Of all types of institutions studied, the universities had the greatest number of faculty scientists and engineers in each separate field, although the concentration was most notable in the life sciences and engineering-the two fields where there are large, separately organized professional schools (schools of engineering, medicine, agriculture, etc.). (See table 3.) In every field except engineering, liberal arts colleges were the second largest employers; this was particularly true in the social sciences, where over one-third of all faculty were reported by liberal arts colleges. The only other types of institutions reporting more than 10 percent of the faculty in a specific field were technological schools, with approximately 15 percent of the engineers, and junior colleges, with 10 percent of the physcial scientists.

Employment of scientific personnel as nonfaculty was negligible except in universities (49,100) and technological schools (4,900). Universities reported over 85 percent of all personnel of this type and accounted for over 90 percent or more in the life and social sciences. Technological schools reported 28 percent of the engineers and 10 percent of the physcial scientists among the nonfaculty personnel.

NOTE: Percentages computed from unrounded data and their sums may not equal 100.

The concentration at institutions of larger size, observed previously, was also found among the faculty of each of the science and engineering fields (table 4). The concentration was highest in the life sciences, where less than 5 percent of the institutions reported almost 50 percent of the faculty. The greatest dispersion of faculty was in the social sciences, where no single enrollmentsize category had as much as 20 percent of all faculty reported. The distribution of nonfaculty personnel shows an even higher concentration in schools with an enrollment of over 5,000.

Research and Development. Data on the research activities of professional personnel employed by colleges and universities were obtained only for staff members in science and engineering who were reported as spending at least some time (frequently less than half of their time) on research and development. Over 45 percent of these personnel were reported in the life sciences, 26 percent were in the physical sciences, 18 percent in engineering, and 10 percent in the social sciences. Their numbers were as shown on the following page.

* See Reviews of Data on Research and Development (NSF Bull. 27), op. cit.

More than half of all scientific and engineering personnel spending time on research were nonfaculty personnel. In the life sciences, more than half of those engaged in research held faculty appointments, as did three-fifths of the social scientists. Conversely, in both engineering and the physical sciences, less than two-fifths of the staff engaged in research were members of the faculty. However, it should be mentioned that in most institutions faculty members are the principal research investigators, and most nonfaculty personnel work under their broad direction.

Research and development personnel were more highly concentrated at universities than was the case with all personnel studied (table 5). Of all

500-9991,000-2,499.

200-499500-9991,000-2,499. 2,500-4,999.

5,000-9,999. 10,000-19,999.. 20,000 and over..

NOTE: Percentages computed from unrounded data and their sums may not equal 100.

scientists and engineers engaged in research, 86 percent of both faculty and nonfaculty personnel were employed by universities. The only other institutional types reporting more than 5 percent of personnel engaged in research were technological schools (for faculty and nonfaculty) and liberal arts colleges (for faculty only).

The distribution of faculty and nonfaculty engaged in research by size of institutional enrollment (table 6) show the extent of concentration of research activities in institutions with enrollments of 2,500 students and over; altogether, institutions with lower enrollments did not report as much as 10 percent of the research personnel in any field. For faculty personnel, the distribution of scientists and engineers among the three largest enrollmentsize categories was relatively even. This was not the case for nonfaculty personnel: about 50 percent of the engineers were reported by schools enrolling 5,000 to 9,999, and only 13 percent in schools of 10,000 to 19,999; also, over 40 percent of the physical scientists were reported by schools with enrollments over 20,000, and 16 percent of them by schools with 10,000 to 19,999 enrollments.

-RICHARD J. PETERSEN National Science Foundation

Wages in Paint and Varnish Manufacturing, May 1961

STRAIGHT-TIME HOURLY EARNINGS of production workers in paint and varnish manufacturing establishments averaged $2.23 in May 1961, according to a survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 Variations around this average were found by region and occupation and for men and women. Of the supplementary benefits studied, paid vacations and holidays, as well as several types of insurance plans, were provided to a substantial majority of the workers.

Earnings

In comparison with the national average of $2.23, straight-time hourly earnings averaged $2.27 in both the Great Lakes and Middle Atlantic regions, which accounted for approximately one-third and three-tenths, respectively, of the 28,340 production workers. (See accompanying table.) Highest regional average earnings among the eight regions studied were recorded for the Pacific region ($2.59) and lowest for the Southeast ($1.68).3

Among the 18 areas studied separately, which accounted for two-thirds of the workers in the survey, average hourly earnings ranged from $1.73 in Atlanta and Baltimore to $2.80 in San Francisco-Oakland.*

Average earnings were higher in establishments employing 100 or more workers than in smaller establishments, and higher in establishments in which a majority of the workers were covered by labor-management contracts than in plants where none or a minority were covered by such contracts. However, because of the interrelationship of these and other characteristics such as location and size of community, their exact influence on wage levels cannot be determined."

Earnings of individual workers ranged from $1 to more than $3.50 an hour, with the middle half receiving between $1.93 and $2.55. Seven percent of the workers earned between $1 and $1.50 an hour and 4 percent received $3 or more. As indicated in the following tabulation, the proportion of workers at the various wage levels differed among regions.

1 Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. * Includes data for regions in addition to those shown separately. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 100

More than nine-tenths of the workers within the scope of the survey were men and averaged $2.25 an hour, compared with $1.78 for women.

The 12 occupational classifications for which separate data were obtained accounted for threefifths of the production workers within the scope of the survey. Among these classifications, fillers, labelers and packers, and mixers were numerically most important; these workers averaged $2.07, $2.01, and $2.24 an hour, respectively. Averages among all occupations studied ranged from $2.01 an hour for labelers and packers to $2.57 for technicians.

The occupations shown in the table are representative of different types of activity and indicate variations in earnings levels among regions. Women accounted for approximately one-tenth of the 3,208 hand or machine fillers and three-tenths of the 2,308 labelers and packers; all or practically all of the workers in the other four occupations shown were men.

1 A more comprehensive account of this study will be presented in BLS Bull. 1318, Industry Wage Survey: Paints and Varnishes, May 1961.

The study covered establishments employing eight or more workers and primarily engaged in manufacturing paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, and shellac (industry 2851 as defined in the 1957 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Budget). The straight-time hourly earnings for production and related workers presented in this report differ in concept from the gross average hourly earnings published in the Bureau's monthly hours and earnings series. Unlike the latter, the estimates presented here exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Average earnings in this survey are calculated by summing individual hourly earnings and dividing by the number of such individuals. In the monthly series, the sum of the man-hour totals reported by establishments in the industry is divided into the reported payroll totals.

For definition of regions, see footnote 2 of the accompanying table.

3 Detailed earnings data are presented in Bull. 1318, op. cit., for eight regions but are limited in the table appearing in this article to the three regions employing the largest numbers of workers. Average earnings for the other regions were: Middle West, $2.31; Southwest, $2.04; New England, $1.98; and Border States, $1.86.

4 The other ereas studied were Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles-Long Beach, Louisville, New York City, Newark and Jersey City, Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis. Individual area releases are available upon request. Data were not tabulated for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas since more than nine-tenths of the workers were employed in metropolitan areas.

1

Establishment Practices

Data were also obtained on certain establishment practices such as work schedules and supplementary benefits.

A work schedule of 40 hours a week was in effect in establishments employing 93 percent of the production workers in May 1961. Approximately 7 percent of the workers were employed on second-shift operations and most commonly received 10 cents an hour above day-shift rates. Third-shift operations accounted for 2 percent of the workers.

Paid holidays were provided by establishments employing nearly all production workers. The most common provisions were 6, 7, or 8 full days annually, with additional half days in several instances. Establishments with one-fourth of the workers provided 9 or more days a year.

Paid vacations after qualifying periods of service were provided by all establishments studied. Three-fourths of the production workers

Ohio, and Wisconsin; and Pacific-California, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington.
Includes data for regions in addition to those shown separately.

were eligible for 1 week's vacation after 1 year of service, four-fifths for 2 weeks after 3 years, and almost three-tenths for 4 weeks after 25 years of service.

Life, hospitalization, and surgical insurance, for which employers paid at least part of the cost, were available to approximately nine-tenths of the production workers. Half or more of the workers were eligible for insurance covering accidental death and dismemberment, sickness and accident, and medical services.

Establishments employing almost two-thirds of the production workers provided retirement pensions (other than benefits available under Federal old age, survivors, and disability insurance).

Almost two-fifths of the production workers were employed in establishments which provided nonproduction bonuses, usually paid at Christmas or yearend.

-FRED W. MOHR

DIVISION OF WAGES AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Wage Chronology:

Bethlehem Atlantic Shipyards'

Supplement No. 3-1956-62

NEGOTIATIONS between the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America and the Bethlehem Steel Co. Shipbuilding Division for a new agreement began on July 13, 1956, after the union's notification of its intent to reopen the existing contract, which was to expire on July 31. When agreement on new terms seemed unlikely by the expiration date of the contract, the union notified the company on July 16 that it would not strike prior to August 26.

Work continued on a day-to-day basis after this date, with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service assisting in the negotiations, and agreement on the terms of a 3-year contract was reached by the parties on November 3, 1956.

The November settlement provided for wagerate increases averaging 16 cents an hour effective October 29, 1956 (with retroactive payment for the period from August 1 through August 26, when the union's no-strike pledge had been in effect), additional increases averaging 8.5 cents an hour effective on August 1 of both 1957 and 1958, and two cost-of-living wage escalator reviews. Changes in supplementary benefits, effective at various dates throughout the contract period, included a seventh paid holiday and liberalized vacation, insurance, and pension benefits.

The contract was to be in force from November 3, 1956, through July 31, 1959.

Negotiations on union proposals for revisions in the existing agreement began on July 7, 1959. The company presented counterproposals the following day. With agreement unlikely by the expiration date, the union proposed a 30-day contract extension. The company rejected this proposal and, on August 1, the day the agreement expired, discontinued some union-security contract provisions. On August 13, the company put into effect the terms and conditions of employment it had proposed as modifications of the previous contract. Although union members authorized a strike call, work continued and negotiations proceeded with the assistance of the

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service following the expiration of the contract.

An authorized work stoppage at two of the company's yards began on January 22, 1960, and by the 28th of the month, the strike had spread to all eight Bethlehem East Coast shipyards. Among the issues were rates of pay, seniority, call-in pay, grievance machinery, and other conditions of work.2

Hearings on union charges that the company had engaged in unfair labor practices began on February 8, 1960, before the National Labor Relations Board.

In the interval between the initiation of the strike and the final agreement, the company's request for an injunction against mass picketing was rejected by the Massachusetts State courts, but a Federal district court, on April 11, enjoined the union from resuming mass picketing and required the company to bargain in good faith. After the Federal injunctions had been issued, negotiations continued, and tentative agreement was reached on June 20-21 weeks after the strike started. By June 23, following ratification of the contract by union members, work had resumed at all eight yards.

On October 25, 1961, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that, with one exception relating to grievance procedures, the company was not guilty of unfair labor practices and that there was insufficient evidence to show that the company failed to bargain in good faith. Early in December 1961, the union asked the Board to reconsider its decision, and on December 8, the NLRB General Counsel asked the Board for clarification of its ruling. At press time, the Board had not ruled on either motion.

The new 3-year contract, effective through May 31, 1963, provided for a wage package of 25 cents an hour to be spread over the term of the agreement. The parties also agreed to incorporate the existing 17-cent cost-of-living allowance into basic rates and to discontinue the escalator clause. The employment and operating provi

1 See Monthly Labor Review, September 1951 (pp. 287-292), September 1953 (pp. 963-965), and April 1956 (pp. 435-438).

2 Discussion of bargaining regarding seniority, grievance machinery, work assignments, etc., is outside the scope of the chronology series; these have been mentioned here only because they were among the major issues in dispute.