The 'Stabilization' of Fringe Benefits under the 1951-53 Wage Controls Program

Abstract

With the possible exception of overtime pay, shift differentials, and paid vacations, fringe benefits2 were not widely prevalent in American industry in the years before World War II. With respect to paid holidays, for example, according to National Industrial Conference Board studies fewer than 10 per cent of the firms surveyed in 1936 and 1940 granted holidays with pay to hourlyrated employees.3 The prevalence of fringe benefits increased enormously during and after World War II, however, as indicated by the fact that another Conference Board survey made in 1948 showed 76.6 per cent of the companies to be giving paid holidays to factory workers.4 According to a 1943 study of the Bureau of Labor Statistics fewer than half of the union agreements in manufacturing, mining and construction provided holidays with pay, whereas a similar study made in 1950 showed that 73.4 per cent of the agreements included paid holidays.5 Partly because fringe benefits were much less common and partly because of differences in the economic and political environment, the problems of developing stabilization policy applicable to fringe types of compensation were much less acute for wage stabilization agencies during World War II than they proved to be for those charged with such responsibilities during the 1951-53 period of wage and salary controls. The National War Labor Board's policy concerning fringes evolved gradually from decisions in dispute cases, with the primary emphasis being placed on findings with regard to practice in the area or industry involved. The term prevailing was never rigidly defined in terms of a specified percentage of employees or plants. By the end of