SlichterSumner H.HealyJames J.LivernashE. Robert, The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution). Chapter 20 of this volume includes findings relevant to rate ranges.
2.
Ibid., pp. 604–606.
3.
See HallbergOtto, “Wage Formalization in Major Labor Markets, 1951–52.”Monthly Labor Review, LXXVI:1 (Jan. 1953), 22–26.
4.
For quantification of this relationship in one large firm, see my “Job Rate Ranges: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1964.
5.
See ParnesHerbert S., “The Labor Force and Labor Markets,” in A Decade of Employment Relations Research, eds., HenemanHerbert G. (New York: Harper. 1960), pp. 20–26.
6.
But other criteria may call for a different conclusion. See below.
7.
Some caution is due here. Extraordinary performance cannot be fully compensated by most rate ranges. For example, occasionally a worker will produce at 100 per cent or more above the average for his job (see DickinsonZ. Clark. Compensating Industrial Effort [New York: The Ronald Press, 1937], pp. 15–34). It is ordinarily better to promote such an employee to a more demanding position than to attempt to reward him through wages proportional to his relative performance in his present position.
8.
Where there are training costs which must be added to the wage rate to arrive at more realistic labor costs for the first three months, this structure will produce a decline in unit labor costs as employees progress through the range.
