the Soviet Union now or for a long time to come.

American Labor in 1962; A Retrospect

PHYLLIS GROOM *

FOR LABOR, the year 1962 began with guidelines for wages and prices based on annual rates of growth in productivity set forth in the annual report of the Council of Economic Advisers-a device to establish public policy on wage settlements and price changes that is currently being tested or refined in one form or another in such countries as Great Britain, France, and Sweden. The Council, although carefully qualifying its standards for determining whether a particular wage-price decision is in the public interest, declared that clarification of the issues involved is essential and offered the guidelines as a contribution to the discussion. It was the first time that such an action had been taken in peacetime. Debate on the extent of governmental influence in the wage-price area and on the application of appropriate provisions of the guidelines continued during the year and was particularly heavy during the steel wage-price controversy.

Improvement of the rate of growth in the economy as a whole and technological change as it affects wages, prices, and productivity continued to be matters for concern in 1962; some of the efforts to deal with the issues involved are described in this article.

Going beyond previous overall labor market policies, the Federal Government began, as a result of legislation enacted in 1962, to strike at specific manpower problems.

The seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment was 5.8 percent in November; it averaged 5.6 percent for the 11-month period beginning in January 1962. The highest rates of unemployment occurred in the semiskilled and laborers'

occupations. Included among the 3.8 million unemployed in November were 400,000 persons who had been looking for work 6 months or more— young men and women with little job experience or skills, persons of prime working age who were unemployed either because their skills were no longer salable or because they lived in an area whose industry was stagnant, or workers who were unable to find jobs because of their age or race or because they were women. In 1961, the latest period for which data are available, 72.6 percent of the nonwhite unemployed were looking for full-time work compared with 57.4 percent of the white unemployed. Two-thirds of the unemployed between 14 and 19 years of age were looking for temporary or part-time work, compared with a fifth of those in the primary working age

groups.

In 1962, total employment reached 68.0 million by November, 800,000 higher than a year earlier.1 The gains occurred mostly in services and government. Factory payroll employment totaled 16.9 million-some 250,000 above its level in November 1961. There was a marked drop in primary metals employment, textile jobs declined moderately, and there were small reductions in a number of other industries. Electrical equipment and machinery industries were among those showing significant gains during the year. Gross hourly earnings averaged $2.41 in November, 5 cents more than a year ago.

Legislation

The Manpower Development and Training Act, which became law on March 15, 1962, heads the list of significant labor legislation for 1962.2 Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz, who succeeded Arthur J. Goldberg after the latter's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court in September, characterized the MDTA and the Trade Expansion Act as the most significant legislation of the last several decades. Attacking the task of upgrading the skills of persons whose qualifications are inadequate to meet the needs of the changing structure of the labor market, the

"Of the Office of Publications, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

1 November 1961 figures were adjusted to allow for the shift to 1960 Census base beginning in April 1962.

See Monthly Labor Review, May 1962, pp. 532-534, for text of major provisions of the law.

MDTA emphasizes training for unemployed heads of families who have had at least 3 years of employment. Bills for youth employment and training failed to pass, but certain provisions for counseling and training young persons were included in the Manpower Act. In August, funds amounting to $70 million were voted for the first year's operation of the act. By the end of November, more than 10,600 persons had completed or were enrolled in courses covering 83 occupations in 34 States. Some 400,000 persons are expected to receive training by the time the law expires on June 30, 1965. The MDTA makes possible a much broader training program than the training provisions of the Area Redevelopment Act of May 1, 1961.

At the end of December, President John F. Kennedy had allotted nearly half of the $400 million that the Congress had appropriated for projects under the Public Works Acceleration Act signed on September 14, 1962. It was estimated that the conservation, recreation, and other projects covered would provide the equivalent of 510,000 man-months of employment, thus implementing the act's objective of providing immediate and useful work for the unemployed and underemployed and helping communities burdened with substantial unemployment to improve facilities conducive to industrial development.

The Trade Expansion Act, which places the United States in a new relationship with the economies of other countries, and most particularly those in the Common Market, by allowing the executive branch of the Government a much freer hand in reducing tariffs, was approved on October 2, 1962. Major negotiations for reduction of tariffs under the new law will not begin for some time, and the Congress did not appropriate any money for fiscal 1963 for the adjustment assistance features of the act that may be called into play whenever it is found that "as a result in major part of concessions granted under trade agreements, an article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to the domestic industry producing an article which is like or directly competitive with the imported article."

Administration bills which failed to pass included health care for retired workers covered by the social security system, continuation of the temporary extended unemployment compensa

tion law, and equal pay for equal work. Arizona enacted an equal pay law, however (bringing to 22 the number of States with such legislation), and Michigan made its equal pay law applicable to all employers instead of those in manufacturing as had been the case.

State Legislation. As in other election years, fewer than half (22) of the States met in regular legislative sessions during 1962. Their enactments, though not major, reflected concern over certain new developments in industrial relations, as well as moderate progress in some of the major areas of labor and welfare law.

There was no pattern in unemployment insurance legislation. Benefits were raised and coverage was broadened in some States, but disqualification provisions were made more restrictive in certain of these, and coverage was narrowed in other States. Although benefits rose in 13 jurisdictions, this was a result of 1962 legislation in only 3. In the others, higher benefits were due either to 1961 laws which became effective in 1962 or to the effect of a rise in the average weekly wage of covered workers in States where benefits are related to that figure. Two jurisdictions extended the disqualification from benefits for voluntary quitting to the duration of unemployment.

Amendments to the Alaska and Delaware laws brought to 20 the number of jurisdictions permitting by statute or formal interpretation an otherwise eligible person to receive unemployment benefits while attending a training course.

Weekly benefit amounts under workmen's compensation laws were raised by $2 to $8 in eight States. Five States raised their statutory minimum wage. Four States passed laws relating to labor-management relations in public employment. Virginia and Rhode Island migratory labor legislation brought to 28 the number of States that now have laws or mandatory regulations applicable to housing for migrant workers.

Labor Management Relations

Policy. The President's Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Policy (formed in 1961) issued

See "Unemployment Insurance Legislation in 1962," Monthly Labor Review, November 1962, pp. 1257–1261.

reports on automation in January and on collective bargaining in May. On automation, the Committee was unanimous that "achievement of technological progress without sacrifice of human values requires a combination of private and governmental action, consonant with the principles of a free society." Among the 11 recommendations in furtherance of this conclusion, were a faster rate of economic growth, improved education and training programs for workers, and adequate unemployment compensation under Federal minimum standards.

The Committee's collective bargaining report expressed the tension between the free choice elements in collective bargaining which "derive from the basic principles of the free society and must be carefully preserved to help achieve our national goals" and the necessity "at a time when world tensions underscore the need for democracy's institutions to work most effectively, that collective bargaining be responsive to the public, or common interest." As one method of contributing to an understanding of the national interest, the Committee suggested the convening of periodic conferences of union, management, and public officials under Government auspices at which there would be a frank exchange of reliable information concerning the state of the economy and reasonable expectations for the future. Two such conferences were held during the year. Among other proposals, the Committee recommended the strengthening of mediation services and the use of third party assistance in whatever form it may be helpful, and it presented a plan for improving the present emergency disputes procedures. In October, the Committee issued a report on foreign trade," followed in November by one on fiscal and monetary policy which advocated a "prompt and significant tax cut" to encourage faster growth in the economy. The majority favored a reduction of about $10 billion early in 1963, with no offsetting reduction in Federal expenditures.

Excerpts of this report were published in the Monthly Labor Review February 1962, pp. 139-144.

5 Excerpts of this report were published in the Monthly Labor Review, July 1962, pp. 767-770.

8

• Summaries of the proceedings of the first conference, held May 21-22, were published in the Monthly Labor Review, July 1962, pp. 762-766.

Excerpts of this report were published in the Monthly Labor Review, November 1962, pp. 1249-1251.

Excerpts of this report appear in this issue of the Monthly Labor Review,

p. 51.

Bargaining. With many industries having shifted to longer contracts and with prebargaining moves plus actual negotiations consuming longer and longer periods of time in some industries, a 1-year survey does not present a balanced view of collective bargaining trends. However, some significant developments may be noted for 1962. Lengthier bargaining appears to result, in part at least, from the increasing technical problems intrinsic to such items as pensions and insurance and the struggle to adapt industrial relations systems to a rapidly changing technology. More continuous bargaining, with parcelling out of individual issues to subcommittees, was noted in such industries as steel.

Since Daniel P. Loomis, president of the Association of American Railroads, first proposed an impartial commission to study work rule problems in 1958, the railroads and the five unions representing their operating employees have been at loggerheads over work rules and practices, many of which have been in effect since the latter part of the 1800's. The Presidential Railroad Commission established in November 1960 reported on February 28, 1962, its broad conclusions:

"(a) That the rules governing the manning of engines and trains and the assignment of employees [should] be revised to permit the elimination of unnecessary jobs and at the same time to safeguard the interests of the individual employees adversely effected;

"(b) that the entire complex and intricate system of compensation [should] be overhauled; and

"(c) to effectuate the revisions called for in (a) and (b), and to ensure that rules and arrangements are kept abreast of changing conditions, . . . the procedures for the administration of rules and the disposition of grievances [should] be revised."

The Commission further asserted "that the procedures for handling these problems within the collective bargaining process, and the responsibilities of labor and management in this process, should be redefined." When no agreement on changes was reached by July, the National Mediation Board withdrew from the situation and the railroads soon announced that they would unilaterally revise certain work rules which they say cost them $600 million a year. The major issue in dispute is the removal of firemen from yard and freight diesel locomotives.

In November, a U.S. court of appeals upheld the right of the carriers to change work rules unilaterally, but the unions said they would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court-thus no resolution is yet in sight.

Although the procedures followed in collective bargaining in the railroad industry ordinarily make for long drawn-out negotiations, the recent pace has been almost imperceptible. The failure of the railroads and 11 unions of their nonoperating employees to find an area for agreement on new wage contracts caused the President on March 3, 1962, to appoint an Emergency Board to investigate their dispute, which stemmed from demands made in September 1961. The rigidity of the parties' positions, according to the Board, was evidenced by their having met only four times before invoking the procedures of the Railway Labor Act. Further, the Board found that "the will to agree was not present." The settlement finally agreed upon-a 4-cent-an-hour increase retroactive to February 1 plus 6.28 cents retroactive to May 1, closely followed the average amount recommended by the Board.

At the same time that the overall work rule maneuvers were taking place, the long struggle over what to do about the growing number of telegraphers no longer needed as a result of the closing down of many of the smaller railroad stops continued. After a 1-month strike by the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, culminating over 3 years of negotiations, court decisions, and recommendations of a Presidential Emergency Board, an arbitration panel upheld early in October the Chicago & North Western Railway's right to eliminate jobs it considers obsolete, subject to 90 days' notice to the union. (At the time of the strike, there were about 1,000 telegraphers leftbetween 500 and 600 others had been laid off since 1956.) Provisions for protection of displaced employees, based upon recommendations of the Emergency Board, had been agreed upon before the strike. On December 10, the union and the New York Central Railroad signed an agreement closely following the decision in the Chicago & North Western case.

Early in October, the railroads announced they had formed a single national committee known as the National Railway Labor Conference for bargaining with the rail unions. Formerly,

there were three regional bargaining groups. Union officials for many years have had their own association for mutual assistance and exchange of information, the Railway Labor Executives' Association, but it has no bargaining authority.

Union security was the biggest issue in this year's aerospace negotiations." Douglas Aircraft Co., which signed 3-year contracts with the Machinists and the UAW on July 16, agreed to an agency shop. When bargaining broke down in the other companies, a special panel named by President John F. Kennedy proposed that the big unresolved issue-union shop-be voted upon by the employees, with a two-thirds majority required for the union shop to win. In September, overall agreements were reached at North American Aviation, Inc., Ryan Aeronautical Co., and General Dynamics Corp.'s Convair Division on the basis of the panel's recommendations, and union shop votes were taken in these bargaining units. About 54 percent of Convair's employees at San Diego and Pomona, who are represented by the Machinists, and about 60 percent of the UAW bargaining units at Ryan and North American plants in California, Missouri, and Ohio favored the union shop. Aerojet-General Corp., a subsidiary of General Tire and Rubber Co., and the IAM, which have had a union shop since 1948, agreed on terms early in October.

On November 6, President Kennedy announced that the Boeing Aerospace Board had obtained an agreement from IAM and the Boeing Co. to extend negotiations for 2 months, while the Board made its findings on the issues, and a nonbinding vote on a union shop was conducted. The subsequent vote favored the union by nearly 3 to 1. The Machinists, failing to get a vote on the union shop from Lockheed, struck two divisions of the company on November 28. President Kennedy immediately invoked Taft-Hartley procedures to halt the strike pending a report of an Emergency Board.

With settlement being reached 3 months before the contracts were to end, the 1962 steel negotiations appeared to go more smoothly than those in some other industries. The settlement was widely saluted as being within the guidelines put forth in January, and therefore not calling for a price

See Monthly Labor Review, September 1962, p. 1034; November 1962, pp. 1281-1282; and December 1962, p. 1401, for the terms of these settlements.