Impact

              Business Review for Northeastern Indiana
AREA LEADING INDICATORS INDEX
~ 200~--------------~
~ 190 . :s 180 •• ,., ...... -"\1\ ... \.~.
0 - ,. •
~ 170 , ·-... '\ ....
~160
~ 150
~ 140 es
L 130
g 120
';;" 110
~ > 100 o( •
90
80
70
60~~--~--~~--~
78 79 80 81 82 83
Vol. 1 No.1 Community Research Institute, Bureau of Business & Economic Research
Indiana University - Purdue University at Fort Wayne
MAY 1982
Leading Indicators Stabilize
The Composite Index of Leading Indicators for the Fort Wayne area economy has stabilized since last December~
suggesting a forthcoming halt in the slide in economic activity if the stabilization is maintained. The decrease in
employment has been disproportionately concentrated in the durable goods sector in general and the transporta­tion
equipment industry within the sector.
The Composite Index of Leading Indicators for the
Fort Wayne Area economy advanced 1.4 percent in
March; however, an economic upturn cannot yet be
identi.fied. Not only has it taken the Index three months
to scratch out an anemic 2.4-point rise~ but the advance
has not been continuous. On both accounts, the most
optimistic interpretation is that the Index is in neutral,
having halted a slide which began in the first quarter of
1981 and continued unabated throughout the year.
Except for its recent pause and a brief respite in the last
half of 1980, the Index has been in freefall~ tumbling
from a high of 126.7 in August, 1978, to 68.7 in December,
1981. Correspondingly, total wage and salaried employ­ment
in the Fort Wayne SMSA has tumbled 19,700 since
March, 1979, from a high of 185,300 to a current low of
165,600. During the same three-year period, unem­ployment
has tripled from 4.1 to 12.5 percent, and the
local economy has become unhitched from the national
economy. (Figure 3, p. 4 compares the growth in the two
economies.)
Sixty-five percent of the decreased employment has
occurred in the durable-goods portion of the manufac­turing
sector, although durable goods accounted for
only 28 percent of area employment in March, 1979. (See
Figure 2; p. 4.)
Eight thousand ofthe 12,900 jobs lost in durable-goods
manufacturing occurred in the transportation-equip­ment
industry. International Harvester's particular tra­vails
are well documented; however, the entire heavy­duty
truck industry has been in a slide since the begin-ning
of 1979. (See Figure 4, p. 4) IH's market share for
heavy-duty trucks has varied substantially during this
same period, rising from a post-strike depressed level of
24 percent in the third quarter of 1980 to a ·high of 33
percent near the end of 1981, before easing to 28 percent
currently.
Although not evident in the area statistics on pp. 4 and
5, the only manufacturing industry exhibiting growth in
the last year is electrical machinery. Undoubtedly, this
growth has resulted from increased defense expendi­tures
and the resulting increase in the flow of defense
contracts and subcontracts into the area.
The combination of nominally high interest rates and
the overhang of unsold used houses resulting from out­migration
has combined to decimate new housing con­struction
in the area. Only 22 building permits for single­family
housing in Allen County have been issued through
March of this year. (See Figure 5, p. 5.) A portion of the
decreased activity is offset by increased remodeling con­struction
as families modify houses- rather than move
-to accommodate changing family needs.
Department store sales in the SMSA have finally
begun to grow on a nominal basis; however, when infla­tion
is squeezed out, the growth disappears. (See Figure
6, p. 5.)
Finally, industrial electricity usage in the area remains
in a downtrend. (See Figure 7, p. 5) This has been histor­ically
one of the better single indicators of aggregate
economic activity in the area.
Exodus to Suburbia
The population of the Fort Wayne SMSA (Adams~ Allen~ DeKalb and Wells Counties) increased an unremarkable
5.8 percent between the 1970 and 1980 censuses~ as compared with a more dynamic 11.5 percent growth at the
national level. However~ the staid growth overall masked a dramatic~ and probably traumatic in some respects~
exodus from Fort Wayne to suburbia.
Between the 1970 and 1980 censuses~ the population
of the Fort Wayne SMSA increased only 20,987 persons,
from 361,974 to 382,961. The more rural counties of
Adams, DeKalb and Wells significantly outpaced Allen
County in growth.
The Fantus Company has projected that the Fort
Wayne SMSA population will grow 20~639 by 1990, an
increase of 5.4 percent. This is not significantly different
from what was experienced in the seventies.
Underlying the modest 4.9 percent growth in Allen
County were dramatic changes, including an approx­imately
40 percent decrease in the Central Business Dis­trict
census tract and a 125 percent increase in the tract
containing the Canterbury Green complex and the
Shoaff Park area. Figures 1 and 8 (pp. 3 and 6) show the
census tracts losing and gaining population respectively,
in Allen County during the seventies. In the case of large
percentage increases, the specific values are shown in
Figure 8, p. 6.
Township Census
1970
Aboite 6132
Adams 31913
Cedar Creek 4414
Eel River 1622
Jefferson jackson 2791 2744
Lafayette 4508 5861 Pleasant
Lake 2061
Marion 4922 5329 Madison
Maumee 4116 5586 Milan
Monroe 2153
Perry 5768
Springfield 3017 3383 Scipio
St. Joseph 38094
Washington 20296
Wayne 149637
1980
2
The Central City census tracts declined by 18.1 per­cent,
from 57,753 to 47,310 persons. The area is bounded
by the Maumee River on the north, U.S. 30 Bypass on the
east, Moeller Road and Rudisill Boulevard on the south,
and the St. Marys River on the west.
The loss of approximately 10,000 persons from the
Central City was more than offset by growth in the outly­ing
portion of St. joseph Township alone. Specifically,
the area generally east of U.S. 30 Bypass, Hobson and St.
joseph Roads, and north of the Maumee River increased
by 14,508 persons to total45,352 in 1980. Note that this is
exclusive of the increase of 3,916 persons in the Canter­bury
Green tract to total SJ51 in 1980.
The area contiguous to the southeastern limits of the
City grew in excess of 50 percent to total approximately
7000 persons in 1980.
Not surprisingly, the population of Aboite Township
almost doubled its size in the decade, to total 11,663
persons in 1980. Allen County township comparisons are
as follows:
Change From
1970-1980
Persons Percentage
11663 5531 90.2
31897 16 - 0.1
5864 1450 32.9
2423 801 49.4
2142
602 47 - 1.7
2389
3472 1353 30.0
2184 123 6.0
3600
1729 407 8.3
2408
1470 35.7
3178
2174 21 1.0
8299 2531 43.9
2987
366 12.1
396
55348 17254 45.3
23851 3555 17.5
127729 12908 -14.6
~
· ~ ....
w
~
~
0...
.~...
.w...
0
EEl RIVER TWP.
~·
~~
0~
o"
~~
..,.'?
~
~- - - -- - l_ _____
PERRY TWP.
I
I
~ --- - -- - '
r- --l
~ --, ~ --------- --l
: ___ __ __ __ __ !
CEDAR CREEK TWP.
J';- ~
,/0 ,.... > J'~ z :..0-s-
-i
)'""' ~
:..0 :'
'­..
m..,,
m
;lg
~. (/l
~~ 0
~'? z
<:)..,. -i ..,. ~
"'tl
--~----------~WW~llllWW~--------------------------------------M-A_R_I~O~N--T-W~P.
to less than 10o/o decrease 111111
to less than 20% decrease ~\~
to less than 30% decrease :w.
to less than .40% decrease
Figure 1. Percentage Losses of Population in the Fort Wayne Metropolitan Area in the Seventies
3
FIGURE 2. WAGE & SALARIED EMPLOYMENT
190
-FORT WAYNE SMSA
180
170
~160
z
~150 :J
0
;: 140
!
;;;130 z
0
.~... 120 A.
110
100
90
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
FIGURE 3. WAGE & SALARIED EMPLOYMENT INDEX
-U.S. & FORT WAYNE SMSA
· ~.30
1.25;
8 Q..: 1.20
II
";;;".. 1.15
<
N 1.10 -"C7' l .>..<.. 1.05 c
~
1.00
0.95
0.90
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
FIGURE 4. HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK SALES IN U.S.
25000
20000
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
4
SELECTED AREA ECONOMIC INDICATORS1
Latest Month; Latest Prior Year Percentage Change From Short
Number of Value Month's Ago Prior Year Ago Run
Months Averaged Value Value Month Impact
Composite Index of Leading Indica-tors,
1979 = 100 (Area) March 71.1 70.1 84.3 1.4 -15.7 0
Employment, in thousands (Fort
Wayne SMSA) March
Total Wage & Salaried 166.4 167.7 172.9 - 0.7 - 3.0
Durable Goods 39.2 39.7 42.6 - 1.3 - 8.0
Non-Durable Goods 11.4 11.0 12.1 - 3.6 - 9.1 0
Non-Manufacturing 115.8 117.0 118.2 - 1.0 - 2.0
Wholesale & Retail Trade 41.4 42.0 41.9 - 1.4 - 1.2
Unemployment Rate 12.5 12.3 9.4 1.6 33.0
New Unemployment Claims2 6,290 7,015 4,023 -11.0 56.4
Finance (Balance Sheet Level in mil- l
lions for five fort Wayne banks) March; 3 Total Bank Deposits, Nominal 1,6~1.3 1,634.9 1,640.3 0.0 - 0.4 0
Total Bank Deposits, Real, 1967 =
1003 633.0 634.7 678.4 - 0.3 - 6.4
Housing, New Single-family (Allen
County) March;· 6
Building Permits 12 15 62 -20.0 -80.6
Zoning Permits 12 15 70 -20.0 -82.9
Transportation Sales
Truck
Heavy Duty March; 3 13,193 13,385 13,287 1.4 0.7 0
IH Market Share, Percentage1 March; 13 28.2 28.8 28.8 - 2.1 - 2.1
Medium Duty March; 5 4,042 4,330 7,005 6.7 -42.3
IH Market Share, Percentage1 March; 13 26.5 25.7 21.9 3.1 21.0 +
Auto, Annualized Rate in millions
Domestic March; 3 5.971 5.658 7.418 5.5 -19.5 0
Imports March; 3 2.296 2.365 2.656 - 2.9 -13.6 0
Miscellaneous
Dept. Store Sales in thousands,
Nominal (Fort Wayne SMSA)4 December; 4 18,067 17,834 17,306 1.3 4.4 +
Dept. Store Sales in thousands,
Real 5 December; 4 7,341 7,278 7,373 0.9 - 0.4 0
Industrial Electricity Sales in
thousands of kilowatt hours (Area) March; 5 75,950 76,884 82,147 - 0.1 - 7.5
1AII data series are seasonally adjusted except truck market shares ~
2Combination of Fort Wayne and Auburn offices
JDeflator used is the CPI-U with the experimental rental equivalence approach to m asurement of housing costs
4Department Stores as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce include the rna r discount stores. There are currently 25 department stores in the Fort Wayne SMSA.
soeflator used is the commodities less food component of the CPI-W. '
"c.':
..<....
0 c
:i
0 :..:.c.
I
".......'. <
"'
"Q' z
<
"::;')
0 :..:.c.
I
"11:1'1:
::;)
0 ::c
1:
<
~
.0..
i:
5
FIGURE 5. NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED
200
- ALLEN COUNTY
180
160
140
120
80
60
40
20
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
FIGURE 6. NOMINAL & REAL DEPARTMENT STORE SALES
-FORT WAYNE SMSA
20000~--~----r-------------------~~~--~--~
15000
10000
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
FIGURE 7.1NDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY USAGE- FORT WAYNE AREA
100000T---,-----,---------------------.--r----,-~~
90000
80000
70000
60000~~~--~~~----~--+---~---+-+~--~~~
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
FORT WAYNE AREA WAGE HISTORY- MAY, 1982
IMPACT plans to report wage, salary, and other pay and benefits information as it becomes
available. Accordingly, a brief history of wage rates in the Fort Wayne area is contained on the
opposite side. The data come from (1) the Area Wage Survey conducted annually in june by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, and (2) the Occupational Wage Survey con­ducted
biennially in September by the Indiana Employment Security Division. The sample sizes in
both surveys are substantial, although the geographical areas covered differ. For example, in 1981
the Area Wage Survey chose a sample of 93 firms employing 47AS6 persons to represent 3S9 firms
(of at least SO employees each) employing 8S,628 persons in all industries in the Fort Wayne SMSA
(Adams, Allen, DeKalb and Wells counties). In 1980 the Occupational Wage Survey was a
summary of data from 127 firms employing 20AS7 persons in occupations included in the survey.
The 127 firms were located exclusively in Allen County, did not exclude firms employing fewer
than SO persons, and included only manufacturing industries.
Because of the three differences noted above in the two surveys and for several other reasons,
comparison of wage rates from one year to another should be made with caution. Conversely,
when the differences are given proper consideration, the history of wage rates communicates
unambiguous, clear trends for most occupational classifications.
1. Job descriptions used in the two surveys available on request.
2. Data from Area Wage Survey, U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.
3. Data from Occupational Wage Survey, Indiana Employment Security Division.
4. Percentag~ change from the comparable survey one year (in the case of the Area Wage
Survey data) or two years (in the case of the Occupational Wage Survey) earlier. The two-year
change is the equivalent compounded annualized rate.
S. Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts.
Incentive payments, such as those resulting from piecework, production bonuses, and
commission systems, are included in the wages reported; nonproduction bonuses are
excluded. Cost-of-living allowances are considered as part of the workers' regular pay.
Hourly earnings reported for salaried workers are derived from regular salaries divided by
the corresponding standard hours of work. The median designates the rate for which half of
the workers receive the same or more and half receive the same or less. The middle range is
defined by two rates of pay- a fourth of the workers earn the same or less than the lower of
these rates and a fourth earn the same or more than the higher rate.
Occu.,.tion' June,1981l September, 191101 June, 191101 June, 19791 September, 19781
Percentase4 Hourlr hrninsss Percentase Hourlr Earninss Percentase Hourlr Earninss Hourlr brninss Hourlr Earninss
Chanse Middle Chanse Middle Chanse Middle Middle Middle
in Median Median Mean Ranse in Median Median Ranse in Median Median Mean Ranse Median Mean Ranse Median Ranse
Non-exempt
Computer data librarians XX 5.65 6.10 XX-XX XX XX 5.41 XX-XX XX 5.36 xx-xx
Computer operators 16.0 6.97 7.18 5.48- 8.15 -3.5 6.80 5.95-8.20 2.4 6.01 6.28 5.09- 7.45 5.87 6.01 4.93- 6.76 7.30 5.32-7.95
Computer operators I 6.9 5.24 5.15 4.32- 5.50 3.6 4.90 4.91 4.12- 5.51 4.73 4.50 4.15- 5.29
Computer operators II 7.6 6.93 7.35 6.13- 7.96 20.8 6.44 6.34 5.54- 7.16 5.33 5.59 4.93- 6.36
Computer operators Ill 6.5 8.23 8.47 8.02- 8.93 9.5 7.73 7.90 7.30- 8.64 7.06 7.46 6.34- 8.29
Drafters 8.3 8.33 8.53 7.06- 9.94 8.0 7.69 7.85 6.94- 8.79 7.12 7.20 6.13- 6.34
Drafters I XX 6.37 7.49 XX-XX XX XX 6.53 XX-XX 6.71 6.44 5.41- 7.63
Drafters II XX 5.98 6.12 5.24- 6.63 XX XX XX xx-xx 6.13 5.82 4.18- 7.60
Drafters Ill 5.1 7.65 7.34 6.44- 6.00 12.0 7.28 7.16 6.73- 7.55 6.50 6.50 6.00- 6.77
Drafters IV 3.2 8.61 9.23 8.33- 9.99 9.3 8.34 8.33 7.58- 6.88 7.63 7.82 6.75- 9.12
Drafters V 15.4 10.92 11 .00 10.02-11 .92 7.1 9.46 9.62 8.64-10.35 6.63 6.69 7.98- 9.16
Electronics technicians XX XX XX xx-xx 9.5 6.52 8.38 7.65- 9.25 7.76 7.68 7.00- 8.52
Electronics technicians I 14.2 7.22 7.68 6.15- 9.42 7.8 6.32 6.78 6.15- 6.61 5.86 6.11 5.77- 6.18
File Clerks 3.1 5.59 5.60 4.14- 6.99 42.6 5.42 4.71 3.63- 5.57 3.80 3.74 3.32- 3.80
Key entry operators 8.4 5.56 5.86 4.84- 7.04 21 .2 7.35 5.55-6.17 17.4 5.13 5.19 4.36- 5.82 4.38 4.71 4.00- 5.10 5.00 4.23-5 .98
Key entry operators I 7.7 5.18 5.65 4.62- 6.37 15.1 4.81 4.98 4.20- 5.71 4.18 4.33 3.82- 4.67
Key entry operators II 5.4 5.70 6.20 5.20- 7.05 4.4 5.41 5.67 4.63- 6.49 5.18 5.53 4.55- 6.01
Secretaries 8.0 5.97 6.32 5.40- 6.74 9.5 6.32 5.50-7.67 7.8 5.53 5.78 5.00- 6.20 5.13 5.34 4.61- 5.73 5.27 4.47-5 .97
Secretaries I 8.0 5.13 5.35 4.91- 5.50 8.4 4.75 4.86 4.46- 5.22 4.38 4.59 4.05- 4.89
Secretaries II 6.6 5.49 5.67 5.16- 6.12 8.9 5.15 5.49 9.88- 5.71 4.73 5.00 4.38- 5.17
Secretaries Ill 5.7 6.09 6.64 5.75- 6.74 11 .2 5.76 6.10 5.24- 6.54 5.16 5.54 4.72- 5.80
Secretaries IV 7.2 6.52 6.67 5.99- 7.03 7.8 6.08 6.08 5.53- 6.41 5.64 5.73 5.13- 6.00
Secretaries V 14.8 7.58 7.36 5.70- 8.77 3.4 6.60 6.43 5.18- 7.39 6.38 6.07 4.87- 6.85
Stenographers 9.6 6.63 7.73 6.02- 9.45 9.3 6.23 6.16 4.83- 7.62 5.70 5.79 4.35- 6.27
Stenographers I XX 6.83 8.25 6.46-11 .34 XX XX XX xx-xx XX XX XX-XX
Switchboard operators 14.4 4.92 5.41 4.25- 6.22 1.2 4.30 4.95 4.25- 5.47 4.25 4.55 3.87- 4.71
Typists 5.8 4.95 5.38 4.49- 5.65 6.0 4.90 4.50-5.50 18.5 4.68 4.84 4.25- 5.07 3.95 4.34 3.64- 4.74 4.20 3.85-4.72
Typists I 17.1 5.13 5.27 4.71- 5.76 11.7 4.38 4.61 4.18- 5.07 3.92 3.98 3.61 - 4.42
Typists II 1.7 4.61 5.46 4.30- 5.58 9.0 4.73 4.97 4.33- 5.17 4.34 4.98 3.84- 5.67
Maintenance
Boiler tenders 11.4 9.44 9.76 8.47-11 .86 6.7 8.47 9.00 7.80-10.90 7.94 6.01 7.01 - 9.32
Carpenters -13.1 9.44 10.30 8.09-12.77 14.8 10.86 9.59 7.64-11.22 9.46 6.75 7. 20-10.47
Electricians 2.8 10.01 10.55 9.71-12.12 15.5 10.75 9.25-xx 15.1 9.74 9.77 6.69-11 .14 8.46 8.95 8.14- 9.65 6.06 7.81-8.77
Machinists 7.4 8.75 9.14 8.30-10.00 6.9 8.71 7.48-9.84 4.2 8.15 8.55 7.85- 9.74 7.82 8.32 7.20- 9.62 7.35 6.38-8.38
Mechanics (machinery) 23.3 10.01 9.56 7.20-12.12 2.7 8.73 7.91-xx 8.0 8.12 8.42 6.66-10.86 7.52 7.59 6.05- 9.56 8.27 6.48-8.46
Mechanics (motor vehicles) 10.7 9.69 9.64 8.50-10.34 7.5 8.75 8.87 8.00- 9.66 8.14 8.12 7.65- 6.40
Painters 3.0 8.82 9.89 8.62-12.32 17.7 8.56 8.16 8.40- 8.56 7.27 8.00 7.27- 9.46
Pipefitters 18.4 11 .64 11 .37 10.01-12.20 11 .6 11 .00+- 9.90-xx 11.1 9.83 9.96 9.75- 9.83 8.85 9.01 8.46- 9.46 8.83 8.09-9.59
Stationary engineers 6.0 9.71 10.76 9.42-12.93 12.5 9.15 9.62 9.03-10.95 8.14 8.95 7.87-10.62
Tool and die makers 2.5 10.61 11.15 10.61-12.21 9.8 10.45 10.04-xx 14.2 10.35 10.39 10.12-11 .29 9.06 9.37 8.80- 9.80 8.66 7.79-8.97
Production
Forklift operators 7.7 8.43 8.42 6.85- 9.15 7.5 7.63 7.60 6.34- 8.97 7.28 7.05 6.00- 7.96
Guards 73.7 6.34 6.82 3.57- 9.69 - 8.7 3.65 5.28 3.10- 7.80 4.00 5.04 3.00- 6.51
Guards I 81.1 6.34 6.80 3.55- 9.36 -12.5 3.50 5.24 3.10- 7.80 4.00 5.02 3.00- 6.51
Janitors, porters, & cleaners 7.1 3.75 4.95 3.35- 6.61 0.0 3.50 4.55 3.10- 5.85 3.50 4.33 2.90- 5.50
labor
labor, skilled XX XX XX xx-xx 9.1 9.06 8.07-10.86 XX XX XX XX-XX XX XX xx-xx 7.61 6.37-8.92
labor, semiskilled XX XX XX XX-XX 11 .4 6.67 7.29-10.37 XX XX XX xx-xx XX XX xx-xx 7.15 6.14-7.90
labor, unskilled XX XX XX XX-XX -0.7 6.74 4.98-10.22 XX XX XX xx-xx XX XX xx-xx 6.63 5.08-8.29
Material handling laborers 12.8 7.99 7.95 6.50-10.61 19.2 7.08 7.13 5.76- 9.03 5.94 6.26 5.17- 7.96
Shipping packers 5.4 7.05 7.99 6.82-10.29 7.7 6.69 7.36 5.96- 9.30 6.21 6.56 5.83- 7.98
Truckdrivers 0.6 6.10 8.58 7.49- 9.00 9.5 8.05 8.09 6.69- 8.40 7.35 7.64 6.30- 8.25
Truckdrivers, medium truck XX 8.10 7.82 7.49- 8.10 XX XX XX xx-xx XX XX xx-xx
Truckdrivers, heavy truck 4.4 7.62 7.05 6.41- 7.71 13.3 7.30 7.29 6.02- 8.30 6.44 6.66 5.72- 7.25
Q..
3:
1-
w
1-
EEL RIVER TWP. PERRY TWP.
PLEASANT TWP.
30% or more increase Ill
20 to less than 30% increase 11!11
1 0 to I e 5 5 t h a n 2 0 % i n c rea 5 e :~;~:~:f~
0 to less than lOo/o increase
Figure 8. Percentage Gains in Population in the Fort Wayne Metropolitan Area in the Seventies
6
CEDAR CREEK TWP.
MARION TWP.
.....
m
"""" m
:;10
en
0 z
-4
~
"0
County Change From Census
1970-1980
Persons Percentage 1970 1980
Adams 2,748
Allen 13,890
DeKalb 2,769
Wells 1,580
TOTAL 20,987
An interesting question, which unfortunately may go
unanswered for awhile, is whether the migration from
the Central City to suburbia and possibly the outlying
counties slowed in the last half of the seventies. Eco­nomic
theory suggests that the rising real cost of com­muting
brought about by higher petroleum prices will
limit migration to the suburbs. It's an empirical fact of
life that new, single-family house-building in suburban
Cooperation the Key
10.2 26,871 29,619
4.9 280,445 294,335
9.0 30,837 33,606
6.6 23,821 25,401
5.8 361,974 382,961
Fort Wayne is essentially nonexistent currently, and the
easiest explanations are the onerous interest rates and
overhang of unsold, used houses. However, these large­ly
cyclical problems may mask a longer-run decrease in
the rush to suburbia.
Ultimate completion of the southeastern segment of
the bypass around the City will increase the exodus of
persons from the Central City to suburbia.
The ~ong-standing model of conflict between labor and management is gradually being replaced by cooperation.
The ]omt Labor-Management Consortium has been established to facilitate this transition.
Perhaps the most positive outcome of the current
economic trauma is a pronounced thaw in the Cold War
between corporate management and organized labor.
The traditional distributive bargaining model based
upon conflict and mistrust has dominated collective
bargaining and has set the tone for the ongoing relation­ship
between labor and management for the past 50
years.
Survival in the world marketplace now depends upon
a great deal of cooperation between the warring parties.
While a half century of mistrust is not likely to disappear
overnight, integrative methods of dealing with mutual
problems constructively and cooperatively have been
grabbing headlines in recent months. Auto workers and
manufacturers have struck bargains to lower labor costs
in exchange for job-security promises. The We-They is
no longer the UAW vs Ford but the U.S. auto industry vs.
the Japanese auto industry.
In Fort Wayne, scattered efforts have already evi­denced
themselves. The creation of an expedited arbi­tration
procedure, union concessions to several eco­nomically
strapped employers considering shut-downs,
and joint mediation efforts in a recent food industry
strike have shown the potential for labor-management
cooperation.
But perhaps the most significant local initiative is a
newly formed joint Labor-Management Consortium.
7
The group is the result of efforts of the Central Labor
Councii-AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, the
Corporate Council, Mayo.r Win Moses' office, and
Indiana-Purdue at Fort Wayne. This consortium will
eventually involve a large number of local leaders as
members of a policy board or working task forces.
The umbrella organization will be a policy board with
six representatives each from local labor unions and
corporate management, three from government, three
from education and three from the general public. The
policy board will serve as both a sounding board and a
coordinating agency. Its primary objective will be to
stimulate, coordinate and market an improved labor­management
climate in the Fort Wayne area.
In addition to the policy board, a series of task forces
will be set up to operate semi-autonomously. Task forces
will deal with issues such as data collection and analysis,
plant shut-down and cut-back emegencies, improving
productivity, dispute conciliation and general image
improvement. A labor-management cooperation center
located at IPFW is also being considered.
Persons or organizations interested in joining the
Consortium should call or write David P. Swinehart,
Supervision Dept., IPFW, 2101 Coliseum Blvd. East, Fort
Wayne, Indiana 46805, 482-5780.
How Do Area Wages Rank?
The common perception that Fort Wayne is a ~high wage, area is not supported by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
This notion does not preclude the area from having some occupational classifications which are ~high wage,, and for
these occupations to be predominant, but when the occupational mix differences among geographical areas are
eliminated, Fort Wayne has composite wage rates below the national average.
It's an economic fact of life that Fort Wayne is a rela­tively
high wage area. Right? Wrong! According to statis­tics
collected and published annually by the U. S.
Department of Labor, the Fort Wayne SMSA (Adams,
Allen, DeKalb and Wel.ls counties) is below the national
average in all three occupational groups surveyed. Spe­cifically,
the Fort Wayne SMSA was 93,94 and 97 percent
of the national average in the office clerical, skilled
maintenance and unskilled plant occupational categor­ies,
respectively, in 1980. Thus, in 1980, the wages for
office clerical workers in the Fort Wayne SMSA were 93
percent of the average wage level nationally, or 7 per­cent
below the national average. The nationwide data
are developed by projecting data from 70 areas, sur­veyed
to represent all standard metropolitan statistical
areas (SMSA' s) of the United States (excluding Alaska
and Hawaii).
Although there is considerable lag in reporting the
comparisons, it is difficult to imagine Fort Wayne's rela-
COMMUNITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY
AT FORT WAYNE
21 01 COLISEUM BOULEVARD EAST
FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 46805
The publication of IMPACT is being initiated by the
recent ly formed Community Research Institute of IPFW to
provide basic information to the Northeastern Indiana area
business community in a timely manner. The initial fun ding
of the Institute has resulted from a joint effort of IPFW and
the Fort Wayne Corporate Council. Persons providi ng sub­tantial
guidance to the publication of IMPACT include the
following :
Facu lty
Joseph P. Giusti, Chancellor
Edward A. Nicholson, Jr., Dean of Faculty
George W.M. Bul lion, Chairman, Division
of Business & Economics
Ann Colbert, Director, Information Services
Char Edgar, Research Assistant
Advisors : Robert Cockrum, Edwin Leonard, Jr., Anthony
Loviscek, John Manzer, James Moore, Ali Ras­suli,
Zoher Shipchandler, David Swinehart
Chamber of
Commerce
Advisors: Richard Bonsib (Chairman), Karl Bandemer,­Larry
Brunke, Robert Dela ney, Jr., Joe Gil les­pie,
Rick Herman
Thomas L. Guthrie, Editor, IMPACT, and Director, Com­munity
Research Institute
tive wage scales increasing since 1980, given the softness
in the local labor market.
Yes, we are at a comparative disadvantage to Sunbelt
areas like Macon, Georgia, with wage relatives of 83, 93
and 80, respectively. However, for companies planning
to locate in the Tri-state region we offer a substantial
comparative advantage to such sites as Ann Arbor, Mich­igan,
with wage relatives of 109,119 and 130, respectively.
The Department of Labor uses procedures which elimi­nate
inter-area differences in occupational composition
as a factor in determining pay levels. For example, one
geographical area may have a relatively high wage for
one particular occupation which constitutes a large pro­portion
of the employment in the area. In calculating the
wage relative for the area, the particular occupation is
weighted according to its proportion of national employ­ment,
not area employment. Therefore, if the area has
relatively low wage rates in other occupations, it can
accrue a low- or favorable -wage relative.
Bulk Rate
U.S. POstage
PAID
Fort Wayne, IN
Non- Profit Organization