Chapter URL:

Similar documents
Elder Financial Abuse and State Mandatory Reporting Laws for Financial Institutions Prepared by CUNA s State Government Affairs

PERMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES. Member Electronic Vote/ . Alabama No No Yes No. Alaska No No No No

Survey of State Laws on Credit Unions Incidental Powers

Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance UPDATED MARCH 30, 2015

INSTITUTE of PUBLIC POLICY

Statutes of Limitations for the 50 States (and the District of Columbia)

The Victim Rights Law Center thanks Catherine Cambridge for her research assistance.

Matthew Miller, Bureau of Legislative Research

Components of Population Change by State

States Adopt Emancipation Day Deadline for Individual Returns; Some Opt Against Allowing Delay for Corporate Returns in 2012

2016 Voter Registration Deadlines by State

APPENDIX C STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES

WYOMING POPULATION DECLINED SLIGHTLY

Survey of State Civil Shoplifting Statutes

Accountability-Sanctions

Section 4. Table of State Court Authorities Governing Judicial Adjuncts and Comparison Between State Rules and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53

APPENDIX D STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES

2015 ANNUAL OUTCOME GOAL PLAN (WITH FY 2014 OUTCOMES) Prepared in compliance with Government Performance and Results Act

Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance

2008 Changes to the Constitution of International Union UNITED STEELWORKERS

If you have questions, please or call

Page 1 of 5. Appendix A.

Map of the Foreign Born Population of the United States, 1900

The remaining legislative bodies have guides that help determine bill assignments. Table shows the criteria used to refer bills.

Notice N HCFB-1. March 25, Subject: FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR (FY) Classification Code

Case 3:15-md CRB Document 4700 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 5

Name Change Laws. Current as of February 23, 2017

Union Byte By Cherrie Bucknor and John Schmitt* January 2015

ACCESS TO STATE GOVERNMENT 1. Web Pages for State Laws, State Rules and State Departments of Health

States Permitting Or Prohibiting Mutual July respondent in the same action.

State Trial Courts with Incidental Appellate Jurisdiction, 2010

THE PROCESS TO RENEW A JUDGMENT SHOULD BEGIN 6-8 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE

State Prescription Monitoring Program Statutes and Regulations List

Rhoads Online State Appointment Rules Handy Guide

State Statutory Provisions Addressing Mutual Protection Orders

12B,C: Voting Power and Apportionment

STATE LAWS SUMMARY: CHILD LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY STATE

U ntil the reduction in manufacturing exports

STATUTES OF REPOSE. Presented by 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders.

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

CA CALIFORNIA. Ala. Code 10-2B (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A ] No monetary penalties listed.

Decision Analyst Economic Index United States Census Divisions April 2017

Bylaws of the. Student Membership

National State Law Survey: Statute of Limitations 1

State-by-State Chart of HIV-Specific Laws and Prosecutorial Tools

State Complaint Information

Federal Rate of Return. FY 2019 Update Texas Department of Transportation - Federal Affairs

MEMORANDUM JUDGES SERVING AS ARBITRATORS AND MEDIATORS

Campaign Finance E-Filing Systems by State WHAT IS REQUIRED? WHO MUST E-FILE? Candidates (Annually, Monthly, Weekly, Daily).

Growth in the Foreign-Born Workforce and Employment of the Native Born

Appendix 6 Right of Publicity

Election of Worksheet #1 - Candidates and Parties. Abraham Lincoln. Stephen A. Douglas. John C. Breckinridge. John Bell

New Census Estimates Show Slight Changes For Congressional Apportionment Now, But Point to Larger Changes by 2020

UNIFORM NOTICE OF REGULATION A TIER 2 OFFERING Pursuant to Section 18(b)(3), (b)(4), and/or (c)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933

7-45. Electronic Access to Legislative Documents. Legislative Documents

Chapter 12: The Math of Democracy 12B,C: Voting Power and Apportionment - SOLUTIONS

EXCEPTIONS: WHAT IS ADMISSIBLE?

National State Law Survey: Mistake of Age Defense 1

State P3 Legislation Matrix 1

DEFINED TIMEFRAMES FOR RATE CASES (i.e., suspension period)

New Population Estimates Show Slight Changes For 2010 Congressional Apportionment, With A Number of States Sitting Close to the Edge

NOTICE TO MEMBERS No January 2, 2018

The Changing Face of Labor,

Governance State Boards/Chiefs/Agencies

Women in Federal and State-level Judgeships

Representational Bias in the 2012 Electorate

If it hasn t happened already, at some point

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [NOTICE ] Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and

We re Paying Dearly for Bush s Tax Cuts Study Shows Burdens by State from Bush s $87-Billion-Every-51-Days Borrowing Binge

Department of Justice

H.R and the Protection of State Conscience Rights for Pro-Life Healthcare Workers. November 4, 2009 * * * * *

America s Deficient Bridges: A State-by-State Comparison

2016 us election results

VOLUME 36 ISSUE 1 JANUARY 2018

Limitations on Contributions to Political Committees

Delegates: Understanding the numbers and the rules

American Government. Workbook

National Population Growth Declines as Domestic Migration Flows Rise

US Exports and Employment. Robert C. Feenstra University of California, Davis and NBER

Immigration Policy Brief August 2006

ACTION: Notice announcing addresses for summons and complaints. SUMMARY: Our Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is responsible for processing

Employee must be. provide reasonable notice (Ala. Code 1975, ).

STATE OF ENERGY REPORT. An in-depth industry analysis by the Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association

Registered Agents. Question by: Kristyne Tanaka. Date: 27 October 2010

America is facing an epidemic of the working hungry. Hunger Free America s analysis of federal data has determined:

National State Law Survey: Expungement and Vacatur Laws 1

Soybean Promotion and Research: Amend the Order to Adjust Representation on the United Soybean Board

ADVANCEMENT, JURISDICTION-BY-JURISDICTION

Electronic Notarization

The Economic Impact of Spending for Operations and Construction in 2014 by AZA-Accredited Zoos and Aquariums

Democratic Convention *Saturday 1 March 2008 *Monday 25 August - Thursday 28 August District of Columbia Non-binding Primary

Teacher Tenure: Teacher Due Process Rights to Continued Employment

MEMORANDUM SUMMARY NATIONAL OVERVIEW. Research Methodology:

TELEPHONE; STATISTICAL INFORMATION; PRISONS AND PRISONERS; LITIGATION; CORRECTIONS; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ISSUES

Should Politicians Choose Their Voters? League of Women Voters of MI Education Fund

For jurisdictions that reject for punctuation errors, is the rejection based on a policy decision or due to statutory provisions?

National Latino Peace Officers Association

SEMI-ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT JANUARY 1, 2005 JUNE 30, 2005

NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY Legislative Services Office

TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY THURGOOD MARSHALL SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY LOCATION GUIDE July 2018

Transcription:

This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Distribution of Union Membership among the States, 1939 and 1953 Volume Author/Editor: Leo Troy Volume Publisher: NBER Volume ISBN: 0-87014-370-0 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/troy57-1 Publication Date: 1957 Chapter Title: Extent of Union Organization, by State and Region, 1939 and 1953 Chapter Author: Leo Troy Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2690 Chapter pages in book: (p. 17-27)

II Extent of Union Organization, by State and Region, 1939 and 1953 Between 1939 and 1953 there was not only a great increase in the numbers of union members, but total membership grew faster than nonagricultural wage and salary employment. Consequently the percentage of this class of employees who were in unions rose in the whole country from in 1939 to 32.6 in 1953. It proved possible to compute the percentage organized in each of the 48 states and the District of Columbia, and thereby to determine the degree of unionization in various parts of the United States. As Table 4 shows, union membership increased at a faster rate than employment in all states between 1939 and 1953, lagging only in the District of Columbia. Nineteen states exceeded the average increase for the country (11.1 per cent), twenty-eight fell below, and one, Arizona, equaled the average. Chart 2 shows the pattern of growth in union organization among the states, and Map 2 the broad pattern of differences in degree of organization in 1953. The decline in mining employment, the status of industrial deve.1- opment, and geographic location appear to be the principal factors accounting for the lag in unionization among those states that fell behind the average increase. Thus, Montana, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Kentucky, for example, states in which mining bulked large in employment, lagged behind. States such as Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas are still important argicultural states and this probably accounts for the small rise in their unionization. On the other hand, states "specializing" in those industries in which union membership grew so rapidly (Table 6) exceeded the 17

TABLE 4 Extent of Union Organization of Nonagricultural Employment by State, 1939 and 1953 Increase in Per Cent Rank Per Cent Organized Organized, 1939 1953 State 1939 1953 1939-1953 United Statesa 21.5 32.6 11.1 2 1 Washington 41.3 53.3 12.0 3 2 Montana 36.7 47.0 10.3 1 3 West Virginia 41.7 44.1 2.4 17 4 Michigan 20.0 43.3 23.3 4 5 Oregon 30.1 43.1 13.0 15 6 Indiana 21.7 40.0 18.3 6 7 Pennsylvania 27.6 39.9 12.3 14 8 Missouri 21.9 39.7 17.8 8 9 Illinois 25.9 39.7 [3.8 5 10 Wisconsin 29.1 38.3 9.2 9 11 Minnesota 24.8 38.1 13.3 10 12 Ohio 24.4 38.0 13.6 11 13 California 23.4 35.7 12.3 23 14 New Jersey 16.1 35.2 19.1 12 15 New York 23.0 34.4 11.4 19 16 Nevada 18.2 30.4 12.2 25 17 Massachusetts 15.5 30.1 14.6 7 18 Wyoming 26.7 28.6 1.9 20 19 Colorado 17.6 27.8 10.2 22 20 Arizona 16.6 27.7 11.1 40 21 Rhode Island 10.2 27.4 17.2 35 22 Connecticut 11.3 26.5 15.2 18 23 Utah 19.3 26.3 7.0 32 24 Maryland 12.0 25.2 13.2 21 25 Iowa 17.3 25.0 7.7 13 26 Kentucky 22.5 25.0 2.5 24 27 Alabama 16.1 24.9 8.8 43 28 New Hampshire 7.3 24.6 17.3 28 29 Kansas 13.4 23.9 10.5 26 30 Tennessee 15.3 22.6 7.3 27 31 Idaho 13.7 21.5 7.8 30 32 Arkansas 12.7 21.5 8.8 44 33 Maine 7.2 21.4 14.2 16 34 DistrictofColumbia 21.7 21.2 0.5 31 35 Nebraska 12.5 19.7 7.2 41 36 Louisiana 9.6 19.5 9.9 18

TABLE 4 (concluded) Increase in Per Cent Rank Per Cent Organized Organized, 1939 1953 State 1939 1953 1939-1953 33 37 Vermont 11.4 18.9 7.5 42 38 Delaware 7.8 18.4 10.6 29 39 Virginia 12.8 17.4 4.6 39 40 Texas 103 16.7 6.4 34 41 Florida 11.3 16.2 4.9 38 42 Oklahoma 10.4 16.1 5.7 37 43 North Dakota 10.9 15.6 4.7 46 44 Georgia 7.0 15.0 8.0 47 45 Mississippi 6.5 14.7 8.2 45 46 South Dakota 7.1 14.4 7.3 36 47 New Mexico 11.2 14.2 3.0 49 48 South Carolina 4.0 9.3 5.3 48 49 North Carolina 4.2 8.3 4.1 alncludes membership not distributed by state. Source: Employment data from mimeographed releases of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sum of the employment of the states is smaller by 151,000 than the total for the country in 1953, as revised and reported in Employment and Earnings, May 1955. The revision changes the extent of organization of the United States by 0.1 per cent. average increase in unionization. Notable examples were Michigan, New Jersey, and Indiana. Locational differences seem to explain the divergent behavior of the New England states (except Vermont) as compared to southern states. In most of the New England states, textile manufacturing became well organized between 1939 and 1953, but in the South, where the industry is even larger, the incidence of unionization remained very low. Sectional differences in rates of industry unionization appear to exist in other industries as well. The growth of union membership so far exceeded the increase in employment in a number of states that they rose in the scale of states ranked from high to low percentage organized in 1953. Among the states which ranked higher in 1953 than in 1939 were Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maryland. In contrast, the standing of West Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Kentucky declined. Altogether, 20 states moved up and 28 and the District of Columbia declined in the array. 19

CRART 2 Growth of Union Organization, by State, 193 9-1953 Increase In orgomzolton, 1939-1953 (per cent) 25 I I I I I Average, 1939 I 20 - NH RI 15,Me 10 5 0.Conn Md OSC 0k1a Fla NC ND# Va NJ Mass Nev De1.L.o Kan ecolo Ark AIa MLSS..GQ.Iowạ Neb Tenn Utah NM Ind 'Mo Ohto.111 en? Ky Wyo Ore.wI S MOnIS Wa.sh. - Average Increase W Vu. I I. I 5-0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Extent of 1939 (per cent) Source: Table 4. The extent of organization ranged from 42 per cent in West Virginia to 4 per cent in South Carolina in 1939. By 1953, Washington ranked highest with 53 per cent and North Carolina last with 8 per cent. However, though the range widened, the dispersion in the extent of organization around the national average diminished between 1939 and 1953.6 Although all nine regions gained membership at a rate faster than employment, the six regions that were below the national percentage organization in 1939 remained below in 1953 (Table 5). The extent of organization increased most in the East North Central region and least in the South Atlantic. As a result of its large increase in unionization, the East North Central became the most highly organized region in 1953. The West South Central region was the least organized in both years. Extent of organization in 1939 ranged from 27 per cent in the Pacific region to 10 per cent in the West 6Measured by Pearson's index of relative dispersion, the variation in unionization of employment among the states declined from 37.8 in 1939 to 30.8 per cent in 1953. 20

MAP 2 Extent of Union Organization of Nonagricultural Employment, 1953 I- U I.. > 0 o C 14 U 14 L a, a I U, -: a, 0 14 Source: Table 4. 21

TABLE 5 Extent of Union Organization of Nonagricultural Employment by Geographic Region, 1939 and 1953 Increase in Per Cent Organized Per Cent Organized, Region 1939 1953 1939-1953 New England 12.8 27.7 14.9 Middle Atlantic 23.5 36.4 12.9 East North Central 24.2 39.9 15.7 West North Central 19.1 31.5 12.4 South Atlantic 13.2 18.3 5.1 East South Central 16.2 22.8 6.6 West South Central 10.4 17.5 7.1 Mountain 19.9 27.5 7.6 Pacific 27.1 39.0 11.9 United Statesa 21.5 32.6 11.1 alncludes membership not distributed by state. South Central region. In 1953, the range extended from 40 per cent organization of employment in the East North Central region to 18 per cent in the West South Central. Industrial Composition of Membership and Employment Historically, trade union membership in the United States had been largely centered in mining, building construction, and transportation.7 From 1900 to 1933, union membership in these industries, in good years and bad, made up half or more of the total. Within manufacturing industries, membership had been consistently strong only in printing and at times in clothing. Except for a few years during World War I and the years immediately following, union membership in other manufacturing industries had constituted only a small proportion of aggregate membership. The share of the service and public service industries in total membership has always been and remains small. In 1933 unions entered a period of growth unprecedented in their history, and one of the results of this record expansion was a change in the industrial dispersion of union membership. Most of the new TLeo Wolman, Ebb and Flow in Trade Unionism, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1936, p. 87. 22

unionization was in the major manufacturing industries. It is estimated that more than 5 miffion of the total increase of 9.7 million members from 1939 to 1953 were in manufacturing, and of this number, over 3.4 million were in the metal-working industries: transportation equipment, primary and fabricated metal products, machinery, and ordnance (Table 6). The share of manufacturing as a whole in union membership rose from about one-third in 1939 to nearly one-half in 1953. In the nonmanufacturing industries, membership rose nearly 2 million in transportation (of which over one-fourth were in railways), about 1.3 million in building, 1 miffion in services, and over 300,000 in public service. Membership in mining declined about 2,000, chiefly because of the decline in coal mining employment. Membership gains in other mining industries were not sufficient to offset the decline in coal. The percentage of wage and salaried employees organized increased in all industries except mining between 1939 and 1953 (Chart 3). By 1953, not only were construction, transportation, mining, and manufacturing highest in the scale of unionization but CHART 3 Growth of Union Organization, by Industry, 1939-1953 Increase In organization 1939 1953 (per cent) 40 0 Average, t939 30 Transportotton Metals (mci. railway) Leather. 20 'Textiles AlI manufacturing.ratiway transportation Chemicals. _Paper Average Increase 10 Food Lumber Clothtng Construction.Services. Public service 'Mining 10 I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Extent of organization, 1939 (per cent) Source: Table 6. 23

TABLE 6 Extent of Union Organization, by Nonagricultural Industry, 1939 and 1953 1939 1953 Employment, Per cent Employment, Per cent Membership Wage and salaried organized Membership Wage and salaried organized Industrya (thousands) (thousands) Manufacturing 2,299.1 10,078.Ob 22.8 7,312.8 17,238.Ob 42.4 Metals 847.2 3,509.0 24.1 4,256.0 8,419.9 50.5 Clothing 486.1 897.0 54.2 748.4 1,231.7 60.8 Food, liquor, and tobacco 309.0 1,298.0 23.8 561.5 1,661.5 33.8 Paper,printingandpublishing 256.1 881.0 29.1 533.4 1,322.3 40.3 Leather and leather products 61.8 383.0 16.1 145.8 386.2 37.8 Chemicals, rubber, clay, glass, and stone 151.2 1,053.0 14.4 509.6 1,888.6 27.0 Textiles 86.4 1,232.0 7.0 317.1 1,185.8 26.7 Lumber and lumber products 101.3 824.0 12.3 241.0 1,142.2 21.1 Transportation, communications, and public utilities 1,455.1 2,912.0 50.0 3,373.7 4,221.0 79.9 Railway transportation 603.7 1,035.0 58.3 1,162.3 1,274.0 91.2 Building and construction 889.0 1,150.0 77.3 2,197.8 2,622.0 83.8 Mining, quarrying, and oil 552.9 845.0 65.4 551.1 852.0 64.7 Public service 418.7 3,995.0 10.5 749.6 6,645.0 11.3 Services 683.1 11,332.0 6.0 1,728.4 18,103.0 9.5 Not classified 215.4 295.6 All nonagricultural industries 6,513.3 30,311.Ob 21.5 16,209.0 49,681.0 32.6 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 4.4 8.3 Total membership, United States 6,517.7 16,217.3

athe industry classes match the Standard Industrial Classification as is shown below. The right-hand column lists the S.I.C. items included: Metals Ordnance and accessories Primary metal industries Fabricated metal products Machinery, except electrical Electrical machinery Transportation equipment Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturing industries Clothing Apparel and other finished textile products Food, liquor, and tobacco Food and kindred products Tobacco manufactures Paper, printing, and publishing Paper and allied products Printing, publishing and allied products Chemicals, rubber, clay, glass and stone Textiles Lumber and wood products Transportation, communication, and public utilities Building and construction Mining, quarrying and oil Public service Services bbecause of rounding, details do not add to total. Chemicals and allied products Products of petroleum and coal Rubber products Stone, clay and glass products Textile mill products Lumber and wood products, except furniture Furniture and fixtures Transportation and public utilities Contract construction Mining Government Wholesale and retail trade Finance, insurance and real estate Services and miscellaneous From Employment and Earnings, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1955. Classification of membership figures was adapted from Leo Wolman, Ebb and Flow in Trade Unionism, Appendix Table VII, pp. 224-228. also they accounted for more than 80 per cent of total membership; public service and services were lowest in unionization and accounted for less than 20 per cent of the total. Among the manufacturing industries, clothing and metals were highly organized in 1953, while chemicals, textiles, and lumber were poorly unionized. As the following tabulation for 1953 indicates, highly unionized states were those with a large proportion of total employment in building, transportation, and manufacturing, while, as a rule, states low in organization had a smaller proportion of employment in those three industries. 25

Per Cent of Nonagricultural Employment: In building, transportation and manufacturing Organized Michigan 60.1 433 Indiana 59.2 40.0 New Jersey 59.2 35.2 Ohio 58.8 38.0 Pennsylvania 55.6 39.9 Illinois 52.6 39.7 Nebraska 35.8 19.7 Florida 32.9 16.2 Oklahoma 31.7 16.1 New Mexico 28.2 14.2 South Dakota 26.0 14.4 North Dakota 25.4 15.6 Average, United States 48.5 32.6 The distribution of manufacturing employment between highly unionized industries and less unionized industries also affects the extent of organization. Where metals represent a large proportion of total employment, as in the first six states of Table 7, extent of organization is high; where textiles or chemicals are important, the state usually ranks lower in degree of union organization. Some states however, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, depart from this pattern. As has been indicated, regional differences in the growth of unionism by industry also govern the extent of organization. This is apparent when, for example, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are compared to the Carolinas and Georgia. In all these states, textile manufacturing is an important source of employment; in the northern states textile organization advanced rapidly from 1939 to 1953, but it failed to grow much in the Carolinas and Georgia. Judging by the membership of the principal textile unions, the Textile Workers of the AF of L and the ClO, the estimated extent of organization in textiles was about 60 per cent in Massachusetts in 1953 as against 3 per cent in Georgia and 6 and 7 per cent respectively in North and South Carolina. The lag in union organization in the textile and clothing industries of the South appears to be the continuation of a long historical trend in industries in which it has been possible, if not easy, to move plants from established union into new, non-union areas. Business mobility 26

TABLE 7 Employment in Selected Manufacturing Industries and Per Cent Organized, in Specified States, 1953 Per Cent of All Nonagricultural Per Cent of All Manufacturing Employees in: Employees State Metals Clothing Chemicals Textiles Organized Michigan 76.4a 0.9 5.7 1.lb 43.3 Indiana 66.6k 2.3c 12.4 0.5 40.0 Ohio 64.4 2.3 14.1 1.0 38.0 Illinois 59.4 4.0 0.8 0.9c 397 Pennsylvania 52.2 9.7 10.5 7.5 39.9 New Jersey 49.0 9.7 17.4 6.2 35.2 Texas 27.4a 7.0 21.8 1.9C 16.7 Virginia 13.2 8.9 18.9 15.3 17.4 Louisiana 11.1 4 7b 22.4 1.5 19.5 Georgia 6.1 11.1 35.0 15.0 North Carolina 2.6b 4.2C 2.5 51.7 8.3 South Carolina 1.0 9.2 3.7 61.4 9.3 Average United States 48.8 7.1 11.0 6.9 32.6 aestimated in part from figures for 1952. br.efers to 1947, the latest available data. crefers to 1952. Source: Bureau of the Census, Annual Survey of Manufactures, 1953, 1955, and Census of Manufactures: 1947, Statistics by States, Vol. III, 1950; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, May 1955. helped to explain characteristically low levels of unionism in industries of this type: American trade unions have long faced great difficulties in establishing themselves in competitive industries in which business can shift quickly from one part of the country to another. Many times in the history of labor organization, unionization of a plant or industrial area has been speedily followed by marked shifts in the localization of industry, by the rise thereafter of unorganized localities and by the eventual decline of unionized ones... The extent and variety of the continental area of the United States, has afforded employers innumerable opportunities to achieve flexibility in costs and operating conditions by moving to new locations and there utilizing hitherto unused supplies of labor.8 8Wolman, op. cit., pp. 86-87. 27