Bargaining activity light in private industry in 1985 Essay

Bargaining activity light in private industry in 1985



About 3.5 million of the 9.4 million employees under major
collective bargaining agreements (covering 1,000 or more workers) in
private industry and State and local government have their contracts
slated for renewal or reopening in 1985. Bargaining activity in private
industry will be relatively light, with negotiations covering 33 percent
of the 7.4 million employees under major agreements. In State and local
government, 55 percent of the 2.0 million employees under major
agreements are subject to negotiations during 1985, the first year for
which data are available for these contracts. 1



The light 1985 bargaining calendar in private industry follows 3
years of heavy bargaining. From the mid-1950’s to 1983, bargaining
over major contracts in private industry was on a cycle of 2 years of
heavy activity, each involving about two-fifths of the workers, followed
by a third year of lighter activity, involving about three-tenths of the
workers. This 3-year cycle was broken when contracts between the United
Automobile Workers and Ford Motor Co. and General Motors were negotiated
in early 1982 to run for 2 1/2 years. They replaced contracts that were
to expire in September 1982 that, had they then been renegotiated for
the typical 3-year duration, would have expired in 1985. Thus,
bargaining in autos was thrown into 1984, making it the third heavy
bargaining year in a row, and making 1985 a light bargaining year.


During 1985, 537 major contracts in private industry, covering 2.4
million workers, and 288 major State and local government agreements,
covering 1.1 million workers are scheduled to be negotiated. (See
tables 1 and 2.) These negotiations will be influenced by both general
economic conditions and the circumstances of the individual industries,
employers, and unions involved in bargaining.



The recovery in the Nation’s economy that began in 1982
continued into the third quarter of 1984. Key measures of the economic
health of the country showed improvement over the previous year. For
example, the unemployment rate of civilian workers was 7.4 percent in
September 1984, compared to 9.2 percent a year earlier. The Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 4.2 percent during the
12-months ended September 1984, continuing the moderate rate of price
increases that began in 1982. The Federal Reserve Board’s total
industry capacity utilization rate was 81.9 percent for September 1984,
up from 78.6 percent a year earlier. The composite index of leading
economic indicators, compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s
Bureau of Economic Analysis to forecast movements in aggregate economic
activity, suggests continuing, but slower, growth into 1985.



Despite the 1984 economic growth, major contract settlements
reached in private industry during the first 9 months were historically
low. They provided average specified wage adjustments of 2.5 percent in
the first contract year and 2.8 percent annually over the life of the
contract. This compares with annual figures of 2.6 and 2.8 percent,
respectively, for all of 1983. In contrast, when the same parties to
1984 settlements previously bargained (about 2 or 3 years before), their
contracts provided wage adjustments of 8.6 percent in the first-year,
and 7.2 percent annually over the contract life.



The size of settlements in 1984 reflects attempts by the parties to
adjust to the economic difficulties faced by many of them, including
competition from abroad and from nonunion firms at home and declining
employment opportunities. Many of the parties to 1985 negotiations face
similar problems. How they deal with them at the bargaining table
remains to be seen.



The bulk of contract expirations in the private sector will occur
between March and September 1985. Negotiations are scheduled in several
key industries including trucking, construction, men’s apparel,
rubber, women’s apparel, electrical products, and for autoworkers
at Chrysler Corp. Public sector contract expirations are concentrated
at midyear, coinciding with the end of their fiscal year.


This article discusses contract negotiations, wage changes, and
cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) reviews scheduled in 1985 for the 9.4
million workers in private industry and State and local government under
major agreements. The bargaining issues of the contract negotiations
are high-lighted. (See table 3 for expiration dates and wage adjustment
provisions for selected major agreements.)



Trucking



The National Master Freight Agreement negotiated by the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America (Teamsters, Ind.) and Trucking Management, Inc.
(TMI), expires March 31, 1985. TMI, the primary negotiator for the
industry, has experienced a sharp drop in the number of member companies
since the last round of negotiations in 1982. Deregulation 2 and the
recession led many firms to merge, fail, and/or layoff workers, thereby
reducing the number of firms and workers in the industry. Many smaller
and midsize firms–hoping to exact a less expensive agreement–dropped
out of TMI and are forming their own bargaining group.



TMI has announced changes in their negotiation and ratification procedure. A 22-member committee composed of five members of each
region (Eastern, Southern, Central, and Western) and a chair and vice
chair is responsible for negotiation of the National Master Freight
Agreement and its area supplements. Negotiation for the National Master
Freight Agreement and the monetary package is conducted by an 11-member
committee drawn from the larger negotiating committee consisting of two
members from each region, a secretary, a chair, and a vice chair. The
result of the negotiations will be submitted first for approval to the
Board of Directors of TMI, and then to the Membership Committee for
ratification. Each company in TMI is on the Membership Committee and
has one vote plus an additional vote for each 500 employees or portion
thereof. In prior negotiations, a policy committee of TMI which
consisted of members elected from affiliated regional associations,
ratified the contract.



In the past, the National Master Freight Agreement, in conjunction
with approximately 30 local and area supplemental agreements, determined
the compensation and working conditions of most unionized drivers in the
industry. 3 Wage changes, employer contributions to benefit plans, and
most economic benefits were determined in national negotiations. Actual
wage rates, most work rules, and allocations of funds to health and
welfare plans are set in supplemental agreements. Local exceptions to
economic terms and work rules are provided in various addenda.



The 1982 National Master Freight Agreement provided no wage
increases and modified the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) clause to
provide annual reviews in April instead of semiannual reviews. The
agreement also allowed money from COLA to be diverted from wages to
maintain health, welfare, and pension benefits. Over the last 3 years
this resulted in only one COLA wage increase–47-cents in April 1982.
All other COLA money was diverted: 25 cents in April 1982, 33 cents in
April 1983, and 35 cents in April 1984.



Supplements to the National Master Freight Agreement differed by
area but generally provided for new employees to start at 70 percent of
the pay rate for their job and move in steps to the top rate after 3
years of service. Previously, new employees generally received the full
rate of pay immediately. The supplements also provided relaxed work
rules including a “nonstandard’ workweek that eliminated some
premium pay.



TMI requested further changes to the National Master Freight
Agreement in April 1983 but, these were rejected by the union
leadership. In November 1983, TMI and the union, under the leadership
of Jackie Presser, agreed to a wage-and-benefit cost cutting plan aimed
at aiding the industry. The plan was rejected by the union membership
by a margin of almost 9 to 1.



Information on 1985 demands is not available. However, it is
anticipated that the union will press for a pay increase and restraints
on unionized firms establishing nonunion subsidiaries. Other union
demands may include the restoration of semiannual cost-of-living
reviews, pension increases, and job security provisions. TMI is likely
to seek lower starting wages for newly hired employees plus work rule
changes which will cut costs.



The smaller carriers, which are no longer members of TMI, are
seeking a settlement that will be less expensive than that reached by
the large carriers. The smaller carriers argue that they need special
considerations to remain in business. Some observers believe, however,
that these carriers would agree to terms similar to those reached by TMI
because they would be unable to withstand a strike if the larger
companies are operating.



Rubber



Major contracts between the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America (Rubber Workers) and the “Big Four’
tiremakers: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Firestone Tire and Rubber
Co., B.F. Goodrich Co., and Uniroyal, Inc., are up for renewal April
20, 1985. In the past, bargaining has been conducted separately with
each company, after the Rubber Workers selected a “target’
from among the “Big Four’ to set the pattern for the industry.



In 1982, however, because of the threat of bankruptcy, Uniroyal
reached an early agreement with the Rubber Workers to accept the same
provisions as the pattern setter. Subsequently, the Rubber Workers
reached an agreement with B.F. Goodrich Co. that set the pattern for
settlements at Goodyear and Firestone as well as Uniroyal.



The Goodrich contract provided no specified wage adjustments.
However, the automatic quarterly cost-of-living adjustments were
continued, calculated at 1 cent for each 0.26-point movement in the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W). Pension and sickness and accident insurance were improved,
including a 6-month increase (to 30 months), in the period during which
laid-off employees would retain life and health insurance. However, in
some Firestone and Goodrich plants troubled with possible layoffs and
plant closings, workers accepted wage cuts and suspension of COLA
clauses. In exchange, the Rubber Workers won the right to early
warnings of financial problems at these plants.



Since the last negotiations, the rubber industry has revitalized and capacity utilization is high. All plants are on a flat 3-shift,
7-day-a-week operation with no employees working overtime. There have
been fewer layoffs. Since 1982, only two Firestone and Goodyear plants,
both producers of bias ply tires, have closed.



The health of the rubber tire industry has always been closely
linked to the automobile industry, which is still struggling with
foreign competition. Thus, although goals for upcoming negotiations
have not yet been formulated, it is expected that job security and
improved pension benefits will be key objectives.



Construction



Approximately 384,000 workers covered by 170 collective bargaining
agreements in the construction industry will face contract expirations
or scheduled reopeners in 1985. These agreements account for 35 percent
of all construction workers under major agreements, and 16 percent of
the workers under private sector contracts scheduled for negotiation in
1985.



Negotiations in the industry are often conducted by employer
associations,4 which individual companies join for bargaining and other
purposes. Unions negotiate along craft lines.5 Settlements in the
industry generally reflect regional patterns.



Although the industry’s unemployment rate is down to 13.8
percent for September 1984, compared with 18.1 percent in September 1983
and 21.8 percent in September 1982, it is still high relative to other
industries. As in recent years, unemployment and nonunion competition
increased pressure to moderate wage demands and reduce employer costs in
1984. Many contracts provided benefit changes without affording any
wage changes. Construction agreements reached in the first 9 months of
1984 provided the smallest wage and compensation adjustments for any
first 3-quarter period since such data were first compiled in 1968.
Wage adjustments averaged 0.9 percent for the first contract year and
1.2 percent annually over the life of the contracts; corresponding
adjustments in compensation (wage and benefit costs) averaged 1.2
percent and 1.4 percent. The last time these same parties bargained,
average wage adjustments were 6.2 percent in the first year and 5.3
percent over the contract life.



A variety of approaches were tried by labor and management to
reduce employer costs in 1984 and make union firms more competitive with
their nonunion rivals. These included lower wage rates for new projects
than for projects already underway; lower regular rates for new hires;
modified vacation and overtime rates; modified work rules; for feiture
of scheduled deferred payments, and lower wage rates for projects valued
below a specified amount. (This last arrangement is intended to allow
unionized employers to compete with nonunion employers on small
contracts, while, at the same time, maintain wage levels on the larger
contracts for which nonunion firms may be too small to compete.) Unless
the industry’s economic climate improves, bargaining in 1985 can
expect to follow the same trends set since 1983.



Apparel



Although the women’s and men’s apparel industry
agreements expire at different times (May and September, respectively),
and the negotiations involve different employer bargaining associations
and unions, bargainers for both sets of contracts face similar economic
conditions and constraints. Average annual unemployment in apparel (and
other textile products) increased from 11.5 percent in 1980 and 1981 to
15.4 percent in 1982 and declined to 12.4 percent in 1983. In 1984,
seasonally adjusted unemployment has ranged from 12.7 percent in January
to 8.3 percent in May, with a 10.5-percent rate for October, the last
month reported. Employment has remained relatively stable, declining
slightly from 1.3 million workers in 1980 to 1.2 million in 1983.



Workers in the women’s apparel industry will be represented by
the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union which will
negotiate with several employer groups including the Affiliated Dress
Manufacturers Association, Apparel Manufacturers Association, New York Coat and Suit Association, New York Shirt and Sportswear Association,
and Popular Price Dress Contractors Association. The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union will negotiate on behalf of workers
in men’s apparel covered by the Clothing Manufacturers Association
and parties to the Cotton Garments Contracts.



In the last round of negotiations in 1982, the women’s apparel
agreements provided for a $1.10 hourly wage increase over 3 years and
established a cost-of-living clause. The COLA clause provided for a
10-cent adjustment in February 1984 if the CPI-W rose 8.5 percent
between June 1, 1982, and December 1, 1983, plus 5 cents for each
0.5-percent point increase in the index, up to a 25-cent maximum. No
COLA payment was made.



The men’s and boys’ clothing agreement provided hourly
wage increases of $1.05 over 3 years. The automatic cost-of-living
adjustment formula provided for adjustments in June 1983 if the CPI-W
rose 4.8 percent from December 1981 to December 1982 and another
adjustment in June 1984 if the index rose 5.4 percent from December 1982
to December 1983. The CPI-W increased 3.9 percent in 1982 and 3.3
percent in 1983, hence, no COLA payments were made.



Over the past several years, the apparel industry has faced stiff
foreign competition. The industry has sought to challenge the imports
through government trade restrictions and a voluntary “buy
American’ campaign. However, as the industry approaches this
year’s negotiations, serious trade problems remain. For example,
the value of imported wearing apparel has steadily increased from $5.8
billion in 1979 to $9.5 billion in 1983.



Electrical industry



Agreements covering 217,000 workers are scheduled to expire in the
electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies industry. The largest
contracts will be negotiated at the General Electric Co. in June
(covering 80,000 employees) and at Westinghouse Electric Corp. in July
(covering 35,000 employees). Other large bargaining units that will be
involved in negotiations in 1985 include: Hughes Aircraft Co., with
12,000 employees; and Radio Corporation of America and American
Telephone and Telegraph Technologies, each with about 10,000 employees.



Negotiations with General Electric and Westinghouse will be
conducted by the Coordinated Bargaining Committee of General Electric
and Westinghouse unions which represents 13 labor organizations. 6
Under the Coordinated Bargaining Committee, each union negotiates its
own contract or contracts but coordinates proposals and exchanges
information. Contract negotiations will start at General Electric.



In the previous round of negotiations, General Electric settled on
June 27, 1982, with the International Union of Electronic, Electrical,
Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers (Electronic Workers) and the
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (Electrical Workers, UE).
Shortly thereafter, the 11 other unions of the Coordinated Bargaining
Committee reached agreements on the same terms. Later, Westinghouse
agreed to essentially the same wage and benefit terms; however, there
were some significant differences in the pension plan.



The General Electric contract enhanced job security through several
contract provisions. These included: a 6-month notice of plant
closings and 60 days notice of the introduction of new automation or
robots; 26 weeks retention of wage rates for workers shifted to lower
paying jobs because of shutdowns or automation; an improved lump-sum
severance payment formula; job placement assistance and up to $1,800 for
education and retraining for displaced workers; company-financed medical
insurance for employees age 50 and over with 25 or more years of service
who are affected by plant closings; and vested pension rights for
workers with at least 7 years service who are affected by shutdowns.



The agreement also provided a 7-percent pay increase in June 1982
and 3 percent increases in 1983 and 1984. The automatic semiannual
cost-of-living adjustment was improved to provide a 1-cent per hour
increase for each 0.175-percent rise in the CPI-W. The pension, health
insurance, life insurance and vacation plans were also improved.



Unemployment in the electrical products industry has steadily
decreased since the last negotiations, from 10.7 percent in September
1982 to 7.3 percent in September 1983 to 5.3 percent in September 1984.
However, serious problems still affect the industry: foreign
competition is strong with some competitors building plants in the
United States; low sales of heavy duty generators and transmission
equipment continue, as utilities are scaled back and old equipment is
retained; and the new housing market, which accounts for about one-third
of unit sales of major appliances, has been weak.



Bargaining demands will not be made final until about March 1985,
but the unions have announced general goals, focusing on job security
which continues to be threatened by plant shutdowns and automation. The
unions intend to tighten severance and other security benefits
negotiated in 1982 that they claim have been undercut by employee
layoffs prior to shutdown notices. They may also propose a shorter
workweek as a solution to fewer jobs and increased automation. The
industry is expected to demand reductions in health care insurance
costs.



Automobiles–Chrysler Corp.



The contract between Chrysler Corp. and the United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW), covering
80,000 employees, is due to expire October 15, 1985. Although there was
some attempts to seek an early agreement following the conclusion of
national agreements at General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. in
October 1984, contract talks with Chrysler have yet to be initiated.



Before 1979, the UAW bargained individually with each of the major
auto firms, targeting one of the “Big Three’ companies (GM,
Ford, and Chrysler) to get a pattern-setting agreement. On October 25,
1979, the UAW accepted some deviation from the industry pattern to help
improve financial conditions at Chrysler Corp. Further cost
concessions, which qualified Chrysler for Federal loan guarantees,
resulted from January 1980 and January 1981 negotiations.



As a result of these negotiations, there were substantial
differences between Chrysler Corp.’s wage and benefit provisions
and those of Ford and GM. However, in December 1982, Chrysler agreed to
a contract that reduced some of this disparity.



The demand for further contract improvement was prompted by the
early pay back of the $1.2 billion Federal loan, and a $482 million
profit for the first 6 months of 1983. In September 1983, the UAW and
Chrysler reached an agreement providing wage and benefit improvements
that eliminated the existing differences with GM and Ford. However, it
did not address contract changes that might result from the 1984 GM and
Ford negotiations.



Reflecting concern over job security matters, the 1984 GM
settlement established a new Job Security Program, which guarantees that
workers with at least 1 year of service would not to be laid off because
of new technology, outsourcing, negotiated productivity improvements,
work shifted from one GM plant to another, or the consolidation of
component production. One specified wage increase and a $180
“Special Payment’ was made, effective immediately. Lump-sum
“Performance Bonus’ payments are scheduled for October of 1985
and 1986. The cost-of-living adjustment formula was continued, but will
be calculated on the 1967-based U.S. Consumer Price Index only, instead
of the combined U.S.-Canadian CPI. Among other improvements, the pact
contained profit-sharing payments, a guaranteed income stream for
laid-off workers, and increased funding for Supplemental Unemployment
Benefits. A similar contract was later negotiated for Ford employees.



At the upcoming talks with Chrysler, UAW negotiators will be faced
with the expiration of import restraints in April 1985, as well as the
company’s goal of maintaining current levels of production with
fewer workers. Of the 250,000 auto workers laid-off between 1979 and
1982 as a result of sales slumps and the growth of imports, more than
60,000 are still on layoff. Nevertheless, Chrysler workers may again
demand parity with GM and Ford.



State and local government



During 1985, 288 contracts, covering 1.1 million State and local
government workers expire or will be reopened. Of these, 161 covering
607,000 workers will terminate in June. Negotiations are scheduled for
96 expiring contracts covering 596,000 State workers, compared with 196
contracts covering 544,000 local government workers. These contracts
cover 75 percent of the State workers under major agreements, in
contrast to 44 percent of local government employees.



Seventy-two percent of the State government employees under
expiring agreements work in general administrative agencies, 10 percent
in social service departments, and the remainder in education,
hospitals, transportation, and protective services. States with heavy
bargaining calendars include New York with 26 percent and Pennsylvania
with 17 percent of the State workers up for negotiation.



In local government, employees in education account for 61 percent
of the workers scheduled for renegotiated contracts. Employees in
general administration account for another 20 percent and workers in
hospitals, housing agencies, and protective services make up the
balance.



In general, local government agreements are dispersed among many
jurisdicitions. About 14 percent of the local government workers slated
for 1985 negotiations are employed by Los Angeles County. The remainder
are distributed among other jurisdictions.



Wage changes of expiring agreements



Contracts expiring in 1985 will yield average annual specified wage
adjustments of 4.1 percent over their term. When COLA adjustments
through October 1984 are included, the adjustment averages 4.4 percent.
The following tabulation shows specified wage adjustments and specified
wage adjustments including COLA’s in private and State and local
government contracts expiring in 1985:



Private industry specified wage changes average 3.7 percent
annually, but increases to 4.1 percent when COLA’s through October
1984 are included. In all contracts with COLA’s, specified changes
were 3.1 percent with COLA’s raising the level to 3.8 percent over
the contract term. Assuming no significant deviations from the current
trend in the CPI, the overall adjustment in private industry contracts
with COLA’s will be less than the 4.6-percent specified adjustment
in nonCOLA contracts for the third consecutive year. For contracts
expiring to 1983, overall average wage adjustments for contracts with
COLA’s always exceeded those in contracts without COLA’s



In State and local government contracts, specified changes were 5.1
percent. Contracts with COLA’s covered such a small proportion of
the workers as to have no measurable impact on the overall data.



Some contracts in both private industry and government expiring in
1985 provide for COLA reviews after October 1984. However, it is
unlikely that future adjustments would significantly alter these
averages.



Scheduled wage changes in 1985



About 3.8 million of the 9.4 million workers under major agreements
are scheduled to receive deferred wage adjustments in 1985–44 percent
of the private sector workers 26 percent of the State and local
government workers. (See tables 4, 5, and 6.) Only three bargaining
units, all in the private sector, covering 10,600 workers call for
deferred decreases. Lump-sum payments, which are not incorporated into
the wage rates, are not included in this series.



Deferred adjustments (increases and decreases) will average 52.1
cents, or 4.0 percent. Adjustments in private industry will be
proportionately lower than those in the public sector (3.7 versus 5.5
percent). In private industry, deferred increases alone will average
3.8 percent, the smallest percent increase since this information was
first compiled in 1970.



Contracts with COLA’s generally provide smaller deferred wage
increases than those without because they are negotiated in anticipation
of the COLA generating some wage increases. For 1985, the deferred wage
adjustment will average 2.7 percent for agreements with COLA, compared
to 4.9 percent for those without COLA clauses.



Cost-of-living adjustments. COLA clauses are designed primarily to
help workers recover purchasing power lost through price increases.
Some COLA clauses, however, also decrease wages if prices drop. Wage
adjustments are based on a measure of price change, usually the CPI-W.
The size of the COLA wage change varies, depending on the formula used
in adjustment calculations, the timing of reviews, whether or not
maximum amounts (“caps’) are specified, and if the formula
provides for COLA decreases.



As of October 1984, 45 percent (4.2 million) of the 9.4 million
workers under major agreements were covered by COLA clauses. (See table
7.) Only 2 percent of the public sector workers have COLA coverage,
compared with 57 percent in the private sector.



Historical data on COLA coverage are available only for private
industry. They show that the number of private industry workers
affected by COLA clauses has been decreasing steadily since 1977,
largely because of declining employment in industries where COLA clauses
are common. The following tabulation shows the number of workers under
major private sector contracts and the number and percent covered by
COLA clauses, 1971–85 (numbers in millions):



About 3.9 million of the 4.2 million private and State and local
workers with COLA’s are covered by contracts that tie possible
adjustment to the movement in the CPI for “all cities.’ An
additional 215,000 workers are under contracts which use an index for an
individual city. Prior to 1984, COLA formulas relating wage changes to
a combination of the U.S. and Canadian indices covered large numbers of
workers, primarily in autos. However, the newest GM and Ford agreements
cover only U.S. workers, so the combined index was dropped. Thus, only
80,000 workers (primarily Chrysler employees) currently receive COLA
adjustments based on a combined index.



The most prevalent COLA adjustment formula calls for a 1-cent per
hour wage change for each 0.3-point change in the CPI. This formula is
found in COLA clauses for more than 1.5 million workers in industries
such as railroads, trucking, and aerospace. COLA clauses in major
agreements in the automobile and rubber industries provide adjustments
of 1 cent for each 0.26-point movement in the index they use; those in
the electrical equipment industry provide 1 cent for each 0.175-percent
change in the CPI; and those in telephone communications call for
adjustments of 55 cents a week plus 0.65 percent of the
individual’s weekly rate for each 1-percent increase in the CPI.



Cost-of-living reviews are made at intervals specified in each
clause. Fifty-eight percent of the workers covered by COLA clauses will
have at least one review in 1984. (See tables 7 and 8.) Annual and
quarterly reviews each affect 1.1 million workers. Annual reviews are
prevalent in the telephone communications and trucking industries, while
quarterly reviews predominate in the automobile, aerospace, and steel
industries. Semiannual reviews affect workers in railroads and
electrical products.



Employer cost increases from COLA’s have been limited in some
cases. For example, of the 4.2 million workers under contracts with
COLA’s more than 800,000 are under clauses which have
“caps’ or maximum limits. Other approaches to limit COLA cost
increases have included delays in payment and diversion of COLA’s
from wages to help finance benefits.



More than 60,000 workers are covered by provisions for minimum or
“guaranteed’ COLA payments determined at the time the
contracts were negotiated. These adjustments do not depend on the
movement of a price index. Therefore the Bureau of Labor Statistics treats these amounts as specified adjustments and not as COLA
adjustments.



BARGAINING ACTIVITY AND SCHEDULED WAGE CHANGES may be different
from that described here, especially if economic conditions nationally
or for individual industries or employers vary substantially from
current projections. Negotiations will be carefully observed to see how
employers and unions react to the effects of expiring contracts, current
economic circumstances, and expectations for the future.



1 Prior to this year, this series was limited to private sector
collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more.



2 The trucking industry was deregulated by the Motor Carrier Act
of 1980. The act reduced regulation of the trucking industry by making
it easier to be certified to operate a route, by allowing
owner-operators to haul certain freight that was previously denied to
them, and by decreasing collective rate making.



3 The Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union
(Ind.) and seven Teamster locals in the Chicago area have not
participated in national bargaining in the past. Due to changes in TMI,
the number of Teamsters locals not participating will increase in 1985.



4 These include the Associated General Contractors of America,
Inc., Mechanical Contractors Association, the National Electrical
Contractors Association, the Building Trades Employers Association,
Painting and Decorating Contractors Association, and the Sheet Metal and
Air Conditioning Contractors National Association.



5 Major construction industry unions include the following AFL-CIO affilated unions: International Union of Bricklayers and Allied
Craftsmen; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America;
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada;
Laborer’s International Union of North America; and the Sheet Metal
Worker’s International Association –and the unaffiliated
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs Warehousemen and
Helpers of America.



6 The Coordinated Bargaining Committee was established in 1966.
Currently, the committee is composed of 11 AFL-CIO affiliated unions:
International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America; United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; International Union of
Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers;
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; International
Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers; American Flint Glass Workers’
Union of North America; International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada;
Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association; International Union
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America; and the United Steelworkers of America; and two independent
unions–the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America; and
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America.



Table: Calendar of major collective bargaining activity in private
nonagricultural industries and State and local government



Table: Agreement expirations, or both, in major collective
bargaining situations in private nonagriculture Industries and State and
local government, by year



Table: Duration and wage adjustment provisions of selected major
collective bargaining agreements



Table: Scheduled deferred wage adjustments in 1985 under agreements
in major collective bargaining agreements, by industry



Table: Distribution of workers scheduled to receive deferred wage
Increases in 1985 under major collective bargaining agreements, by
industry and amount of increase



Table:



Table: Deferred wage increases scheduled in 1985 in major
collective bargaining situations, by month



Table: Prevalence of cost-of-living adjustment clauses in major
collective bargaining agreements, October 1984



Table: Frequency and timing of 1985 cost-of-living reviews in major
collective bargaining situations