FOOTNOTES

1

Employment data are also shown for the key construction crafts in nonconstruction industries.

2 The number of unpaid family workers in construction is negligible.

3 See Ball, Claiborne M., "Employment Effects of Construction Expenditures," Monthly Labor Review, February, 1965, pp. 154-158.

4 For additional detailed information see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1967 Census of Construction Industries. Advance Industry Reports. (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1970).

5

An iterative technique was used in which the elements of the matrix were proportionately adjusted to the row totals and then to the column totals. This procedure was repeated until the deviations from either total were insignificant.

5aU.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960.

6

See Upex, F.D., "Manpower Requirements," in Construction Labour Relations, H. Carl Goldenberg and John H.G. Crispo (Eds.), (Canadian Construction Industry, Canada, 1968), pp. 116-198.

7U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Compensation and Payroll Hours; Building Construction, 1965. Report 335-9.

8 In our final distributions of collective bargaining coverage, we raised the general building contractors category slightly.

9 While total reported membership in the various building trades is clearly an overestimate of the average number under contract during any particular year, the Building Trades Department's (AFL-CIO) periodic reports on its membership are probably a fairly accurate indication of yearly union membership by craft. Both sets of union membership data were taken as ratios to craft employment in construction, estimated craft labor force in construction and, where available, total employees with work experience in the craft during a particular year. From these ratios, estimates were made of the relative degree of union membership within each craft and compared with the 1936 BLS study's union/nonunion occupational distributions for building construction. The 1936 series is probably biased upward with respect to the relative degree of unionization among crafts.

10 Henceforth, the term cell participation matrix will be used to refer to the yearly subindustry/occupation matrix in which each element of the matrix represents the proportion of workers under collective bargaining to total workers for a particular occupation within each subindustry division.

11 This was accomplished in two stages. First, our iterative technique (see Footnote 5) was used employing our column and row totals of workers under collective-bargaining agreements and using our total estimated employment within each cell as our starting matrix. The iterative technique adjusted each cell such that the sum of all cells corresponded to the given row and column totals. Then, ratios of estimated workers under collective bargaining agreements to total workers within each cell were calculated. A review of general reasonableness indicated adjustments in certain cells. The matrix was then rebalanced for our final estimates. Such a methodology, of course, can only give us a very crude approximation of the actual collective bargaining cell participation rates. However, for the purposes of this paper and the hypothesis to be tested, the numbers within each cell can have a very large element of error without significantly affecting the final results or conclusions of this paper.

12 Actually, those under collective-bargaining agreements.

13 See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Wages and Hours: Building Trades, Bulletin No. 1621, (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1969).

14

The occupational wage levels not primary to construction were estimated from sundry sources.

15 These ratios are adjusted to eliminate biases resulting from the markedly different occupational mix of union

and nonunion workers.

16 One of the problems with these data is that the number of people who are counted under any particular contract are those who were involved when the contract was originally signed. Although this does not significantly bias manufacturing agreements, it probably does add a slight upward bias to the reported total number of construction workers covered under collective bargaining agreements.

17 Gordon, Robert J., "A New View of Real Investment in Structures, 1919-1966", The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 1968, pp. 417-428.

18

This estimate is derived from the 1965 BLS study, Employee Compensation and Payroll Hours: Building Construction, and is confirmed on an annualized basis by the 1967 Census of Construction Industries.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, February, 1970.

A-6

AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS ($) FOR UNION CONSTRUCTION WORKERS (1948-1969)