tions were made available to the ports to assure standard adherence.12

The problem posed by reduced labor requirements was met by controlling the supply of workers. In the postwar period, the entry of fully registered longshoremen was sharply curtailed to permit the attrition of a work force unduly swollen by wartime trade. Additional needs were met through the establishment of a "Class B" category of longshoremen who received union wage and overtime rates, but were not full-book union members and did not enjoy pension rights. They were viewed as probationers who might eventually attain the full status of Class A longshoremen.

Additional needs were met by the numerous casuals who worked on a part-time basis, but whose primary employment was outside longshoring. From 1958 on, there was a freeze on the Class A group, pending the outcome of the negotiations on changes in work rules.13

As of 1960, the west coast longshore work force was comparatively middle aged, with registered longshoremen averaging 49 years, and one-third of them over 55 years. The approach to rationalization of the work force in the face of anticipated reductions was one of retirement from the top, in the hope that the 4-percent attrition rate would take care of the needed reductions.14 In fact, there was a greater rate of early retirement

13 "Working Rules in West Coast Longshoring," Monthly Labor Review, January 1961, pp. 1-10. The basis for assessment on imported automobiles is being challenged before the Supreme Court by the Volkswagon Co., Journal of Commerce, November 16, 1967.

13 From 1922-34, in the ports of Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles, labor force size and allocation had been controlled by management-supervised halls. The award of the National Longshoremen's Board in 1934 provided for jointly administered hiring halls. In practice, between 1934-47, the union largely controlled hiring through union-designated dispatchers.

14 The inducement to early retirement was the payment of $7,920 in monthly installments to registered longshoremen who retired at 62, or a lump sum payment, in addition to the regular pension, to men retiring at 65, in advance of the compulsory retirement age of 68.

15 For varying estimates on savings, see "1966 West Coast Longshore Negotiations," Monthly Labor Review, October 1966, pp. 1067-1075.

14 Gross statistics on foreign waterborne trade require commodity breakdowns for purposes of comparability. Statistics on tanker imports and exports, while readily available, have little relevance to longshore labor. Labor requirements for dry-bulk cargo are different from those of general cargo, where more labor is required because of the variety of tasks involved in break-bulk operations. The port of New York, basically a break-bulk port, handled 16.5 million tons of foreign trade in 1965, with a value of $10.8 billion. All Pacific coast ports together handled 32.3 million tons of foreign trade in that year, with total value of $4.3 billion, reflecting the greater role of dry-bulk and other low value cargoes. See United States Waterborne Foreign Commerce (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1965), Summary Report FT 985.

than was anticipated. This, coupled with the growth of Pacific coast trade volume, both before and since Vietnam, resulted in the necessity to increase the labor force. During the period 1960-66, 2,000 men were retired, but 3,500 were registered in the A and B categories.

The uncertain prospects in 1960 were reflected in the provision of a guarantee of 35 hours per week, with a fund of $11 million if the work available fell below this level due to technological, but not to economic, conditions. Recourse to this was not necessary during the period, and the fund was disbursed on a pro rata basis to registered longshoremen. The 1966 agreement provided solely for a further early retirement inducement payment of $13,000 for registered longshoremen.

There were areas of the 1960 agreement which were not met satisfactorily. These were covered in the 1966 extension and renewal agreement. Provision was made for increased flexibility in the size and use of gang members, and the steady employment of men specially trained to handle equipment associated with containerization. The union leadership specifically called for greater mechanization that would make longshoring a less onerous occupation. There were increased assurances, both by contract and by general understanding that there would be standardization in work practices up and down the coast.

There was good reason to extend the agreement, since its result has been that the labor cost of handling a ton of cargo decreased by almost 4 percent between 1959 and 1965 despite the substantial economic benefits which were negotiated for the entire labor force.15

East Coast Bargaining

In east coast ports, developments have taken different avenues because of the greater diversity in operations, differences in union and employer organization and bargaining structures, and differences in the organization of the labor force. Issues have been made more complex in part because of the size of the labor force. The port of New York alone has more longshoremen than those on the entire west coast-22,000 to about 15,000.16 In the Atlantic and gulf ports, there are an estimated 50,000 longshoremen. Conditions vary among the Atlantic and gulf coast ports as to type and volume of trade, physical and weather condi

282-907 O-68-2

tions, amount of work available, and hiring arrangements. On the Pacific coast, there is a single employer organization handling both longshore and offshore labor-management relations; on the Atlantic and gulf ports there are separate employer organizations for the several ports. The New York Shipping Association (NYSA) does have authority to negotiate a master agreement, covering wages, overtime, pensions and welfare contributions, and the term of the contract, for the ports from Maine to Hampton Roads, Va., and the economic terms are generally followed in the outports. But the ILA is a more loosely knit organization than the west coast ILWU, with bargaining largely on a port basis, except for the west gulf ports. The results of bargaining are incorporated in separate port agreements, with separate negotiations on port working conditions. The organization of the labor force differs in the various ports, with available men substantially exceeding peak requirements, but in some ports sentiment has grown in recent years to control the size of the work force.17

Unlike the effort at stability on the west coast, the immediate postwar years on the east coast were years of instability, with rank-and-file revolts, followed by government investigations and revelations of corruption, criminal involvement, and collusion between some employers and some union officials.

For a period of 6 years (1953-59) marked by expulsion from the AFL, the establishment of the watchdog Waterfront Commission of New York and New Jersey, and representational challenges, the ILA was in a state of flux and uncertainty, a state hardly conducive to the establishment of a stable labor-management relationship geared to the consideration of basic change in the existing practices. With changed leadership, closer scrutiny by the international officers, the adoption of standards for local union activities, and success in representation elections, the ILA succeeded in meeting the requirements set by the AFL-CIO and was readmitted in 1959.

The establishment of the New York-New Jersey Waterfront Commission in 1953 produced a new approach to the organization of the labor force, since one of the Commission's responsibilities was to decasualize the labor force in the port of New York through joint union-management cooperation. The Commission set requirements, based on

work performance and availability during the entry period, for registration of longshoremen. The union and the NYSA developed a seniority system, mainly out of negotiations, partly out of arbitration, which was subsequently incorporated by the Commission in its regulations. Out of these efforts, there was a reduction in the work force to about 22,000 in 1965 from the estimated 51,000 at the time of the investigations by the New York State Crime Commission. The effect has been to provide greater employment and earning opportunities to the registered work force.18

In the past decade, employer demands have been for reductions in the size of the basic gang of 20 men. The union opposed such a change and sought to protect existing customs and practices. The introduction of containers and mechanized side-loading arrangements with increased use of forklifts brought the issue to a head in 1958 and 1959. The Sea-Land coastwise operation had demonstrated the feasibility of using only two gangs rather than the customary five to seven on conventional setups. In the 1959 contract negotiations, the union agreed to handle containers and management agreed to maintain the gang size. Further, negotiations would continue on the establishment of a fund to compensate workers for reductions in work opportunities. Arbitration would follow if agreement could not be reached, and, indeed, these efforts proved futile. The arbitration award created a fund to be financed by dues levied on containers, loaded or unloaded away from the piers by non-ILA labor, of 35 cents a ton on conventional ships, 70 cents a ton for partially automated ones, and $1 for those extensively containerized. A separate agreement was negotiated for a 28-centa-ton payment on container ships in the domestic trades.

Acceptance of Mechanization

The question of modernization was basic again to the negotiations of 1962, as discussions were centered around the issue of gang size, manpower utilization, and job security in the port of New York. A protracted strike was settled by a media

17 Work relationships in the port of New York over several decades had been established with individual piers using regular gangs, regular extra men, and casuals, employed in that order as needed. The attachment of the gang to the pier made for inflexibility in portwide arrangements.

18 "Hiring Practices for Longshoremen," Monthly Labor Review, November 1965, pp. 1289-96.

tion panel headed by Senator Wayne Morse. In addition to making economic recommendations, the panel induced the parties to agree to a study of manpower utilization and job security to be conducted by the Department of Labor. This study, made under the overall supervison of Secretary Wirtz and then Assistant Secretary Reynolds, was based on substantial field observations and meetings with the parties covering the outports as well as New York. The report, completed in 1964, covered operations, the effect of technological developments, manpower utilization, and the structure of the labor force. When the parties were unable to reach agreement, under the terms of the 1962 accord, the matter was submitted to a mediation panel headed by Assistant Secretary Reynolds which made recommendations on an annual income guarantee and gang-size reductions, among others.

The parties reached agreement in late 1964 on a 4-year contract providing for a guaranteed annual income based on 1,600 hours straight-time pay, 19 reduction in the basic gang size in stages from 20 to 17, and increased flexibility in the use of the gang. Pensions were increased to facilitate the effect of anticipated attrition by job reduction. Joint committees were established to arrange for meeting the adjustments and to discuss broader policy issues involved in the basic changes. Initially rejected by the New York port membership, the agreement was accepted following explanation of the terms. However, a strike continued over issues relating to port conditions in south Atlantic and west gulf ports.

"Effective April 1966, longshoremen who had worked at least 700 hours in the preceding year were guaranteed an annual income of 1,600 hours a year, at straight-time rates. Earnings during the course of the year computed at straight-time rates, and payments for vacations, holidays, and unemployment compensation are deducted from guaranteed income. Payments under the guarantee are included in determining eligibility for vacation, holiday, pension, welfare and clinical services. Standards were set jointly by the Human Relations and Implementation Committee for penalties for consistent absenteeism.

The 1965 bill was opposed by the Waterfront Commission, and was vetoed by Governor Rockefeller after its adoption by the New York State Legislature. The bill called for the closing of the register, but specified reopening by joint labor-management agreement. The bill enacted in 1966 was a compromise measure, and provided for temporary closing of the register for 60 days, with opportunity for labor and management to request the Commission to close or open the register in the future. Commission rejection of joint requests can be appealed to the courts. See Annual Report of the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 1965-66 (New York, 1967), p. 12.

Brooklyn Longshoreman, April 1967.

Functioning of the Agreement

The transition to these modernizing changes has been made successfully under the port of New York contract. The dispute procedure, which calls for the prompt handling of disputes on the pier by union and management representatives, and for permanent arbitration in case of outstanding issues, has functioned well. Gang-size reductions have been met by attrition. The parties had pressed for statutory authority to require the Waterfront Commission to close the register. A major development in 1966 was the commission's willingness to go along with this, but without any limitation on its regulatory or investigative authority.20 The register was closed for a period in 1966, while port needs were explored jointly. Out of this came the determination that an additional 2,000 men were needed to be registered. As of January 1967, the annual income guarantee, paid on a quarterly basis, was reported as involving some 350 payments, totaling about $150,000 21 for the period beginning April 30, 1966.

The approaches to modernization have differed. The west coast "buy out" represents an effort to meet all situations. The east coast situation represents a more gradual approach to meet a more complicated situation. The availability of the guaranteed income and of machinery for continuous discussion now provides the means for facilitating change. Concern with the effect of the "containerization explosion" can be met through continuing discussions of change, like those used in other industries to avoid contract expiration crises. The ILA leadership and the NYSA have indicated their readiness to approach the matter in this spirit through joint exploration of the present and future state of containerization, and its effect on the labor force, well in advance of the contract expiration in September 1968. The problems are complex, involving questions about job opportunities, labor mobility, seniority, earnings, interport rivalry, variations in port conditions, and the structure for bargaining. But the U.S. longshore industry-labor and management, aided by government resources where necessary-has taken giant strides toward flexibility and adaptation in meeting these problems.

Clothing the Urban American Family:

How Much For Whom?

ANN ERICKSON*

CLOTHING EXPENDITURES for the urban American family member generally increase from infancy to the late teens and early twenties and then decline. But at all ages, a woman's clothing bills are larger than a man's. As a percent of the man's clothing expenditures, differences in spending for the sexes range from 10 percent for the toddlers (ages 2 to 5) to 42 percent for 16- and 17-year-olds.

These and other findings discussed in this article are based on expenditure data collected in the Survey of Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61.1 The data were tabulated for individual family members classified by some of the major causes of variation in clothing purchases: age, sex, income, geographic region, and family type. Expenditures represent only the cost of ready-to-wear clothing purchased by the family for its own members. They do not include amounts spent for clothing upkeep or clothing materials, nor do they include the value of clothing given to family members by welfare agencies, friends, or relatives outside the consumer unit.3

Spending Over the Life Span

During the survey years, average clothing expenditures for women at all ages were higher than those for men of the same age. Differences in clothing expenditures for boys and girls under age 18 became greater as age increased. Compared with clothing expenditures for boys of the same age, expenditures for girls were higher by 10 percent at ages 2 to 5, 11 percent at ages 6 to 11, 30 percent at ages 12 to 15, and 42 percent at ages 16 to 17. After age 18, these differences narrowed as age increased. A woman spent 38 percent more than a man at ages 18 to 24 but only 26 percent more in the age group over 25. (See chart.)

Despite these differences in levels of spending for clothing men and women, age trends were similar for the sexes. Clothing expenditures generally increased from preschool age through early adulthood (18 to 24 years of age) and then decreased. Expenditures for children under 2 years of age were not reported separately for boys and girls; but, as an average, they were lower than those for any other age group. It is likely that expenditures for infants and young children were low partly because they were often supplemented by gifts of clothing from persons outside the family."

Expenditures increased most between the age classes 6 to 11 and 12 to 15. This increase is undoubtedly due to changes in physiological and social needs as children enter adolescence. Since 12to 15-year-olds are going through a period of rapid

*Of the Division of Living Conditions Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

1 The detailed tabulations on which this article is based are published in Clothing for Urban Families: Expenditures Per Member by Sex and Age, 1960-61 (BLS Bulletin 1556, 1967). Data used in the bulletin were collected in a survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as part of its program to revise the Consumer Price Index. All data were obtained through personal interviews with urban families.

Bulletin 1556 shows average annual expenditures for individual family members classified by age and sex. It differs from other 1960-61 reports which present expenditures in terms of averages per family rather than averages per person. All averages shown in the bulletin were computed after data from the sample of 30,284 persons had been expanded, by using a system of weights based on the 1960 Census of Population, to represent all U.S. urban family members.

2 The terms family and consumer unit are used interchangeably throughout this article. In the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures, a consumer unit was defined as (1) a group of persons usually living together who pooled their income and drew from a common fund for their major items of expense, or (2) a person who lived alone or in a household with others but who was financially independent.

Families' estimates of the annual value of gifts of clothing received averaged $52.76 per family in 1960-61. Expenditures for clothing upkeep averaged $58.52 per family and for clothing materials, $15.24.

In all surveys of consumer spending conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics since 1934-36, families have reported spending more for clothing women than men. Before this survey period, families reporting expenditures in BLS Surveys spent more for husbands than for wives. See How American Buying Habits Change (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959), p. 134.

Although the relationships change slowly, the levels of expenditures shown in the accompanying tables would be affected by price changes which have occurred since the latest survey was conducted. The Consumer Price Index shows that, from 196061 to September 1967, prices for girls, and women's apparel rose about 10 percent and prices for boys' and men's apparel rose about 13 percents.

5 The values of gifts of clothing reported in BLS surveys of three metropolitan areas in 1948 were tabulated by age and sex of recipient. The tabulations showed that these values were greater in proportion to family expenditures for children under 2 than for other age-sex groups. In 1 of the 3 cities surveyed, the value of clothing given to children under age 2 was greater than families' expenditures for clothing in this age group. See Family Income, Expenditures, and Savings in 10 Cities (BLS Bulletin 1065, 1952), pp. 73–79.

1 Clothing purchased for children under two was not reported separately for boys and girls.

growth and physical development, they not only outgrow clothing rapidly but also begin selecting clothes in more grownup and expensive size lines. In addition, they are usually more interested in their appearance and more anxious to conform to their peers' standards of dress than are younger children.

Although 18- to 24-year-olds had the highest clothing bills, their average expenditures were only slightly higher than the 16- and 17-year-olds'. Persons in both age groups tend to be fashion conscious, like to have special clothes for dates and school activities, and often have more money to

15

spend on clothing than younger teenagers-i.e., they are more likely to have income from part-time or full-time jobs. High clothing expenditures for older groups also reflect new clothing needs associated with entering college, returning from military service, beginning full-time jobs, and getting married.

Men and women in the age group 25 to 64 spent somewhat less for their clothing than 16- to 24year-olds of the same sex. The adults probably purchased more durable and more conservatively styled clothing which could be worn longer than clothing purchased by 16- to 24-year-olds. During the survey years, men and women age 25 to 64 bought fewer but more expensive clothing items than their counterparts in the younger age group.'

Adults 65 and over spent less than half as much for clothing as 25- to 64-year-olds of the same sex. Their low expenditures, in part, reflect the low income levels of the aged. But they are also associated with decreased clothing needs as men and women retire from the labor force, low physical stamina which makes shopping very tiring, and reduced interest in clothing.

Modes of Attire

Underlying the changes in total clothing expenditures observed among age groups are variations in expenditures for different kinds of clothing. Major components of the total expenses for each sex are shown in table 1. Differences in each age group's allocation of the clothing dollar among various types of clothing reflect differences in social and physical activities over the life span and changes in preferences and customs. For example, the 16- and 17-year-old girl's purchases reflect her style preferences: she spent proportionately more for separates (skirts, blouses, and so forth) and less for dresses than other women. Hats accounted for a much larger share of total clothing allowance of persons 65 and over than in any other age group, showing the changes in customs from one age to another.

A USDA study of the St. Paul-Minneapolis area showed that clothing acquisitions declined much more rapidly than clothing inventories with increasing age. See Margaret Brew, R. R. O'Leary, and L. Dean, Family Clothing: Inventories and Purchases (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956), pp. 12-13.

7 Bulletin 1556 contains information on quantities purchased and prices paid as well as information on expenditures.