[United States Department of Labor Fifty-Sixth Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1968]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Fiscal Year 1968
»
Fifty-sixth Annual Report
- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Willard Wirtz, Secretary


Fiscal Year 196
3 1336 05750 3014
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Secretary of Labor................................
Executive Assistant to the Secretary...........
Special Assistant to the Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
Director, Office of Information, Publications and Reports.
Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance (EEO).
Director, Office of Policy Planning and Research. .
Under Secretary...................................
Executive Assistant to the Under Secretary.....
Deputy Under Secretary.........................
Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Manpower Administrator.
Deputy Assistant Secretary.....................
Associate Manpower Administrator..............
Administrator, Bureau of Employment Security.
Administrator, Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training.
Administrator, Bureau of Work-Training Programs.
Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Relations and Administrator, Labor-Management Services Administration.
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Deputy Administrator.
Director, Office of Labor-Management and Welfare-Pension Reports.
Director, Office of Veterans’ Reemployment Rights.
Director, Office of Employee-Management Relations Services.
Director, Office of Labor-Management Policy Development.
Administrator, Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions.
Assistant Secretary for International Affairs.....
Deputy Assistant Secretary......................
Administrator, Bureau of International Labor Affairs.
Assistant Secretary for Wage and Labor Standards..
Deputy Assistant Secretary......................
Director, Women’s Bureau.....................
Director, Bureau of Labor Standards..........
Director, Bureau of Employees’ Compensation. . Chairman, Employees’ Compensation Appeals
Board.
Commissioner of Labor Statistics..................
Deputy Commissioner.............................
Solicitor.........................................
Deputy Solicitor..................
Assistant Secretary for Administration............
Deputy Assistant Secretary......................
Assistant Assistant Secretary.................
Librarian.....................................
Willard Wirtz Jack Howard 1 H. Floyd Sherrod 1 2
John W. Leslie
Ward McCreedy, Acting
Philip Arnow James J. Reynolds John N. Gentry Millard Cass Stanley H.
Ruttenberg Frank Borda Curtis C. Aller Robert C. Goodwin Hugh C. Murphy
Mark G. Battle 3
Thomas R. Donahue
John C. Shinn
Frank M. Kleiler
Hugh W. Bradley
Beatrice M. Burgoon
Joseph W. Bloch 4
Clarence T. Lundquist
George L-P Weaver Darwin M. Bell5 Herbert N. Blackman 6
Esther Peterson
J. Timothy McGinley, Acting
Mary Dublin Keyserling
David A. Swankin 7 Thomas A. Tinsley Theodore M. Schwartz
Ben Burdetsky, Acting (Vacancy)
Charles Donahue Edward D. Friedman Leo R. Werts (Vacancy)
Edward J. McVeigh Margaret F. Brickett
1 Appointed Jan. 29, 1968.
2 Appointed June 16, 1968.
3 Appointed Aug. 13, 1967.
4 Appointed Dec. 31, 1967.
5	Appointed Aug. 27, 1967.
6	Appointed Sept. 7, 1967.
7	Appointed May 19, 1968.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 55 cents (paper cover)
Preface
It would be easier to conclude from a review of the first 55 volumes in this series of annual reports that some one person had written them all than that any of the 10 Secretaries of Labor (including the incumbent) had taken significant part in the preparation of even one of them. The companion mystery is who would have troubled to read this institutionalized prose.
Perhaps executive time and energy are not advisedly spent on such reports. Yet their only legitimate purpose is to draw from the record whatever instruction it offers the future. This won’t be accomplished by a staff document, for it is in the very nature of such a document that it magnifies achievement and glosses over or leaves out entirely what has not gotten done—which is what the future is all about.
An attempt has been made to correct these habits in this report. Special emphasis is put on unfinished business, more on open questions than on closed accounts. No effort has been made to cover evenly all aspects of the Department’s activities during the year. Important but routine accomplishments have been left out in order to permit sharper focusing on those items which have more to say to tomorrow. Disproportionate attention is given the area of internal administration, for this is where there was the most constructive advance made during the year—and also where the need for further improvement is most critical. If this selectivity means that some in the Department will find too little recognition here of their efforts and achievements, they will realize that only a solid record of accomplishment would offer sufficient assurance for assuming the risks of self-criticism.
Although these reports traditionally cover a fiscal year, prevailing circumstance has been taken as warrant for carrying the report through to the end of calendar 1968. References to something occurring “during the year” or “in 1968” will be to what happened during either “fiscal” or “calendar” 1968; that is, between July 1, 1967, and December 31, 1968. The Epilogue looks, to gain better perspective, at the longer period of the last 5 years.
These members of the Department helped in the preparation of material for this 56th annual report: Thomas Brown and Paul Fitzpatrick, Office of the Secretary; Charles Caldwell, Labor-Management Services Administration; Eleanor Coakley, Women’s Bureau; Richard Conn, Bureau of International Labor Affairs; Jack Hashian, Manpower Administration; Donald Kress, Bureau of Employees’ Compensation;
iii
Robert Richmond and Dorothea Tuney, Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions; Theodore Schwartz, Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board; Fred Strine, Office of the Solicitor; Alex Estrin, Office of Federal Contract Compliance; John Leslie, Sylvia Miller, Michael Carbine, and Donald Smyth, Office of Information; Ago Ambre, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Lucille Buchanan, Bureau of Labor Standards. But the responsibility for what is included here, and what is omitted, is undiluted.
W.W.W.
iv
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ANNUAL REPORT, 1968
Contents
Page
Preface________________________________________________ iii
Report of the Secretary of Labor_________________________ 1
I.	Internal Organization_____________________________ 2
A.	Department Structure_________________________ 3
B.	Authority and Responsibility_________________ 4
C.	Inventing the Future_________________________ 7
II.	Labor-Management Relations_______________________ 10
III.	Employment and Unemployment______________________ 13
IV.	Wage and Labor Standards__________________________ 16
V.	Data Compilation, Measurement, and Analysis_____	18
VI.	International Labor_______________________________ 20
Epilogue________________________________________________ 21
Appendixes______________________________________________ 27
A.	Secretary’s Order No. 22-68 and Statement_________ 27
B.	Draft Report of the President’s Review Committee on
Employee-Management Relations in the Federal Service, April 1968__________________________________ 33
C.	Appendix Tables__________________________________ 65

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
Nineteen sixty-eight was a year, in the Department of Labor, of consolidation of previous gains, of more significant “nonevents” than dramatic incidents, of effort that often exceeded achievement. The little world of the Department’s particular concerns and responsibilities was inevitably affected by the context of a time when the country as a whole lost some of its fantastic forward momentum while it kept its balance against the buffeting winds of more than usual controversy, discord, distemper, and tragedy.
Five tempestuous years of constant change and expansion in the manpower program demanded, for example, that attention be turned more to experience than invention. The JOBS program—an outgrowth of the “on-the-job training” and “concentrated employment” programs—was one result of this. The emergence of a clearly indicated structure for a unified Manpower Administration was another.
The historian’s broader perspective will be required to assess the significance of 1968’s “nonevents”: a series of peaceful, private settlements of collective bargaining cases (except in the copper industry and on the east coast and gulf docks) that had previously erupted into “national emergency disputes”; a “cool summer” in the slums and ghettos-—following “the long hot summer” of 1967, which had been attributed in large part to joblessness; the total nonuse of Mexican braceros—where there had been 178,000 brought in to work on U.S. farms 4 years before.
The occupational health and safety bill which was urged upon the Congress did not get passed. Neither did the proposal to extend the protections of the Taft-Hartley Act to those who need it most, especially those who work on farms or for “not-for-profit” organizations. The efforts to redefine “unemployment” in contemporary terms and to add “social indicators” to the Nation’s understanding of what it is doing didn’t get very far. There was only a little gain in establishing a “modern management system” in the Department to help meet the difficulties of public administration. “Creative federalism” was still on the drawing boards. Yet in each of these cases, and in others, the gains made in 1968 will probably prove to have been of immeasurable importance.
A closer look at some of the particular areas of the Department’s operations will test the appraisal of 1968 as not a particularly notable year in Department of Labor history, but as a year of building which gave considerable satisfaction to those who were the Department
1
at the time'—seasoned career servants and political appointees inclined alike to place quieter accomplishment above louder accolades
I. Internal Organization
There was particular attention in the Department in 1968 to the first obligation of Government, which is self-government. There had been the almost sudden ignition, during the first half of the decade, of the national purpose to eliminate inequalities of human opportunity. The Department of Labor had become a full partner for the first time in implementing that purpose. Consequent pressures on and inside the Department had been met for 2 or 3 years by administrative improvisation. Now, with the initial impact of new responsibility absorbed, it was time for more basic adjustment in departmental structure and operations.
A good deal was done in 1968 along these lines. Some more did not get done, and remains now for others. An administrative situation that had become almost frozen is now fluid. But if the custodians of inertia are in retreat, they have not disbanded. It is appropriate, under the circumstances, to summarize the instruction which seems to lie in experience—as an informational base from which new architects may proceed as their judgment dictates.
The Department of Labor came to its 50th anniversary—on March 4,1963—more a captive than an heir of its history. It had never gotten rid of the bar sinister which President Taft put on its escutcheon when he reluctantly signed the bill creating the Department—in the early morning hours of the day he left office. He protested strongly— without distinguishing the comparable situations of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce—the idea of having in the Government a separate department representing what he called the “special interests” of labor. That prejudice persisted over the years, so that as successive major “labor” programs developed most of them were placed for administration outside the Department of Labor. Labor remained by far the smallest among the Cabinet departments. Various bureaus were moved in and out of it, their personnel scattered around in 20 or more buildings in Washington and in a widely divergent pattern of regional offices across the country. The comparative recency of acrimonious controversy about whether some of these bureaus would permit their telephone calls to be handled through the Department switchboard illustrates how much and how long the Department of Labor remained hardly more than a looseknit confederation of agencies.
That attitude and situation began to change in the late 1950’s. The change accelerated in the early 1960’s. Although there are still significant residues of it, there is every reason in recent experience to
2
conclude that nothing stands today between the Department of Labor and its maturity except its own sloughing off of institutional habits and attitudes traceable in large part to a half century of orphanage—or being an unwanted child—in the family of Federal departments.
The self-analysis which proceeded in the Department in 1968 was tougher minded and more pragmatic than this introduction to it may suggest. It was not dominated by sensitivities about the past, or by any regard for institutional status as an end in itself. It proceeded rather from the clearest possible identification of the human purposes the Department can best serve. It resulted in the identification of three directional principles for strengthening the Department, and in significant steps toward the implementation of these principles:
First. The identification of a single unifying sense of departmental purpose—to see to it that every American has a full and equal opportunity to earn a decent living—dictates a responsive realignment and consolidation of departmental units.
Second. There has to be a strong central executive authority in the Department.
Third. Having qualified itself to share significantly in administering the present, the Department’s responsibility now is to enlarge its capacity to help invent the future.
In more specific detail:
A.	Department Structure
A Secretary’s directive, issued on October 21, 1968, and included in appendix A to this report, reflects the instruction those who have been principal stewards of the Department’s affairs draw from their experience. The implementation of the directive was postponed, at the direction of the President, first to permit further consultation with State representatives, and then—after the November election—in recognition of the propriety and the potential advantage of leaving the completion of this undertaking, or its redirection, to a new administration.
That directive reflects the now fully recognized desirability and necessity of administering the employment and training functions of the Department through a unified Manpower Administration. A meeting on December 9, 1968, with State representatives revealed that the remaining objections to the announced unification of the Manpower Administration go more to form than substance. To say more here would be to risk prejudice to the necessary efforts of a new administration to proceed in this area.
The 11 labor standards” and “ labor-management service” functions of the Department have traditionally been handled separately. Review and analysis of the reasons for this, and the consequences, have led to the conclusion that these functions should be brought within a
3
single Labor-Management Services and Standards Administration. This would eliminate such anomalies as the previous handling of most (but not all) Fair Labor Standards Act functions outside the Labor Standards Administration. It would better reflect the fact that employment standards evolve today through an interplay of collective bargaining and legislative forces. It would permit economies in supplying various administrative services, and would simplify the pattern of relationships between Department of Labor and State agencies.
A time characterized by kaleidoscopic change has found the forces within the Department for the formulation, development, and advancement of new policy and programs seriously scattered. Research, much of it interrelated, has been done independently in the past in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the manpower and the labormanagement and labor standards units. Yet the principal policy planning unit is in the Secretary’s office. Recognition of the essential importance of developing a “new national will” as the basis for new programs raises question about the relegation of the Office of Information, Publications and Reports to a separate function of reporting principally on what is already being done. Fuller realization of the pragmatics of legislative innovation—and of the value of melding new ideas with the stagnant political realities—leads to stimulating conjecture about the potential that lies in bringing the “policy planners” and the “legislative officers” into closer working cooperation. The October 21 Directive points, accordingly, toward making policy development a major departmental unit—with the realization that further inquiry and experience along these lines will be necessary.
B.	Authority and Responsibility
The executive branch of the Federal Government is actually two governments—one political, the other professional—often separate, invariably unequal. The convenient explanation that political appointees are responsible for “policymaking,” and career service personnel for “operations,” satisfies only strangers to both. These are inseparable functions.
Two central conclusions emerged from the 1968 reappraisal of the administration of the Department: (i) that a stronger central executive authority over both “policymaking” and “operations” was required, and (ii) that better communications had to be developed between the “two governments” in the Department. Some of the details of these conclusions and some of the steps taken—or initiated—to meet them are appropriately noted here.
Earlier doubts and disagreements about whether Assistant Secretaries in the Department should exercise “line” authority or “staff” functions have been resolved in recent practice by an almost complete identification of their “line” responsibility. This has strengthened the Department greatly.
4
•	It means much fuller participation by political officers in carrying out the Department’s responsibilities.
•	The alternative—of having a large number of bureau heads “ reporting directly to the Secretary”—may offer an illusory prestige advantage and some help in writing job descriptions. But what it means in fact, given the other demands on the time of the Secretary and Under Secretary, is a minimum of either the surveillance or the assistance by political officers which is necessary to the necessarily innovative functioning of the bureaus.
•	The obvious point that the advisability of this identification of “line responsibility” depends on the people involved is better made in connection with the selection of that personnel.
•	All units in the Department now report to one of the Assistant Secretaries except for (i) the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (ii) the Office of the Solicitor, (iii) the Office of Information, Publications and Reports, (iv) the Office of Legislative Liaison, (v) the Office of Policy Planning and Research, and (vi) the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. There is good reason to consider putting all of these units except the Solicitor’s Office into the pattern of Assistant Secretary responsibility and authority.
Enlarging the line responsibilities of the Assistant Secretaries has brought into sharp relief the necessity of their having authority, and the means to exercise authority, commensurate with those responsibilities. This has focused attention particularly on several critical points of personnel policy and practice:
•	“Schedule C” positions are key links between the political and the career governments. Those who occupy these positions have to be wholly responsive to the political officers, and must serve in fact as well as in concept, “at the pleasure” of those officers. This special and necessary vulnerability makes very doubtful both the fairness and the wisdom of the recent decision of the Civil Service Commission restricting the severance pay rights of Schedule C position holders.
•	The complications and delays which frequently attend the filling of “supergrade” vacancies constitute a severe drag on the exercise of responsibility in the Department. Meetings during 1968 between top officers of the Department and the Civil Service Commission suggested strongly that staff practices in both the Department and the Commission were doubling what ought to be the time required to fill such vacancies. These practices have been only partly corrected.
•	Serious question remains about the extension to the higher civil service grades of the promotional rules and practices under the collective bargaining agreement with Local 12 of the American Federation of Government Employees. The political officers in the Department have felt constrained not to press their views on
5
this fully, conscious of the tendency of those with “labor backgrounds” to overreact when they find themselves on the employer side of a collective bargaining relationship. There is strong feeling, nevertheless, that this situation has not been satisfactorily met so far and that a more constructive approach to it ought to be and can be worked out.
“Communication” is an obviously critical element in the operation of a two-government system and in the exercise of an effective central authority. It is not peculiar to the Department of Labor, however, that this element has been little recognized, and less developed. Its preliminary consideration suggests continuing attention, perhaps particularly along these lines:
•	Primary reliance on written instructions and reports (i) produces a flow of paper which almost defies identification of what is important (encouraging the tendency to disregard all of it), and (ii) results in more “flying by the book” than is good for most of the Department programs. With all of their disadvantages, carefully planned meetings (small enough to encourage dialogue) are better. The vitalization of the Department Management Committee through the Under Secretary’s active participation in its weekly sessions illustrates this. A substantial (but not sufficient) increase in visits by the political officers of the Department to regional offices has confirmed the considerable potential value of such efforts. The Manpower Administrator’s initiation of frequent conference calls to all field offices has been effective.
•	Various efforts to develop a flow of ideas and suggestions up the lines have been largely unsuccessful. The prevailing notion is still that what is asked for will be supplied, but that volunteering anything is not worthwhile. Attempts by the Secretary’s office to draw on the ideas incubating in the Bureau of Labor Statistics and in the research unit in the Manpower Administration are still disappointing. A first staff draft of testimony for a congressional committee hearing is characteristically sterile. Reports of successful operational efforts come readily, but reports of difficulties and failures at a crawl. There has been a lack of confidence: self-confidence on the one hand, confidence in those “above” on the other. Better to be quiet, the attitude had become, than to risk being wrong.
•	Written communication in the Department suffers seriously from arthritis complicated by delegation. When most of what is written is prepared by someone other than the signer the writer assumes only ersatz responsibility. He says the least that is required, burying it for protection in as much verbiage as the traffic will bear. Most sentences are long. Three or four ideas are loaded in to increase the odds that one will be impressive and that
6
if another is wrong it will get lost. Paragraphs are built like sandwiches, the meat in the middle. The purpose is less to say what is right than to avoid saying anything wrong. Then somebody initials the document at the end of the day, somebody else at the end of another, somebody else at the end of the next... so that everybody can go home with the inflating illusion that an empty “In” box is the mark of an executive. The Department’s effectiveness would be doubled if its prose were cut in half, if those who initialed documents read them, and if those who signed them wrote some of them. In none of this is the Department of Labor in any way exceptional.
There has been active pressure within the Department the last 3 or 4 years to develop a “modern management system,” permitting an objective measurement of work performance. Quite a lot of progress in this direction leaves a good deal more required. Such a system is resisted by political executives as another restraint on their instinct for management and by those “down the line” as a checkup on their performance. The executives’ reaction is wrong. Such a system, properly conceived of and administered, can be an indispensable means of strengthening the executive function.
Similarly of “cost effectiveness analysis”—which has a limited but nevertheless significant utility in human resource development programs.
A final point in the consideration of methods of increasing departmental effectiveness and the role of the political executive may seem small, petty, bureaucratic. It isn’t. Things work best if any significant issue arising in the course of interdepartmental relations is referred to the political officers of the Department. The “two governments” operate not only in the Department of Labor but throughout the executive branch. It is a necessary axiom of their effective operation that there be no short circuiting of authority at the nonpolitical level; for there is no commensurate distributing of responsibility if things go wrong.
C. Inventing the Future
The Department has established itself now as a major operational instrument of the Federal Executive. It continues in a minor role, however, so far as the development of national—and Administration— policy is concerned.
Key factors in this situation lie outside the appropriate area of this report. These would include questions, among others, regarding the desirable degree of separation between the domestic and international councils of Government, the possibilities of closer ties between the domestic departments, concepts of administration reflected in the respective roles of Cabinet officers and White House staff agencies,
7
even the relative regard for fiscal and monetary policies as compared with others. These matters are not noted in criticism of present practices, but rather in recognition of the broad considerations which are involved here.
What is appropriate is to mark clearly here the present limitations on the Department’s capacity to contribute substantially to broad policy formulation.
These limitations result particularly from the traditional scattering, already noted, of the Department’s research and idea facilities. The establishment of a strong central Policy and Program Development unit is an almost essential prerequisite to the assertion of any particular departmental competence in the broad policymaking area.
Freeing the Secretary of Labor from any except the most infrequent participation in particular labor disputes is essential to the development of any significant role for him in the effective economic councils of the Administration. This has been substantially accomplished in 1968.
The Department’s relationships with organized labor used to be considered an inhibiting factor so far as its participation in broad Government policy was concerned, and some residue of this attitude remains. This is wrong. American labor’s position on education, housing, civil rights, health, international policy, and in a dozen comparable areas is a much more significant factor in contemporary American history than its position on the repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. The effective administration of the Department would make it a vital agency for bringing into Administration councils the force of organized labor’s responsible and constructive advice, criticism, and support.
Several other “internal administration” developments in the Department in 1968 warrant brief notation:
It suggests the effectiveness of efforts in the Department to eliminate the results of earlier racial discrimination to note that the percentage of Negro employees in the higher grades in the Department was almost twice as high, in 1968, as the comparable percentage in any other major department or agency in the Government. Other measurements show similar results. A new career route providing opportunities for clerical employees to advance to professional positions was established in 1968 in recognition of the fact that old habits of discrimination had made this transition particularly difficult. It is rapidly developing in the Department, except in a few bureau offices in a few field areas, that race is being eliminated as a factor even in the consciousness of the people who are the Department of Labor.
Mexican-Americans were placed in equal employment opportunity program positions in the Southwest to improve communications and develop recruiting resources among this group of citizens.
8
Comparable efforts to assure “equal opportunity” for women in the Department—and to take advantage of their “equal competence”^—have been comparatively successful; but this had been substantially accomplished before.
Attempts during the year at direct attack on the problem of underutilization of younger people in the Department showed fewer results. Establishing a policy, for example, of no new appointments (without special approval) of anyone over 35 to Department advisory committees (until a better balance can be achieved) resulted principally in a number of vacancies being left unfilled. There is considerably more promise in the experimental efforts undertaken in 1968 in cooperation with the management interns in the Department, resulting in their establishment of the Coalition for Youth Action. The necessary conclusion at the year’s end, however, was that the Department (like the Government as a whole) has not yet found the significantly new ways that are necessary to attract top-flight college graduates in substantial numbers. This could be the single most ominous long-range problem in Government administration today— particularly in view of American youth’s prevalent (and increasing) attitude toward “the establishment”—and the good reason for that attitude.
The Department provided during the year, as an employer, training and developmental opportunities for almost 500 disadvantaged persons.
A program for the rehabilitation of alcoholics, unique in the Government, was established as part of the mental health services available to Department employees.
A consumer education and debt counseling service for employees was also instituted.
Through active participation in the work of the Joint Administrative Task Force, an interagency group of administrative specialists working under the direction of the White House staff, major reductions in the processing time for Federal grants and a simplification of the procedures involved in handling these grants were achieved. The development of a consolidated application system for the Pilot Neighborhood Center Program permits a local government agency to combine into one application its requests for funds under 28 Federal grant programs administered by four departments and agencies-—Labor; Health, Education and Welfare; Housing and Urban Development; and the Office of Economic Opportunity.
To support the Department’s management system, a cost accounting system to provide timely accounting reports and associated data was designed and installed. This integrated accounting system will provide a fiscal basis for making more effective decisions and for improving the evaluation of progress toward the Department’s goals and program objectives. The management improvement and cost
9
reduction programs resulted in savings in 1968 of approximately $3.6 million.
* * *
The reason for so much attention in this report to the internal administration of the Department’s affairs is this: An extraordinary continuity among the political officers in the Department has provided unusual opportunity for their assessment of actual experience. They have improved upon this opportunity, responding particularly to the guidance of an Assistant Secretary for Administration who combines a good many years of career service with a proven competence for executive responsibility. Many of the conclusions drawn from this review of experience have been implemented in 1968. There hasn’t been time for the completion of other proposed improvements; and there are a number of other areas in which needs have been identified but the ways to meet them still have to be worked out. Putting the reins now in other hands—with full confidence—there is the desire to report fully on the lessons of effort, achievement, and error alike
II. Labor-Management Relations
Public concern about labor relations and collective bargaining has centered traditionally on “national emergency disputes” in major industries. That concern shifted sharply and significantly in 1968 to “strikes of public employees”—especially school teachers, sanitation workers, firemen,, and policemen.
Only two “national” cases developed in 1968. The facilities of the four major copper companies were closed by strikes in mid-1967 when collective bargaining failed to produce agreement. The shutdowns continued the rest of that year, but no supply crisis warranting resort to the Taft-Hartley Act procedures developed; settlements were reached in negotiations directed by the President and conducted by top Federal officials in March and April 1968. The east coast and gulf longshore contracts expired on October 1, 1968. There was a brief strike and a Taft-Hartley injunction was obtained. No agreement was reached during the 80-day period; the strike resumed on December 20 and was still in effect at the end of the year.
Settlements were reached, however, without Government participation and in general without strikes, in the steel, aerospace, telephone, coal, can aluminum, and other major industries. A year that had been expected to produce an unusual number of critical bargaining stalemates and crises of “Government intervention” afforded, instead, substantial encouragement that private collective bargaining between “big industry” and “big labor” has achieved a significant maturity. There was significance, too, in the country’s “keeping its cool” through a 10-month copper strike, and in the fact that resumption of the dock strike in December attracted comparatively little public notice. There
10
was also reason to reflect that it has been necessary to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act only six times now in 5 years (four times in special defense production situations, twice in the east coast and gulf dock disputes), and that the use of the Railway Labor Act emergency procedures has dropped to a third of its previous frequency.
This is not to suggest that the problem of “national emergency disputes” has worked itself out in the United States, so that it may be crossed off the national agenda of concern. There is, though, good reason to take new inventory of the elements in this situation, particularly of the changing factor of public reaction—which has always been a larger element than was fully recognized in determining how much of a crisis had developed.
The newer problem of disputes between local government agencies and their employees lies outside Federal authority or jurisdiction, at least under present statutes. The Under Secretary did participate, at the President’s request and with the agreement of the parties, in the Memphis sanitation workers’ dispute. It appears likely, furthermore, that the spreading intensity of this problem will lead to one form or another of Department participation in the attempt to find ways to meet it. But this is not a matter for report here.
The matter of Federal employment relations is, however, one of vital concern to the Department. The President appointed an interagency committee in 1967 to review the operation of Executive Order 10988 (in effect since 1962) and to make recommendations for modification of that order. The committee, chaired by the Secretary of Labor, included the Secretary of Defense, the Postmaster General, the Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission (vice chairman of the committee), the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and a Special Assistant to the President. Extensive public hearings were held, and the advice of a distinguished advisory panel of experts from outside the Government obtained. Extensive staff work and consultation with the panel resulted in the preparation of a draft committee report which was endorsed by the advisory panel. The draft was concurred in fully by a majority of the committee members, and tentatively by representatives of the others.
A series of developments (including changes in the membership of the committee) precluded either final agreement on the draft report or any transmittal to the President.
This draft report is included here as appendix B. This document has no official status. It is set out because it reflects the serious and responsible contributions of a wide variety of informed people to a subject of vital national concern. It will be of considerable value as a point of further departure in taking whatever action is necessary, in whatever form, to maintain employment relationships in the Federal Government on what has so far been an almost model basis. Beyond that, there are proposals here which are at least relevant to the subject
11
326-173 0—61
-2
of public employment relationships at the local government level. It is desirable, furthermore, to set out in full a report which has been the subject of a good deal of piecemeal and often inaccurate rumor.
* * *
Although the Department’s direct participation in major collective bargaining cases was less in 1968 than in previous years, certain supportive functions in the area increased. These included making a factfinding study of the skilled-craftsmen-wage-compression problem on the railroads (as part of the resolution of the 1967 dispute), assisting various boards and commissions which had been set up in particular cases, maintaining an “early warning” system covering major collective bargaining situations, and continuing the review and analyses of legislative proposals in the collective bargaining area.
* * *
The administration of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (WPPDA) proceeded, in 1968, in an orderly and comparatively normal fashion. By the end of the 1968 fiscal year, 51,656 disclosure files of reporting labor organizations under the LMRDA were active. Approximately 3,000 investigations were completed under the law. Thirty-three civil actions involving the Department were instituted under the act in Federal district courts.
The Supreme Court held in a series of three cases that the Secretary of Labor’s role in the enforcement of the act’s provisions is one of protecting the public interest. The specific rulings were that:
(1)	The conduct of an unsupervised regular election by a union does not moot a pending LMRDA suit to set aside its prior election;
(2)	The Secretary may include in his complaint challenging an election “at least any . . . violations he had discovered which the union had a fair opportunity to consider and redress, in connection with a member’s initial complaint”; and
(3)	Where it disqualified 95 percent of them, the exclusion of candidates from the ballot is sufficient to prove that the violation “may have affected the outcome” of the election.
By the end of fiscal 1968, approximately 157,700 active employeebenefit plans were on file with the Department under the WPPDA. About 1,400 investigations of delinquent and deficient reportings cases were conducted during the year.
Continuing efforts in the Department to obtain legislative attention to serious problems relating to welfare and pension plans—with respect to the fiduciary responsibilities involved and with regard to funding and vesting—were again, in 1968, unsuccessful. There continues to be strong business opposition to the vesting and funding
12
measures, and the labor position is divided. No formal administration position has been taken, despite widespread concern among several of the departments and agencies with responsibilities in this area. A unanimous Advisory Council recommendation has now been made with respect to standards of fiduciary responsibility, and progress in their area seems assured.
* * *
A sharp increase in separation from the Armed Forces, from 600,000 in 1967 to 840,000 in 1968, led to an expansion of the Department’s reemployment rights responsibilities to returning veterans. This was reflected in a complaint case increase of 96 percent over the year— from 1,565 to 3,066.
Some 65 percent of the 566,413 veterans completing referral forms indicated preservice employment. Eligibility for reemployment rights under the Military Selective Service Act appeared to be met by 250,540 veterans, who had been employed in private industry.
The Defense Department and the Department of Labor agreed to have all servicemen complete the reemployment rights and employment data form under the referral system developed by the Labor Department in 1957. Copies of the forms were also made available to the Veterans’ Administration so that the agency might contact those veterans with less than a high school education and encourage them to pursue their educational goals under the G.I. Bill.
In Eager et al. v. Magma Copper Company, the Supreme Court expanded its previous rulings in the area of fringe benefits for veterans by upholding the veteran’s claims for certain vacation and holiday pay-
III. Employment and Unemployment
The publication of the 1969 Manpower Report makes any detailing of the record in this area unnecessary here.
What counts is that the national unemployment rate, which was 6.6 percent in December 1960, has been cut exactly in half as of December 1968. This improvement is substantially larger among members of minority groups (where unemployment was most severe 8 years ago). During this period, the number of people at work in this country has increased by over 11 million.
No statistics are available to permit distinguishing between the importance to this record of (i) improvements in the country’s economic health, and (ii) the development of an affirmative manpower development and training program. Both elements have been critically important. It suffices to note here that some three million people— most of them “disadvantaged” in one way or another—have been directly affected since 1963 by employment or work-training programs
13
developed (and in most cases financed) by the Department of Labor. The comparable number 8 years ago was zero. The story in the Manpower Report is of the literally fantastic building, in a matter of months, of a huge enterprise whose product is millions of trained, qualified, employable people.
That report sets out plainly, too, the companion facts of frustration and failure—and of still almost frantic effort to keep up with the exploding expectations which come from the very act of doing what was for so long not done.
Just one point is appropriately emphasized here. It relates to both the “economic growth” and the “manpower program” elements in the employment record of the past 8 years. But it looks to the future.
This country is playing today with the dynamite notion that it will “risk a little increased unemployment” in order to “cure inflation.”
That won’t work.
What may appear to be argument is nevertheless included in this report because the record of how unemployment has been reduced discloses one key fact: Whatever success there has been in getting the “hard core unemployed” into jobs has resulted essentially from there being jobs these people could go into without displacing other people.
If “cooling off the economy” means—and it does—that the economy would be slowed down so that a quarter of a million to a million people would have to be laid off, there would be just two possibilities. One would be that several hundred thousand people who were the “hard core disadvantaged” would be put out of work. The other would be that several hundred thousand people who would otherwise be employed would be laid off to protect the employment of the “hard core disadvantaged” group.
It is clear from the record that neither group would take it.
The process which has been developed to provide work opportunity for people previously denied it-—in large measure because of their race, or because of the disadvantages resulting from their race—is not reversible. Trying to reverse it would deny, in the slums and the ghettos, expectations that have now ripened into actual opportunity— and will not be denied again. Or it would mean placing the burden of unemployment on the next higher (but still almost marginal) group of workers—who are already close to resentment about the special attention that has been given the “hard core disadvantaged” and have tolerated it at all only because it has not actually resulted (despite their fears) in their losing their own jobs.
The “trade-off” idea—that inflation can be traded off for some unemployment—may satisfy economic theory. It ignores social reality. This is not the place to address the ethics of an affluent people deciding that the cost of meeting inflation is to be placed on those least able to bear that cost. It is the place to report that the measures by which unemployment has been reduced among those who are poor
14
and those who are black are—for better (as seems correct) or worse— measures which will make any significant increase in unemployment not just a misfortune but a disaster.
There is a general assumption that unemployment insurance will lessen the impact of increased joblessness enough to make it tolerable.
It will not.
The Manpower Report also covers the Department’s administration in 1968 of the unemployment insurance program, so that here again the inclusion of details in this annual report would be pointless.
The central facts are that some 4.6 million workers received $2.2 billion in unemployment benefits in 1968. The average weekly payment was $42.10.
The inadequacies of the present unemployment insurance system were pressed on the Congress in 1965 and 1966. No effective action was taken.
The short of it is that today’s Federal-State unemployment insurance system is essentially the same as it was when it was adopted in 1935. There has been no congressional updating even of the wage base ($3,000). The system has been weakened in administrative practice. The system will not in its present form cover the impact of any large scale increase in unemployment sufficiently to meet the forces which have been noted.
* * *
A brief report is included here (because the Manpower Report does not cover it) on the six Federal workmen’s compensation laws administered by the Department.
These six laws protect some 4.5 million workers in the event of a work injury. Those covered include civilian employees of the U.S. Government, the District of Columbia Government, the Canal Zone Government, the Panama Canal Company; such groups as Peace Corps volunteers, enrollees in the Job Corps, and members of the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA); longshore and harbor workers; and employees of private industry in the District of Columbia. Statutory coverage was extended in April 1968 to State and local law enforcement officers killed or injured while apprehending persons suspected of committing crimes against the United States, or attempting to prevent the commission of such crimes.
A total of 125,341 injuries were reported in fiscal 1968 under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, an increase of 4,019 over the previous year. Most of the increase is attributable to the liberalization of benefits which became effective during fiscal 1967.
Total injuries reported during fiscal 1968 under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and its extensions were 94,578, a decrease of 6,319 from fiscal 1967. Injuries reported under the District of Columbia Compensation Act totaled 28,579—down by 913 from the previous year.
15
The Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board began the fiscal year with 88 cases; 217 new appeals were docketed and 262 cases closed, leaving 43 cases pending at the end of fiscal 1968. The average time lapse from the date of filing an appeal to the date of closing was 4.5 months.
IV. Wage and Labor Standards
Department activities during 1968 in administering the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are covered in a separate report to the Congress, and are accordingly not covered here.
It could well prove, in retrospect, the Department’s most enduring activity in 1968 that there was strong emphasis placed on the protection of working people’s physical safety and health.
The President included a major proposal for a new Occupational Safety and Health Act in his January 1968 Manpower Message to the Congress. The false issue of “interference with States rights” was raised against the bill—largely by those who oppose comparable efforts at the State level with equal vigor. The proposal was left lying in the House and Senate committees while the worker casualty lists continued at a higher rate than those in Vietnam: seven workers killed on the job every hour of the workweek (14,500 during the year); a thousand disabled (two million a year) so that they had to leave work—many never to return; with unknown additional numbers being exposed to occupational disease.
The country was still unaware, at the end of the year, of the hidden price tag, in human life and suffering, that attaches to what it buys. But that consciousness was stirring. Despite the Congress’ inaction there were clear signs that a return to this effort in the immediate future will produce a different result.
The Department invoked its safety authority under the Walsh-Healey Act to achieve significant immediate results in the protection of uranium miners against the hazards of radiation and consequent lung cancer. A division of responsibility regarding this danger among several Federal agencies, and as between State and Federal authorities—had permitted a continued unconscionable disregard of it. A hearing set by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the coincident emergence of a Department of Health, Education and Welfare report and considerable attendant attention in the press prompted the Department’s setting of strict radiation exposure standards to be observed by Government contractors. This had a catalytic effect on the whole subject, as well as the immediate effect of closing the mines in which this problem was most serious and the taking of safety measures—substantially reducing the radiation exposure—in others. This matter, too, was only partly covered by action taken in 1968, however, and remains on the active agenda.
16
The interest taken in the uranium mining situation during 1968 extended to a renewal of concern about the health and safety situation in other types of mines. The Department’s authority in this area is narrow under present statutes, has been restricted even more in operational practice, and is prospectively restrained still further under the Federal Metallic and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act of 1966. This situation is not satisfactory, and warrants early action.
The Department also developed regulatory guides for the safety certification of dockside cranes used in maritime employment. A requirement that shipyards ascertain the means of protection against the hazards of all chemical products before using them went into effect. Hearings were held on a number of amendments to the longshoring regulations, including the requirements for special handling of hazardous commodities.
Attention was given for the first time in a number of years to the “hazardous occupation” standards which are maintained by the Department under the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Extension of the coverage of the act to agricultural labor necessitated the issuance of a standard in this area. There were also some changes made in the standards regarding the employment of 16- to 17-y ear-olds as helpers on motor vehicles and on work involving the use of automatic elevators. This was done as part of an effort to increase youth employment opportunities wherever this is possible without endangering their health or safety. A related issue developed when the extension of the coverage of the FLSA to certain State and local employees brought into issue the propriety of the practice in 16 States of employing 17- and 18-year-olds to drive school buses'—a practice involving about 12,000 such drivers. An uneasy decision was reached not to disrupt this established practice.
A number of efforts, including several research projects, working conditions studies, and conferences on the quality of work and job satisfaction, have been initiated this year; all in the interest of defining a meaningful agenda for action—action to realize that broader dimension of the wage earner’s welfare.
The President’s “Mission Safety-70” program to reduce injuries to Federal employees by some 30 percent by 1970 continued to receive emphasis. Since the program was launched in 1965, an estimated 11,000 work injuries have been prevented and $8.6 million saved in direct costs. There has been an 8 percent reduction in injuries since this program was initiated.
* * *
The Department has actively encouraged the individual States to adopt their own legislation affecting the well-being of the American worker. There were approximately 1,900 such bills introduced in 1968 in the legislatures of 25 States, and about 200 measures enacted.
17
Major new or revised safety legislation included a comprehensive industrial safety law in Vermont; the creation of a Division of Safety in Arizona and a Division of Safety Engineering and Education in Maryland; and a radiation control law in Delaware.
New York broke new ground in an area in which legislative standards are long overdue by creating an advisory council on farm labor safety to study and investigate job safety problems of farmworkers. Six other States enacted various types of provisions contributing to the health and safety of workers.
Two enforceable antidiscrimination laws were enacted, one against racial discrimination in Oklahoma, the other against age discrimination in Maryland. Arkansas enacted a modern minimum wage law. The Territory of Guam made major improvements in its minimum wage statutes. New York extended the coverage and benefits of its minimum wage law. Other wage enactments included a prevailing wage law in Louisiana, and protection of men as well as women under California’s equal pay law.
* * *
New regulations were prepared and issued governing the administration of the Federal contract compliance program. For the first time under the program, notices of proposed debarment were issued—to five major companies, against whom charges of racial discrimination had been filed. Also for the first time, definitive affirmative action programs were established in federally financed construction projects (in Philadelphia and Cleveland).
* * *
As increasing numbers of mature women sought employment, the Department stressed programs to stimulate interest in their counseling, placement, and training. The Department furnished technical assistance and information to colleges and universities interested in establishing continuing education programs for women, and those interested in establishing counseling and education programs for women.
Much of the Department’s activity concerning women involved encouraging new or improved State legislation regarding minimum wage protection, inadequate minimum wage standards, limited premium pay protection, inflexible hours limitation, and weightlifting problems.
The Department also provided technical assistance on tax and retirement programs, legislation affecting women’s voting rights and their eligibility to run for public office, and welfare legislation designed to encourage the utilization of women in the labor force. V. Data Compilation, Measurement, and Analysis
There was notable emphasis on social economics in the Department’s 1968 research programs.
18
Interest in the social forces affecting manpower was focused primarily on the Nation’s Negro population. A publication entitled “Social and Economic Conditions Affecting Negroes in the United States” was compiled jointly with the Census Bureau and released.
In cooperation with several other governmental agencies, models and analyses of the labor force, productivity, and wage-price elements in a post-Vietnam economy were prepared.
Significant new studies were made of labor force characteristics in (i) the 20 largest metropolitan areas and 14 central cities; and (ii) the poorest one-fifth of the neighborhoods in the Nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas.
A new, comprehensive data collection system was launched in the slums of six large cities, designed to measure in depth the job problems and barriers to employment of slum area residents. The surveys will yield information on barriers to employment, problems associated with looking for work, migration patterns, participation in manpower programs, job location, and attitudes and motivation toward work.
As part of the sharpening focus on the problems of manpower utilization:
•	A survey was made on the job plans of men 20 to 64 years of age who, during the year, were not in the labor force. (The results indicated that poor health is the principal factor preventing men in the prime working ages from seeking work.)
•	Monthly surveys of current job opportunities were initiated in two metropolitan areas in late 1967, permitting some industry-by-industry estimates of opportunities.
•	Development of a new program of occupational employment statistics continued.
•	Research was completed on a study which provides local manpower analysts with a method of utilizing national manpower information in developing their own projections.
A new quarterly series of indexes on output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs was published, and work was started on the development of a single index of productivity based on man-hours worked.
As part of the Department’s effort to analyze and evaluate the impact of technological change, a study of “Technology and Manpower in the Textile Industry of the 1970’s” was completed. One of a series of reports on the major industries in our economy, the study projected the impact of technological change on such areas as productivity, employment, occupational requirements, and labor-management relations.
As the computer came into increased use, work was begun on making the Wholesale Price Index, the Industry-Sector Price Index, the Consumer Price Index, and Industry Growth Data a part of the computerized labor statistics information system.
19
A major accomplishment during the year was the publication of the standard household budgets for differing family and rural or urban situations.
A significant advance was made in measuring employee compensation per hour of work in the total private nonagricultural economy.
The Department also undertook sampling work and provided technical advice on estimation procedures for the new Coordinated Federal Wage System, whereby pay scales for all blue-collar Federal workers will be based on a single annual wage survey in each affected area operated by a designated local wage board.
VI. International Labor
Through the Department of Labor International Technical Assistance Corps (DOLITAC), significant technical programs were carried out during the fiscal year under the auspices of the Agency for International Development (AID) in Brazil, Panama, Central America, Bolivia, Guyana, Morocco, Tunisia, Thailand, Korea, India, Okinawa, Vietnam, and Turkey.
New cooperative relationships were arranged between the Department and the International Labor Organization (ILO) under which an increasing number of Americans became involved in ILO technical assistance projects in developing countries.
The Department participated in a broad-scale review of U.S. international trade policy. Particular emphasis was placed on several problem areas, including the impact of increased imports on domestic employment and manpower policy, the development of a viable adjustment assistance program, the maintenance of the Long-Term Cotton Textile Agreement, special problems relating to the proposed industrialization along the U.S.-Mexican border, and the question of non-tariff barriers to the flow of trade.
The Assistant Secretary of Labor for International Affairs was elected Chairman of the Governing Body of the International Labor Organization for a 1-year term. The Deputy Assistant Secretary led the U.S. delegation to a meeting of the Permanent Technical Committee (under the Organization of American States) on Labor Matters in San Salvador.
Training and cultural exchange programs in labor and manpower areas were arranged for by the Department for some 645 foreign nationals visiting the United States under the sponsorship of the Agency for International Development, the Department of State, the United Nations, and other national organizations.
Eight labor exhibits were assembled and displayed during fiscal 1968 for the U.S. Information Agency. The exhibits, portraying the role and life of the American worker, were displayed in Montevideo,
20
Uruguay; Lima, Peru; Izmir, Turkey; Nairobi, Kenya; Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania; Zagreb, Yugoslavia; Budapest, Hungary; and Poznan, Poland.
EPILOGUE
This is a report for 1968. But there is better perspective in looking back over a little longer period—and particular occasion now for summary in terms of the last 5 years.
The meaning and measure of the Department of Labor from 1963 to 1968 will be in whatever happened then to “the welfare of the wage earners of the United States.” The men and women who were the Department during that little cross section of time knew and respected the critical priority of human purpose over any institutional interest or pride. People—“wage earners” (which is most of us)—were kept in clear, orienting focus, unobscured by any narrower or more immediate programmatic ends.
This meant taking only limited satisfaction in the setting during this period, year after year and often month by month, of new records of wage earner welfare—as measured in tradition’s terms.
•	Eight million more people were at work at the end of the period than at its start.
•	Despite an unprecedented increase in the number seeking work (more young Americans came of working age in 1965 and 1966 alone than in the entire decade of the 1950’s), unemployment was reduced from 5.5 percent (December 1963) to 3.3 percent (December 1968). The unemployment rate for adult men, heads of families, was pushed down below 2 percent. The number of major labor areas in which unemployment exceeded 6 percent was cut from 38 to 6, the number of long-term unemployed people (out of work more than 26 weeks) from 493,000 to 152,000.
•	Workers’ earnings—in terms of hourly rates or weekly take-home, by gross or “real” measure, on an aggregate or per capita basis—went to new highs, and then higher and higher.
But viewing the record of the Department in these traditional terms would both imply too much about its part in the setting of these records (for this was a period of constant expansion of the economy, of strengthened private collective bargaining, of congressional and Presidential effectiveness of an extraordinarily high order) and say at the same time too little about the exercise of responsibility and pursuit of purpose within the Department.
These statistics reflect a nationwide averaging of successes and failures; so they conceal the remaining condition of those at the bottom. These statistics tell the economists what they need to know about the working of the system and provide balm for the ego of administrators but they report only implicitly and incompletely on the
21
human condition. Their worst defect is that they encourage taking satisfaction from current accomplishment if it was better than past performance—without enough inquiring whether that past had validity as a base for comparison. The real point of these 5 years was that the magnitude of achievement was so great that it wakened America out of its deterministic subservience to “outside forces” into the realization that the human and national competence includes the ability to do just about whatever it is decided to do. With this wakening, previous achievement was reduced to minor operational relevance. The standard for measuring accomplishment became the human potential itself. How far we had come became irrelevant in the new realization of how far we could go.
More than this:
The 1963-68 gains in terms of traditional measurement—numbers employed, the degree of their security, the amounts of their earnings— were probably less important to the future than the fact that this was when the opportunity to work, to earn a decent living, was finally identified and significantly recognized as a matter of right—human, individual rights. The President and the Congress established the rule of law that race and religion and sex are to have nothing to do with the enjoyment of the right to a job, including its emoluments. The Department of Labor contributed greatly to the effective insistence that this rule of law be also a fact of American life. Full employment— including equal employment opportunity—was put in the first place, instead of some place on down the line.
Still further:
There emerged in the Department during this period—and to a lesser extent in the national philosophy—a sense of a dimension of the “welfare of the wage earner” not contemplated when that phrase was adopted in 1913 as the Department’s charge and charter. This is his welfare, even in connection with his work, not just as a wage earner but as a human being. The significant subtleties here—as pragmatic as they are philosophical—involve new questioning of the extent to which the worker is correctly conceived of as being created to meet the needs of the enterprise and the system, and of the extent to which it is the other way around; whether “employment” is sufficiently measured by counting people on jobs, or whether their satisfactions and the degree of use of their talents is also relevant; whether the economy is an end in itself or a means to serve a national human purpose of giving life a chance to flower whenever its seed is planted. In the later stages of the 5-year period there was new talk of the need for social indicators to supplement the economic indicators, new skepticism about the adherence by economists to definitions of unemployment which are only convenient measures of the use of the economy’s capacity, cynicism about the general currency of the willingness to buy price
22
stability with unemployment, and increased consideration of what is implied by “income maintenance” on the one hand and “job satisfactions” on the other.
It is hard to say and impossible to measure how much gain there was in these 5 years so far as the development of this new dimension of the wage earner’s welfare is concerned. Infinitely more than before, most of the gain was atmospheric, attitudinal: reflected in the identification of a “manpower program” instead of an “employment service,” in attacking not just “unemployment” (as an economic fact) but “poverty” (which is human), and in striking (even if only for one administrative generation) the phrase “labor market” from the Department lexicon. It was, in any event, the unifying and dignifying theme in the history of the Department of Labor, 1963 to 1968, that wage earners—and those seeking that status—are people. Not statistics. Not drones. Human beings—for whom “work,” but not just “labor” (a distinction clearer in other languages than in English), constitutes one of the potential ultimate satisfactions.
* * *
Of the eight principal officers who were administering the Department at the close of 1968, six had been there 5 years before, and the other two had deep roots in the Department’s concerns and responsibilities. Rarely if ever in Cabinet department history has there been comparable continuity of similarly dedicated and competent service. This was an extraordinary group of people, knit by their differences (of race, religion, sex—everything except age) and by mutual respect and personal affection.
The business of operating a substantial organization was consciously and conscientiously attended to by this top management group. Only two of them had brought any significant administrative experience with them to the positions they held. For the others, administrative responsibility had to be an acquired taste. Yet the Department achieved a considerable distinction as an agency where ideas were implemented and ideals given muscles.
* * *
The major organizational and program development during these 5 years was the establishment and building of an affirmative manpower program—a two billion dollar “business” ot bring training and employment opportunities to over a million Americans a year. The program had to be developed in conjunction with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private organizations. The problems of overcoming inertia, of creating a new federalism and recognizing as well a new pluralism, were formidable. The results were almost beyond comprehension—but not above criticism, for every gain created new expectations.
23
The handling of emergency labor disputes during this period— largely by the Under Secretary—was a quiet classic of restrained resourcefulness. What had to be done was done. Not more. At a time of epidemic exacerbation of discord and distemper in the country generally, something was happening—or not happening—that had an opposite influence in one of the traditional arenas of controversy. The typical Department of Labor scene at the start of the 5-year period (1963-68) was of haggard men spending the night glaring at each other across the bargaining table, while the press and radio and television crews kept death watches in the corridors. By the end of the period, the Labor Department was no longer even a regular newsbeat for most of the Washington press. The perceptive historian will properly interest himself in what happened between 1963 and 1968 to the nightmare of “Government intervention in labor disputes,” and may come up with some interesting reflections on government including self-government by competent men when there aren’t many effective laws. But the contemporary commentator will be inclined to let well enough alone.
The Department of Labor contributed greatly to the establishment of the fact of equal employment opportunity in America: through the manpower training and employment programs; by insistence through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance that those who deal with the Federal Government deal without discrimination with their own employees; by its own employment practices (in the higher as well as the lower grades); and by the forthright espousal by its spokesmen of an uncompromising position that one person is as good as another, except by his own default.
The quality of what the Department stood for and did can be best suggested by reference to a few things that happened that will not be remembered:
•	There were 195,000 braceros brought into this country in 1962: none in 1968. That was quite a story.
•	Commissions on the Status of Women were established in all 50 States—or only one reflection of the Department’s efforts to complement gallantry with good sense.
•	Election crises in two of the major labor unions were met responsively and constructively, under circumstances which made chaos one of the alternatives.
•	There was tardy but forthright action to call a halt to the rolling of dice with men’s lives in the uranium mines.
•	The Department’s Combined Federal Campaign quota was substantially exceeded in every one of the 5 years.
•	The selection of the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs as the Chairman of the Governing Body of the International Labor Organization for 1968-69 was only one reflection of his prominence and effectiveness in international affairs and relations.
24
•	The Department’s relations with the Congress, particularly with the Appropriations Committee, were notably good—and effective.
•	So were its relations with the American Federation of Government Employees.
•	And with the AFL-CIO.
•	And with the Department of Commerce—particularly with all four Secretaries of Commerce.
•	The Coalition for Youth Action represented a start toward drawing, in the Department, on youth’s particular strength.
The trouble with any such a listing is that it leaves out the largest fact of all: which was the carrying on of the Department’s more traditional programs in such manner that there was no notice of them.
Finally, there must be included—to give these claims of virtue and achievement their validity—some illustrative suggestion of the disappointments, frustrations, failures of these 5 years.
•	Youth unemployment remains twice the adult rate, and among minority groups an incriminating 20 to 25 percent.
•	The definition and measurement of unemployment was not changed significantly during these 5 years—or during the past 15. More broadly, social indicators were not developed to complement the economic indicators; and since we do only what we measure, the measuring principally of economic facts continues to contribute to a distortion of program emphasis.
•	The unemployment insurance laws remain substantially what they were a third of a century ago, and the barnacles on them have become rebukes to legislative and administrative responsibility.
•	The strong effort in 1968 to stimulate national and congressional concern about worker fatalities and occupational disease failed.
•	The protections of the Taft-Hartley Act have not been extended to those areas in which they are most needed (agricultural and “not for profit” enterprise); and the section 14(b) and situspicketing flaws remain.
•	The Department of Labor is not yet an effective participant in economic policy formulation within the Administration.
•	November 5, 1968.
In the broadest possible sweep of appraisal, the testing fact was that constantly during this period “the wage earners of the United States” had, almost certainly, increased reason to choose their own time and place and condition over any other that history affords. The contribution of the Department of Labor to this fact was not separately identifiable. But it was substantial—especially for its emphasis on the human purpose.
25
Appendix A
SECRETARY’S ORDER NO. 22-68 AND STATEMENT
326—173 0—69-----3
October 21, 1968
Secretary’s Order No. 22-68
Subject: Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibilities for Manpower Programs
1.	Purpose. This Order delegates to the Assistant Secretary for Manpower the authority vested in the Secretary of Labor for Manpower and Insurance and Compensation Programs.
2.	Office of the Assistant Secretary for Manpower.
There is in the Department of Labor an Office of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Manpower headed by an Assistant Secretary who reports to the Secretary.
3.	Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibilities.
a.	The Assistant Secretary for Manpower is hereby delegated authority and assigned responsibility, except as hereinafter provided, for carrying out the Department’s manpower and insurance and compensation programs and the functions to be performed by the Secretary under legislation assigning responsibility for Manpower, employment, insurance and compensation programs.
b.	The Solicitor of Labor shall have responsibility for providing legal advice and assistance to all officers of the Department relating to Manpower, employment, insurance and compensation laws and Executive Orders.
4.	Reservation of Authority, and Exceptions.
a.	The following functions are reserved to the Secretary:
(1)	Submission of reports and recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the administration of the statutes and executive orders listed in the attachment to this order.
(2)	The bringing of legal action, the determination in each case whether such proceedings are appropriate to be made by the Solicitor of Labor. When agreement is not reached between the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and the Solicitor regarding the bringing of such proceedings, the Assistant Secretary shall refer the matter to the Secretary for decision.
(3)	The determination of conformity and compliance questions.
b.	The delegation with respect to the Federal Employees Compensation Act (5 USC Chapter 81) does not include the authority to designate or appoint members to the Employees Compensation Appeals Board.
29
5.	Organization and Directives Affected
a. Organizations.
(1)	The Bureau of Employment Security and the Bureau of Work-Training Programs are hereby abolished. Subject to the review of the Secretary, the functions of these two bureaus are to be realigned, along with other functions of the Manpower Administration, as deemed appropriate and essential by the Assistant Secretary for Manpower in order to effectively and efficiently accomplish all assigned programs.
(2)	The Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training is hereby transferred to the direction and control of the Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Services and retitled the Bureau of Apprenticeship.
(3)	The Bureau of Employees’ Compensation is hereby transferred to the direction and control of the Assistant Secretary for Manpower.
6.	Effective date. This order is effective immediately.
Secretary of Labor
(Statement attached.)
30
Statement by Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz
October 21, 1968
Administrative action is being taken today to serve the twin purposes of economy and efficiency in the Manpower Administration in the Department of Labor.
The most immediate of these purposes is economy. By combining functions and eliminating overlapping responsibilities, a saving of about 350 positions and of approximately $4 million will be achieved. This is essential to meet the requirements of the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968.
The other, equally basic, purpose is efficiency. The manpower program has developed piece-by-piece over the past 6 years. Each new legislative action has required administrative improvisation of one kind or another. New units have been established alongside older ones. There has been an increasing consolidation of responsibility in the Office of the Manpower Administrator, but the full exercise of this responsibility has been complicated by the preservation or creation of various separate bureaus. Now these bureaus are being eliminated and their functions combined in the Administration itself as a “line” operation.
This action is taken in further implementation of President Johnson’s instruction (in his Manpower Message of January 23,1968) “to strengthen and streamline the Manpower Administration,” and his direction of June 28 (upon signing the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act): to “make every dollar available . . . go a little further; make sure every person ... is being used in the most effective way possible . . . (and to) best allocate your diminished resources in money and manpower.” The President has also called particular attention to the necessity of getting away from the idea that older administrative units have to be preserved despite an emergent need for new ones.
The Bureau of Employment Security and the Bureau of Work-Training Programs are being abolished. Their functions will be exercised by the Manpower Administration itself. Where there have been several administrative “lines,” there will be one. Where there have been duplicating sets of staff functions, there will be one.
The Unemployment Insurance program and the responsibilities of the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation will be administered by a separate unit in the Manpower Administration.
31
It is a small but important administrative detail that provision will be made in the Manpower Administration for the entirely separate accounting of “Trust Funds” and “General Funds.”
The Bureau of Appenticeship and Training, whose responsibilities involve the private apprenticeship programs, will be made a part of the Labor-Management Services Administration.
This action will permit the Manpower Administration to serve the public better with savings of approximately $4 million and about 350 positions in this fiscal year 1969. By following spartan personnel policies during the past four months, including a virtual “freeze” on Department hiring practices, we are presently ahead of the reduction schedule required by the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act. These changes will permit us to meet the further reductions required by the act, and to keep new hires to an absolute minimum.
They will mean improved service to the public.
They will mean more effective working relationships with the State and local agencies. Indeed, it is an essential element in these changes that there will be increasing reliance on those agencies.
This action represents the response of all of the men and women in the various bureaus in the Manpower Administration to the call by the Congress and the President that we achieve both full employment and economic stability. We reject the idea that the answer to inflation is more unemployment of American workers. Our action reflects our'conviction that both Government economy and an efficiently administered manpower program are essential elements in the better—and only human—answer.
Less comprehensive changes are under intensive consideration for the rest of the Department.
32
Appendix B
DRAFT REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT’S REVIEW COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYEE-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE, APRIL 1968
33
Contents
Page
Background_____________________________________________________ 39
Recommendations________________________________________________ 40
A. Central Authority for Program Decisions—A Federal Labor Rela-
tions Panel___________________________________________________ 40
B.	Unit, Representation, Unfair Labor Practice and Standards of Conduct Cases_______________________________________________________ 42
C.	Grievances, Appeals,	Interpretation of Agreements______________ 44
D.	Procedures to be Adopted in the Event of Impasses in Negotiations_______________________________________________________________ 46
E.	Changes in Forms of Recognition________________________________ 48
F.	Status of Supervisors__________________________________________ 53
G.	Scope of Bargaining____________________________________________ 54
H.	Management Rights____________________________________________ 55
I.	Delegation of Authority________________________________________ 56
J.	Approval of Agreements_________________________________________ 58
K.	Appropriate Unit_______________________________________________ 59
L.	Code of Fair Labor Practices____________________________________ 59
M.	Reporting and Disclosure_______________________________________ 60
N.	Increased Coverage of the Order________________________________ 61
0.	Union Security_________________________________________________ 61
P.	Availability of Information___________________________________	62
Q.	Labor Organization______________________________________________ 62
R.	Other Technical Improvements___________________________________ 63
S.	Labor Relations Employees______________________________________ 63
35
THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Honorable Willard Wirtz, Chairman Secretary of Labor
The Honorable John W. Macy, Jr., Vice Chairman Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission
The Honorable Charles J. Zwick The Honorable Charles L. Schultze Director, Bureau of the Budget The Honorable W. Marvin Watson The Honorable Lawrence F. O’Brien Postmaster General
The Honorable Clark M. Clifford
The Honorable Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Defense
The Honorable Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Special Assistant to the President
ALTERNATES TO THE
The Honorable Thomas R. Donahue Assistant Secretary of Labor Mr. Roger W. Jones
Special Assistant to the Director
Bureau of the Budget
Mr. Wilfred V. Gill
Assistant to the Chairman
U.S. Civil Service Commission
REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Honorable Richard J. Murphy Assistant Postmaster General
The Honorable Alfred B. Fitt Assistant Secretary of Defense Mr. Stanford G. Ross Staff Assistant, White House
Staff Director: Mr. Louis S. Wallerstein, U.S. Department of Labor
ADVISORY PANEL
Mr. Lloyd H. Bailer
Professional Arbitrator
Mr. Derek C. Bok
Dean, Harvard University
Law School
Rev. Leo C. Brown, S.J.
Research Associate
Cambridge Center for Social Science
Mrs. Jean T. McKelvey
Professor of Industrial Relations
N.Y. State School of Industrial and
Labor Relations
Cornell University
Mr. Lloyd Ulman
Professor of Economics and Director Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley
37
Background
Six years ago Executive Order 10988 established a Presidential governmentwide policy which acknowledged the legitimate role unions should have in the formulation and implementation of Federal personnel policies and practices. Prior to that Order, Government agencies were proceeding on widely varying courses in this area. While a few agencies had established extensive relations with employee organizations, most had not.
In his memorandum of September 8, 1967, establishing a special Review Committee on Federal Employee-Management Relations, the President stated: “The time has come for a public review of our 5 years of experience under Executive Order 10988—what the program has accomplished and where it is deficient—and for consideration of any adjustments needed now to ensure its continued vitality in the public interest.”
The Review Committee finds that a flourishing program exists where before Executive Order 10988 there was only a modicum and, in many cases, even a complete absence of employee-management cooperation in the formulation and implementation of the policies that shape the conditions of work for Federal employees. Today, 1,238,748 employees are in 1,813 units for which exclusively recognized labor organizations are the bargaining agents. These labor organizations have negotiated 882 agreements. In addition, labor organizations representing Federal employees have obtained 1,172 grants of formal recognition and 1,031 grants of informal recognition.1 It is estimated that over 1,000,000 Federal employees belong to labor organizations. Under the program established by Executive Order 10988, these labor organizations have gained responsible status, stable and increasing membership, and representation rights that ensure substantial participation by employees in the improvement of personnel policies and practices that affect their well-being.
The benefits from the program have been many. There has been a marked improvement in the communication between agencies and their employees. Employees now actively participate in the determination of the conditions of their work. This participation has contributed significantly to the conduct of public business. The collective bargaining agreements that have been negotiated have given continuity and stability to the labor-management relationship.
1 These figures do not reflect the union activity in local Post Offices where there are 24,500 grants of exclusive recognition with 13,058 negotiated agreements and 11,000 grants of formal >ecogn:tion.
39
These agreements cover a wide range of issues including provisions relating to hours of work, overtime, rest periods, special clothing, work by supervisors, subcontracting, safety, leave policies, craft jurisdiction, wage surveys, promotion systems, reduction-in-force procedure, job descriptions, training steward systems, and dues withholding. As in the private sector, the majority of the agreements in the Federal government provide for a grievance procedure to resolve complaints, Many of these grievance procedures allow for the submission of unresolved matters to an impartial third party for an advisory decision.
The facts and figures just enumerated are a tribute to the wisdom of the 1962 Order. Moreover, they are a credit to the agency officials and union leaders who have operated within the established procedures to achieve the objective of the Order—the realization of effective labor-management cooperation in the public service. At the same time, the public interest has remained the paramount consideration.
During the public hearings held in Washington, October 23-27, 1967, the Review Committee was aided significantly by the responsible and mature testimony of the more than fifty agency and labor organization representatives and individuals who appeared before the Committee. In addition, more than fifty others submitted written statements. The statements and written submissions received have provided to the Committee a thorough record from which to work in formulating the recommendations which follow.
Recommendations
A.	CENTRAL AUTHORITY FOR PROGRAM DECISIONS—A FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS PANEL
A three-member Federal Labor Relations Panel, consisting of the Secretary of Labor, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, should be established to oversee the entire Federal service labor relations program, to make definitive interpretations and rulings on any provisions of the Order, to decide major policy issues, to entertain, at its discretion, appeals from decisions on certain disputed matters, to review and assist in the resolution of negotiation impasses, and to report to the President on the state of the program with recommendations.
Much of the presentation before the Committee dealt with need to establish a central authority for the program. It was suggested that such an authority should be established to oversee the entire Federal labor relations program and decide questions concerning units, representation, unfair practices, internal union affairs, impasses and other disputed matters.
40
The 1961 Task Force concluded that authority to decide these questions should be vested in the heads of executive departments and agencies, with various technical guidance and assistance functions assigned to the Department of Labor and the Civil Service Commission. This decision was designed to facilitate accommodation to the wide diversity of labor relations situations among the agencies, to allow flexibility for mutually agreed innovations, to encourage the development of cooperative relations between unions and agencies, and to foster the development of techniques and attitudes for the meaningful consideration of issues and problems during the developmental stages of the program.
While these objectives have been met in part, their accomplishment has not been free of adverse effects. Lack of authoritative third-party rulings has tended to build up pressures which “technical advice” cannot resolve. The mere appearance of bias inherent in the one-sided processes prescribed in various provisions of the Order and the Standards and Code, together with unilateral agency action or failure to act in some disputed matters, has brought continued labor organization complaints of basic inequality of status vis-a-vis agency management and has strengthened labor demands for program supervision by a central authority and for impartial, third-party handling of disputed matters. The Committee believes that the need for the establishment of a central authority and for an impartial, third-party process for resolving labor-management disputes has been amply demonstrated by experience.
The Review Committee recommends the establishment of a three-member interagency Federal Labor Relations Panel, consisting of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission as chairman of the Panel, the Secretary of Labor, and the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. In the event the agency of one of the members of the Panel is a party to a matter before the Panel, the Chairman of the National Mediation Board should perform the duties of that member. The Panel should be supported by an adequate professional and administrative staff furnished by the Civil Service Commissinn,
The Panel should be authorized to oversee the entire Federal service labor relations program; to make definitive interpretations and rulings, as needed, on any provisions of the Order or on major policy issues, to entertain, at its discretion and in accordance with such rules as it may prescribe, appeals from decisions on certain disputed matters; to review and assist in the resolution of negotiation impasses; and, from time to time, to report to the President on the state of the program and make recommendations for its improvement.
The Committee feels that such a Panel would ensure the desired balance of judgment and expertise in the personnel management and labor relations fields. Although armed with full authority, the Panel should use calculated restraint in exercising its responsibilities so as
41
to leave the agencies and labor organizations free to work out their differences to the maximum extent possible without damaging the overall program.
B.	UNIT, REPRESENTATION, UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT CASES
The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations should issue decisions in unit, representation, unfair labor practice and standards of conduct of labor organization cases. Either party should have a limited right of appeal on major policy issues to the Panel.
The Committee recommends that the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations be assigned responsibility for the handling of complaints concerning unfair labor practices on the part of either labor organization or agency representatives, and for the conduct of representation elections in addition to his present responsibility for unit and representation disputes. The Assistant Secretary should be authorized to issue decisions to agencies and labor organizations in all such cases, subject to a limited right of appeal on major policy issues by either party to the Federal Labor Relations Panel, and to refer cases involving major policy questions to the Federal Labor Relations Panel for decision or general ruling. Additionally, he should be authorized to handle complaints concerning alleged violations of the standards of conduct for labor organizations.
In the performance of his responsibility, the Assistant Secretary should be authorized to request the services and assistance of employees of the National Labor Relations Board and of other agencies, as he may deem appropriate. The necessary costs of such service and assistance should be paid by the agency involved in the case or complaint.
The Assistant Secretary should have the authority to require agencies and labor organizations to cease and desist from conduct violative of the Order, and to require them to take such affirmative corrective action as he deems appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Order. Enforcement of decisions of the Assistant Secretary should be achieved through (1) publishing and appropriate posting of decisions; (2) the required reporting by the respondent (agency or labor organization), within a specified period, to the Assistant Secretary of the corrective action taken; and (3) where the Assistant Secretary finds that necessary action has not been taken, referral of the matter to the Federal Labor Relations Panel for appropriate action. In the event questions arise involving the Department of Labor, the Assistant Secretary’s responsibility should be performed by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.
42
Unit Cases
In any case where the Assistant Secretary determines that a hearing is necessary, he should designate a hearing officer to conduct the hearing and to forward to him the record. After considering the record and any briefs filed, the Assistant Secretary should issue and publish his decision.
Representation Cases
In any case where the Assistant Secretary is requested to arrange for an election and where he determines an election to be appropriate, he should appoint persons responsible to him for the supervision of the election. Such persons, absent an election agreement, should have the authority, acting on behalf of the Assistant Secretary, to decide details of election procedures and supervise the election. Objections to the election and determinative challenged ballot cases which warrant hearings should be heard by officials appointed by the Assistant Secretary to make recommendations to him. Election certifications should be issued by the Assistant Secretary.
Unfair Labor Practice Cases
Alleged unfair labor practices should be investigated by the agency and labor organization involved and informal attempts to resolve the complaints should be made by the parties. If informal attempts are unsuccessful in disposing of the complaints within a reasonable period of time, both parties may agree to stipulate the facts to the Assistant Secretary and request a decision. In lieu of a joint request, either party may request the Assistant Secretary to issue a decision in the matter. If the Assistant Secretary finds that a reasonable basis for the complaint has not been established or that a satisfactory offer of settlement has been made, he may dismiss the complaint. If he finds, based on the allegations and the report of investigation of the parties, that there is a reasonable basis for the complaint, and that no satisfactory offer of settlement has been made, he may appoint a hearing officer to hold a hearing and report findings of fact and recommendations including, where appropriate, remedial action to be taken and notices to be posted. After considering the hearing officer’s recommendation and any exceptions filed, the Assistant Secretary should issue and publish his decision.
Standards Cases
Alleged violations of the standards of conduct for labor organizations should be investigated by the Assistant Secretary. Where investigation establishes a reasonable basis for believing that the standards have been violated and no appropriate corrective action has been taken by the labor organization, the Assistant Secretary may appoint a hearing officer to hold a hearing and to report findings of fact and recommendations. After considering any exceptions filed, the Assistant
826-173 0—69-
4
43
Secretary should issue and publish his decision. However, where the labor organization has reasonable internal procedures designed to adjust the complaints of its members, the Assistant Secretary should not act until the men Jer has exhausted such procedures, provided the organization processes the complaint in a reasonably expeditious manner.
If the Assistant Secretary finds that the standards of conduct have been violated, he may stipulate the remedial action required to be taken and should have authority to enforce such remedial action by requiring the posting of appropriate notices to members, by the issuance of public reports, or, in appropriate cases, by the suspension or revocation of the dues withholding privilege or by the withholding, suspension, or revocation of recognition.
The Review Committee believes that the role of the Department of Labor outlined above will provide impartial procedures and assistance for the disputed matters named and will utilize experienced and trained staff who are familiar with the laws and policies of government.
C.	GRIEVANCES, APPEALS, INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENTS
(1)	The Civil Service Commission should integrate all grievance and appeal procedures in a single system to the extent feasible under existing law.
(2)	The negotiated grievance procedure and appeals procedure (to the extent permitted by law) should be the exclusive procedures available to employees in the unit.
(3)	Arbitration should be made available for the resolution of disputes over the interpretation and application of an agreement.
(4)	Exceptions to arbitrators’ decisions should be sustained only on grounds similar to those applied by the courts in private sector labormanagement relations. Procedures for considering exceptions to decisions should be established by the Panel.
The Review Committee is of the opinion based on the testimony presented that, to the extent feasible, all grievance and appeal procedures in the agency should be integrated into a single system, that such a system should permit arbitration, should minimize the number of levels of review, and should prohibit duplicate channels of appeal. Accordingly, it is recommended that as soon as practicable the Civil Service Commission accomplish this objective to the extent feasible under existing law.
Also, it has been proposed that there be a single grievance system for all employees covered by an agreement rather than a “union system” and an “agency system” as presently exists in some agencies. The Committee finds merit in this suggestion. It believes that negotiated grievance procedures, so long as they preserve all material
44
rights which otherwise would be available to the employee under standards issued by the Civil Service Commission in the absence of an agreement providing for such procedures, should be adopted as the exclusive procedure by the agency for those employees in the exclusively recognized unit. Such procedures, however, should not preclude an employee, regardless of whether he is a member of a labor organization, from bringing matters of personal concern to the attention of appropriate officials, or from choosing his own representative in a grievance or appellate action.
The Committee believes that the exclusive representative should be given the opportunity to be represented at discussions between management and employees or employee representatives concerning appeals as well as grievances, personnel policies and practices, or other matters affecting general working conditions of the employees in the unit. The Committee, however, recognizes the special nature of some very limited circumstances in appeal cases, such as those involving national security matters, or those where the appellant objects to the presence of the exclusive representative because the matter involves his personal privacy to such an extent that the presence of the exclusive representative would create an untoward embarrassment. In these few cases, the exclusive representative does not have an unqualified right to be present. Any question of the exercise of the right to be present should be decided by the management official or the hearing officer handling the adjustment of the appeal.
Any decision in a proceeding where the exclusive representative is excluded shall not be considered precedential as it relates to other employees. Further, the management official or the hearing officer handling the matter should be responsible for assuring that the adjustment of the case does not discriminate against or injure the interests of other employees in the bargaining unit or violate the terms and conditions of any existing agreement.
The exclusive representative also should be permitted to negotiate the mechanics of a grievance system including the method of providing for a personal presentation in cases when arbitration is not invoked.
In addition, it should be stated clearly that the parties may negotiate arbitration procedures for the resolution of disputes over the interpretation and application of the agreement as well as procedures for the resolution of appeals and grievances, which were authorized under Executive Orders 10987 and 10988.
The Review Committee finds that the arbitration of grievances has worked well and has benefited both employees and agencies. Many thousands of grievances have been settled without referral to arbitration. In those few instances in which the grievance was referred to arbitration, the arbitrators’ decisions have been accepted most of the time. There have been some few instances in which agencies have
45
rejected or modified the decision. Witnesses appearing before the Committee objected to an agency’s unilateral right in this regard. The Review Committee feels that arbitrators’ decisions should be accepted by the parties. Challenges to such awards will be sustained only on grounds similar to those applied by the courts in private sector labormanagement relations, and procedures for the consideration of exceptions should be developed by the Panel. Such exceptions should be taken expeditiously by notifying the other party, the agency head, and the national president of the organization of the full nature of the objections to the decision. If higher authority within the agency and the organization cannot resolve the matter within a reasonable period of time, either party should have the right to appeal to the Panel in accordance with its rules. The Panel, after a review of the record, briefs and other information, then should issue its decision and publish it in the Federal Register. The same limited right of appeal to the Panel should be afforded to the parties in arbitration under a negotiated procedure which provides for arbitration of appeals of adverse actions when the employee elects not to appeal to the Civil Service Commission.
D.	PROCEDURES TO BE ADOPTED IN THE EVENT OF
IMPASSES IN NEGOTIATIONS
(1)	The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service should extend its services to the Federal labor relations program.
(2)	Additional procedures for the resolution of impasses should be made available, including factfinding on the merits of a dispute with recommendations forming the basis for further negotiations, or the arbitration of impasses, or both.
(3)	The parties to an impasse should have the right to request the services of the Federal Labor Relations Panel.
Much of the presentation before the Review Committee pertained to procedures for use if an impasse is reached in negotiations between management officials and organizations granted exclusive recognition.
The Report of the President’s 1961 Task Force expressed the concern that in the developing stages of employee-management relations, the availability of arbitration would have the effect of escalating too many impasses to third-party settlement. For this reason, the Task Force opposed the adoption of arbitration during the initial stages of the program and suggested instead that agencies devise other methods of impasse resolution *-r adoption through negotiation. The Review Committee believes that this concern is still valid.
The Committee feels that ready availability of procedures providing for the final resolution of negotiation impasses could cause the undesired escalation effect whereby the parties, instead of working out
46
their differences by hard, earnest and serious negotiation, continually would take their problems to a third party for settlement. It is generally recognized that agreements voluntarily arrived at through a free collective bargaining system are the hallmark of the industrial democracy enjoyed in this country.
Various devices have been used by departments and agencies during the past six years in helping to bring about settlements in negotiations. They have included joint factfinding committees, referral to higher authority within the agency and the organization and, to a limited extent, mediation. Each of these has proved its usefulness and should continue to be utilized.
At this stage of the program’s development, based on past experience, the Committee believes that Government and organization officials should be free, within law, to negotiate techniques most appropriate to their own needs and circumstances. It feels that departments and agencies, where appropriate, should permit their negotiators to agree to a variety of dispute-resolving techniques.
Toward this end, the Committee recommends that the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service should extend its services to the Federal labor-management relations program. The Service should, subject to such necessary rules as it may prescribe, provide for the Federal service the same type of mediation assistance that it offers in the private sector without charge to either party. In this connection, parties should be permitted to agree to mediation by persons other than Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service commissioners on a costsharing basis. In the area of mediation techniques, the Committee believes that preventive mediation is a useful device that should be utilized, where appropriate, in the Federal service.
Other techniques that should be made available, in addition to those which have already been utilized, are (1) third-party factfinding on the merits of a dispute with recommendations forming the basis for further negotiations or (2) the arbitration of negotiation impasses or both. Such techniques should be utilized only pursuant to a specific agreement on a particular impasse between the department or agency and a labor organization granted exclusive recognition and should be resorted to only after other available techniques have been used. The agreement should establish a defined set of issues that will be subject to factfinding or arbitration and should provide that the costs incurred be shared.
While a variety of impasse-resolving techniques including fact-finding and arbitration should be made available, the Committee strongly believes that factfinding or arbitration should be resorted to only after earnest efforts by the parties to reach agreement through direct negotiations and after referral to higher authority within the department or agency and the national office of the labor organization. To assure that the availability of factfinding or arbitration is not
4T
resorted to prematurely, the approval of the agency head and, where appropriate, i.e., in conformity with internal labor organization procedure, the national office of the labor organization, should be obtained. The recommendations or awards should be accepted in the same manner as in the arbitration of grievances and appeals and should be subject to challenge only on grounds similar to those discussed in that section of this report.
While it is anticipated that voluntary techniques should resolve most negotiation impasses, the Committee recognizes that there may be situations where, despite the efforts of the parties, a settlement may not be reached. In such cases, either or both parties should have the right to request the services of the Federal Labor Relations Panel, subject to such necessary rules as it may prescribe. Thereupon, the Panel should have the authority to (1) review the efforts made by the parties to reach agreement; (2) determine the nature of the unresolved matter(s); (3) suggest other voluntary methods that could be utilized; and (4) decide, after consideration of the views of the parties, whether the impasse is of such nature that it is appropriate to assert jurisdiction. Upon determination that it should exercise jurisdiction, the Panel should have the authority to determine whether to submit the matter to an expert or panel of experts from within or outside of the Federal service for recommendations to the Panel which in turn would issue a final and binding decision to the agency head and organization and publish such decision in the Federal Register. In special circumstances, the Panel may decide to hear the matter itself. The costs of proceedings should be shared by the parties.
E.	CHANGES IN FORMS OF RECOGNITION
(1)	Informal recognition should be abolished ma- ng exclusive recognition the major form of relationship.
(2)	Formal recognition should be retained, but should be restructured as to content and membership requirements.
(3)	National formal recognition should be abolished and in lieu thereof national consultation rights should be established. The Federal Labor Relations Panel should develop criteria setting forth standards for the granting of national consultation rights. National consultation rights should not be granted to an organization for a unit when another organization already holds exclusive recognition at the national level for that unit.
(4)	Exclusive recognition should be made available without membership requirements. The 60 percent representative vote rule should be abolished.
(5)	Criteria for establishing units for national exclusive recognition should- be the same as those used for establishing the appropriateness of other units for exclusive recognition.
The initial order took careful note of the long-established policy of the Federal government to solicit and consider the views of its em
48
ployees in formulating and revising personnel policy. It was designed to accommodate the wide variations in employee organizations among the agencies and departments. It was structured to provide three types of recognition—informal, formal and exclusive—generally determined according to the extent to which an employee organization or labor organization represented Federal employees in a particular government activity or unit within the activity.
During the 6 years that have elapsed since Executive Order 10988 became effective, there has been a strong and steady surge in the organization of Federal employees. In keeping with the dynamics of this employer-employee relationship, it is appropriate to evaluate the experience gained with each type of recognition in terms of its contribution to the development of more stable and significant Federal labor relations.
1.	Informal Recognition
Informal recognition was originally intended to serve as a transitional feature in order not to disrupt existing relationships with small union groups in the early, developmental phases of the program. Reported experience with this form of recognition indicated that while a small number of unions still find it to be a useful tool, a substantial number of both union and agency officials believe it has outlived its usefulness as a positive force in promoting sound labor relations. In general, union experience has shown that it detracts from the dignity and prestige of exclusive recognition, and that it is inappropriate in units where another organization holds exclusive representation rights. Agency experience also has been largely on the negative side. Federal management officials have found that informal recognition is no longer meaningful; that it encourages fragmentation, creates overlapping relationships, places an undue administrative burden on management; and that unions with such recognition lack the strength to contribute substantially to stable labor relations.
The Committee believes that the body of experience reported demonstrates quite clearly that informal recognition now contributes little toward strengthening employee-management relations in the Federal government. Its continuance, therefore, seems no longer appropriate in a program that has reached a level of serious collective bargaining.
The Committee recommends that this type of recognition be abolished effective December 31, 1968.
2.	Formal Recognition
Testimony of witnesses for the most part favored retention of formal recognition. Some, however, suggested that if this type of recognition is retained, it should be strengthened and clarified. Others indicated that formal recognition had encouraged the establishment or perpetuation of fragmented units and created overlapping relation
49
ships which, in turn, tended to generate a confusing and disruptive climate in the conduct of labor relations. Further, experience demonstrated that problems had arisen as a result of a lack of clarity in delineating rights and obligations of formal recognition vis-a-vis those of exclusive recognition.
The Committee recommends the retention of formal recognition at this time, in the belief that it has proven a useful concept in the positive development of Federal employee-management relations, despite some of the weaknesses cited. At the same time, the Committee recognizes that some restructuring of the concept is necessary if the full potential of formal recognition and of exclusive recognition is to be realized. Accordingly, it is recommended that the present membership requirement of 10 percent be raised to 30 percent of the employees in an appropriate unit and that disputes over the grant of such recognition be decided by the Assistant Secretary of Labor. Further, it is recommended that the application of the increased membership requirement to labor organizations currently holding formal recognition be deferred for a period of 2 years. This revision, in effect, would confer the rights of consultation only to those labor organizations which represent a significant portion of the work force and thus provide a more accurate gauge of the direction and intensity of employee interests.
Also, it is recommended that discussion of matters pertaining to the implementation of personnel policies and practices, and matters affecting working conditions of concern to employees, be reserved to labor organizations holding exclusive recognition. Such questions are tied directly to the negotiation and administration of the collective agreement and should be raised solely by the exclusive representative of employees in the unit. Therefore, organizations holding formal recognition should have rights of consultation limited to conferring on proposed changes in personnel policies that are of concern to their members.
3.	National Consultation
Testimony from a number of witnesses indicated some dissatisfaction with the operation of formal recognition at the national level. It was said to be confusing and largely ineffective. The Committee finds some merit in this criticism. It recognizes that the current provision for granting national formal recognition is couched in broad language and allows a wide latitude of discretion to an agency head in determining the appropriateness of granting such recognition. It also recognizes that in the absence of firm guidelines, departments and agencies necessarily adopted their own standards for granting national formal recognition. The ensuing variations in standards and their application have resulted in some inconsistencies and. consequently may have given the appearance of confusion. Similarly,
50
the nature and extent of communication with labor organizations and the consideration given to their expressed views differed among the agencies.
Labor organization comments included suggested ways in which the functioning of this type of recognition might be improved. These views indicate a need to express more fully what this concept was intended to accomplish.
Currently, the Order provides that formal recognition at the national level requires an agency to notify labor organizations granted such recognition of contemplated policy changes affecting all employees. It also provides that such labor organizations may propose changes in existing policies, confer in person with appropriate officials from time to time, and at all times present views in writing on personnel policies and practices and matters affecting working conditions that are of concern to members. And it is the intent of the Order that management officials will give careful attention to union proposals.
Experience over the past 6 years as reflected in the testimony suggests the need to develop specific standards that would provide greater uniformity in the grant of consultation rights at the national level, and the need to restate the principles and requirements governing them in order to improve the utilization of such rights. The Committee finds that revisions in the Order are warranted by these needs.
To clarify the concept, the Committee recommends that the use of the terminology “formal recognition at the national level” be discontinued and the term “national consultation rights” be substituted as more descriptive of the intended purpose. To promote greater uniformity and at the same time maintain the flexibility necessary to successful implementation of the program, the Committee recommends that the Federal Labor Relations Panel, after consultation with agencies and labor organizations, develop criteria setting forth eligibility standards for granting national consultation rights. To insure the availability of such rights, the Committee further recommends that the Order provide for appeal in instances where such rights are withheld by an agency. To encourage maximum communication, the Committee recommends that the Order include the right of response to labor organization proposals if response is requested. However, consistent with the principle of exclusive recognition, national consultation rights should not be granted in any unit where an organization already holds exclusive recognition at the national level. Also, it should be clear that national consultation does not extend the right to negotiate.
The Panel, upon establishing criteria for national consultation rights, should set a date for abolishing formal recognition at the national level. However, those organizations which currently have voluntary dues withholding agreements should continue to enjoy such privileges.
51
In summary the Committee recommends that national consultation rights include all of the following:
—	Notification to the labor organization by the agency of proposed changes in personnel policies that are of concern to employees it represents;
—	Opportunity for the labor organization to comment on such proposals and make alternative proposals;
—	Reply by the agency, if requested, to the labor organization comments or proposals;
—	Opportunity for the labor organization to suggest changes in personnel policies that are of interest to employees it represents;
—	Opportunity for the labor organization to confer in person upon request at reasonable times;
—	Opportunity for the labor organization to submit its views in writing at any time;
—	Careful consideration of suggestions of the labor organization;
—Opportunity to appeal agency decisions to withhold national consultation rights (following the establishment of eligibility criteria by the Panel).
These changes should facilitate greater understanding of mutual problems and substantially contribute to the improvement of labor relations.
4.	Exclusive Recognition
Testimony disclosed that Federal employee-management relations are most productive and the objectives of the Order best served in situations where exclusive recognition is held. However, the Committee finds that the 10 percent membership requirement for exclusive recognition originally specified by the Order has not proven significantly beneficial, has created administrative problems in determining eligibility and accordingly should be eliminated.
Therefore, the Committee recommends that exclusive representation rights should be granted to the labor organization designated by a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit in a manner similar to that used in the private sector.
Sixty Percent Representative Vote Rule
A number of witnesses spoke against the current rule that requires at least 60 percent of the unit employees present and eligible to participate in a representation election in order for the election to be considered valid. It was said that the rule violates the rights of the majority and is in conflict with standards established for political elections and those established by the National Labor Relations Board for the private sector. The Committee believes that the development of sound labor relations will be served better by rescinding the rule and recommends granting exclusive recognition on the basis of selection by a majority of those voting.
52
5.	National Exclusive Recognition
A question was raised concerning a policy statement issued by the President’s Temporary Committee on the Implementation of the Federal Employee-Management Relations Program. The statement discouraged the establishment of units for the purpose of national exclusive recognition.
Relatively few problems have arisen in this area in the past 6 years. However, at this stage of development of the program, the Committee feels that determinations as to the appropriateness of such units should be based upon the same criteria used in determining the appropriateness of any other unit requested for the purpose of exclusive recognition.
F.	STATUS OF SUPERVISORS
Supervisors should be considered part of management. Formal or exclusive recognition should not be granted to mixed units or to units consisting solely of supervisors. Agencies should take steps to improve the status of supervisors and associations of supervisors by insuring that they are afforded the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in the management process and to have their problems meaningfully considered.
The status of supervisors under the Order received significant attention in the testimony received by the Committee. The comments received dealt with the issues of definition, the form of recognition, if any, to be granted for units of supervisors, and the area of conflict of interest and the possible violation of the Code of Fair Labor Practices which occurs when supervisors participate in organizations of their subordinates.
The 1961 Task Force expected that the development of employeemanagement relations in the Federal service under a formal program would have the effect of making the role of the Government manager clearer and better defined, and it welcomed this prospect.
The Committee is equally concerned with this objective. It views supervisors as a part of management, responsible for participating in and contributing to the formulation of agency policies and procedures and contributing to the negotiation of agreements with employees. Supervisors should be responsible for representing management in the administration of agency policy and labor-management agreements, including negotiated grievance systems and for expression of management viewpoints in daily communication with employees. In short, they should be and are part of agency management and should be integrated fully into that management. The Committee is also concerned that recognition granted for units of supervisors not compromise in any way the free choice by subordinate employees of their own representatives.
53
For these reasons the Committee recommends that the existing policy of excluding supervisors from nonsupervisory units be continued and that recognition for a unit of supervisors not be granted, except that, where justified by long established practice in a particular industry, such supervisors may be represented in separate units by labor organizations which historically and traditionally represent such supervisors in the private sector. However, where dues withholding agreements exist they should be continued.
While the Committee believes that organizations of supervisors should have an opportunity to deal and consult with higher management officials as to their mutual problems, their relationship should be one which minimizes the potential for friction and conflict within the ranks of management, which fosters free communication and consultation between supervisors and their representatives and higher management officials, but which maintains a clear concept of mutual responsibility within management ranks. Agencies should take steps to assure that supervisors and associations of supervisors are afforded the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in the management process and have their problems meaningfully considered. For the sake of clarity and uniformity, the Committee recommends adoption of a definition of “supervisor” similar to that found in the private sector.
Finally, the Committee recommends the Federal Labor Relations Panel should, within 2 years, provide for a review of the arrangements established by agencies for dealing with supervisors and associations of supervisors on their problems and for the making of recommendations to the President for any necessary changes.
G.	SCOPE OF BARGAINING
The scope of bargaining should be clarified by providing for the negotiation of appropriate protective arrangements for employees adversely affected by the realignment of work forces or technological change.
The Order’s present language dealing with the scope of bargaining contained in section 6(b) was commented upon by many before the Committee.
Generally, labor organizations stated that they were not concerned with the mission of an agency, its budget, and its organization because these matters do not relate to personnel policies or working conditions. They were, however, concerned with the assignment of personnel and the technology of performing work because personnel actions in these areas directly affect the jobs of employees, particularly those who are being displaced by automation or other technological changes. While recognizing the right of an agency to assign personnel or to introduce new machines and working processes, some labor organizations wanted to assure the right of exclusive representatives to negotiate protective
54
arrangements for employees adversely affected by personnel policies, changing technology, and partial or entire closure of an installation.
The 1961 Task Force, in its discussion of this matter, noted that major reorganizations or changes in work methods, while not negotiable themselves, will involve implementation problems that may be negotiable—such as promotion, demotion and training procedures.
Experience has shown that many agencies and labor organizations have negotiated agreements dealing with the impact of such actions on employees.
The Committee believes there is need to clarify the present language in section 6(b) of the Order. The phrase “its organization and the assignment of its personnel” apparently has been interpreted by some as including procedures on such actions as the detailing of employees, the assignment to particular shifts or the assignment of overtime. This clearly is not the intent of the language. This language should be considered as applying to an agency’s right to establish staffing patterns for its organization—the number and type of positions in the various segments of its organization.
To remove any possible future misinterpretation of the intent of the phrase “its organization and the assignment of its personnel,” the Committee recommends that the phrase “its organization and the numbers, types and grades of positions included in each organizational unit” be substituted. As further clarification, a sentence should be added to this section providing that agencies and labor organizations shall not be precluded from negotiating agreements providing for appropriate protective arrangements for employees adversely affected by the realignment of work forces or technological change.
H.	MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The current requirements contained in section 7(2) should be continued but modified. The administration of an agreement should be governed by laws, regulations of other appropriate authorities, and the published agency policies and regulations in existence at the time the agreement was approved (unless the policies and regulations are waived at the time of approval or subsequently are required to be changed by law or appropriate authority).
The Committee was urged to delete from the present Order references to management rights contained in section 7(2). It was pointed out that most of the items listed in this section are governed by law or regulation, and, further, that many agreements now include clauses relating to promotions, transfers, reduction-in-force, and disciplinary actions. None questioned management’s ultimate right to take the personnel actions enumerated in this section.
The Committee believes that many of the practices and procedures followed by management in the exercise of the rights enumerated
55
in section 7(2) are appropriate subjects for negotiation. However, the current requirement in section 7 that agreements include a statement recognizing the responsibility of management officials to take such necessary actions to carry out their mission in the public interest in accordance with applicable laws and regulations should be continued. The language of the requirement also should recognize that the exercise of such rights should conform to the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement.
Accordingly, it is recommended that section 7(2) be amended to read as follows:
“Management officials of the agency retain the right, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and the terms and conditions of the agreement, (a)----------.”
Some union witnesses claimed that agencies have changed their regulations to nullify clauses of agreements already negotiated and approved at the national level.
The Committee believes that administration of an agreement should be governed by published agency policies and regulations in existence at the time the agreement was approved (unless the policies and regulations are waived at the time of approval) and by any changes in policies and regulations subsequently required by law or appropriate authority.
Therefore, section 7(1) should be amended to read as follows:
“In the administration of all matters covered by the agreement, officials and employees are governed by existing or future laws and the regulations of appropriate authorities including policies set forth in the Federal Personnel Manual, by published agency policies and regulations in existence at the time the agreement was approved, and by subsequent published agency policies and regulations required by law.”
I.	DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Agencies should increase, where practical, delegation of authority on personnel policy matters to local managers to permit a wider scope for negotiations. Procedures should be established to resolve impasses over negotiability questions.
A large part of testimony offered by labor organizations pertained to delegation of authority. It was claimed that agencies through their regulatory authority have narrowed unduly the range of negotiable matters, thereby limiting the area for bilateral negotiations. It was recommended that all matters should be considered negotiable, as long as they are not inconsistent with present and future laws, thereby increasing the ability of local management officials to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.
56
The Committee believes that fruitful negotiations can take place only where local management officials have sufficient authority to negotiate matters of concern to their employees.
The Committee firmly believes that regulatory authority must be retained, but that agencies should increase, where practicable, delegations of authority on personnel policy matters to local managers to permit a wider scope for negotiation. Agencies should not issue over-prescriptive regulations, and should consider exceptions from agency regulations on specific items where both parties request an exception and the agency considers the exception feasible.
On occasion, issues will arise as to the particular scope and specificity of agency regulations which limit the extent of matters negotiable at the local level. Such issues should be resolved through consultation with organizations granted national consultation rights. Where impasses develop during bargaining at the local level as to whether a labor organization proposal is contrary to law or agency regulations, and therefore not negotiable, the labor organization should have the right to refer such impasse immediately to agency headquarters for an expeditious determination. A headquarters determination that the labor organization proposal is contrary to law should be final. Similarly, a headquarters determination on interpretation of agency regulations should be final. An underlying issue of negotiability (i.e., should the agency regulation be amended, or an exception granted) may be referred to the Panel as an impasse. However, through national consultation and by means of granting exceptions, agencies, to the extent possible, should attempt to increase the authority of local managers to accomplish the purposes of the Order consistent with the public interest and the maintenance of the efficiency of the Government operations entrusted to them.
A labor organization should be permitted to file unfair labor practice complaints when it believes that a local management official has been arbitrary or in error in excluding a matter from negotiation. This could occur if a determination already has been made, upon previous appeal to agency headquarters, that the matter proposed for negotiation is not contrary to law or existing published agency policy, or Civil Service Commission policies and regulations. In effect, the labor organization would be saying that in this instance the local official is authorized to negotiate on a specific matter, but refuses to do so.
In summation, the Committee believes that much can be done within agencies to improve the negotiation process. It feels that the suggestions offered would give exclusively recognized organizations a way of appealing, during negotiations, questions as to whether a matter proposed for negotiation is in conflict with law or agency regulations. Also, the organization could file an unfair labor practice complaint—and obtain impartial third-party review of the complaint—when it believes management (a) is not negotiating on a
57
proposal that has been determined to be negotiable, or (b) is acting capriciously or in error in interpreting the management rights clauses of the Order.
In addition to the means suggested above for increasing the scope of bargaining within delegated authority, an agency and a labor organization or group of labor organizations should be free to agree to engage in joint bargaining covering any combination of units at any level of the agency where the parties are in agreement that such an arrangement would provide for more meaningful negotiations.
Any multi-unit agreement negotiated at the headquarters level of an agency, of course, would preclude any need for national consultation rights for the employees covered by such an agreement.
Where the parties are unable to reach agreement on a proposed combination of units for purposes of bargaining, the normal procedures for establishing a single appropriate unit for exclusive recognition should be available.
The Committee recognizes that complex questions of multi-unit and joint bargaining are emerging which influence the structure of collective bargaining and therefore recommends that the Panel institute a study of this aspect of collective bargaining.
J.	APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS
The requirement for agency approval is necessary and should be continued. However, the approval or disapproval of a negotiated agreement should be based solely upon the agreement’s conformity with laws, existing published agency policies and regulations (unless the policies and regulations are waived at the time of approval), and with the regulations of other appropriate authorities.
Objections were raised by a number of witnesses to the current requirement that a negotiated agreement must be approved by the agency head or his designated representative. Some of the comments advocated outright elimination of the requirement. Others suggested placing limitations on the scope of review to preclude second guessing on substantive issues, and on the length of time allowed for completion of review and subsequent approval or disapproval.
Where the approval process has resulted in unwarranted delay, or in unnecessary or arbitrary revision of locally negotiated agreements not solely on the basis of conflict with agency regulations, but on the basis of disagreement with the language or substance of what had been negotiated, union complaints seem justified. The Committee is of the opinion, however, that with the development of greater sophistication in administering the program such situations may disappear entirely in the future.
The Committee believes that the requirement for agency approval is necessary and should be continued. Such requirement is not new or uncommon in labor relations. For example, there are already a num
58
ber of national unions which require national office approval of contracts negotiated by their subordinate bodies, and some of these unions currently hold exclusive representation rights for units of Federal employees.
The Committee is convinced, however, that some limitations should be incorporated into the approval process. In this connection, it recommends that approval or disapproval be based solely upon the agreement’s conformity with laws and existing published agency policies and regulations (unless the policies and regulations are waived at the time of approval), and with the regulations of other appropriate authorities. It is, of course, expected that agencies will move expeditiously on contract approvals. They should facilitate the process in order to afford the parties the immediate benefits of the negotiated agreement.
K.	APPROPRIATE UNIT
In addition to the “community of interest” criterion, an appropriate unit should be one that promotes effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations.
Several witnesses criticized the present Order’s language as deficient in that it did not provide adequate criteria for purposes of appropriate unit determination.
The Committee is aware of the difficulties to be encountered in this complex problem area of public sector labor relations. It recognizes that the element of uniqueness in each situation requires handling appropriate unit determinations on a case by case basis. It agrees firmly that such determinations must be tied basically to a clear and identifiable community of interest of the employees involved. However, it recommends that in addition to meeting the community of interest criterion, an appropriate unit must be one that promotes effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations. The Committee feels that these additional criteria are essential to insure effective Federal employee-management relations.
The Committee points out that providing for a centralized responsibility for the determination of appropriate units should bring greater order and consistency to the resolution of such questions. As unit decisions are issued, a body of precedent will be developed on which interested parties will be able to draw for guidance.
L.	CODE OF FAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Both labor organizations and agency management should be required to consult, confer, and negotiate in good faith.
In reviewing the testimony and the Code of Fair Labor Practices, the Committee finds that while agency management is required to hear, consult, confer or negotiate with employee organizations, there is no similar requirement on the part of organizations. In view of
59
326-173 0—69-----5
the Committee’s recommendations to provide for more meaningful procedures and to delineate more fully the rights and obligations of agency and organization representatives, it is recommended that labor organizations meet the same obligations as required for management in the area of consulting, conferring and negotiating and that the concept of “good faith bargaining,” which is inherent in the program, be clearly enunciated in the duty to negotiate.
M.	REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE
The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations should promulgate rules for financial reporting and disclosure, bonding requirements, and standards for trusteeships for organizations receiving recognition under the Order.
The Committee heard testimony indicating a disparity in treatment among organizations representing Federal employees with respect to the reporting and disclosure of financial transactions and administrative practices. It was disclosed that some organizations representing such employees are required to file reports while others are free from having to meet this requirement.
The Task Force in 1961 pointed out that if Federal employee organizations are to be given a more significant role within the Federal government, they must expect to assume greater responsibilities. At that time, it suggested that consideration be given to the extension to public employee organizations of standards of conduct established for trade unions in the private sector, such as reporting and disclosure of financial transactions and administrative practices. Accordingly, the Standards of Conduct for Employee Organizations were developed and issued in 1963. While these standards incorporated most of the substantive provisions of the private sphere, they do not include a requirement for financial reporting and disclosure, or for suitable bonding of organization officers and employees who handle money paid into the organization by its members, or any standards for trusteeships.
Under the employee-management cooperation program established by Executive Order 10988, labor organizations of Federal employees have grown significantly in size and strength, and all should meet the same requirements with respect to reporting and disclosure, bonding and administrative practices as their counterparts in the private sector.
To bring uniformity of treatment to all unions representing Federal employees, the Committee recommends that the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations add to the present standards of conduct by promulgating rules and regulations for reporting and disclosure of financial transactions and administrative practices, bonding requirements and standards for trusteeships for labor organizations receiving recognition under this Order.
60
N.	INCREASED COVERAGE OF THE ORDER
Federal employees paid from non-appropriated funds should be covered by the Order.
Considerable testimony was heard from organizations and individuals concerning increasing the coverage of the Order to include Federal employees paid from non-appropriated funds, the employees of the District of Columbia, the employees of the Government Printing Office, and National Guard Technicians.
While several agencies through administrative action have afforded non-appropriated fund employees the benefits of Executive Order 10988, the Committee recommends that such employees should be included specifically in any new order.
The District of Columbia, being a municipal corporation established by statute and not an agency of the executive branch of the Federal government, could not be included by Executive action. The same is true of the Government Printing Office which is part of the legislative branch. The Committee, however, would recommend that the Mayor and City Council of the District of Columbia, and the Public Printer consider modifying their present labor relations program for their employees to make it similar to the one being proposed.
While it appears that National Guard Technicians are State employees, the Congress is presently considering legislation to clarify their status by making them Federal employees. Accordingly, any future coverage of the technicians by the proposed Order will be contingent on the action taken by the Congress.
0.	UNION SECURITY
Agencies and labor organizations holding exclusive recognition may negotiate provisions for voluntary payroll deduction of dues or their equivalent revocable only at 12-month intervals or under certain specified circumstances.
Most labor organization witnesses recommended authorization of the negotiation of union security measures. They also recommended amending the voluntary dues withholding regulations to permit revocation of dues withholding only once a year rather than twice a year as at present.
The Committee also recognizes the value of union security measures m producing stable labor-management relations. The utilization of such measures enables labor organizations to devote their efforts to the establishment of constructive labor-management relationships.
The Committee believes that dues withholding has worked well as a union security measure in the Federal program by stabilizing union membership and by bringing status and maturity to labor organizations.
The Committee recommends that to foster greater stability in labor-management relations this form of union security be strength
61
ened and improved at this time. Accordingly, it recommends that the Civil Service Commission revise its regulations so as to permit organizations holding exclusive recognition to negotiate agreements for the voluntary withholding of dues or an amount equivalent to the regular dues of the organization which provide that individual authorizations are revocable only at 12-month intervals or upon termination of recognition, or upon departure of the employee from the unit covered by the agreement, or upon expulsion or suspension of the member from the labor organization. Agreements made under formal recognition or under national consultation rights should continue to provide that individual authorizations are revocable only at 6-month intervals or upon the occurrence of the conditions specified above.
P.	AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
The Department of Labor and the Civil Service Commission should develop programs for the collection and dissemination of information appropriate to the needs of agencies, labor organizations, and the public.
A considerable number of witnesses mentioned the need for the collection, analysis, and publication of statistical data to assist in the collective bargaining process, and the need for dissemination of relevant information concerning the program and its operation.
The Committee agrees that availability of additional information of this type would be beneficial to the Federal labor relations program. It recommends that steps be taken by the Department of Labor and the Civil Service Commission to develop systematic and continuing programs for the collection and dissemination of information appropriate to the needs of agencies, labor organizations and the public.
Q.	LABOR ORGANIZATION
The term “labor organization” should be substituted for the term “employee organization” and should be redefined.
A number of witnesses proposed changing the term “employee organization” to “labor organization” or “union”. Another proposal dealt with the desirability of revising the definition to reflect more clearly qualifying functions and purposes of organizations eligible for coverage by the Order.
To avoid any suggestion of unwillingness of the Government to acknowledge the affiliation of employee groups with the labor movement, the Committee recommends adoption of the proposed change in terminology. Further, to minimize problems in interpretation of terms and to assure employees of the widest possible choice in selecting organizations to represent them, the Committee recommends the adoption of a definition of “labor organization” patterned upon that contained in the Wagner Act and in the Labor Management Relations Act. It proposes the term “labor organization” be defined as follows: “. . . the term 'labor organization’ means any lawful organization
62
of any kind, or any employee representation group which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with Federal agencies concerning grievances, personnel policies and practices, or other matters affecting the working conditions of their employees, but the term shall not include . .
R.	OTHER TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS
Only one valid election may be held in any unit or any subdivision of that unit in a 12-month period.
In the administration of the program some confusion has arisen as to the interpretation of section 3(b) of the Order. This section provides that agencies shall not be required to redetermine majority status in any unit within 12 months after a prior determination of exclusive status with respect to such unit has been made. Questions have arisen as to whether within a 12-month period an organization which fails to achieve majority status on the basis of a card/member -ship check should be entitled to an election; whether upon losing an election any labor organization can seek exclusive recognition in a smaller unit; and whether, following a grant of exclusive recognition, employees or an agency can assert that the exclusive representative no longer represents a majority of employees in the unit.
With regard to these questions the Committee believes that:
(1)	A card or membership check should not be considered the equivalent of an election. An organization which fails to prove its majority status based upon such a check, but which demonstrates a showing of interest of at least 30 percent of the unit, should be entitled to an election.
(2)	The criteria established for private sector labor relations prohibiting more than one valid election in a unit or subdivision of that unit in a 12-month period should be followed in the Federal sector.
(3)	Once a labor organization has been granted exclusive recognition, it would not contribute to the improvement of stable employeemanagement relations to permit a question concerning representation to be raised within 12 months after the grant of such recognition, except where there are unusual circumstances.
To deal with these matters, the Committee proposes that the section be amended to provide that only one valid election may be held in any unit or any subdivision of that unit in a 12-month period to determine whether any labor organization should become or continue to be recognized as the exclusive representative of employees.
S.	LABOR RELATIONS EMPLOYEES
Employees of agencies which administer labor relations programs should not be represented by any labor organization which represents other groups of employees under that program.
63
The Committee recognizes that for certain Federal employees who are responsible for administering the provisions of labor relations programs, representation by a labor organization which competes with other labor organizations for benefits under the program would pose serious problems of conflict of interest. Employees of the Department of Labor and the Civil Service Commission responsible for administering the Federal labor relations program and employees of the National Labor Relations Board responsible for administering the Labor Management Relations Act could fall in this category.
The Committee recommends the inclusion of a new section in the Order which provides that if the head of the agency determines that provisions of the Order cannot be applied to certain of the agency’s employees in a manner consistent with their program responsibility, such employees may not be represented by any labor organization which represents other groups of employees under the labor relations program (s) or law(s) which the agency administers.
64
Appendix C
TABLES
List of Tables
Page
Training opportunities approved under the Manpower Development and Training Act, by State and by program, fiscal year 1968................ 69
Training opportunities approved and Federal funds obligated under the
Manpower Development and Training Act, by fiscal year and by program, 1963-68....................................................... 70
Federal funds obligated under the Manpower Development and Training Act, by State and by program, fiscal year 1968......................... 71
Registered apprentices, 1941-68....................................... 72
Nonfarm placements by the Federal-State employment service............ 73
Selected employment service activities, U.S. totals for 1958-68 and by
State for fiscal year 1968.......................................... 74
Benefit data under State unemployment insurance programs, U.S. totals for 1959-68 and by State for fiscal year 1968.......................... 76
Subject employers and other selected data under State unemployment insurance programs, U.S. totals for 1959-68 and by State for fiscal year 1968.............................................................. 78
Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen, U.S. totals for 1959-68 and by State for fiscal year 1968...................................... 80
Unemployment compensation for Federal employees, U.S. totals for 1959-68 and by State for fiscal year 1968.............................. 82
Denials under State programs, U.S. totals for 1959-68 and by State for fiscal year 1968....................................................... 84
Significant provisions in State unemployment insurance laws, June 30, 1968................................................................... 86
Puerto Rico: Minimum wage rates in effect under the Fair Labor Standards Act, June 30, 1968..................................................... 89
Virgin Islands: Minimum wage rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act, June 30, 1968.......................................................... 94
American Samoa: Minimum wage rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act, June 30, 1968..................................................... 95
Minimum wage determinations under the Public Contracts Act, June 30, 1968................................................................... 95
Investigation findings under the Fair Labor Standards, Public Contracts, and McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Acts, by fiscal year, 1959-68.	97
Investigation findings under the Fair Labor Standards, Public Contracts, and McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Acts, by region, fiscal year 1968................................................................... 98
Number of minors found employed in nonagricultural establishments in violation of the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, fiscal year 1968....................................................... 99
Number of minors found employed on farms in violation of the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, fiscal year 1968.......... 100
Number of minors found employed in violation of hazardous occupations orders issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, fiscal year 1968....	102
67
List of Tables—Continued
Page
Number of minors found employed on farms in violation of the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by age and present or last school grade attended, fiscal year 1968.................................. 102
Number of nonlocal minors found employed on farms in violation of the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by age and present or last school grade attended, fiscal year 1968.................. 103
Learner certificates in effect under the Fair Labor Standards Act, June 20, 1968....................................................................  104
Labor-management disclosure filings, fiscal year 1968.................... 105
Welfare and pension benefit plans activity report........................ 105
Appropriations and other authorizations, fiscal year 1968................ 106
Number of employees on Labor Department rolls, June 30, 1968............. 107
68
TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES APPROVED1 UNDER THE MANPOWER DEVELOP-
MENT AND TRAINING ACT, BY STATE AND BY PROGRAM,2 FISCAL YEAR 1968
Program
State or Territory
Total
Institutional On-the-job
Part-time	Concentrated
and other	Employment
training	Program
Total.......
Alabama____________
Alaska_____________
Arizona____________
Arkansas___________
California_________
Colorado___________
Connecticut-.......
Delaware........
District of Columbia. Florida..__________
Georgia____________
Guam______________
Hawaii_____________
Idaho______________
Illinois___________
Indiana.........
Iowa_______________
Kansas_____________
Kentucky___________
Louisiana.......
Maine______________
Maryland........
Massachusetts______
Michigan___________
Minnesota__________
Mississippi________
Missouri........
Montana____________
Nebraska___________
Nevada_____________
New Hampshire______
New Jersey_________
New Mexico---------
New York........
North Carolina_____
North Dakota...... Ohio_____________
Oklahoma___________
Oregon_____________
Pennsylvania_______
Puerto Rico________
Rhode Island_______
South Carolina_____
South Dakota_______
Tennessee.........
Texas______________
Utah______________
Vermont____________
Virginia...........
Virgin Islands....
Washington........
West Virginia.....
Wisconsin_________
Wyoming___________
253,100	114,000	104,600	8,300	26,200
3,500	1,800	1,000 ...		700
600	400	200	(3)	
5,400	1,300	1,300	200	2,600
2,100	1,200	900 ...		
30,700	13, 500	16,300	400	500
2,400	1,200	700	(3)	500
4,000	900	2,400	600	100
800	300	500 ...		
7,100	1,700	5,400 ...		
4,600	2,800	1,200 ...		600
3,600	2,200	1,400 ...		
100	100 ...			
1,400	400	(’)		1,000
400	200	200 ...		
14,000	5,300	6,500	2,200 ....	
5,400	2,500	1,900	500	500
2,200	1,100	900 ...			200
1,500	900	500	100 ....	
5,700	2,800	1,800	700	400
2,900	1,400	1,500 ...		
2,400	1,000	1,200	100	100
3,700	1,700	2,000 ...		
8,100	3,300	4,300	400	100
6,300	3,600	2,700 ...		
4,700	2,100	1,900	200	500
5,500	1,800	700	100	2,900
3,700	2,200	800 ...		700
1,000	400	(s)	(3)	600
1,600	1,200	200	200 ....	
2,100	500	300	(3)	1,300
900	500	100 ...		300
14,200	6,800	4,100	300	3,000
1,300	1,000	200	(3)	100
20,300	8,200	11,700	400 ....	
3,900	1,800	1,900 ...		200
500	300	200 ...		
11,200	5,800	2,300	100	3,000
2,400	1,500	700 ...		200
4,200	1,300	1,100	200	1,600
14,300	6,400	7,700	200 ....	
1,900	1,300	600	(’)	
1,400	600	400	100	300
2,400	1,200	1,000 ...		200
900	300	600 ...		
5,600	1,900	2,100	100	1,500
13,300	5,400	6,600	1,000	300
700	600	100 ...		
400	200	100	100 ....	
3,200 (3)	2,300 (3)	600	100	200
5,400	' 3,100	500 ...		1,800
1,900	600	1,300 ...		
5,100	3,100	1,800 ...		200
200	(’)	200 ..	—	
i As of June 30,1968.
2 Includes training opportunities for redevelopment areas under sec. 241 of the MDTA.
3 Less than 50 trainees.
Note.—Training opportunities approved under national contracts usually shown in the State in which the contract was signed.
69
ed for special services were as follows: Fiscal year 1963, $2,923,000; fiscal year 1964, $6,070,000;	balances, etc.); e.g. fiscal year 1963 training opportunities and funds authorized are as of June 30,
fiscal year 1965, $16,744,000. Beginning July 1, 1965, includes authorizations for training oppor-	1964; fiscal year 1964 are as of June 30,1965.
tunities and funds for redevelopment areas under sec. 241 of the MDTA.	Note.—Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES APPROVED AND FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED UNDER THE MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT,1 BY FISCAL YEAR AND BY PROGRAM, 1963-68
70
FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED1 UNDER THE MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT, BY STATE AND BY PROGRAM,2 FISCAL YEAR 1968
[In thousands]
Program
State or Territory
Total Institutional On-the-job
Part-time	Concentrated
and other	Employment
training	Program
Total_______
Alabama___________
Alaska............
Arizona___________
Arkansas........
California________
Colorado..........
Connecticut_______
Delaware___________
District of Columbia. Florida___________
Georgia____________
Guam_______________
Hawaii_____________
Idaho.............
Illinois__________
Indiana___________
Iowa______________
Kansas____________
Kentucky...........
Louisiana........
Maine.............
Maryland__________
Massachusetts______
Michigan..........
Minnesota_________
Mississippi_______
Missouri__________
Montana____________
Nebraska..........
Nevada...........
New Hampshire.... New Jersey________
New Mexico........
New York..........
North Carolina_____
North Dakota_______
Ohio______________
Oklahoma__________
Oregon____________
Pennsylvania______
Puerto Rico_______
Rhode Island_______
South Carolina_____
South Dakota_______
Tennessee__________
Texas______________
Utah_______________
Vermont____________
Virginia___________
Virgin Islands____
Washington........
West Virginia_____
Wisconsin_________
Wyoming
$332,491	$216,586	$89,837	$5,501	$20,567
5,699	4,627	640	32	400
1,438	1,106	283	49 ...	
4,590	1,747	995	248	1,600
2,804	2,332	472 ...		
48,722	32,046	15,757	519	400
3,692	2,559	688	45	400
5,462	1,463	2,310	1,289	400
495	385	110 ...		
9,916	1,727	7,733 ...		456
5,620	4,432	759	29	400
4,750	3,835	915 ...		
93	93 ...			
949	537	12 ...		400
621	492	129 ...		
16,337	9,671	6,501	165 ...	
6,511	3,984	1,309	202	1,016
3,733	2,637	697 ...		399
2,120	1,955	156	9 ...	
5,836	3,618	1,166	274	778
4,020	3,171	849 ...		
2,277	1,128	565	184	400
3,464	2,636	828 ...		
12,631	5,922	5,728	581	400
11,999	9,075	2,924 ...		
7,535	3,808	2,295	254	1,178
5,610	4,485	663	14	448
6,344	4,401	765 ...		1,178
1,567	754	22	16	775
2,346	2,174	138	34 ...	
1,371	729	233	9	400
1,366	887	79 ...		400
13,574	9,862	2,858	56	798
2,399	1,684	127	188	400
34,699	23,963	9,724	227	785
4,811	3,445	966 ...		400
1,137	897	240 ...		
12,081	9,476	1,797	8	800
2,923	2,160	363 ...		400
3,495	1,871	1,153	71	400
15,272	11,621	3,618	33 ...	
2,475	2,299	169	7 ...	
1,805	992	281	132	400
3,344	2,183	383 ....		778
1,171	801	370 ....		
6,953	3,800	1,424	151	1,578
17,574	8,334	7,946	494	800
1,477	1,384	93 ....		
584	335	116	133 —.	
3,478	2,771	276	31	400
43	43 ...			
4,299	3,523	359	17	400
1,825	1,399	426 ...		
6,770	5,007	1,363 ...		400
384	320	64 ....		
*As of June 30,1968.
2 Includes Federal funds for redevelopment areas under sec. 241 of the MDTA.
Note.—Federal funds obligated under national contracts usually shown in the State in which the contract was signed.
71
REGISTERED APPRENTICES, 1941-68
[Adjusted to account for reporting revisions]
	Year	In training on Jan. 1	New registrations *	Completions	Cancellations1 2	In training on Dec. 31
1941					18,300	14,177	1,289	5,051	26,137
1942.....					26,137	20,701	2,011	4,683	40,144
1943						40,144	11,661	1,715	6,975	43,115
1944.....				43,115	7,775	2,122	8,197	40,571
1945.....					40,571	23,040	1,568	5,078	56,965
1946.....					56,965	84,730	2,042	8,436	131,217
1947						131,217	94,238	7,311	25,190	192,954
1948						192,954	85,918	13,375	35,117	230,380
1949					230,380	66,745	25,045	41,257	230,823
1950						230,823	60,186	38,533	49,747	202,729
1951		_________			202,729	63,881	38,754	56,845	171,011
19523...						172,477	62,842	33,098	43,689	158, 532
1953						158,532	73,620	28,561	43,333	160,258
1954		_________			160,258	58,939	27,383	33,139	158,675
1955		_ - 						158,675	67,265	24,795	26,423	174,722
1956						174,722	74,062	27,231	33,416	188,137
1957 3...					189,684	59,638	30,356	33,275	185, 691
1958						185,691	49,569	30,647	26,918	177, 695
1959						177,695	66,230	37,375	40,545	166, 005
19603...	___________			172,161	54,100	31,727	33,406	161,128
1961								161,128	49,482	28,547	26,414	155,649
1962						155,649	55,590	25,918	26,434	158,887
1963						158,887	57,204	26,029	26,744	163,318
1964						163,318	59,960	25,744	27,001	170,533
1965					170,533	68,507	24,917	30,168	183,955
1966		________			183,955	85,031	26,511	34,964	207,511
1967 a...	-				206,616	68,824	25,876	33,757	215,519
1968		—			215,519 .		—		
1 Includes reinstatements.
2 Cancellations are not synonymous with "dropouts," since they include layoffs, discharges, out-of-State transfers, upgrading within certain trades, suspensions for military service, and voluntary "quits.”
3 Major revisions in reporting system effected this year.
72
NONFARM PLACEMENTS BY THE FEDERAL-STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
Occupations and industries
Fiscal Fiscal year 1968 year 1967
Percent change in 1968
Total..								  5,759,900	6,142,200	-6.2
By occupation:			
Professional, technical, managerial			 272,300	273,700	-0.5
Clerical and sales				 924,600	984,100	-6.0
Clerical						 680,200	706,700	-3.7
Sales			 244,300	277,400	-11.9
Service and other				  1,869,000	1,967,600	-5.0
Domestic			 876,000	1,005,900	-12.9
Service except domestic...					  930,000	907,500	+2.5
Industrial						 2,694,000	2,916,800	-7.6
Processing			 244,300	263,000	-7.1
Machina trades						 250,200	279,400	-10.4
Bench work			 412,600	479,500	-13.9
Structural work						  521,000	546,600	-4.7
Miscellaneous				 1,265,900	1,348,300	-6.1
By industry:			
Construction			 360,500	369,600	-2.5
Manufacturing						 1,387,300	1,519,900	-8.7
Durable goods							  712,700	774,600	-8.0
Nondurable goods			 674,600	745,400	-9.5
Transportation and public utilities			 252,400	284,700	-11.3
Trade								 1,310,200	1,387,900	-5.6
Services									 1,991,700	2,154,600	-7.6
Nonhousehold			 1,032,800	1,070,100	-3.5
Household					 958,900	1,084,500	-11.6
Government											 312,900	277,400	+12.7
Other							 145,000	147,900	-2.3
73
SELECTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICE ACTIVITIES, U.S. TOTALS FOR 1958-68 AND
BY STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1968
Fiscal year and State	New applications*	Total counseling interviews	Individuals tested	Placements	
				Nonagricultural	Agricultural
1958....				.... 10,412,879	1,542,846	1,349,924	5,235,910	8,560,852
1959		9,368,746	1,734,170	1,609,536	5,703,458	9,468,625
1960		9,598,604	1,785,541	1,760,754	6,082,753	9,646,216
1961		.... 10,605,108	1,783,310	1,799,730	5,591,089	8,909,413
1962		.... 10,413,532	2,020,549	2,176,709	6,506,008	8,948,831
1963		.... 11,045,696	2,088,332	2,300,436	6,632,252	7,844,373
1964			.... 11,924,071	2,008,356	2,337,758	6,453,858	7,059,034
1965		.... 10,944,255	2,114,538	2,481,925	6,329,678	6,006,967
1966		.... 10,625,700	2,285,316	2,594,175	6, 586,827	4,305,207
1967				.... 10,773,823	2,399,120	2,277,114	6,142,153	4,112,938
1968		.... 10,693,230	2,599,022	2,099,955	5,759,923	4,572, 501
Alabama				205,241	31,060	42,458	95,972	30,012
Alaska		20,877	5,550	4,574	12,100	291
Arizona				134,677	12,552	19,687	85,543	465,297
Arkansas		164,212	34,524	41,379	105,537	94,065
California		1,300,303	266,661	187,406	552,087	1,060,681
Colorado		130,046	26,072	38,302	93,283	36,931
Connecticut		165,159	35,400	23,562	70,773	12,281
Delaware			16,463	7,600	4,551	6,831	7,410
District of Columbia		91,302	15,662	20,938	56,721	18
Florida		276,351	66,822	63,967	194,744	200,985
Georgia		191'197	33,077	34,577	139,196	41,854
Guam		1,715	154	30	859 .	
Hawaii		40,029	7,577	4,595	10,576	1,131
Idaho				54,425	9,371	13,627	34,857	68,121
Illinois		414,484	131,474	70,864	167,572	31,732
Indiana			271,470	47,102	37,863	115,813	43,153
Iowa.					96,946	15,712	22,057	73,065	13,055
Kansas		99,727	31,178	27,177	67,619	15,595
Kentucky.			151,573	47,849	41,218	55,595	56,459
Louisiana			148,816	29,729	47,902	83,338	39,341
Maine		40,118	12,217	15,440	18,854	4,338
Maryland		147,104	46,419	27,328	71,327	77,515
Massachusetts		310,426	83,484	32,271	133,244	26,915
See footnote at end of table.
74
SELECTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICE ACTIVITIES, U.S. TOTALS FOR 1958-68 AND BY STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1968—Contnued
Fiscal year and State	New applications1	Total counseling interviews	Individuals tested	Placements	
				Nonagricultural	Agricultural
Michigan..			502,347	100,051	60,137	217,398	97,824
Minnesota			203,884	39,762	53,672	99,448	21,018
Mississippi		158,125	62,519	47,938	84,173	54,837
Missouri				243,677	52,026	50,397	105,108	26,211
Montana				56,373	26,037	15,682	36,546	26,987
Nebraska		71,621	19,564	27,538	49,673	15,418
Nevada		48,710	11,127	7,597	26,452	3,539
New Hampshire		38,409	14,052	6,061	14,737	2,388
New Jersey..			340,804	86,668	36' 905	141,563	77,172
New Mexico					61,541	12,948	13,763	32,436	29,807
New York		792,169	282,813	125,692	705,929	90,433
North Carolina		246,669	56,837	67,855	101,242	464,863
North Dakota..				36,910	7,093	11,698	24,099	8,463
Ohio				517,817	75,840	90,058	215,108	120,558
Oklahoma		146,985	37,550	35,642	163,735	123,815
Oregon		137,208	35,923	20,722	67,495	177,625
Pennsylvania		558,840	181,701	92,493	270,005	277,346
Puerto Rico					193,535	24,708	17,155	60,571	22,550
Rhode Island.			49,422	20,727	7,749	23,820	171
South Carolina		121,328	24,265	31,819	59,313	50,569
South Dakota				33,000	9,321	11,983	22,983	5,354
Tennessee		182,005	34, 310	45,628	104,678	16,883
Texas				722,588	198,531	199,886	533,742	219,458
Utah..			80,821	19,136	33,011	35,814	21,625
Vermont		23,563	7,085	3,017	11,845	392
Virginia			191,163	61,018	64,063	104,903	63,983
Virgin Islands		2,998	723	985	1,271 .	
Washington		169,369	28,319	29,485	95,220	198,657
West Virginia...				84,536	24,394	13,418	22,361	5,357
Wisconsin				185,748	41,937	51,960	67,997	15,765
Wyoming					18,404	4,791	4,173	14,752	6,251
i The number of applications taken should not be interpreted as a measure of the total number of new job applicants at employment service offices, since there are some types of applicants tor whom written applications are not taken.
75
326-173 0—69----6
BENEFIT DATA UNDER STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAMS, U.S. TOTALS FOR 1959-68 AND BY STATE FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1968
76

77
79
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FOR EX-SERVICEMEN,12 U.S. TOTALS FOR 1959-68 AND BY STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1968
Iowa...._____________________________        1,846	198	197	895	485,713	46.86	11.4
Kansas------------------------------------   1,673	162	163	1,043	384,489	44.75	8.1
Kentucky_______________________________      5,444	788	737	3,632	1,627,946	42.39	10.6
Louisiana_______________________________..	3,810	564	482	2,019	1,058,584	41.15	12.4
Maine................................        1,109	112	109	869	238,624	41.71	6.5
80
Maryland..................................         4,257	316	302	2,167	677,333	43.52
Massachusetts..........................      4,512	564	582	3,297	1,423,573	45.83
Michigan__________________________________   10,062	1,047	968	5,989	2,161,534	43.30
Minnesota..______________________________    3,721	500	560	3,029	1,224,998	41.60
Mississippi_________________________________      1,397	126	119	699	181,142	29.47
i Program became effective Oct. 27, 1958; except for total benefits paid, data shown exclude 2 All columns relate to persons claiming benefits solely on the basis of military service, claims and payments made jointly with other unemployment insurance programs.	* Includes payments for partial unemployment.
81
Kansas---------------------------- 25,391	852	140	131	475	295,004	42.05	14.4
Kentucky—.------------------------ 40,732	2,836	474	440	1,799	906,346	39.04	12.7
Louisiana------------------------- 31,113	1,721	316	224	637	451,381	37.18	18.3
Maine----------------------------   9,950	336	60	66	304	120,963	34.28	11.3
Maryland------------------------- 103,828	1,811	232	208	734	475,489	43.15	14.7
Massachusetts..................   70,515	4,039	829	923	3,173	2,285,918	46.95	15.1
Michigan______t________________ 56,173	2,762	436	418	1,435	933,357	43.26	15.2
Minnesota______________________    32,359	979	164	183	692	409,960	41.67	13.8
Mississippi...._________________   22,289	1,855	254	254	840	364,704	27.35	15.7
Missouri........................   71,129	3,500	403	413	1,589	835,906	37.40	13.5
1 Excludes data on persons claiming benefits jointly under Federal and State III programs.	5 Includes the Federal portion of joint State-UCFE payments.
2 Data for fiscal year 1968 represent average for 12 months ended Dec. 31, 1967; fiscal year »Includes payments for partial unemployment. Beginning with July 1959, excludes joint State-1968 data are not available.	UCFE payments.
3 Beginning with fiscal year 1959, excludes joint State-UCFE claims.	r Includes 15,548 employees not distributed by State.
4 Beginning with July 1959, excludes joint State-UCFE payments.
83
r^oocDoooCTJOCMOcn
^_cMCMr^c0r^»r-tr^’^cMa>
DENIALS UNDER STATE PROGRAMS, U.S. TOTALS FOR 1959-68 AND BY STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1968
E
CD
E
o
.2
E
84
Massachusetts----------  44,249	18,244	43.1	4,457	10.5	11,294	3.7	1,761
Michigan___________—	98,218	42,069	70.7	8,952	15.0	26,999	8.2	2*471
Minnesota_______________ 26,566	13,180	129.1	3,016	29.5	4,623	6.0	1*482
Mississippi............  10,256	2,186	36.7	1,518	25.5	1,908	4.3	398
Missouri________________ 33,334	15,978	58.3	6,565	24.0	5,929	3.9	1,046
85
ooSooooooooooSooo £ 3 g s' S < s S § 8 s' g S S s § s cn	co cn rH cy{ <■ co co co co ’t <• 't <■
8SSSS8 gggi'gg LO LO Tt co” co ltT
oooooooKoooSoKooo
i § g g § g g s g § g g < § § a s
8s~3ggsg§g§8»Bgg§
°	_r u- -r ” u- -r -r u-
° S
§°sSsS
?SS5 *

g S 3 5 3 5 *
ssssggsgsssssssss

SKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSg
S^ggssssssssssss
gsgggggggg§sssggg
2
gggS§g §§2^2
3
< 5 5 1 5 g
1
1
87
SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS IN STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAWS, JUNE 30, 1968*—Continued
excess of those required for maximum basic weekly benefit amount. In the District of Columbia	’ Or 15 weeks in preceding 52 weeks and 40 weeks in preceding 104 weeks at average wages of
and Maryland, same maximum with or without dependents. Maximum augmented payment in	$15 or more (New York); 14 weeks in preceding 52 weeks and 55 weeks in the 52-week period plus
Massachusetts not shown; it may not exceed average weekly wage.	any base period which ended not more than 10 weeks before the start of the 52-week period
3 In North Carolina, annual amount, is increased by 8 times the weekly benefit amount when (Wisconsin).
unemployment in the State reaches specified levels; indicated increase in other States is 50 percent.
88
PUERTO RICO: MINIMUM WAGE RATES IN EFFECT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 30, 1968
Industry (with part number >) and classification
Minimum hourly rate 2
Agriculture—1966 coverage (pt. 727):
Sugar cane classification..___________________________________________________________________________________ *$0.57
Coffee classification_________________________________________________________________________________________ **. 50
Tobacco classification________________________________________________________________________________________ *. 47
Dairy farms classification_________________________________________________________........................... *. 57
Cattle classification—_____________________________________________________________._________________________ **. 50
Pineapple classification______________________________________________________________________________________ *.59
Tomatoes and peppers classification--------------------------------------------------------------------------- *. 57
Aviculture classification------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *. 57
Floriculture classification...-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *. 55
Other agricultural activities classification__________________________________________________________________ *. 47
Alcoholic beverage and industrial alcohol (pt. 619):
Pre-1966 coverage classification...............................................................	1.60
1966 coverage classification__________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Artificial flower, decoration, and party favor (pt. 688):
Employments covered prior to 1961 amendments__________________________________________________________________ 1.25>£
1961 coverage classification__________________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
1966 coverage classification---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1.15
Banking, insurance, and finance (pt. 661):
Pre-1966 coverage classification______________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
1966 coverage classification__________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Button, jewelry, and lapidary work (pt. 616):
Gem stone, industrial jewel, and precious jewelry classification---------------------------------------------- 1.60
Button and buckle classification.—-----------------------------------------------------------------------------	1.02>£
Hair accessories classification_______________________________________________________________________________ 1.28
Hair ornaments classification_________________________________________________________________________________ 1.30J^
Metal expansion watch band classification_____________________________________________________________________ 1.47
Rosary and native jewelry classification.--------------------------------..------------..................	. 77
Plastic costume jewelry classification---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.07J^
General classification---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.15
1961 coverage classification________________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
1966 coverage classifications:
Button and buckle classification----------------------------------------------------------------------- *1.02J^
Rosary and native jewelry classification--------------------------------------------------------------- *. 77
Plastic costume jewelry classification--------------------------------------.-------------------------- *1.07J^
General classification--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1.15
Chemical, petroleum, and related products (pt. 670):
Agricultural chemicals, fertilizer mixing, hormones, antibiotics, and adrenalin, petroleum refining, and pipeline coating tapes classification----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.60
Drugs, medicines, bay oil, aromatic alcohol, and toilet preparations classification------------------------- 1.37
Miscellaneous chemical and petroleum products classification....-------------------------------------------- 1.60
Oil well drilling classification---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 60
Industrial inorganic chemicals classification_______________________________________________________________ 1.60
Salt extraction classification------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1- 51J4
1961 coverage classifications:
Bay oil and aromatic alcohol classification__________________________________________________-......... 1- 37
General classification--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-60
1966 coverage classifications: Salt extraction classification-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *•79
General classification------------------------------....................................    -..........-	*L 15
Children’s dress and related products (pt. 610):
Hand-embroidery classification______________________________________________________________________________ 1-
Other operations classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-30
1961 coverage classification__________________________________________________________________________----	1-60
1966 coverage classifications: Hand-embroidery classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1.02>£
Other operations classification..---------------------------------------------------------------------- *!• I5
See footnotes at end of table.
89
PUERTO RICO: MINIMUM WAGE RATES IN EFFECT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 30, 1968—Continued
Industry (with part number >) and classification
Minimum hourly rate 2
Communications, utilities, and transportation (pt 671):
General classification________________________________________________________________________________________ $1.60
Other workers in motor carrier transport and express classification___________________________________________ 1.50
1961 coverage classifications:
Telephone switchboard operator classification___________________________________________________________ 1.60
Tugboat and towboat seamen classification_______________________________________________________________ 1.60
Other seamen classification_______________________________________________.______________________________ 1.47
1966 coverage classification__________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Construction—1966 coverage (pt. 726)______________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Construction, business service, motion picture, and miscellaneous (pt. 672):
Pre-1966 coverage classification______________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
1966 coverage classification__________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Corsets, brassieres, and allied garments (pt. 614):
Pre-1961 coverage classification______________________________________________________________________________ 1.44
1961 coverage classification__________________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
1966 coverage classification__________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Education—1966 coverage (pt. 725)_________________________________________________________________________________ *1. 05
Electrical, instrument, and related products (pt. 606):
Classification A (shaver and hair dryer, storage battery, drafting machine, electrical terminaland connector, television antenna and lead-in cable, and portable hand tools)_______________________________________ 1.60
Classification B (electric irons, toaster elements, and hot water heaters; exposure meters, ammeters, voltmeters, accelerometers, and panel instruments; circuit breakers and service entrance equipment; armatures and field coils; switches and fluorescent starters; coils, including magneto coils, and breakers; solenoids; relays, including telephone-type relays, power-type relays, and magnetic relay elements; electric wave filters; gyroscopes and related equipment; lighting fixtures and fluorescent lighting lamps (except light bulbs and Christmas lighting sets); floor polishers; soldering guns; electronic heating devices; electronic controls for auto headlight dimmers; electronic data processing machines and systems; soil moisture testing equipment; aircraft test instruments; strain gauge transducers; photoelectric cells; tape recorder heads and erase head assemblies; electronic guns for television picture tubes; and the repair and rewinding of electric motors and other electrical equipment)___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
Classification C (capacitors, transistors, coils and coil forms, hermetic seals, crystal units, rectifiers, electronic tubes, television picture tubes, television sets, refrigerators, phonograph pickup cartridges, electric baseboard heating units, heating pads and massage pads, Christmas lighting sets, thermometers, drafting instruments, surgical administration sets, and watches)______________________________________ 1.60
Classification D (lenses)_________________________________________________________________________________1.47
Classification E (transformers, wire-wound resistors, magnetic recording tape, television chassis sub- ■
assemblies, fractional horsepower motors, telephone hand sets, test equipment and switchboards, microphones, glass sealed reed switches, electronic controls for light dimmers, repair assembly and remodeling of telephones and telephone equipment, disposable surgical blades and combination sets, and rods for automobile antennas)_____________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
Classification F (all products and activities not specifically included in any other classification of the
industry)_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.51^
1961 coverage classification_______________________________________________________________.____________________ 1.47
1966 coverage classification____________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Fabric and leather glove (pt. 603):
Hand-sewing on fabric gloves classification_____________________________________________________________________ . 38J/I
Hand-sewing on leather gloves classification____________________________________________________________________ . 66T2
Other operations on hand-sewn gloves classification_____________________________________________________________ 1.09
Machine and other operations on machine-sewn gloves classification______________________________________________ 1.34^
1961 coverage classification____________________________________________________________________________________ 1.34}^
1966 coverage classification____________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Fabricated plastic products (pt. 690):
Dinnerware, sprayer, and vaporizer classification_______________________________________________________________ 1.60
Phonograph record classification________________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
Wall tile classification________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.34)^
General classification__________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.21J^
1961 coverage classification________________________________________...___________________________._____------	1.09
1966 coverage classification------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *1- 09
See footnotes at end of table.
90
PUERTO RICO: MINIMUM WAGE RATES IN EFFECT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 30, 1968—Continued
Minimum
Industry (with part number >) and classification	hourly
rate2
Food and related products (pt. 673):
Yeast and canned tuna fish classification_________________________________________..___________________________ $1.60
Canning and preserving classification._________________________________________________________________________ 1.32
Citron brining and fruit, vegetable, nut, and green coffee packing classification______________________________ 1.07>£
Sun-drying of bananas classification___________________________________________________________________________ 1.03>£
General classification...................................................................................      .	1.351^
Biscuit, cracker and bread, rice and lard, and animal feeds in employment covered prior to 1961 amendments classification______________________________________________________________________________________ 1. 60
Biscuit, cracker and bread, rice and lard, and animal feeds 1961 coverage classification_______________________ 1. 60
lea cream, ices, and similar frozen products in employments covered prior to 1961 amendments classification_________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.47
Ice cream, ices, and similar frozen products chauffeurs 1961 coverage (subgroup A) classification______________	1. 60
Ice cream, ices, and similar frozen products all otherworkers 1961 coverage(subgroup B)classification.	1. 28
Milk and milk products in employment covered prior to 1961 amendments classification___________________________ 1.35>£
Milk and milk products 1961 coverage classification____________________________________________________________ 1.12}^
Soft drink classification______________________________________________________________________________________ 1.41
1961 coverage classification number 1 (packing of frozen fish; the bottling or canning of olives, capers, and oils; pressmen and pressmen helpers in the manufacture of alimentary pastes; and the canning and preserving of food products)_______________________________________________________________________________ 1.32
1961 coverage classification number 2 (roasting of coffee and the manufacture of alimentary pastes,
except those occupations included in other classifications of the industry)__________________________________ 1. 07}^
1961 coverage classification number 3 (all activities of employees covered by the act only by reason of
the 1961 amendments that are not included in any other classification of the industry)_______________________ 1.02^
1966 coverage classification___________________________________________________________________________________ *1.00
Handkerchief, scarf, and art linen (pt. 608):
Hand-sewing, other than oblong scarves classification__________________________________________________________ . 42
Other operations classification._______________________________________________________________________________ .66
Hand-sewing on oblong scarves classification___________________________________________________________________ . 98J^
Other operations on oblong scarves classification______________________________________________________________ 1.19
1961 coverage classification___________________________________________________._______________________________ 1.19
1965 coverage classifications:
Hand-sewing classification________________________________________________________________________________ . 42)^
Other operations classification___________________________________________________________________________ . 75
Hand-sewing on oblong scarves classification______________________________________________________________ *. 98>/£
Other operations on oblong scarves classification_________________________________________________________ *1.15
Hosiery (pt. 687):
Women’s hosiery classification.________________________________________________________________________________ 1.10}^
Other hosiery classification...___________________________________________________________________________________ 1.07J3
1961 coverage classification___________________________________________________________________________________ 1.21J^
1966 coverage classifications:
Women's hosiery classification____________________________________________________________________________ *1.11
All other hosiery classification__________________________________________________________________________ *1.07
Hospital and related institutions—1966 coverage (pt. 724):
Classification A (all activities performed by medical technologists, laboratory technicians, registered nurses, X-ray technicians, laboratory assistants, skilled arts and crafts employees, and drivers)______________	*1.15
Classification B (all activities performed by office clerks, cooks, and semiskilled arts and crafts employees)_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ *1.00
Classification C (all activities except those within classification A and classification B)____________________ *.90
Hotel and motel—1966 coverage (pt. 728):
Hotels, motels, apartment hotels, and tourist courts with 100 or more sleeping rooms classification____________	*1.15
Arts and crafts workers in hotels, motels, apartment hotels, and tourist courts with fewer than 100 sleeping rooms classification__________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Other workers in hotels, motels, apartment hotels, and tourist courts with fewer than 100 sleeping rooms classification.__________________________________________________________________________________________ *1.00
Laundry and cleaning—1966 coverage (pt. 723):
Driver classification__________________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Other activities classification________________________________________________________________________________ *. 89
See footnotes at end of table.
326-173 0—69—7
91
PUERTO RICO: MINIMUM WAGE RATES IN EFFECT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 30, 1968—Continued
Minimum
Industry (with part number') and classification	hourly
rate2
Leather, leather goods, and related products (pt. 602):
Belt classification____________________________________________________________________________________________ $1.41
Hide curing classification_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
Leather tanning and finishing classification------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.14J^
Sporting and athletic goods classification_____________________________________________________________________ 1.
General classification________________________________________________________________-________________________ 1.12>^
1961 coverage classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12^
1966 coverage classifications:
Hide curing, leather tanning, belt, sporting and athletic goods classification_____________________________ *1.15
General classification...---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1-13
Local transit—1966 coverage (pt. 722)------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1.15
Lumber and wood products (pt. 675):
Carpet grippers classification...------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1- 60
Furniture and miscellaneous wood products classification------------------------------------------------------- 1.16J^
Kitchen cabinet classification--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 26^
Lumber, millwork, and balsa wood toys classification----------------------------------------------------------- 1.32
Swimming pool equipment classification...---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.60
1961 coverage classifications:
Billiard table classification______________________________________________________________________________ 1- 60
Table top and kitchen cabinet craft masters and supervisors classification--------------------------------- 1.60
General classification_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1.16J3
1966 coverage classificat on----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1-15
Men's and boys’ clothing and related products (pt. 615):
Work clothing and separate trousers classification------------------------------------—------------------------ 1- 34
Military-style hats and caps classification-------------------------------------------------------------....	1- 47
General classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- L 25)^
1961 coverage classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-15
1966 coverage classifications:
Suits, coats, and similar items classification------------------------------------------------------------- *1-15
Trousers classification..---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *L
General classification------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1.15
Metal, machinery, transportation equipment and allied products (pt. 604):
Fabricated wire products classification.----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 60
Metal spring classification------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1- 56
Slide fastener classification---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 56
Wire drawing classification.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1- 60
General classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-60
1961 coverage classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 47
1966 coverage classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *!• 15
Needlework and fabricated textile products (pt. 612):
Knit gloves classification------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 291-2
Crocheted slippers classification------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1- 25
Hand-crocheting and hand-embroidery of crocheted hats classification------------------------------------------- • 99
Other operations on crocheted hats classification-------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 34J^
Slacks and related products classification--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 42
General classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I-42
1961 coverage classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.60
1966 coverage classification________________________----------------------------------------------------------- *1- 15
Paper, paper products, printing, and publishing (pt. 677):
Employments covered prior to 1961 amendments classification---------------------------------------------------- 1- 60
1961 coverage classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 93J^
1966 coverage classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1-04
Restaurant and food service—1966 coverage (pt. 729):
Tipped employee classification--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1-15
Other employees classification--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1-00
Retail trade—1966 coverage (pt. 721):
Grocery stores, general dry goods stores, apparel stores, accessories stores, and drug stores classification. *1.05
Other retail establishments classification--------------------------------------------------------------------- *1-15
See footnotes at end of table.
9>2
PUERTO RICO: MINIMUM WAGE RATES IN EFFECT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 30, 1968—Continued
Minimum
Industry (with part number ') and classification	hourly
rate 2
Retailing, wholesaling, and warehousing (pt. 683):
Employments covered prior to 1961 amendments classification...............................................    ..	$1.60
Retailing 1961 coverage classification.._____________________________________________________„__________________ 1.28
Other 1961 coverage classification______________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
1966 coverage classification____________________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Rubber products (pt. 720):
Rubber bucket classification..._________________________________________________________________________________ 1.25>£
Rubber footwear classification____________________________________________________________________________________ 1.32
Tire recapping classification___________________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
Miscellaneous rubber products classification____________________________________________________________________ 1.60
1961 coverage	classification_______________________________________________________________________________ 1.41
1966 coverage	classification_______________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Shoe and related products (pt. 601):
Pre-1966 coverage classification________________________________________________________________________________ 1.15
1966 coverage	classification_______________________________________________________________________________ *1.15
Stone, clay, glass, cement, and related products (pt. 678):
Abrasive products, cement, dry cement mixes, glass and glass products, hot asphaltic plant mix, ready-mixed concrete, concrete block and tile, concrete pipe, pre-cast concrete construction components, structural clay products, and ceramic floor and wall tile classification________________________________________ 1.60
Artificial teeth classification_________________________________________________________________________________ 1.60
Asbestos cement products, high purity silicon, and crushed stone, sand, and gravel classification_______________	1.60
Art pottery classification______________________________________________________________________________________ . 96
Mica classification_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.23
Vitreous and semivitreous china food utensils classification____________________________________________________ 1.29J^
General classification__________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.44
1961 coverage classifications:
Terrazzo and marble tiles classification___________________________________________________________________ 1- 53)^
General classification_______________________________________________________________________________________________ .96
1966 coverage classifications:
Terrazzo and marble tiles classification___________________________________________________________________ *1-15
General classification______________________________________________________________________________________________ *-96
Straw, hair, and related products (pt. 613):
Artists’ brush and native handicraft products classification---------------------------------------------------- • 94J^
Hair and bristles processing and other straw, hair, and related products classification------------------------- . 96
Hair piece and doll wig classification------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1-12
1961 coverage classification____________________________________________________________________________----	1-15
1966 coverage classifications:
Hair piece and doll wig classification--------------------------------------------------------------------- *1.12
Artists' brush and native handicraft products classification----------------------------------------------- *• 96
Hair and bristles processing and other straw, hair, and related products classification-------------------- *• 96
Sugar manufacturing (pt. 689):
Pre-1966 coverage classification------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-
1966 coverage classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1-1®
Sweater and knit swimwear (pt. 611):
Pre-1966 coverage classification_______________________________________________________________________________---	1- 5°
1966 coverage classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *L15
Textile and textile products (pt. 699):
Bag cleaning and repairing classification______________________________________________________________________ 1-09
Broad woven fabrics classification----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 21J6
Hooked rug classifications:
Multiple-needle power-driven machine operations------------------------------------------------------------ 1- 30JKj
Other operations------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- L00
Mattress and pillow classification_____________________________________________________________________________ 1-60
Yarn classification__________________________________________________________________________________________________  1.21J^
General classification_________________________________________________________________________________________ 1-1®^
1961 coverage classifications:
Mattresses and bedsprings craft masters and supervisors classification------------------------------------- 1-60
Mattresses and bedsprings skilled workers classification--------------------------------------------------- 1- 60
General textile and textile products classification-------------------------------------------------------- 1- 34)^
1966 coverage classifications:
Mattresses without springs, quilts, pillows, and related products classification--------------------------- *1-10
General classification---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *L
See footnotes at end of table.
93
PUERTO RICO: MINIMUM WAGE RATES IN EFFECT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 30, 1968—Continued
Industry (with part number >) and classification
Minimum hourly rate 2
Tobacco (pt. 657):
Filler hand stemming classification_______________________________________________________________________________ $0.65}^
Filler tobacco processing classification-------------------------------------------------------------------------- . 64
Machine threshing, other operations classification________________________________________________________________ 1.15
Wrapper type tobacco processing classification____________________________________________________________________ 1.19
General classification____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.44J^
1961 coverage classification______________________________________________________________________________________ 1. 44^
1966 coverage classification-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1.15
Women’s and children's underwear and women’s blouse (pt 609):
Hand-sewing classification________________________________________________________________________________________ 1-09
Other operations classification___________________________________________________________________________________ 1- 28
1961 coverage classification-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  1-28
1966 coverage classifications:
Blouse classification-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   *1.00
General classification________________________________________________________________________________________   *1.10
i Refers to title 29, ch. V, of the Code of Federal Regulations.
2 Effective Apr. 2,1968, except as indicated by asterisks.
♦Effective Feb. 1, 1968.
**Effective Apr. 28,1967.
VIRGIN ISLANDS: MINIMUM WAGE RATES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 30, 1968
Industry (pt. 694 ■) and classification
Hourly Effective rate date
Air transportation_____________________________________________________________________________ $1.60 Apr. 2, 1968
Alcoholic beverages and industrial alcohol----------------------------------------------------- 1.53Do.
Banking, real estate, accounting, and insurance------------------------------------------------ 1-60	Do.
Bay rum and other toilet preparations__________________________________________________________ 1-60	Do.
Communications and public utilities------------------------------------------------------------ 1-60	Do.
Distribution, trucking, and construction_______________________________________________________ 1-60	Do.
Jewelry, pen, thermometer, industrial belting, and miscellaneous metal products---------------- 1.60	Do.
Shipping, marine transportation, and ship and boat building: General classification_________________________________________________________________________ 1-60	Do-
Seamen classification--------------------------------------------------------------------- Do.
Miscellaneous industry:
Wool yarn classification__________________________________________________________________ 1.34)^	Do.
General classification____________________________________________________________________ L60	Do.
1966 coverage__________________________________________________________________________________ 15 Feb. 1, 1968
i Refers to title 29, ch. V, of the Code of Federal Regulations.
94
AMERICAN SAMOA: MINIMUM WAGE RATES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 30, 1968
Industry (pt. 697 >) and classification	Hourly Effective
rate date
Fish canning and processing and can manufacturing industry________________________________________   $1.10	June	24,1968
Shipping and transportation industry:
Classification A (seafaring)_________________________________________________________________     .55	June	24,1967
Classification B (other activities)___________________________________________________________   1.15	June	24,1968
Petroleum marketing industry_______________________________________________________________________   1.20	June	24,1968
Construction industry_____________________________________________________________________________     .80	June	24,1968
Hospitals and educational institutions industry.____________________________________________________   .70	July	1,1968
Hotel industry____________________________________________________________________________________     .70	June	24,1968
Retail trade industry___________________________________________________________________________       .85	June	24,1968
Miscellaneous industry:
Previous coverage classification_____________________________________________________________ . 95	June	24,1968
1966 coverage classification____________________________________________________________________  .85	June	24,1968
i Refers to title 29, ch. V, of the Code of Federal Regulations.
MINIMUM WAGE DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT,i JUNE 30, 1968
Minimum		Effective	Employment at less than
Industry	hourly wage rate	date 2	determined rates2
All industries and localities except those indicated below.
$1.60 Feb. 1,1968 («).
Battery:
Lead-acid storage battery branch..__________________
Dry primary battery branch__________________________
Other battery branch________________________________
Bituminous coal (including lignite):
Districts:
1—Eastern Pennsylvania_________________________
2—Western Pennsylvania_________________________
3—Northern West Virginia_______________________
4—Ohio.________________________________________
5—Michigan-------------------------------------
6—Panhandle...........................  —	--
7—Southern No. 1_______________________________
8—Southern No 2________________________________
9—West Kentucky___________________________— -
10—Ilinois-------------------------------------
11—Indiana_____________________________________
12—Iowa________________________________________-
13—Southeastern________________________________
14—Arkansas-Oklahoma____________________________
15—Southwestern________________________________
16—Northern Colorado___________________________
17—Southern Colorado___________________________
18—New Mexico..--------------------------------
19—Wyoming.....................................
20—Utah________________________________________
21—North Dakota-South Dakota...................
22—Montana_____________________________________
23—Washington----------------------------------
Conveyors and conveying equipment________________________
Electric lamp...-----------------------------------------
See footnotes at end of table.
1.80 Dec. 11,1963
1.60 Feb. 1,1968 0).
1.60______do_______
Auxiliary workers $1.60, effective Feb. 1, 1968.
2.745	Oct. 20,1958
2.745		do	
2.745		do	
2.745		do	
1.60	Feb. 1,1968 (<).
2.745	Oct. 20,1958
2.745		do	
2.745		do	
2.59		do	
2.745		do	
2.78		do..	
1.60	Feb. 1,1968 (<).
2.515	Oct. 20,1958
2.59		do	
2.59		do	
2.796		do	
2.796		do	
2.796		do		
2.82		do	
2.82		do	
2.226	Nov. 25,1955
2.846	Oct. 20,1958
2.735		do..	
1.70	Aug. 14,1963
1.65	Apr. 12,1963
95
MINIMUM WAGE DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT,1 JUNE 30, 1968—Continued
Industry	Minimum hourly	Effective date 1 2 3	Employment at less than determined rates 3
	wage rate		
Engines and turbines:
Steam engines, turbines,and turbinegenerator setsbranch.__
Internal combustion engines branch---------------------
Evaporated milk_____________________________________________
Miscellaneous chemical products and preparations:
Product group 1 (specialty cleaning, polishing, and sanitary preparations; surface active agents, finishing agents and sulfonated oils and assistants; and agricultural chemicals).
Product group 2 (adhesives, glues, mucilage, cements, and sizes; gelatin, household tints, dyes, and bleaches; bluings; writing inks; essential oils; industrial compounds; automotive chemicals; and evaporated salt).
Paper and pulp:
Primary paper and pulp branch-------------------------
Rag paper and pulp branch_______________________________
Converted sanitary paper products branch----------------
Building paper and building board branch----------------
Pumps and compressors_______________________________________
Tiresand related products___________________________________
$1.71 Oct. 30,1963
1.69 ______do________
1.68 Jan. 15,1960 Probationary workers $1.63 for not more than 160 hours.
1.60 Feb. 1,1968 («).
1.80 Dec. 4.1961
1.75	Sept.	16,1961
1.60	Feb.	1,1968	(<).
1.60 ______do________(<)’
1.64	Sept.	16,1961
1.65	June	11,1963
1.77	June	3,1960	Beginners or probation-
ary workers $1.67 for not more than 160 hours.
1 Determinations are not enforced in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Rate applies to contracts subject to the Public Contracts Act, bids for which are solicited or negotiations otherwise commenced on or after the date specified.
3 Handicapped workers, student-learners, and apprentices in any industry may be employed at wages lower than the determination minimum pursuant to the certification standards and procedures prescribed in sec. 50-201.1102 of the general regulations under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act.
t Learners may be employed at wages lower than the wage determination minimum if certificated in accordance with the learner regulations (29 CFR pt. 522) issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
96
the acts.
97
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS, PUBLIC CONTRACTS, AND McNAMARA-0’HARA SERVICE
98
NUMBER OF MINORS FOUND EMPLOYED IN NONAGRICULTURAL ESTABLISH-
MENTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1968
Region and State
All regions.....
Atlanta_____________
Florida........
Georgia_________
North Carolina..
South Carolina..
Birmingham_________
Alabama_________
Arkansas________
Louisiana_______
Mississippi_____
Boston______________
Connecticut____
Maine__________
Massachusetts.. New Hampshire. Rhode Island... Vermont_________
Chicago_____________
Illinois________
Indiana________
Michigan_______
Minnesota______
Ohio____________
Wisconsin_______
Dallas_____________
New Mexico_____
Oklahoma_______
Texas___________
Kansas City________
Colorado_______
Iowa___________
Kansas_________
Missouri_______
Montana________
Nebraska_______
North Dakota.. South Dakota... Utah...........
Wyoming________
Nashville__________
Kentucky_______
Tennessee______
Virginia.......
West Virginia..
Total	Under 16 years of age	16-17 years of age in hazardous occupations
112,434	16,059	16,375
1,282	780	502
341	182	159
519	368	151
304	141	163
118	89	29
1,002	432	570
250	113	137
290	111	179
242	97	145
220	111	109
501	203	298
33	8	25
123	60	63
198	72	126
94	45	49
38	14	24
15	4	11
1,899	834	1,065
378	176	202
233	111	122
442	186	256
87	32	55
660	284	376
99	45	54
i 3,385	i 2, 000	1,385
68	29	39
357	140	217
i 2,960	11,831	1,129
i 894	1430	464
79	37	42
177	41	136
141	48	93
1202	157	i 45
20	3	17
50	14	36
12	3	9
19	8	11
>181	1118	63
13	1	12
1,007	387	620
221	89	132
393	203	190
253	72	181
140	23	117
See footnotes at end of table.
99
NUMBER OF MINORS FOUND EMPLOYED IN NONAGRICULTURAL ESTABLISH-
MENTS IN VIOLATION OF THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1968—Continued
Region and State
New York City..........
New Jersey________
New York..........
Philadelphia___________
Delaware__________
District of Columbia
Maryland__________
Pennsylvania______
San Francisco__________
Arizona___________
California________
Hawaii............
Idaho_____________
Nevada____________
Oregon____________
Washington________
Guam______________
Santurce_______________
Puerto Rico_______
Total	Under 16 years of age	16-17 years of age in hazardous occupations
555	204	351
328	86	242
227	118	109
692	269	423
16	7	9
7	2	5
209	70	139
460	190	270
11,162	i 480	682
50	22	28
i 893	i 381	512
6	1	5
1	0	1
41	21	20
49	14	35
121	41	80
1	0	1
55	40	15
55	40	15
1 Includes minors illegally employed under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Public Contracts Act as follows: All regions, 9; Texas, 6; Missouri, 1; Utah, 1; California, 1.
NUMBER OF MINORS FOUND EMPLOYED ON FARMS IN VIOLATION OF THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1968
Region and State
Total 14-15 years 10-13 years 9 years of age of age of age and under
All regions__________________________________________ 1 1,555	573	738	240
Atlanta___________________________________________________ 78	24	44	10
Florida_____________________________________________ 13	8	5 ----------------
Georgia_____________________________________________ 47	14	30	3
North Carolina______________________________________ 12-------------------------- 7	5
South Carolina______________________________________ 6	2	2	2
Birmingham_______________________________________ 165	53	83	25
Alabama._________________________________________ 127	6	15	4
Arkansas____________________________________________________ 16	7	8	1
Louisiana___________________________________________________ 15	10	3	2
Mississippi____________________________________________     H07	30	57	18
See footnotes at end of table.
100
NUMBER OF MINORS FOUND EMPLOYED ON FARMS IN VIOLATION OF THE
CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, FISCAL
YEAR 1968—Continued
	Region and State	Total	14-15 years of age	10-13 years of age	9 years of age and under
Boston			---						 242	66	135	41
Maine				 242	66	135	41
Chicago						—-		 560	185	264	111
Illinois					 34	15	13	6
Indiana			 45	25	18	2
Michigan					  104	20	55	29
Minnesota				  7	3	4		—
Ohio				 317	97	153	67
Wisconsin			  53	25	21	7
Dallas________________________________________________ 52	30	21	1
Oklahoma_________________________________________ 5	13	1
Texas_____________________________________________________   47	29	18	------------
Kansas City___________________________________________________   224	110	86	28
Colorado____________________________________________________ 188	95	74	19
iowa________________________________________________________   9	3	1	5
Missouri__________________________________________ 4	4-------------------------------
Nebraska__________________________________________ 3	1 ---------------- 2
North Dakota_________________________________________ 2	2-------------------------------
Utah______________________________________________ 18	5	11	2
Nashville________________________________________________________ 72	26	34	12
Tennessee__________________________________________________   51	16	25	10
Virginia_____________________________________________________ 21	10	9	2
New York City_________________________________________ 5	4	1	0
New Jersey_______________________________________ 1-------------------------- 1 -----------------------------
New York_________________________________________ 4	4-------------------------------
Philadelphia__________________________________________ 5	4	1	0
Maryland__________________________________________ 2	2-------------------------------
Pennsylvania______________________________________ 3	2	1 ---------------
San Francisco_________________________________________ 41	24	9	8
Arizona___________________________________________ 5	4 ............................ 1
California________________________________________ 36	20	9	7
Santurce_____________________-________________________ Ill	47	60	4
Puerto Rico..____________________________________ 111	47	60	4
1 Includes illegally employed minors for whom no age was reported: All regions, 4; Alabama, 2; Mississippi, 2.
101
NUMBER OF MINORS FOUND EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF HAZARDOUS OCCUPATIONS ORDERS ISSUED UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1968
Number of
Hazardous occupations order violated	minors
involved
Total employed in violation of 1 or more hazardous occupations orders1______________________
7,719
Manufacturing or storage occupations involving explosives (order No. 1)____________________________ 29
Motor-vehicle driver and helper (order No. 2)______________________________________________________ 4,917
Coal mine occupations (order No. 3)________________________________________________________________ 13
Logging and sawmilling occupations (order No. 4)___________________________________________________ 150
Power-driven woodworking machines occupations (order No. 5)______________________________-..................  253
Occupations involving exposure to radioactive substances and to ionizing radiations (order No. 6)__ 0
Power-driven hoisting apparatus occupations (order No. 7)__________________________________________ 1,033
Power-driven metal-forming, punching, and shearing machines occupations (order No. 8)______________ 156
Occupations in mining, other than coal (order No. 9)________■_________________.____________________ 10
Occupations involving slaughtering, meat packing or processing, or rendering (order No. 10)________ 405
Power-driven bakery machines occupations (order No. 11)-------------------------------------------- 176
Power-driven paper-products machines (order No. 12)________________________________________________ 269
Occupations in the manufacture of brick, tile, and kindred products (order No. 13)___________________________ 156
Occupations involving the operation of circular saws, bandsaws and guillotine shears (order No. 14)__________ 248
Occupations in wrecking, demolition, and shipbreaking operations (order No. 15)_______________________________ 53
Occupations in roofing operations (order No. 16)___________________________________________________________   283
Occupations in excavation operations (order No. 17)_________________________________________________________   55
1	Represents an unduplicated count of the number of minors employed in violation of 1 or more hazardous occupations orders.
NUMBER OF MINORS FOUND EMPLOYED ON FARMS IN VIOLATION OF THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, BY AGE AND PRESENT OR LAST SCHOOL GRADE ATTENDED, FISCAL YEAR 1968 »
Present or last grade attended	Below normal grade
for age
Age	Total	Never	Percent
	all	attended 123456789	10 11 Number of total
	grades1 2	school	in age
			interval
Total, all years.	1,497	27	73	122	143	222	218	265	188	143	66	27	3	875	58
5 years		1	1												0	0
6 years		19	| 5	8	1 6										0	0
7 years		48	3	| 27	14	1 4									3	6
8 years		74	2	20	1 34	14	1 4								22	30
9 years		85	2	3	34	| 22	21	1 3							39	46
10 years		134	0	5	11	34	| 45	31	I 7	1					50	37
11 years		149	0	3	7	27	45	1 24	38	1 5					82	55
12 years.			220	2	1	3	22	49	50	] 55	36	1 2				127	58
13 years		220	4	5	6	11	27	48	46	] 44	26	1 3			147	67
14 years		267	3	1	5	4	18	37	61	54	1 49	32	1 3		183	69
15 years		280	5	0	2	5	13	25	58	48	66	1 31	24	1 3	222	79
1 58 illegally employed minors were omitted for the following reasons: (1) 38 for whom no school information was available; (2) 4 for whom age was not reported; (3) 16 who were tn special ungraded classes.
2 The figures between heavy lines in the table indicate normal scho'o attainment for that age child. On the basis of
the usual standard of measurement, developed by the U.S. Office of Education, 6 to 7 is considered normal attendance in
the 1st grade, 7 to 8 for the 2d grade, etc., with attendance of 1 grade each year.
102
NUMBER OF NONLOCAL MINORS ‘ FOUND EMPLOYED ON FARMS IN VIOLATION OF THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, BY AGE AND PRESENT OR LAST SCHOOL GRADE ATTENDED, FISCAL YEAR 1968 2
Age	Present or last grade attended												Below normal grade for age	
	Total all grades 3	Never attended school	1	2		3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11 Number	Percent of total in age interval
Total, all years.	815	20	51	82	97	117	121	149	99	62	14	2	1	588	72
5 years		1	1											0	0
6 years		10	I 5	4	| 1									0	0
7 years		29	2	] 17	8 |	2								2	7
8 years 		50	0	18	1 25	5	1 2							18	36
9 years			49	0	3	28 |	13	4	| 1						31	63
10 years		66	0	4	8	26	1 18	8	1 1	1				38	58
11 years		80	0	2	4	22	28	] 12	91	3				56	70
12 years		110	1	1	1	17	32	29	1 17	11	] 1			81	74
13 years		121	4	1	5	7	19	28	36 |	18	3			100	83
14 years		139	3	1	2	2	8	26	43	30	] 20	4		115	83
15 years		160	4	0	0	3	6	17	43	36	38	1 10	2	] 1	147	92
i Nonlocal minors are those who do not return to their permanent homes each day.
2	22 illegally employed minors were omitted for the following reasons: (1) 11 for whom no school information was available; (2) 11 who were in special ungraded c'asses.
3	The figures between heavy lines in the table indicate normal school attainment for that age child. Based on the usual standard of measurement, developed by the U.S. Office of Education, 6 to 7 is considered normal attendance in the 1st grade, 7 to 8 for the 2d grade, etc., with attendance of 1 grade each year.
103
LEARNER CERTIFICATES IN EFFECT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 20, 1968
Number of	Number of certificates in effect	Estimated number of learners authorized

i Some plants hold more than 1 certificate.
104
LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISCLOSURE FILINGS, FISCAL YEAR 1968
Activity	Number
Filings received during fiscal year 1968:
Labor organization information report (form LM-1).______________________________________________ 1,082
Labor organization financial reports:
Labor organization annual report (form LM-2)............................   .....................  15,187
Labor organization annual report (form LM-3)________________________________________________ 40,710
Trusteeship reports:
Initial trusteeship report(form LM-15)______________________________________________________ 134
Semiannual reports__________________________________________________________________________ 198
Terminal trusteeship information report (form LM-16)...............................................  110
Labor relations consultant reports:
Agreement and activities report(form LM-20)__________________________________________________ 46
Receipts and disbursements report (form LM-21)....__________________________________________ 3
Employer report (form LM-10)____________________________________________________________________ 57
Labor organization officer.and employee report (form LM-30)_____________________________________ 46
Surety company annual report (form LMSAS-1).____________________________________________________ 177
Active labor organizations for which reports were on file as of June 30,1968___________________________ 51,656
Public Document Room activities during fiscal year 1968:
Number of visitors______________________________________________________________________________ 2,013
Number of Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act reports examined________________________ 26,049
Copies of filings furnished on reimbursable cost basis:
Number of pages_____________________________________________________________________________ 54,661
WELFARE AND PENSION BENEFIT PLANS ACTIVITY REPORT
Activity	Number
Filings received during fiscal year 1968—total, all reports_______________________________________________ 148,294
Plan descriptions (form D-l)__________________________________________________________________________ 8,952
Amended plan descriptions_____________________________________________________________________________ 22,392
Annual financial reports (form D-2)___________________________________________________________________ 58,375
Information report for small plans (form D-3)_________________________________________________________ 58,575
Public Document Room activities during fiscal year 1968:
Number of visitors....________________________________________________________________________________ 1,327
Number of plans examined______________________________________________________________________________ 58,487
Copies of filings furnished on reimbursable cost basis: Number of pages_______________________________ 67,806
105
APPROPRIATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1968
Appropriation
Positions Amount
Manpower development and training activities--■-------------------------------- 193	$398,497,000
Office of Manpower Administrator..---------------------------------------------- 432	30,696,000
Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training__________________________________________ 674	8,267,000
Limitation on grants to States------------------------------------------------- (290)	(556,932,000)
Unemployment compensation for Federal employees and ex-servicemen----------------------------- 93,000,000
Bureau of Employment Security:
Salaries and expenses------------------------------------------------------ 199	2,630,000
Trust fund_______________________________-_________________________________ (1,373) (17,990,000)
Labor-Management Services Administration_______________________________________________   655	8,790,000
Bureau of Employees’ Compensation:
Salaries and expenses______________________________________________________________   574	5,489,000
Trust fund___________________________________________________________________ (7)	(68,000)
Bureau of Labor Standards______________________________________________________________   336	4,429,000
Women’s Bureau_________________________________________________________________ 76	940,000
Bureau of Employees’ Compensation: Employees' compensation fund------------------------------- 56,061,000
Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions------------------------------------------- 1,954	24,746,000
Bureau of Labor Statistics_____________________________________________________ 1,391	21,474,000
Bureau of International Labor Affairs----------------------------------------------------- 91	1,386,000
Special foreign currency---------------------------------------------------------------------- 75,000
Office of the Solicitor:
Salaries and expenses______________________________________________________ 490	5,875,000
Trust fund________________________________________________________________________________ (144,000)
Office of the Secretary:
Salaries and expenses______________________________________________________ 310	4,536,000
Trust fund_________________________________________________________________ (34)	(538,000)
Office of Federal Contract Compliance------------------------------------------ 69	1,132,000
Total funds appropriated to Department of Labor---------------------------- 7,444	688,023,000
Other funds
Carryover from prior years’authorizations------------------------------------------------------- $968,007
Employees compensation fund chargeback costs---------------------------------------------------- 36,460,000
Economic Opportunity Act funds------------------------------------------------------------- 580	461,757,000
Work Incentive funds________________________________________________________________________ 75	9,000,000
Trustfunds____________________________________________________________________________    1,694	3,802,871,000
Work experience_________________________1---------------------------------------- 99	2,259,657
Total Department of Labor program funds------------------------------ 9,928	4,981,338,664
106
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ON LABOR DEPARTMENT ROLLS, JUNE 30, 1968
1
Bureaus	Total	Full-time employees			Other		
		Total	District of Columbia	Field	Total	District of Columbia	Field
All bureaus						10,594	10,258	5,686	4,572	336	120	216
Manpower Administration:							
Office of Manpower Administrator		244	243	190	53	1	1		
Office of Financial and Management Services		212	211	211 .			1	1		
Office of Manpower Policy, Evaluation, and							
Research			275	246	246 .			29	29		
Bureau of Work-Training Programs1		683	683	290	393 .			
Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training		560	559	95	464	1	1		
Bureau of Employment Security		1,810	1,795	1,283	512	15	15		
Labor-Management Services Administration		654	637	341	296	17	8	9
Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions		1,835	1,804	264	1,540	31	3	28
Bureau of Labor Standards				316	310	157	153	6	6	—
Women's Bureau			...	73	69	59	10	4	4		
Bureau of Employees’ Compensation		569	569	163	406 .			
Bureau of Labor Statistics..			1,733	1,554	1,159	395	179	15	164
Bureau of International Labor Affairs		190	182	158	24	8	7	1
Office of the Solicitor		488	470	293	177	18	13	5
Office of the Secretary					911	886	741	145	25	16	9
Office of Federal Contract Compliance		41	40	36	4	1	1	—
• Allocation from the Office of Economic Opportunity.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969-0-326-173
107