1 Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. For industries included, see text footnote 4.

nonsubject industries increased in both relative and absolute terms in all areas during the February-April 1956 period (table 3). Between April 1956 and April 1957, the relative pay advantage of workers in subject industries narrowed in all areas except Athens, where there was no change (29 percent); differences in cents per hour narrowed slightly in 4 areas, but increased 1 cent in 3 areas. However, the relative and absolute differences remained greater in April 1957 than in February 1956, before the higher minimum became effective, in all areas except Fort Smith, where the relative difference was the same (51 percent in both periods) and the centsper-hour difference was slightly wider (46 cents in February 1956 and 49 cents in April 1957).

There were minor variations from the changes that occurred in earnings levels for all workers combined and those that occurred for men and women in some areas. However, differences in pay levels between subject and nonsubject industries were much greater for women than for men in all areas in April 1957, as in February 1956.

Occupational Earnings Differentials. As a result of increases necessary to bring workers in subject industries earning less than $1 an hour up to that minimum, the earnings levels of unskilled workers increased significantly in the February-April 1956 period in most of the areas; on the other hand, earnings levels of skilled workers remained about the same. For example, both the relative and absolute differences in the earnings of male custodial and skilled maintenance workers narrowed in all areas between February and April 1956. Relative

occupational differentials existing prior to the new minimum had not been restored by April 1957. However, in all areas some establishments made adjustments in their wage structure after April 1956 by giving larger increases to skilled workers or restricting increases to skilled workers. As shown in table 4, considerable widening of both relative and absolute differentials over those that existed in April 1956 occurred during the year in Dothan, Hickory, and Meridian, whereas relatively little change in differentials occurred in any of the other areas.

Minimum Wage Rates

The lowest hiring rate for inexperienced workers (except watchmen) in unskilled jobs was obtained in each of the three periods studied. For establishments with a specified minimum, the most prevalent entrance rate in February 1956 in subject industries was 75 cents an hour in all areas except Dalton. Some adjustments had been made in that area before the February period studied in anticipation of the higher Federal minimum. Entrance rates below $1 in February 1956 were reported in 40 percent of the establishments having specified rates in subject industries in Dalton, slightly more than half in Fort Smith, and from 60 to 90 percent of the establishments in the other 5 areas. By April 1956, virtually all entrance rates in subject industries had been increased to the $1 level or above. In fact, the specified entrance minimum had become $1 in about three-fourths of the establishments with such rates in subject industries in SunburyShamokin-Mt. Carmel, and in a higher proportion of such establishments in all other areas. A few establishments raised this rate during the following year, but $1 remained the predominant entrance rate in all areas in April 1957.

In nonsubject industries, the entrance rate in all areas was below $1 an hour in April 1957 in a majority of the establishments with a specified minimum. A few establishments that had rates below $1 in February 1956 had adopted a minimum of $1 by April 1957.

Adjustments to the $1 Minimum

Scheduled Weekly Hours. A majority of the plant and office workers in subject industries were

scheduled to work 40 hours a week in both February 1956 and April 1957 in each area. Longer weekly schedules were much more prevalent in nonsubject industries than in subject industries in all areas. In the 14-month period from February 1956 to April 1957, there was some reduction in the proportion of plant and office workers on weekly schedules of more than 40 hours in subject industries in all areas and in nonsubject industries in a majority of the areas. The general trend to a shorter standard workweek and, in some establishments (mainly manufacturing), a decline in business apparently accounted for many of the changes to a 40-hour week. A number of employers in subject industries indicated that more attention was being given to work flow to minimize overtime premium pay; however, this development generally did not shorten the regular weekly schedule established for a majority of their workers.

Employ

Employment and Plant Adjustments. ment changes between February and April 1956 in these areas did not appear to be related to the change in the Federal minimum. In Athens, Dothan, and Meridian, where the largest proportion of workers in subject industries were paid less than $1 an hour in February 1956 (48, 49, and 45 percent, respectively), there was little change in subject industry employment in this period. Hickory and Sunbury-ShamokinMt. Carmel had the largest changes in employment in these industries (declines of 5 percent), but at the same time had substantially lower proportions of workers under $1 prior to the introduction of the higher minimum than the 3 areas mentioned. In the following year, most of the areas showed some increase in employment over April 1956, although there were declines

in some manufacturing industries within these areas which employers attributed to reductions in orders.

Few employers in subject industries indicated that they found it necessary to discharge workers in adjusting to the higher Federal minimum. Among establishments studied in the 7 areas, the discharge of 39 workers in the period shortly before and after the $1 minimum became effective was attributed by employers directly to the increase in the minimum; in the following year, virtually none of the employers interviewed gave this as the reason for discharging workers. Most of the employers who attributed the discharge of workers to the higher minimum indicated that replacements were hired. In addition, there were also some employees paid piece rates, in such industries as apparel and textiles, whose earnings averaged less than $1 an hour and who were discharged for inefficiency.

In a majority of the establishments, it is not clear that any special measures were taken to adjust to the higher minimum. Some employers offset the wage increases at least in part by increasing prices of their products, although generally they indicated that this was not possible because of competition. A few of the employers in each area indicated that they were employing other means to offset the higher wage rates, the most common of which were closer control of overtime work, higher production standards, more rigid hiring and layoff practices, reorganization of plant layout for greater efficiency, redesign of product, and installation of laborsaving machinery. Employers frequently indicated that some of the changes being made were part of a long-range program to increase productivity and were not necessarily due to the increase in the Federal minimum wage.

Paid Vacations in Major Union Contracts, 1957

THE EXTENSION and liberalization of paid vacations for wage earners have been important features of collective bargaining over the past two decades-with profound social as well as economic implications. In 1940, the U. S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that only about a fourth of all organized wage earners in the United States received annual vacations with pay. For the majority of these workers, the maximum vacation period for which they were eligible was 1 week. A few agreements provided for up to 2 weeks of vacation; in only rare instances was provision made for 3- or 4-week vacations. In 1957, all but 8 percent of 1,813 agreements covering 1,000 or more workers provided for paid vacations, and maximum vacations of 3 weeks or more were the rule rather than the exception.

By 1949, the principle of paid vacations for wage earners was firmly established. However, length of vacations and eligibility requirements continued to be frequently recurring issues in collective bargaining, and substantial changes were effected between 1949 and 1957. In early 1949, 3 out of 5 negotiated vacation plans provided for a maximum vacation allowance of 2 weeks.2 Also, for the first time, a significant portion of the agreements studied by the Bureau (one-third) provided for vacations in excess of 2 weeks. By this time, maximum vacations of 1 week or less were included in only about 5 percent of the plans. By 1952, virtually all of the negotiated plans studied had maximum allowances of 2 weeks or more. Almost half of the 1952 plans stipulated maximum allowances of 3 weeks, but only about 4 percent were for as much as 4 weeks.

In 1957, uniform or graduated vacation plans that provided for maximum vacations of less than 2 weeks were reduced to 1 percent of the total

plans. Almost two-thirds of the plans allowed maximum vacations of 3 or 3 weeks; an additional 20 percent provided maximum allowances of 4 weeks or more. (See chart.)

Increases in maximum vacation allowances have been accompanied by a reduction in length-ofservice requirements. In 1952, for example, less than 0.5 percent of the workers under agreements providing a maximum vacation of 3 weeks were eligible for the maximum after service of 5 years or less, as compared with almost 3 percent in 1957. Although only 4 percent of the workers were eligible for a 3-week vacation after 10 years or less in 1952, almost 15 percent of the workers qualified with similar service requirements in 1957.

Scope of Study

The study from which this article was excerpted represents the Bureau's most comprehensive examination of paid vacation practices under collective bargaining. Agreements were analyzed in detail for such matters as prevalence and types of vacation plans, length of vacation, service and work requirements, vacation patterns, and vacation pay. Also included in the analysis were various aspects relating to the operation and administration of vacation plans, notably pay in lieu of time off, scheduling of vacations, and vacation rights for employees entering or returning from military service or upon termination of employment.

1 See Vacations with Pay in Union Agreements (in Monthly Labor Review, November 1940, pp. 1070-1077).

See Paid Vacations Under Collective Agreements, 1949 (in Monthly Labor Review, November 1949, pp. 518–522).

See Paid Vacation Provisions in Collective Agreements, 1952 (in Monthly Labor Review, August 1952, pp. 162-167).

See Paid Vacation Plans in Major Union Contracts, 1957, Bureau of Labor Statistics Bull. 1233. In addition to the analysis presented in this article, the bulletin presents data on length of vacation and service requirements by industry, minimum work requirements, qualifying dates, vacation pay, pay in lieu of vacation, scheduling vacations, split vacations, accumulation of vacation leave, vacation allowances for employees entering or returning from military service, effect of termination on employee's vacation rights, holidays during vacation period, and vacations for part-time and seasonal workers.

ated plans. The remaining agreements had provisions for pooling fixed employer contributions in a central fund which, in turn, provided vacation pay allowances directly to the workers; ratioto-work plans whereby the vacation granted was based upon days or hours worked during the year rather than upon length of service; uniform plans under which all workers received the same vacation allowance, regardless of differences among workers in amount of time worked during the year or length of service; and a few plans combining features of more than one type of vacation plan or another benefit.

Almost all of the 1,218 single-employer agreements included in this study contained provisions for graduated vacation plans (table 2). On the other hand, a fourth of the 595 multiemployer plans providing paid vacations utilized the other types of vacation plans, chiefly funded arrange

ments.

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items do not necessarily equal totals.

Nongraduated Multiemployer Plans

Sixty-six multiemployer agreements provided for pooling of employer contributions into central vacation funds." Almost all of these plans were in industries characterized by a high degree of seasonal or irregular employment or frequent job changes, e. g., apparel, maritime, and construction.

In the apparel industry, agreements usually called for the payment of a specified percentage of weekly wages into a health and welfare or similarly titled fund. An example follows:

Each member of the Association shall continue to pay weekly. to .. [the union] for the said Vacation

This study understates the prevalence of pooled vacation funds in major situations. For example, the national agreement between the Clothing Manufacturers Association of the United States of America and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America makes no reference to a vacation fund, but supplementary local agreements in this industry provide for such arrangements. Supplementary local agreements were not included in this study.